<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:27534.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-295, Pt. 5
Senate Hearings
Before the Committee on Appropriations
_______________________________________________________________________
Energy and Water,
and Related Agencies
Appropriations
Fiscal Year
2007
109th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
H.R. 5427
PART 5
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
Energy and Water, and Related Agencies Appropriations, 2007 (H.R.
5427)--Part 5
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
27-534 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
S. Hrg. 109-295, Pt. 5
ENERGY AND WATER, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2007
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 5427
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2007, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
PART 5
Department of Defense--Civil
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
Nondepartmental Witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TOM HARKIN, Iowa
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
CONRAD BURNS, Montana HARRY REID, Nevada
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire PATTY MURRAY, Washington
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
J. Keith Kennedy, Staff Director
Clayton Heil, Deputy Staff Director
Terrence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Water, and Related Agencies
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi HARRY REID, Nevada
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
Professional Staff
Scott O'Malia
Roger Cockrell
Emily Brunini
Drew Willison (Minority)
Nancy Olkewicz (Minority)<greek-l>
Administrative Support
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Page
Department of Energy............................................. 1
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation................ 45
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Department of Energy............................................. 89
Office of Science............................................ 117
Wednesday, April 5, 2006
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of
Engineers--Civil............................................... 191
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration... 241
Nondepartmental Witnesses
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of
Engineers--Civil............................................... 297
Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation................ 359
Department of Energy............................................. 394
ENERGY AND WATER, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2007
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:33 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Domenici, Craig, Allard, and Murray.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
STATEMENT OF HON. CLAY SELL, DEPUTY SECRETARY
opening statement of senator pete v. domenici
Senator Domenici. The hearing will please come to order.
Senator Reid has indicated that I should start. He may or
may not be able to come, but we're going to proceed.
Good morning to you, Mr. Secretary.
First of all, as many of you may know, Clay is returning to
this subcommittee, where he served as clerk for 4 years. I'm
not sure that he wanted me to brag or comment about that, but
it's a reality, so we might as well say it. I'm very pleased to
have you here today, and to have you where you are. I'm sure
you're going to do an excellent job in this very difficult
arena. And I compliment you on the subject matter that you're
going to present to us today.
This one of many of the President's new programs to break
America's dependence on foreign oil and build America's
competitive edge. And DOE is the focal point for these
initiatives.
Good afternoon, Senator Craig.
First, I commend the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary for
setting forth a comprehensive global nuclear strategy that
promotes nuclear nonproliferation, and the goals of that, and
helps to resolve our nuclear waste issues at the same time.
In the 1970's, the United States decided to abandon its
leadership on nuclear recycling and let the rest of the world
pass us by. With the creation of this new global nuclear energy
program, we're going to get back into the ball game.
Now, it's not so easy to play catch-up from such a far long
distance behind. It means you've got a lot of hard work. It
means you've got to have a big vision. It means you've got to
be willing to put up some resources. And then you've got to
decide that what you're trying to do is really worth it, that
it has the potential for solving some big, big problems in the
future.
So, based on the current projections, global energy demand
is expected to double by the year 2050. We must act now to
ensure that we have a reliable energy source, without
increasing air pollution and without increasing greenhouse
gases.
Passage of the Energy bill last year created a new future
for nuclear power in this country, and it's interesting to note
that the rest of the world is aware of the same thing we are
aware of. We finally changed our policy, the rest of the world
has finally decided to change their modus operandi, and they
are also moving rather quickly into nuclear power reactors as
source of energy for their countries. And that's China and many
others, Larry, as we know.
In the year 2006 Energy Outlook, the Energy Information
Agency has included in its estimates, believe it or not, a
growth in nuclear power as part of the domestic energy picture.
Now, that's a simple statement to make. And for many, it
doesn't mean much. But when the Energy Information Agency looks
out there and assesses what's going on, they usually come up
with some pretty objective findings. And they have made a
decision, a determination that nuclear power is going to come
onboard in the United States by way of nuclear power plants.
With the GNEP, we began to close the cycle on nuclear waste in
ways that prevent proliferation and reduce both the volume and
the toxicity of waste. By recycling of spent nuclear fuel, we
can reuse the uranium, which is 96 percent of the spent fuel.
We can separate the most toxic radioactive material to be
burned in advanced burner reactors.
By reusing the fuel and burning the transuranic material,
we can reduce the amount of waste that would be placed in a
Yucca Mountain by 100 times. In other words, a Yucca Mountain
will hold the waste from 100 times as much nuclear power as it
will today, putting the spent fuel rods in, as we would put
them in under current law and current policy.
So, I am pleased that President has focused on the
importance of solving the energy needs. I don't want to lose
sight of the importance of implementing the Energy Policy Act,
which contains many important incentives that will support the
deployment of clean coal technology, advanced nuclear power
plants, biomass, and other renewable projects.
Mr. Secretary, it's my pleasure to welcome you back, and
then, after yielding to Senator Craig, I'd ask you to summarize
your statement, and it'll be made a part of the record.
Senator Craig.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY E. CRAIG
Senator Craig. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Clay, welcome before the committee.
I'm sitting here listening to you, Mr. Chairman, and
saying, gee whiz, a year ago, this time, we didn't know if we
were going to get an Energy bill. There were no incentives for
new nuclear plants, no risk insurance, no tax credits, no loan
guarantees. A year ago, there were no real plans for any new
nuclear plants to be built in the United States. A lot of need,
a lot of concern. The utility industry was looking, in the out
years, to baseload, wanting to do nuclear. But today we believe
there are 19 new reactors on the drawing boards of America's
industries.
So, it is a phenomenal transition, Mr. Chairman, from where
we were to where we are. And how we keep that going is going to
be awfully important, not only for the future of our country,
but literally for the future of the world. The President, with
his India nuclear deal of 14 reactors, just in the last 24
hours, is a big deal. It's an important deal as it relates to
proliferation and our ability to get our collective, and the
world's collective, arms around spent fuels and all of that
type of thing. And I applaud you, Clay, for the work you've
done on GNEP, or the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. It is a
very important component in where we head as a world into
resolving the waste stream issue and a concern that may exist
still by some, as there is legitimacy to it, of proliferation.
As you know, I and others have worked awfully close on--and
with you--on a new-generation concept beyond GNEP. And we
actually legislated it into the policy. And these are policies
that fit well together, and should be looked at in that
context, I would hope. And I say that, because clearly the
technology is there, not only for nuclear, but the President's
initiative. His bold step, very early on in the administration,
to link hydrogen to the ability of the nuclear industry, led
me, this past week, to go downtown to NEI R&D summit and
challenge them, and say, ``Why don't you get outside this big
new box you're in. It's an exciting box, building new reactors,
building new baseload, bringing in the efficiencies of clean,
non-emitting energy. At the same time, you're still thinking of
it in the context of nuclear generation alone. Maybe we ought
to think beyond that, to not only nuclear generation, but
hydrogen production, not unlike what the folks in the coal
industry are doing with Future Gen.'' And so, it's not that I
coin a phrase, but I said, ``Why don't we talk about Freedom
Gen? Why don't we get this country up off its knees and start
running?'' You know, I was one of those--and Pete and I--the
problem we've got in this committee is that we think we know so
much about energy--and we, collectively, do, thanks to people
like you, who used to be with us, and other great staff
people--and when somebody says, ``You know, this Nation could
be energy independent,'' we all step back and say, ``Whoa,
whoa, whoa. I don't think we could ever get there.''
I think how exciting it is for this President--and we
almost got him there in the State of the Union--to challenge
this country to get well beyond where it ever thought it could
go. It's those kinds of challenges that really have made this
country great. It is not impossible, from an electric
standpoint, with coal new technology, nuclear new technology,
to be independent there, that's for sure, and then to start
adding other components to it. The Energy bill that we passed
in July, that was signed in August, does just that. And because
many of us were concerned about where we went with other world
initiatives out there that related to climate change, we
challenged this President. You all met the challenge. He went
out and started talking about an Asia-Pacific initiative that
makes an awful lot of sense and fits into the GNEP concept
beautifully well.
So, there are an awful lot of exciting things happening out
there. And I think this committee is--has done what oftentimes
in Congress we really don't get done, we've actually created,
thanks to your leadership, Mr. Chairman, a significant and
powerful new national policy that is now moving and driving.
And we need to strengthen it where we can. We need to add new
to it where we will. Your leadership at the Department of
Energy with this Secretary will help us a great deal.
So, I'm anxious to hear your presentation as it relates to
the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. And then let's see how
we can blend it with other initiatives underway to see if there
is an economy of scale and a value that can be created by all
of these things converging together into our budgets and into
the technology and capability of America's mindset.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Allard, first of all, let me say I'm very pleased
that you're with us. You're not brand new; I didn't mean that.
But, you know, we haven't had you around very long. And you're
going to find this is a very fun subcommittee with lots of work
to do. And some of the things that you've been working on are
here, and you'll have a lot more opportunity to work on them,
because you'll fund them here. So, if you'd like to make a few
opening remarks, we'll let you----
Senator Allard. Well, I'd love to, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. If you'll make them as brief as you can,
because of the 3 o'clock vote?
Senator Allard. Oh, I'll do that, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. First of all, I'm absolutely thrilled to be
a part of this committee, and was glad I had the opportunity to
serve on it, because you've been such a leader on meeting our
energy needs in this country, and I want to join you in that
effort.
You know, there's no doubt in my mind that we need to have
an ample source of energy--to meet the security needs of this
country, primarily, but also just to meet consumer needs, and
for us to be competitive throughout the world.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I have a couple of pages here of comments. I'm just going
to ask that they be inserted into the record, in addition to
what I've just stated.
And I look forward to working with you, Secretary Sell,
because I do want to give my colleagues an opportunity to say a
few remarks, also.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Wayne Allard
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be a member of this committee,
and I thank you for holding this very important hearing today. I think
that nuclear energy is one of the most promising energy sources before
us. It promises large supplies of clean energy. I have long said that
America must diversify its energy sources, and the option of using
nuclear simply must be on the table.
Many people have been critical of the United States for not signing
on to the Kyoto Protocol. Now, several years later when those countries
that did join are being required to meet their first targets, many are
not able to do so. France is one of the few countries meeting its
target, and they are doing so largely because they are heavily reliant
on nuclear energy.
When we stopped reprocessing in the 1970's, England, France and
Japan kept moving forward. They are now operating successful
reprocessing facilities. Several years ago I visited sites in France
and England where they are currently reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.
The process is safe and efficient, and something that we should have
been doing in this country years ago.
There is a large up-front investment that has to be made in order
to reprocess spent fuel. But I would like to use an analogy that some
people may find easier to understand. To build a house in an energy
efficient manner is more expensive to build one to regular standards.
You have to spend more on higher quality insulation, solar panels cost
money, more efficient appliances cost a little more. But you save a lot
of money down the road when you pay less in utility charges. Similarly,
while the investment for a reprocessing facility is high, because 96
percent of the fuel can be reused, much less must be expended on
storage down the road, and much less ``new'' fuel must be acquired.
I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration
on this very important issue.
Senator Domenici. Before I call on Senator Murray, let me
say to the Senators that are here, I understand we have two
votes at 3 o'clock. And the Energy Committee, which is the two
of us, we have a 3:30 meeting.
Senator Allard, is there any--by any chance, could you use
part of your afternoon to wrap up these hearings, if we have
to?
Senator Allard. I believe I can, but let me check my
schedule, please, and I'll get back to you in just a minute.
Senator Domenici. Senator Murray, would you like to make a
few opening remarks?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. I would, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
And I understand the time limitations, but I did want to
say, Secretary Sell, first, thank you, and good afternoon. It's
good to see you back on the Hill.
I do have significant reservations, I have to say, about
the Department's GNEP proposal. Energy security in our Nation
is a top priority for me, like everyone, and we have to do more
to wean ourselves off foreign imports of energy sources and
replace them with some secure domestic sources. But I strongly
question whether GNEP is the answer. I'm not opposed to nuclear
energy. All sources of energy have to be explored and utilized
if we're to find the best mix for the United States to achieve
energy independence. But that requires taking a very hard look
at possible sources, and considering several factors, including
availability, technical feasibility, environmental impact, and
the economics of developing that new resource. And we also have
to look for solutions to our energy problems now in using those
criteria. That's why I think this proposal falls short.
From what I can tell, it has not gone through the necessary
peer review, it's without strong economic cost analysis, and it
does nothing to address our energy needs in the near-or mid-
term.
But before we go further, I have to point out that this
proposal seems to gloss over the difficulty this country has in
managing our nuclear waste. And I want to revisit quickly
another proposal on cleanup offered by DOE. Accelerated cleanup
was sold as a plan to focus on one contaminated site, and once
that site was cleaned up and closed, the funds would then be
redirected to other sites to accelerate cleanup. The good news,
of course, is Rocky Flats was closed this year. But the bad
news is, is the EM budget request is cut by $762 million in
2007. DOE broke that deal with the sites, the States, and the
Congress. And rather than addressing the nuclear waste legacy,
DOE has shifted focus to other areas and left our communities
holding the bag.
I'm particularly disturbed by comments made by Under
Secretary Garman, when he spoke to the Energy Facility
Contractors Group last month. He called for us to get honest
about the cleanup projects left around the country. The context
of those comments is, the cleanup agreements between the
Government and the States. The Government is failing to meet
milestones. Funding is being cut back. And DOE officials are
telling our States to get honest. DOE signed these agreements
and should not be looking to break them.
It's another example of the mixed messages that DOE sends
on its cleanup responsibilities. Last year, I had to fight very
hard for funding for the vit plant on the Hanford site. I was
told by Secretary Bodman, and by you, that DOE stood behind the
project. I found that hard to believe, when the only DOE funds
offered up for rescission was the $100 million from the vit
plant.
In the President's 2007 budget proposal, there is $690
million for the vit plant, and I'm relieved. The budget request
is finally where it should be. But the funds for the tank farm
activities are down by $52 million, which includes a zeroing
out of bulk vit plant. That was proposed by the administration
as a way to get the tank waste treated faster, and now the
request is zero.
So, let's get honest. DOE has a poor record when it comes
to managing nuclear waste. GNEP will add the waste inventory,
while doing nothing in the near term to help achieve energy
independence. Today there is no place to permanently store
spent nuclear fuel. The request for GNEP is $250 million, while
the request for EM funds is down. It's striking to me that DOE
has proposed a project that would create the same kind of waste
that we are struggling to retrieve and treat at the Hanford
Tank Farm. I have many concerns, and I'm eager to hear your
presentation and to address them during the appropriations
cycle.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Senator Cochran has
submitted a statement which we will also include for the
record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming Deputy
Secretary Sell to the subcommittee, and I look forward to his testimony
about the fiscal year 2007 Budget Proposal for the Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership.
Secretary Sell, welcome back to the subcommittee where you worked
as clerk for 4 years. Your service on this important subcommittee gives
you a solid background to execute our national global nuclear strategy.
I am pleased that the Department of Energy is working on a long term
strategy to address the nuclear needs of our Nation, from the execution
of our nuclear security to the deployment of new nuclear power plants.
There is a great need for nuclear power in this country, and as we look
to the future, there is going to be an increased need for energy
production. Nuclear must be a significant part of that production.
My State is home to the Grand Gulf nuclear power facility in Port
Gibson, Mississippi. In addition, we are a leading site to host a new
commercial nuclear power plant, which will not only provide jobs and
stimulate economic development, but could also provide future rate
relief to my State's electricity customers. The support of this new
facility would relieve the burden of high cost natural gas currently
used to generate electricity.
Lastly, in order to support the exiting fleet of nuclear power
plants, as well as support the building of new nuclear facilities, we
must recognize the nuclear spent fuel situation. Customers have been
contributing to the nuclear waste fund for many years and have seen
little benefit from their investment. Utilities have been in litigation
with the government spending millions of dollars in legal fees over the
issues surrounding spent fuel. I hope that we will work to address
these problems so that this country can build a clean and reliable
fleet of new nuclear plants.
We will continue to discuss the details of this program over the
next few months. I look forward to working with you and my colleagues
on the Appropriations Committee to analyze this new initiative and make
the best decisions for fiscal year 2007. Thank you for your good
assistance in our efforts to make wise decisions.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Secretary, please proceed.
Mr. Sell. Thank you very much, Mr.--
Senator Domenici. Don't worry about that.
STATEMENT OF HON. CLAY SELL
Mr. Sell. Well, I don't want to lose my audience too
quickly.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Reid, Senator Craig, Senator
Allard, Senator Murray, it is truly an honor and a great
pleasure for me to have this opportunity to come back before
this subcommittee to discuss the administration's proposed
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or what we call GNEP.
Thank you for allowing my written statement to go into the
record, and I would like to make some summary comments. And I
will try to do that in 5 or 7 minutes.
In many respects, I believe it is appropriate that the
first public hearing on GNEP occur here before this
subcommittee. From Chairman Domenici's 1997 Harvard speech
calling for a broad reconsideration of nuclear policy and
reprocessing, to this committee's role in funding plutonium
disposition, to this committee's role in funding a great
breadth of nonproliferation initiatives, to the creation of the
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative under the chairmanship of then-
Chairman Reid in 2002, this committee, along with your
counterparts in the House, has always provided great bipartisan
leadership on nuclear matters within our government. So, it is
a pleasure to be here today to discuss GNEP.
I would like to tell you today why we are proposing GNEP.
I'd like to elaborate on what it exactly is and how we propose,
with the support of this subcommittee, to get started.
The President has stated a policy goal of promoting a great
expansion of nuclear power here in the United States and around
the world. The reasons for this are obvious. As the chairman
said, the Department of Energy projects that total world energy
demand will increase--will double by 2050. And looking only at
electricity, projections indicate an increase of over 75
percent in the next 20 years--75 percent increase in
electricity demand over the next 20 years.
Nuclear power----
Senator Domenici. Now, that's worldwide.
Mr. Sell. That's worldwide.
Senator Domenici. Worldwide.
Mr. Sell. Nuclear power is the only mature technology of
significant potential to provide large amounts of completely
emissions-free baseload power to meet this need. It will result
in significant benefits for clean development around the globe,
reduced world greenhouse gas intensities, pollution abatement,
and the security that comes from greater energy diversity.
But nuclear power, with all of its potential for mankind,
carries with it two significant challenges. The first: What do
we do with the nuclear waste? And the second one: How can we
prevent the proliferation of fuel-cycle technologies that lead
to weaponization?
GNEP seeks to address and minimize these two challenges by
developing technologies to recycle the spent fuel in a
proliferation-resistant manner and support a reordering of the
global nuclear enterprise to encourage the leasing of fuel from
what we'll call ``fuel-cycle states'' in a way that presents
strong commercial incentives against new states building their
own enrichment and reprocessing capabilities.
Regarding our own policy on spent nuclear fuel, the United
States stopped the old form of reprocessing in the 1970's,
principally because it could be used to produce plutonium. But
the rest of the major nuclear economies, in France, in Great
Britain, in Russia, in Japan, and in others, continued on
without us. The world today has a buildup of nearly 250 metric
tons of separated civilian plutonium. It has vast amounts of
spent fuel. And we risk the continued spread of fuel-cycle
technologies.
If we look only for a moment at the United States, we are
on the verge of a U.S. nuclear renaissance. In many respects,
due to the provisions enacted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
new plants will be built. But if we want many more built--and
we need them--I believe the United States must rethink the
wisdom of our once-through spent-fuel policy. We must move to
recycling.
This administration remains confident that Yucca Mountain
is the best location for the United States--for a permanent
geologic repository. And getting that facility licensed and
opened remains a top priority. Whether we recycle or not, we
must have Yucca Mountain. But the capacity of Yucca Mountain,
as currently configured, will be oversubscribed by 2010. If
nuclear power remains only at 20 percent for the balance of
this century, we will have to build the equivalent of nine
Yucca Mountains to contain once-through spent fuel.
The administration believes----
Senator Domenici. Would you make that statement again?
Mr. Sell. If we continue to have nuclear generation at 20
percent for the balance of this century, because of our once-
through spent-fuel policy, we will have to build the equivalent
of nine Yucca Mountains.
The administration believes that the wiser course is to
recycle the used fuel coming out of the reactors, reducing its
quantity and its radiotoxicity so that only one Yucca Mountain
will be required for the balance of this century.
So, what exactly is, then, GNEP? GNEP really is----
Senator Domenici. Can I interrupt you?
Mr. Sell. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. And that one Yucca Mountain, under that
scenario, would not be filled with the kind of waste we plan on
putting in it now, right?
Mr. Sell. It would be filled--we still have a significant
amount of Defense waste, in Senator Murray's home State, in
Senator Craig's home State, that will go to Yucca Mountain. And
there----
Senator Domenici. I'm speaking of the domestic side.
Mr. Sell. And on the commercial spent fuel, we believe that
up to 90 percent of commercial spent fuel could be recycled
before going to Yucca Mountain.
Senator Domenici. Which means it would be a different spent
fuel.
Mr. Sell. It would be--it would be in a condition with a
very low--with a peak dose occurring in year one thousand
versus year one million. It would be in a more stable glass
form. And it's the radiotoxicity of the waste which really
drives capacity size. And by reducing the radiotoxicity, you
could fill Yucca Mountain with this glacious stable waste. And
that would--we think, would be enough for this century.
Senator Domenici. Excuse me for interrupting. Thank you.
Mr. Sell. GNEP is really about identifying the policies,
developing the technologies, and building the international
regimes that would manage and promote such a growth in nuclear
generation in a way that enhances our waste management and
nonproliferation objectives.
The program and its full detail is laid out in my prepared
statement. But I would like to focus on a few of the key
engineering and development efforts that are key to GNEP's
success.
First, the Department of Energy seeks to greatly accelerate
its work in the demonstration of advanced recycling. This
effort builds on the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative initiated
by this--or by Congress, and specifically this committee,
several years ago. We have developed, in the laboratory,
recycling technology that does not separate plutonium like the
current reprocessing technologies that are used around the
globe. Rather, it keeps the actinides together, including
plutonium, so that they can be made into fuel to be consumed in
fast reactors that will also produce electricity. By not
separating plutonium and building in the most advanced
safeguard technologies, recycling can be done in a way that
greatly reduces proliferation concerns.
Another key objective of GNEP would be to demonstrate, at
engineering scale, an advanced burner reactor that can be used
to consume plutonium and other actinides, extract the energy
potential out of recycled fuel, reducing the radiotoxicity of
the waste in repeating cycles so that the waste that comes out
of the reactor requires dramatically less geologic repository
space.
These technologies come together in the reliable fuel
services framework. GNEP will build and strengthen a reliable
international fuel services consortium under which fuel
supplier nations would choose to operate both nuclear power
plants and fuel production and handling facilities while
providing reliable fuel services to user nations that choose to
only operate nuclear power plants. This international
consortium is a critical component of the nonproliferation
benefits of the GNEP initiative.
The notion is as indicated on the first chart over here--in
exchange for assured fuel supply, on attractive commercial
terms, user nations that are interested in bringing the
benefits of nuclear power to their economies would suspend any
investments in enrichment and recycling. Under the Non-
Proliferation Treaty, they have a right to do that. They have a
sovereign right. And what we are trying to provide is
attractive commercial incentives that would discourage them
from acting on those rights.
There are two other key elements of GNEP, from a technology
development standpoint. We would hope to work in partnership
with other nations to develop small proliferation-resistant,
perhaps modular or factory-built reactors that are appropriate
for the grids of the developing world. And, in fact, many of
the technologies, Senator Craig, being developed as part of the
next-generation nuclear plant are appropriate--particularly the
gas reactor technology--are appropriate candidates for these
types of small-scale reactors.
And, in all cases, we will work to develop and incorporate
in the most advanced safeguards technologies and ensure and
emphasize best practices for handling of nuclear materials
worldwide.
So, how do we hope to begin? In fiscal year 2006 and 2007,
the Department proposes to concentrate its efforts on
technology development to support a 2008 decision on whether to
proceed with these demonstrations. In general terms, our $250
million request for 2007 funding is to initiate work on
separations and advanced fuels technology development,
transmutation engineering, systems analyses, and planning
functions to support the demonstration of a UREX+ recycling
plant and to support, over a 10-year period, the demonstration
of an advanced burner reactor.
In conclusion, we need to pursue all energy technologies to
address the anticipated growth in demand for energy. But,
clearly, the growth of nuclear energy is vitally important for
the United States and for the world.
Our country can choose to continue down the current path,
or we can lead the transformation to a new, safer, and more
secure approach to nuclear energy, an approach that brings the
benefits of nuclear energy to the world while reducing
vulnerabilities from proliferation and from nuclear waste. We
believe that we are in a stronger position to shape the future
if we are part of it and if we are leading it. And, in many
respects as it relates to the fuel cycle, the United States has
yielded our leadership position over the last 30 years. We
think we need to reclaim it.
Challenges remain in demonstrating the GNEP technologies.
But without GNEP, there will be more plutonium throughout the
world for generations to come. There will be more spent fuel.
There will be greater proliferation risk. There will be more
greenhouse gases emitted into the environment, and less energy
here at home and abroad. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
is not a silver bullet, but it is part of a broad strategy,
that, when combined with advancements in renewables, clean
coal, and other technology developments, can, and will, make a
difference in the security, environmental, and energy
challenges that we face.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I ask, and I seek, the committee's support of this
initiative. I look forward to your questions. And I look
forward to working with you as the year progresses.
I'm pleased to take any questions you have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Clay Sell
Mr. Chairman, Senator Reid, and members of the subcommittee, it is
a pleasure to be here today to discuss the Department of Energy's
fiscal year 2007 budget request of $250 million, to begin investments
in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). This new initiative,
which is part of President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative, is based
on a simple principle: that energy and security can go hand in hand.
It is a comprehensive strategy that would lay the foundation for
expanded use of nuclear energy in the United States and the world by
demonstrating and deploying new technologies that recycle nuclear fuel,
significantly reduce waste, and address proliferation concerns. GNEP
seeks to encourage the future leasing of fuel from fuel cycle states in
a way that allows new states to enjoy the benefits of abundant sources
of clean, safe nuclear energy in exchange for their commitment to forgo
enrichment and reprocessing activities, to help alleviate proliferation
concerns.
The Department of Energy recently estimated that the global demand
for energy may increase as much as 50 percent by 2025, with more than
half of that growth coming from the world's emerging economies.
Specifically, regarding electricity, the growth is projected to be
particularly steep, increasing over 75 percent over the next two
decades. To begin addressing that challenge today, the President has
stated a policy goal that includes world-wide expansion of nuclear
power.
The reasons for this are clear. Nuclear power is a mature
technology of significant potential to provide large amounts of
emissions free base load power. Benefits from nuclear power include the
abatement of greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, and energy
diversity. Other nations have reached a similar conclusion. With 24 new
nuclear plants under construction world wide and additional plants
planned or under consideration, it is important that nuclear energy
expand in a way that supports safety, security, and the environment.
All of these factors point to the need for a widespread expansion
in the use of nuclear energy. To encourage and support such an
expansion, the Department is advocating a new approach to the fuel
cycle which we believe will significantly enhance our management of
used nuclear fuel. This approach should allow us to make more efficient
use of our uranium resources. Based on technological advancements that
would be made through GNEP, the volume and radiotoxicity of waste
requiring permanent disposal will be greatly reduced, delaying the need
for an additional repository through the end of the century.
To meet the goals of GNEP, the Department has developed a broad
implementation strategy comprised of seven elements.
First, we must sustain and expand the use of nuclear power in the
United States. Action is needed to ensure that there are successor
plants to those that supply nearly 20 percent of our electricity.
Efficiency gains to existing reactors over the past decade have added
the equivalent of 25 additional reactors to the grid, but such gains
are approaching a limit. We must build on advances made by the
President and Congress to stimulate new nuclear plant construction.
In 2002, the administration announced the Nuclear Power 2010
program, a cost-shared initiative with industry aimed at demonstrating
the streamlined regulations for siting and constructing new nuclear
plants. Much progress has been made since this program was first
announced and today the Department is sponsoring two demonstrations
aimed at submitting and obtaining approval of the first combined
Construction and Operating License (COL) applications.
DOE is currently working with two consortia of nuclear generating
companies and vendors to prepare and submit these COL applications to
the NRC by 2007 and 2008, respectively. This, together with the
incentives enacted through the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005)
will enable generating companies to proceed with new nuclear plant
projects.
The Department is responsible for implementing the Standby Support
for Certain Nuclear Plant Delays provisions of EPACT, which is a form
of Federal risk insurance to encourage investment in advanced nuclear
power facilities by providing coverage for certain costs resulting from
certain regulatory or litigation delays. Additionally, EPACT 2005
contains provisions for production tax credits for advanced nuclear
facilities, and a loan guarantee program for low-emission energy
production technologies, such as nuclear power plants. We are confident
we will see new plants under construction within the next 10 years.
Second, we must address the issue of nuclear waste. A geologic
repository is a necessity under all fuel management scenarios, and the
2007 budget request provides $544.5 million to maintain steady progress
toward opening the Yucca Mountain repository.
Under GNEP, commercial spent nuclear fuel would be recycled so that
transuranic elements would be consumed, not disposed of as waste.
Residual waste fission products would be reconfigured for disposal at a
geologic repository. In addition, direct disposal will be the only
option for a small portion of older commercial spent fuel and certain
specialized fuels for which separations processes have not been
developed.
GNEP would provide three improvements to spent fuel disposal at a
repository by significantly reducing the volume of nuclear waste,
enhancing thermal management by reducing the waste form heat load, and
reducing the amount of long-lived radionuclides requiring disposal
eliminating the need for an additional repository through the end of
the century.
Third, we propose to demonstrate recycling technology that would
enhance the proliferation-resistance of the fuel cycle compared to
existing reprocessing technologies called Plutonium-Uranium Extraction
or PUREX. To accomplish this, the Department would accelerate through
the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology's Advanced Fuel
Cycle Initiative (AFCI), the development, demonstration, and deployment
of new technologies to recycle spent fuel--these are technologies that
would not result in separated plutonium--a key proliferation concern
presented by current generation reprocessing technologies. Moreover,
this technology would only be deployed in partnership with other fuel
supplier nations.
The AFCI program legislated by the Congress has over the years
identified promising advanced nuclear technology options that are
sufficiently developed to allow for a demonstration program to proceed.
Acting now will enable us to help shape the global fuel cycle and
prepare to accommodate growth in emission-free nuclear power.
In support of this effort, the United States would propose to work
with international partners to conduct an engineering-scale
demonstration of advanced recycling technologies (e.g., a process
called Uranium Extraction Plus or UREX+), that would separate the
usable components in used commercial fuel from its waste components,
without separating pure plutonium.
Fourth, the United States would develop and demonstrate Advanced
Burner Reactors (or ABRs). These ``fast neutron'' reactors would be
designed to consume transuranic elements in used fuel from nuclear
power plants, avoiding the need to accommodate this radioactive,
radiotoxic, and heat-producing material in a geologic repository for
hundreds of thousands of years while it decays. The Department would
also propose a new facility that could potentially serve the fuel
testing needs of the Nation for the next 50 years, and be used to
develop and test the fuels for the advanced burner reactor made from
the transuranic product from the UREX+ process.
Fifth, GNEP would build and strengthen a reliable international
fuel services consortium of nations with advanced nuclear technologies
to enable developing nations to acquire nuclear energy while minimizing
nuclear risk. Under a cradle-to-grave fuel leasing approach, fuel
supplier nations would provide fresh fuel to conventional nuclear power
plants, including small scale reactors, located in user nations that
agree to refrain from enrichment and reprocessing.
Used fuel would then be returned to the fuel supplier nations and
recycled using a process that does not result in separated plutonium.
The recycled fuel would then be used in an ABR in fuel supplier
nations. Arrangements would be available to assure secure supply to
user nations. Such an approach would allow user nations to receive the
benefit of having a reliable supply of reactor fuel without having to
make the significant infrastructure investments required for enriching,
recycling and disposal facilities.
This approach builds on and goes beyond current International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) obligations--user nations would consent to
refrain from enrichment and reprocessing for an agreed period, based on
economic interest. States choosing to stay outside the GNEP framework
and develop their own fuel cycle facilities would receive increased
scrutiny. We recognize that there are responsible states that have
partial fuel cycles, that do not fit the basic conceptual model, but
whose interests can be accommodated in the GNEP framework.
Sixth, the United States would work with the international
community to pursue development and deployment of small-scale reactors
designed to be cost-effective, inherently secure and well-suited to
conditions in developing nations. The United States would also
encourage developing and deploying a small scale reactor that utilizes
the same nuclear fuel for the lifetime of the reactor, eliminating the
need for fuel replacement. As world population increases by 3 billion
people by 2050, energy demands and world cities will expand, making it
all the more important to provide the option of meeting some of that
increased energy demand without increased greenhouse gas emissions or
pollution.
Finally, under GNEP, an international safeguards program is an
integral part of the global expansion of nuclear energy and the
development of future fuel cycle technologies with enhanced
proliferation-resistance. In order for the IAEA to effectively and
efficiently monitor and verify nuclear materials, the United States
would propose to design advanced safeguards approaches directly into
the planning and building of new, advanced nuclear facilities and
small-scale reactors. Over the next year, we will work with other
elements of the Department to establish GNEP, paying special attention
to developing advanced safeguards and developing the parameters for
international cooperation. We will also continue to work closely with
IAEA and our international partners to ensure that civilian nuclear
facilities are used only for peaceful purposes.
The Department has proposed $250 million in the fiscal year 2007
budget as an initial step of a plan to accelerate the development of
technology as part of GNEP. With these funds, the Department would
focus its AFCI research and development on preparing for an
engineering-scale demonstration of the most promising recycling
technologies, such as the UREX+ separations technology, advanced burner
reactors and an advanced fuel cycle facility, used to fabricate and
test the fuels for advanced burner reactors.
This request represents the Department's best assessment of the
GNEP program technical development priorities and sequencing toward
demonstration facilities. The fiscal year 2007 request shows that
significant growth in funding over the fiscal year 2007 request is
necessary for the planning of the three integrated demonstration
facilities.
In fiscal year 2006, mission need would be established for these
facilities and the Department would begin work on an Environmental
Impact Statement for the three facilities, which would continue through
fiscal year 2007. In parallel with this, in both fiscal year 2006 and
fiscal year 2007, the Department would continue research and
development to refine the UREX+ technology, begin work on a conceptual
design report, acquisition strategy, functions and operating
requirements and other analyses leading to the development of baseline
costs and schedules for the UREX+ demonstration, the advanced burner
reactor, and the advanced fuel cycle facility by the end of 2007.
The Department would propose to invest $25 million on the advanced
burner reactor technology in fiscal year 2007, to complete pre-
conceptual design and complete a series of extensive studies to
establish cost and schedule baselines and determine the scope, safety,
and health risks associated with fuel design, siting and acquisition
options. Last month, the United States signed a systems arrangement
agreement with France's atomic energy commission and the Japan Atomic
Energy Agency to cooperate on the development of sodium fast reactors.
It is anticipated that this agreement will establish the foundation for
further collaborations on fast reactors with these countries, and
others that are expected to join the agreement in the future, in
support of GNEP.
The Department's goal is to continue research, development and
experiments on the key technologies, complete technical and economic
feasibility studies and develop a more detailed costs and schedules for
these demonstration facilities to inform decisions by early 2008 on
whether to proceed to the next phase, building these demonstration
facilities. Appropriate pilot scale research and development for the
demonstration projects would proceed to develop an improved planning
basis for these facilities.
More accurate estimates of the demonstration phase will be
available as the conceptual design phase is completed. As noted
earlier, the Department has already started to engage other countries
and we will be looking for a sizeable portion of GNEP costs to be
shared by our partners and industry starting in fiscal year 2008.
In summary, nuclear energy by itself is not a silver bullet for
energy supply, in the world or for the United States and we need all
technologies to address the anticipated growth in demand for energy.
Regardless of the steps the United States takes, nuclear energy is
expected to continue to expand around the globe.
We can continue down the same path that we have been on for the
last 30 years or we can lead a transformation to a new, safer, and more
secure approach to nuclear energy, an approach that brings the benefits
of nuclear energy to the world while reducing vulnerabilities from
proliferation and nuclear waste. We are in a much stronger position to
shape the nuclear future if we are part of it and hence, GNEP. GNEP is
a program that that looks at the energy challenges of today and
tomorrow and envisions a safer and more secure future, encouraging
cooperation between nations to permit peaceful expansion of nuclear
technology while helping to address the challenges of energy supply,
proliferation, and global climate change.
Thank you. This concludes my formal statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions you may have at this time.
RECYCLING SPENT FUEL TECHNOLOGY
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
That's a very succinct and understandable presentation.
We're going to have to learn to use some words that I'm
going to start with today and see if I can get them fixed in my
own mind.
Europe recycles or reprocesses now, do they not?
Mr. Sell. That's correct.
Senator Domenici. And they use a rather well known process
called PUREX?
Mr. Sell. They do.
Senator Domenici. Tell me--or let me ask. That process--
we're going to go one step further, or one step better--if this
program is adopted and carried out, because the PUREX process
does not--separates out plutonium in a liquid form as it
proceeds through its process. Is that correct?
Mr. Sell. Yes, that is correct.
Senator Domenici. Therefore, it is--go ahead and get some
water--therefore, it has some proliferation problems that are
pretty obvious, is that not correct?
Mr. Sell. That's correct.
Senator Domenici. Now, the President, in his proposal, has
chosen to go to a next-technology, which is UREX+. And I think
you've stated to us the difference, but let me just put it in
the context of the difference between what's going in the world
now and what we would be doing. In our process, as the--as it
proceeded, what would come out when you run the spent fuel
through would not be pure plutonium, it would never separate
out. It would come out in a compound attached, and never be
liquid and never be separate. Is that correct?
Mr. Sell. That's correct.
Senator Domenici. And then, that--what you get as a result
of that is reused--is that correct?--and reburned, so that you
make more energy and use up the energy that we were going to
throw away when we were going to lock it up in Yucca Mountain?
Mr. Sell. The product streams out of the UREX+ process
produce uranium, they produce an actinide stream, which is
plutonium bound with the other actinides, and then a fission
product stream. The fission product stream would be disposed
of. The actinides would be made into fuel that would be burned
in the advanced burner reactor. And the uranium could be either
re-enriched for use in a lightwater reactor, or it could be
disposed of as low-level waste.
Senator Domenici. Now, where are these processes, at this
point? And what will the $250-plus-million that you're asking
for from this committee be used for?
Mr. Sell. The UREX+ technology has been demonstrated at a
laboratory scale.
Senator Domenici. Where?
Mr. Sell. At Argonne National Lab.
Senator Domenici. Right.
Mr. Sell. And it is our intent--and we think it is
important--to move to demonstrate that technology on an
engineering scale. It is our hope, and it is our expectation,
that--in order for an approach like GNEP to work, that these
technologies need to be commercialized. But there is
significant engineering and development work that needs to be
done. And so, a great majority of the amount of money that we
are requesting for fiscal year 2007 would be used to support
the design work, the environmental work, and other development
work that needs to be done to support a decision to construct a
demonstration facility in 2008.
And if I can go back, you mentioned PUREX. You know, PUREX
was actually developed here in the United States----
Senator Domenici. Correct.
Mr. Sell [continuing]. As part of our weapons program, so
that we could produce plutonium for use in nuclear weapons. And
it was--we used it here in the United States on the commercial
side, and it was in the mid-1970's that we decided, for
proliferation reasons--and I think perhaps correctly, we
decided that we should stop doing that. And we hoped, when we
made that decision--when President Carter made that decision in
1977, that the rest of the world would follow. But they did
not. And the rest of the world has deployed PUREX on a
commercial scale, resulting in 250 metric tons of plutonium
that is now in commerce around the world today. And that
presents, in our judgment, a significant generational
proliferation concern. And we want to develop technologies that
will stop the production of plutonium, and also technologies
that can be used to burn down plutonium stockpiles, plutonium
inventories, over the coming decades.
Senator Domenici. Thank you for that explanation. That--I
failed to mention, that is our technology. We did do it. We did
use it. I mean, it was commercialized.
I'm going to yield now to Senator Craig. And the vote's not
yet up, incidentally.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, let me go for a few moments.
But my guess is that we probably ought to get out of here in 5,
hadn't we, if we're going to----
Senator Domenici. Go to our meeting?
Senator Craig [continuing]. Catch that vote?
Senator Domenici. Yes. Is it up now, the vote?
Senator Craig. The vote is on now.
Senator Domenici. I'm very sorry. I didn't see it.
Senator Craig. Yeah, the vote is----
Senator Domenici. I guess we should.
Senator Craig [continuing]. The vote is on now.
Senator Domenici. Senator, why don't you proceed, and
then--Senator Allard, do you want to go vote and come back?
Senator Allard. Yeah, that's what my plan would be.
Senator Domenici. Please do that.
Senator Allard. We have two votes on, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. All right. We'll just remind the
Secretary to wait just a while, while we have two votes. He's
going to come back and complete the meeting. I'm going to wait
until the last minute here.
DEPARTMENT'S GNEP TECHNOLOGY OBJECTIVES
Senator Craig. Okay.
Mr. Secretary, in GNEP, the initial phase that you're
talking about, the engineering scale demonstration phase,
proliferation-resistant spent-fuel processing, how long--you
said construction by 2008. When do you think that plays out?
And we're looking at a price tag for totality of that of
upwards of----
Mr. Sell. The--just for the UREX+ demonstration facility,
we would anticipate--even though it would be sized somewhere
probably in the 10 to 25 metric-ton-per-year size, so
relatively small--but, on order, we would expect that
facility--our best estimates on the costs would be between $700
million and $1.5 billion. And we would hope to begin
construction in 2008, and have construction complete 3 to 4
years thereafter, to go into operations.
Senator Craig. And then the next phase is what, the
advanced fuel cycle?
Mr. Sell. The next phase would be the--within 10 years, we
would like to build a demonstration advanced burner reactor.
Senator Craig. Burner reactor.
Mr. Sell. There are a number of potential technologies that
could be used for that. And we want to do a substantial amount
of work in conjunction with our international partners, in
determining the appropriate technology. But we would hope to
build and--to construct and operate that within 10 years.
The key R&D challenge--the biggest R&D challenge--we've
done UREX+ in the lab. We've built, certainly, fast reactors
that can be modified for a burner role. The biggest challenge
is in developing and qualifying an actinide-based fuel. And so,
that will require significant laboratory work to develop that
fuel.
As you know, today we are doing small-scale actinide fuel
tests, in partnership with France, in their fast reactor, as
well as in partnership with Japan. But that's going to require
a significant amount of development work over the next 5 to 10
years.
Senator Craig. Then in this whole concept, the exportable
modular reactor is the last phase--is that where the effort to
contain--to offer up, but contain----
Mr. Sell. Under Secretary Bob Joseph and I, we went to a
number of capitals in the United Kingdom, France--we saw Dr. El
Baradei in Vienna--Moscow, Beijing, and Tokyo, to talk about
this idea. And the ideas were well received, and the objectives
of GNEP were well received. But there was a tremendous amount
of interest in not just those countries, but other counties--
South Korea and others, Canada perhaps--joining together with
us in developing advanced reactors for deployment in the
developing world.
And so, that is something that we would seek to move, in
parallel with these other technology development efforts. And
it is something that we would hope to have significant
international participation in, as well.
Senator Craig. Okay. I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that we ought
to----
Senator Domenici. Could I just follow up on your very last
one, and you wait on it?
Senator Craig. Yes.
Senator Domenici. The one thing that I keep hearing--and I
want to stress it a little bit, in context of Larry's last
question--we talk about the internationalization of this issue
and the partnership. And I hope that as you talk about the
costs for these various demonstrations and moving from a small
one to the next level, that you are talking about the
possibility, or even the probability, that we can get our
partnership countries to come into that ball game, too, of
helping develop those kinds of experimental projects. Because
they will be costly. I'm not sitting up here saying I'm against
things of this type because they're costly. I'm excited that
America might be a considering a major new program of this
type. This is what we used to be about; but we've gotten so
fearful, we won't do anything like this. So, I'm on board. But
it seems to me the benefits are not going to be just to us,
right?
Mr. Sell. That's correct. There is--when we think about it
in the international context, I mean, on the first order, as I
said earlier, we've--in some ways, we have yielded our
leadership role in the fuel cycle. The French, the British, the
Japanese, and the Russians have gone on without us for 30
years. And they have significant capabilities--in some cases,
that are better than ours.
Senator Domenici. Right.
Mr. Sell. And so, we are seeking to work in partnership
with them to accelerate, to take advantage of the advances we
have each made to accelerate the development, the
demonstration, and the deployment of these technologies as
quickly as possible. So, they bring talent and expertise to the
table.
But one of the other things that has been quite encouraging
is that they also seek full partnership, which means in-kind
contributions, and, we would expect, significant financial
contributions. That is--we really seek to pursue these
technologies in partnership. And that is, in addition to the
benefits that I've laid out, we think it also has other
significant benefits, in that it will allow us to accelerate,
working in partnership with these other countries, the phase-
out of the current PUREX technologies that are used around the
world today, and the phase-in of more advanced proliferation-
resistant recycling technologies.
Senator Domenici. That's why I asked. It would seem to me
that the benefits are for them, too.
Mr. Sell. Indeed.
Senator Domenici. Because the benefit to the world is that
we would--we might all be engaged in the most nonproliferation-
active formulation of machinery, rather than what we've got
now. And they ought to be beneficiaries, and we ought to help
pay for it.
Mr. Sell. Mr. Chairman, we really believe that, through
these technological advancements, we can make it commercially
attractive to recover the economic value of spent fuel. And
once we can do that, then that allows a international fuel
leasing regime to work.
Senator Domenici. I'm going to just close by saying: When
we talk about the dollar numbers, we have never talked about
how much value added there is going to be in this process. That
might be the subject matter of maybe your doing some research
and submitting to us: If this works, what is all that extra
energy that we're going to have for sale? What is its value
going to be? Because it's going to be somewhere, isn't it?
Mr. Sell. There will be a tremendous value of the
electricity produced, and a tremendous savings by avoiding the
cost of building nine Yucca Mountains over the course of the
century. And, quite frankly, the engineering and the packaging
required to dispose of hot spent fuel is much greater than
that, that would be required to dispose of the more stable
glacious waste form.
Senator Domenici. We'd get a whole lot more fuel to burn.
Mr. Sell. That's correct.
Senator Domenici. That's got a value added that this
process is going to yield, right?
Mr. Sell. That's correct. And right now----
Senator Domenici. That would be very, very large. Huge
amount.
Mr. Sell. It's a significant amount. And right now spent
fuel that is headed towards Yucca Mountain still has over 90
percent of its energy value. And by developing recycling
technologies, we think we can recover a great portion of that
energy value and produce electricity with it.
Senator Domenici. We're going to be in recess. The
Secretary's going to wait. Probably going to finish at 4
o'clock, or a little after 4 o'clock, if that's all right with
you. But I won't be coming back, Mr. Secretary. But the Senator
from Colorado will preside.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Sell. Thank you.
Senator Allard [presiding]. I'll call the committee to
order. And, just for the record, I'm Senator Allard that's now
presiding, at the request of the chairman, Senator Domenici.
And I'd like to, again, welcome you, Mr. Secretary.
We were starting into the question part of the committee. I
left early to go down and vote, and have now returned to wrap
up our deliberations here on the committee.
GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP PROLIFERATION RISKS
I've had an opportunity to go and tour facilities in
France, as well as in England, and what they do to reprocess
nuclear fuel, which you indicated in your own remarks is--that
it is technology that we had here in the United States, and
then they adopted that technology. And, frankly, I am excited
about the prospects of moving to UREX+ instead of PUREX. They
use the PUREX technology. Am I correct on that?
Mr. Sell. That's correct.
Senator Allard. And so, I'm excited about the UREX+ policy.
And it's my understanding, also, I just want to make sure
that's on the record--is that it does take away the
proliferation risks completely if we process that, or is there
still some proliferation risk?
Mr. Sell. I think, from a public policy standpoint, Senator
Allard, we must always be mindful of the proliferation risk
anytime we are dealing with nuclear materials and nuclear
technologies. And so, I would be reluctant to suggest that any
technology removes all risk, but we----
Senator Allard. But this lessens the risk, then, is that--
--
Mr. Sell. But the----
Senator Allard [continuing]. The plan?
Mr. Sell [continuing]. UREX+ technology prevents--it
increases, substantially, the proliferation resistance of the
material, to a point where this Government should be quite
comfortable. And we would also build in the most sophisticated
safeguards technologies into the UREX+ plant. So, not only do
we have a much more proliferation-resistant stream of material
coming out, but it would have the most advanced safeguards, and
all of these plants would only be built, under our conception,
in existing fuel-cycle states. So, we think this offers
substantial nonproliferation benefits.
And there are two other nonproliferation benefits. By
developing and deploying advanced burner reactors, and
developing and deploying UREX+, we can begin to slow the
accumulation worldwide of inventories of separated civilian
plutonium, and we can build the capability that allows us to
burn down and dispose of that plutonium. And then, thirdly, we
can develop, we believe, an international regime, or we would
seek to develop an international regime, that would discourage
the investment and construction of enrichment and recycling
facilities in countries that do not have them today.
Senator Allard. Now----
Mr. Sell. So, the----
Senator Allard. Go ahead.
Mr. Sell [continuing]. So, in sum, we think there are--from
a systems standpoint, there are substantial nonproliferation
benefits, and substantial nonproliferation enhancements, that
would flow from the GNEP proposal.
Senator Allard. And I understand that right now, under
UREX+ technology, we are working with two other countries. And
that's France and Japan. Is that correct?
Mr. Sell. We have, through existing relationships that the
United States has, we have been conducting tests and
experiments and development work through funding provided by
this committee. And we would seek to broaden the work to also
include Russia, the United Kingdom, if they choose, Japan, and
China. Those are the nations where well in excess--or around 70
percent of the world's nuclear reactors exist. Those are the
nuclear economies of a sufficient scale to justify significant
investments in advanced fuel-cycle technologies, and we would
look to work with those countries in developing these
technologies on an accelerated timescale.
INTERNATIONAL INTEREST IN ENRICHMENT SERVICES
Senator Allard. Now, Iran is on everybody's mind, because
they've decided to build and operate a uranium enrichment
plant, in direct violation, actually, of the Nuclear
Proliferation Treaty. And with this capability, they could not
only produce fuel for civilian purposes, but also weapons
activity, as well. And you have a plan that calls for a uranium
fuel leasing plan that would provide fuel to countries
interested in developing a civilian nuclear program.
Do you believe that other countries--we've already kind
of--sounds like you've already begun to kind of form a
coalition, but do you believe that these countries would be
willing to contract for enrichment services instead of
developing their own domestic capabilities?
Mr. Sell. We do, Senator Allard. And this is occurring now,
on a smaller scale, around the globe. Many countries with
significant nuclear power investments, like South Korea, have
not made their own investments in enrichment and recycling. And
the hope is--I mean, really, from a--from a world energy supply
standpoint, and if we really want to address environmental
concerns, pollution concerns with nuclear power, the world's
going to need a significant expansion of nuclear power. And
that's going to occur in many countries.
And we think a system could work, where states that have
already made, or have economies that would justify significant
investments in enrichment and reprocessing technologies, that
we could lease fuel. So, a country like the United States could
lease fuel to a country. And that fuel would then--would be
burned in a reactor, but then taken back to be recycled and
disposed of in the fuel-cycle country. We think that can be
offered on attractive--we would propose that we could offer
that on attractive commercial terms. So, there's a real
incentive for a country, who is only interested in bringing the
benefits of nuclear power to their economy, of leasing the
fuel. And only those countries that are really seeking to--we
would suggest that countries that chose not to go the more
economic route, and, instead, choose to make investments in
their own enrichment or recycling--or reprocessing capability,
it would suggest that perhaps they have other motivations.
Senator Allard. And so, that's basically your plan. You're
going to try and incentivize them with some economic
alternatives. You hope that they'll not be able to refuse,
because we would then have the original reprocessing plants
constructed here. We'd do that them for them at a reasonable
price, so that they'll use our facilities.
Mr. Sell. And it wouldn't just be here. It would also be in
France or Japan or China or elsewhere. And it's--that diversity
of suppliers to potential consumer nations would also give them
the security, which I think countries would seek, in having a
diversity of enrichment services suppliers.
Senator Allard. And have you gotten any firm commitments
from any of the countries willing to come on with this program
at this point? Or are you aware of real strong support for it?
I'll put it that way.
Mr. Sell. When--a few weeks ago, I, with Under Secretary
Bob Joseph from the State Department, traveled to London and to
Paris, to Moscow, Beijing, Tokyo, and we also stopped to see
Dr. El Baradei at the International Atomic Energy Agency, in
Vienna. And we laid out our ideas and sought their
consultation. And there was broad agreement on the objectives
that the world needed a dramatic increase in nuclear power,
that we should work together to develop advanced recycling
technologies that did not separate plutonium, that we should do
this in international partnership, and that we should work to
facilitate an international regime of fuel leasing so that we
could discourage the proliferation of enrichment and
reprocessing technologies.
There was broad agreement on all of those issues, and a
great interest expressed by those governments in continuing to
discuss with us how we could further the partnership.
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION AND STATE DEPARTMENT
PARTICIPATION IN GNEP
Senator Allard. Now, the GNEP program is a very
comprehensive research and development program that includes
work on advanced reactor technology, fuel recycling, waste
reduction, and global nuclear fuel services, small reactors,
and enhanced nuclear safeguards. And when we look at the
budget, it seems to focus on large-scale engineering
demonstrations of fuel recycling capability, with minimal
involvement outside the Office of Nuclear Energy. And it's
unclear, at least to me, from this budget, when the Department
will undertake research, reliable fuel services, small-scale
reactors, the enhanced nuclear safeguards, and basic research
and development that could address a number of concerns related
to our national security, particularly in the earlier phases of
the program.
My question is: Why has the Department elected to minimize
the direct and immediate engagement of the NNSA and the
Department of State at the onset of GNEP?
Mr. Sell. With the greatest level of respect, Senator
Allard, I have to disagree with the premise of your question.
The National Nuclear Security Administration has been heavily
involved, as has the State Department, as have other elements
of the interagency policy formulating bureaus within the
administration.
So, they have been involved. I think we have their--I know
for a fact we have their strong support in moving forward on
this.
There is an emphasis, in our budget request for 2007, on
moving forward on the first key demonstration facility, which
is the demonstration of the UREX+. That has been demonstrated
at a laboratory scale. We think it is important, as quickly as
possible, to demonstrate it on an engineering scale. And so,
that does receive a significant portion of our--of the $250
million budget request for fiscal year 2007.
MIXED OXIDE (MOX) PROGRAM COST INCREASE
Senator Allard. I'd like to move on to the MOX Program.
When I was chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee on Armed
Services, we had some discussion with the MOX Program, where we
have the recycling facilities at Savannah, Georgia. And, you
know, it's--like was mentioned earlier, it's basically American
technology that's been modified some, perhaps, by both the
French and the Germans. But it's basically--was originally
American technology.
I'm concerned about some reported overruns on the efforts
down there. The IG did a report that said that cost increases
may amount to $3.5 billion, where we were planning on $1
billion in the budget. Can you address that?
It seems to me we need to have somebody riding herd a
little closer over the operation down there, and I'm wondering
if perhaps maybe you could give us some insight on what's
happening with the MOX facility in Savannah, Georgia.
Mr. Sell. Several years ago, after our country had made the
agreement with the Russians to dispose of plutonium, we did
make a decision to build facilities, MOX fuel fabrication
facilities, as well as other processing facilities, at the
Savannah River site. And, early on, it was suggested, at the
time, that the cost of those facilities would be, in total,
of--I may not have the numbers exactly right, but, on rough
order, $2 billion.
That was not a very good number, obviously. And it is old.
Commodity prices have increased significantly since that
estimate was made. There was a failure by the Department and
its contractor team to fully appreciate the costs that would be
required to build that French MOX technology here in the United
States. And there were other problems with the estimate. The
Department is working to correct those.
I take seriously your counsel to keep a tighter rein on
activities down there. But the plutonium disposition program
remains an important U.S. objective, and we intend to move
forward and accomplish that in as economically feasible a way
as possible.
Senator Allard. Well, I do--I think that is very important.
And, you know, you indicated cost of commodities was one of the
factors. What other factors did we have that might have added
to the cost of it?
And the rest of this question is: Did we have incentive-
driven--did we have incentive-driven contracts with the
contractor down there?
Mr. Sell. We--if I may, I would like to give a more
complete answer on exactly what--the contract provisions that
we have. I believe, as a general statement, that the contract
does have significant incentives in it for contractor
performance, but I would like to answer--give you a more
complete answer on the record, if I may.
U.S. MIXED OXIDE FACILITY COSTS
Senator Allard. Yeah, that would be fine.
Mr. Sell. The other elements of the cost growth--and I--you
know, part of it was commodity--the increased price of
commodities. Part of it was simply that the $2 billion number
was a 2000-year number, not a 2005 number. And there was also a
failure, quite frankly, of the Department and our contractors
to fully appreciate how costly it would be to build the French
technology plant here in the United States. We made assumptions
that we shouldn't have made, and those are costing us now.
Senator Allard. What specific assumptions--how did you--I
mean, where were you wrong in your assumptions? I'm going to
press you a little bit here.
Mr. Sell. I will--I can't--you know, unfortunately, I'm not
prepared, today--or I don't have my mind today, Senator Allard,
the exact things that we missed on this, but----
Senator Allard. Maybe you could get a memo to the committee
on that, and we'll----
Mr. Sell [continuing]. But we will----
Senator Allard. Yeah.
Mr. Sell [continuing]. Follow up, in written detail, on
that issue, if I may do that.
[The information follows:]
U.S. Mixed Oxide Facility Costs
The total project cost estimate for the U.S. MOX facility as
reflected in the fiscal year 2007 budget request is $3.6 billion.
However, the cost estimate and schedule will be formally validated
prior to the start of construction as part of the Department's project
management process, and reported to Congress. The reasons for the cost
increase are: the 2\1/2\ year delay in the negotiation of the liability
agreement with Russia resulting in the extension of the MOX
construction schedule, further extension of the construction schedule
to conform to the expectation of level funding in the outyears,
unanticipated complexities in adapting French MOX technology to use
weapon-grade plutonium, increases in the cost of construction materials
since the original estimate was made, and the incorporation of more
stringent regulatory and security requirements into the design of the
facility. With regard to incentive driven contracts, DOE is negotiating
multi-tiered performance incentives for the construction and operations
phases of the MOX Project, which will contain a fee structure to
control cost growth and schedule slippage.
Senator Allard. Yeah. We'd appreciate that so that we fully
understand the issues down there.
And I'm one that would like to see these things carried in
a timely manner, because I think when you start running into
delay problems and accelerated costs, you tend to lose support
within the Congress. And this is an important program, and I
hate to lose that support. I----
Mr. Sell. The----
Senator Allard. Go ahead.
Mr. Sell. The delays--you know, even though this--the
agreement was made to do this many years. It has taken a number
of years, and--to get the appropriate agreements in place with
the Russians. And when Secretary Bodman got to the Department,
about a year ago, and realized that we still did not have the
agreements that we'd been trying to get with the Russians that
would allow this project to move forward, he and Secretary Rice
engaged the Russians, and we were able to make significant
progress on resolving issues as to liability which had
prevented--which had really left this project in a stall for
several years. So, we feel like we have finally made progress
on that. The Department broke ground, finally, on the facility
last fall. And we look forward to moving forward with it. But
it, unfortunately, will be at a higher cost.
TRANSPORTATION FUELS
Senator Allard. Let me move on to our transportation fuels.
I think we're all quite aware that the transportation sector is
a huge consumer of energy in this country. And there's some
concern about the high-temperature reactors that are effective
in producing hydrogen for transportation. And where are we in
the efforts by the Department to produce these kind of reactors
that will allow for the production of hydrogen? Or is it just
assuming that we're not far along on nuclear hydrogen research
to--at this point in time, to be funding it? You have dropped--
reduced your 2006 funding levels, and that's what's prompting
this question.
Mr. Sell. It is our judgment at the Department that over
the long term the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative that he
laid out in the--in his State of the Union of 3 years ago,
offers significant promise for getting our transportation
sector off of the internal combustion engine and onto
electricity-based fuel cells. And we are--we have a broad
program to develop those technologies, the storage
technologies, the fuel-cell technologies, the automotive
technologies, as well as the question of: How will we produce
all of this hydrogen?
Today, the only economical way to produce hydrogen, or the
principal economic way of producing it, is through reforming
natural gas. But we think, in the future, as hydrogen demands
increase significantly, we can produce it with coal, and we can
also--and other technologies--and we think hydrogen will be--I
mean, nuclear hydrogen will be a--nuclear power plants will be
a significant technology producing hydrogen.
It is our judgment, I believe--and I will leave my
statement to be revised by the technical experts--that the most
promising nuclear technology for producing hydrogen is very
high-temperature gas reactor. And a technology such as that, I
believe, was authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It's
referred to as the next-generation nuclear plant. And we have
requested $23 million as part of our fiscal year 2007 budget to
continue developing that reactor so that it can be
demonstrated--built and demonstrated on a timescale consistent
with that called for by the Energy Policy Act.
We think that technology can still be developed, and is
moving along consistently with other portions of the Hydrogen
Fuel Initiative.
Senator Allard. Well, why was there a reduction in your
funding level for 2006?
Mr. Sell. If I may, I--that's another question I'll need
to----
Senator Allard. Okay.
Mr. Sell [continuing]. Take for the record.
Senator Allard. Very good.
[The information follows:]
Transportation Fuels
With an appropriation of $40 million in fiscal year 2006 and a
$23.4 million budget request in fiscal year 2007, the Department has
the level of funding needed to continue the progress necessary to
inform a decision in 2011 on whether to proceed with construction of
the NGNP. With these funds, the Department will continue the graphite
particle fuels development effort, which is the critical path work for
determining the feasibility of the technology for efficient electricity
and hydrogen production. Sample fuel irradiation testing would begin in
fiscal year 2007 as well as preparation for post-irradiation
examination of the fuel.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Allard. I don't have any other questions. I have
another committee meeting I've got to get to. And so, I'm going
to request that the record remain open until close of business
Friday for member statements and questions. And I also hope the
Department will respond to these questions that are left open
in a timely manner. Most committees I've been a part of have
asked a response within 10 days. Is that about the time period
that--if you can get your responses back to us within 10 days,
we'd appreciate it----
Mr. Sell. We will do so.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP (GNEP) PROLIFERATION CONTROLS
Question. The cornerstone of the GNEP is the development of a
proliferation resistant fuel recycling plan that will reduce the amount
of spent fuel that must be disposed of and recycle the uranium used in
existing reactors.
Please explain to the committee what advantages this proposal has
over existing fuel recycling programs and what steps the Department is
taking to guard against the proliferation of separated plutonium.
Answer. Under study for the past 5 years, the Department believes
that the Uranium Extraction Plus (UREX+) technology is the best known
and proven. It provides for the group separation of transuranic
elements (which include plutonium) contained in spent nuclear fuel and,
therefore, would not result in a separated pure plutonium stream as is
the case with current reprocessing technology. To impede diversion of
material, this technology would use state-of-the-art safeguards
approaches and advanced instrumentation to account for all the material
used in the process. Incorporated early in the design, the combination
of safeguards and the separation process ensures that material could
not be easily diverted without being identified. Finally, an integrated
set of fuel cycle facilities which include UREX+ would have the
capability to manufacture fast reactor fuel and use an advanced burner
reactor for permanent destruction of civilian inventories of pure
plutonium. By demonstrating and deploying new technologies to recycle
nuclear fuel, we would minimize waste, and improve our ability to keep
nuclear technologies and materials out of the hands of terrorists.
GNEP--BUDGET SPECIFICS
Question. The GNEP program builds on the existing Advanced Fuel
Cycle Initiative and provides $250 million in funding to initiate the
research and development and to demonstrate the UREX Plus process, an
advanced burner reactor, and an advanced fuel facility. This effort
will not be easy and will require the support of our best scientific
minds at all our national labs. However, this budget is not specific as
to what activities will be funded and where this research will occur.
When will we know more about the specifics of the program?
Answer. The Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling Program Plan is being
provided to Congress by the end of May 2006 in response to fiscal year
2006 EWD Conference Report language and will provide additional
specifics on the GNEP program. The report focuses on the plans for
demonstration of the advanced recycling technologies on a scale
sufficient to evaluate commercialization of the technologies.
Question. Will you be developing an R&D roadmap and develop a
division of labor among the labs?
Answer. The Department has conducted an extensive amount of R&D
under the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative program over the last several
years to bring advanced technologies for enhancing the efficiency of
the fuel cycle to a state of readiness for the engineering-scale
demonstration. As previously discussed, the Department is currently
preparing the Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling Program Plan that will
provide additional information. While Idaho National Laboratory is the
lead laboratory for the GNEP Technology Demonstration Program, the
participation by and capabilities of all of DOE's national laboratories
are critical to the program's success. Nine national laboratories--
Idaho, Argonne, Brookhaven, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge,
Pacific Northwest, Savannah River and Sandia--have provided input into
the Department's development of and vision for GNEP. These nine
national laboratories are also currently involved in the preparation of
work scope and funding requirements.
Question. I understand you will use funding provided in fiscal year
2006 to begin work on an Environmental Impact Statement for each of the
three main facilities--where will they be located?
Answer. The Department has made no decisions with respect to
locations for the engineering scale demonstrations of the advanced
recycling technologies. The Department's fiscal year 2006 appropriation
provided funding to initiate an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on
recycling spent nuclear fuel. In March 2006, the Department initiated
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activities with the
issuance of an Advance Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS. The NEPA
analyses will inform a decision in fiscal year 2008 as to where the
integrated recycling demonstration facilities would be located.
Question. How much will the GNEP program cost to implement and over
what period of time?
Answer. A preliminary, order-of-magnitude cost estimate for the
GNEP initiative ranges from $20 billion to $40 billion. This includes
the cost of Nuclear Power 2010 and Yucca Mountain over the next 10
years as well as the cost of demonstrating integrated recycling
technologies. Previously reported estimates for the cost of bringing
the three technology demonstration facilities to initial operation
range from $3 billion to $6 billion over the next 10 years. In 2008,
the Department will have more refined estimates of the cost and
schedule to complete the full 20-year demonstration effort. One of the
primary purposes of the engineering scale technology demonstrations is
to produce reliable estimates of the total life cycle cost of GNEP.
UREX+ RECYCLING PROCESS
Question. I traveled to France in December and received an update
on the French spent nuclear fuel recycling program that is built on the
U.S. developed ``PUREX'' process. The French separate Uranium which
forms 95 percent of the volume of spent fuel. They also separate
Plutonium which they recycle in a Mixed Oxide fuel that produces
additional energy in their fleet of existing Light Water Reactors. I
understand that although the volume of waste has been significantly
reduced, the heat load would continue to drive the loading of a final
repository. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership initiative proposes
additional research and development of a ``Uranium Extraction plus
(UREX+)'' process to address the limitations of the PUREX process.
How would the UREX+ process address the limitations and provide a
cost-effective, proliferation resistant alternative?
Answer. The transuranic product from the UREX+ process is more
proliferation resistant than the product from current separations
plants because there is no separated pure plutonium stream. The
transuranic product provides a significantly higher radiation field
than purified plutonium, and the TRU mixture is less attractive for
diversion than pure plutonium.
A modern commercial UREX+ and fuel fabrication capability would be
equipped with state-of-the-art monitoring and accountability systems
specifically designed to prevent unauthorized access and diversion of
materials. One of the advantages of an engineering scale demonstration
of the UREX+ technology is the ability to demonstrate these monitoring
and accountability systems.
Question. What are the milestones and costs associates with this
research and development? What are the critical decision points?
Answer. The milestones and costs for various research and
demonstration steps, including spent fuel separations process, are
currently being developed. The Department's current efforts are aimed
at conducting the applied research, engineering, and environmental
studies that would be needed to inform a decision in 2008 on whether to
proceed with detailed design and construction of the engineering scale
demonstration facilities. The Department has set a goal of facility
start-up between 2011 and 2015. A more detailed baseline cost and
schedule are being developed as the project moves forward.
UREX CONSTRUCTION OPTIONS
Question. We notice that most of the UREX facility dollars in 2006
and 2007 ($200 million) will be spent on ``conceptual'' designs, EIS
studies, procurement orders, and other ``paperwork'' similar to that
involved with constructing large-scale integrated nuclear facilities.
Are there any ``medium'' scale options available that could employ
existing processing lab capabilities that could be utilized to free up
funds for the other critical elements of the program? If not, how do
you assure that the EIS process does not have to be repeated over and
over for each component of the emerging fuel cycle?
Answer. The Department is looking at conducting additional
laboratory research at increased throughput quantities in fiscal year
2007 in parallel with the conceptual design activities for the
engineering-scale facility.
The EIS process will consider all reasonable alternative
technologies and locations for three key elements of the GNEP
Technology Demonstration Program: (1) demonstration of advanced spent
fuel separations processes; (2) demonstration of a conversion of
transuranics; and (3) demonstration of an advanced fuel cycle facility
and advanced fuel fabrication.
IRAN--PURSUIT OF A COMPLETE FUEL CYCLE
Question. Iran has decided to build and operate a uranium
enrichment plant in direct violation of Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty. Obviously, with this capability Iran could not only produce
fuel for civilian purposes, but weapons activity as well. Your plan
calls for a uranium fuel-leasing plan that would provide fuel to
countries interested in developing a civilian nuclear program.
Do you believe countries would be willing to contract for
enrichment services instead of developing their own domestic
capability? How has this plan been received by other countries?
Answer. Today there are countries that rely on contracted
enrichment services rather than developing their own domestic
capability. Long-term contracts and enrichment facilities in over a
half dozen countries provide alternative sources of supply. The United
States itself contracts over half of its annual fuel services from
Russia through the U.S./Russia HEU Purchase Agreement.
We recognize that some countries will be mindful of supply security
under the GNEP approach. The United States has already committed 17
metric tons of HEU that will be blended down to LEU and used to
establish a fuel reserve to back-up supply assurances. Russia has
indicated support for such an approach. We are approaching other
countries to establish interim supply arrangements to increase the
confidence that critical energy supply would not be subject to near-
term political tensions.
Question. What is the Department's plan to bring our international
allies on board with the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)?
Answer. The United States has been meeting with potential
international partners to discuss both policy and technical aspects of
GNEP. We will continue our diplomatic and technical outreach with a
broader group of prospective partners.
Question. What international commitments has the department
obtained regarding GNEP?
Answer. The United States completed initial consultations with fuel
cycle countries and the International Atomic Energy Agency on the key
objectives of GNEP. From a technical perspective, France, Japan and
Russia have expressed strong interest in cooperative R&D.
GNEP--NONPROLIFERATION
Question. The GNEP program is a comprehensive R&D program that
includes work on advanced reactor technology, fuel recycling, waste
reduction, a global nuclear fuel service, small reactors, and enhanced
nuclear safeguards. However, the budget request focuses on large-scale
engineering demonstrations of fuel recycling capability, with minimal
involvement outside the Office of Nuclear Energy. It is unclear from
this budget when the Department will undertake research reliable fuel
services, small scale reactors, enhanced nuclear safeguards and basic
R&D that could address a number of concerns related to our national
security in the early phases of the program.
Why has the Department elected to minimize the direct and immediate
engagement of the NNSA and the Department of State at the onset of
GNEP?
Answer. Senator, as the principal official within the Department
with responsibilities for advancing GNEP, I know that all appropriate
elements of the Department were fully engaged during GNEP planning. In
particular, Ambassador Brooks and the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) staff played an integral role in the development
of GNEP, in participation of addressing non-proliferation and the
development of an advanced generation of safeguards technologies. This
role will continue in the future.
The Department of State has also been engaged from the beginning of
GNEP planning and involved in all aspects of developing our
international partnership. As you may be aware, prior to the
President's announcement of the Advanced Energy Initiative and GNEP,
Under Secretary of State Robert Joseph and I led a delegation to
several foreign capitals to present GNEP. This is but one example of
our close cooperation with the Department of State in both the
development of GNEP and corresponding diplomatic strategy. I can assure
you that the Departments of Energy and State continue to be engaged in
coordination of our activities to advance GNEP.
ADVANCED BURNER REACTORS
Question. The United States and the world have past experience with
fast reactors that have led to questions about cost of operations and
the potential proliferation threat. What will be the focus of advanced
burner reactors and how will it address past concerns?
Answer. The focus of the advanced burner test reactor will be to
demonstrate the capability of destroying transuranic elements (which
include plutonium) with repeated recycle. The advanced burner test
reactor will incorporate the very latest in safety and security
features.
MOX PROGRAM
Question. Mr. Secretary, I am very concerned about the MOX program.
This nonproliferation initiative uses the existing French recycling
technology to fabricate nuclear fuel using a mixture of weapons grade
plutonium (5 percent) and uranium (95 percent) to be burned in a
civilian reactor. This program, when fully realized will destroy 68
tons of plutonium in the U.S. and Russian stockpiles. Can you please
update the committee on the status of this program and the status of
the liability agreement with Russia?
Answer. The Department of Energy has made significant progress in
implementing the plutonium disposition program in the past year. The
United States and Russia successfully completed negotiations of a
liability protocol for the plutonium disposition program last summer.
The protocol is currently under final review within the Russian
Government. Senior officials from the Russian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and the Russian Atomic Energy Agency have assured us that there
are no substantive issues with the agreed language and that it will be
signed in the near future. In addition, the Department received
authorization to begin construction of the MOX facility from the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, began irradiation of MOX fuel lead
assemblies in a nuclear reactor, and began site preparation work at the
Savannah River Site. Current plans call for construction of the U.S.
MOX facility to start in 2006. To support this effort, the Department
has been working on validating the U.S. MOX project cost and schedule
baseline as part of our project management process and will have a
validated baseline in place by the end of this year consistent with the
requirements in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
RISK INSURANCE--EPACT 2005
Question. The Energy Policy Act (EPACT) of 2005 authorized the
Department to establish a risk insurance program that would compensate
utilities if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission fails to comply with
specific schedules or reviews or if litigation delays full operations.
The Department has provided just $2 million to support the
establishment of the program regulations.
What is the timing of standby support program? When will the
regulations be finalized and the program become operational?
Answer. The Department is developing a rule for implementing the
standby support or Federal risk insurance provisions of EPACT. The
rulemaking is scheduled to be completed by August 2006 in accordance
with the requirements of EPACT. The Department issued the interim final
rule on May 8, 2006.
GLOBAL RISK LIABILITY PROTECTION
Question. Part of the GNEP plan is a global nuclear solution and
international collaboration on new advanced reactors. The
administration has negotiated the Convention on Supplemental
Compensation for Nuclear Damages in 1997 and submitted it to the Senate
in 2002. This program is an international liability standard similar to
Price Anderson. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings in
2005, but no action has been taken. I am told that most U.S. nuclear
companies are very reluctant to embark upon foreign work without such a
liability agreement in place.
Has the administration considered the impact that a lack of an
international regime on nuclear liability will have on their
international nuclear initiatives, such as GNEP?
Answer. Nuclear liability comes up as an issue in connection with
almost every nuclear project outside the United States--whether it is a
commercial project in which a U.S. nuclear supplier wants to
participate or a DOE activity undertaken by a contractor. The United
States has sought since the early 1990's to address these concerns in a
comprehensive manner through the establishment of a global nuclear
liability regime that includes the United States. These efforts
culminated in the adoption of the Convention on Supplementary
Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) in 1997 at a Diplomatic
Conference under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA). The United States was the chief proponent of the CSC since it
is designed to address U.S. concerns over nuclear liability in a manner
that will not require the United States to make any substantive change
in our domestic nuclear liability law (the Price-Anderson Act).
Bringing the CSC into effect will establish a well-defined legal
framework for dealing with nuclear liability issues in a manner that
facilitates participation by U.S. firms in nuclear projects (including
those associated with GNEP) and, in the unlikely event of a nuclear
incident, provides for assured, prompt and meaningful compensation with
a minimum of litigation.
The administration strongly supports ratification of the CSC by the
United States and other countries as soon as possible. The
administration has submitted the CSC to the Senate for advice and
consent and has indicated that favorable action early this year is a
high priority. The administration also has been working with the IAEA
to promote ratification of the CSC by other countries. In particular,
the Department represents the United States on INLEX, the IAEA's group
of nuclear experts, whose mission includes promoting broad adherence to
the CSC. In addition, the Department participated last November in an
IAEA forum in Australia to promote ratification of the UCS by Pacific
Island and Asian countries and will participate in a similar forum for
Latin American countries later this year.
UNIVERSITY R&D PROGRAM
Question. This budget proposes to eliminate the funding for
University programs to support nuclear education and encourage students
to focus on nuclear related disciplines which have civilian and defense
capabilities. You might be interested to know that the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, following authorization of EPACT, did include
funding in its budget to develop an academic capability needed to
perform oversight responsibilities.
Why do you believe there is a policy disconnect between the NRC and
the DOE when it comes to supporting nuclear education?
Answer. We do not believe there is a policy disconnect between NRC
and DOE. The NRC's support to universities is for the purpose of
attracting engineering students to the NRC for employment
opportunities. The DOE objective was to address the issue of declining
student enrollments in, and closure of, university programs during the
1980's and 1990's. Over the last few years, there has been a
significant increase in student enrollments in nuclear engineering
programs, achieving the Department's goal of enrollments of 1,500
students. During the same time, the number of nuclear engineering
programs in the United States has increased as well. We believe that a
strong nuclear engineering education infrastructure is in place and
that the efforts of the universities and industry as well as continued
demand for nuclear engineers will sustain enrollments and nuclear
engineering programs.
While the Department of Energy has not requested specific funding
for the University Reactor Infrastructure and Education Support
Program, we will continue to fund research at nuclear engineering
schools through our directed research programs and awarded through the
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative. In May 2006, the Department
anticipates issuing a solicitation to universities requesting proposals
for participation in the Office of Nuclear Energy's research and
development. In addition, we anticipate continuing fellowships to
graduate students pursuing advanced degrees in transmutation and other
highly specialized fields associated with the fuel cycle.
NUCLEAR POWER FOR TRANSPORTATION FUELS
Question. GNEP is focused on enabling nuclear power for electricity
generation. However the transportation sector is the largest consumer
of energy in the country. With GNEP's emphasis on fuel recycling and
fast-neutron burner reactor development, I am concerned support for
high temperature reactors that are effective in producing hydrogen for
transportation will be overlooked or forgotten entirely. For example
funding for nuclear hydrogen research has been reduced from fiscal year
2006 levels.
How do we ensure that we don't abandon the research needed to
produce transportation fuels with nuclear energy and support a balanced
approach to solving our dependence on foreign oil?
Answer. The Department has not abandoned research needed to produce
transportation fuels with nuclear energy. Authorized by the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, the Next Generation Nuclear Plant program is on
track to meet the 2011 date to select a technology best suited to apply
heat and/or electricity to produce hydrogen at a cost competitive with
other transportation fuels.
GNEP REGULATION
Question. I understand the DOE plans to ``self-regulate'' the
facilities that will be developed to conduct research and development.
Ultimately a commercial-scale facility will be developed, assuming the
research is proven, and the NRC will need to perform the ultimate
licensing of such a facility.
As you may know, the NRC has not requested any funding to support
the GNEP program--has an agreement been reached with the NRC that
defines their involvement?
Answer. DOE would conduct the GNEP technology demonstration program
under authority granted by the Atomic Energy Act. However, DOE would
propose to engage the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) throughout
the technology demonstration phase to ensure that the technologies are
licensable by NRC when they are deployed commercially.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN OPTIONS
Question. Because of the large volume of spent nuclear fuel already
produced and the large infrastructure of treatment facilities and
burner reactors needed to deal with it, the GNEP program will take
several decades to have any impact on our high level waste problem.
There are a variety of opinions on Yucca arguing for delay in licensing
Yucca Mountain, even though a repository for high level waste will be
needed with or without GNEP. Others say that Yucca Mountain is needed
right away for Navy fuels and to dispose of high level waste now stored
at many DOE facilities from our cold war weapons program. Still others
say that GNEP may fail and so the United States must actively pursue
Yucca Mountain for spent nuclear fuel to ensure that we do not
foreclose that disposal option.
What is your view on this and the approach we should take with
Yucca Mountain?
Answer. The country needs Yucca Mountain under any fuel cycle
scenario and this administration is committed to the successful
licensing and operation of the site. Even with a fully successful GNEP
development and implementation, the residues from the recycling process
will still need geologic disposal. In addition, approximately 13,000
metric tons of Department of Energy (DOE) vitrified high-level waste
and DOE spent nuclear fuel could not be recycled and still requires a
repository. Moreover, the applicability of GNEP technologies for
commercial spent fuel over 15 years old is still uncertain. The
government has the obligation to take and dispose of the Nation's
waste, and our mission is to provide permanent geologic disposal under
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. We need to start fulfilling that
responsibility now with respect to the 50,000 metric tons of commercial
spent fuel already generated and the additional 2,000 metric tons being
generated annually.
While the potential waste minimization benefits of GNEP on Yucca
Mountain would be profoundly positive, any changes to the operation of
the Yucca Mountain repository would occur only after GNEP technologies
have been adequately demonstrated. Today, there will be no changes in
the license application under development and we will proceed with our
current plan for the existing waste inventory as well as the waste
being generated.
LEGISLATIVE REFORMS
Question. The administration is preparing a package of legislative
reforms modifying the authorization for Yucca Mountain. Among the many
modifications, the proposal seeks to stage the emplacement of spent
fuel to allow it to cool.
How will this strategy impact long-term storage and how will it be
coordinated with the GNEP recycling efforts?
Answer. Repository designs have consistently included aging
capability needed to allow the spent fuel received from the utility
sites to cool until it is suitable for permanent underground disposal.
These aging facilities are an integral part of our disposal operations.
Although GNEP offers the promise for a more efficient fuel cycle in the
future because it generates a lower volume of waste, there are no
current plans to store existing spent fuel for the possibility of
recycling it in the future.
Question. Can you please explain why the Department has decided to
make these modifications to the Yucca Mountain project now and what
impact this will have on schedule and budget estimates?
Answer. Since the Department had always intended to have spent fuel
aging capability deployed at the repository, the availability of early
spent fuel aging facilities would not impact current repository
planning. Cost and schedule development is currently underway for the
clean-canistered approach to repository waste receipt announced last
October, and will be available later this year.
WASTE CONUNDRUM
Question. As you are probably aware the construction of 19 new
reactor projects are under discussion and this will add to the existing
large volume of waste waiting final disposal. By 2010, the amount of
spent fuel stored at reactor sites across the country will exceed the
statutory limit of 70,000 tons of spent fuel that can be placed in
Yucca Mountain. If the NRC agrees to extend the license of all existing
reactors this will generate up to 120,000 tons of spent fuel, which is
the ``technical'' capacity of the mountain. This doesn't begin to
address spent fuel generated from new reactors.
If we do not address the large growing volume of spent fuel through
a waste reduction strategy proposed through GNEP, how will we deal with
all the spent fuel?
Answer. If the volume reduction benefits of GNEP are not realized,
it will be necessary for the Department to develop additional
repositories to deal with all the spent fuel that is expected to be
generated by the current fleet of reactors as well as the additional
new reactors currently being considered. Removing the statutory limit
of 70,000 metric tons currently imposed on disposal at Yucca Mountain
will temporarily delay the need for the next repository. The
combination of waste minimization and removing the 70,000 metric ton
limit could delay the need for another repository until the next
century.
INTERIM STORAGE
Question. Some have proposed that we move our spent fuel to a
central interim location, or locations, until it can be processed in a
recycle facility. Others fear that once moved, the fuel will remain
there forever, especially if recycling proves to be technically
impossible or commercially unviable.
What assurances could be provided to a host community for temporary
storage that it won't be stuck with the fuel from a hundred reactors
forever?
Answer. The Department has made no decisions regarding the timing
for receiving spent fuel for recycling, or the locations at a recycling
site where the spent fuel would be recycled. It is anticipated that the
approach to receiving spent fuel will be examined as part of the
project definition and conceptual design phase that will occur over the
next 2 years.
Question. In the fiscal year 2006 Conference Report Congress
directed the Department to develop an interim storage plan and provide
grant funding to communities interested in locating such a facility in
their area. There are communities in my State that are very eager to
work with the Department and to initiate the siting process. When will
the Department complete its plan for the interim storage facilities and
when do you expect to release the funds to interested communities? What
direction will you give these communities on the expenditure of these
funds?
Answer. The fiscal year 2006 Conference Report directed the
Department to address the development of an integrated spent fuel
recycling facilities. The Department received over 30 responses from
public and private sector interests in response to a Request for
Expressions of Interest issued in March 2006 for hosting advanced
recycling facility demonstrations. The Department expects to issue a
Request for Proposals later this spring and award contracts this year
to conduct site evaluation studies. The Department has initiated an
Environmental Impact Statement for the GNEP Technology Demonstration
Program that will consider locations for siting the integrated
recycling demonstration facilities. The results of the site evaluation
studies will help inform the evaluation of potential locations. At this
time, the GNEP Technology Demonstration Program does not contemplate a
dedicated interim storage facility for spent fuel.
GNEP--ENGINEERING DEMONSTRATION
Question. GNEP is focused on a near-term visible demonstration of
the closed fuel cycle and has chosen the Engineering Scale
Demonstration (ESD) at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina (SRS).
However, before the Department proceeds with the construction of the
UREX+ demonstration to recycle fuel it is important that the Department
is able to confirm that the fuel itself can be manufactured and
qualified in a reactor.
Before the Department undertakes a complicated construction
project, are you absolutely confident that this technology will deliver
a product that can be used and safely disposed in a fast reactor?
Answer. No decision has been made regarding the location or
locations for the GNEP technology demonstration projects. Technical
challenges do exist in the areas of the separation of spent nuclear
fuel, manufacture of new fuel from recycled products, and the
destruction of the long-lived radioactive materials in a nuclear
reactor. These challenges will be addressed both through continued
applied research and the new demonstration facilities.
Question. Without a fast reactor available in this country, how
will you test and qualify the fuel to determine whether or not you have
a viable product?
Answer. The transmutation fuels could be tested and qualified in
existing fast reactor facilities which are available internationally in
Japan, France, and Russia.
DOE--COLLABORATIVE R&D
Question. Traditionally, the Department hasn't always been
successful in fostering cooperative research among the offices within
the Department. There are relevant projects across the different
repository, nuclear energy, science, and non-proliferation programs
that can be integrated to take advantage of complimentary assets and
related developments. For example, the NNSA has started constructing
new MOX fuel production and fabrication facilities.
How will these parallel efforts be used to accelerate the GNEP
program?
Answer. The Office of Nuclear Energy is the lead office for
managing the GNEP program. In this capacity, NE will work with all of
the relevant program offices, including the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management, which has primary responsibility for the
geologic repository; the Office of Science, which will be involved in
simulation, research and development; and the National Nuclear Security
Administration, which will serve a key role in developing advanced
safeguards for the advanced recycle facilities. The Department will
seek to ensure that the lessons learned for the NNSA MOX program are
appropriately applied to the GNEP program.
RELIABLE FUEL SUPPLY
Question. GNEP has proposed that the United States and several
other countries should join together to supply nuclear reactors and
fuel to the rest of the world. Late last year, the Secretary committed
to down blend 17.4 tons of highly enriched uranium to establish the
initial supply of available fuel. The budget documents are unclear as
to how the cost of down blending the fuel will be paid and the
timetable and terms of this activity. In addition, it is unclear if the
Department has the authority to undertake this activity. Can you please
provide for us a budget and schedule for the down blending activities
and identify the existing authorities the Department will use to down
blend this material in order to establish a Reliable Fuel Supply.
Answer. The HEU is to be down blended at a commercial facility in
the United States that will be selected through a competitive
procurement. The current schedule is to issue a request for proposals
in April 2006, award a contract this summer, and begin shipments of HEU
to the winning bidder by the end of the fiscal year. Shipments will
continue through fiscal year 2008. Down blending of the HEU at the
commercial facility is to be completed by the end of 2009.
Funding is needed to recast metal at Y-12 National Security Complex
into a form suitable for shipment to the down blending contractor,
package the HEU for shipment to the contractor, and develop and procure
new shipping casks. The funding estimate for this work is approximately
$9 million in fiscal year 2006, $15 million in fiscal year 2007, and $8
million in fiscal year 2008. However, the Department of Energy proposes
that the cost of down blending, including chemical processing to remove
non-uranium constituents and procurement in the market of natural
uranium blend stock, be paid for by allowing the contractor to retain a
fraction of the resulting LEU. It is estimated that it will take
approximately 70 MT of LEU ($130 million at current prices), leaving
approximately 220 MT available for the Reliable Fuel Supply.
The Secretary has authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(AEA) and the USEC Privatization Act to enter into barter transactions
with regard to uranium. Under section 3(d) of the AEA, the Secretary is
to effectuate programs that encourage the ``widespread participation in
the development and utilization of atomic energy for peaceful
purposes.'' Under section 54 of the AEA the Secretary is authorized to
export special nuclear material, including enriched uranium, under the
terms of an agreement for cooperation arranged pursuant to section 123
of the Atomic Energy Act, consistent with the requirements of section
3112 of the USEC Privatization Act. Under section 55 of the AEA the
Secretary is ``authorized, to the extent [he] deems necessary to
effectuate the provisions of this Act'' to purchase or otherwise
acquire special nuclear material. Section 3112(d) of the USEC
Privatization Act authorizes the Secretary to ``sell natural and low-
enriched enriched uranium (including low-enriched uranium derived from
highly enriched uranium) from the Department of Energy's stockpile''
where determinations are made that the material is not necessary for
national security needs and that the sale will not have an adverse
material impact on the domestic uranium market, and where the price
paid is not less than the fair market value of the material. The HEU in
question was declared excess to national security in 1994. The
Secretary signed a determination that this activity would not have an
adverse material impact on the domestic uranium industries on November
4, 2005.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
Question. Congress has consistently supported the administration's
efforts to promote the use of safe and clean nuclear energy. In last
year's appropriations bill, this committee provided even more funding
than was requested by the Department. Also last year, the Senate, under
the leadership of Chairman Domenici, passed landmark energy
legislation, including a provision requested by the administration to
provide additional incentives, including risk insurance, for new
commercial nuclear power plants. My State is a leading site to host a
new commercial nuclear power plant, which will not only provide jobs
and stimulate economic development, but also could provide future rate
relief to my State's electricity consumers, by relieving some of the
burden of high cost natural gas currently used to generate electricity.
Within the context of the proposed Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership, does the administration remain strongly committed to
fostering the development of new commercial nuclear power plants in the
United States?
Answer. The administration is and remains strongly committed to the
development, licensing, and deployment of new nuclear power plants in
the United States. GNEP will build on the recent advances made by the
President and Congress to stimulate new nuclear plant construction in
the United States. This will be accomplished by demonstrating the
success of the streamlined regulations for siting, constructing, and
operating new nuclear plants through the Nuclear Power 2010 program,
and by implementing incentives enacted by the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPACT 2005). The Nuclear Power 2010 program is a high priority at the
Department of Energy for the near-term deployment of new nuclear power
plants. This key program is the joint industry and government
collaborative effort to address the barriers to deployment of new
nuclear power plants in the near-term.
NUCLEAR POWER 2010
Question. Why does the budget propose to reduce funding for Nuclear
Power 2010 program, which is the principal DOE program to support the
deployment of new commercial nuclear power plants on a fast track?
Answer. The proposed budget for the Nuclear Power 2010 program was
reduced due to the projected uncosted fiscal year program carryover
into fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007. Uncosted carryover can be
attributed to the delay in initiation of the two New Nuclear Plant
Licensing Demonstration projects with NuStart Energy Development LLC
and Dominion Energy, the slower than expected ramp-up by one reactor
vendor and an additional $10 million fiscal year 2006 appropriations
over the budget request.
Although we are optimistic that the industry will be able to move
work forward and accelerate project spending; we believe that with
these uncosted balances the work that needs to be done to keep these
projects on schedule will be able to be accomplished.
Question. Isn't this posture inconsistent with the plans and the
significant budget increase requested for GNEP?
Answer. The reduced fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Nuclear
Power 2010 program is consistent with the originally planned work scope
taking into consideration prior year carryover. The overall goals and
outcomes of the Nuclear Power 2010 program will support the overall
GNEP plan.
Question. If this committee decided to restore the proposed funding
cutback for the NP2010 program, would this not enable the Department to
work with industry nuclear power plants?
Answer. The President's budget request for the Nuclear Power 2010
program will support the project activities as originally planned
considering the program carryover expected at the end of fiscal year
2006.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN
Question. Yucca Mountain is critical and the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership program must always keep Yucca Mountain as a critical
component. Please elaborate on your testimony on the ways we need to
move forward with the licensing and construction of the Yucca Mountain
repository regardless of GNEP.
Answer. The administration is committed to the development of Yucca
Mountain with or without the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).
Under any fuel cycle scenario, there will be a need for Yucca Mountain
for the permanent disposal of waste.
The Department needs to move forward with the licensing and
construction of Yucca Mountain that embodies the Secretary's direction
for safer, simpler, and more reliable operations. We need to ensure
that the license application process is based on sound science and that
we demonstrate through our actions that we have met the quality
assurance requirements of a nuclear licensee. In that regard, the
Department is conducting additional work for the submittal of the
license application to address the amended draft Environmental
Protection Agency Radiation Protection Standards to extend the period
of compliance from 10,000 to 1 million years as well as accommodate
clean-canistered approach to spent fuel handling operations.
Additionally, the Department is working with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC), industry and the utilities to develop the
specifications for a canister that can be added to the license
application materials.
In order for the Department to receive a license from the NRC, it
must demonstrate that it can operate under nuclear standards and
requirements. This involves the establishment of a culture of
credibility and integrity that earns respect regarding how it operates.
We will also be investing significant time and resources in developing
this culture.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid
ECONOMICS
Question. DOE repeatedly has stated that it is premature to develop
a cost estimate for the GNEP program. But the National Academy of
Sciences presented cost estimates in 1996 based on several different
fuel cycles, including one based on actinide-burning fast reactors, and
DOE developed a very detailed cost estimate for the Accelerator
Transmutation of Waste program in 1999. If DOE believes that these
estimates are no longer appropriate, why can't it show exactly why that
is the case?
Answer. In 1996, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a
study entitled ``Nuclear Waste: Technologies for Separations and
Transmutation.'' This study was technically very complete, and
incorporated most technical knowledge available at the time. Cost
studies used data available in the early 1990's, in particular for the
cost of construction and operation of large separations plants, and
focused mostly on data from then recently-built reprocessing plants in
Europe. Data available in 2006 is significantly different due to two
factors: first, operational experience developed within the French
program since that report was written indicates several ways to very
significantly reduce the cost of reprocessing; secondly, data available
from research performed under the auspices of the Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative point to new technologies that will significantly reduce the
footprint--and therefore the cost--of reprocessing facilities.
Furthermore, the NAS report was developed at a time when the
prospect for nuclear energy growth was low, and when cheap oil was
plentiful. Under these conditions, its cost analysis ignored several
benefits of implementing separations and transmutation strategy, namely
the possibility of avoiding additional repositories beyond Yucca
Mountain, and the global peace dividend associated with a stable,
proliferation resistant global nuclear enterprise.
The Department of Energy (DOE) study on the cost of implementing an
Accelerator Driven Transmutation of Waste infrastructure, published in
1999, indicated very high costs associated with using an accelerator
approach, which has since been abandoned in the United States, and has
been seriously scaled back in Europe and in Japan. Both France and
Japan are now proposing long term approaches similar to the technical
approach proposed by the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)
initiative.
A full lifecycle economic analysis for the technologies proposed
within the GNEP program is underway.
Question. Given a flat budget overall for DOE, what related
programs are you giving up to pursue this program?
Answer. In fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated $79.2 million
(which includes the across-the-board rescissions) for the Advanced Fuel
Cycle Initiative (AFCI). The Department is requesting $170.8 million in
new funding to accelerate efforts to develop and demonstrate the
advanced recycling technologies. The funding request is part of a
broader prioritization of DOE program activities affecting not just
AFCI but other programs within the Department.
Question. What are the estimate costs according to the GEN IV
program for the design of fast neutron reactors?
Answer. The Generation IV program does not have a specific cost
estimate for the design of fast reactors. These costs will be estimated
over the next 2 years as the Department prepares the conceptual design
of the advanced burner reactor and works to develop a baseline schedule
and cost for demonstration of the technology. Under the Advanced Fuel
Cycle Initiative, the Department would propose to invest $25 million on
the advanced burner reactor technology in fiscal year 2007. However, as
with the design of any complicated system, more definitive estimates
will be developed as the design details are developed.
In February 2006, the United States signed a Generation IV systems
arrangement agreement with the Commissariat a L'Energie Atomique of
France and the Japan Atomic Energy Agency to cooperate on the
development of sodium fast reactors. It is anticipated that this
agreement will establish the foundation for further collaborations on
fast reactors with these countries, and others that are expected to
join the agreement in the future, in support of GNEP.
Question. How many existing reactors in the United States could use
MOX fuel? How many would require costly retrofits?
Answer. About 25 percent of the current light water reactors in the
United States could use MOX fuel, while another 50 percent would
require retrofits. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership initiative
does not propose to use MOX fuel; but would propose to develop a more
advanced and proliferation resistant fuel.
Question. How much of the $250 million requested for fiscal year
2007 is new money, and how much is re-categorized spending?
Answer. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is a new initiative
that proposes to accelerate work underway within the Department's
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) to develop more advanced
proliferation resistant spent fuel recycling technology. In fiscal year
2006, Congress appropriated $79.2 million (which includes the across
the board rescissions) for AFCI. In fiscal year 2007, the Department
has requested $170.8 million in new funding to accelerate development
and demonstration of the advanced recycling technologies that are part
of GNEP.
Question. What are your key technical hurdles to implementing a
system of reprocessing? How confident are you that you can develop
reasonable cost estimates for overcoming these hurdles (given the
Department's poor track record on costing out large, complicated
projects)?
Answer. The major technical challenges are in the areas of the
separation of spent nuclear fuel and the manufacture of new fuel from
recycled products. Both of these challenges will be addressed through
continued applied research and technology development. The Department
will conduct engineering design and environmental studies over the next
2 years that will support the preparation of baseline costs and
schedules for the demonstration of the separations of spent nuclear
fuel, burning of the transuranics, and the development of a fast burner
test reactor. We are confident that the work and efforts will provide
the required information to support these baselines.
INTEGRATED INTERIM STORAGE/REPROCESSING
Question. In DOE's budget request for the GNEP program, the
following statement is made under the heading of ``Detailed
Justification'' for ``Systems Analysis'':
``In fiscal year 2006, the Department will focus its systems
analysis efforts on evaluating the integrated fuel cycle system it has
chosen to demonstrate at engineering scale. It will develop a plan for
integrating a spent fuel recycle capability with interim storage of
commercial spent nuclear fuel and complete an assessment of the
proliferation resistance of certain aqueous separations technologies.
This `Spent Fuel Recycling Plan' will be submitted to Congress as
requested in the fiscal year 2006 Appropriations language.''
Can DOE explain what is meant by ``interim storage'' in this
context?
Answer. Interim storage refers to the range of possibilities of
storage of spent fuel from the time it is discharged from a reactor
until it is separated. The Department has made no decisions regarding
the timing for receiving and storing spent fuel that would be
incidental to recycling or the locations for the spent fuel recycling
demonstration facilities. It is anticipated that the approach to
receiving and storing spent fuel incidental to recycling will be
examined as part of the project definition and conceptual design phase
that will occur over the next 2 years.
Question. What sites are under consideration for such interim
storage?
Answer. The Department is not presently considering sites to be
used solely for interim storage as part of a recycle strategy. Future
site evaluation studies will identify the sites to be considered for
recycling demonstration facilities and will consider the extent to
which such sites have the capability to provide storage related to the
recycling process.
Question. What criteria will you use for identifying potential
sites?
Answer. The Department has not yet developed criteria that would be
used to identify potential sites for spent fuel recycling demonstration
facilities.
Question. Are foreign sites under consideration?
Answer. We do not anticipate using foreign sites to store U.S.
spent fuel.
Question. What analysis will be made about the costs of interim
storage on-site as compared with interim storage at Yucca Mountain as
compared with pool or dry-cask storage at potential reprocessing sites?
Answer. The Department has not conducted analyses comparing costs
of interim storage onsite to storage that is incidental to
demonstration of advanced recycling technologies. The Department does
not view process storage in connection with the GNEP Technology
Demonstration Program as a means of fulfilling its existing
responsibility to take and dispose of the spent fuel currently being
stored at reactor sites.
SPENT FUEL RECYCLING PLAN
Question. What offices will lead on the production of this report
in the DOE and what other offices within DOE or what agencies will be
involved?
Answer. The spent fuel recycling plan will be developed by the
Office of Nuclear Energy (NE). NE has the lead in developing and
managing the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership initiative. NE is
assisted by the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, which
has primary responsibility for the geologic repository; the Office of
Science, which is involved in simulation and basic research; and the
National Nuclear Security Administration, which serves a key role in
advancing non-proliferation, developing advanced safeguards for the
recycling demonstration facilities, and in developing the fuel services
component of GNEP.
Question. Will a ``threat assessment'' be a part of this plan?
Answer. The plan will identify what assessments must be done to
enable recycling of spent fuel. Those assessments will cover safety,
environmental, proliferation resistance, and physical protection of
radioactive materials in accordance with laws, regulations, and DOE
Orders.
Question. What opportunities for public involvement will be there
in the drafting of this plan?
Answer. The Department anticipates delivering the spent fuel
recycling plan to Congress by May 31, 2006. There will be extensive
opportunities for public involvement in conjunction with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses of alternatives for facilities
envisioned as part of the GNEP Technology Demonstration Program.
Question. In what ways will the DOE produce this report in order to
ensure compliance with NEPA?
Answer. The Department remains committed to meeting the letter and
the spirit of NEPA and will conduct a thorough review of the
environmental impacts of appropriate alternatives. On March 22, 2006,
the Department issued an Advance Notice of Intent (NOI) announcing its
intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the GNEP
Technology Demonstration Program. The Report to Congress is separate
from this NEPA review and sets forth DOE's present vision for the GNEP
Technology Demonstration Program.
Question. How will this assessment affect the continued
preparations for opening Yucca Mountain?
Answer. The spent fuel recycling plan will articulate the
Department's plan to demonstrate an integrated fuel cycle at a scale
appropriate to determine the feasibility of full scale operations. The
development and implementation of this plan does not affect the
Department's continued preparation for licensing, construction and
operation of Yucca Mountain. A geologic repository is a necessity under
all fuel cycle scenarios, and the Department's budget request of $544
million relating to Yucca Mountain will allow us to make steady
progress on Yucca Mountain. The administration is committed to begin
operations at Yucca Mountain repository as soon as possible so that we
can begin to fulfill our obligation to dispose of the approximate
55,000 metric tons of spent fuel already generated and the approximate
2,000 metric tons being generated annually. We have no plans to delay
disposal of this spent fuel until full scale recycling facilities are
available.
Question. To what extent will this report assess the economic
implications of future fuel cycle activities?
Answer. The Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Recycling Program Plan
addresses the near-term costs of the GNEP Technology Demonstration
Program. The report, which is being provided to Congress in response to
fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Development (EWD) Conference Report
language, does not assess the economic implications of the future fuel
cycle activities or technologies. The report focuses on the
demonstration of the advanced recycling technologies on a scale
sufficient to evaluate potential commercialization of the technologies.
System analyses are part of this plan as we go forward and will assess
the full economic implications of advanced spent nuclear fuel
recycling.
WASTE
Question. How much and what kind of waste would be produced by
reprocessing? By transmutation?
Answer. The volume and quantities of waste from reprocessing and
transmutation are not known in detail today, since they will depend not
only on process design considerations but also on the results of tests
performed with the GNEP demonstration facilities. For example, no one
has operated a fast burner reactor with transuranic fuel and the
technical results from engineering-scale treatment of that spent fuel
for further recycle will be available for the first time in
approximately 15 years. In the meantime, laboratory scale tests will be
performed using irradiated specimens from foreign fast test reactors
(PHENIX in France and JOYO in Japan). Regardless of the processes
finally chosen, there will be no high level liquid waste products.
From the UREX+ separations plant, approximately 94 percent of the
products will be highly purified uranium which will probably be stored
for use as fuel in future fast power reactors. If it is judged to be
surplus, it would be classified as a low level waste and disposed of by
shallow burial. Approximately 25 percent by weight of the spent fuel
going to a UREX+ plant is fuel cladding and end pieces. It will be
compressed and disposed of as high level waste. A small amount of the
cladding will be used to form an alloy with the fission product
technetium for disposal in the same metal waste container.
The fission product iodine will be collected from the dissolver
off-gas, placed in a stable waste form and placed in the repository.
Cesium and strontium will be separated, converted to an alumino-
silicate waste form and stored for approximately 200 years, by which
time it will be a low level waste and disposed of by shallow burial.
The remaining fission product, constituting approximately 5 percent of
the spent fuel, will be mixed with borosilicate glass (with up to 50
percent of the final glass logs being fission products) and disposed of
at Yucca Mountain.
The transuranics in the spent fuel, constituting approximately 1.1
percent by weight, will be blended with fresh make-up uranium and
converted to fuel for the fast test reactor. Recycle through fast
burner reactors will result in a small quantity of fission product and
process losses being removed from the processing system each cycle. The
material will be formed into an inert waste form for disposal. The
total quantities will be a very small fraction of the quantity of spent
fuel entering the UREX+ processing plant (which under the current once-
through fuel cycle, would go directly to Yucca Mountain). Thus the
overall quantities and heat loads of the final waste will be reduced
greatly, allowing the technical capacity of the Yucca Mountain to be
substantially increased.
Question. Does DOE envision inviting other countries that we don't
want to reprocess to ship their spent fuel to the United States? Could
DOE provide a list of the countries whose spent fuel we would be
accepting and reprocessing?
Answer. We do not envision accepting spent fuel pursuant to the
GNEP vision until there is sufficient advanced recycling capability
available in the United States. At that time, we would have to consider
the conditions under which the United States would reprocess another
country's spent fuel. To meet nonproliferation objectives, the United
States currently receives U.S.-origin Highly Enriched Uranium spent
nuclear fuel from foreign research reactors. Additionally, the United
States has from time-to-time received spent fuel from another country
to achieve nonproliferation and other Departmental missions.
PAST REPROCESSING RECORD
Question. Given that the United States has built three commercial
reprocessing plants and none of them have worked, would there not be a
danger that the reprocessing site would be turned into an interim
storage site? (Indeed, that is exactly what happened to the
reprocessing plant that GE built but never operated in Illinois.)
Answer. Recycling of commercial spent fuel in the United States was
ended in 1977 by Presidential order. Commercial reprocessing had been
carried out from 1966 to 1972 at West Valley, New York, at which time
the plant was shut down for modifications based on increased Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) safety requirements. The combination of the
Presidential Order and modification costs resulted in a decision to end
the plant's operations. Two other commercial reprocessing plants
(Morris, Illinois and Barnwell, South Carolina) were built but never
operated with radioactive materials. Decreasing costs of low-enriched
uranium have discouraged private investments in spent fuel
reprocessing, particularly since the Federal Government assumed full
responsibility for spent fuel management with the passage of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982 (as amended in 1987).
The Department intends to carry out the GNEP initiative in an
orderly manner over several decades with the goal of having in place an
immensely more efficient fuel cycle in the future. The first phase is
the demonstration of technical feasibility over the next decade. If the
technologies are shown to be technically feasible, then the Department
will seek to promote their deployment in a manner that is commercially
viable.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act constrains the extent to which the
Department can undertake interim storage and the administration's
recently proposed amendment to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act did not
include provisions related to interim storage of commercial spent fuel.
However, we understand there are some members of Congress who are
interested in pursuing interim storage as a temporary means of managing
spent fuel while Yucca Mountain and recycling technology are being
developed. Regardless, two conditions must be met. We must continue to
ensure that Yucca Mountain is available regardless of fuel cycle
scenario and regardless of the way the Department proposes to manage
spent fuel, pending its disposal.
FAST REACTOR RECORD AND SAFETY
Question. What are the safety risks of sodium-cooled reactor as
opposed to a thermal water cooled reactor? Please describe the
incidents that have occurred related to sodium cooled reactors.
Answer. Both technologies are extremely safe. This conclusion is
based on decades of operating experience with light water reactors and
from large-scale demonstrations of sodium-cooled reactors in several
countries. With respect to sodium-cooled reactors, these include:
--More than 30 years experience with the French 560 MWt Phenix fast
reactor;
--30 years experience in the United States with the EBR-II fast
reactor;
--30 years experience with Japan's 100 MWt Joyo fast reactor;
--30 years experience with Russia's 1000 MWt BN 350 reactor;
--25 years experience with Russia's 1470 MWt BN 600 reactor;
--13 years experience in the United States with the 400 MWt Fast Flux
Test Facility; and
--13 years experience with France's 2900 MWt Superphenix reactor.
Phenix and EBR-II have had issues involving such things as minor
sodium leaks, but there have been no nuclear-related accidents at
either of them.
In addition, the passively safe design features that have been
demonstrated in sodium-cooled reactors will provide an added layer of
safety to Advanced Burner Reactors (ABRs). ABRs will undergo a safety
review and certification process to assure safe operation.
PROLIFERATION CONCERNS
Question. Would it be possible, and if so, how hard would it be,
for a country or terrorist group to extract pure plutonium from the
proposed transuranic radionuclide mix (for example, in a glove box)?
Could a process such as pyroprocessing be adjusted to provide more pure
plutonium?
Answer. A country and a terrorist group represent two very
different proliferation threats. In the case of a state actor, it has
long been understood that radiation barriers provide no significant
protection against chemical separation. Significant radiation barriers
may provide protection against theft by sub-state actors depending upon
the dedication of the sub-state group and the strength of the radiation
field.
From a state, or sub-state perspective, significant shielded glove
box facilities and supporting equipment would be required to separate a
weapon-significant quantity of plutonium from the UREX+ product. These
facilities are commonly co-located with or adjacent to hot cell
capabilities since typical small laboratory-scale radiochemical
operations usually involve a variety of different radiation fields and
contamination hazards. A PUREX facility is designed to produce and
isolate plutonium in a readily usable form; a UREX+ facility is not.
Further processing of the product of a UREX+ facility would require
access to shielded radiochemical facilities and technical expertise to
separate the plutonium into a more readily usable form. A sub-state
actor would have to secure both long term access to these facilities
and the radiochemical expertise required to perform the operations.
Obviously, the state actor risks are higher in either case, since the
resources of a state actor are significant in comparison with non-state
adversaries. This is why IAEA safeguards are required on all non weapon
state nuclear materials and facilities--including laboratory scale
facilities. Reengineering a UREX+ facility could be detected by IAEA
safeguards that are designed to detect such process modifications.
Pyroprocessing, by design, is not capable of making clean
separations of plutonium. It is also a much more difficult technology
to master than basic aqueous processes since it involves specialized
high temperature molten salt and dry box hot cell facilities. As such,
it is expected that proliferators will use simpler, less costly and
proven aqueous technology, such as PUREX, to separate plutonium.
Question. It is vital to ensure that plutonium already separated by
reprocessing is adequately secured against terrorist theft. What more
should the U.S. Government be doing to ensure that nuclear stockpiles
around the world are secure and accounted for and cannot fall into
terrorist hands?
Answer. I share your concern that separated plutonium and other
nuclear weapons usable materials currently available in civil nuclear
programs around the world could fall into the hands of terrorists. For
this reason, as part of NNSA's Global Threat Reduction Initiation
(GTRI), NNSA has been working on an accelerated basis to ensure that
highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium currently used in
civilian applications around the world are subject to effective
physical protection. Furthermore, GTRI is developing a path forward for
recovering and dispositioning these nuclear weapons-usable materials to
high security sites within the United States or within another GTRI
partner country with excellent nonproliferation and nuclear security
credentials. To that end, NNSA currently is negotiating with several
countries that possess these vulnerable, high-risk materials to develop
a plan for recovery and disposition that will reduce or eliminate the
risk of theft or diversion of these so-called ``gap materials'' that
pose a security concern to the United States and the international
community.
Question. Dr. Finck of Argonne National Laboratories stated in his
presentation before the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative's Semi-Annual
Review Meeting in August of 2003, ``Expect that proposed dual tier fuel
cycle cannot be made intrinsically proliferation resistant.'' Why is
UREX+ not considered proliferation-resistant? What are the issues here?
Answer. Dr. Finck's statement refers to ``intrinsic'' proliferation
resistance. Intrinsic resistance is understood to mean the
proliferation resistance of a system in the absence of any
institutional, legal, or technical verification measures. The term
``proliferation resistance'' should not be confused with being
``proliferation-proof.'' A system that is truly intrinsically
proliferation proof would not require safeguards.
UREX+ is an aqueous separation method, and therefore it is possible
to reengineer facilities and systems to separate plutonium. However,
IAEA safeguards and other legal and institutional measures are
significant ``extrinsic'' proliferation resistant features and would
provide for the timely detection of tampering and re-engineering.
We do not anticipate technical characteristics alone make the UREX+
process immune to exploitation by would-be proliferators. That is why
we are proposing as part of our GNEP proposal to consider future
recycling only in a limited number of fuel cycle states that already
possess reprocessing technology.
INTERNATIONAL CONCERNS
Question. Secretary Bodman, in a speech he gave on November 7,
2005, at the 2005 Carnegie International Nonproliferation Conference,
said: ``It is important to note that in addressing reprocessing--or
recycling--technologies for dealing with spent fuel, we are guided by
one overarching goal: to seek a global norm of no separated
plutonium.'' and, ``Regardless of whether one believes reprocessing has
worked well in those nations where it is practiced, I think everyone
would agree that the stores of plutonium that have built up as a
consequence of conventional reprocessing technologies pose a growing
proliferation risk that requires vigilant attention.'' Given these
statements, is it correct to say that the United States will not
support the reprocessing of U.S. origin and controlled spent fuel in
any of the foreign reprocessing plants, other than those already in
place, such as with Japan? Should the U.S. reconsider that agreement?
Given these statements, can you explain why the French plutonium
company AREVA has reportedly stated that it hopes to sign new
reprocessing contracts covering U.S. spent fuel?
Answer. We have made no decisions regarding reprocessing of U.S.-
origin spent fuel in foreign reprocessing plants. It is an issue that
needs to be examined in more depth as we establish partner nations
under the GNEP vision.
Question. Secretary Bodman has expressed doubt in the U.S. being
able to afford to fulfill the GNEP vision by itself. Yet, for the near
term the U.S. DOE strategy is to go it alone. What will be the schedule
and pathway for intellectually and financially engaging international
partners?
Answer. Earlier this year, the Deputy Secretary of Energy and Under
Secretary of State consulted government officials in a number of
countries including the United Kingdom, France, Russia, Japan and
China, each of whom have large investments in the commercial fuel
cycle. These discussions focused on the objectives of the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership initiative and there was general agreement
on the objectives. Since then, we have continued diplomatic and
technical outreach to these and other nations which would be
prospective partners. The U.S. strategy is to work with international
partners in developing these technologies. For example, in January the
United States, France and Japan signed an agreement to guide the
cooperation on the research and development of sodium cooled fast
reactors, a reactor concept that is under consideration for the
Advanced Burner Reactor.
NEXT GENERATION NUCLEAR PLANT (NGNP)
Question. With the new focus and funding drain due to GNEP, can the
United States still afford to pursue a GEN IV plant that targets both
electricity and hydrogen production?
Answer. The Department is committed to pursuing the research and
development necessary to inform a decision in 2011 on deployment of the
Gen IV technology. The Department has requested $23 million in fiscal
year 2007 to keep the program on pace to support a fiscal year 2011
decision. Research underway includes development of coated particle
fuel, qualification of high temperature materials for use in the
reactor system, and development of analytical codes and methods to be
used in assessing system performance. In addition, the very high
temperature reactor technologies being investigated as the Next
Generation Nuclear Plant could be among the concepts considered for
deployment as small scale reactors under GNEP.
TIMING
Question. To date, UREX+ has been tested only on the gram scale,
using technologies different than those that would be used for full-
scale operation and separating a somewhat different set of materials
than is now proposed--yet it is now proposed to use it for processing
the 63,000 tons of commercial spent fuel slated for disposal in a
geological repository, and perhaps more. Wouldn't it be wiser to wait
until the technology has been further developed before proceeding to an
expensive engineering-scale demonstration, and before choosing between
this technology and other proposed separations technologies?
Answer. The separations technologies that the Department proposes
testing have been studied for over 5 years and have been demonstrated
at the laboratory scale in kilograms quantities. The Department
believes that the UREX+ separations process is the best known and
proven today. Only through proceeding with engineering scale
demonstrations of the separations, fuels and reactor technologies will
we learn the practicality and economics of deploying industrial scale
facilities. Only by beginning these demonstrations now will we discover
means to reduce their costs and deployment times. And only by beginning
them now can we realistically expect them to be ready by the time they
are needed in the future for commercial scale deployment.
Question. Why should we choose between potential reprocessing
technologies in the next few years, rather than allowing whatever
technologies appear to be promising to continue to develop? Are we in
danger of choosing a technology because it can be made available
sooner, forgoing technologies that may be more promising but may take
longer to develop?
Answer. It is crucial that we start today to accelerate and
demonstrate a more proliferation resistant fuel cycle--a fuel cycle for
the future that can provide the benefits of nuclear energy to the world
while effectively addressing civilian inventories of plutonium and
reducing the quantity and toxicity of nuclear waste requiring a
geologic repository.
Over the last 5 years, the Department has pursued development of
various flow sheets for a more proliferation resistant separations
technology. The Uranium Extraction Plus or UREX+ has been successfully
demonstrated at the ``laboratory scale''.
REPROCESSING IN EUROPE (TRADITIONAL PUREX REPROCESSING)
Question. The concept of ``recycling'' conveys the notion that
countries such as France and the United Kingdom re-use the plutonium as
they go, but actually MOX fuel is not made and used immediately. (Nor
is the high-level liquid waste generated from reprocessing immediately
vitrified; rather, it is stored in stainless steel tanks to cool.) More
than 200 metric tons of commercial plutonium worldwide are separated
and have not been used as MOX and the surplus is building up each year.
Many reactors need costly modifications to use MOX and some reactors
cannot be modified. There are about 80 metric tons of surplus plutonium
at La Hague in France and similar amounts at Sellafield in the United
Kingdom and about 40 metric tons in Chelyabinsk, Russia. The United
Kingdom has no reactors that can use plutonium fuel and no operating
MOX factory. How can the United Kingdom effort be described as a
recycling program when the United Kingdom has amassed about 80 metric
tons of civil weapons-usable plutonium and has no plan to use this
material? (For Pu amounts reported to the IAEA--see INFCIRC 549, on
IAEA web site). Why do we expect that the proposed program will be more
successful in avoiding a buildup of the material separated by
reprocessing?
Answer. The GNEP vision would pursue different approaches to avoid
buildup of pure plutonium separated by reprocessing. Plutonium would
not be separated by itself; rather, plutonium would remain mixed with
other transuranic elements. The Advanced Burner Reactors would more
quickly consume these transuranic elements (including plutonium) than
the reactors that use plutonium-MOX. Finally, the United States would
pursue a phased approach that would bring the transuranic products from
UREX+ in equilibrium with the fuel needs for the demonstration of the
advanced burner reactor.
Question. How much transuranic waste has been created by
reprocessing in France and the United Kingdom, and how does it compare
with the original spent fuel volume? Are the French planning to dispose
of what they call ``intermediate waste'', including transuranic waste,
generated from reprocessing (separate from the vitrified high level
waste) in a deep geologic repository? How much of this waste will they
have from reprocessing compared with the volume of spent fuel?
Answer. France and the United Kingdom do not have a geologic
repository program and are developing long-term disposal plans that
would address many different wastes, including vitrified waste. The
structure of waste regulations in both countries differs from the
United States and the volumes of waste generated would not be directly
comparable.
Question. France uses plutonium fuel (MOX) in 20 out of 58
reactors, but the stockpile of civil plutonium continues to increase
with no end in sight. How can this growing stockpile be presented as
``recycling''? MOX fuel produces less than 10 percent of France's
nuclear electricity, but an official French report indicates that it
imposes about $1 billion per year in added electricity costs. Why does
Electricite de France (EDF), the state-owned utility forced to use MOX
fuel, place a negative value on plutonium they must take from the
reprocessing company (Cogema)? Isn't the French reprocessing company
almost wholly owned by the government (about 85 percent as of 2004)?
Answer. There are significant differences between the French
approach to recycling and the approach being explored by the United
States. The French MOX-recycling program is based on plutonium-only
separation using PUREX and is aimed at obtaining modest energy recovery
from that plutonium. The French program does not aim to maximize use of
a geologic repository nor address repository costs in its current
economics.
GNEP has a broad range of objectives, including decreasing
inventories of weapons-usable material (whether in used fuel or already
separated), avoiding separation of pure plutonium, incorporation of
newest safeguard design techniques, and making more efficient use of
the U.S. geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. While the French
program focuses on plutonium, the GNEP addresses proposed technologies
relating to plutonium, americium, curium, and neptunium, thereby
increasing waste management benefits. Recycle and consumption of
plutonium, americium and neptunium decrease the geologic heat load and
long-term potential doses. Recovery of uranium, at the purity level
equal to low-level waste, reduces the volume of the waste. If the GNEP
technologies are successful, the residual waste would be put into a
form that is more resistant to long-term leaching than once-through
used fuel, further reducing the technical requirements for geologic
repository design.
Question. The United Kingdom's THORP reprocessing plant, which
reprocesses foreign light water reactor fuel, had a major accident
which was discovered last year after several months (a leak of nuclear
material onto the floor of one cell, due to a broken process pipe). The
accident has resulted in the facility being shut down indefinitely,
with the possibility that it might not start back up. The operators of
this plant have asked the United Kingdom government to permanently
close the plant, which has never been profitable. What is the risk of
similar accidents and safety record in the United States if we pursue
reprocessing?
Answer. The overall safety record of fuel cycle operations in the
United States is excellent, and is the model that should be followed in
evaluation of fuel cycle issues. The safety of U.S. operations
routinely exceeds established industrial standards of the countries in
which they are deployed. The lessons learned from the leak at THORP, as
well as all other off-normal events, have been closely studied and are
well understood. The facilities under the GNEP initiative would be
subject to rigorous safety analyses and regulatory oversight.
ENVIRONMENTAL/NEPA
Question. What NEPA related requirements will have to be met in the
course of developing GNEP in the next year/years to come?
Answer. On March 22, 2006, the Department issued an Advance Notice
of Intent (NOI) for the GNEP Technology Demonstration Program. Over the
next 2 years, the Department plans to develop an Environmental Impact
Statement to assess the potential environmental impacts associated with
the GNEP Technology Demonstration Program. At an appropriate point in
the future, DOE will prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement to inform the ultimate decision of whether to proceed with
potential future actions to encourage the commercial-scale deployment
of proliferation-resistant GNEP Technology Demonstration Program
technologies.
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
Question. What was the nature of the briefings on GNEP given to and
responses from the countries which have been briefed on this program?
What companies were briefed as part of those briefings? And which U.S.
companies have been briefed?
Answer. Briefings by the U.S. Government on GNEP have proceeded
with a variety of countries. Prior to the February 6, 2006 public
announcement of GNEP, the administration consulted with officials from
the United Kingdom, France, Russia, Japan, China and the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the GNEP vision was well received in
each case. These were government-to-government meetings. Part of the
consultation with the officials from France included a meeting with
representatives from Areva. Further technical discussions on areas for
technology partnership are ongoing.
Shortly after the February 6, 2006 announcement of GNEP, a cable
was sent to all diplomatic posts providing information on GNEP.
Government delegations from Canada, the Republic of South Korea, and
Indonesia were briefed at their request. In addition, many science
counselors from embassies that expressed interest in learning more
about GNEP from Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa were briefed in
Washington. In March 2006, the IAEA Board of Governors was briefed,
including representatives from nearly 40 countries. The response to the
briefings reflected interest.
Since the announcement of GNEP, the Department has provided
briefings on GNEP to the U.S. nuclear industry through the Nuclear
Energy Institute, and the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners. The Department has held discussions with a number of
U.S. utilities and nuclear suppliers that might have an interest in
GNEP. The GNEP vision also has been discussed with representatives of
foreign government-owned nuclear companies or their American affiliates
at conferences or meetings on related matters (e.g., Generation IV).
Question. Former Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham has been named
Chairman of Areva, Inc. in the United States. As the French company
Areva strongly supports the development of reprocessing and favors
reprocessing U.S. spent fuel in France, do any conflict of interest
laws apply, and has Secretary Abraham lobbied the Department of Energy
on this issue?
Answer. Former Secretary Spencer Abraham terminated his Federal
service on January 31, 2005. He continues to be subject to the post-
employment restrictions of 18 U.S.C. 207(a). That section prohibits, in
part, a former employee from knowingly making, with the intent to
influence, any communication to or appearance before any employee of
any department, agency, or court of the United States on behalf of any
other person in connection with a particular matter involving a
specific party, in which the former employee participated personally
and substantially as an employee of the government. That section also
prohibits, a former employee from knowingly making such communications
or appearances when the former employee knows or reasonably should know
that the particular matter involving a specific party was actually
pending under his official responsibility within a period of 1 year
before the termination of his Federal service. Former Secretary Abraham
is no longer subject to a number of other post-employment restrictions
that ended 1 year after his Federal service terminated.
To the best of my knowledge, former Secretary Abraham has not
lobbied the Department on behalf of Areva, Inc.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Allard [continuing]. So we can move forward with
our deliberations.
And, without any more questions, I now declare the
subcommittee in recess.
[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., Tuesday, March 2, 2006, the
subcom-
mittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the
Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2007
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Domenici, Craig, Allard, Johnson, and
Inouye.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
STATEMENTS OF:
MARK LIMBAUGH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WATER AND SCIENCE,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
JOHN W. KEYS III, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. Good morning. Today the subcommittee is
going to take testimony on the fiscal year 2007 budget request
for the Bureau. Our panel will consist of the witnesses from
the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation.
Testifying for them will be Mark Limbaugh, Assistant Secretary
for Water and Science; and John W. Keys, III, Commissioner of
Reclamation. Commissioner, it is great to have you before us.
We understand that after this series of hearings over time that
this may be your last. You will be missed. It has been a good
stay. We hope you have enjoyed it. Things have been tough at
the Bureau, but we are in transition.
Thank you for appearing. I understand that the Bureau is
considering that your effective retirement time would be next
month. Is that correct?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Domenici, that is correct.
Senator Domenici. So certainly this is your last appearance
here. Again, thank you for your many years of service to the
Federal Government. Second, I want to wish you a very long and
happy retirement.
Now to the business at hand. The fiscal year 2007 budget
request for the Bureau totals $971.6 million, a decrease of
nearly $50 million from 2006, at least the enacted level of
2006, which was $1.0208 billion, a 9.5 percent decrease. That
is a pretty steep decrease. This is partially offset by
discretionary receipts of $33.8 million from the Central Valley
Project Restoration Fund and an $88 million rescission of
unobligated balances for At Risk Desert Terminal Lakes.
Highlights for the budget include, as we see it: $14.5
million for Water 2025, a $9 million increase for fiscal year
2006 level increase in that project. This initiative seeks to
make water more available in reclamation States through
enhanced conservation. Clearly, the money does not match up
with the size of the problem, but in this tight budget year I
do not know where it does.
Fifty-seven million dollars, another item, is a $2 million
increase from 2006 for the Animas-LaPlata. Funding will be
primarily provided for the continued construction of the Ridges
Basin Dam and Durango pumping plant. If I am wrong on any of
these, I would hope you would take note and note it in your
comments to us. However, it is my understanding that an
additional $12 million is needed to maintain that schedule and
we will work on that with you.
Thirty-eight-point-six million dollars for CALFED. That is
a $2 million increase from 2006. The funds will be used for
environmental water account, storage feasibility studies,
conveyance studies, and some other items.
One hundred twenty million dollars for operating, managing,
and improving California Central Valley Project. This is a $9
million increase over 2006.
And $69 million for 2007--that is a $7.6 million, 11
percent, increase--for ensuring the safety of reclamation dams.
Eight-point-five million for 2007, $7.5 million decrease
from the 2006 program level, for science and technology
programs.
And $39 million for 2007, the same amount as the enacted
level, for site security. The 2007 budget includes funding for
guards and surveillance of facilities, anti-terrorism upgrades,
law enforcement functions.
Ten million dollars for water recycling and reuse projects.
This is a $15 million decrease from 2006.
I anticipate that this tight budget will cause us some real
problems and I appreciate the fact that you have put together a
budget that is reasonably balanced as you see it, and we will
have our views to see whether we agree with that as we complete
our work.
Senator Reid is not here, but I understand if he has a
statement we will introduce it in the record, and it is with
his concurrence that we proceed without a minority member
today.
Senator Craig, very active in this committee, I yield to
you for whatever time you would like.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG
Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am sure that the Secretary and the Commissioner come
before us with the Bureau of Reclamation budget facing a 3.5
percent decrease from 2006 levels in what I would suggest,
although it may not be articulated by them, to be a frustrating
budget. I think all of us recognize, and certainly this
committee does and you do, Mr. Chairman, the aging
infrastructure that we are dealing with and the need to
obviously, to deliver water and its importance, and in the West
now more so than ever.
Before I go on, let me also recognize, as you have, that
Commissioner Keys is leaving us. John, I must tell you how
proud I have been of the service you have provided to us, to
our Government, to the West for a good number of years. John
and I go back a long ways. When he was serving in Idaho we
worked very closely together, and that relationship continued.
The Commissioner has been instrumental in developing the needed
Water 2025 program. He is returning to the West and he will
find a West just in the short time that he has been here that
is growing dramatically, a West that is populating at an
unprecedented rate, a West that is populating in the most arid
parts of our country.
The three fastest growing States in the West right now are
Arizona, Nevada, and my State of Idaho, Mark's State of Idaho.
We live in the high desert great basin region of the country.
For us to not be focusing with the intensity of resource that I
think we need for water and water development is going to catch
up with us. We are going to have to start running faster than
we are running today to resolve some of those problems that are
needed.
Right now, a classical thing is happening in Idaho. The
Idaho legislature is battling it out over how to re-look at old
first in line, first in time water rights, and should they be
used in slightly different ways, for enhanced storage, enhanced
water into the system. That is an interesting battle that is
going on at the legislative level right now. But I think, Mr.
Chairman, it is prelude to the reality of some of our problems
that we are facing in a country; in a region of the country
that obviously does not get all the water it needs. That battle
will continue.
The Bureau is going to play a role in it. They must play a
role in it. Your bill, the Rural Water Supply Act, Mr.
Chairman, I hope we can see that through the House this year. I
think it is going to begin to focus us in ways that we need to
focus with some resource that is going to be awfully important.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I have to say this because, thanks to
the Secretary and the Commissioner, I did something over the
recess that I have been wanting to do for years. I spent a day
at Hoover Dam and went top to bottom, in a structure that still
is operating as effectively, if not more so, than it was
designed to do in the 1930's when it was built. I could go on
and on, but the one thing behind it that was interesting is
that the impoundment, the lake, the reservoir, was just a
little over 50 percent full.
There is a very real reality to the water system there and
the supply of the river that is so important to that portion of
the West and the absence of water at this moment. I thought it
was fairly dramatic. The reality is that Colorado just ain't
producing water. You have got to get busy.
Senator Allard. Yes, we are trying to.
Senator Craig. All right, okay. And probably keep more of
it.
Anyway, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We are glad to
have you before us, both Mr. Secretary and Commissioner. Again,
John, we hope you the very best in your retirement.
Mr. Keys. Thank you very much.
Senator Domenici. Colorado had some late snow.
Senator Craig. Yes, they did.
Senator Allard. And down around the New Mexico border.
Senator Craig. And they are getting it again.
Senator Domenici. Is it in the right place? Is it coming
down some more?
Senator Allard. Yes.
Senator Domenici. It is too late, but that is good.
Senator, do you have anything you would like to offer?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM JOHNSON
Senator Johnson. Just very briefly.
Mr. Secretary, I want to welcome Secretary Limbaugh here as
well as Mr. Keys. Commissioner Keys, I too want to join in
thanking you for your extraordinary service over these many
years. We have worked very closely with you on our BOR water
projects in particular in South Dakota and I wish you well and
the people of South Dakota wish you well in whatever next may
come your way in terms of your next endeavors.
I do want to express my concern that once again the BOR
budget for the Great Plains Region is simply inadequate, given
the ongoing projects that we have out there. It is my
understanding that the recommendation is $168 million for Water
and Related Resources. That is a $14.4 million decrease from
2006. It is my understanding that about $68.7 million is
budgeted for ongoing rural water projects. That includes the
municipal, rural, and industrial, MRI account. That includes
the Mni Wiconi and the Lewis and Clark Rural Water Systems in
South Dakota.
Very frankly, the Mni Wiconi and Lewis and Clark Water
Systems in South Dakota alone could consume the entire budget
for ongoing water projects. Each of them could use well over
$30 million in the coming fiscal year for construction. What I
fear happening is that these projects are being stretched out
to such a great degree that not only does it delay getting
water in the case of the Mni Wiconi to some of the poorest of
the poor, three Indian tribes, but the overall cost of these
projects is becoming immense, which may make it almost
unworkable for some of the component rural water systems.
Like buying anything else, the more we can pay up front the
less it will cost down the road. So I am very worried that we
continue to come in with budget recommendations that are
excessively low and are going to make these water projects as
well as others around the country far more costly to the
taxpayers than would otherwise be the case.
Now, I appreciate that the President campaigned on lower
taxes and smaller government, so no one should be surprised
that there is an inadequate budget for public works projects
such as these. Nonetheless, these projects are key
infrastructure improvements that will result in economic growth
and prosperity and public health throughout large regions of
the country, and I think that it is a classic case of being
penny-wise and pound-foolish to nickel-and-dime and underfund
these key water projects.
The BOR has done a great job of managing these projects, of
building these projects. So my criticism is not with the BOR.
The criticism is with the overall level of funding that OMB has
allocated in the recommendations and, frankly, our budget
resolution does not do as well as I would like either, despite
great efforts on the part of our chairman and others to make
sure that we try to get a reasonable allocation.
So I want to share those concerns with you, but most of
all, Commissioner Keys, to thank you for working very closely
with my staff and with South Dakotans over the years. We have
some of the most extraordinary and largest scale drinking
projects in the world in that State, and your willingness to
work with us on those projects is a big reason why we have come
as far as we have. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Allard.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to
make my full statement a part of the record and join you and
the other members of the committee in expressing to
Commissioner Keys our appreciation for his service. I
understand that you have not decided what you are going to be
doing next, but I wish you well in whatever endeavors you may
decide to do, even if you are just going to retire and take
life easy, which I cannot imagine somebody like you is going to
end up doing. But I do wish you well with the other members of
the committee.
Also, I just want to highlight a problem that I see
emerging and that is maintenance of our facilities we already
have out there. I know that other members have similar problems
in their States that we do, that concern about certain projects
that have some maintenance requirements that we think we really
need to deal with and we need to rehabilitate many of those
projects.
Colorado has 18 Bureau projects there. We have utilized the
Department a lot historically, and these projects I think have
become especially prominent in the last several years in
Colorado, in fact the entire West, because of the terrible
drought that you have out here on your chart. It has been
shifting around both in the northern and southern parts of the
West.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Many federally owned Bureau of Reclamation projects are
currently at or past their life expectancy and in severe need
of rehabilitation. The Bureau has maintained that
rehabilitation is the same as operations and maintenance, which
in many cases was turned over to local operating agencies. So I
just say that it seems to me that we need to be looking at
these things more seriously. So I will have some questions for
you in that regard, and I do not understand why you do not take
a greater interest in rehabilitation of these projects, because
we are not going to be building new ones and we need to make
sure that the ones that we have out there are up to par with
changing standards and up there to operate at maximum
efficiency, because I do not see us getting a lot of new
projects out there.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Wayne Allard
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. Those of us in
the West are well aware of the important work that the Bureau of
Reclamation has done over the years. In Colorado there are 18 Bureau
projects. These projects are vital in supplying water to many people in
rural areas of the State. The value of these projects has been
especially prominent during the last 4 to 5 years, as Colorado--and the
entire West--has experienced terrible drought.
I would like to mention a growing problem with Bureau projects
throughout the West, which I will follow-up on during the question
portion of this hearing. Many federally-owned Bureau of Reclamation
projects are currently at, or past, their life expectancy and in severe
need of rehabilitation. While the cost of rehabilitation is generally
one-half to one-third of the cost of replacing a project this is more
than many communities can afford. The Bureau has maintained that
rehabilitation is the same as operations and maintenance, which in many
cases was turned over to local operating agencies long ago.
It seems to me, however, that these two things are not the same. No
matter how many oil changes or tune-ups you give a car, it will
eventually no longer be serviceable. The same can be said of these
projects. Local entities have worked diligently over the years to care
for, and make repairs to, these projects. But eventually they reach the
end of their operational life, and more extensive help is needed. I
cannot understand why the Bureau continues to maintain that they have
no responsibility to assist local communities in the rehabilitation of
federally-built, federally-owned projects.
Before I close I would like to thank Commissioner Keyes for his
service. Mr. Keyes, I understand that you have announced your
resignation, and will be leaving the Bureau April 15. We wish you all
the best in whatever you choose to do next.
Senator Domenici. Before we proceed, I think we should let
this record, hearing record, reflect that we commence these
hearings at a rather historic time, because under the Energy
Policy Act we have totally modernized the licensing process for
water projects in the United States and diversions, thanks to
the extraordinary leadership of Larry Craig, and we have
something that is workable. It is going to be a difficult,
long, arduous implementation process, without any question.
Perhaps we will have an oversight hearing when you think it is
right.
Senator Craig. I think we should do that.
Senator Domenici. Sorry I did not have that on, but I think
you understood most of what I said.
Incidentally, speaking to my staffer out there, I would
prefer if you would come up here and sit by me.
Now, having said that, we are going to proceed,
Commissioner, with you and then with Mark in that order. Or do
you want to go in the reverse order? Mr. Secretary, do you want
to go first?
Mr. Limbaugh. Yes, please, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Let us do that. You are on.
STATEMENT OF MARK LIMBAUGH
Mr. Limbaugh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. Good morning. I am pleased to be here today to
introduce the 2007 budget for the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Central Utah Project. I would ask that my entire statement be
made part of the record.
Senator Domenici. It will be.
Mr. Limbaugh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Joining me today is Reclamation Commissioner John Keys and
CUPCA Program Director Reed Murray. Also with us is John
Trezise, Budget Director for the Department of the Interior;
and Bob Wolf, Reclamation Budget Director.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION
Before turning to the Commissioner, I would like to
highlight a few details of the Reclamation request for the
subcommittee. Recently, the National Academy of Sciences
completed a study on the Bureau of Reclamation's construction
and infrastructure programs. This study looked into the future
of the agency and provided some insight on how Reclamation can
improve its construction and infrastructure management
functions, as well as address some contemporary problems in
dealing with water supply and infrastructure challenges in the
future.
I want to assure this subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, that I am
personally committed to ensuring that Reclamation addresses the
findings and recommendations of this study in order to improve
the effectiveness and efficiency of the management of
infrastructure and construction processes. I brought copies of
``Managing for Excellence,'' Reclamation's action plan in
addressing the study's findings, for the subcommittee to
review, and I look forward to working with all of you in this
effort.
WATER SUPPLY CRISES IN THE WEST
Chronic water supply problems in the western States served
by the Bureau of Reclamation will continue to be a challenge.
Demand for water in many basins of the West, as many of you
have noted this morning, exceeds available supply even in
normal years. Recurrent droughts compound this problem. For
example, the Southwest is in the sixth year of a severe
drought. Projections for this year suggest very low water
supplies that could negatively impact farmers, urban residents,
Native Americans, and fish and wildlife alike.
When combined with the fact that the West is home to some
of the fastest growing communities in the Nation, these
realities guarantee that water supply crises will become more
frequent if we do not act now. Our Water 2025 program has
sparked a movement to change the way we think about and value
water supplies in the West. The challenge grants under Water
2025 have provided the means for many western water managers to
implement innovative measures for conserving and managing water
more effectively to meet unmet needs. Through the challenge
grant component of Water 2025, Reclamation has awarded 68
challenge grants in 16 western States, collectively,
representing $60 million in water management improvements, $44
million of which came from private sources. In other words,
non-Federal interests have invested approximately $3 for every
$1 the Federal Government has invested.
Also, looking for the next generation of desalination
technologies through targeted research and development will be
key to finding new cost-effective water supplies in many areas
of the West in the future.
Continuing the Water 2025 program into the future will
encourage solutions to prevent conflict and crises over water,
the real barriers to progress in the West. Speaking of
problems, our water supply crises that we have seen recently in
the Middle Rio Grande and the Klamath River Basins are the sort
of crises we hope to avoid through Water 2025.
In the 2007 budget, the Bureau of Reclamation continues to
address the Klamath Basin with continued emphasis on working
across the landscape cooperatively to address water needs of
stakeholders and endangered species. In the Middle Rio Grande
Project, the Reclamation request now totals almost $24 million
for fiscal year 2007. Of this amount, almost $11 million is to
address the status of endangered species, including the Rio
Grande silvery minnow and the Southwest willow flycatcher,
through the collaborative program.
In addition to Reclamation funding, Interior is working
closely with other Federal agencies and non-Federal partners to
improve the status of endangered species while also protecting
existing and future uses of water in the basin. In fact, on
April 11 and 12, Reclamation will host the first annual
collaborative program symposium in Albuquerque to more
effectively coordinate efforts to address endangered species
needs in the basins.
Finally, the Middle Rio Grande Water Conservancy District
is just one of the many entities Reclamation has worked with
through the Water 2025 program to help stretch water supplies
in a very dry area of the West.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In conclusion, I would now like to turn to Commissioner
John Keys to provide more details on the Reclamation budget.
After his statement, he and I would be pleased to answer
questions, and Reed Murray from the Central Utah Project Office
is also available for questions as well.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Limbaugh
Good morning. I am pleased to be here today on behalf of the
Secretary to discuss the fiscal year 2007 budget for the Department of
the Interior. I appreciate the opportunity to highlight our priorities
and key goals.
The Department's broad, multi-faceted mission and geographically
dispersed services and programs uniquely contribute to the fabric of
America by maintaining and improving the Nation's natural and cultural
resources, economic vitality, and community well being. Interior's
70,000 employees and 200,000 volunteers live and work in the
communities, large and small, that they serve. They deliver programs
through partnerships and cooperative relationships that engage and
invite citizens, groups, and businesses to participate.
The challenges of our diverse responsibilities are many, but they
are made more manageable through an integrated approach that defines
common mission goals for all bureaus and offices. The Department's
integrated strategic plan is key to this approach. The plan defines
four mission categories, which include resource protection, resource
use, recreation, and serving communities. Capabilities in partnerships,
management, and science are at the foundation of the plan and weave
throughout the four mission goals.
Although the details of the respective missions of Interior's
bureaus and offices differ, the central focus is the same. A focus on
excellent performance requires mission clarity, good metrics, and
management excellence. Management excellence requires a focused
approach to maintain and enhance program results, making wise
management choices, routinely examining the effectiveness and
efficiency of programs, finding effective means to coordinate and
leverage resources, and the continuous introduction and evaluation of
process and technology improvements.
The 2007 budget reflects the Department's commitment to these
management strategies and management excellence.
BUDGET OVERVIEW
The 2007 budget request for current appropriations is $10.5
billion. Permanent funding that becomes available as a result of
existing legislation without further action by the Congress will
provide an additional $5.6 billion, for a total 2007 Interior budget of
$16.1 billion.
The 2007 current appropriations request is a decrease of $392.2
million or 3.6 percent below the 2006 funding level. If emergency
hurricane supplemental funding is not counted, the 2007 request is a
decrease of $321.9 million or 2.9 percent below the 2006 level.
The request for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah
Project, funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act,
is $923.7 million. This request includes a net programmatic reduction
of $43.1 million, or 4.1 percent, from the 2006 funding level. It also
includes the proposed cancellation of $88.0 million in prior year
balances of appropriations for the Desert Terminal Lakes program.
The 2007 Central Utah Project budget is $40.2 million, an increase
of $6.1 million above the 2006 enacted level. The increase will
maintain progress towards timely completion of the project. This
funding level, if maintained in the out years, will allow the project
to be completed by 2021.
2005 HURRICANES
In addition to the funds requested in the budget, on February 16,
2006, the President sent the Congress a supplemental funding request
for hurricane recovery. The supplemental includes $216 million for
Interior agencies. Funding will be used to conduct clean-up and debris
removal and repairs and reconstruction of facilities at park units,
refuges, and USGS science facilities. These actions will allow us to
open roads and trails to the public, repair visitor centers and
exhibits, and reconstruct water control structures to host migratory
bird populations and other wildlife. The supplemental also includes
funding for MMS to complete restoration of its operations in New
Orleans.
DEPARTMENTAL PROGRAMMATIC HIGHLIGHTS
The 2007 budget maintains and improves performance across the
Department's strategic goals to achieve healthy lands and water,
thriving communities and dynamic economies throughout the Nation. Key
goals for 2007 include:
--Enhancing America's energy supplies through responsible energy
development and continued implementation of the Energy Policy
Act;
--Building on successful partnerships across the country and
expanding opportunities for conservation that leverage Federal
investments;
--Continuing to advance trust reform;
--Coordinating existing efforts under a unified program that focuses
on high-priority historic and cultural protection under the
Preserve America umbrella;
--Preventing crises and conflicts over water in the West through
Water 2025;
--Continuing to reduce risks to communities and the environment from
wildland fires; and
--Providing scientific information to advance knowledge of our
surroundings.
Before turning this over to Commissioner John Keyes for a detailed
discussion of our water programs in the Bureau of Reclamation, I want
to highlight several aspects of the Interior Department budget.
EVERGLADES
I want to commend the subcommittee for its continued support of
Everglades restoration efforts. The Department is both a steward, with
specific mandates from Congress, and a partner, working with other
agencies to restore and protect the South Florida ecosystem. The
Department's highest priority in this effort is the completion of the
Modified Water Deliveries project. Completion of this project is
critical for the preservation and restoration of the resources at
Everglades National Park. Furthermore, improved flows of water to the
park will lay a strong foundation for future environmental benefits to
be realized for the Everglades under the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan.
The funding for the Modified Water project provided in 2006 with
the strong support of the subcommittee will complete the 8.5 Square
Mile Area component of the project. Funding requested for 2007 in the
budget of the National Park Service and the Corps of Engineers will
begin work on modification of the Tamiami Trail. As the subcommittee is
aware, the recently approved Revised General Reevaluation Report for
the Tamiami Trail calls for a 2-mile bridge to the west and 1-mile
bridge to the east. This approach will provide the necessary conveyance
of water south from the Water Conservation Area 3B into the Northwest
Shark River Slough section of the Everglades National Park.
WATER 2025--PREVENTING CRISES AND CONFLICTS
The 2007 budget includes an increase of $9.5 million for Water
2025, for a total funding level of $14.5 million. I am pleased to
report that the administration has submitted legislation for the
authorization necessary to accomplish the goals of this program.
The overarching goal of Water 2025 is to meet the challenge of
preventing crises and conflicts over water in the West. Water 2025 will
achieve this by increasing the certainty and flexibility of water
supplies, diversifying water supplies, and preventing crises through
added environmental benefits in many watersheds, rivers, and streams.
Competitive 50/50 Challenge Grant Program.--The Challenge Grant
program will remain an integral part of Water 2025 in 2007. In fiscal
year 2004 and again in fiscal year 2005, the response to the program
was overwhelming, with Reclamation receiving over 100 proposals for
Challenge Grants each year. To date, Reclamation has awarded funding
for 68 Challenge Grants in 16 States, including 62 projects by
irrigation and water districts and 6 more by western States. The funded
projects involve innovative approaches to improving water management
through water marketing, water conservation, and modernizing water
delivery systems. Collectively, these projects represent almost $60
million in improvements in the West, including a non-Federal
contribution of $44 million and the Federal Government contribution of
$15 million. In other words, for every $1 the Federal Government has
invested, there has been about $2.90 non-Federal investment.
The projects selected for award through the Challenge Grant program
in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 include:
--23 projects that, collectively, will convert 74 miles of dirt
canals to pipeline;
--44 projects to install water measurement devices, SCADA systems and
automate water delivery systems; and
--11 projects that include water marketing plans.
Based on estimates in the project proposals, the 68 funded projects
could save up to 285,000 acre-feet per year, collectively, once fully
implemented. An acre-foot of water is enough to supply a family of four
for up to a year.
The overwhelming response to the Challenge Grant Program
underscores the significance of Water 2025 to Western water users and
proves the success of the Challenge Grant concept. The response to the
Challenge Grant Program also demonstrates a widespread eagerness to
improve the way water is managed across the West and to address local
needs.
Examples of some of the funded Challenge Grant projects include:
Arizona.--The Gila Gravity Main Canal Board, in partnership with
the City of Yuma and NAD Bank, will make canal system improvements to
conserve water, restore canal capacity and improve operation
efficiency. Resulting water savings are estimated at up to 45,000 acre-
feet (af) of water per year. The conserved water will be available for
other Colorado River users. The total project cost is $2,207,775 with a
Water 2025 contribution of $284,000.
California.--The Calleguas Municipal Water District in Thousand
Oaks will install automated monitoring devices to 23 water distributors
to allow implementation of new rate structures encouraging more
efficient water use, conservation of water, and better management of
local groundwater supplies. This project will reduce demand on the
Metropolitan Water District and the Colorado River and will save an
estimated 5,500 acre-feet per year. The total project cost is
$3,095,000, with a Water 2025 contribution of $300,000.
Idaho.--The Preston Whitney Reservoir Company will replace 23,333
feet of open canal with PVC pipe and modify the works structure at
Lamont Reservoir. The project is estimated to save 1,800 acre-feet of
water per year. The total project cost is $877,153, including the Water
2025 contribution of $300,000.
Montana.--The Paradise Valley Irrigation District will replace
9,000 feet of leaky canal with a pressure pipeline system that will
conserve 1,000 acre-feet of water per year. It will be one of the first
pressurized systems in the area and a significant improvement over the
old system. This project will conserve water for the District by
eliminating seepage in the canal and improve operation and control in
the main canal. Efficiency levels will reach nearly 100 percent with
the new pipeline system, compared to the current efficiency rate of 40
to 45 percent. Irrigation seasons will be extended during drought years
by making more use of the water that is available. The total project
cost is $524,215, with a Water 2025 contribution of $262,107.
New Mexico.--The State of New Mexico will rehabilitate a USGS
streamflow gage on the Pecos River to provide more accurate high
streamflow measurements. The gage will help better measure water under
high flow conditions. Accurate measurement of water delivered to Texas
under the Pecos River Compact is critical to the State. The total
project will cost $146,660 with a Water 2025 contribution of $59,480.
Oregon.--The Central Oregon Irrigation District in Bend Oregon will
collaborate with numerous partners--seven irrigation districts, six
cities, three tribes, and the Deschutes Resource Conservancy--to
address long-term basin water needs by establishing a pilot water bank.
This project has a long-term potential savings of up to 326,522 acre-
feet a year. The project demonstrates collective partnering of basin
interests and addresses many institutional constraints. The total cost
of the project is $588,750, with a Water 2025 contribution of $233,750.
Texas.--The District will purchase and install 225 on-farm delivery
site meters for more precise water measurement and efficient water
delivery. The saved water--3,464 acre-feet per year--will enable
continued farming during droughts and increase the length of the
irrigation season. On-farm metering will help the District achieve its
goal of 100 percent volumetric pricing of water delivered to its users.
The total cost of the project is $602,500, with a Water 2025
contribution of $300,000.
Utah.--The Sevier River Water Users Association in Utah will expand
and enhance their real-time monitoring and control system to better
manage water deliveries. The project is estimated to save up to 22,500
acre-feet of water.
Water System Optimization Reviews.--The fiscal, legal, and
political hurdles to the development of significant new supplies make
it imperative that existing water supply infrastructure be fully
utilized within the framework of existing treaties, interstate
compacts, water rights, and contracts. Reclamation will work with
willing States, irrigation and water districts, and other local
entities to assess the potential for water management improvements in a
given basin or district. Potential actions identified in these reviews
may form the basis for future Water 2025 cooperative grant proposals.
Improved Water Purification Technology.--We can make better use of
existing water supplies that may have limited use due to high salt or
mineral contents, or which may be otherwise unsuitable for consumptive
use. Lowering the cost of desalination is one of the key tools to
managing scarce water resources because of the potential it offers to
expand usable water supplies. A portion of the funding requested will
be used to award competitive, cost-shared research and development
cooperative agreements that focus on inland brackish ground waters,
energy efficiencies, and management of concentrates.
A majority of the funding requested for this component will support
operations and research and development conducted at the Tularosa Basin
National Desalination Research Facility, which is proposed to be re-
named the Brackish Groundwater National Desalination Research Facility
and scheduled to be operational in 2007. The budget request includes
funds for start-up operations, including hiring an external
organization to operate the facility under Reclamation direction and
starting initial research and development.
KLAMATH RIVER BASIN
The Klamath River Basin demonstrates our ability to work across the
landscape cooperatively to accomplish our goals. The 2007 budget
includes $63.4 million for Klamath Basin restoration activities. This
is an increase of $7.8 million and, with funds available in 2006, will
be used to restore streams and wetlands in the upstream and downstream
reaches of the Klamath River and its tributaries.
The Reclamation budget request of $32.2 million provides funding
for studies and initiatives related to improving water supplies to meet
the competing demands of agricultural, tribal, wildlife refuge, and
environmental needs in the Klamath River Basin.
--The request includes an increase of $2.4 million for investigations
to increase water storage/conserve water, an increase of 132
percent from 2006, for a total funding level of $4.2 million.
--The request includes an increase of $982,000, for total funding of
$8.7 million to address ESA requirements including fish
screens, passage, and ladders.
--The balance of the funding increase is spread across various
components of the Klamath Project, primarily water quality
studies and operations and maintenance.
In 2007, through its Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, FWS
will begin a new $2.0 million Lower Klamath Basin initiative. Funding
will be used to provide fish passage on tributaries; fencing for
riparian areas along streams; assessment and monitoring of disease,
particularly in juvenile fish; and restoration of stream channels from
former mining excavations. The 2007 budget also includes $3.5 million
to acquire and restore agricultural lands adjacent to Upper Klamath
Lake to provide quality habitat for larval and juvenile suckers and a
host of native waterbirds, improve water quality for the lake and
downstream anadromous fish, and increase water storage in the lake.
ADDRESSING OTHER DEPARTMENTAL CHANGES
For the record, I would like to call the attention of the
subcommittee to proposals requested in the President's Budget for
programs funding in the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act. The budget continues to emphasize our operating
programs, including those for the National Park Service, leveraging of
Federal resources through cooperative conservation; continued progress
on Indian Trust reform; and increasing access to renewable and non-
renewable energy sources, while enhancing environmental monitoring and
protection. Some details of our energy proposals follow.
ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
The Department's energy programs play a critical role in providing
access to domestic oil, gas, and other energy resources. To enhance
domestic production, the 2007 budget proposes a $43.2 million
initiative to implement the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and continue
progress on the President's National Energy Policy. In total, the
budget includes $467.5 million for the Department's energy programs.
APD Processing.--In 2003, the Department released an Energy Policy
and Conservation Act mandated report identifying five basins in
Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico as containing the
largest onshore reserves of natural gas in the country and the second
largest resource base after the Outer Continental Shelf. These onshore
basins contain an estimated 139 trillion cubic feet of natural gas,
enough to heat 55 million homes for almost 30 years. These resources
offer the best opportunity to augment domestic energy supplies in the
short-term.
Before any leasing for oil and gas production can occur on the
public lands in these areas, BLM must have a land-use plan in place.
Beginning in 2001, with the support of Congress, BLM initiated the
largest effort in its history to revise or amend all of 162 resource
management plans. Within areas designated in plans as appropriate for
mineral development, BLM has made a concerted effort to help bring
additional oil and gas supplies to market. In 2002, 2.1 Tcf were
produced from Federal, non-Indian lands. In 2003 and 2004, 2.2 Tcf and
3.1 Tcf, respectively, were produced from these lands.
The BLM is experiencing a steady increase in the demand for
drilling permits. In 2000, BLM received 3,977 applications for permits
to drill. In 2005, BLM received 8,351 APDs. The bureau estimates that
the number it will receive in 2006 will exceed 9,000, more than double
the number processed 5 years ago. To address this demand, BLM has taken
steps to ensure that drilling permit applications are processed
promptly, while at the same time ensuring that environmental
protections are fully addressed. These measures, along with increased
funding, have allowed BLM to make significant progress in acting on
permit applications. In 2005, BLM processed 7,736 applications, nearly
4,000 more than it was able to process in 2000.
Section 365 of the Energy Policy Act established a pilot program at
seven BLM field offices that currently handle 70 percent of the
drilling permit application workload. The pilot program is testing new
management strategies designed to further improve the efficiency of
processing permit applications. The Energy Policy Act provides enhanced
funding for the pilot offices from oil and gas rental receipts. With
more efficient processes and authorities and funding provided through
Section 365, BLM currently anticipates processing 10,160 permits in
2006.
The efforts of BLM have achieved significant results. Almost 4,700
new onshore wells were started in 2005. This level of activity is 56
percent higher than in 2002.
For 2007, the budget proposes an increase of $9.2 million to focus
on the oil and gas workload in BLM's non-pilot offices, which are also
experiencing a sharp and sustained demand for APDs. This increase will
provide $4.3 million for drilling permit processing and $2.8 million
for inspection and enforcement activities. It will also provide $2.1
million for energy monitoring activities. The budget also includes
$471,000 for FWS to increase consultation work with the non-pilot
offices.
The budget assumes continuation through 2007 of the enhanced
funding for pilot offices from oil and gas receipts to facilitate a
smooth transition to funding from drilling permit processing fees,
effective September 30, 2007. Legislation to be proposed by the
administration will allow a rulemaking to phase in full-cost recovery
for APDs, beginning with a fee amount that will generate an estimated
$20 million in 2008, fully replacing the amount provided by the Energy
Policy Act.
Alaska North Slope.--The most promising area for significant long-
term oil discoveries and dramatic gains in domestic production in the
United States is the Alaska North Slope. The U.S. Geological Survey
estimates a 95 percent probability that at least 5.7 billion barrels of
technically recoverable undiscovered oil are in the ANWR coastal plain
and 5 percent probability of at least 16 billion barrels. They estimate
the mean or expected value is 10.36 billion barrels of technically
recoverable undiscovered oil. At $55 a barrel, more than 90 percent of
the assessed technically recoverable resource estimate is thought to be
economically viable. At peak production, ANWR could produce about 1
billion barrels of oil a day, about 20 percent of our domestic daily
production and more oil than any other State, including Texas and
Louisiana.
The 2007 budget assumes the Congress will enact legislation in 2006
to open ANWR to energy exploration and development with a first lease
sale held in 2008 and a second in 2010. The budget estimates that these
two lease sales will generate a combined $8.0 billion bonus revenues,
including $7.0 billion from the 2008 lease sale.
The 2007 budget includes an increase of $12.4 million for BLM
energy management activities on the Alaska North Slope. The additional
funds will support the required environmental analyses and other
preparatory work in advance of a first ANWR lease sale in 2008. The
requested increase will also support BLM's leasing, inspection, and
monitoring program in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and BLM's
participation in the North Slope Science Initiative authorized by the
Energy Policy Act. In addition, a significant share of the $12.4
million increase will be used by BLM to respond to the environmental
threat posed by abandoned legacy wells and related infrastructure on
the North Slope.
Outer Continental Shelf Development.--Deepwater areas of the Gulf
of Mexico currently account for 17 percent of domestic oil and 6
percent of domestic gas production. However, over the next decade, oil
production in the Gulf is expected to increase by 43 percent and
natural gas by 13 percent. The increase will come from deepwater and
greater depths below the ocean floor. The 2007 budget includes an
increase of $2.1 million for OCS development, to allow MMS to keep pace
with the surge in exploration and development in the deepwater areas of
the Gulf and $1.5 million for OCS environmental impact statements on
future lease sales.
New Innovations in Energy Development.--The 2007 budget includes an
increase of $6.5 million for MMS's new responsibilities under the
Energy Policy Act for offshore renewable energy development. MMS will
establish a comprehensive program for regulatory oversight of new and
innovative renewable energy projects on the OCS, including four
alternative energy projects for which permit applications were
previously under review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Oil shale resources represent an abundant energy source that could
contribute significantly to the Nation's domestic energy supply. Oil
shale underlying a total area of 16,000 square miles in Colorado, Utah,
and Wyoming represents the largest known concentration of oil shale in
the world. This area may contain in place the equivalent of 1.2 to 2
trillion barrels of oil. The budget proposes a $3.3 million increase,
for a total program of $4.3 million, to enable BLM to accelerate
implementation of an oil shale development program leading to a
commercial leasing program by the end of 2008, in compliance with
section 369 of the Energy Policy Act. This request is accompanied by
$500,000 budgeted for USGS to determine the size, quality, and quantity
of oil shale deposits in the United States.
Gas hydrates, found in some of the world's most remote regions such
as the Arctic and deepwater oceans, could dramatically alter the global
balance of world energy supply. The estimated volume of natural gas
occurring in hydrate form is immense, possibly exceeding the combined
value of all other fossil fuels.
The 2007 budget includes a $1.9 million package of increases for
gas hydrate research and development by MMS, BLM, and USGS. This will
fund a coordinated effort in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Slope of
Alaska to accelerate research, resource modeling, assessment, and
characterization of hydrates as a commercially viable source of energy.
CONCLUSION
The budget plays a key role in advancing our vision of healthy
lands, thriving communities, and dynamic economies. Behind these
numbers lie people, places, and partnerships. Our goals become reality
through the energy and creativity efforts of our employees, volunteers,
and partners. They provide the foundation for achieving the goals
highlighted in our 2007 budget. This concludes my overview of the 2007
budget proposal for the Department of the Interior and my written
statement. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Senator Domenici. We thank you. Who was it you wanted me to
call on next?
Mr. Limbaugh. Commissioner Keys.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Commissioner, you have the floor.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF JOHN W. KEYS III
Mr. Keys. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. It is my absolute pleasure to be here with you today
to talk about our budget request for fiscal year 2007. As he
said, with me is Bob Wolf, our Director of Program and Budget,
who helps me keep up with the numbers.
Let me say, before I go ahead, that it is a pleasure to
work with you and your committee staff. They have been good
friends over the years and your staff people have been just
outstanding to work with, and we do appreciate that very much.
I have submitted a full statement and I would appreciate it
being made part of the record.
Senator Domenici. It will be.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, before I get into----
Senator Domenici. Does that mean our staff has not given
you enough static?
Mr. Keys. No, sir, Mr. Chairman, that is not what it means.
It means that we work together very well.
Senator Domenici. I see, okay. Static notwithstanding?
Mr. Keys. That is correct.
Senator Domenici. Okay.
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES STUDY
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, before I get into the 2007 budget
request, let me expand on some of the material that Mark talked
about with the National Academy of Sciences study. In 2005, the
Academy conducted a study to help Reclamation determine the
appropriate organizational, management, and resource
configurations needed to meet its construction and
infrastructure management responsibilities associated with
fulfilling our mission. This is the report that they produced
from that effort.
We have produced an action plan to address the
recommendations of this report, and we are pleased to share it
with Congress and our stakeholders. We have provided you with
copies so that you can see what we are trying to do. As we
formulate actions to respond to the recommendations of the
Academy, we will keep you informed to solicit your input and
input from our customers and stakeholders. We have teams
working on all of these issues. They will receive all of the
time and attention that they need from my office on down. We
appreciate the critical thinking that the Academies have given
us and the information in the report. We fully intend to use it
to improve Reclamation and the way we do business in the 21st
century.
FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Mr. Chairman, the overall 2007 budget request for
Reclamation is $971.6 million in current authority. The numbers
that you used in your opening remarks are correct. Our 2007
budget request continues the President's commitment to a more
citizen-centered government and supports Reclamation's mission
of delivering water and generating power. Some highlights from
that proposal:
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST
The Water 2025 program asks for $14.5 million, and I have
provided an update on the Water 2025 program. Mark provided
some statistics from the program. We think it is an excellent
program that has a lot of potential to help us address problems
in the near and mid-term future.
We have submitted a bill to Congress for permanent
authorization of that program. This past year, we worked with
our customers and stakeholders to put that bill together, and
it has been submitted to Congress.
On the Klamath project, we are asking for $24.8 million.
The 2007 funding request would continue the on-the-ground
initiatives to meet multiple obligations, including providing
water for irrigation and wildlife refuges, avoiding jeopardy to
endangered and threatened species, and meeting tribal trust
obligations.
Mr. Chairman, I might add that there was a court ruling on
the Klamath project that directed Reclamation to attain the
phase 3 flows on the Klamath River. I am happy to tell you that
we have enough water in the Klamath Basin to meet those phase 3
flows in the river and to deliver irrigation water this year.
We would have a problem if we get into a back-to-back bad water
year situation. The court ruling was made, and we think we can
meet the obligations on the Klamath River.
Senator Domenici. So that is good news for the Senators
involved there.
Mr. Keys. Yes, sir, it is.
I would add that the good water year helps because in some
places, we have in excess of 200 percent of normal
precipitation in the area.
On the Middle Rio Grande, we are asking for $23.7 million.
That request would continue funding in support of the
endangered species collaborative program and for acquiring
supplemental water, doing the channel maintenance, and pursuing
government-to-government consultations with Pueblos and tribes
in the basin. The funding would also continue efforts to
support the protection of and contribute to the recovery of the
Rio Grande silvery minnow and the Southwest willow flycatcher.
On the Animas-La Plata Project, we are asking for $57.4
million. The 2007 request would continue funding construction
of the project's major features, Ridges Basin Dam and the
Durango pumping plant. It would also allow us to begin
construction of the Ridges Basin Inlet Conduit and keep the
project on schedule.
On site security, we are requesting $39.6 million. The 2007
request would ensure the safety and security of the public,
Reclamation's employees, and the key facilities on Reclamation
projects. The fiscal year 2007 request assumes annual costs
associated with guard and patrol activities would be treated as
project costs subject to reimbursability. Costs of program
management, studies, and hardening of facilities would remain
non-reimburseable.
For the Safety of Dams program, we are asking for $69
million. The 2007 request would provide for risk management
activities throughout Reclamation's inventory of 361 dams and
dikes. The request would also provide pre-construction and
construction activities for up to 21 dams identified through
the program.
Our Rural Water program asks for $68.7 million. This
request would support completion of ongoing rural projects and
includes funding for municipal, rural and industrial systems
for the Garrison Diversion Unit, the Mni Wiconi Project, Fort
Peck-Dry Prairie Project, and the Lewis and Clark Project.
For the CALFED-Bay Delta program, we are asking for $38.6
million. Funds are requested to continue implementation of
priority activities included in the CALFED-Bay Delta
Authorization Act. Specifically, funds would be used for the
environmental water account, storage feasibility studies,
conveyance feasibility studies, science, implementation of
projects to improve Delta water quality, ecosystem restoration,
and planning and management activities.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, the 2007 budget request demonstrates
Reclamation's commitment to meeting the water and power needs
of the West in a fiscally responsible manner. Reclamation is
committed to working with its customers, States, tribes, and
other stakeholders to find ways to balance and provide for the
mix of water resource needs in 2007 and beyond.
Thank you again for the continued support from the
committee, and we would be happy to answer what questions you
might have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John W. Keys III
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee for the
opportunity to appear in support of the President's fiscal year 2007
budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation. With me today is Bob
Wolf, Director of Program and Budget.
Our fiscal year 2007 request has been designed to support
Reclamation's efforts to deliver water and generate hydropower,
consistent with applicable State and Federal law, in an environmentally
responsible and cost-efficient manner.
The funding proposed is for key projects that are important to the
Department and in line with administration objectives. The budget
request also supports Reclamation's participation in efforts to meet
emerging water supply needs, to address water shortage issues in the
West, to promote water conservation and improved water management, and
to take actions to mitigate adverse environmental impacts of projects.
The fiscal year 2007 request for Reclamation totals $971.6 million
in gross budget authority and is partially offset by discretionary
receipts in the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ($33.8 million)
and rescission of unobligated balances for At Risk Desert Terminal
Lakes ($88 million). The total program, after offsets to current
authority and the inclusion of permanent authority is $849.8 million.
WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
The fiscal year 2007 request for Water and Related Resources is
$883.4 million. More specifically, the request for Water and Related
Resources includes a total of $456.5 million for water and energy,
land, and fish and wildlife resource management activities (which
provides for construction, management of Reclamation lands, and actions
to address the impacts of Reclamation projects on fish and wildlife),
and $376.9 million for facility operations, maintenance, and
rehabilitation activities.
Providing adequate funding for facility operations, maintenance,
and rehabilitation continues to be one of Reclamation's highest
priorities. Reclamation continues to work closely with water users and
other stakeholders to ensure that available funds are used effectively.
These funds are used to allow the timely and effective delivery of
project benefits; ensure the reliability and operational readiness of
Reclamation's dams, reservoirs, power plants, and distribution systems;
and identify, plan, and implement dam safety corrective actions and
site security improvements.
Highlights of the fiscal year 2007 request for water and related
resources include:
Water 2025 ($14.5 million).--Water 2025 is a high priority for the
Secretary of the Interior and will focus Reclamation's financial and
technical resources on areas in the West where conflict over water
either currently exists or is likely to occur in the coming years.
The overarching goal of Water 2025 is to meet the challenge of
preventing crises and conflict over water in the West. Water 2025 will
attain this goal by increasing certainty and flexibility in water
supplies, diversifying water supplies, and reducing conflict through
the use of market-based approaches and enhancing environmental benefits
in many watershed, rivers and streams consistent with State and Federal
laws.
With $14.5 million, Water 2025 will continue to be a multifaceted
program with projects that embody the overarching goal of preventing
crises and conflict over water in the West. Leveraging limited Federal
dollars through the Challenge Grant Program will continue to be a major
component of Water 2025. The Challenge Grant Program will focus on
projects that improve water management through conservation,
efficiency, and water markets, as well as collaborative solutions to
meet the needs of the future. Beginning in fiscal year 2007, a system
optimization review component has been added to ensure existing water
management systems are operated to maximize water deliveries.
Modernization of existing systems will occur within the framework of
existing treaties, interstate compacts, water rights, and contracts.
Water 2025 will also continue to fund research for water purification,
including research on desalination.
The Department transmitted the administration's proposed permanent
authorizing language to Congress on March 7, 2006.
I would like to share with the committee several highlights of the
Reclamation budget:
Klamath Project in Oregon and California ($24.8 million).--The
fiscal year 2007 request will continue and increase funding for studies
and initiatives related to improving water supplies to meet the
competing demands of agricultural, tribal, wildlife refuge, and
environmental needs in the Klamath River basin. Key areas of focus
include increasing surface and groundwater supplies, continuing a water
bank, making improvements in fish passage and habitat, taking actions
to improve water quality, and continuing coordination of Reclamation's
conservation implementation program.
Lower Colorado River Operations Program ($17.0 million).--The
fiscal year 2007 request will provide funds for the work necessary to
carry out the Secretary's responsibilities as water master of the lower
Colorado River. The fiscal year 2007 request funds measures under the
multi-species conservation program to provide long term Endangered
Species Act compliance for lower Colorado River operations for both
Federal and non-Federal purposes.
Middle Rio Grande ($23.7 million).--The fiscal year 2007 request
will continue to address endangered species issues and support of the
Endangered Species Collaborative Program. In addition, the request will
continue funding for acquiring supplemental water, channel maintenance,
and pursuing government-to-government consultations with Pueblos and
Tribes. Finally, the funding will continue efforts that support the
protection and contribute to the recovery of the Rio Grande silvery
minnow and southwestern willow flycatcher.
Animas-La Plata in Colorado and New Mexico ($57.4 million).--The
fiscal year 2007 request includes $57.4 million to continue
construction of the project's major features, Ridges Basin Dam and
Durango Pumping Plant. While work on these two features began in fiscal
year 2003, maintaining funding at the level we have identified is
necessary to complete construction of these features in a timely
fashion. This level of funding will also permit the start of
construction on the Ridges Basin Inlet Conduit, which is necessary to
avoid substantial Project delays. Funding will be primarily directed to
these three features while other key features are held for future
implementation.
Columbia/Snake River Salmon Recovery in Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and
Washington ($17.3 million).--The fiscal year 2007 request will address
the requirements in the biological opinions issued in December 2000 by
the Fish & Wildlife Service and in November 2004 by the National Marine
Fisheries Service. The 2004 biological opinion has been remanded to
NOAA Fisheries and a new biological opinion is due in October 2006.
During the remand, the 2004 biological opinion remains in place as
Reclamation continues to implement actions identified in the 2004
updated proposed action. These requirements include significantly
increased regional coordination efforts; actions to modify the daily,
weekly, and seasonal operation of Reclamation dams; acquisition of
water for flow augmentation; tributary habitat activities in selected
subbasins to offset hydrosystem impacts; and significantly increased
research, monitoring, and evaluation.
Site Security ($39.6 million).--An appropriation in the amount of
$39.6 million is requested for site security to ensure the safety and
security of the public, Reclamation's employees and key facilities.
This funding includes $15.4 million for physical security upgrades and
$24.2 million to continue all aspects of Reclamation-wide security
efforts, including law enforcement, risk and threat analysis,
implementing security measures, undertaking security-related studies,
and maintaining guards and patrols on the ground.
The fiscal year 2007 budget request assumes annual costs associated
with guard and patrol activities will be treated as project O&M costs
subject to reimbursability based on project cost allocations. These
costs in fiscal year 2007 are estimated at $20.9 million of which $18.9
million will be reimbursed; the actual amount may differ from this
estimate based on actual operations costs. Of the funding to be
reimbursed, $11.6 million will be in direct up-front funding from power
customers, while $7.3 million in appropriated funds will be reimbursed
by irrigation users, M&I water users, and other customers in the year
in which they were incurred through Reclamation's O&M allocation
process. Reclamation will continue to treat facility fortification,
studies, and anti-terrorism management-related expenditures as non-
reimbursable.
Safety of Dams ($69.0 million).--Assuring the safety and
reliability of Reclamation dams is one of the Bureau's highest
priorities. The Dam Safety Program is critical to effectively manage
risks to the downstream public, property, project, and natural
resources. The fiscal year 2007 request will provide for risk
management activities throughout Reclamation's inventory of 361 dams
and dikes, which would likely cause loss of life if they were to fail.
The request includes preconstruction activities for modifications
planned for the future. In fiscal year 2007, there will be two large-
scale ongoing corrective action projects plus four new awards.
Rural Water ($68.7 million).--This request supports the completion
of ongoing rural water projects. This includes funding for Municipal,
Rural, and Industrial (MR&I) systems for the Pick Sloan-Missouri Basin
Program--Garrison Diversion Unit (North Dakota), the Mni Wiconi Project
(South Dakota), the Fort Peck Reservation/Dry Prairie Project
(Montana), and the Lewis and Clark Project (South Dakota, Iowa, and
Minnesota). The ``Rural Water Act of 2005'' (S. 895) was passed by the
Senate in November 2005, and should address many of the problems
identified by the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) evaluation of
this program. The legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to
carry out a rural water supply program in reclamation States to: (1)
investigate and identify opportunities to ensure safe and adequate
rural water supply projects for municipal and industrial use in small
communities and rural areas; and (2) plan the design and construction,
through the conduct of appraisal investigations and feasibility
studies, of such projects. This measure will bring more uniformity,
direction, and prioritization for rural water projects. The legislation
is awaiting action by the House.
Science and Technology (S&T) ($8.5 million).--The fiscal year 2007
request includes funding for the development of new solutions and
technologies which respond to Reclamation's mission-related needs. We
feel our S&T work is important and will contribute to the innovative
management, development, and protection of water and related resources.
Of the amount requested, about $1 million is planned for internal
desalination Research & Development (R&D) conducted by Reclamation.
Additionally, water purification funds requested through the Water 2025
program will be managed by the S&T program.
POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION
The $58.1 million request is an increase of approximately $800,000
from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level of $57.3 million. The
additional funding in the fiscal year 2007 request includes funding for
labor cost increases due to cost of living raises and inflationary
costs for non-pay activities. Funding requested will be used to: (1)
develop, evaluate, and direct implementation of Reclamation-wide
policy, rules, and regulations, including actions under the Government
Performance and Results Act, and implement the President's Management
Agenda; and (2) manage and perform functions that are not properly
chargeable to specific projects or program activities covered by
separate funding authority.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND
This fund was established by the Central Valley Project Improvement
Act, Title XXXIV of Public Law 102-575, October 30, 1992. The request
of $41.5 million is expected to be offset by discretionary receipts
totaling $33.8 million, which is the maximum amount that can be
collected from project beneficiaries under provisions of Section
3407(d) of the Act. The discretionary receipts are adjusted on an
annual basis to maintain payments totaling $30.0 million (October 1992
price levels) on a 3-year rolling average basis. The net amount
requested for fiscal year 2007, after the offset, is the same as fiscal
year 2006. These funds will be used for habitat restoration,
improvement and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife restoration
activities in the Central Valley Project area of California.
CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA (CALFED)
Title I of Public Law 108-361, titled the Calfed Bay-Delta
Authorization Act, was signed by the President on October 25, 2004. The
Act authorized $389 million in Federal appropriations over the period
of fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2010. For fiscal year 2007,
$38.6 million is requested to enable Reclamation to advance its
commitments under the CALFED Record of Decision and with a focus
towards implementation of priority activities included in the Calfed
Bay-Delta Authorization Act that will contribute to resolving water
resource conflicts in the CALFED solution area. Funds will specifically
be used for the environmental water account, feasibility studies of
projects to increase surface storage and improve water conveyance in
the Delta, conduct critical science activities, implementation of
projects to improve Delta water quality, ecosystem enhancements, and
program planning and management activities.
PRESIDENT'S MANAGEMENT AGENDA
Reclamation continues to make progress in all areas of the
President's Management Agenda. Efforts toward advancing management
excellence in the fiscal year 2007 budget include: (1) improvements in
performance based budgeting, (2) program evaluations utilizing the
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), and (3) management studies to
improve organizational, management, and resource configurations.
Performance Based Budgeting.--Reclamation's budget is supported by
a performance-oriented framework that aligns to its mission and key
outcome goals to: (1) Deliver Water Consistent with Applicable State
and Federal Law, in an Environmentally Responsible and Cost-Efficient
Manner, and (2) Deliver Power Consistent with Applicable State and
Federal Law, in an Environmentally Responsible and Cost-Efficient
Manner. Reclamation's work in Resource Protection and Recreation are
also reflected in its outcome goals. The framework includes both long-
term and annual performance goals that link to the Department of the
Interior (DOI) Strategic Plan.
As part of Reclamation's budget process, funding requests for all
projects and bureauwide programs are linked to the DOI Strategic Plan,
further demonstrating their budget and performance ties. Activity Based
Cost Management (ABCM) output data is also refined and analyzed to
support Reclamation's efforts to produce cost information that, along
with performance data, is used to enhance budget decision-making. ABCM
data analysis will play an even greater role in formulating the fiscal
year 2008 budget.
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).--Reclamation's performance
budget also includes performance goals used in the assessment of
program performance. For the fiscal year 2007 budget, Reclamation's
Safety of Dams, Site Security and Water Management/Supply--Operations
and Maintenance programs were evaluated using the PART process. The
safety of dams program was rated effective. For this program, the
administration has identified the need to establish performance data
and track performance. The program has a strong track record, and
refined performance measures will help us better track how well we are
addressing dam safety issues. The site security program was rated
moderately effective, with improvements needed in budget and
performance integration. The program has been dramatically re-designed
since 9/11/2001, and is making progress towards meeting our short-term
and long-term goals of improving security at Reclamation facilities.
The PART also rated the water management/supply operations and
maintenance as adequate. Improvement plans for this program include
developing a comprehensive strategy to operate and maintain Reclamation
facilities.
Management Studies.--The National Academies of Science, National
Research Council has completed its study to assist Reclamation in
determining the appropriate organizational, management, and resource
configurations to meet its construction and related infrastructure
management responsibilities associated with fulfilling Reclamation's
core mission of delivering water and power for the 21st century. An
action plan that addresses the findings and recommendations in the
study has been approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The action
plan has been published on Reclamation's website and provided to the
committee.
BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE INTEGRATION
In line with the Department's initiative, Reclamation continues to
advance its efforts for improving budget and performance integration.
To do so, Reclamation's senior leadership participates in quarterly
reviews to focus on projections of whether or not our published annual
performance targets will be met by the end of the fiscal year. When it
is determined that accomplishment of a performance target may be in
question, Reclamation identifies corrective actions to be taken.
Both Reclamation's budget and performance documents incorporate
references to its outcome-oriented goals and measures as identified in
the PART and the information that is used in the quarterly reviews with
senior leadership. Reclamation completion of baseline data for several
new measures will enable it, over time, to develop and analyze
historical trends that may be used to better support its budget
requests and the goals included in its operating plan.
FISCAL YEAR 2007 PLANNED ACTIVITIES
Reclamation's fiscal year 2007 priority goals are directly related
to continually fulfilling our progress in water and power contracts
while balancing a range of competing water demands. Reclamation will
continue to deliver water consistent with applicable State and Federal
law, in an environmentally responsible and cost-efficient manner.
Reclamation will strive to deliver 28.4 million acre-feet of water to
meet contractual obligations while addressing other resource needs (for
example, recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, environmental
enhancement, and Native American trust responsibilities). Reclamation
will work to maintain our dams and associated facilities in fair to
good condition to ensure the reliable delivery of water. Reclamation
will strive to meet or beat the industry forced outage average to
ensure reliable delivery of power. Reclamation will reduce salinity by
preventing an additional 21,000 tons of salt from entering the water
ways.
Moreover, the fiscal year 2007 budget request demonstrates
Reclamation's commitment in meeting the water and power needs of the
West in a fiscally responsible manner. This budget continues
Reclamation's emphasis on delivering and managing those valuable public
resources. Reclamation is committed to working with its customers,
States, Tribes, and other stakeholders to find ways to balance and
provide for the mix of water resource needs in 2007 and beyond.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, please allow me to express my sincere appreciation
for the continued support that this committee has provided Reclamation.
This completes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions
that you may have at this time.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
I note that Senator Inouye arrived. Every other Senator had
an opportunity to make a comment, Senator. If you would like to
make one, you are welcome.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much. I came
by to thank the Commissioner for his service to our country and
to our people. Thank you very much.
Mr. Keys. Thank you.
Senator Inouye. I wish the very best, sir.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Senator Inouye.
Is any Senator on an urgent time frame, any more urgent
than I?
Okay, I will ask a few questions and then--did you want
further testimony or are we finished with the executive branch?
All right. Commissioner and Secretary, obviously you must
know that I am very concerned about the drought in the West, in
particular in New Mexico and the Southwest. The information
that I have seen shows that the current snow pack is less than
anything ever seen by current measurement system that was
installed in 1980 in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. It is
possible that there will be no runoff from the Sangre de
Cristo, which feeds the Santa Fe, the Pecos, the Canadian
Rivers.
The most recent information that I have seen shows Pecos
runoff estimated at 4 percent, Rio Grande 26, Zuni will get 1
percent of the normal runoff of Blue Water Lake. These are
absolutely grim statistics. It is not like I am putting these
to you expecting that you have solutions or that you are the
cause. Neither. It is just a terrible statement of reality.
What is your assessment of the drought situation in the
West and where do you anticipate the greatest impacts this
year? Is there any assistance that the Bureau might offer to
mitigate these impacts? What would drought contingency planning
entail, and what triggers Reclamation to pay for water hauling
versus drilling emergency wells? I put that all in one package,
but I think that you understand what I am talking about. Could
you start, please, and answer them?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, the weather situation in the West
is reversed from what it was last year. Last year, we had a wet
Southwest and a dry northern tier. This year, we have a good
wet northern tier and the conditions in the Southwest, the
southern plains and the southern Rockies, are extremely poor.
Your characterization of the Middle Rio Grande and the
Pecos is what the forecasts are showing. Certainly, we are
trying to see how much water we have in storage. In the Rio
Grande Basin, we are about 30 percent full in the storage
space, and we are trying to see how long that water will last.
We are also purchasing water to be sure that we have enough
for the silvery minnow in the Middle Rio Grande, and we have
the water for the prior and paramount rights for the Pueblos
set aside.
So with that said, what can we do to help? Title I of
Public Law 102-250 expired last year. The Title I program
allowed us, with proper appropriations, to do some temporary
work on the ground. The only permanent facilities that could be
done was the construction of wells, but it helped folks get
through. A good example would be hauling water to some of the
reservations.
Title I ran out, and we would certainly welcome the
opportunity to work with you and your committee to get that
renewed.
The Title II program gives us the ability to plan with the
States and other entities to deal with the drought and to put
plans together to find other water. We would certainly look
forward to working with you on reauthorization of the Title I,
and then, if we get the requests from States, to help them put
drought contingency plans together.
Senator Domenici. We are working with you now on trying to
put that in the supplemental appropriation.
Mr. Keys. Great. Thank you very much.
Senator Domenici. Do you know anything about that, Mr.
Secretary?
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman, no. I do know a little bit
about the drought and, being a former watermaster and manager
of a river in Idaho, it always pays to get ahead of these
things before they happen. The work that we have done with the
Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District to enhance their ability
to manage water more effectively and efficiently will help them
in managing this horrible drought that they are about to
experience. So we do believe, Senator, that having both
proactive and reactive parts of this are extremely important.
Senator Domenici. Well, I have two more and I will be as
quick as I can.
Last week, I was made aware of a serious water situation in
the Ruidoso and Ruidoso Downs, New Mexico, area. The city
council recently voted to initiate phase 4 water restrictions,
the most severe they have ever had. The Downs has been under
water rationing since 2002. Its Reclamation is aware of the
water situation. We are wondering if there is any immediate
help that Reclamation can offer these two communities? Do you
know about them and is there any?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, we were made aware of this
situation about the same time you were last week. We do not
have any projects in the area now, but our folks are working
with your staff and the local folks to see if there is some
help that we could make available to them.
Senator Domenici. It is my understanding that some of the
provisions of the Reclamation State Emergency Relief Act have
expired, and you indicated that. Assuming that we address this
legislative issue, do you have any idea how much funding you
would anticipate that Reclamation could utilize based on known
and anticipated drought problems? We need that soon and I
assume we are working on it together. Is that a fair
assessment?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, it is. Title I is the one that we
need to be reauthorized. Should it be reauthorized, we could
use around $4 million to help address problems out there. In
our proposal--Title II is still authorized, and we have about
$476,000 in our proposal for Title II, planning for the future
drought.
Senator Domenici. I am going to hold on a question on
advanced water treatment technologies, desalinization, and just
see how we are doing in your opinion. You have got an
initiative. We just wonder whether it is of the kind and
stature and structure that we should count on for the future.
With that, I yield now to--Senator, are you ready on your
side?
Senator Allard. My side is ready. I have no questions.
Senator Domenici. Senator Craig, then Senator Allard.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, when Commissioner Keys was nominated I asked him that
on his watch a Klamath Basin situation should never occur again
and he assured me that to the best of his ability that would
not happen, and it has not happened. But most importantly, I
think 2025 has come out of some of those realities as to how we
manage an overallocated resource in light of the demands being
put on it, whether it is for endangered species or just simply
expanded use, and how we get there.
I guess, Commissioner, my question of you and the Secretary
both would be: When we look at a report of this character and
the idea of officially authorizing an approach like this, how
do you see it laying out over a period of a decade and the
kinds of resources that would be required of the budget, if you
will, to accomplish what is outlined in this kind of effort?
Have you looked at it from a decade overview as to where it
takes us and what we gain from it and how much it will cost?
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman and Senator Craig, we have been
amazed at the interest in the challenge grant program, with
each year bringing over $100 million in projects requesting
Federal matching funds. We cannot begin to get to all of them.
So the needs are out there.
The other thing we see that is progressive about this Water
2025 approach, is that it targets areas of the West where we
can predict conflict and crises. We can predict problems, and
try to get ahead of them before they become the next Klamath
Basin, where we would have a problem with converging demands
causing a huge disruption in water supplies to someone.
A decade of Water 2025 at any level of funding would be
extremely helpful in these areas. We cannot say how much, once
we get to the point of having the program up and running, how
much more, how many more projects would be flushed out, how
many solutions would be found that would need the seed money
that 2025 and the challenge grant program provides. But we
believe that getting ahead of these problems will produce even
more solutions in other areas of the West that currently may
not realize that they have problems.
Having that program in place, having a proactive look,
managing for the future and providing the seed money,
especially in tight budget times where we have limited funding,
we believe is a very dynamic way to deal with the problems that
maybe we cannot even predict at this point. But we can predict
some problems now that we can effectively deal with.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Craig, I think there are two things to add to
what Mark said. One is that the Water 2025 program gives us the
ability to work with water user groups to provide water through
conservation to the new needs created by exploding populations,
new industry, new endangered species needs, and at the same
time, protect the basic water right of the irrigation folks who
have the water right to start with.
The Water 2025 program gives them the mechanism to make
that water available. It also lets us work with conservation
and gives us time to see where there may have to be another
infrastructure built. In other words, whether it is a dam,
reservoir, desalination plant, or a recycling facility, there
is a need for more infrastructure. Water 2025 gives us the time
to take care of the immediate needs and plan for those future
requirements.
Senator Craig. Well, I think the challenge grant and the
approach you are using is an exciting one and it fits in a way
that I think some of us who look at the traditional funding
approaches of the Bureau of Reclamation may not have
understood, and that we are dealing with a highly developed
region of the country today, not one that needs to be
developed, not one that needs the water before it can develop.
The world is significantly different in the Bureau regions
where you have always been and been active. And there is money
out there now and the opportunity to cost-share and/or to grant
and/or to guarantee, all of those kinds of tools allow private
sector money to be employed at a much higher level, I think.
I think your overview of that is valid, because what I am
hearing out there--it is just like I think we got a chunk of
money for recharge into the aquifer and yet the irrigation
districts and all of that are very willing to pony up and
participate when we have those kinds of grants.
So I think when we look at our budget challenges here we
can leverage a public resource from this level in a much more
expanded way through that kind of an approach. I thank you for
that. It makes a lot of sense.
DAM SAFETY AND AGING INFRASTRUCTURES
I am concerned about, obviously, dam safety and
infrastructure aging. I mentioned that in my opening comments.
I also understand the reality of budgets this year. Mr.
Chairman, the good news in my region of the country versus
yours is we are probably having almost one of the wettest
winters on record. The flip-flop that the Commissioner and the
Secretary have talked about has occurred. It has flipped out of
Idaho and the Inter-Mountain West and landed in the Southwest.
We are in a weather pattern out there right now, though, that
seems to be taking moisture across the whole region at a fairly
heavy rate. It is certainly going to enhance what we already
have and it may help you some.
But in all of our basins that are overallocated, and I
suspect every one is now, excess water--it is interesting.
Idaho is going through an interesting situation at this moment.
We are dumping water. We are spilling at a rate that, a lot of
Idahoans are stepping back and looking at that and saying: You
know, we ought not be doing that; we ought to be spilling that
throughout the season, if you will, for enhanced water quality
and downstream water quality, than seeing it all go out, if you
will, at this moment--which speaks to something you mentioned
in passing as a combination of a lot of ideas, Commissioner,
and that is increased storage. The West is going to have to
deal with that at some time in the future, at our continued
rate of growth. We can conserve, yes. We can spread, yes. We
can use less, yes. But in reality you cannot populate at the
rate that we are populating out there without trying to figure
out how to expand a resource and add to it.
Thank you all very much.
Senator Domenici. We look forward to your first proposal at
that time.
Senator Craig. It will come.
Senator Domenici. All right.
The Senator from Colorado.
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I want to follow up a little bit on my opening comments. I
just want to pose this question to the Bureau. Why does the
agency not believe that they should play a role in the
rehabilitation of federally built and federally owned projects?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Allard, we work very closely
with the irrigation districts. We work with them on annual
reviews of their maintenance and their operation. We actually
work with them on any deficiencies that are there. I would tell
you that there are no critical deficiencies that are left
untreated. In other words, there is no backlog of critical
maintenance.
There are some things that should be taken care of, and we
work with districts to help them manage their reserve funds to
take care of those. Original contracts that all of those
districts signed called for operation, maintenance, and
replacement, and we work with the districts.
It is true that we do not have some of the old programs
that we used to have such as the rehabilitation and betterment
program, the small loan program, or the drainage and minor
construction program. They were good programs, but they are not
available any more. Certainly, we work to minimize the need for
large expenditures, but sometimes it takes that. We try to find
the money.
The bill that Mr. Craig talked about, the Rural Water bill,
had a loan guarantee provision. Mark and I are working with the
administration to have an administration bill that would
accommodate that. Certainly, it is a way to help some of those
districts address some of those problems.
Senator Allard. Now, based on just what you said,
apparently you had a different approach than today, when you
said you had a rehabilitation program. I suppose when you had
that rehabilitation program you did not consider rehabilitation
as being the same thing as operation and maintenance, and now
my understanding is that within the Department you consider
rehabilitation as the operation and maintenance.
Why did that change happen? Maybe could you elaborate on
that a little further for me, please?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Allard, in the old days when we had the
rehabilitation and betterment program, the districts were still
responsible for rehabilitation. When there was a need, they
went to Congress to get a bill passed to provide the money for
rehabilitation and betterment. However, they were still
responsible, so they entered into repayment contracts.
Senator Allard. I see.
Now, if a project is willing and able to do rehabilitation
work, but simply needs funding, does the Bureau object to being
a pass-through agency for that funding?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Allard, I am not sure what you mean by
``pass-through.'' The loan guarantee program that we have
proposed would let us co-sign the loan and use the facility
that is owned by the Federal Government as collateral. They
would benefit from a low-interest loan that could be made
available through the Department of Agriculture, so we would
back it up with the district.
Senator Allard. I am going to change over now to a problem
area that I have in the State of Colorado, Leadville. It was
the source of a lot of silver mining there and there is a lot
of just natural lead in the soil, and as a consequence of that
the drainage there from that particular part of our State has
been classified as a Superfund site. I have a letter here from
the State of Colorado trying to get the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Bureau of Reclamation to work
together, as well as the Colorado Department of Public Health.
According to this letter, basically you agree with the effort
to try and work together as a group. The only thing is that you
need to obtain some authorizing language in order for you to
carry on your functions.
I would hope that maybe your office can work with us and
see if we can come up with some authorizing language that would
allow for that to move forward and get that whole thing off
dead center right now.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Allard, we would be more than happy to do
that. We have been working closely with the State and EPA on
the Leadville Mine drainage problem, and certainly, we would
work with you to develop the right legislation.
Senator Allard. Our constituents in Colorado expressed a
great deal of concern regarding the threat to Colorado's
municipal water supplies, particularly the western slope
reservoirs, due to a huge amount of fire danger from bark
beetle-killed trees nearby. We have got some parts of the bark
beetle where it just literally is wiping out entire forests.
The Colorado River drainage, a lot of it comes out of those
areas, some of it out of the North Platte.
My question to you is does the Bureau have a position on
the threat to municipal water in Colorado? And more
importantly, do you see the need for protective or other
measures to reduce such threats?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Allard, we work very hard to protect the
watersheds above our reservoirs from development. When there is
fire damage, we work with the Forest Service or BLM to do
rehabilitation work, so we do not get the big influx of
sediment that takes up the storage space.
We and the National Academy have just launched a review of
some forest management practices, and that could be part of the
study. Otherwise, we take it on a case-by-case basis and work
with the local Forest Service and BLM.
Senator Allard. That bark beetle problem in our State, it
has really been--I have been up to Alaska and seen whole
watersheds wiped out. We are facing the same thing. It is not
as obvious because the trees have not turned rust yet, rust-
colored, but it is coming, and it is all over the West.
Whatever you can do to help us address those issues and get
these things moving and giving some thought about the impact of
the bark beetle I think would be much appreciated. I know that
Senator Craig has some of those issues also in Idaho, and
probably in New Mexico.
Senator Craig. If the Senator would yield, when you go
through these severe drought cycles and you stress trees in the
way they have been stressed in the West, what follows is a
beetle epidemic, and we are now into that cycle. We may be back
into a wet cycle on the Rocky Mountain front and even in Idaho,
but that does not mean the beetles will stop.
So we have these huge watersheds that are now dead and we
are trying to get in them to clean them, revitalize them, by
thinning. And of course we are being--we are head on head, if
you will, with many of our environmental community groups. But
what then follows a dead forest is a fire, and you are going to
get total watershed wipeout, and then you have got major water
quality problems of the kind you are talking about.
Senator Allard. Soil erosion, the whole works comes with
that, silt problems.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Allard, Mr. Craig, our Department has been
one of the champions for the Healthy Forests Initiative, and
certainly, the bark beetle is a big part of that focus. We have
worked very closely with the Forest Service and with the Bureau
of Land Management. Yes, we have several million acres that we
manage also. Certainly, the Healthy Forests Initiative is
trying to deal with the bark beetle problem.
Senator Allard. I have just one more question, Mr.
Chairman, if I might.
A little over a year ago, the Bureau did a cost look-back
study on the Arkansas Valley Conduit. That is a pipeline that
runs out of the Pueblo Reservoir and goes down towards Kansas.
However, to date the study has not been released. Can you tell
me what the holdup is and when we can expect to see that study?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Allard, we are still working on
the cost estimate for that study. As you know, cost estimates
these days are almost a pariah in our construction programs,
and that is not just unique to Reclamation. We anticipate
having that done this summer.
Senator Allard. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
DESALINATION AND WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Senator.
Well, I am going to close on a little bit of a downer note
for you, on the desalinization and advanced water treatment
technologies. I think you know that because of my position as
subcommittee chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations
Subcommittee I have tried very hard to pursue with vigor
desalinization and also arsenic cleanup. But the Bureau manages
a diverse water treatment research program funded through five
budget items, including Reclamation research and development
budget, Water 2025, the Yuma Desalting Plant, and by the end of
2006 the Tularosa Basin facility will be complete.
These programs have the potential to expand the Nation's
water supplies and contribute to solving numerous current
Reclamation challenges, including providing water for rural
communities, reducing the concentration of salt and selenium in
irrigation return flows, and improving endangered species
habitat, and providing increased supplies for all water users,
as we see it in terms of the potential application of the
technologies that are being developed.
This huge benefit is dramatically undermined by what I see
as a lack of coherent strategy, with clear goals for Interior-
sponsored activities, integration of the multiple programs with
Reclamation, and cooperation with other agencies, including the
USGS, Department of Energy, and the Office of Naval Research--
kind of a freak to the mix, but it turns out it has a lot of
assets and it has a genuine and sustained interest in the basin
that we are working on by coincidence. We have pushed them
there and they are working at it with a lot of money.
Over 8 months ago, I asked the Bureau to develop and
present a coherent strategy for water treatment research and
development. I have not yet received that strategy. Does a
strategy for the desalinization and related research exist and
what is it?
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman, I will take a whack at that.
Currently, we are working on several fronts to provide you a
coherent strategy. First of all, we are working with OMB to
refine the strategy that we have proposed, that would help
coordinate those efforts and set priorities. We do have the
multifaceted approach and basically the highlight would be the
research and development grants through the 2025 program
looking at the next generation of technologies.
But also, the Tularosa facility, which will be complete in
2007, the first part of 2007, in the fiscal year 2006 budget
year, is----
Senator Domenici. When will it be complete?
Mr. Limbaugh. January 2007.
Senator Domenici. January 2007?
Mr. Limbaugh. Yes, with the funds that we have in the 2006
budget.
Senator Domenici. Turnkey, ready to go, open?
Mr. Limbaugh. Yes, sir.
We also have in the 2007 request the operations and
maintenance for that facility. So we are looking at finding a
partner for that facility and working on a business plan that
will be a sustainable use of that facility within the research
and development component.
We also have worked with the National Academy of Sciences
and have initiated a study, a follow-on to the road map that
will look at Reclamation's programs and also others to find the
coordinated strategy that will be blessed by the National
Academy, that will hopefully be the long-term look at how
desalination can work, what the role of the Federal Government
will be in most efficiently managing and looking towards the
future with that technology.
We do believe that the new technology, the new generation
of desalination, is important to the West and it is very
important to many regions of the West, and specifically in
using not only ocean desalination but brackish ground water, on
a more cost effective basis than what it is now.
John, do you have anything?
TULAROSA AND HURRICANE RELIEF EFFORTS
Mr. Keys. Mr. Domenici, let me give you a real success
story on Tularosa. Last August 29, when Katrina was bearing
down on Louisiana----
Senator Domenici. I understand.
Mr. Keys. We got the call from the Corps of Engineers
saying: ``How can you help us?'' The hurricane hit on Monday.
Monday afternoon, we got the request from the Corps to help out
with water supply in the area. Wednesday afternoon, we had a
lowboy from Las Cruces arrive at Tularosa. They put two of the
desal units that we were testing at the facility on the truck.
Friday afternoon, they hit the ground in Biloxi. Saturday
morning they were producing 200,000 gallons a day of water.
That is enough to serve about 50,000 people.
They also did that at the regional medical center there.
When Rita came through, they took it down to the air base.
After Rita passed through, they came back, set it up again, and
it operated for about 2 months, 24/7, and produced water for
about 50,000 people. When it was done, they put it on the truck
and took it back to Tularosa.
Right after that happened, we had requests from the
National Rural Water Association on how they may purchase four
of those units, station them around the United States, so that
the next time we have an emergency like that they are ready to
go. This is a real success story from some of the work at
Tularosa.
Senator Domenici. That is a very good example of carrying
out this project. But that is not the whole story. The question
is do we have in place what experts would tell us is a center
that can pursue vigorously all phases or multiple phases and
aspects of the problems still remaining with desalinization?
Maybe we are not on the right track. Maybe it is too little of
a facility. Maybe it is--who is going to tell us?
Is the Academy going to tell us, in your opinion? Are the
national laboratories going to tell us? I do not believe you
have the expertise to tell us that. You are managers, in a
sense; is that correct?
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman, that is correct, and that is
why we have tried to go with the Academy study and we are
trying to include the partners that we have worked with in
looking for a managing entity for the Tularosa facility in New
Mexico. We think that the strategy of having the National
Academy of Sciences review the Federal and private sector roles
for the future, would give us the needed impetus to implement
the road map and look to the future in a much more sound,
sustainable manner.
Senator Domenici. I might say to my friend, the word
``Tularosa'' keeps coming up and one might wonder what is that
all about. Well, actually there is a rather large underground
sea of salty water and that basin is called the Tularosa Basin.
Senator Allard. I see, because I was thinking----
Senator Domenici. There is a little town called Tularosa,
but it is just a small little village.
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I was also thinking that if
this is surface water desalinization, I think certainly--and
this will not fit in, I guess, now that I know where you are
going. But one concern is that we have dynamics happening on
the surface that adds to salinated water supply. We have
plants, for example the tamarisk, which is salt cedar, which
adds--not only do they drink a lot of water, but they cause the
river to become more saline, and as a result of that I think it
contributes a lot to salination. This probably would not be
covered by that study, but certainly I think--I was going to
bring that up after your discussion in regard to this question.
But now that I more thoroughly understand where you are
driving, Mr. Chairman, we will bring that up at another time.
Senator Domenici. So now we are going to have to get from
you this solid and final recommendation as to what that
facility--how much did we invest in the facility that we keep
alluding to?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, about $16 million.
Senator Domenici. One-six?
Mr. Keys. Yes.
Senator Domenici. It is supposed to be a place where you
can come and do your research, is that not correct?
Mr. Keys. Yes, it is.
Senator Domenici. As I recall, a permanent facility. You
make arrangements, bring your best technology, and test it out
there?
Mr. Keys. Exactly.
Senator Domenici. So the whole question is how important is
that to the pursuing of a program.
Mr. Keys. We think that it is very important. We are
working with other agencies that want to test there. This
summer, there will be a request for proposals for a contract to
manage a plant, do a business plan, and attract folks.
Senator Domenici. I think one of the most important long-
term things you are doing is to determine whether you are going
to be an active, vibrant player in desalinization. We will be
having hearings concerning reorganizing the Bureau. Does
desalinization fit with Reclamation's mission? Or is that
something that should be elsewhere?
I do not know. We did what we could do. It is obvious we
have truncated it on there because of our interest, and a very
good interest, I think, without any question.
I also want to close by just complimenting you and many on
what has happened with the minnow in the Rio Grande. We start a
year with a much different situation than we have ever had
before, in that the play now between the stakeholders is no
longer what it was before. The effort now is to create a
completely different kind of habitat for bringing the fish
through the water, in a sense, rather than letting the water
flow, flow, flow, flow, and get lost as it is taken downstream
to the fish.
You would have been amazed, Commissioner. The latest effort
was the Interstate Streams Commission, a very powerful entity,
made a commitment to this. They came up with a very large piece
of equipment that they put in this very dry river, and what
they did is they, with full environmental approval in advance,
they moved it slowly upstream and provided pits, if you could
imagine, deep pits, so that as they moved up 4 or 5 miles they
made water holes, so as to speak, for the minnow. An
experiment, a test run.
They then put minnows that we have raised, which nobody has
complained about, planted them. That has been their
contribution to what others have done by creating inlets, where
you just actually create an inlet on the side of the place, of
the river, and you plant these fish there and they live in
these inlets. They cannot get out too easily and so they stay
and propagate and have water where there is water, instead of
going 70 miles down to Soccoro, where you have been to see that
little dry hole.
So all that together, you know, shows how difficult and how
much hard work people will do. We have really tried. We hope
this drought does not make all that for naught. We have alluded
to it. It could.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
All right. I have remaining questions on CALFED, Title XVI,
and Animas-La Plata. They will be submitted. Answer them in due
course and we will see.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Mark Limbaugh
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
DROUGHT
Question. Secretary Limbaugh, Commissioner Keys, I am extremely
concerned about drought in the west and particularly in New Mexico and
the southwest.
The information that I have seen shows that the current snowpack is
less than anything ever seen by the current measurement system that was
installed in 1980 in the Jemez and Sangre De Cristo Mountains.
It is possible that there will be no runoff from the Sangre De
Cristo which feeds the Santa Fe, Pecos, and Canadian Rivers. The most
recent information that I have seen shows the Pecos runoff estimated at
4 percent, Rio Grande 26 percent, and the Zuni will get 1 percent of
normal runoff in Bluewater Lake.
These are grim statistics. Unless we get unusual rainfall, the
situation will be more critical next year. What is your assessment of
the drought situation in the West?
Answer. We share your concerns. The hydrologic conditions of the
major basins of the Western United States can be characterized by
contrast. The northern basins--such as those in the Pacific Northwest,
northern Rockies, northern Great Plains, northern California, northern
Nevada and northern Colorado are projecting snowpack and spring runoff
levels at well above normal. Furthermore, due to significant storms
over the past several weeks, Nebraska and Kansas have seen significant
improvements in their hydrologic conditions.
In contrast, despite significant rain and snow over the past week
in New Mexico, southern Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas, the Southwest,
Southern Plains and Southern Rockies have had below-normal levels of
precipitation this winter and all these areas potentially face serious
drought conditions this spring and summer.
Question. Where do you anticipate the greatest drought impacts for
this year?
Answer. We expect the most significant impacts in New Mexico,
Texas, Oklahoma, and Arizona.
Question. What assistance can the Bureau offer to mitigate drought
impacts?
Answer. If reauthorized, Title I of Public Law 102-250, the
Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991, as amended,
could provide authority for construction, management, and conservation
measures to alleviate the adverse impacts of drought, including the
mitigation of fish and wildlife impacts. Additionally, Title I could
provide for emergency response and allow Reclamation the flexibility to
operate its project facilities in a manner that would allow the most
efficient use of limited water supplies.
Question. What would drought contingency planning entail?
Answer. Drought contingency planning is a plan for the future that
details what activities an entity would engage in for the prevention or
mitigation of drought impacts. The plan would identify opportunities to
conserve, augment and make more efficient use of water supplies.
Question. What triggers Reclamation to pay for water hauling versus
drilling emergency wells?
Answer. Section 101 of Title I of Public Law 102-250, the
Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991, as amended,
provides that the only permanent facilities for drought mitigation are
the drilling of wells. All other actions must be temporary in nature.
Water hauling would be considered a temporary action allowable under
Title I. One action is not preferred over the other. Decisions on which
cause of action to take are based on local water conditions, costs, and
timeliness among other factors. Should Title I of Public Law 102-250,
the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991, as
amended, be reauthorized, both activities could be carried out.
Question. Last week, I was made aware of the serious water
situation in Ruidoso and Ruidoso Downs, NM. The Ruidoso City Council
has recently voted to initiate Phase IV water restrictions (the most
severe). Ruidoso Downs has been under water rationing since 2002. Is
Reclamation aware of the water situation and is there any immediate
help that Reclamation can offer these two communities?
Answer. Our understanding from discussion with the State of New
Mexico is that the Village of Ruidoso could benefit from either repair
of certain existing non-operational wells or drilling of additional
wells. Should Title I of Public Law 102-250, the Reclamation States
Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991, as amended, be reauthorized,
Reclamation would be capable of working with the Village of Ruidoso and
the State of New Mexico to assist in either effort.
Question. Does your budget request contain any funding for drought
assistance in fiscal year 2007?
Answer. The fiscal year 2007 budget request includes $475,000 for
drought activities.
Question. It is my understanding that some of the provisions of the
Reclamation States Emergency Relief Act have expired. Assuming that we
address the legislative issues, how much funding would you anticipate
that Reclamation could utilize based on known and anticipated drought
conditions for the remainder of fiscal year 2006 and what would be the
needs for fiscal year 2007?
Answer. We could effectively use approximately $7.5 million in
fiscal year 2006. The funds requested for fiscal year 2007 in the
amount of $475,000 would be sufficient, under present drought
circumstances.
Question. How will the drought affect in-stream flow requirements
for endangered species?
Answer. The drought will not modify the in-stream flow
requirements, in that there is no exception for extreme drought
conditions in meeting endangered species requirements. We will need to
meet the flow requirements specified for a dry year. Because of drought
conditions, more water will need to be released from storage to meet
those requirements.
Question. What will Reclamation's role be in these issues?
Answer. Only Title I of Public Law 102-250, the Reclamation States
Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991, as amended, which expired on
September 30, 2005, contains provisions to acquire water on a
nonreimbursable basis as well as the drilling of new wells or
rehabilitating existing wells. Reclamation must undertake the
activities or contract for services.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
WATER 2025
Question. The President's budget proposes $14.5 million for the
Water 2025 initiative, an increase of $9.6 million over fiscal year
2006 enacted. The administration developed Water 2025 to meet the
challenge of preventing crises and conflicts over water in the West by
increasing the certainty and flexibility of water supplies,
diversifying water supplies and preventing crisis among users. The
funding supports a competitive 50-50 challenge grants and the water
system optimization reviews.
While I support the general concept of the initiative--preventing
crises and conflicts over water--I feel the best way to prevent future
problems is to adequately fund projects, like Garrison Diversion, that
are aimed at addressing emerging water needs of our country.
In some ways, I think that the Water 2025 initiative is simply a
way for the administration to fund its pet projects versus providing
adequate funding for projects that have been vetted and approved by
Congress and passed into law. In an August 2005 press release, the
Department of Interior announced $1 million in Water 2025 grants for
projects in Idaho, Kansas, Texas, Arizona, Montana and New Mexico. I
could recommend several North Dakota projects that could have used that
funding.
Did any of the $9.6 million increase for the Water 2025 initiative
come from funds that were previously used to fund projects in North
Dakota?
Answer. No, funding for water projects in North Dakota has not been
decreased as a result of funding requests for the Water 2025 Program.
The development of rural water projects and the Water 2025 Program
are both important. While completion of the Garrison Diversion will
serve an important local need, the Water 2025 Program allows
Reclamation to focus resources on geographical problem areas throughout
the 17 Western States. With a tightening Federal budget, Water 2025 has
proven that leveraging Federal dollars with our partners can provide
on-the-ground improvements in water management infrastructure that can
help prevent water crises where it is most likely to occur.
To date, Reclamation has awarded funding for 68 Challenge Grants in
16 States, including 62 projects by irrigation and water districts and
6 more by Western States. Collectively, the 68 projects represent
almost $60 million in improvements, including a non-Federal
contribution of $44 million and the Federal Government contribution of
$15 million. In other words, for every dollar the Federal Government
has invested, there has been about a $2.90 non-Federal investment.
Estimates in the project proposals indicate that the 68 projects
could save up to 285,000 acre feet of water per year, collectively,
once fully implemented. An acre foot of water is enough to supply a
family of four for up to a year.
It is important to clarify that Water 2025 does not provide an
opportunity for the administration to fund projects that it favors over
projects that have been approved by the Congress. On the contrary, all
Water 2025 Challenge Grant funding is allocated through a highly
competitive and impartial process. Proposals are ranked by a panel of
technical experts based on an established set of criteria that
prioritizes projects resulting in real on-the-ground benefits, in terms
of water conserved, better managed, or marketed, within 24 months from
the date of award. Under this approach, only the very best projects are
selected for funding, based on their technical merits.
The $1 million awarded to six States in August 2005 was part of the
Water 2025 Challenge Grant Program for Western States. Any State agency
with water management authority, located in the 17 Western States--
including North Dakota--is eligible to compete for the $1 million. None
of the $1 million was awarded to North Dakota because nobody from North
Dakota submitted any proposals for consideration in the Challenge Grant
Program. We look forward to working with the delegation to increase
awareness of this program among North Dakota water interests, so that
they can avail themselves of this competitive program.
Question. Isn't the first approach to resolving future conflicts
and water problems to provide the funding in the first place for
projects, like Garrison Diversion, that are aimed at doing exactly
that?
Answer. Rural water projects such as those associated with the
Garrison project account for much of the new project construction
within Reclamation. The development of rural water supplies and the
implementation of the Water 2025 Program are both tools that are
necessary to prevent crises and conflict over water in the West--and
both are Departmental priorities. The Department has worked closely
with the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on a bi-
partisan basis, to develop legislation to establish a formal rural
water supply program in the Bureau of Reclamation (S. 895). This will
enable Reclamation, in cooperation with States and rural communities,
to better plan for and prioritize rural water supply projects. In
recent years, we have worked closely with the State of North Dakota to
implement the Dakota Water Resources Act. Despite the tight budget
climate that we face, Reclamation has dedicated a significant amount of
funding to this and other rural water supply projects indicating that
completion of projects to meet the water supply needs of rural
communities continues to be a priority.
Reclamation is responsible for delivering water and power
throughout the 17 Western States, with a limited amount of Federal
funding. Therefore, geographically broad-based efforts that leverage
limited Federal dollars--such as the Water 2025 Program--are also
essential to preventing conflicts and crises over water throughout the
West.
Through the Water 2025 Challenge Grant Program, Federal funding is
leveraged through cost-shared grants that are awarded on a competitive
basis to eligible applicants in any of the 17 Western States--including
North Dakota. Those eligible include irrigation and water districts,
Western States, tribal water authorities, and other local entities with
water delivery authority. The grants support projects that improve
water conservation and efficiency through the modernization of existing
water delivery facilities, and projects that involve water marketing.
These types of projects are essential to meet competing demands for
water, even in areas where new storage projects have been approved.
______
Questions Submitted to John W. Keys III
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
Question. Are there other appropriate means for Reclamation to
address drought conditions?
Answer. Public Law 102-250, the Reclamation States Emergency
Drought Relief Act of 1991, as amended, is not the only program
Reclamation uses in addressing drought issues. Title I of the Act, used
for responding to emergency needs, expired on September 30, 2005. The
Water Conservation Field Service Program and the Water 2025 Initiative
are examples of programs that are designed to prevent crisis and
conflict over water in the West through advanced preparation and water
management improvements. The Drought Act is a complimentary program to
Water 2025. Proactive tools like this are critical because water
shortages based on an imbalance between supply and demand, even in non-
drought years, should catch nobody by surprise--they are inevitable.
Even though we don't know when and where water supply disruptions will
hit, we know they will happen. Short-term response actions are highly
visible and important, but allocating our resources to longer-term,
proactive, preventive efforts, such as through creating local drought
management plans or the type of targeted actions envisioned by the
Water 2025 program, will ultimately have more of an impact to
alleviating the effects of droughts than short-term, last-minute fixes.
DESALINATION AND ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Question. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation manages a diverse water
treatment research program funded through 5 budget items including
Reclamation's Research and Development Budget, Water 2025 and the Yuma
Desalting Plant.
By the end of fiscal year 2006, the Tularosa Desalination Facility
will be complete. These programs have the potential to expand the
Nation's water supplies and contribute to solving numerous current
Reclamation challenges including providing water for rural communities,
reducing concentration of salt and selenium in irrigation return flows,
improving endangered species habitat and providing increased supplies
for all water uses in the United States.
This huge potential benefit is dramatically undermined by the
seeming lack of a coherent strategy with clear goals for the Interior
sponsored activities, integration of the multiple programs within
Reclamation and cooperation with other agencies including the United
States Geological Survey, the Department of Energy, the Office of Naval
Research, etc.
Answer. We are developing a strategy which we feel addresses the
concerns you have raised. It is undergoing the administration's review
and upon completion, we will share the strategy with the Congress.
Question. Does a strategy for desalination and related research
exist?
Answer. Yes, Reclamation has a draft strategy for advanced water
treatment technologies.
Question. What is the strategy?
Answer. We are working within the administration to finalize
development of our proposed strategy and would be glad to fully brief
your office on it when it is complete.
Question. Can/will Reclamation participate in multi-agency
activities to coordinate research funded through Federal, State and
private investment?
Answer. Yes, we are currently coordinating our research efforts
with the Interagency Consortium, Water Reuse Association and
Desalination Task Force, among others. We have asked the National
Academies to become engaged with us and provide further definition on
roles of the Federal, State, and private sector research investments.
Furthermore, Reclamation's Science and Technology program, which
coordinates all of Reclamation's research and development activities,
has a strong track record of coordinating with other research bodies to
ensure prioritization of research, and to avoid redundancy.
Our participation with the Office of Naval Research in the
development of the Emergency Unit for Water Purification (EUWP) and
testing at the Tularosa facility allowed us to successfully deploy the
EUWP after hurricane Katrina to the Biloxi Regional Medical Center. We
provided highly purified water to the hospital and later treated water
from the city's municipal system until the city's system was certified
safe by the State.
Question. Can you assure me that the Tularosa facility will be
completed this fiscal year within the budget provided by Congress for
fiscal year 2006?
Answer. Yes, the Tularosa facility is scheduled to be completed in
January of 2007 utilizing the fiscal year 2006 appropriations in
accordance with the administration's fiscal year 2007 budget request.
Question. It has always been my intention that the Tularosa
Desalination Test Facility be operated by a university in the southern
New Mexico region and be positioned as the Nation's premier location
for inland desalination and concentrate disposal research and
development. The Bureau of Reclamation promised me a detailed strategy
document by February of this year in which this role would be well
articulated. I have yet to receive that document and feel that the
Bureau is remiss in fulfilling their promise. Does this strategy
document now exist and does it anticipate this appropriate role for
Tularosa by the end of calendar year 2006?
Answer. The mission of the Tularosa Desalination Test Facility is
to be the intellectual powerhouse that attracts outstanding researchers
to work on developing cost effective, efficient desalination
technologies that can be applied to brackish and impaired ground
waters--resulting in new supplies of usable water for municipal,
agricultural, industrial, and environmental purposes.
We have developed a Business Plan for the Tularosa facility and are
working to finalize it. We plan to meet with your office when it is
complete.
Question. Additionally, the administration's budget appears to be
inadequate to provide funding to operate and underwrite research at the
facility in fiscal year 2007. How do you intend to undertake the
research program outlined to my office with the current inadequate
resources?
Answer. We believe that adequate budget for start-up, operation,
maintenance, and research has been requested in the fiscal year 2007
President's budget within the Water 2025 program. The request will
cover operation, maintenance, and will provide funding for research at
the facility and elsewhere.
Question. It appears that USBR does not intend to undertake its
role as the Nation's central research organization in desalination and
reuse research given the current budget proposal. Has the Department of
Interior decided to abandon this core competency?
Answer. The Department is committed to maintaining Reclamation's
advanced water treatment research efforts with emphasis in resolving
inland advanced water treatment issues and cost reduction through
applied research, while ensuring that our research efforts are
undertaken strategically, in the context of overall research and
development needs in the water area.
Our fiscal year 2007 budget requests of $5,235,000 for advanced
water treatment research, is to continue the pursuance of expanding
useable water supplies. The request is divided among the internal and
external Research and Development programs as follows: Desalination and
Water Purification Research program (external), $25,000; Title XVI
(external), $750,000; Water 2025 (external), $2,700,000; Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control program, Title I (internal), $760,000; and the
Science and Technology program (internal), $1,000,000.
Question. When will Reclamation be prepared to issue the call for
proposals for the management contract for the Tularosa Desalination
Facility?
Answer. We expect to be in a position to issue the Request for
Proposals for the management contract of the facility by late summer
2006. Reclamation will have a managing entity on board in ample time
for the opening of the facility.
TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE
Question. The budget request seeks $10.1 million for Title XVI
projects. In light of the current backlog of needs, how was this
request determined to be adequate and appropriate?
Answer. The President's request of $10.1 million for fiscal year
2007 is about $100,000 less than the amount requested for fiscal year
2006 for Title XVI. As in fiscal year 2006, the fiscal year 2007 budget
request includes those eight construction projects that were included
in the President's request in prior years. We continue to be aware that
the desire for Title XVI funding is significant. However, Reclamation
has many demands placed upon it, and we must balance all of our
priorities within the funding limits we are working with.
Question. The Bureau was directed to review and report on those
recycling projects deemed to be feasible under CALFED. To date, there
has been no report provided to Congress. What is the status of this
review and why has it not been forwarded to Congress?
Answer. Reclamation has completed its review of all reports and
other documentation submitted by project proponents in response to our
request for information for the report directed by Public Law 108-361;
we transmitted the report to Congress on April 28, 2006. Of the
submittals for projects that have not been authorized, 14 (7 each
associated with SCCWRRS and BARWRP) were nearly complete, but lacked
elements such as NEPA compliance. While these projects have the
potential to meet requirements included in Reclamation's 1998 Title XVI
Guidelines, we do not know how they would rank in priority if the Title
XVI program were reformed as proposed in our February 28, 2006,
testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power. The remainder
lacked many required elements. All project proponents have been
notified of Reclamation's findings.
Question. What was the Bureau's request for Title XVI program
funding that was transmitted to OMB as part of the budget formulation
process?
Answer. The administration's budget request for Title XVI funding
in fiscal year 2007 was $10.2 million.
Question. How were projects selected for funding?
Answer. For continuity purposes, Reclamation elected to request
funds for the same projects that were included in the President's
budget request in fiscal year 2006.
Question. Were the funding levels for each project determined to be
adequate?
Answer. The funding level for each project was determined based on
the amounts requested in prior years and the construction schedule of
the project sponsors. We feel these levels are adequate given the many
competing demands which are worthy of funding by Reclamation.
Question. The Title XVI program was established as a way to
increase water supplies in the West by recovery of water that otherwise
would have been wasted. Reclamation has never been a big proponent of
this program. Yet it seems to be a natural fit with Reclamation's role
of providing water and power to the West. How does Reclamation believe
this program could be modified so that OMB and Reclamation would be
willing to significantly increase budget resources for this program?
Answer. Reclamation discussed potential modifications to the Title
XVI program before the Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power on
February 28, 2006. Reclamation provided a drafting service to Congress
that would accomplish many of these issues, and the administration is
developing its own legislation for Title XVI reform that will be
transmitted to Congress soon. Reclamation believes these proposed
changes will make the program more competitive, better define project
eligibility, and more effectively help reduce future conflicts and
crises over water supplies in the West. Ultimately, our intent is to
administer this program in conjunction with the Water 2025 program, to
target resources to the areas of most critical need to proactively
avert water conflicts by diversifying water supplies.
ANIMAS-LA PLATA
Question. Costs on the Animas-La Plata project increased rather
dramatically after it was authorized. Will we be able to construct this
project within the cost ceiling that we provided?
Answer. Current legislation authorizes the appropriation of such
funds as are necessary to complete construction of the project
facilities through 2012. Even though there is no legislated cost
ceiling, we do have a construction cost estimate. The current base
construction cost estimate of $500 million, indexed to October 2006
price levels, is $552 million. With the understanding that features not
yet awarded will continue to be indexed, Reclamation believes the
indexed base estimate is adequate to complete the Project, provided it
is funded at sufficient levels to match construction capability and no
unforeseen conditions are encountered.
Question. In the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Act we extended
the timeframe for completion of this project to 2012. Does the funding
request for this project allow you to meet this schedule?
Answer. Yes. The fiscal year 2007 budget request is $57.4 million.
This request will continue construction of two of the Project's major
features, Ridges Basin Dam and the Durango Pumping Plant and begin
construction of a third major feature, Ridges Basin Inlet Conduit. The
Project schedule was recently revised to reflect the funding level for
fiscal year 2006 and the President's request for fiscal year 2007.
Assuming funding levels in the out years at the fiscal year 2007
request level, construction of the Project could be completed by 2012,
with Project closeout in fiscal year 2013.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
REPAYMENT CONTRACTS
Question. Historically, the Reclamation Program does not flow from
a single organic Federal statute. There have been various acts since
the 1902 Reclamation Act which have shaped the program. Since 1939,
every project has been individually authorized with its own terms and
conditions. Given geographical and geological uniqueness, and varied
construction dates, we find it difficult to believe all, or any, Bureau
of Reclamation projects are identical. Therefore we ask: Are all
repayment contracts identical?
Answer. No. All repayment contracts are not identical. Contracts
are a mix of standardized and nonstandardized articles.
Reclamation has contracting authority under general Reclamation
law, project-specific authorizations, and even contract- or contractor-
specific authorizations. Variations among these authorities lead to
variations among repayment contracts. For example, the Reclamation
Project Act of 1939 allows a maximum repayment period of 40 years
(Public Law 76-260) (general Reclamation law); the Colorado River
Storage Project Act allows a 50-year repayment period (Public Law 84-
485); the Central Valley Project Improvement Act specifies a 25-year
repayment period for irrigation repayment contracts (Public Law 102-
575, Title XXXIV, section 3404(c)) without affecting repayment periods
for municipal and industrial contracts (project-specific
authorization); and the Congress specified a 60-year repayment period
for the Yuma Mesa Irrigation and Drainage District (Public Law 84-394)
(contractor-specific authorization).
Numerous other provisions can vary among repayment contracts,
including the permissible uses of project water, water delivery
schedules, where water can be used, and who is responsible for
operating and maintaining facilities. Even among contracts made
pursuant to the same authority, circumstances may lead to some
variation, within whatever range the applicable law allows.
In the early 1960's, Reclamation recognized that there are some
provisions standard to all contracts. These ``standard contract
articles'' generally result from requirements of executive orders,
rulemaking processes, or other laws mandating they appear in contracts.
Question. Are all projects under the same authorization?
Answer. All projects are not under the same authorization. While
many prior to 1939 were under the general authorization provided in the
Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902, Congress did, in some instances (for
example the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 (Public Law 70-642) and
the Central Valley Project, California, and Colorado River Project,
Texas (1937) (Public Law 75-392)) provide specific project
authorization. Since 1939, Congress has provided more individual
project authorizations to construct projects. However, pursuant to the
Flood Control Act of 1944 (Public Law 78-534), Congress directed that
project authorizations be approved by an act of Congress.
Question. Is it the opinion of the Bureau of Reclamation that all
repayment contracts include ``replacement'' even when it is not stated
in the contracts?
Answer. Reclamation contractors are required to pay for their
appropriate share of operation and maintenance costs (O&M) (Public Law
63-170, Public Law 69-284, Public Law 76-280, Public Law 97-293). O&M
costs are generally the costs necessary to operate a constructed
project and make repairs and replacements necessary to maintain the
project in sound operating condition during the life of the project.
One of the standard articles for all contracts is the ``emergency
reserve fund'' article. This article resulted from the demonstration
that nearly every district, on occasion, requires funds to meet major
unforeseen costs of operation and maintenance and repairs and
replacement of the project works. While the article may be standard,
the requirements for the fund amount are not. Guidance for the
establishment of the amount of the reserve fund is found in Reclamation
policy, which recognizes that not all projects are the same and,
therefore, the amount of the reserve fund is established accordingly.
SAFETY OF DAMS
Question. The Safety of Dams program provides guidelines and
financing for dam inspections. Therefore, are pertinent structures
other than the dam itself given the same importance as the dam? If not,
why not?
Answer. The Safety of Dams Program identifies (inspects) and
evaluates issues and implements modifications to dams, if warranted, to
reduce risks to the public. Dam inspections are part of a comprehensive
risk management approach to limiting life safety risks downstream of
dams owned by Reclamation.
Many other structures that are part of the Reclamation water
resource infrastructure do not pose the same life safety risks, even
though they may be critical features for assuring the delivery of
project benefits. These structures are evaluated as part of
Reclamation's Review of Operation and Maintenance (RO&M) Program. The
RO&M program provides an excellent program for assuring the continued
operation of Reclamation facilities. The Safety of Dam program
addressing the potential life safety consequences associated with the
failure of high- and significant-hazard dams requires a higher standard
of risk management to assure the safety of persons living downstream of
those facilities.
JACKSON GULCH RESERVOIR
Question. Jackson Gulch Reservoir, an off-river reservoir, depends
on a canal system as relevant to the reservoir as the dam. Without the
canal, the dam would be useless and unnecessary. The Animas-La Plata
project will also be dependent on a water carriage delivery system.
What do we need to do to make Bureau of Reclamation realize the
importance; and/or how can we begin a ``Safety of Connecting
Structures'' program in order to preserve these systems?
Answer. Reclamation understands the importance of the canal systems
and other features that are associated with its dams. These facilities
are inspected by Reclamation professionals on a regular frequency under
the Review of Operation and Maintenance Program which was established
in Reclamation in 1948. Observed structural or operational deficiencies
are noted and recommendations are categorized based on significance and
tracked until accomplished. Reclamation retains ownership of these
facilities, yet the operation, maintenance and replacement of many
facilities have been transferred to water user entities.
In the case of Jackson Gulch Reservoir, a feature of the Mancos
Project, the Mancos Water Conservancy District is responsible for
operation and maintenance, including repair, of all project facilities,
as specified in their contract. Repair or replacement of the canal
system is the responsibility of the District. The long-term viability
of all Reclamation facilities, especially for transferred works, is
critically dependant on the local project sponsors meeting their
obligations to perform required Operations and Maintenance activities.
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Question. What is the Bureau of Reclamation's official definition
of (a) ``operations and maintenance'' and (b) ``operations, maintenance
and replacement''?
Answer. Within the context of managing Reclamation's water and
power infrastructure, the operation and maintenance of project works
involves a wide range of activities. These operations and maintenance
activities encompass those actions necessary to achieve continued
integrity and operational reliability in delivering authorized project
benefits.
Additionally, as stated in Reclamation's ``Report to the Congress,
Annual Costs of Bureau of Reclamation Project Operation and Maintenance
for Fiscal Years 1993-97'', dated September, 1998, ``the most visible
maintenance tasks are the major repairs and rehabilitations, equipment
and facility replacements, and facilities additions that are
accomplished at every project over time.'' As such, the ``maintenance''
term includes ``replacements'' and, therefore, the definitions for both
(a) and (b) as stated in your question are considered to be synonymous.
Similarly, for contract administration purposes within Reclamation,
replacements have always been included as part of maintenance
responsibilities and costs.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION'S MISSION
Question. What does the Bureau of Reclamation believe is their (a)
current mission or purpose, and (b) their future mission or purpose?
Answer. The current and future mission of the Bureau of Reclamation
is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an
environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the
American public. The role of Reclamation is vitally important at this
critical time, and in the future in the West. As the West experiences
rapid double digit growth in many areas, the role of Reclamation in
managing the critical infrastructure in a manner that balances the
needs of agriculture, municipal and industrial, power users,
recreation, fish and wildlife and endangered species is essential. In
the Lower Colorado River Basin for example, the Secretary of the
Interior is the water master. In that capacity, the Secretary is
required to balance the needs of the Seven Basin States while
maintaining the river. This includes river operations, facility O&M,
water service contracting and repayment, decree accounting, and
oversight of hydropower activities. Additionally, in Idaho, in the
Columbia Basin, we are trying to meet the objectives of our projects
and at the same time recognize the water rights and to enforce or
actually coordinate and work with the compacts that have been done in
the basin.
REHABILITATION
Question. Bill language gives evidence to the fact that as recently
as the 1990's, Reclamation did support rehabilitation. (a) When did
that change and why? (b) Does the Bureau of Reclamation see
rehabilitation as currently outside of or futuristically not a part of
their mission?
Answer. We believe you may be referring to funding of the
Rehabilitation and Betterment Program, which was authorized in a 1949
Act, and amended/supplemented in 1950, 1971, and 1975. Under the
program, Reclamation water users were able to obtain no-interest loans
to rehabilitate and improve the Reclamation-owned irrigation facilities
they operated and maintained. Although still authorized, loan funding
of that program was discontinued in the mid-1990's (driven by limited
appropriations at that time) and water users were expected to use their
own resources or to seek private financing. Private lenders are often
unwilling to lend to the water users, however, because project
facilities can not be used as collateral; the United States holds title
to the facilities.
As Reclamation's infrastructure continues to age, there will likely
be a need for increased maintenance and major rehabilitations.
Reclamation recognizes the importance of a preventive maintenance
philosophy and the need for ongoing condition assessments of our
facilities to identify and remediate deficiencies at an early stage.
Through these efforts and applying effective technology and research in
these maintenance activities, the service lives of these facilities can
be lengthened and the need for major rehabilitation efforts delayed
and/or reduced. Reclamation will continue to work cooperatively with
water users in addressing these rehabilitation issues. Ultimately,
local water users are responsible for the operation and maintenance of
certain facilities (i.e., facilities transferred for operation and
maintenance responsibility).
Question. Are the benefits derived from large projects perceived as
more important than those of small projects and therefore worth
funding?
Answer. No. Each project, large or small, has its own merits and
issues.
Question. There is potential that projects will be forced to return
O&M to Reclamation when they cannot fund replacement due to failure.
What does Reclamation intend to do when projects begin to fail? And
when this potential situation becomes reality?
Answer. Return of O&M to Reclamation is a possibility. At this
point in time, we cannot predict what will occur other than Reclamation
would examine the causes of failure, the potential consequences to the
project sponsors and other factors such as the environment, and the
economic merits of reinvesting in the project. We believe that the loan
guarantee program as discussed above will reduce the likelihood of O&M
being returned to Reclamation.
REPAYMENT CONTRACTS
Question. Our repayment contract states that we, the project
operating entity, are entrusted to and expected to protect the Federal
interest, i.e. the Mancos Project. Why are we trying to convince the
Bureau of Reclamation to support our efforts?
Answer. Reclamation supports the efforts of managing entities to
protect the Federal investment. In the case of the Mancos Project, the
existing O&M contract specifies that the Mancos District is responsible
for the operations and maintenance, including repair, of all project
facilities.
Question. Why does Reclamation fear we are trying to ``take away''
from their budget? We should both be working toward the same goal.
Answer. Reclamation consistently supports and is committed to its
projects as authorized by public law in accordance with legal
contracts. For example, on the Mancos Project in Colorado, the contract
between Reclamation and the Mancos Water Conservancy District states
that the District will be responsible for operation, maintenance and
rehabilitation of the project facilities rather than Reclamation.
Question. Very recently it was announced that Reclamation had saved
several million dollars on a project and were able to lower their
budget. Was it possible for them to re-route the savings and begin to
address the rehabilitation problems surfacing? If so, why didn't they?
Answer. Unless the specific project in the question is named it
would difficult to comment on how any project savings may have been
used elsewhere or when the savings would have been realized.
Reclamation is constrained in how it spends appropriated funds by
public law and legal agreements. Transferring or reprogramming funds
between projects is also subject to Congressional guidelines.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
OVERALL BOR FUNDING
Question. The administration has written that ``water is the
lifeblood of the American West and the foundation of its economy.'' Yet
when the President released his budget earlier this year, he proposed a
nearly $140 million budget cut for the arm of the government
responsible for the supply and management of much of that water in the
West, the Bureau of Reclamation. How will the Bureau of Reclamation
address the growing water needs of the Western part of this country
with even less resources than the previous year?
Answer. We believe the funding level is sufficient to address
Reclamation's responsibilities related to the growing and changing
water needs of the West. Through collaboration and partnerships, we
believe we can stretch limited Federal dollars further. For example,
part of the funding in fiscal year 2007, is for the Water 2025 program
that continues to focus on preventing crises and conflicts in the West,
particularly in the problem areas identified on the Potential Water
Supply Crises by 2025 illustration, May 5, 2003. The $14.5 million
request will fund three program components: Challenge grants, water
system optimization reviews, and research to improve water purification
technology.
The $14.5 million includes a request of $9.7 million to continue
the success of the Water 2025 Challenge Grant Program. The requested
amount will help bring the funding more in line with the demand and
with the critical need for projects that will stretch water resources.
In just 2 years since the inception of the Challenge Grant Program,
Reclamation has funded 68 Challenge Grants to irrigation and water
districts and western States, to address western water conflicts before
a crisis occurs. Grants have been awarded in 16 out of 17 western
States, potentially saving up to 285,000 acre-feet of water, once the
projects are fully implemented. An acre-foot of water is enough to
supply a family of four for a year.
The $14.5 million requested also includes $2.1 million for water
system optimization reviews, a new component of Water 2025 to be
introduced in fiscal year 2007. Funding for system optimization reviews
will be awarded through a competitive process, much like the Challenge
Grants. Through water system optimization reviews, Reclamation will
work with willing irrigation and water districts and western States to
identify options for maximizing efficiency and improving water
management.
Finally, $2.7 million of the Water 2025 funding will be used to
continue to fund research to improve and decrease the cost of water
purification technology, including desalination. Water 2025 funding
will be applied to competitive cost-shared grants for pilot,
demonstration, and research projects to improve and test water
purification technology.
Water 2025 represents one example where Reclamation is leveraging
its budget to resolve water issues in the West through collaboration
and partnerships during a time of limited Federal dollars.
RURAL WATER
Question. As you know, my top priority within the Bureau of
Reclamation's budget is adequate funding for the Garrison project. A
total of 155,000 acres of Ft. Berthold Indian Reservation land was
taken for building the second-largest earth filled dam in America, the
Garrison Dam. The water divided the Reservation down the middle. The
Federal Government owes this tribe and others in North Dakota for its
sacrifice for the Nation.
But this administration's budget once again fails to live up to
that promise by recommending only $24.21 million for Garrison
Diversion, a $3.1 million cut over the fiscal year 2006 level of
$27.311 million. The President's request does not provide the necessary
funding for the municipal, rural and industrial (MR&I) projects in the
State. The Dakota Water Resource Act of 2000 authorized $200 million
for the State MR&I program and $200 million for the Indian MR&I
program. The President's fiscal year 2007 budget only provides $6
million for MR&I projects: $3 million for State MR&I and $3 million for
Indian MR&I. The North Dakota Water Commission has identified a need of
$36 million for MR&I projects in fiscal year 2007.
The President's budget proposal woefully funds Garrison Diversion.
Why is the Federal Government turning its back on its commitments to
the residents of my State?
Answer. The administration is not turning its back on the residents
of North Dakota. The fiscal year 2007 President's budget request
continues progress on the Garrison Diversion Unit while maintaining
existing infrastructure and other on-going construction projects
throughout the agency, during a time of limited Federal dollars.
Question. As you know, the BOR released its Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Red River Water Supply Project on December 30,
2005. This draft listed 8 potential alternatives and the BOR had a 60-
day comment period, which was extended until the end of March.
I want to thank the BOR for holding all the meetings around North
Dakota to discuss the different alternatives contained within the draft
plan. The State of North Dakota has identified their preferred
alternative and it seems like the most feasible and cost effective plan
put forward.
This plan would use a combination of the Red River, other ND in-
basin sources, and Missouri River water. The principal feature of this
option would be a pipeline from the McClusky Canal to Lake Ashtabula
that would release treated MO River water into the Sheyeene River. The
pipe would be sized so peak day demands could be met by Lake Ashtabula
releases. The option would include a biota treatment plant at the
McClusky Canal and a pipeline to serve industrial water demands in
southeastern ND. The biota treatment process would use various
disinfection technologies.
Unlike the other alternatives, this plan would ``only'' cost $500
million. I say ``only'' because the other alternatives range from $600
million to $2.5 billion.
What, if anything, did the Bureau learn from all the meetings
around North Dakota regarding this plan?
Answer. The proposed alternatives would use water sources in North
Dakota and Minnesota. Public hearings were held in North Dakota and
Minnesota to gather input on all eight (No Action and seven action)
alternatives evaluated in the draft EIS.
The formal input received at these hearings can be categorized as
follows: (1) support for the project; (2) support for the State's
preferred alternative; (3) opposition to the project; (4) opposition to
the State's preferred alternative; (5) opposition to interbasin water
transfer; (6) concerns with transfer of non-native biota from
interbasin water transfers; (7) concern that the identified need for
water is too large; (8) concern that the Red River Valley residents
live within their means (more water conservation, more drought
contingency, more use of in-basin water sources); (9) concern expressed
by Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock Sioux Tribes that other
features of GDU, specifically Indian MR&I, be completed before funding
construction of any Red River Valley Water Supply feature(s); (10)
concern expressed by tribes that diversion would negatively impact
their water rights.
Question. Are you finished taking comments on this? If not, how
long has the comment period been extended?
Answer. No, the comment period has been extended. The additional
time will permit Reclamation and the State of North Dakota the
opportunity to work cooperatively with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to address and resolve issues raised by EPA.
Question. Is it still your intention to publish the final EIS in
December of this year?
Answer. Yes. Reclamation plans to distribute the final EIS by
December 31, 2006.
Question. From a preliminary standpoint, is the Bureau looking at
any one alternative in particular?
Answer. No. We are going to evaluate all comments and data before
identifying a preferred alternative.
Question. Is the State's alternative the most likely at this point
and if so is the administration already engaging the Canadian
government on potential concerns regarding the Boundary Waters Treaty
Act? I know it may be premature, but I do not want the project held up
based on unsubstantiated allegations regarding biota transfers.
Answer. Until all comments have been received and evaluated it is
premature to assess any one of the alternatives as ``most likely.''
Canada has participated in technical discussions on the Red River
Valley Water Supply project but has not been engaged formally at this
time. Reclamation has briefed the State Department on the issues
associated with treaty compliance.
Question. And to that point, has the Canadian Government submitted
any comments on the proposals? More specifically, has the Canadian
Government indicated any alternative to what the BOR has proposed?
Answer. Although Canada was invited to participate on the Red River
Valley Water Supply Needs and Options studies they declined to be a
formal member of the team. Manitoba and Environment Canada participated
as observers but did provide technical comments during the study
process and on the draft Needs and Options report. Both Manitoba and
Environment Canada are expected to comment on the draft EIS. At this
time, Canada has not proposed any new alternatives. Their comments to
date have made it clear that they oppose any interbasin water transfer,
are concerned about potential transfer of non-native biota associated
with a transfer of Missouri River water, and would like a reference to
the International Joint Commission.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
FUNDING FOR FRIANT--NRDC SETTLEMENT
Question. The Department of the Interior is a party to the
negotiations to settle the long standing litigation over the San
Joaquin River. I'm aware that settlement discussions are confidential
and have not been completed, but I understand that the Justice
Department has told the Court that the Department expects negotiations
to be substantially completed by mid-April.
If the Justice Department is correct in its assessment and the
parties' settlement is approved by the Court, can we assume that you
will begin your San Joaquin River restoration activities as soon as
possible, including in fiscal year 2007, and if so, how would the
Bureau fund such activities? A Settlement wasn't anticipated when the
Bureau drafted its fiscal year 2007 budget request, so the request
doesn't include funding for fiscal year 2007 restoration actions.
Answer. As you know, settlement discussions are continuing. If a
settlement is eventually reached and if it is approved by the Court,
Reclamation could be able to begin initial activities associated with
the restoration activities outlined in the settlement using a portion
of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) Restoration Fund
which has been identified in the 2007 budget request for use on San
Joaquin River activities.
Question. What source of existing revenues (i.e. the Judgment Fund,
CVPIA Restoration Funds, the Friant Surcharge, Cal Fed, or other Energy
and Water appropriations) can be applied to this effort in fiscal year
2007?
Answer. There are a number of possible sources of funding. This is
a matter under consideration in the confidential settlement
discussions.
Question. As you know, Congressman Radanovich, Governor
Schwarzenegger and I have all urged the Bureau to reach a settlement of
this case. Now that the parties appear close to reaching an agreement,
will implementation of a San Joaquin River settlement be a future
funding priority for the Bureau?
Answer. The Department appreciates the effort that all of the
parties to the litigation have committed to the settlement
negotiations, and we remain hopeful that a settlement will ultimately
be reached. Establishing funding priorities in any given year will, of
course, require discussions with the Office of Management and Budget,
as well as subsequent acts of Congress.
CALFED STORAGE STUDIES
Question. I strongly believe that with a growing population, global
warming, and other challenges, California greatly needs new water
supply. I understand that your current schedule is to finish the last
of the four CALFED storage feasibility studies, for the Upper San
Joaquin storage project, in July 2009.
Is there anything that I can do to get this study finished faster?
If there is any potential delay in getting the approval of other State
or Federal agencies, will you let me know right away so I can try to
get the process moving?
Answer. We have been reviewing our schedules and believe that there
may be opportunities to expedite the investigation such that all four
studies including the Upper San Joaquin storage investigation could be
completed by the end of 2008. These opportunities are dependent on the
results of on-going technical studies as well as the level of
cooperation we receive from our State partners and other State and
Federal CALFED agencies and stakeholders. Based on our current schedule
of tasks to complete the investigations, additional funding above the
budget request is not required at this time to support expediting the
schedule. We hasten to add that completion of these studies does not
mean that the projects will be ready to begin construction; these are
merely documents that will aid the Federal Government in determining
whether these proposed projects are feasible and how they fit into
broader nationwide priorities for investment.
ENVIRONMENTAL WATER ACCOUNT
Question. The administration asked for $10 million for the
environmental water account in its fiscal year 2007 CALFED funding
request. How critical is this environmental water account funding for
avoiding or minimizing harm to the Delta smelt and other pelagic fish
while delivering water to farmers and cities to the South?
Answer. The Environmental Water Account (EWA), authorized in the
2004 CALFED Bay-Delta Authorization Act, is a pilot water management
program, and is integral to making balanced progress in implementing
the CALFED program. It is designed to help protect and increase
survival, and aid in the recovery of at-risk native fish species of the
Bay-Delta, including the Delta Smelt, by strategically implementing
pumping curtailments at the Central Valley Project's Tracy Pumping
Plant and the State Water Project's Banks Pumping Plant. Whether the
actions of the EWA do contribute to the recovery of at-risk native fish
populations is a question that remains unanswered.
Given the current situation regarding the decline of pelagic fish
populations and ongoing investigations into the reasons for this
decline, the EWA agencies, as well as many other concerned entities,
have made this matter a high priority. A multi-year science effort was
initiated in 2005 by the agencies involved in the Interagency
Ecological Program to determine the causes of the Pelagic Organism
Decline (POD) in the Delta. Part of this effort includes identifying
the role, if any, that water project operations in the Delta might have
had in the POD.
Additionally, the CALFED Science Program has already initiated the
development of fish population models for the Delta that will increase
our understanding of how certain actions in the Delta affect fish
populations. The results of these efforts will likely increase our
understanding of how effective the EWA program has been in helping
Delta fish populations. Because of the current situation in the Delta,
it is critical to have adequate fiscal year 2007 funding for the pilot
phase of the EWA to help ensure sufficient water assets are acquired
for fish protection and water supply reliability purposes.
LOWER TUSCAN AQUIFER WATER SUPPLY INVESTIGATION
Question. I have a strong interest in the Bureau of Reclamation
supporting locally-led efforts to investigate the Lower Tuscan
groundwater formation, which Congress funded with $2 million in the
fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill.
Preliminary study results suggest the Lower Tuscan may hold as much as
30 million acre-feet of water.
While the potential water supply benefits of the Lower Tuscan
formation appear to be substantial--with early California Department of
Water Resources estimates forecasting as much as several hundred
thousand acre-feet in new water available for agricultural,
environmental, and municipal uses--additional technical work must be
completed to determine how this resource can best meet regional and
statewide water supply needs.
Commissioner Keys, I want to thank you for your support for this
critically important initiative. I understand that the Bureau is
working on a cooperative agreement with Glenn-Colusa Irrigation
District to move forward on this project.
Can you update the committee on the Bureau's progress in moving
forward on the Lower Tuscan work?
Answer. Reclamation is currently working with Sacramento Valley
water interests, in particular with Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District
(GCID), to develop a cooperative agreement that will include studies
and investigations of the possibility of integrating the Lower Tuscan
Formation into Sacramento Valley surface water supplies. This agreement
will be a counterpart to the agreement between GCID and the Department
of Water Resources for Proposition 50 funding for these same
activities.
I would also point out that new groundwater supplies, while
potentially representing a short-term expansion of water supply, and
offering potential for conjunctive use (groundwater storage of surface
waters), must be carefully managed to avoid groundwater mining. New
groundwater supplies need to be part of a long-term, sustainable
strategy for water use, and should not be used as a one-time windfall.
Question. When do you anticipate finalizing the cooperative
agreement?
Answer. We expect to receive a completed proposal from GCID no
later than June 14, 2006, and to enter into a Cooperative Agreement
with GCID prior to the end of fiscal year 2006.
CALFED WATER USE EFFICIENCY PROJECTS
Question. I understand that the Bureau is now accepting grant
applications from agricultural and urban water districts for $2.4
million from Congress's fiscal year 2006 appropriation for CALFED water
use efficiency projects. Can you tell me about the types of projects
you expect to fund, and how much water they could save to be used for
other purposes?
Answer. Funding is available for agriculture and urban projects.
Applicants for the CALFED Water Use Efficiency Grants Program must be
local public agencies involved with water management (cities, counties,
joint power authorities, or other political subdivisions of California)
or incorporated mutual water companies.
To be eligible for financial assistance, a proposed activity must
have a defined relationship to CALFED objectives. These objectives
include: improving and increasing habitats, improving ecological
functions for ecosystem quality, providing good water quality, and
reducing the mismatch between the Bay-Delta water supply and its
current and projected uses.
Proposals that will be considered for funding are agricultural
projects including canal lining, spill and tailwater recovery systems,
automated canal structures, and evaluation of improved water
efficiency, and urban projects that satisfy the implementation of the
urban Best Management Practices, such as, residential plumbing
retrofits, Commercial Industrial and Institutional water conservation
efforts (water used primarily by hotels, restaurants, commercial/office
buildings, manufacturers, and public service facilities), large
landscape conservation, metering, and system audits.
WATER RECYCLING PROJECTS AND TITLE XVI
Question. In 1999, California water districts submitted the San
Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program feasibility study
to the Bureau of Reclamation. This regional plan consisted of 19
projects that if constructed would produce 125,000 acre feet of
recycled water by 2010. In 2001, California water districts submitted
the Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse
feasibility study to the Bureau. If constructed, the 34 projects in
this regional plan would generate 451,000 acre feet of recycled water.
The Bureau has been reviewing these studies for the past 7 and 5 years,
respectively. Is this the typical time it takes to review Title XVI
feasibility studies?
Answer. The Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program (BARWRP)
study was submitted to Reclamation in 1999 by the local water agencies.
The Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study
(SCCWRRS) was completed by Reclamation, in cooperation with local water
agencies, in 2001. The reports documenting these studies were submitted
to Congress, which completed Reclamation's responsibility under
Sections 1610 and 1606 (respectively) of Title XVI, Public Law 102-575.
These studies were regional and programmatic in nature and were not
intended to determine the feasibility of individual projects;
therefore, Reclamation has not been reviewing these studies or specific
projects identified in either of these reports to determine their
feasibility during the past 7 and 5 years, respectively.
However, Public Law 108-361 required Reclamation to determine
whether subsequent reports and other documentation submitted by
individual project proponents met the requirements of the 1998 Title
XVI Guidelines for determining project feasibility, and this review has
now been completed and provided to Congress.
Question. Is it true the Bureau has not yet completed its review
process?
Answer. Reclamation has completed its review of the reports and
other documentation submitted by project proponents in response to our
request for information for the report directed by Public Law 108-361.
The report was transmitted April 28, 2006.
Question. When can both Congress and the projects sponsors expect
to receive the Bureau's completed review?
Answer. The report was transmitted April 28, 2006.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Domenici. Anyway, with that sad tale, we are in
recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., Tuesday, March 28, the subcom-
mittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the
Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2007
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:13 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Domenici, Bond, Allard, Reid, and Murray.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
STATEMENT OF DAVID K. GARMAN, UNDER SECRETARY OF ENERGY
FOR ENERGY, SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT
ACCOMPANIED BY:
JAMES RISPOLI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
JEFFREY JARRETT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FOSSIL ENERGY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. The hearing will please come to order.
Now, this is a very lengthy hearing. We are going to try to do
it all. I do not know if we can finish it in the time allotted.
If we do not, we will hold it over to this afternoon and try to
finish it for whomever can come. The witnesses that are not
finished this morning, please understand, get on your
telephones and advise people you might have to be here this
afternoon.
I have a very lengthy statement. There is no other way for
me to do it. But I am going to yield to the distinguished
ranking minority leader for his opening remarks. Then I will
have mine and then if either Senator would like. I would like
them to keep them brief and to the point.
Senator Reid, thank you for coming.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I
appreciate your courtesy. I know everyone is busy and I feel
that I should not step out of line, but I appreciate your
allowing me to do so.
Secretary Garman, Dr. Orbach, I am delighted to see the
proposed increases for the Office of Science Research Programs.
As a supporter of balanced energy policy, I believe that your
office has an absolutely critical role to play in delivering
discoveries and scientific tools that transform our
understanding of energy and matter in areas as diverse and
fundamental as biological and environmental research to nuclear
power and even fusion.
I am also pleased to see the proposed increases for energy
sciences, computing, nuclear physics, fusion energy, including
the $41 million increase for the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor project, known as ITER.
Dr. Garman, I am similarly pleased to see the increases for
the proposed Advanced Energy Initiative. I laud the value of
research and development to promote American energy security
and a corresponding decrease in our dependence on foreign
resources. I also believe that the proposed initiatives in
biofuels, hydrogen, and solar research can all play a
significant role in our future energy security.
I am, though, disappointed by your decision to zero out the
geothermal energy program. I am really somewhat mystified. I
see nothing in the budget request to defend this action of
yours, so I assume you are hard-pressed to come up with an
answer. Geothermal is really something that needs to be used.
It is there, it is at our fingertips, and some have referred to
Nevada as the Saudi Arabia of geothermal energy.
I have a series of questions and a separate statement for
the record on this issue and I ask consent that I can submit
these to you.
Senator Domenici. Without objection.
Senator Reid. Though you should be assured I will continue
to press for geothermal energy in next year's budget, this
year's budget, fiscal year 2007.
I hope you will also take some time to discuss why you did
not avail yourself of the fiscal flexibility offered in last
year's conference report concerning Congressionally directed
activities. I am very eager to understand what led you to the
conclusion that laying off National Renewable Energy Lab
employees, if only for a week, made sense, given the broad
authority you had to avoid such an outcome. It embarrassed the
President and it embarrassed all of us.
This subcommittee needs to be in a position to support the
President's competitiveness and energy initiatives. However,
unless this committee receives a higher budget allocation some
very difficult choices will have to be made between proposed
increases in nuclear and renewable energy programs, while
programs such as fossil energy are severely shortchanged. For
every huge plus-up of new ideas by the President, you have cut
huge congressional priorities. Congress is going to have to
restore your indefensible, I believe indefensible, cuts to the
weatherization program, clean coal power initiative, and
geothermal energy programs, just to name a couple.
The most likely sources of these funds in a flat budget
environment are big initiatives that are seeing huge funding
pushes and it is hard for us to comprehend that. For example,
Yucca Mountain. The Department has requested $544 million. This
represents an increase over the $495 million of last year of
$50 million. I am convinced that the proposed Yucca Mountain
nuclear waste dump will never be built. We know it is mired in
scientific, safety, and technical problems. When this bill was
passed 20 years ago, there was reason for doing it. It has not
worked well.
In 1987 Congress, as we know, took additional action. It
was based on political expediency and it has not worked well.
DOE has been studying this site for 20 years. The studies are
incomplete and do not provide a basis for evaluating whether
Yucca Mountain is a safe site for storing nuclear waste or that
we can transport it across America's highways and railways to
our communities, past our schools and hospitals and through
major metropolitan areas. Transportation of nuclear wastes
around the country and to Yucca poses hazards to public health,
economic and national security, and environmental safety from
accidents and terrorist acts, issues that did not exist in
1982, issues though which, with the changing environment, DOE
has refused to address.
Moving about 80,000 tons of waste to Yucca would involve at
least 55,000 truckloads, maybe as many as 10,000 rail
shipments, through counties which include 250 million people--
Sacramento, Buffalo, Denver, Chicago, the District of Columbia.
Before his election, President Bush wrote, I quote: ``I
believe sound science and politics must prevail in the
designation of any high-level nuclear waste repository. As
President, I would not sign legislation that would send nuclear
waste to any proposed site unless it has been deemed
scientifically safe.'' Again, President Bush let politics and
unsound science prevail.
A few of the scientific problems that we have seen even in
the last year-and-a-half include: a court decision throwing out
EPA's radiation protection standards as they were not strong
enough to protect the public from radiation exposure and failed
to follow the recommendations of the National Academy of
Sciences. Next, EPA published in 2005 its revised standards for
the proposed site, which most scientists believe are
inadequate, do not meet the law's requirements, and do not
protect public health and safety. In fact, EPA is proposing the
least protective health radiation standard in the whole world.
Numerous scientific and quality assurance problems with
transportation have also been brought to our attention,
problems dealing with transportation, corrosion of casks,
effectiveness of materials, causing DOE to suspend work on the
surface facilities and to issue a stop-work order on the
containers.
Also, DOE revealed that documents and models about water
infiltration at Yucca Mountain had been falsified. People lied
about it. They whitewashed the problem, but they cannot
whitewash the DOE Inspector General's report that DOE continues
to ignore falsification of technical and scientific data on the
project. This is not the governor of Nevada or some State
legislature, but it is the Inspector General of the Department
of Energy that says this, that the DOE continues to ignore
falsification of technical and scientific data.
In numerous media reports, the administration has confirmed
that it is preparing a legislative package that will remove
health, safety and legal requirements, a clear admission, I
suggest, that the project is a public health and safety and
scientific failure.
It should be clear to anyone that the proposed Yucca
Mountain project is not going to move. It will never open. Yet
we must safely store spent nuclear fuel. It is time to look at
other alternatives. Fortunately, the technology to realize a
viable, safe, and secure alternative is readily available and
can be fully implemented within a decade. That technology is
on-site dry cask storage. As we speak, dry casks are being
safely used at 34 sites throughout our country. Even NEI
projects 83 of the 100 active reactors will have dry cask
storage by 2050.
Senator Ensign and I have a bill that would safely store
nuclear waste while we look for a scientifically based
solution, the Spent Fuel On-Site Storage and Security Act. Our
bill requires commercial nuclear utilities to secure waste in
licensed on-site dry cask storage facilities. There is no
justification for endangering the public--I pushed it down with
my card. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
There is no justification for endangering the public by
rushing headlong toward a repository that is fraught with
scientific, technical, and geological problems when it can be
stored safely and securely in dry casks. The bill guarantees
all Americans that our Nation's nuclear waste will be stored in
the safest way possible. So it is time we proceed to address
the problem, the safe storage of spent nuclear fuel, and stop
pouring hundreds of millions of dollars every year down the
drain.
PREPARED STATEMENTS OF SENATOR HARRY REID
Since the Yucca project I believe is a failure, I will
continue to oppose it. I want to, Mr. Chairman, spread on the
record how, even though we have butted heads on this issue for
many, many years, it has all been in the sense of policy
differences. You have been a gentleman to work with and I
appreciate that, extending today to allowing me to go first,
and I apologize to my colleagues for taking as long as I have
with the statement.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Harry Reid
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you holding this combined hearing today
to discuss the fiscal year 2007 budget request for a large number of
Department of Energy programs, including the Office of Science, the
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs, the Office of
Electricity, the Fossil Energy program, the nuclear energy program, the
Office of Legacy Management, the Office of Environment, Safety and
Health, the Environmental Management program and, of course, the Yucca
Mountain program.
I am pleased to welcome Mr. Dave Garman, the Under Secretary for
Energy, Science, and the Environment, and Dr. Raymond Orbach, the
Director of the Office of Science.
I am going to submit several longer statements for the record
regarding the Energy Supply Program and Office of Science generally,
and the geothermal energy program specifically.
However, while I am here today, I would like to offer several brief
observations about the overall budget request for these programs and
then a much longer discussion about the on-going government failure and
embarrassment that is the Yucca Mountain Program.
Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief.
Dr. Orbach, I am delighted to see the proposed increases for the
Office of Science research programs. As a supporter of a balanced
energy policy, I believe that your office has an absolutely critical
role to play in delivering discoveries and scientific tools that
transform our understanding of energy and matter in areas as diverse
and fundamental as biological and environmental research to nuclear
power and fusion.
I am pleased to see the proposed increases for basic energy
sciences, computing, nuclear physics, and fusion energy including the
$41 million increase for the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor project (ITER).
I was prepared to ask you some very specific questions about job
impacts based on enactment of this budget request to make sure we avoid
any problems similar to what we faced this year, but given the massive
increases I think I can forgo that line of questioning.
Mr. Garman, I am similarly pleased to see the increases for the
proposed Advanced Energy Initiative. As you are aware, I laud the value
of research and development to promote American energy security and a
corresponding decrease in our dependence on foreign resources. Further
I believe that the proposed initiatives in Biofuels, Hydrogen, and
Solar research can all play a significant role in our future energy
security.
I am, however, mystified by your decision to zero our the
geothermal energy program. I see little effort in the budget request to
even bother to try to defend this action, so I assume you were hard-
pressed to dream one up. I have a very long series of questions and a
separate statement for the record on this issue. However, it is safe to
say that there will be a geothermal energy program in fiscal year 2007.
I hope you will also take some time to discuss why you did not
avail yourself of the fiscal flexibility offered you in the fiscal year
2006 Conference Report concerning Congressionally-directed activities.
I am very eager to understand what led you to the conclusion that
laying off National Renewable Energy Lab employees, if only for a week,
made sense given the broad authority you had to avoid such an outcome.
Finally, this subcommittee wants to be in a position to support the
President's Competitiveness and Energy Initiatives. However unless this
committee receives a higher budget allocation, some very difficult
choices will have to be made between proposed increases in Nuclear and
Renewable Energy programs while program such as Fossil Energy are
severely shortchanged.
For every huge plus-up of shiny new ideas by the President, you
have cut huge Congressional priorities. Congress is going to have to
restore your indefensible cuts to the Weatherization Program, the Clean
Coal Power Initiative, and the geothermal energy program, just to name
a few. The most likely sources of these funds, in a flat budget
environment, are big initiatives that are seeing huge funding pushes.
As for Yucca Mountain . . . .
The Department has requested $544 million for fiscal year 2007 for
the nuclear waste repository program. This represents an increase over
the current year appropriated amount of $495 million by approximately
$50 million.
I am convinced that the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump
will never be built because the project is mired in scientific, safety
and technical problems.
In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which called
for disposal of nuclear waste in a deep geological repository that
would remain stable for thousands of years and directed DOE to pick the
most suitable site based on the natural, geologic features of the site.
In 1987, Congress took action based on political expediency and
limited DOE's studies to Yucca Mountain, despite the fact that the
criteria in the Act would disqualify the Yucca Mountain site.
DOE has been studying the site for 20 years. The studies are
incomplete and do not provide a basis for evaluating whether Yucca
Mountain is a safe site for storing nuclear waste or that it can be
transported safely across America's highways and railways and through
our communities, past our schools and hospitals and through major
metropolitan areas.
Transportation of nuclear waste around the country and to Yucca
poses hazards to public health, economic and national security and
environmental safety from accidents and terrorist attacks, issues which
DOE has not addressed.
Moving 77,000 tons of waste to Yucca would involve about 53,000
truck shipments or 10,000 rail shipments over 24 years, through
counties in which nearly 250 million people live, including Sacramento,
Buffalo, Denver, Chicago, Washington DC, and Las Vegas.
Before his election, President Bush wrote, ``I believe sound
science, not politics, must prevail in the designation of any high-
level nuclear waste repository. As President, I would not sign
legislation what would send nuclear waste to any proposed site unless
it's been deemed scientifically safe.''
Now President Bush is letting politics and unsound science prevail
at Yucca Mountain.
A few of the scientific problems that we have seen the last year
and a half include:
--In 2004, the Court threw out EPA's first radiation protection
standards for Yucca because they were not strong enough to
protect the public from radiation exposure and failed to follow
the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences.
--In 2005, EPA published its revised standards for the proposed Yucca
Mountain high-level waste dump, which are wholly inadequate, do
not meet the law's requirements and do not protect public
health and safety. In fact, EPA is proposing the least
protective public health radiation standard in the world.
--Numerous scientific and quality assurance problems with
transportation plans, corrosion of casks, the effectiveness of
materials, etc., causing DOE suspend work on the surface
facilities and NRC to issue a stop work order on the
containers.
--In addition, DOE revealed that documents and models about water
infiltration at Yucca Mountain had been falsified. They
whitewashed this problem, but cannot whitewash the DOE
Inspector General's report that DOE continues to ignore
falsification of technical and scientific data on the project.
In numerous media reports, the administration has confirmed that it
is preparing a legislative package that will remove health, safety and
legal requirements, a clear admission that the project is a public
health, safety and scientific failure.
It should be clear to anyone that the proposed Yucca Mountain
project is not going anywhere. Yucca Mountain will never open.
Yet, we must safely store spent nuclear fuel.
It is time to look at other nuclear waste alternatives.
Fortunately, the technology to realize a viable, safe and secure
alternative is readily available and can be fully implemented within a
decade if we act now. That technology is on-site dry cask storage.
Dry casks are being safely used at 34 sites throughout the country.
NEI projects 83 of the 103 active reactors will have dry storage by
2050.
Senator Ensign and I have a bill that would safely store nuclear
waste while we look for a scientifically-based, safe solution--The
Spent Fuel On-Site Storage and Security Act of 2006, S. 2099. Our bill
requires commercial nuclear utilities to secure waste in licensed, on-
site dry cask storage facilities.
There is absolutely no justification for endangering the public by
rushing headlong towards a repository that is fraught with scientific,
technical and geological problems when it can be stored safely and
securely in dry casks. Our bill guarantees all Americans that our
Nation's nuclear waste will be stored in the safest way possible.
It is time we addressed to problem at hand--the safe storage of
spent nuclear fuel--and stopped pouring taxpayers' money down the drain
on a project that could endanger all of our citizens.
The Yucca Mountain project is a failure. I vow to continue to fight
this project.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As always, I look forward to working on
these issues with you and your staff.
______
Supplemental Statement of Senator Harry Reid
REGARDING THE TERMINATION OF THE GEOTHERMAL ENERGY PROGRAM
We need to put America on the path to energy independence with
policies that promote advanced energy technologies. Energy is
critically important to America's future and our national security.
That's why I joined as a leader in the Democrats' plan to make America
energy independent by 2020.
Our plan builds on a fundamental commitment to support expanded
renewable energy development. The development of renewable energy will
bolster our national security, protect our environment, and create jobs
in Nevada, while also providing a steady, reliable supply of energy for
consumers.
Nevada has many features that make it an ideal location to develop
renewable energy sources. In fact, our State has been a leader in this
area for many years. Nevada is particularly rich in geothermal energy,
which could meet one-third of our State's energy needs. I worked with
then-Energy Secretary Bill Richardson to launch the Geopowering the
West initiative in 2000 to help develop Nevada's tremendous geothermal
potential. This project funds public/private partnerships to develop
geothermal power in Nevada, California, New Mexico, and Utah, with the
ultimate goal of providing 10 percent of the electricity needs of the
Western States from geothermal sources by the year 2020.
One of the great advantages of renewable energy is that these
technologies work in harmony with the environment and do not leave a
legacy of dangerous waste products that future generations will have to
figure out how to deal with. One of the best legacies we can leave to
our children is a clean environment and a history of preservation of
our natural beauty and wilderness. We always will need clean water to
drink and safe air to breathe. While we have made much progress over
the last 30 years, it is critical that we maintain our strong
commitment to safeguarding our Nation's natural heritage and protecting
our environment.
Our Nation's leadership must put us on a path that protects the
environment and builds a new, sustainable economy. Both the environment
and the economy are crucial to our Nation. Without a strong economy, it
is impossible to protect our environment adequately. Without a healthy
environment, our economy cannot thrive. The best technologies to
address both our energy and economic needs are energy efficiency and
renewable energy, and I believe that most of my colleagues in the
Senate would agree with that assertion.
For a moment, I thought I might hear the administration agreeing
with us. The proposed fiscal year 2007 Budget of the Department of
Energy began with fanfare that gave that impression. In its press
release on February 6, DOE said: `` . . . the Department of Energy
(DOE) requests $23.6 billion, a $124 million increase over the fiscal
year 2006 request. The fiscal year 2007 budget request makes bold
investments to improve America's energy security while protecting our
environment, puts policies in place that foster continued economic
growth, spurs scientific innovation and discovery, and addresses the
threat of nuclear proliferation.''
But getting past the fanfare, the reality of the proposed fiscal
year 2007 budget is far different. The administration's budget goes in
the opposite direction, cutting efforts to develop clean, renewable
energy and promoting technological choices that will make our nuclear
proliferation a greater threat and expanding our nuclear waste legacy
to future generations.
PROVIDING RELIABLE, CLEAN ELECTRIC POWER
One of the challenges we face is meeting the growing demand for
electric power, particularly in the West. The Western Governors
Association has estimated that over 50,000 MW of new electric power
generation will be needed to meet growing demand in the next decade.
How we meet these needs will have profound consequences for Nevada, the
West and the Nation.
DOE's proposed budget seems to make some clear and rather abrupt
choices regarding future power production options. The DOE Budget
documents asserts: ``Few technologies provide clean, reliable, baseload
electricity--only nuclear power'' (DOE fiscal year 2007 Budget
presentation Power Point, page 6).
It is true that few technologies can provide electricity that is
clean, reliable, and baseload--many technologies suffer from problems
with intermittent generation and offer only peaking support. But, the
Department's budget inexplicably increases funding for these
intermittent technologies while completely gutting the most promising
renewable technology that can provide reliable baseload power--
geothermal energy.
The Department's own Geothermal Program Strategic Plan stresses
these values of geothermal energy. It states:
``The Earth houses a vast energy supply in the form of geothermal
resources. These resources are equivalent to 30,000 years of energy for
the United States at current rates of consumption. However, only about
2,600 MWe of geothermal power is installed today. Geothermal has not
reached its full potential as a clean, secure energy alternative
because of concerns or issues with resources, technology, commitment by
industry, and public policies. These concerns affect the economic
competitiveness of geothermal energy.
``The U.S. Department of Energy's Geothermal Technologies Program
seeks to make geothermal energy the Nation's environmentally preferred
baseload energy alternative. The Program's mission is to work in
partnership with U.S. industry to establish geothermal energy as an
economically competitive contributor to the Nation's energy supply.''
But, the geothermal strategic plan indicated that the program could
not reach its goals until at least 2040 because of its limited funding.
It went on to say that ``Doubling the Program's budget'' would
accelerate achieving the program goals and they could ``be attained by
2020, resulting in an overall budget savings of $100 million.''
Sounds like doubling the geothermal research program would be a
good investment!
If the Department's researchers felt they could bring tens of
thousands of megawatts of reliable, baseload geothermal power on-line
by 2020 with a doubling of the budget, you would think that
recommendation would receive top priority. But it obviously didn't.
Instead, the Department of Energy budget has proposed to zero-out the
geothermal program. It has chosen to undermine progress in a technology
that can effectively compete with nuclear power or fossil fuels to
provide reliable electric power.
Why? What rationale could possible support such a decision? Well,
Secretary Bodman explained to the Senate Energy Committee: ``While the
budget proposes increases for Biomass, Solar and Hydrogen research, the
Geothermal Program will be closed out in fiscal year 2007 using prior
year funds. The 2005 Energy Policy Act amended the Geothermal Steam Act
of 1970 in ways that should spur development of geothermal resources
without the need for subsidized Federal research to further reduce
costs.''
So is DOE blaming Congress! We simply went too far in the Energy
Policy Act supporting geothermal energy, and now it doesn't need DOE
support?
But, let's compare these choices for a moment. DOE proposes $0 for
geothermal energy, but it has asked for $632.7 million for nuclear
energy activities. I guess EPAct didn't take care of nuclear power as
well. But, that doesn't seem to be the case. Here for the record is how
the Senate Energy Committee views the highlights of EPAct's provisions
supporting nuclear energy and geothermal energy:
``Highlights of the Energy Bill--Senate Energy Committee
``Nuclear Power
``Nuclear energy is the world's largest source of emission-free
energy. Nuclear powerplants produce no controlled air pollutants, such
as sulfur and particulates, or greenhouse gases. The use of nuclear
energy in place of other energy sources helps to keep the air clean,
preserve the Earth's climate, avoid ground-level ozone formation and
prevent acid rain.
``The bill has several provisions to ensure that nuclear energy
remains a major component of the Nation's energy supply. Nuclear power
currently provides 20 percent of America's electricity. It is our
cheapest form of electricity, second only to hydropower. It one of our
safest, most reliable and cleanest energies.
``The energy bill offers a 1.8 cent per kilowatt hour production
tax credit for electricity produced by new nuclear power. This applies
only to the first half dozen advanced nuclear powerplants.
``It offers federal loan guarantees for innovative technologies--
including new advanced nuclear reactors--that will diversify and
increase energy supply while protecting the environment. These
guarantees are available only for new technologies that provide clean
energy and protect the environment. Those seeking guarantees pay into
the U.S. Treasury a sum equal to the financial risk assessed by the
CBO, thus not costing taxpayers a dime.
``Establishes standby support framework through the DOE for new
nuclear plant construction against regulatory or judicial delays for
six reactors. This standby support would cover the delay before plant
is put into operation.
``Extends Price Anderson liability protection is extended through
2025 for both NRC licensees and DOE contractors.
``Creates a stand-by support program to ensure that consumers do
not have to pay higher electricity bills because of unforeseen delays
in the construction of new nuclear powerplants due to bureaucratic red
tape or litigation. The program insures the utilities for the cost of
these delays.
``Provides for the export of high enriched uranium to Canada,
Belgium, France, Germany or the Netherlands for the sole purpose of
producing diagnostic and life saving medical isotopes until a low
enriched uranium alternative is commercially viable and available.
``Requires the DOE to propose a permanent disposal facility to
Congress for Greater Than Class C waste within one-year of enactment.
``Strengthens security of nuclear facilities, including improved
federal oversight of plant security and the expansion of federal
statutes for sabotage of nuclear facilities.''
``Geothermal
``Geothermal energy is an abundant energy in various parts of the
country that is under-utilized. Geothermal energy is clean, renewable
and, in countries like Iceland, is a primary source of energy.
``The energy bill creates a competitive geothermal leasing program
that allows the private sector--not just government geologists--to
identify geothermal areas for leasing. The program is intended to bring
geothermal energy to the market sooner.
``The bill also includes incentives to counties to encourage
geothermal development by allowing them to keep a percentage of the
royalties from that development.''
Well, at least according to the Senate Energy Committee EPAct seems
to have done a lot more for nuclear power than geothermal energy. Given
the Secretary's statement justifying terminating the geothermal
research program, perhaps he should take another look at whether the
Department needs to continue its nuclear power programs. Or, for that
matter, perhaps other programs as well.
Questions: Department officials have also claimed that the fiscal
year 2007 budget does not reflect the directions it was given in EPAct
because their budget was formulated before the new law was passed. Yet,
apparently the Department can move fast enough to terminate the
geothermal research program based on EPAct. Can the Department explain
how EPAct figured into its fiscal year 2007 budget deliberations and
provide any studies or other documents that assesses in a comparative
fashion the provisions of EPAct and the Department's research programs?
When does the Department intend to implement the new initiatives in
EPAct--including new initiatives that direct increased funding for
renewable energy research, including geothermal energy?
contradictions to other studies and assessments
The decision to close out the geothermal research program also
appears to contradict the recommendations of the last external review
of the Department of Energy's renewable programs, the 2000 report of
the National Research Council entitled Renewable Power Pathways. That
National Research Council's examination of the geothermal program
states in clear terms the importance of the program, and the
recommendation that it continue to be funded: ``In light of the
significant advantages of geothermal energy as a resource for power
generation, it may be undervalued in DOE's renewable energy
portfolio.''
But, the Department of Energy seems not to agree with this
assessment. In other budget documents the Department presents another
rationale for closing out this program. Basically, it sees geothermal
energy as a ``regional resource'' with limited applicability. (see
``http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pdfs/fiscal year
2007_budget_brief.pdf.)
Somehow this represents a change in views at the Department of
Energy. The Department's 2003 Strategic plan included geothermal energy
research as part of its efforts to ``Improve energy security by
developing technologies that foster a diverse supply of reliable,
affordable, and environmentally sound energy . . .''. Geothermal power
was part of DOE's ``long-term vision of a zero-emission future in which
the nation does not rely on imported energy.''
Obviously, something has changed. Somehow, the geothermal resource
has shrunk in the past 3 years! Quite an amazing phenomenon, which
probably deserves some explanation. Today, geothermal resources are
used in 25 States for power and direct use purposes (not including heat
pumps) and advanced technology has the potential to bring geothermal
power in use across the country.
The Department used to consider the future potential of geothermal
energy to be quite significant. Today, we produce about 2,800 Megawatts
of power from geothermal resources, and the power potential alone was
estimated to be many times that amount. The DOE Geothermal Strategic
Plan used to say:
``The U.S. Geological Survey estimated that already-identified
hydrothermal reservoirs hotter than 150 C have a potential generating
capacity of about 22,000 MWe and could produce electricity for 30
years.\1\ Additional undiscovered hydrothermal systems were estimated
to have a capacity of 72,000-127,000 MWe. At depths accessible with
current drilling technology virtually the entire country possesses
usable geothermal resources (Figure 1). The best areas are in the
western United States where bodies of magma rise closest to the
surface.''
The Department's strategic plan included a very interesting map
that showed the potential of heat in the earth to contribute to our
energy needs. As the map shows, DOE used to view the technical
potential of geothermal energy to span the entire country from Maine to
California.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Questions: Does the Department agree with the National Research
Council that the US geothermal resource base holds significant
potential to contribute to national energy needs? What actions did the
Department take to implement the recommendations made by the National
Research Council in 2000? Has the Department had further communications
with the NRC about its assessment and any follow-up by the Department?
Please provide any documents supporting these actions and
communications?
--How does DOE view the potential of geothermal resources? What has
happened in the past three years to apparently change the
Department's views of the geothermal resource base and its
potential?
--What resources does the Department now consider economic:
hydrothermal, hot dry rock, geopressured, magmatic, others?
--The Department had indicated that there were many technological
challenges to achieving production from the vast geothermal
resource base. Does the Department now consider these
challenges are solved or does the Department have new
information that indicates its prior assessments of geothermal
resources are incorrect?
OMB RATIONALE
The Office of Management and Budget, with whom I presume the
Department coordinates its budget, seems to offer some additional
rationales for terminating the geothermal research program. They are
just about as interesting as those presented by the Department itself.
There appear to be three main assertions by OMB:
--(1) geothermal technology is ``mature'' and doesn't really need
more R&D,
--(2) the change in leasing royalty structure from 50/50 to 50/25/25
will make a substantial difference, so research isn't needed,
--(3) the forthcoming resource assessment by USGS will solve the
industry's exploration problems.
--(4) with new tax incentives, geothermal power does not need
research support.
With only a very small fraction of the ``hydrothermal'' resource
base not in use, it seems self-evident to me that most of the vast
geothermal resource base is not economically useable with today's
technology.
Questions: How did the Department determine that geothermal
technology was mature and did they apply this same test to all other
technologies in the Department's portfolio?
--Would the Department provide to the Committee any studies it has
done of technological maturity and a chart showing the
comparable maturity of all of the technologies it proposes to
fund and not to fund?
--How did the Department decide that nuclear energy, which provides
20 percent of the electricity in the United States, was somehow
not mature while at the same time deciding that geothermal
energy, which provides 0.5 percent of the electricity in the
United States, was mature?
ROYALTY CHANGES
Regarding the changes in EPAct to Federal royalties, let me say
that I support those changes since they will provide needed support for
counties in the West to provide the infrastructure needed for energy
development that benefits the entire Nation, and these funds will help
mitigate for the socioeconomic impacts of new development on the local
community.
But, it is far from obvious to me how splitting the Federal share
of the royalties with the local government is going to make a lot of
difference to the climate for geothermal development. It is even less
clear how doing so is going to help us with our needs for new
exploration/characterization/resource-management technology. This is
really an ``apples and oranges'' argument. If I have a broken furnace,
it's nice if you buy me a new sofa--but it won't keep my house warm.
Also, the budget also proposes to repeal this provision of EPAct
anyway! Perhaps the Department could clarify this situation. I'm almost
afraid to ask.
USGS RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
The next rationale--that the USGS national resource assessment will
solve the industry's exploration needs--seems to beg questions about
what it is that the USGS really plans to do and how much funding they
will have to do anything. Does the Department of Energy presume that
the USGS national resource assessment will discover new resources or
develop new exploration technology?
It's been my understanding that USGS will not engage in any
significant new exploration activity. What they will do is
``assessment'' by examining existing field data (much of which was
available clear back in the 1970's when Circular 790 was written) and
re-interpret it in light of more modern concepts about how geothermal
systems are likely to behave, and in light of field data that has been
acquired by industry since that time. The purpose is to come up with a
more realistic appraisal of how much identified geothermal potential
there really is, and where it is located.
However, I understand that this will be a study involving little or
no new field work, no exploration drilling, and no exploration
technology development or verification. The essential fact is that the
USGS assessment, while important and potentially useful for planning
purposes (i.e., the WGA study and policy pronouncements by
organizations like EIA), is not likely to discover any genuinely NEW
resources.
Questions: Does the Department of Energy presume that the USGS
national resource assessment will discover new resources or develop new
exploration technology?
--Please explain and detail any new exploration or technology
development anticipated to be undertaken by the USGS in the
conduct of its new national resource assessment? Please discuss
the support, to date, from DOE for these efforts and the plans,
if any, for continued support by DOE for this effort?
--My understanding from the industry is that a critical need is
better exploration technology, and that this is an area where
technological breakthroughs could be made. What information
does the Department have to support its assertion that private
industry will develop this technology in the next few years
without government research support?
TAX INCENTIVES
Another interesting conclusion that OMB has come to is that with
the new tax incentive offered geothermal power, there is no need for
more research funding. The new tax incentive is the addition of
geothermal technology to the list of those eligible for the Production
Tax Credit. Notably, wind and biomass have been eligible for the
production tax credit since 1992, but neither of those programs is
proposed for termination. Also, the current production tax provision
expires in 2 years.
I have several questions about this rationale.
Questions: Does the Administration now support having new
geothermal facilities eligible for the full production tax credit? When
did the Administration make this policy change, and where was it
communicated?
--Does the Administration now support making the production tax
credit permanent? Why wasn't this reflected in the
Administration's fiscal year 2007 budget?
--What information, analysis, or other information does the
Department have that supports its assertion that this tax
credit substitutes for the need for federal research support?
How has the Department applied this measure across the
technologies within its research portfolio, and would the
Department provide a chart comparing the tax treatment provided
by law for the technologies in its research portfolio?
INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS
Finally, I would ask about the impact of the proposed research cuts
on the international competitiveness of the geothermal industry. It's
my impression that the U.S. industry has been a world leader in
geothermal technology, helping develop billions of dollars of projects
around the world.
In fact, in addition to calling for an expanded geothermal research
program, the National Research Council's Renewable Power Pathways
report stresses how the United States is the world leader in geothermal
technology and that the direction DOE takes with its research program
has real consequences for this situation. Their NRC report states:
``the United States has taken the lead in successful commercial
demonstrations of geothermal energy for generating electricity and heat
at several sites and is the current technology leader in the world
among very active competitors in Europe and Japan.'' They go on to warn
``U.S. leadership may be short-lived because the U.S. R&D program is
now much smaller than those of overseas competitors.''
Questions: Is it a fair assumption that with total elimination of
the DOE research program, U.S. leadership in geothermal technology will
be lost in a fairly short period of time?
--Isn't this contradictory to the emphasis that the Administration is
placing upon science and technology as underpinnings for our
economy and our future?
CONCLUSION
Geothermal energy is an important resource for the Nation. We have
only begun to tap this vast resource. We should not be cutting back on
geothermal or other renewable resources efforts. We instead should be
expanding our effort to use this resource in all of its forms more
effectively. That means making the Federal production tax credit
permanent for geothermal and other renewable technologies, expanding
our resource assessment efforts by USGS and supporting State agencies
and university research centers, and increasing funding for geothermal
research and outreach by the Federal Government.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Senator.
We will proceed now. Let me ask, does any other Senator
want to make a brief statement before I make mine on your side?
A brief one or a long one?
Senator Murray. A brief one.
Senator Bond. I have a long one.
Senator Domenici. You will wait for your turn?
Senator Bond. I will wait for my turn.
Senator Domenici. Okay. I do not even remember what your
issue is here today. You have got a couple of them.
Senator Bond. Coal.
Senator Domenici. Coal.
Senator Bond. Coal.
Senator Domenici. The lack of funding for coal in the
budget, is that it?
Senator Bond. You guessed it. Boy, you just blew my whole
story.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. All right. Let me start once again and
back up for a minute, thanking the Senator for his comments. It
is true we do try to work together on this issue. I do not
purport here today for the press--I am not going to answer the
points that have been raised by the distinguished Senator.
Obviously we have some very serious disagreements. We have some
ideas that seem to be merging in terms of where things are
going.
Having said that, I want to thank Dr. Ray Orbach and
Secretary Garman for being here today. Dr. Orbach is the
current Director of the Office of Science and the President's
nominee for the newly created position of Under Secretary of
Science. Dr. Orbach, it is just a matter of things clearing
here and then you will receive your new title. So I hope you
are acting like you are an Under Secretary.
Dr. Orbach. No.
Senator Domenici. You are not? Well, we will let the world
know that as far as this committee is concerned you are, and
the Senate is going to do that pretty soon.
Secretary Garman, we are delighted that you have had time
now to really get your feet wet in this office. It is a tough
one. You have got a big, big agenda, everything from energy
efficiency, renewables, the Office of Nuclear Energy, Office of
Electricity Delivery and Reliability, Office of Fossil and R&D
and Environment Management Activities.
It is nice to see you again, and we welcome you to the
committee. We hope you are enjoying the work, but we hope you
understand that you have a terribly difficult job put on your
shoulders, and you are going to have to tell us today that you
are pushing hard for some of the very tough things that have to
be done.
In the State of the Union the President announced an
American Competitive Initiative and Advanced Energy Initiative.
These initiatives recognized that the Department's long-term
investment in physical sciences and energy R&D were of utmost
importance. I am also pleased to see an increasing level of
cooperation between the Office of Science and Energy Research
and Development in their efforts to solve our energy needs. I
believe the bioenergy and hydroenergy initiatives are a good
example of this cooperative investment. I hope it continues. I
think its synergism will yield big results.
The American Competitive Initiative commits $5.9 billion in
2007 and more than $137 billion over 10 years to programs that
help America retain its leading edge in science, math, and
technology. The ACI, as it is called by the President, will
increase investments in research and development, education,
tax incentives to encourage innovation within this Department
of Energy that you now try to manage under the able direction
of the Secretary.
This translates to $505 million increase from 2006 levels
to a $4.1 billion 2007 level for the Office of Science. I
assume, Dr. Orbach, that you relish and look forward to such an
increase. Is that correct?
Dr. Orbach. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. I saw you smile, so I thought you might
just as well talk.
The President also announced an Advanced Energy Initiative,
which aims to reduce America's dependence on imported energy
sources and commits $2.1 billion to meet the goal, an increase
of $381 million.
The President recognizes that research and innovation are
America's best answer to the voracious global appetite of
carbon fuels, which my friend Senator Bond is here to talk
about, obviously. Thanks to the work of the Department, our
Nation will be able to produce more energy from nuclear power,
wind, sun, and our own field crops in the coming years. These
are not little actions, but rather, combined, could be gigantic
steps toward America's minimizing its dependence upon foreign
carbons, foreign sources of crude oil, to run our machine, our
transportation and economic machine.
I commend the President for his efforts to make tough
choices with the funds available. However, I am concerned about
several programs and they are big; they are important and they
are vital to our energy independence and they did not receive
sufficient funding. Specifically, I am concerned about the
shortfall in funding for the nuclear R&D funding, the clean
coal power initiative, and the several provisions within the
EPAct that will support development of new alternative energy
technology demonstrations. Clearly, we put them in in the
Energy Act. The President has not funded them to the extent
that many of us thought he should.
The Office of Nuclear Energy--there are shortfalls in the
Nuclear Power 2010, Next Generation nuclear programs, that will
inhibit our ability to fully realize a revival in this nuclear
power agenda. NP 2010 program is critical to demonstrating its
first of a kind combined construction-operating license process
with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This cost is shared, is
a shared activity, which the Department is not living up to,
will not be able to, as to its share of the deal. The nuclear
powerplant Next Generation received $23 million, down $16
million. That is a rather sharp cut.
This budget process proposes to cut clean coal power
initiative from $49.5 million this year to $5 million for 2007,
almost you could say doing away with it. Ninety-five percent
equals 100 percent, I imagine, in a program like this.
The United States has a 250-year supply of coal. Protecting
the technology to burn coal at a minimal impact is critical to
the economic and global competitiveness of this great Nation. I
question the wisdom of this and hope you can explain it. There
may be a short-term explanation or there may be a catch-up
explanation. We need that.
Another area of concern under the Energy Policy Act is that
this legislation provides incentives. I direct this at you
again, Mr. Under Secretary. These incentives are in the form of
loan guarantees. You are aware of that. You helped us write it.
You know how important we thought they were going to be in all
of the clean energy technologies, including clean coal,
biomass, and new nuclear powerplants.
America's business stands ready, as we understand it, to
develop new and innovative sources of energy under this
program. But progress is either stalled or not moving rapidly
enough to provide the guidelines or the process for
applications for loans. It does no good for someone to have a
new project, and we developed a no-cost-to-Government loan
program, and not have them available. We need to know today
when they are going to be available.
So, Secretary Garman, this is one you are going to have to
work with us today and you are going to have to continue until
it is done. If you need some help from us, we are here. We will
also speak of weatherization. You know there is a problem
there. That is out in the open. I do not need to raise it here
myself.
I am deeply concerned about the $762 million cut to the
environmental management program. That brings the distinguished
Senator from the State of Washington here today. It also has
one that hits at my heart too this time, so we may be on the
same path. We may be trying to succeed together. I do not know.
But $762 million cut in that program? I recognize that we have
completed Rocky Flats, right, a very good sign. You can hold up
a flag and say for the first time, I think partly because
Colorado was a great host State and worked collaboratively, we
have a very big solution.
But that does not mean that a $762 million reduction in the
remaining programs can be sustained. I am concerned about the
current status of the waste treatment facility in Washington. I
do not have the answers, but clearly we have to stay on this
until it becomes a success like Rocky Flats maybe. Most of us
will be gone by then, but let us say that we ought to at least
wish for that day.
I am aware the cost estimates exceed $11 billion and I hope
you can explain the Department's strategy for addressing this
skyrocketing cost. I also must tell you that I am vitally
interested to know how the Department intends to fulfill its
commitment--and you must listen carefully to this--under a
consent agreement with the State of New Mexico for cleanup at
Los Alamos. Funding for this project has been cut by $50
million. Now, I do not know how we do that. I mean, we have
done it in the past. We just ignore a court decree. But it
happens to be in the chairman's State. That does not look too
good, does it, I do not think. But anyway, we are going to work
on it, right?
Let me say in closing about Yucca Mountain, I am concerned
about the slow progress for the completion of the facility. I
understand that the license application will not be ready until
2008. That is just getting the application ready. That does not
mean anything has happened. I am aware that the administration
is working on new legislation which authorizes a different
approach to the repository. I have told them repeatedly that I
will introduce it in their behalf so as to push it with some
degree of vigor. That does not mean I will support it
wholeheartedly. But we must see what it is.
Dr. Orbach, Secretary Garman, you have an important job in
front of you, delivering on the President's promise of an
American Competitive Initiative. You are aware that you are not
the whole initiative. You are team players. I know you both
have statements on all of this. You can expect questions on
many of it, so do not try to cover them all. I would like you
to try to summarize in 10 minutes if you can do that, and then
right now I will include your full statement in the record.
We will start with you, Mr. Secretary. No, we will not. We
will start with Senators. Okay, we are going to go with you,
Senator.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning
to both Under Secretary Garman and Dr. Orbach. I know we have a
lot of ground to cover, so I will keep my statement brief.
I just wanted to say that I am a long-time advocate of
increased funding for the Office of Science and I am pleased to
see the administration has requested $4.1 billion, a 14 percent
increase over fiscal year 2006. That is good news. For the
United States to continue to be a leader in the sciences, we
have to make the decision to invest in our own future.
I was also relieved to see a request of $690 million for
the waste treatment plant. This construction project is the
cornerstone to cleaning up Hanford and we have to get it back
on track. However, this budget has some gaps, including the $52
million reduction of funds for the tank farm activities.
Secretary Bodman described the radioactive wastes on that site
as among the most dangerous chemicals known to man. That was
waste that was created during World War II and the cold war and
Washington State has fulfilled its national duty during those
times, and now the Federal Government has a responsibility to
fulfill its national duty to clean up that site. It is about
protecting the health and the welfare of the region and the
people who live there.
Under Secretary Garman, I read your written testimony last
night and I just wanted you to know I take issue with your
statement where you say, ``It surprises many to learn that we
spend more each year to clean up Hanford, roughly $1.8 billion,
than we do annually on our entire portfolio of applied energy
research and development, which is approximately $1.5 billion.
To put it bluntly, this is a budget that begins to put the
energy back in the Department of Energy.''
Well, Mr. Garman, it sounds to me like you are suggesting
that our efforts to clean up the polluted sites in the Nation
are coming at the cost of Federal energy R&D, and it is sort of
a slap in the face to the people of Washington State to imply
that their need for clean air and clean water and cleanup of
this critical site and their contribution to winning a war is
detracting from the investments in the Federal R&D portfolio.
I want to remind you this Nation has a moral and a legal
obligation to clean up Hanford site, and if there is a belief
that the Federal investment in applied energy R&D has been
lacking in recent years it is because the administration has
made that choice every year with its budget proposals. We have
to fulfill our obligations to clean up and we need to invest in
R&D. One does not preclude the other.
So I just wanted to make that clear and I do have a number
of questions I will be asking when we get to that round.
Senator Bond [presiding]. Senator Allard.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing today. As you know, I am co-chairman of the Senate
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus and represent the
State which the National Renewable Energy Laboratory calls
home. As a scientist myself, I have always been a strong
supporter of research funding in all areas.
For these reasons I have a special interest in today's
hearing. Today more attention is being focused on clean energy
and energy efficiency technologies. This is a time when the
development of alternative energy sources is becoming more
important than ever. We must continue to provide incentives for
the implementation of renewable technologies and for the
infrastructure necessary to support these renewable sources.
These technologies are a necessary step in balancing our
domestic energy portfolio, increasing our Nation's energy
security, and advancing our country's technological excellence.
Renewable energy is a very important way that we can begin to
reduce the demand for oil and thereby help to make our country
more secure. There are great opportunities for solar, wind,
geothermal, biomass, fuel cells, and hydro to make significant
contributions. Research and the input of both Government and
industry entities is very important to allowing these
opportunities to live up to their potential.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado can
and does make an incredible contribution to the development of
these resources. Technologies being developed at NREL, whether
providing alternative fuels and power or making our homes and
vehicles more energy efficiency, are vital to our Nation's
energy progress.
But what is really unique about NREL is that their focus is
for moving research and scientific discovery to the market.
That means that the money that we spend on science is being
designed in a practical way to help Americans and American
consumers. I think that is very unique about the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory that we have in Colorado.
Recently, due to an abundance of earmarks, NREL was faced
with dramatic funding cutbacks that resulted in lost jobs. The
Department did everything it could to mitigate the job losses,
but we still lost 32 positions. Thankfully, DOE was able to
find an additional $5 million and these jobs were restored. I
would like to thank you, Mr. Garman, who is here today,
Secretary Bodman and everyone at DOE and NREL for working to
make that situation right. I hope to work with DOE and my
colleagues on this subcommittee to see that a situation like
this does not happen again.
I was also very disappointed to learn that much of the
money being saved by the accelerated cleanup of Rocky Flats has
not been given to other DOE cleanup sites for accelerated
cleanup. As I understand the DOE's fiscal budget 2007 request,
the environmental management account has been reduced by over
$740 million from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2006.
It has always been my understanding that the money saved by
accelerating Rocky Flats would be used for the cleanup of other
sites. We were spending over $500 million at Rocky Flats alone.
This was one of the reasons Senator Domenici and others were
willing to support accelerated cleanup of Rocky Flats.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
I look forward to working with the committee to ensure that
R&D in all fields of energy technology are funded in a manner
that is responsible, but sufficient to ensure that the
development and implementation of new technologies continues.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Wayne Allard
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. As you
know, I am co-chairman of the Senate Renewable Energy & Energy
Efficiency Caucus and represent the State which the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory calls home. And, as a scientist myself, I have always
been a strong supporter of research funding in all areas. For these
reasons, I have a special interest in today's hearing.
Today more attention is being focused on clean energy and energy
efficient technologies. This is a time when the development of
alternative energy sources is becoming more important than ever. We
must continue to provide incentives for the implementation of renewable
technologies, and for the infrastructure necessary to support these
renewable sources. These technologies are a necessary step in balancing
our domestic energy portfolio, increasing our Nation's energy security
and advancing our country's technological excellence.
Renewable energy is a very important way that we can begin to
reduce the demand for oil and, thereby, help to make our country more
secure. There are great opportunities for solar, wind, geothermal,
biomass, fuel cells and hydro to make significant contributions.
Research and the input of both government and industry entities is very
important to allowing these opportunities to live up to their
potential.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado can, and does,
make an incredible contribution to the development of these resources.
Technologies being developed at NREL--whether providing alternative
fuels and power, or making our homes and vehicles more energy
efficient--are vital to our Nation's energy progress.
Recently, due to an abundance of earmarks, NREL was faced with
dramatic funding cutbacks that resulted in lost jobs. The Department
did everything it could to mitigate the job losses, but we still lost
32 positions. Thankfully DOE was able to find an additional $5 million
and these jobs were restored. I'd like to thank Mr. Garman, who is here
today, Secretary Bodman, and everyone at DOE and NREL for working to
make that situation right. I hope to work with DOE and my colleagues on
this subcommittee to see that a situation like this does not happen
again.
I was very disappointed learn that much of the money being saved by
the accelerated clean-up of Rocky Flats has not been given to other DOE
clean-up sites for accelerated clean-up. As I understand the DOE's
fiscal year 2007 budget request, the Environmental Management account
has been reduced by over $740 million from the amount appropriated for
fiscal year 2006. It has always been my understanding that the money
saved by accelerating Rocky Flats would be used for the clean-up of
other sites. We were spending over $500 million at Rocky Flats alone.
This was one of the reasons Senator Domenici and others were willing to
support accelerated clean-up at Rocky Flats.
I look forward to working with the committee to ensure that R&D in
all fields of energy technology are funded in a manner that is
responsible, but sufficient to ensure that the development and
implementation of new technologies continues.
Senator Domenici [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator,
and you are to be commended on the work you did with reference
to Rocky Flats, truly an example of great cooperation.
Senator Allard. Well, Mr. Chairman, as you know, this would
not have happened without your cooperation and the other sites
around the country. It was because of everybody working
together. The idea was that when we got this cleaned up that
money was going to be available for other sites to accelerate
their cleanup, to do things that are actually going to lead to
cleanup like we experienced at Rocky Flats. So thank you.
Senator Domenici. Now, Senator Bond.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the opportunity to comment. As you have already so
well stated, Mr. Chairman, our Nation's energy problems are as
serious as ever. Over the past year we have experienced record
prices for crude oil, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel fuel,
at least in part due to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina.
But it has pointed out how fragile our energy supply is.
Again, as the chairman has noted, the simple fact of the
matter is that our Nation's energy supplies are not keeping up
with demand. We are importing more oil and natural gas than
ever and we are doing very little to develop our own domestic
sources of energy. There are solutions to the problems. In
addition to strong conservation measures, we need to increase
our domestic supplies of energy in oil, in gas, and nuclear
power, and we must also develop alternative and renewable
sources of energy.
But I am particularly focused on the use of coal and the
development of new and cleaner coal-based technologies to
provide us with the alternative resource to meet our Nation's
growing energy needs. Coal already provides more than half our
Nation's electricity and it is the largest single source of
overall domestic energy production at more than 31 percent of
the total.
Coal, as we all know, can be converted through proven,
existing, modern technology into clean zero-sulfur synthetic
oil and oil products at roughly $35 a barrel, compared to the
current $65-or-so price per barrel of oil. Coal liquefaction or
coal-to-liquid refineries can be located anywhere that coal is
produced. This proven technology can produce clean
transportation fuels using domestic coal, thereby expanding our
supply of transportation fuels while decreasing our dependence
on foreign sources of energy. This includes gasoline, diesel,
and other liquid fuels.
We are looking forward to the report from the Coal Council
that I believe will put us on the path to independence from
overseas import of oil and gas by 2025.
Now, the great thing about coal-refined diesel fuel is it
will be low in sulfur. It will come out cleaner, enable
refiners to meet the clean air requirements, and help the
public lead healthier lives.
Now, a lot of us were really encouraged to hear the
President highlight the importance of increasing this
investment in clean coal technologies and zero emission coal-
fired plants in his State of the Union Address in January. High
hopes. The President's Clean Coal Power Initiative represents
an important first step in the development of clean coal
technologies. Nevertheless, that euphoria was met with the
stunning news when we saw that the 2007 budget request for coal
research initiatives and the Clean Coal Power Initiative. As
you know, title IV of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes
$200 million for the Clean Coal Power Initiative in 2007, but
the President's budget request comes out at only $5 million for
this important program, over a $44 million cut.
I hope that someone here can tell OMB about the President's
Clean Coal Power Initiative. It would be very helpful if the
right hand knew what the left hand was doing. The CCPI is a
cooperative, cost-shared program between the Government and
industry to demonstrate emergency technologies in coal-based
power generation, to accelerate commercialization. Technologies
are selected with the goal of accelerating development and
deployment of coal technologies that will meet environmental
standards in a cost effective manner.
The prior years' appropriations have enabled the Department
of Energy to conduct two clean coal demonstration programs
during the past 6 fiscal years, but the $5 million proposed by
OMB for this program will not even allow the DOE and industry
to conduct a demonstration project every other year. Our
researchers may develop clean coal technologies in the lab, but
unless they can demonstrate these technologies we will not see
the progress.
I believe the Clean Coal Power Initiative should be funded
at at least $150 million to conduct another clean coal
demonstration project in the near future. With over 250 years
worth of recoverable coal reserves in the United States, coal
is without question our Nation's most abundant resource. It is
estimated that these coal reserves are equivalent to roughly
800 billion barrels of oil, making the United States the Saudi
Arabia of coal. Those of us in the heartland who take pride now
that through ethanol and soy diesel we are beginning to make a
contribution to our energy needs, see the potential that the
coal that we have throughout the Nation, not only the Midwest,
but in Alaska and all over, can be realized, making us energy
producers rather than just energy consumers.
In light of the growing global demand for oil and gas, our
Nation's increased dependence on foreign sources of energy, and
our abundant supply of domestic coal, I think it is imperative
we promote and adequately fund clean coal technologies to meet
the Nation's urgent needs for reliable and affordable sources
of energy.
The coal research initiative and the clean coal power
initiative administered by DOE are vital to the future use of
our Nation's most abundant fossil fuel resources and they must
be adequately funded. The budget that we were presented just
does not do that.
I will leave a question for the record that will come as no
surprise, I am sure. Mr. Garman, you may want to address it in
your remarks, but my question would be: In light of the small
amount of the funding for the program, is the administration
truly serious about promoting clean coal technologies in its
effort to reduce dependence on foreign oil and promoting energy
independence?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, and I thank you,
gentlemen.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Senator. Senator Cochran has
also submitted a statement which will be included for the
record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your holding this hearing to review
budgets of the Department of Energy's Office of Science, Office of
Nuclear Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Office of Environmental
Management as well as many other important accounts with the Department
of Energy. I want to join you in thanking the witnesses for being here
to provide testimony and answer questions.
I am pleased that the Department is continuing to look for
alternate and renewable sources of energy to correct the trend toward
unnecessary reliance on foreign sources of oil and gas. My State
continues to conduct research to develop cleaner and more efficient
sources of energy. After Hurricane Katrina, fuel costs rose as much as
$3 per gallon and finding diesel to transport necessities or to run the
electrical generators used to cool poultry production facilities became
a challenge. Our biodiesel suppliers provided this needed fuel which
proved not only to be a cleaner fuel, but a fuel that is a substitute
for foreign oil.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you this year on these
important accounts as well as the new American Competitiveness
Initiative and the Advanced Energy Initiative.
STATEMENT OF DAVID K. GARMAN
Senator Domenici. Now we will proceed. Under Secretary
Garman, please let us hear from you at this point.
Mr. Garman. Well, it is clear from the opening statements
from the Senators that I am going to be on a bit of the hot
seat this morning and it does not pay me to belabor that any
with a long statement. So I will be extremely brief. I would
just like to take 4 minutes to stress just a few key points.
If you ask me to distill this entire DOE budget, with all
its puts and takes, into a single theme or concept, it would be
that we are emphasizing science, research and development in
pursuit of transformational energy technologies. This budget
significantly increases our investments in clean energy
research and the fundamental science to support that research.
We have proposed some significant increases in areas such as:
applied solar energy research, up 78 percent; applied biomass
research, up 65 percent; applied hydrogen research, up 42
percent; and applied nuclear energy research, up 56 percent.
We have also proposed, as you have noted, a significant
increase in basic energy sciences under the Direction of Dr.
Orbach, recognizing that we must strengthen the connections
between our basic and applied energy work. We are determined to
make the activities in basic sciences more relevant and more
strongly linked to the applied energy programs working to
advance practical energy technologies, such as solar, nuclear,
hydrogen, and biomass.
Because these increases have been sought within an overall
departmental budget that is level funded, we have had to
propose some reductions in some otherwise worthy programs--low
income weatherization comes to mind--because we felt it was
important to articulate priorities and make those tough calls
mindful of the practical limitations on discretionary spending
that you as appropriators face.
As you all know, the Department of Energy could more
accurately be referred to as the Department of Nuclear Weapons,
Radioactive Cleanup, Science, and Energy, in that order, if the
Department's name were to more accurately capture its
activities and the priority placed on them as reflected by our
levels of spending on those activities.
I do not mean, Senator Murray, and I hope you do not take
my statement as you did--we did not intend or I do not intend
to say that we are going to somehow shirk our environmental
obligations. We take on those obligations. We know those
obligations are ours. In saying that we spend less on applied
energy research at the Department than we do on things such as
the cleanup of Hanford, I am not suggesting that we should
spend less on the cleanup at Hanford. I am suggesting rather we
should be spending more on applied energy research, and that
was the point of the statement and I hope you do not
misconstrue. I did want to make that clear.
This is a budget that does begin to put energy back in the
Department of Energy, not just in the applied energy programs
but in the science programs managed by Dr. Orbach that can
contribute totally new thinking and new approaches in meeting
our energy challenges. And at a time when this Nation is as
concerned as it is about energy security and clamoring for new
energy solutions, we should strive to do nothing short of that.
PREPARED STATEMENT
With that, Mr. Chairman, I can either go into some of the
things that were raised or just prepare to take the questions
and interact. I am aware of the time constraints of the
committee and I want to be respectful of that time.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of David K. Garman
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to appear to discuss the President's fiscal year 2007
budget request for the Department of Energy (DOE). This testimony will
focus on the budget requests for the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, the Office of Electricity, the Office of Nuclear
Energy, the Office of Fossil Energy, the Office of Environmental
Management, and the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
But let me first provide some context.
This budget recognizes that science-driven technology is at the
heart of the Department of Energy's missions, and that our national
laboratories and facilities, together with universities and research
activities in the private sector, must be better leveraged to enhance
America's national security, economic security, and energy security.
Therefore, we have proposed to significantly increase our
investment in science, in keeping with the American Competitiveness
Initiative.
We have also proposed to significantly increase investments in
clean energy research in areas such as solar, biomass, hydrogen, wind,
and nuclear, in keeping with the Advanced Energy Initiative.
Notably, we have proposed these increases within a flat
Departmental budget. Since any realistic pursuit of new or enhanced
initiatives must be mindful of practical limitations on discretionary
spending, we have prioritized our mission activities, which resulted in
proposed reductions in areas such as low-income weatherization--not
because we regard these as unworthy activities--but because we know
that you are as mindful of the constraints on discretionary spending as
we are.
As Secretary Bodman has observed, the Department of Energy could
more accurately be referred to as the Department of Nuclear Weapons,
Radioactive Cleanup, Science and Energy--in that order--if the
Department's name were to more accurately capture its activities and
the priority placed on them as reflected by our investments. It
surprises many to learn that we spend more each year to cleanup
Hanford, roughly $1.8 billion dollars, than we do annually on our
entire portfolio of applied energy Research and Development (R&D),
which is approximately $1.5 billion dollars. To put it bluntly, this is
a budget that begins to put the ``energy'' back in the Department of
Energy. Not just in the applied energy programs, but in the science
programs that can contribute new thinking and new approaches in meeting
our energy challenges. We are determined to make the activities in
basic sciences more relevant and more strongly linked to the applied
energy programs working to advance practical energy technologies in
areas such as solar, nuclear, hydrogen and biomass. At a time when this
Nation is concerned about energy security and clamoring for new clean
energy solutions, we should strive to do nothing short of that.
With respect to the applied energy technologies, the President's
Advanced Energy Initiative provides a 22 percent increase for research
that can help reduce America's dependence on foreign oil and advance
clean energy technologies. The fiscal year 2007 budget proposes $149.7
million for Biomass and Biorefinery Systems Research and Development
(R&D) program to support the new Biofuels Initiative to develop cost
competitive ethanol from cellulosic materials (agricultural wastes,
forest residues, and bioenergy crops) by 2012. In addition, the budget
request continues to pursue the vision of reducing America's dependence
on foreign oil, reducing air pollution, and reducing greenhouse gas
emissions through the development of new technologies, including
hydrogen. The fiscal year 2007 budget requests a total of $289.5
million (including $1.4 million requested by the Department of
Transportation) to support implementation of the President's Hydrogen
Fuel Initiative. The fiscal year 2007 budget also provides a 27 percent
increase for advanced battery technologies that can improve the
efficiency of conventional hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) and help make
``plug-in'' HEVs commercially viable.
To help develop clean, affordable electricity, the fiscal year 2007
budget includes $148.4 million for a new Solar America Initiative to
develop cost competitive solar photovoltaic technology by 2015. The
fiscal year 2007 also advances the administration's commitment to the
FutureGen project, which will establish the capability and feasibility
of co-producing electricity and hydrogen from coal with near-zero
atmospheric emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gasses.
Any serious effort to stabilize greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere
while providing the increasing amounts of energy for economic
development and growth requires the expanded use of nuclear energy.
This will inevitably require us to address the spent fuel and
proliferation challenges that confront the expanded, global use of
nuclear energy. Therefore, the Department's fiscal year 2007 budget
features $250 million to begin investments in the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP), a comprehensive approach to enable an expansion of
nuclear power in the United States and around the world, to promote
non-proliferation goals; and to help resolve nuclear waste disposal
issues. GNEP is a complex, challenging undertaking that will take many
years to realize, which is why the Department proposes to begin
research now.
As a complement to the GNEP strategy, the Department will continue
to pursue a permanent geologic storage site for nuclear waste at Yucca
Mountain, and the fiscal year 2007 budget includes $544.5 million to
support this goal. Based on technological advancements that would be
made through GNEP, the volume and radiotoxicity of waste requiring
permanent disposal at Yucca Mountain will be greatly reduced, delaying
the need for an additional repository indefinitely.
GNEP builds upon the successes of programs initiated under
President Bush's leadership to encourage the construction of new
nuclear powerplants here in the United States. The fiscal year 2007
budget includes $632.7 million for nuclear energy programs, a $97.0
million increase above the fiscal year 2006 appropriation. In addition
to the $250 million for GNEP within the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative,
Generation IV (Gen IV) research and development ($31.4 million) will
improve the efficiency, sustainability, and proliferation resistance of
advanced nuclear systems, and Nuclear Power 2010 ($54.0 million) will
lead the way, in a cost-sharing manner, for industry to order new,
advanced light-water reactors by the end of this decade. In addition,
ongoing implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) will
establish Federal insurance to protect sponsors of the first new
nuclear powerplants against the financial impact of certain delays
during construction or in gaining approval for operation that are
beyond the sponsors' control.
The Department of Energy's budget request remains mindful of our
legacy obligations. To meet our environmental cleanup commitments
arising from nuclear activities during the Manhattan Project and the
Cold War, the budget submission requests $5.8 billion to clean up
legacy nuclear waste sites. DOE has accelerated cleanup at the legacy
nuclear waste sites and recently announced completion of cleanup at
Rocky Flats, a former nuclear weapons plant located outside of Denver,
Colorado. In 2006, DOE will also complete environmental cleanup of the
Fernald and Columbus sites in Ohio, and several other sites as well.
To provide better context for programmatic decisions, the
Department expanded the development of 5-year budget plans. We still
have work ahead of us to make this planning more rigorous and
meaningful, but we have made the start.
And at the behest of Secretary Bodman, we are working to institute
straight-forward operating principles which set the tone for further
improving the management of the Department. These principles are:
--Accept no compromises in safety and security;
--Act with a sense of purposeful urgency;
--Work together, treating people with dignity and respect;
--Make the tough choices;
--Keep our commitments;
--Manage risk through informed decisions.
ADVANCING AMERICA'S ECONOMIC AND ENERGY SECURITY
Turning now to some of the specific proposals in the fiscal year
2007 budget, the request of $1.2 billion for energy efficiency and
renewable energy activities reallocates resources to emphasize
technologies with the potential for reducing our growing reliance on
oil imports and for producing clean electricity with reduced emissions.
It includes two new Presidential initiatives; Biofuels and Solar
America. The fiscal year 2007 budget proposes $149.7 million for the
Biofuels Initiative to develop by 2012 affordable, domestically
produced bio-based transportation fuels, such as ethanol, from
cellulosic feedstocks (such as agricultural wastes, forest residues,
and bioenergy crops), and encourage the development of biorefineries.
Biomass has the promise to deliver a plentiful domestic energy resource
with economic benefits to the agricultural sector, and to directly
displace oil use. The Solar America Initiative accelerates the
development of solar photovoltaics, a technology that converts energy
from the sun into electricity. Further development can help this
emissions-free technology achieve efficiencies to make it cost-
competitive with other electricity generation sources by 2015. The
fiscal year 2007 budget provides $148.4 million for the Solar Energy
Program that comprises the initiative.
In addition to funding increases for biomass and solar energy, the
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy budget request includes $195.8
million to support continued research and development in hydrogen and
fuel cell technology which holds the promise of an ultra-clean and
secure energy option for America's energy future. The increase of $40.2
million above the fiscal year 2006 appropriation accelerates activities
geared to further improve the development of hydrogen production and
storage technologies, and evaluate the use of hydrogen as an emissions-
free transportation fuel source. The President's Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative is funded at $289.5 million and includes $195.8 million for
DOE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program, $23.6 million for
DOE's Fossil Energy program, $18.7 million for DOE's Nuclear Energy
program, $50.0 million for DOE's Science program, and $1.4 million for
the Department of Transportation.
While the budget proposes increases for Biomass, Solar and Hydrogen
research, the Geothermal Program will be closed out in fiscal year 2007
using prior year funds. The 2005 Energy Policy Act amended the
Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 in ways that should spur development of
geothermal resources without the need for subsidized Federal research
to further reduce costs.
Nuclear power, which generates 20 percent of the electricity in the
United States, contributes to a cleaner, more diverse energy portfolio.
In fiscal year 2007 a total of $632.7 million is requested for nuclear
energy activities. Within the total, $250 million will support the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). GNEP is a comprehensive
strategy to enable an expansion of nuclear power in the United States
and around the world, to promote nuclear nonproliferation goals; and to
help resolve nuclear waste disposal issues.
GNEP will build upon the administration's commitment to develop
nuclear energy technology and systems, and enhance the work of the
United States and our international partners to strengthen
nonproliferation efforts. GNEP will accelerate efforts to:
--Enable the expansion of emissions-free nuclear power domestically
and abroad;
--Reduce the risk of proliferation; and
--Utilize new technologies to recover more energy from nuclear fuel
and dramatically reduce the volume of nuclear waste.
Through GNEP, the United States will work with key international
partners to develop new recycling technologies that do not result in
separated plutonium, a traditional proliferation risk. Recycled fuel
would then be processed through advanced burner reactors to extract
more energy, reduce waste and actually consume plutonium, dramatically
reducing proliferation risks. As part of GNEP, the United States and
other nations with advanced nuclear technologies would ensure
developing nations a reliable supply of nuclear fuel in exchange for
their commitment to forgo enrichment and reprocessing facilities of
their own, also alleviating a traditional proliferation concern.
GNEP will also help resolve America's nuclear waste disposal
challenges. By recycling spent nuclear fuel, the heat load and volume
of waste requiring permanent geologic disposal would be significantly
reduced, delaying the need for an additional repository indefinitely.
The administration continues its commitment to open and license
Yucca Mountain as the Nation's permanent geologic repository for spent
nuclear fuel, a key complement to the GNEP strategy. Managing and
disposing of commercial spent nuclear fuel in a safe and
environmentally sound manner is the mission of DOE's Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management (RW).
To support the near-term domestic expansion of nuclear energy, the
fiscal year 2007 budget seeks $54.0 million for the Nuclear Power 2010
program to support continued industry cost-shared efforts to reduce the
barriers to the deployment of new nuclear powerplants. The technology
focus of the Nuclear Power 2010 program is on Generation III+ advanced
light water reactor designs, which offer advancements in safety and
economics over the Generation III designs. If successful, this 7-year,
$1.1 billion project (50 percent to be cost-shared by industry) could
result in a new nuclear powerplant order by 2009 and a new nuclear
powerplant constructed by the private sector and in operation by 2014.
Funding of $1.8 million is provided in fiscal year 2007 to
implement a new program authorized in the recently enacted Energy
Policy Act of 2005. The program will allow DOE to offer risk insurance
to protect sponsors of the first new nuclear powerplants against the
financial impact of certain delays during construction or in gaining
approval for operation that are beyond the sponsors' control. This
program would cover 100 percent of the covered cost of delay, up to
$500 million for the first two new reactors and 50 percent of the
covered cost of delay, up to $250 million each, for up to four
additional reactors. This risk insurance offers project sponsors
additional certainty and incentive to provide for the construction of a
new nuclear powerplant by 2014.
The fiscal year 2007 budget request includes $31.4 million to
continue to develop Next-generation nuclear energy systems known as
Generation IV (GenIV). These technologies will offer the promise of a
safe, economical, and proliferation resistant source of clean,
reliable, sustainable nuclear power with the potential to generate
hydrogen for use as a fuel. Resources in fiscal year 2007 for GenIV
will be primarily focused on long-term research and development of the
Very-High Temperature Reactor.
The University Reactor Infrastructure and Educational Assistance
program was designed to address declining enrollment levels among U.S.
nuclear engineering programs. Since the late 1990's, enrollment levels
in nuclear education programs have tripled. In fact, enrollment levels
for 2005 have reached upwards of 1,500 students, the program's target
level for the year 2015. In addition, the number of universities
offering nuclear-related programs also has increased. These trends
reflect renewed interest in nuclear power. Students will continue to be
drawn into this course of study, and universities, along with nuclear
industry societies and utilities, will continue to invest in university
research reactors, students, and faculty members. Consequently, Federal
assistance is no longer necessary, and the 2007 budget proposes
termination of this program. The termination is also supported by the
fact that the program was unable to demonstrate results from its
activities when reviewed using the Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART), supporting the decision to spend taxpayer dollars on other
priorities. Funding for providing fresh reactor fuel to universities is
included in the Research Reactor Infrastructure program, housed within
Radiological Facilities Management.
Recognizing the abundance of coal as a domestic energy resource,
the Department remains committed to research and development to promote
its clean and efficient use. U.S. coal accounts for 25 percent of the
world's coal reserves. For the last 3 years, the Department has been
working to launch a public-private partnership, FutureGen, to develop a
coal-based facility that will produce electricity and hydrogen with
essentially zero atmospheric emissions. This budget includes $54
million in fiscal year 2007 and proposes an advance appropriation of
$203 million for the program in fiscal year 2008. Funding for FutureGen
will be derived from rescinding $203 million in balances no longer
needed to complete active projects in the Clean Coal Technology
program. Better utilization of these fund balances to support FutureGen
will generate real benefits for America's energy security and
environmental quality.
The budget request for fiscal year 2007 includes $4.6 million to
support Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline activities authorized by Congress
in late 2004. Within the total amount of $4.6 million, $2.3 million
will be used to support an Office of the Federal Coordinator and the
remaining $2.3 million will support the Loan Guarantee portion of the
program. Once constructed, this pipeline will be capable of delivering
enough gas to meet about 10 percent of the U.S. daily natural gas
needs.
The budget request proposes to terminate the oil and gas research
and development programs, which have sufficient market incentives for
private industry support, to other energy priorities.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established a new mandatory oil and
gas research and development (R&D) program, called the Ultra-Deep and
Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Research program, that
is to be funded from Federal revenues from oil and gas leases beginning
in fiscal year 2007. These R&D activities are more appropriate for the
private-sector oil and gas industry to perform. Therefore, this budget
proposes to repeal the program through a future legislative proposal,
although we will faithfully execute current law until such time that
Congress acts affirmatively on that legislative proposal.
The fiscal year 2007 budget includes $124.9 million for a refocused
portfolio of energy reliability and assurance activities in the Office
of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. This will support
research and development in areas such as high temperature
superconductivity, and simulation work needed to enhance the
reliability and effectiveness of the Nation's power supply. This office
also operates the Department's energy emergency response capability and
led DOE's support effort during and after the Gulf Coast hurricanes.
ENSURING A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT
To deliver on the Department's environmental cleanup commitments
following 50 years of nuclear research and production from the Cold
War, in 2002 the Environmental Management program underwent a major
transformation that would enable the Department to perform its cleanup
activities faster than previously estimated. Working in partnership
with the public, States and regulators, the Environmental Management
(EM) program has made significant progress in the last 4 years to shift
away from risk management toward risk reduction. By the end of fiscal
year 2006, the cleanup of a total of 86 DOE nuclear legacy sites will
be complete. This includes the recently announced completion of Rocky
Flats and the anticipated fiscal year 2006 completion of Fernald and
Columbus sites in Ohio. While encouraged by the results demonstrated
thus far, the program continues to stay focused on the mission and is
working aggressively to enhance and refine project management
approaches while addressing the regulatory and legal challenges
associated with this complex environmental cleanup program.
In fiscal year 2007, the budget includes $5.8 billion to continue
environmental cleanup with a focus on site completion, with eight sites
or areas to be completed in the 2007 to 2009 timeframe. This budget
request is reduced from the fiscal year 2006 budget request of $6.5
billion primarily reflecting cleanup completion at some sites in fiscal
year 2006 and the subsequent transfer of post-closure work activities.
As cleanup work is completed over the next 5 years at sites without a
continuing mission, EM will transfer long-term surveillance and
monitoring activities and management of pension and benefit programs to
the Office of Legacy Management. For those with continuing missions,
these activities will be transferred to the cognizant program office.
The $5.8 billion budget request remains focused on EM's mission of
reducing risk by cleaning up sites--consequently also reducing
environmental liability--and will support the following key activities:
--Stabilizing radioactive tank waste in preparation for disposition
(about 30 percent of the fiscal year 2007 request for EM);
--Dispositioning transuranic and low-level wastes (about 15 percent
of the request for EM);
--Storing and safeguarding nuclear materials (about 15 percent of the
request for EM);
--Decontaminating and decommissioning excess facilities (about 20
percent of the request for EM); and
--Remediating major areas of our large sites (Hanford, Savannah River
Site, Idaho National Laboratory, and Oak Ridge Reservation)
(about 10 percent of the request for EM).
One of the significant cleanup challenges is the management and
treatment of high-level radioactive liquid waste at the Hanford Waste
Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). In fiscal year 2007, $690
million is proposed for the WTP project. The plant is a critical
component of the program's plans to clean up 53 million gallons of
radioactive waste currently stored in 177 aging underground storage
tanks.
By June 2006, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is expected to
complete an independent cost validation, deploying more than 25
professionals experienced in cost estimating, design, construction, and
commissioning. The Department plans to utilize the results from several
reviews to validate cost and schedule for this project.
The Department, while responsible for the cleanup and disposal of
high-level radioactive waste generated from the Cold War, is also
responsible for managing and disposing of commercial spent nuclear fuel
in a safe and environmentally sound manner. The latter responsibility
is the mission of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
(RW).
The Nation's commercial and defense high-level radioactive waste
and spent nuclear fuel will be safely isolated in a geologic repository
to minimize risk to human health and the environment. The fiscal year
2007 budget requests $544.5 million to establish a geologic repository
at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. This administration is strongly committed to
establishing Yucca Mountain as the Nation's first permanent repository
for high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel. Licensing and developing a
repository for the disposal of these materials will help set the stage
for an expansion of nuclear power through the President's GNEP
initiative, which could help to diversify our energy supply and support
our economic future. Permanent geological disposal at Yucca Mountain
offers the safest, most environmentally sound solution for dealing with
this challenge.
To further advance the administration's commitment to the
establishment of Yucca Mountain, the Department intends to submit to
Congress legislation to address land withdrawal, funding and other
issues that are important to the program's success.
As the Environmental Management program completes cleanup of sites
throughout the DOE complex, management of post closure activities at
these sites will transfer to the Office of Legacy Management (LM). In
fiscal year 2007, $201.0 million is proposed to provide long-term
surveillance and maintenance, long-term response actions, oversight and
payment of pensions and benefits for former contractor retirees, and
records management activities at closure sites transferred to LM. The
majority of funding ($122.4 million) is associated with the transfer of
post closure responsibilities and funding of three major sites from EM
to LM in fiscal year 2007. These sites are: Rocky Flats, $90.8 million;
Fernald, $26.5 million; and a group of sites known as the Nevada off
sites, $5.1 million. The cumulative effect of these three transfers
results in a 150 percent increase in the Legacy Management budget
matched by a corresponding decrease in the Environmental Management
budget.
IMPROVING MANAGEMENT AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Underpinning and supporting all of the programs above, the
Department of Energy has continued to make strides in meeting President
Bush's challenge to become more efficient, more effective, more
results-oriented, and more accountable for performance. Over the past 4
years, the President's Management Agenda (PMA) has been the framework
for organizing the Department's management reform efforts.
To better manage human capital, the Department implemented a
performance management system to link employee achievement at all
levels with mission accomplishment. In fiscal year 2006, DOE will
publish, communicate and implement a revised 5-year Human Capital
Management Strategic Plan as well as a formal leadership succession
plan.
In fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007, DOE will expand the
availability of financial data in support of decision-making by
continuing to implement the Integrated Management Navigation (I-MANAGE)
system, specifically in the areas of budget and procurement through the
Integrated Data Warehouse (IDW). The Department continues to apply
Earned Value Management principles to each of its major information
technology investments. In addition, DOE is partnering with other
government agencies to develop a standardized and integrated human
resources information system, and to develop a consolidated grants
management system.
The Department continued its effort to institutionalize multi-year
planning and strengthen the link between program performance and
resource allocation decisions. The Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART) continues to be used to promote improved program performance.
For programs that have not formally been reviewed by OMB, the PART
process has been used for internal self-assessment.
A number of important milestones were reached in Real Property
Management including the approval of the Asset Management Plan (AMP) by
the Deputy Secretary. The AMP outlines an overall framework for the
strategic management of the Department's $77 billion portfolio of Real
Property Assets. Additionally, the 20,000 real property records in the
Facilities Information Management System, the Department's repository
of real property information, were populated and updated as required by
the Federal Real Property Council for support of the Federal Real
Property Profile. This information will be used to support real
property management decisions department-wide.
As these examples indicate, the Department of Energy is using the
PMA to address its many management challenges. The Department is
working to become more streamlined, more efficient, and more results-
oriented in fiscal year 2007 and beyond.
CONCLUSION
Energy is central to our economic and national security. Indeed,
energy helps drive the global economy and has a significant impact on
our quality of life and the health of our people and our environment.
The fiscal year 2007 budget request balances the need to address short-
term challenges while planning for long-term actions. The request
reflects our belief that basic science research should remain strong if
we are to remain competitive with our global partners. The request
contains bold new initiatives in nuclear, biomass, and solar energy. It
continues the President's strong commitment to clean coal, hydrogen,
and fusion. The request honors our commitment to deal with civilian
nuclear waste, as well as legacy waste from the Cold War, and to
further our already successful nonproliferation programs in order to
help ensure a safer world for generations to come.
This completes our testimony, and we would be pleased to respond to
your questions today or in the future.
Senator Domenici. I think you should just right now off the
top of your head start answering some of the things we raised.
Take another 5 minutes.
COAL RESEARCH
Mr. Garman. All right. Let me first talk about coal,
Senator Bond. We are proud of the fact that in this
administration from the fiscal year 2002 budget to the present
budget we have spent $2.2 billion on coal research, and we
think that is very important. The President had made a promise
that he would spend--he would request $2 billion over 10 years
and it did not take him 10 years to fulfill that promise. He
fulfilled it in 6, and we are proud of that.
It is true that there is a dramatic decrease proposed in
one aspect of that coal research, the Clean Coal Power
Initiative, which is a demonstration program, and, as you have
noted, it has gone from about $49 million to $5 million. The
other part of the story is that there is in the neighborhood of
$500 million in unobligated funds sitting in that account, some
of those funds dating back from the 1990's.
OMB and our own folks looked at that account balance and
asked ourselves the question, are all of those moneys going
toward good programmatic activities? Do we need to request more
authority now? Might it be possible to take some of those
funds, get them into a new solicitation, so that we can
continue this work?
We do take the point. We think it is very important to have
a demonstration program to test drive these technologies before
Wall Street will fund them. We do think that is important. One
of the things that Assistant Secretary Jared is looking at, who
is sitting behind me now, is looking at what of those funds
might be freed up and made available if they are not being
productively used and quickly used now. We want to improve that
program. We want to get the money moving more quickly and get
those dollars in the game.
LOAN GUARANTEES
On the issue of loan guarantees, Mr. Chairman, which is
something that you raised. The Secretary, who has something of
a background in financial management, is personally involved in
this with us and he is counseling that we take a cautious
approach. As you know, the Department of Energy's track record
in loan guarantees is mixed at best. We have made loan
guarantees on geothermal programs in the past. Four of them
failed. We have made three loan guarantees on synthetic fuels.
One of them has been successful after default. We have made
three loan guarantees in alcohol fuels programs. One of them,
again after a default, is paying back against that.
Senator Domenici. How old are these programs?
Mr. Garman. They are old.
Senator Domenici. You bet.
Mr. Garman. They are quite old.
So we are batting 2 out of 6--I am sorry, 6 out of 14. So
we have zeroed in on the loan guarantee provisions,
specifically in title XVII of the Energy Policy Act and other
places, as being incredible new tools at our disposal that we
do want to employ.
I want to disavow you of this notion that somehow we are
stalled. We have created a Loan Guarantee Office, and this is
an office that is very important. It is an office that will
conduct the process, qualify lenders, manage proposal reviews,
monitor the portfolio of the Department. We are working to seek
expertise. There is a lot of expertise that you need, financial
expertise, credit risk expertise, commercial viability
assessment expertise, that we may or may not have inside the
Department. So we are getting that expertise, acquiring it from
outside where possible, contracting it if necessary.
We hope to be in a position to accept the first loan
guarantee pre-applications for that universe of people who are
self-payers under the provisions of the bill some time this
summer, with a view that we might be in a position to make a
contingent offer later this year. Now, I want to be clear. This
is not a promise on our part. This is our internal goal. This
is what we are hoping to achieve in the timeframe. Frankly, the
Secretary is skeptical that we can pull it off that quickly,
but his expectation is that we move as expeditiously as
possible and, as you know, Secretary Bodman, is not a man that
we relish letting down.
Senator Domenici. We are going to move to the soon-to-be
Secretary.
Mr. Garman. So those are two of the issues.
Senator Domenici. But I do want to make a point----
Mr. Garman. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici [continuing]. Because I do not think the
testimony should be taken of these prior efforts as being
efforts that are synonymous with the proposals contained
within, for loan guarantees, in the new Policy Act. The new
Policy Act provides for a completely different kind of loan
guarantee, as you well know.
Mr. Garman. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. That loan guarantee is at zero cost to
the government because the applicant pays for the costs. There
is a significant cleansing mechanism for whether it is a good
project or not because of that, and it will be a different kind
of proposal.
What I am hearing you say is you are not slowing up on
putting together all the apparatus, the structure needed. That
is moving ahead as quickly as you can?
Mr. Garman. Correct. For instance, we are trying to use
guidelines, as opposed to regulations, because a regulatory
process would take another 18 months or longer, and that is
something that we are working with the Office of Management and
Budget to understand how we can move ahead in that realm.
Senator Domenici. We are now going to ask Dr. Orbach to
give his testimony. You can do it however you would like. Your
statement is in the record at this point without objection.
Proceed.
Office of Science
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND L. ORBACH, Ph.D., DIRECTOR
Dr. Orbach. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and I
appreciate the support that this committee has provided for
science and its relationship to our Nation's energy security
and economic competitiveness.
The fiscal year 2007 President's request, as you have
noted, includes a $505 million increase in the Department of
Energy science program, and the President has announced his
commitment to double the funding for basic research in the
physical sciences over the next 10 years. We are going to use
the increase in funding this year, with roughly half going to
operations of our large-scale facilities and the other half to
research, to competitively based research proposals from the
entire community, to restore the balance between our facilities
and our operations and our basic research program.
The instruments that we are building we believe will give
the United States an order of magnitude dominance over all
other facilities in the areas that we approach. We will be a
full partner in ITER, contained in this budget. We will be
placing on the floor three high-end computational structures
for a variety of physical problems, the fastest in the non-
defense world.
We will be continuing with construction of the world's
first free electron X-ray laser. This machine will provide ten
orders of magnitude dominance over any other hard X-ray source
in the world today. More than that, its timing will enable us
to observe the change in the electron clouds as chemical
reactions take place and to determine the structure of
individual macromolecules.
The Spallation Neutron Source will turn on in June of this
year, a $1.4 billion project which is on time and on budget,
and gives us an order of magnitude dominance for neutron
scattering, pulse neutron scattering, in the world.
Four of our five nanocenters will start operations with the
2007 budget. These nanocenters will be unmatched anywhere in
the world and will give our scientists and engineers
opportunities to construct at the atomic level and understand
the properties of the materials as they are being grown.
We will be contributing $60 million to R&D for the
International Linear Collider, which we hope will restore
American dominance in high-energy physics in the next decade.
We will be increasing the power of the CEBAF, the Continuous
Electron Beam Accelerator Facility, at Thomas Jefferson to 12
GEV, which will enable us to see the structure of individual
quarks and gluons in the nucleus.
We will be contributing to the optimum operations of RHIC
at Brookhaven to study the properties of the universe very
close to its creation. Finally, we will be finishing our R&D
and investing in project engineering design for the NSLS-2,
which is the first of the fourth generation light sources. This
will be an X-ray microscope capable of operating at one
nanometer in size, which would be of the order of three atomic
diameters. There is no other instrument like it in the world.
In addition, it will have an energy resolution that will give
us not only the structure but also the dynamics of these new
materials as they are created.
I have gone through this to give you a sense of the impact
that this augmentation in the Office of Science budget will
have. We are fully aware that this request takes place in a
period of budgetary stringency. We are indebted to the
President for his foresight in recognizing the vital importance
of America's continued leadership in the physical sciences to
our Nation's global competitive position and our quest for
greater energy security.
We are committed to upholding our part of the bargain by
delivering truly transformational science and technologies,
breakthrough advances that will provide new pathways to energy
security and ensure America's continued global economic
leadership in the years ahead.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to discuss this budget with you
today. I thank you and the committee for the opportunity to
appear and for your support over the years for the science
program. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Raymond L. Orbach
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on the Office of Science's fiscal year
2007 budget request. I appreciate your strong support for basic
research in the physical sciences, Mr. Chairman, and your understanding
of the importance of this research to our Nation's energy security and
economic competitiveness. I also want to thank the members of the
subcommittee for their support. This budget represents a strong
commitment on the part of the President to ensure continued U.S.
leadership in the basic sciences. I believe this budget will enable the
Office of Science to strengthen U.S. scientific leadership and carry
out its mission to deliver the revolutionary discoveries and scientific
tools that transform our understanding of energy and matter and advance
our national, economic and energy security.
The Office of Science requests $4,101,710,000 for the fiscal year
2007 Science appropriation, an increase of $505,319,000 over the fiscal
year 2006 appropriation. As part of the President's American
Competitiveness Initiative, the fiscal year 2007 budget represents the
beginning of the President's commitment to double, over 10 years, the
sum of the research investment at the Office of Science, the National
Science Foundation, and the Department of Commerce's National Institute
of Standards and Technology. This commitment will help ensure that the
United States remains the world leader in critical areas of basic
scientific research; maintains an order of magnitude dominance for
large-scale scientific facilities and instrumentation in the key fields
of science and technology that will drive the 21st century economy;
pursues the transformational technologies necessary for greater energy
security and independence for our Nation; and nurtures and develops a
world-class scientific and engineering workforce.
The Office of Science is the lead Federal supporter for basic
research in the physical sciences in the United States, and the steward
for fields such as systems biology for energy and the environment,
materials science, high energy physics, nuclear physics, heavy element
chemistry, plasma physics, magnetic fusion, and catalysis. It also
supports unique and vital components of U.S. research in climate change
and geophysics. Researchers funded through the Office of Science are
working on some of the most pressing scientific challenges of our age
including: (1) Harnessing the power of microbial communities for:
energy production from renewable sources, carbon sequestration, and
environmental remediation; (2) Expanding the frontiers of
nanotechnology to develop materials with unprecedented properties for
widespread potential scientific, energy, and industrial applications;
(3) Pursuing the breakthroughs in materials science, nanotechnology,
biotechnology, and other fields needed to make solar energy more cost-
effective; (4) Demonstrating the scientific and technological
feasibility of creating and controlling a sustained burning plasma to
generate energy, as the next step toward making fusion power a
commercial reality; (5) Using advanced computation, simulation, and
modeling to understand and predict the behavior of complex systems,
beyond the reach of our most powerful experimental probes, with
transformational impact on a broad range of scientific and
technological undertakings; (6) Understanding the origin of the
universe and nature of dark matter and dark energy; and (7) Resolving
key uncertainties and expanding the scientific foundation needed to
understand, predict, and assess the potential effects of atmospheric
carbon on climate and the environment.
U.S. preeminence in science, technology, and innovation will depend
on the continued availability of the most advanced scientific research
facilities for our researchers. The Office of Science builds and
operates the world's most powerful array of scientific facilities and
instruments, including advanced synchrotron light sources, the new
Spallation Neutron Source, state-of-the-art Nanoscale Science Research
Centers, genome sequencing facilities, supercomputers and high-speed
networks, climate and environmental monitoring capabilities, and
particle accelerators for high energy and nuclear physics. We are in
the process of developing an X-ray free electron laser light source
that can image single large macromolecules and measure in real-time
changes in the chemical bond as chemical and biological reactions take
place. Our premier tools of science at the 10 national laboratories
managed by the Office of Science are used by over 19,000 researchers
and students from universities, other Federal agencies, and private
industry every year, and have enabled U.S. researchers to make some of
the most important scientific discoveries of the past 70 years.
Office of Science leadership in basic research in the physical
sciences, and stewardship of large research facilities, is directly
linked to its role in training America's scientists, engineers, and
teachers. Through the funding of a diverse portfolio of research at
more than 300 colleges and universities nationwide, we provide direct
support and access to research facilities for thousands of university
students and researchers in the physical and biological sciences and
mathematics. Facilities at the national laboratories provide unique
opportunities for researchers and their students from across the
country to pursue questions at the intersection of physics, chemistry,
biology, computing, and materials science. The Office of Science also
sponsors undergraduate student internships and fellowships for science
and mathematics K-12 teachers for research experience and training at
the national laboratories.
The fiscal year 2007 budget request will allow the Office of
Science to increase support for high-priority DOE mission-driven
scientific research as well as support new initiatives; maintain
optimum operations at our scientific user facilities; keep major
facility construction projects on schedule and within budget; and
treble educational, research, and training opportunities for the next
generation of scientists, engineers, and teachers. The budget will also
allow us to expand our contribution to basic research in support of the
President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and the President's new Advanced
Energy Initiative. Roughly half of our budget goes to construction and
operations of the large scientific facilities, and the other half is
approximately equally split between research at the DOE laboratories
and research at universities. This budget will support the research of
approximately 24,200 faculty, students, and postdoctoral researchers
throughout the Nation, an increase of 2,600 from fiscal year 2006.
The following programs are supported in the fiscal year 2007 budget
request: Basic Energy Sciences, Advanced Scientific Computing Research,
Biological and Environmental Research, Fusion Energy Sciences, High
Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics, Science Laboratories Infrastructure,
Science Program Direction, Workforce Development for Teachers and
Scientists, and Safeguards and Security.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE FISCAL YEAR 2007 PRESIDENT'S REQUEST SUMMARY BY PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2005 2006 Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2007 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science:
Basic Energy Sciences....................................... 1,083,616 1,134,557 1,420,980
Advanced Scientific Computing Research...................... 226,180 234,684 318,654
Biological and Environmental Research:
Base program............................................ 487,474 451,131 510,263
Congressionally directed projects....................... 79,123 128,700 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Biological and Environmental Research.......... 566,597 579,831 510,263
===============================================
High Energy Physics......................................... 722,906 716,694 775,099
Nuclear Physics............................................. 394,549 367,034 454,060
Fusion Energy Sciences...................................... 266,947 287,644 318,950
Science Laboratories Infrastructure......................... 37,498 41,684 50,888
Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists........... 7,599 7,120 10,952
Science Program Direction................................... 154,031 159,118 170,877
Safeguards and Security..................................... 67,168 68,025 70,987
Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology 113,621 .............. ..............
Transfer...................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science....................................... 3,640,712 3,596,391 4,101,710
Less use of prior year balances............................. -5,062 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Science............................................ 3,635,650 3,596,391 4,101,710
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 2007 science priorities
In his State of the Union Message on January 31, 2006, President
George W. Bush stated,
``To keep America competitive, one commitment is necessary above
all: We must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity.
Our greatest advantage in the world has always been our educated,
hardworking, ambitious people--and we're going to keep that edge.
Tonight I announce an American Competitiveness Initiative, to encourage
innovation throughout our economy, and to give our Nation's children a
firm grounding in math and science.
``First, I propose to double the Federal commitment to the most
critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next
10 years. This funding will support the work of America's most creative
minds as they explore promising areas such as nanotechnology,
supercomputing, and alternative energy sources.''
I believe the American Competitiveness Initiative and this
commitment by the President present an historic opportunity for science
in our country and continued U.S. global competitiveness. Through the
fiscal year 2007 budget, the Office of Science will build on our record
of results with new investments to maintain U.S. world-leadership
status in the physical sciences, keep U.S. research and development at
the forefront of global science, and increase America's talent pool in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
Determining science and technology priorities across the Office of
Science programs is an ongoing process, both in times of budget
stringency and budget increases. Several factors are considered in our
prioritization, including scientific opportunities identified by our
scientific advisory committees and the overall scientific community;
DOE mission needs; and administration and Departmental priorities. In
fiscal year 2007, we will support the priorities in scientific
research, facility operations, and construction and laboratory
infrastructure established in the past few years and outlined in the
Office of Science Strategic Plan and 20-year Facilities Outlook, in
addition to Presidential and Departmental initiatives.
The President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and the new Advanced
Energy Initiative will be supported through our contributions to basic
research in hydrogen, fusion, solar energy to transportation fuels,
chemical separation and materials for advanced nuclear energy systems,
and production of ethanol from cellulose. We will also continue strong
support for other administration priorities such as nanotechnology,
advanced scientific computation, and climate change science and
technology.
The Office of Science will actively lead and support the U.S.
contributions to ITER, the international project to build and operate
the first fusion science facility capable of producing a sustained,
burning plasma to generate energy on a massive scale without
environmental insult.
Full operations at four of the DOE Nanoscale Science Research
Centers (NSRCs) and completion of construction and start-up operations
for the fifth NSRC will be supported in fiscal year 2007. These
facilities are the Nation's premier nanoscience user centers, providing
resources unmatched anywhere in the world for the synthesis,
fabrication, and analysis of nanoparticles and nanomaterials.
We will fully fund the programs in advanced scientific computing
including support for: increasing capacity to 100-150 teraflops
(trillions of operations per second) for high-performance production
computing at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center
(NERSC); 250 teraflop capability for modeling and simulation of
scientific problems in combustion, fusion, and complex chemical
reactions at Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Leadership Computing
Facility; and installation of a 100 teraflop peak capacity IBM Blue
Gene P system at Argonne National Laboratory's Leadership Computing
Facility to extend architectural diversity in leadership computing and
address challenges in catalysis, protein/DNA complexes, and materials
sciences related to next-generation design of nuclear reactors.
The Office of Science designs, constructs, and operates facilities
and instruments that give U.S. scientists an ``order of magnitude''
lead over foreign competition in key scientific fields. For example,
increasing the computing capacity at NERSC and the Leadership Computing
Facilities will give the United States computational capabilities for
open scientific research that are at least 10 times greater than
available anywhere else. The Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) at the
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, when it comes on line in 2009, will
produce X-rays 10 billion times, or 10 orders of magnitude more intense
than any existing X-ray source in the world, and allow structural
studies on individual nanoscale particles and single biomolecules. The
Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), the world's forefront neutron
scattering facility, will increase the number of neutrons available for
cutting-edge research by a factor of 10 over any existing Spallation
neutron source in the world when operations begin this year. We will be
supporting the first full year of SNS operations in fiscal year 2007 as
well as the fabrication of four to five instruments that are part of
the initial suite of instruments for the target station.
In fiscal year 2007, we will begin R&D and project engineering and
design for the next generation of synchrotron light sources. The
National Synchrotron Light Source-II (NSLS-II) will deliver orders of
magnitude improvement in spatial resolution, providing the world's
finest capabilities for X-ray imaging and enabling the study of
material properties and functions, particularly at the nanoscale, at a
level of detail and precision never before possible. Its energy
resolution will explore dynamical properties of matter as no other
light source has ever accomplished.
Our research programs in nuclear physics continue to receive strong
support. We will continue optimum operations at the Relativistic Heavy
Ion Collider (RHIC), and support additional instrumentation projects
for RHIC for studying the properties of hot, dense nuclear matter,
providing insight into the early universe. We will also support
increased operations at the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator
Facility (CEBAF) and project engineering and design for doubling the
energy of the existing beam at CEBAF to 12 gigaelectron volts. It will
image directly individual quarks and gluons in the nucleus, something
never before accomplished.
In addition to supporting core experimental and theoretical high-
energy physics research, we will double the resources for R&D for the
proposed high-energy, high luminosity electron-positron International
Linear Collider. And we will maintain strong support for U.S.
participation in the research program at the Large Hadron Collider,
scheduled to begin operations in 2007.
The Office of Science will expand the Genomics: GTL program--a
program that builds on the advances in genome sequencing, molecular
science, and computation, to understand and ultimately harness the
functions of microbes to address DOE's mission needs.
We will also continue to support the development of leaders in the
science and mathematics education community through a tripling of the
number of K-12 teachers participating in the Laboratory Science Teacher
Professional Development program, focusing on middle school teachers
and students. This immersion program, working with master teachers and
laboratory mentor scientists, builds content knowledge, research
skills, and a lasting connection to the scientific community, leading
to more effective teaching that inspires students in science and
mathematics.
SCIENCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Over the past 50 years, the Office of Science has blended cutting-
edge research and innovative problem solving to keep the United States
at the forefront of scientific discovery. American taxpayers have
received great value for their investment in basic research sponsored
by the Office of Science that has led to significant technological
innovations, new intellectual capital, enhanced economic
competitiveness, and improved quality of life. The following are some
of the past year's highlights:
Promoting the Contributions of Physics to Our Quality of Life--2005
World Year of Physics.--The Office of Science, in coordination with
researchers at universities nationwide and the DOE national
laboratories, celebrated the 2005 World Year of Physics through a year-
long program of activities and materials highlighting how physics
enables advances in science and contributes to the quality of life. In
celebration of the centennial of Albert Einstein's ``miracle year'',
1905, when he published four papers that laid the foundations of much
of physics as we know it today, the Office of Science co-sponsored a
new PBS NOVA program, ``Einstein's Big Idea'', and its associated
educational materials. The program aired on PBS stations nationwide in
October 2005. Library guides about the program were distributed to all
16,000 libraries nationwide, and teacher's guides were sent nationwide
to 15,000 high school physics teachers, 3,700 middle school physics
teachers, and 400 middle school science chairs. Several of the national
laboratories held special lectures, symposia, and education events for
local middle school and high school students and the surrounding
communities. A DOE/Office of Science website was created to educate the
public about the significance of Einstein's revolutionary work,
describe the role of physics in various science and technology fields,
publicize events, and highlight the work of DOE-sponsored physicists.
The ``DOE Physicists at Work'' website continues to profile the work of
young physicists conducting research in the universities and national
laboratories funded by the Office of Science. Several activities
coordinated by the American Physical Society were also co-sponsored by
the Office of Science including Physics Quest, an outreach event held
on the grounds of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton, NJ,
that took over 100,000 middle school students through a series of
experiments on a hunt to finding Einstein's ``missing treasure'', and
Physics on the Road, a project that supported the materials and
equipment for teams from colleges and universities to perform physics
demonstrations at schools and public venues.
Nobel Prize in Chemistry.--The 2005 Nobel prize in chemistry was
awarded to Robert H. Grubbs (CalTech), Richard R. Schrock (MIT), and
Yves Chauvin (French Petroleum Institute) for the development of the
``metathesis method'' in organic synthesis. This method of selectively
stripping out certain atoms in a compound and replacing them with atoms
that were previously part of another compound employs novel catalysts
to simplify the process of custom-building molecules with specialized
properties. Metathesis has led to industrial and pharmaceutical methods
that are more efficient, produce fewer by-products, and are more
environmentally friendly. The work of the laureates has major
significance in the production of fuels, synthetic fibers, plastics,
and pharmaceuticals. The Office of Science has supported Dr. Schrock's
work in catalytic chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology since 1979 and supported Dr. Grubbs' work in homogeneous
catalysis at Caltech from 1979 through 1988.
Discoveries and Capabilities at the Frontier of Nanoscale
Science.--In 2005, the world's first hard X-ray nanoprobe beamline was
activated at the Advanced Photon Source (Argonne). The X-ray microscope
nanoprobe will provide spatial resolution of 30 nanometers or better,
making it a valuable tool for studying nanomaterials as the new Center
for Nanoscale Materials begins operations in 2006 at Argonne National
Laboratory. Researchers at the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation
Laboratory have developed new methods for studying the structure of
nanomaterials through a combined use of X-ray scattering and absorption
measurement techniques that has led to significant advances in
understanding the structures of nanomaterials and routine
characterization of bacterial nano-minerals. Scientific discoveries at
the nanoscale in 2005 include the following: ultrathin films, six atoms
thick, that retained ferroelectric properties needed for next
generation nanoscale devices such as electronics and sensors; ultrafast
laser techniques observed the fastest reversible phase transition
between nanocrystal structures ever recorded with the transition of
vanadium oxide crystals switching from a semiconducting to metallic
phase material; the fabrication of novel semiconductor nanocrystal
polymer solar cells that demonstrated surprisingly high efficiencies;
and the development of the world's smallest synthetic nanomotor--a 300
nanometer gold rotor on a carbon nanotube shaft--demonstrating advances
in the miniaturization of electromagnetic devices.
Delivering Forefront Computational and Networking Capabilities for
Science.--Several computational sciences and networking advances made
in 2005 enable more effective use of leadership-scale computing
resources and management of the growing data volumes from the
scientific user facilities: computer science researchers have
significantly enhanced the performance of simulation models for fusion,
atmospheric science, and quantum chemistry applications and continue to
improve programming models that optimize complex scientific
applications run on computers with hundreds to thousands of processors;
researchers at Argonne National Laboratory have produced a new modeling
and solution paradigm for the design of efficient electricity markets;
the Energy Sciences Network completed the first metropolitan area
network connecting six DOE sites in the San Francisco Bay Area with
dual connectivity at 20 gigabits per second, 10 to 50 times the
previous bandwidth at each site, also improving reliability and
lowering costs; and the UltraScienceNet Testbed completed deployment in
August 2005 of its 20 gigabit per second reconfigurable optical network
testbed designed to test advanced optical network technologies such as
advanced data transfer networking technologies designed to meet the
increasing demand for bandwidth and the needs of next-generation
scientific instruments.
Advances in Biotechnology for Energy and the Environment.--Progress
towards understanding how living organisms interact with and respond to
their environment, and how those processes involved can be utilized,
was gained through the following accomplishments: researchers applied
both genomic and proteomic approaches to characterize a naturally
occurring microbial community for the first time at a remediation site,
producing insights into potential biotechnology strategies for
remediation of toxic materials; advanced genomic sequencing
technologies applied to samples taken from the Sargasso Sea led to the
discovery of over a million new genes that had never been seen before,
identifying the potential of environmental genomics for discovering new
microbe functionalities that can be harnessed for energy or
environmental applications; researchers have developed the ability to
insert fiber-optic probes into living cells to watch cellular processes
unfold in real time; and a new clearinghouse was established that
contains approximately 300 draft or completed genome sequences of
microbes, associated information about the gene, protein functions, and
biochemical pathways, and browsing tools to help researchers sort
through and analyze genomic data.
Accomplishments in Theory, Simulation, and Experiments Energize
Fusion Research Towards ITER.--With progress on the international
agreement to build ITER, investigations on the theory, simulation, and
experimentation related to burning plasma and ITER related issues
increased in 2005. The results of some of those studies include the
following: researchers achieved ITER level plasma pressure at the
Alcator C-Mod facility, a world record absolute pressure for magnetic
confinement experiments; separate experiments on DIII-D indicated
higher plasma pressures can be obtained without a penalty to energy
confinement, suggesting that ITER could achieve higher fusion power
output than originally conceived; multi-teraflop performance was
achieved on a leading plasma micro-turbulence simulation code,
demonstrating the ability of the code to effectively utilize increased
computational capabilities and accelerate the pace of discoveries in
this area of fusion plasma research; and high-performance reduced-
activation steels tested under fusion-relevant conditions demonstrated
superior performance under intense neutron radiation compared to
conventional steels, making these materials lead candidates for
structural components of ITER.
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE
The path from basic research to industrial competitiveness is not
always obvious. History has taught us that seeking answers to
fundamental questions results in a diverse array of practical
applications as well as some remarkable revolutionary advances. Working
with the scientific community, the Office of Science invests in the
most promising research and sets definite and challenging long-term
scientific goals with meaningful annual targets. The intent and impact
of our performance goals may not always be clear to those outside the
research community. Therefore the Office of Science has created a
website (www.sc.doe.gov/measures) to better communicate what we are
measuring and why it is important. This website also tracks progress
toward management improvements and describes a wide array of program
accomplishments.
ORGANIZATION
The OneSC Project was initiated to streamline the Office of Science
structure and improve operations across the Office of Science complex
in keeping with the principles of the President's Management Agenda to
manage government programs more efficiently and effectively. The Office
of Science has been officially reorganized under the OneSC structure
(Figure 2). Phase 1 of the reorganization was effective March 20, 2005.
Phase 2 of OneSC involves human capital and organizational needs
analyses and reengineering of SC business and management operations and
processes. The Office of Science business practices and processes will
be optimized to remove unnecessary work and support enhanced
stewardship and oversight of the Office of Science laboratories.
Attrition, retraining, reassignments, and workforce management
incentives will be utilized to manage changes in staffing levels or
skill mix needs resulting from Phase 2 activities. No downgrades,
involuntary geographical transfers, separations, or reductions-in-force
are planned or expected.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
SCIENCE PROGRAMS
Basic Energy Sciences
Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriation--$1,134.6 Million; Fiscal
Year 2007 Request--$1,421.0 Million
Basic research supported by the Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program
touches virtually every aspect of energy resources, production,
conversion, efficiency, and waste mitigation. Research in materials
sciences and engineering leads to the development of materials that
improve the efficiency, economy, environmental acceptability, and
safety of energy generation, conversion, transmission, and use.
Research in chemistry leads to the development of advances such as
efficient combustion systems with reduced emissions of pollutants; new
solar photo conversion processes; improved catalysts for the production
of fuels and chemicals; and better separations and analytical methods
for applications in energy processes, environmental remediation, and
waste management. Research in geosciences contributes to the solution
of problems in multiple DOE mission areas, including reactive fluid
flow studies to understand contaminant remediation and seismic imaging
for reservoir definition. Research in the molecular and biochemical
nature of photosynthesis aids the development of solar photo energy
conversion and biomass conversion. In fiscal year 2007, the Office of
Science will support expanded efforts in basic research related to
transformational energy technologies. Within BES, there are increases
to ongoing basic research for effective solar energy utilization, for
the hydrogen economy, and for work underpinning advanced nuclear energy
power. BES also asks researchers to reach far beyond today's problems
in order to provide the basis for long-term solutions to what is
probably society's greatest challenge--a secure, abundant, and clean
energy supply. To that end, the fiscal year 2007 budget request would
also increase research for grand challenge science questions and for
new technique development in complex systems or emergent behavior,
ultrafast science, mid-scale instrumentation, and chemical imaging.
BES also provides the Nation's researchers with world-class
research facilities, including reactor- and accelerator-based neutron
sources, light sources soon to include the X-ray free electron laser,
nanoscale science research centers, and electron beam micro-
characterization centers. These facilities provide outstanding
capabilities for imaging and characterizing materials of all kinds from
metals, alloys, and ceramics to fragile biological samples. The next
steps in the characterization and the ultimate control of materials
properties and chemical reactivity are to improve spatial resolution of
imaging techniques; to enable a wide variety of samples, sample sizes,
and sample environments to be used in imaging experiments; and to make
measurements on very short time scales, comparable to the time of a
chemical reaction or the formation of a chemical bond. With these
tools, we will be able to understand how the composition of materials
affects their properties, to watch proteins fold, to see chemical
reactions, and to understand and observe the nature of the chemical
bond. For fiscal year 2007, BES scientific user facilities will be
scheduled to operate at an optimal number of hours.
Construction of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) will be
completed during the 3rd quarter of fiscal year 2006 and will join the
suite of BES scientific user facilities. In fiscal year 2007, BES will
support continued fabrication and commissioning of SNS instruments,
funded both as part of the SNS project and from other sources including
non-DOE sources, and will increase power to full levels. A new Major
Item of Equipment is funded in fiscal year 2007 that will allow the
fabrication of approximately four to five additional instruments for
the SNS, thus nearly completing the initial suite of 24 instruments
that can be accommodated in the high-power target station.
Four Nanoscale Science Research Centers will be fully operational
in fiscal year 2007: the Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, the Molecular Foundry at Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, the Center for Nanoscale Materials at Argonne
National Laboratory, and the Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies at
Sandia National Laboratories and Los Alamos National Laboratory. A
fifth Center, the Center for Functional Nanomaterials at Brookhaven
National Laboratory, will receive final year construction funding. In
fiscal year 2007, there are significant shifts in the nanoscale science
and engineering research activities contributing to the BES investments
in research at the nanoscale and a substantial overall increase in
funding. Overall, the total investment for these Nanoscale Science
Research Centers decreases by about 10 percent owing to the planned
decrease in construction funding. Funding for research at the nanoscale
increases very significantly owing to increases in funding for
activities related to the hydrogen economy, solar energy conversion,
and advanced nuclear energy.
The Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) at the Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center (SLAC) will continue Project Engineering Design
(PED) and construction at the planned levels. The purpose of the LCLS
Project is to provide laser-like radiation in the X-ray region of the
spectrum that is 10 billion times greater in peak power and peak
brightness than any existing coherent X-ray light source and that has
pulse lengths measured in femtoseconds--the timescale of electronic and
atomic motions. The LCLS will the first facility in the world for such
groundbreaking research in the physical and life sciences. Support is
also provided for PED and R&D for the National Synchrotron Light
Source-II (NSLS-II), which will be a new synchrotron light source,
highly optimized to deliver ultra-high brightness and flux and
exceptional beam stability. This would enable the study of material
properties and functions with a spatial resolution of 1 nanometer (nm),
an energy resolution of 0.1 millielectron volt (meV), and the ultra-
high sensitivity required to perform spectroscopy on a single atom.
NSLS-II will be transformational in opening new regimes of scientific
discovery and investigation. The ability to probe materials with 1 nm
or better spatial resolution and to analyze their dynamics with 0.1 meV
energy resolution will be truly revolutionary.
The Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC)
program is a set of coordinated investments across all Office of
Science mission areas with the goal of achieving breakthrough
scientific advances via computer simulation that were impossible using
theoretical or laboratory studies alone. The SciDAC program in BES
consists of two major activities: (1) characterizing chemically
reacting flows as exemplified by combustion and (2) achieving
scalability in the first-principles calculation of molecular
properties, including chemical reaction rates.
Advanced Scientific Computing Research
Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriation--$234.7 Million; Fiscal Year
2007 Request--$318.6 Million
The Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program is
expanding the capability of world-class scientific research capacity
through advances in mathematics, high performance computing and
advanced networks, and through the application of computers capable of
many trillions of operations per second (terascale computers) to
advanced scientific applications. Computer-based simulation enables us
to understand and predict the behavior of complex systems that are
beyond the reach of our most powerful experimental probes or our most
sophisticated theories. Computational modeling has greatly advanced our
understanding of fundamental processes of Nature, such as fluid flow
and turbulence or molecular structure and reactivity. Soon, through
modeling and simulation, we will be able to explore the interior of
stars to understand how the chemical elements were created and learn
how protein machines work inside living cells to enable the design of
microbes that address critical energy or waste cleanup needs. We could
also design novel catalysts and high-efficiency engines that expand our
economy, lower pollution, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Computational science is increasingly important to progress at the
frontiers of almost every scientific discipline and to our most
challenging feats of engineering. The science of the future demands
that we advance beyond our current computational abilities.
For the past two decades SC, and the worldwide scientific
community, have been harvesting their success in building and
developing the Internet. This has enabled roughly a doubling in
bandwidth every 2 years with no increase in cost. However, the demands
of today's facilities, which generate millions of gigabytes per year of
data, now outstrip the capabilities of the Internet design and the
algorithms, software tools, libraries, and environments needed to
accelerate scientific discovery through modeling and simulation are
beyond the realm of commercial interest. However, the evolution of the
telecom market, including the availability of direct access to optical
fiber at attractive prices and the availability of flexible dense wave
division multiplexing (DWDM) products gives SC the possibility of
exploiting these technologies to provide scientific data where it is
needed at speeds commensurate with the new data volumes. However, to
take advantage of this opportunity significant research is needed to
integrate these capabilities, make them available to scientists, and
build the infrastructure which can provide cybersecurity in this
environment.
The Mathematical, Information, and Computational Sciences (MICS)
effort supports the core research of the ASCR program. To establish and
maintain networking, modeling and simulation leadership in scientific
areas that are important to DOE's mission, the MICS subprogram employs
a broad, but integrated, research strategy. The MICS subprogram's basic
research portfolio in applied mathematics and computer science provides
the foundation for enabling research activities, which include efforts
to advance networking and to develop software tools, libraries, and
environments. Results from enabling research supported by the MICS
subprogram are used by computational scientists supported by other SC
and DOE programs. This link to other DOE programs provides a tangible
assessment of the value of the MICS subprogram for advancing scientific
discovery and technology development through simulations. In addition
to its research activities, the MICS subprogram plans, develops, and
operates supercomputer and network facilities that are available--24
hours a day, 365 days a year--to researchers working on problems
relevant to DOE's scientific missions. In fiscal year 2007, the Energy
Science Network (ESnet) will deliver a backbone network with two to
four times the capability of today's network, to support the science
mission of the Department. In addition, the National Energy Research
Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) will be upgraded in fiscal year
2006 to add a NERSC-5 machine with 100-150 teraflops of peak computing
capacity early in fiscal year 2007. The NERSC computational resources
are integrated by a common high performance file storage system that
enables users to easily use all machines. Therefore the new machine
will significantly reduce the current oversubscription at NERSC which
serves nearly 2,000 scientists annually.
The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Leadership Computing
Facility (LCF), selected under the Leadership Computing Competition in
fiscal year 2004, will be enhanced to deliver 250 teraflops of peak
capability in fiscal year 2007 for scientific applications. In
addition, further diversity with the LCF resources will be realized
with an acquisition by Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) of a high
performance IBM Blue Gene P with low-electrical power requirements and
a peak capability of up to 100 teraflops. The expansion of the
Leadership Computing Facility to include the Blue Gene computer at ANL
was an important element of the joint ORNL, ANL, and PNNL proposal
selected in 2004 to enable solutions for scientific problems beyond
what would be attainable through a continued simple extrapolation of
current computational capabilities. The capability provided in fiscal
year 2007 will accelerate scientific understanding in many areas of
science important to DOE including materials science, biology, and
advanced designs of nuclear reactors.
The research focus of ASCR SciDAC activities includes Integrated
Software Infrastructure Centers (ISICs). ISICs are partnerships between
DOE national laboratories and universities focused on research,
development, and deployment of software to accelerate the development
of SciDAC application codes. Progress to date includes significant
improvements in performance modeling and analysis capabilities that
have led to doubling the performance on 64 processors of the Community
Atmosphere Model component of the SciDAC climate modeling activity. In
fiscal year 2006, ASCR is recompeting its SciDAC portfolio, with the
exception of activities in partnership with the Office of Fusion Energy
that were initiated in fiscal year 2005. In addition, in fiscal year
2007 ASCR will continue the competitively selected SciDAC institutes
which can become centers of excellence in high end computational
science in areas that are critical to DOE missions.
Advancing high performance computing and computation is a highly
coordinated interagency effort. ASCR has extensive partnerships with
other Federal agencies and the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA). The activities funded by the MICS subprogram are coordinated
with other Federal efforts through the NITR&D subcommittee of the
National Science and Technology Council and its Technology Committee.
The subcommittee coordinates planning, budgeting, and assessment
activities of the multiagency NITR&D enterprise. DOE has been an active
participant in these coordination groups and committees since their
inception. The MICS subprogram will continue to coordinate its
activities through these mechanisms and will lead the development of
new coordinating mechanisms as needs arise. The DOE program solves
mission critical problems in scientific computing. In addition, results
from the DOE program benefit the Nation's information technology basic
research effort. The fiscal year 2007 program positions DOE to make
additional contributions to this effort.
Biological and Environmental Research
Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriation--$451.1 Million\1\; Fiscal
Year 2007 Request--$510.3 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include $128.7 Million in Congressionally-directed
projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biological and Environmental Research (BER) supports basic research
with broad impacts on our health, our environment, and our energy
future. Biotechnology solutions are possible for DOE energy and
environmental challenges by understanding complex biological systems
and developing computational tools to model and predict their behavior.
An ability to predict long-range and regional climate enables effective
planning for future needs in energy, agriculture, and land and water
use. Understanding the global carbon cycle and the associated role and
capabilities of microbes and plants can lead to solutions for reducing
carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. Understanding the
complex role of biology, geochemistry, and hydrology beneath the
Earth's surface will lead to improved decision making and solutions for
contaminated DOE weapons sites. Both normal and abnormal health--from
normal human development to cancer to brain function--can be understood
and improved using radiotracers, advanced imaging instruments, and
novel biomedical devices. Understanding the biological effects of low
doses of radiation can lead to the development of science-based health
risk policy to better protect workers and citizens.
The fiscal year 2007 budget includes funds for the continued
expansion of the Genomics: GTL program--a program at the forefront of
the biological revolution. This program employs a systems approach to
biology at the interface of the biological, physical, and computational
sciences to address DOE's mission needs. This research will continue to
more fully characterize the inventory of multi-protein molecular
machines found in selected DOE-relevant microbes and higher organisms.
It will determine the diverse biochemical capabilities of microbes and
microbial communities, especially as they relate to potential
biological solutions to DOE needs, found in populations of microbes
isolated from DOE-relevant sites. Within the Genomics: GTL program, BER
will develop the understanding needed to advance biotechnology-based
strategies for biofuel production, focusing on biohydrogen and
bioethanol.
Ethanol produced from corn starch is currently the most widely
consumed biofuel in the United States. The production of cellulosic
ethanol from biomass has the potential to reduce current oil demand by
one-third without reducing the food supply or damaging the environment.
Currently, a biochemical conversion of biomass to ethanol involves
three basic steps: (1) breakdown of raw biomass using heat and
chemicals, (2) use of enzymes to breakdown plant cell wall materials
into simple sugars, and (3) conversion of the sugars into ethanol using
microbes. The long-term goal is to integrate the bioprocessing into a
single step. Accomplishing this requires the development of genetically
modified, multifunctional microbes or a stable mixed culture of
microbes capable of carrying out all biologically mediated
transformations needed for the complete conversion of biomass to
ethanol. Research will be supported on a variety of enzymes and
microbes that contribute (individually and together) to the conversion
of cellulose to ethanol; analysis of enzymes to understand how they
interact with and breakdown cellulose; a determination of the factors,
such as temperature and different combinations of sugars, that
influence biomass degradation or ethanol production; strategies for
producing and maintaining stable mixed cultures of microbes; and
improved capabilities for genetically engineering microbes that produce
bioethanol. This research will lead to increased understanding of
microbe-based production of cellulosic ethanol, increased production
efficiencies, and reduced costs that will make cellulosic ethanol a
cost competitive alternative to gasoline in the coming decades.
Under certain conditions, green algae and a type of bacteria known
as cyanobacteria can use energy from the sun to split water and
generate hydrogen. This process, known as biophotolysis, has the
potential to produce hydrogen on the scale necessary for meeting future
energy demand. It also uses water as a source of hydrogen--a clean,
renewable, carbon-free (i.e., non-fossil fuel based), substrate
available in virtually inexhaustible quantities and is potentially the
most efficient conversion of solar energy to hydrogen. Theoretically,
the maximum energetic efficiency for direct biophotolysis is 40 percent
compared with a maximum of about 1 percent for hydrogen production from
biomass (Critical Reviews in Microbiology 31, 19-31, 2005). Research
will include investigations on a range of hydrogen-producing enzymes
and organisms, understanding how hydrogenase (the enzyme that cleaves
water to produce hydrogen) work, the inhibition of hydrogenase activity
by oxygen, and genetic regulatory and biochemical processes that
influence hydrogen production. This new knowledge will be used to
engineer microbes to use in hydrogen bioreactors or enzyme-catalysts to
use in bioinspired nanostructures for hydrogen production.
In 2003, the administration launched the Climate Change Research
Initiative (CCRI) to focus research on areas where substantial progress
in understanding and predicting climate change, including its causes
and consequences, is possible over the next 5 years. In fiscal year
2007, BER will contribute to the CCRI from four programs: Terrestrial
Carbon Processes, Climate Change Prediction, ARM, and Integrated
Assessment. Activities will be focused on (1) helping to resolve the
North American carbon sink question (i.e., the magnitude and location
of the North American carbon sink); (2) deployment and operation of a
mobile ARM Cloud and Radiation Testbed facility to provide data on the
effects of clouds and aerosols on the atmospheric radiation budget in
regions and locations of opportunity where data is lacking or sparse;
(3) using advanced climate models to simulate potential effects of
natural and human-induced climate forcing on global and regional
climate and the potential effects on climate of alternative options for
mitigating increases in human forcing of climate; and (4) developing
and evaluating assessment tools needed to study costs and benefits of
potential strategies for reducing net carbon dioxide emissions.
In fiscal year 2007, BER SciDAC-enabled activities will allow
climate scientists to gain unprecedented insights into potential
effects of energy production and use on the global climate system. BER
will also add a SciDAC component to GTL and Environmental Remediation
research. GTL SciDAC will initiate new research to develop mathematical
and computational tools needed for complex biological system modeling
and for analysis of complex data sets, such as mass spectrometry data.
Environmental Remediation SciDAC will provide an opportunity for
subsurface and computational scientists to develop and improve methods
of simulating subsurface reactive transport processes on ``leadership
class'' computers.
Research emphasis within BER's Environmental Remediation Sciences
subprogram will be focused on issues of subsurface cleanup such as
defining and understanding the processes that control contaminant fate
and transport in the environment and providing opportunities for use,
or manipulation of natural processes to alter contaminant mobility. The
resulting knowledge and technology will assist DOE's environmental
clean-up and stewardship missions. Funding for experimental equipment
recapitalization at the William R. Wiley Environmental Molecular
Sciences Laboratory (EMSL) at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(PNNL) will be increased in fiscal year 2007.
BER will also continue in fiscal year 2007 to support fundamental
research in genomics, medical applications and measurement science, and
the health effects of low dose radiation. Resources are developed and
made widely available for determining protein structures at DOE
synchrotrons, for high-throughput genetic studies using mice, and for
DOE-relevant high-throughput genomic DNA sequencing. Building on DOE
capabilities in physics, chemistry, engineering, biology and
computation, BER supports fundamental imaging research, maintains core
infrastructure for imaging research, and develops new technologies to
improve the diagnosis and treatment of psycho-neurological diseases and
cancer and to improve the function of patients with neurological
disabilities such as blindness.
High Energy Physics
Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriation--$716.7 Million; Fiscal Year
2007 Request--$775.1 Million
The High Energy Physics (HEP) program provides over 90 percent of
the Federal support for the Nation's high energy physics research. This
research advances our understanding of how the universe works at its
most basic level, from the elementary constituents of matter to the
recently discovered but still mysterious dark energy and dark matter
that so dominate our universe. Our research aims to solve one of
Nature's deepest paradoxes: why does the universe appear to be made of
matter but not antimatter? How can the laws of the atom and those of
cosmological gravity resolve themselves to Einstein's long-sought
unified theory of matter and force? HEP provides research facilities
and advances our knowledge, not only in high energy physics, but
increasingly in other fields, including particle astrophysics and
cosmology. Research advances in one field often have a strong impact on
research directions in another. Technology that was developed in
response to the demands of high energy physics research has also become
indispensable to other fields of science and has found wide
applications in industry and medicine, often in ways that could not
have been predicted when the technology was first developed. Examples
include medical imaging, radiation therapy for cancer using particle
beams, ion implantation of layers in semiconductors, materials research
with electron microscopy, and the World Wide Web. The accelerator
technologies of high-power X-ray light sources, from synchrotron
radiation facilities to the new coherent light sources, are all derived
from high energy physics accelerator technology.
The U.S. HEP program in fiscal year 2007 will continue to lead the
world with forefront user facilities at the Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory (Fermilab) and SLAC that help answer the key scientific
questions outlined above, but these facilities are scheduled to
complete their scientific missions by the end of the decade. Thus, the
longer-term HEP program supported by this request begins to develop new
world-leading facilities in targeted areas (for example, neutrino
physics) that will establish a U.S. leadership role in these areas in
the next decade. Further, HEP has prioritized current R&D efforts to
select those which will provide the most compelling science
opportunities in the coming decade within the available resources. For
these reasons, the highest priority R&D effort is the development of
the proposed International Linear Collider (ILC), and this request
significantly advances the ILC R&D program. In making these decisions
HEP has carefully considered the recommendations of the High Energy
Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) and planning studies produced by the
U.S. scientific community, including the National Academy of Sciences.
R&D in support of the ILC is doubled relative to fiscal year 2006
to support a U.S. leadership role in a comprehensive, coordinated
international R&D program, and to provide a basis for U.S. industry to
compete successfully for major subsystem contracts. The long-term goal
of this effort is to support a decision on a construction start of an
international electron-positron linear collider around the end of the
decade. In fiscal year 2005 an international collaboration called the
Global Design Effort (GDE) was organized to coordinate the R&D and
design of a linear collider.
To provide a nearer-term future HEP program, and to preserve future
research options, R&D for accelerator and detector technologies,
particularly in the growing area of neutrino physics, will continue at
an increased level relative to fiscal year 2006. With Tevatron
improvements completed, much of the accelerator development effort at
Fermilab in fiscal year 2007 will focus on the neutrino program to
study the universe's most prolific particle. The Neutrinos at the Main
Injector (NuMI) beam allows studies of the fundamental physics of
neutrino masses and mixings using the proton source section of the
Tevatron complex. NuMI has begun operations and will eventually put
much higher demands on that set of accelerators. A program of enhanced
maintenance, operational improvements, and equipment upgrades is being
developed to meet these higher demands, while continuing to run the
Tevatron. Engineering design will begin on a new detector optimized to
detect electron neutrinos, the Electron Neutrino Appearance (EnA)
Detector, which will utilize the NuMI beam. Participation will begin in
a reactor-based neutrino experiment. Meanwhile, R&D will continue for a
high-intensity neutrino super beam facility and a double beta decay
experiment. These efforts are part of a coordinated neutrino program
developed from an American Physical Society study and a joint HEPAP/
Nuclear Sciences Advisory Committee (NSAC) subpanel review.
In order to exploit the unique opportunity to expand the boundaries
of our understanding of the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the
universe, a high priority is given to continued operations and
infrastructure support for the B-factory at SLAC. Upgrades to the
accelerator and detector are currently scheduled for completion in
2006, and our baseline plan is to have B-factory operations conclude in
fiscal year 2008. We are also engaging with our advisory panels and
international collaborating partners on the precise timetable for
completion of B-Factory operations and follow-on data analyses.
As the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) accelerator nears its turn-on
date in 2007, U.S. activities related to fabrication of detector
components will be completed and new activities related to
commissioning and pre-operations of these detectors, along with
software and computing activities needed to analyze the data, will
ramp-up significantly. A scientifically vigorous role for U.S. research
groups in the LHC physics program will continue to be a high priority
of the HEP program.
In order to explore the nature of dark energy, support for R&D on
competitively-selected dark energy space-based mission concepts,
including the Super Nova/Acceleration Probe (SNAP), will be
significantly increased in fiscal year 2007. SNAP will be a mission
concept proposed for a potential interagency sponsored experiment with
NASA, the Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM). This joint mission will
provide important new information about the nature of dark energy that
will in turn lead to a better understanding of the birth, evolution,
and ultimate fate of the universe. In fiscal year 2007, R&D will also
be supported for ground facilities (in cooperation with NSF) and/or a
variety of space-based facilities which could provide independent and
complementary measurements of the nature of dark energy. Advice from
the scientific community will be solicited to aid in selecting the
particular concepts to be developed.
In fiscal year 2005, the HEP program completed the original SciDAC
programs in the areas of accelerator modeling and design, theoretical
physics, astrophysics, and applying grid technology. Each of these
projects has made significant strides in forging new and diverse
collaborations (both among different disciplines of physics and between
physicists and computational scientists) that have enabled the
development and use of new and improved software for large-scale
simulations. To build on these successes, the HEP program will re-
compete its SciDAC portfolio in fiscal year 2006 to obtain significant
new insights through computational science into challenging problems
that have the greatest impact in HEP mission areas.
Nuclear Physics
Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriation--$367.0 Million; Fiscal Year
2007 Request--$454.1 Million
The Nuclear Physics (NP) program is the major sponsor of
fundamental nuclear physics research in the Nation, providing about 90
percent of Federal support. NP builds and operates world-leading
scientific facilities and state-of-the-art instrumentation to study the
evolution and structure of nuclear matter, from the smallest building
blocks, quarks and gluons, to the stable elements in the Universe
created by stars. Key aspects to these studies are understanding how
the quarks and gluons combine to form the nucleons (proton and
neutron), what are the properties and behavior of nuclear matter under
extreme conditions of temperature and pressure, and what are the
properties and reaction rates for atomic nuclei up to their limits of
stability. Results and insight from these studies are relevant to
understanding how the universe evolved in its earliest moments, how the
chemical elements were formed, and how the properties of one of
Nature's basic constituents, the neutrino, influences astrophysics
phenomena such as supernovae. Nuclear physics also has had great impact
on human life. Knowledge and techniques developed in pursuit of
fundamental nuclear physics research are extensively utilized in our
society today. The understanding of nuclear spin enabled the
development of magnetic resonance imaging for medical use. Radioactive
isotopes produced by accelerators and reactors are used for medical
imaging, cancer therapy, and biochemical studies. Advances in cutting-
edge instrumentation developed for nuclear physics experiments have
relevance to technological needs in combating terrorism. The highly
trained scientific and technical personnel in fundamental nuclear
physics that are a product of the program are a valuable human resource
for many applied fields.
The fiscal year 2007 budget request increases support for
operations and research by 21 percent compared to fiscal year 2006. At
this funding level, overall operations of the four National User
Facilities and research efforts at universities and laboratories are
supported at near optimal levels. This will allow researchers to make
effective progress towards the program's scientific goals and
milestones. In fiscal year 2007 modest funding is provided for generic
exotic beam R&D directed towards development of capabilities for
forefront nuclear structure and astrophysics studies and to understand
the origin of the elements from iron to uranium.
When the Universe was a millionth of a second old, nuclear matter
is believed to have existed in its most extreme energy density form
called the quark-gluon plasma. Experiments at the Relativistic Heavy
Ion Collider's (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) are
searching to find and characterize this new state. These efforts will
continue in fiscal year 2007, with increased support. NP, together with
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), begins
construction of a new Electron Beam Ion Source (EBIS) to provide RHIC
with more cost-effective, reliable, and versatile operations. Research
and development activities, including the development of an innovative
electron beam cooling system for RHIC, are expected to demonstrate the
feasibility of increasing the luminosity or collision rate of the
circulating beams by a factor of 10. In addition to RHIC efforts, the
High Energy Density Physics activities include NP contributions to
enhance the heavy ion triggering and measurement capabilities of LHC
experiments under construction and the accompanying research program at
universities and laboratories. Experiments at the LHC would permit
measurements of the earliest highest energy density stage in the
formation and development of matter at different conditions than those
created at RHIC. The interplay of the different research programs at
the LHC and the ongoing RHIC program will allow a detailed tomography
of the hot, dense matter as it evolves from the ``perfect fluid'' (a
fluid with zero viscosity) discovered at RHIC.
Operations of the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility
(CEBAF) at Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF) in
fiscal year 2007 will continue to advance our knowledge of the internal
structure of protons and neutrons, particularly a unique property
called ``confinement'' that binds together their fundamental
constituents, particles called quarks and gluons. By providing
precision experimental information concerning the quarks and gluons
that form the protons and neutrons, the approximately 1,000
experimental researchers that use CEBAF, together with researchers in
nuclear theory, seek to provide a quantitative description of nuclear
matter in terms of the fundamental theory of the strong interaction,
Quantum ChromoDynamics. In fiscal year 2007, the accelerator provides
beams simultaneously to all three experimental halls and Project
Engineering Design (PED) activities begin on the 12 GeV CEBAF Upgrade.
This cost-effective upgrade would allow for a test of a proposed
mechanism of ``quark confinement''--one of the compelling unanswered
puzzles of physics.
Efforts at the Argonne Tandem Linear Accelerator System (ATLAS) at
ANL and the Holifield Radioactive Ion Beam Facility (HRIBF) at ORNL
will be supported in fiscal year 2007 to focus on investigating new
regions of nuclear structure, studying interactions in nuclear matter
like those occurring in neutron stars, and determining the reactions
that created the nuclei of the chemical elements inside stars and
supernovae. The GRETINA gamma-ray tracking array, currently under
fabrication, will revolutionize gamma ray detection technology and
offers dramatically improved capabilities to study the structure of
nuclei at ATLAS, HRIBF, and elsewhere. The Fundamental Neutron Physics
Beamline (FNPB) under fabrication at the SNS will provide a world-class
capability to study the neutron decay properties, leading to a refined
characterization of the weak force. Investments are made to initiate
the fabrication of a neutron Electric Dipole Moment experiment, to be
sited at the FNPB, in the search for new physics beyond the Standard
Model.
The Nuclear Physics program funds SciDAC programs in the areas of
theoretical physics (National Computational Infrastructure for Lattice
Gauge Theory), astrophysics (Shedding New Light on Exploding Stars:
TeraScale Simulations of Neutrino-Driven Supernovae and their
Nucleosynthesis), and grid technology (Particle Physics Data Grid
Collaborative Pilot). In fiscal year 2006 proposal applications will be
evaluated for new or renewal SciDAC grants.
The Low Energy subprogram and the Theory subprogram, through their
activities at the Nuclear Data Center, will support increased basic
research efforts relevant to advanced nuclear fuel cycle issues. These
subprograms will support nuclear data efforts and selected experiments
that will lead to improvements in nuclear reaction cross-sections
needed to calculate with reduced uncertainties the transmutation
behavior for proposed advanced fuel cycles.
Fusion Energy Sciences
Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriation--$287.7 Million; Fiscal Year
2007 Request--$318.9 Million
The Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program advances the theoretical
and experimental understanding of plasma and fusion science, including
a close collaboration with international partners in identifying and
exploring plasma and fusion physics issues through specialized
facilities. The FES program supports research in: plasma science;
magnetically confined plasmas; advances in tokamak design; innovative
confinement options; nonneutral plasma physics and High Energy Density
Physics (HEDP); and cutting edge technologies. FES also leads U.S.
participation in ITER, an experiment to study and demonstrate the
sustained burning of fusion fuel. This international collaboration will
provide an unparalleled scientific research opportunity with a goal of
demonstrating the scientific and technical feasibility of fusion power.
Fusion is the energy source that powers the sun and stars. Fusion power
could play a key role in U.S. long-term energy plans and independence
because it offers the potential for plentiful, safe and environmentally
benign energy.
The site selection for the international ITER Project, Cadarache,
France, in the European Union, was a major six-party decision on June
28, 2005, at a Ministerial-level meeting in Moscow, Russia.
Negotiations continued throughout the Fall of 2005, which led to the
ITER parties (a) approving and welcoming the designated Director
General Nominee chosen to lead the ITER organization, (b) approving and
welcoming India into the ITER negotiations as a full non-host ITER
party, and (c) completing the text of the draft ITER Agreement. In
accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and as determined during
the Fall 2005 ITER negotiations, the ITER Agreement directly addresses
the following EPAct requirements:
--(i) clearly defines the U.S. financial contribution to construction
and operations (as well as deactivation and decommissioning),
as well as any other project costs associated with the project,
--(ii) ensures that the share of high-technology components of ITER
that are manufactured in the United States is at least
proportionate to the U.S. financial contribution to ITER,
--(iii) ensures, by virtue of the in-kind contribution procurement
approach, that the United States will not be financially
responsible for cost overruns in components manufactured by
other ITER parties,
--(iv) guarantees the United States full access to all data generated
by ITER,
--(v) enables U.S. researchers to propose and carry out an equitable
share of experiments on ITER,
--(vi) provides the United States with a role in all collective
decision-making related to ITER, and
--(vii) describes and defines the process for discontinuing and
decommissioning ITER and the U.S. role in that process.
The U.S. Contributions to ITER project is being managed by the U.S.
ITER Project Office (USIPO), established as a Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory (PPPL)/Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) partnership. The
fiscal year 2007 request for the U.S. Contributions to ITER Major Item
of Equipment (MIE) project maintains the overall Total Project Cost
funding cap of $1,122,000,000. The U.S. effort will be consistent with
the other ITER parties in the pace of starting the long lead
procurements, in providing increased numbers of personnel to the ITER
Organization, and in providing cash for common expenses. The profile is
preliminary until the baseline scope, cost, and schedule for the MIE
project are established, and the Director General Nominee and ITER
Organization have achieved a standard mode of operation.
In support of ITER and U.S. Contributions to ITER, FES is placing
increased emphasis on its national burning plasma program--a critical
underpinning to the fusion science in ITER. FES plans to enhance
burning plasma research efforts across the U.S. domestic fusion
program, including: ITER R&D support both in physics and technology and
exploring new modes of improved or extended ITER performance;
developing safe and environmentally attractive technologies necessary
for ITER; exploring fusion simulation efforts that examine the complex
behavior of burning plasmas in tokamaks; carrying out experiments on
our national FES facilities with diagnostics and plasma control that
can be extrapolated to ITER; and integrating all that is learned into a
forward-looking approach to future fusion applications.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 Sec. 972(c)(5)(C) requires the
Secretary of Energy to provide ``a report describing how United States
participation in the ITER will be funded without reducing funding for
other programs in the Office of Science (including other fusion
programs) . . . ''. The Department's fiscal year 2007 budget provides
for healthy increases for all programs within the Office of Science and
supports the ITER request of $60,000,000 almost entirely from new funds
in the Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) budget request.
The Director of the Office of Science has stated that the FES
program in the Office of Science will reasonably bear at least some of
the cost of building ITER from within its budget and that ITER will not
unduly harm funding of other Office of Science research programs. The
Department expects that the $1.122 billion ITER funding profile could
have some effect on the overall allocation of funds, both within the
FES program and within the Office of Science, in future budgets. This
has been and will continue to be the standard practice for funding
large, capital-intensive projects within DOE. Nevertheless, as
demonstrated by this fiscal year 2007 request, the Office of Science
can fund ITER while maintaining healthy funding for other research
programs.
The research and facility operations funding for the three major
facilities will increase from the fiscal year 2006 level. Operations at
the largest facility, DIII-D, will increase from 7 weeks in fiscal year
2006 to 12 weeks in fiscal year 2007, while operations at C-Mod at MIT
and NSTX at PPPL will each increase by 1 week over fiscal year 2006, to
15 and 12 weeks respectively. A new baseline was established in July
2005 for the National Compact Stellarator Experiment (NCSX), a joint
PPPL/ORNL advanced stellarator experiment being built at PPPL. It
results in a 14-month delay in the schedule with completion in July
2009 and a new TEC of $92,401,000. The fiscal year 2007 request
supports the new baseline. Funding for the FES SciDAC program will
increase in fiscal year 2007 to continue development of tools that
facilitate international fusion collaborations and initiate development
of an integrated software environment that can accommodate the wide
range of space and time scales and the multiple phenomena that are
encountered in simulations of fusion systems. Within SciDAC, the Fusion
Simulation Project is a major initiative involving plasma physicists,
applied mathematicians, and computer scientists to create a
comprehensive set of models of fusion systems, combined with the
algorithms required to implement the models and the computational
infrastructure to enable them to work together.
Other changes include redirections in fusion theory, High Energy
Density Physics, research in heavy ion beam science, plasma technology
and materials research, and experimental plasma research.
Congressionally-directed, non-defense research at the Atlas pulsed
power facility is discontinued in fiscal year 2007.
Science Laboratories Infrastructure
Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriation--$41.7 Million; Fiscal Year
2007 Request--$50.9 Million
The mission of the Science Laboratories Infrastructure (SLI)
program is to enable the conduct of DOE research missions at the Office
of Science laboratories by funding line item construction projects to
maintain the general purpose infrastructure and the clean up for reuse
or removal of excess facilities. The program also supports Office of
Science landlord responsibilities for the 24,000-acre Oak Ridge
Reservation and provides Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) to local
communities around ANL-East, BNL, and ORNL.
In fiscal year 2007, SLI will initiate funding for four
construction projects: the Seismic Safety Upgrade of Buildings, Phase
I, at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL); the
Modernization of Building 4500N, Wing 4, Phase I, at ORNL; the Building
Electrical Services Upgrade, Phase II, at the ANL; and Renovate Science
Lab, Phase I, at BNL. Funding for the PNNL Physical Sciences Facility
is requested in the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA's)
Nuclear Non-Proliferation R&D program for fiscal year 2007. This
project is cofunded by the Office of Science, NNSA, and the Department
of Homeland Security. The demolition of the Bevatron at LBNL is funded
at $14.0 million.
Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists
Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriation--$7.1 Million; Fiscal Year
2007 Request--$10.9 Million
The mission of the Workforce Development for Teachers and
Scientists (WDTS) program is to provide a continuum of educational
opportunities to the Nation's students and teachers of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).
The Laboratory Science Teacher Professional Development (LSTPD)
program increases to expand participation from 108 teachers in fiscal
year 2006 to 300 in fiscal year 2007. The Faculty Sabbatical activity
was initiated in fiscal year 2005 for faculty from Minority Serving
Institutions (MSI) and reduced in fiscal year 2006 due to feedback from
MSI faculty who expressed their inability to participate in sabbatical
programs and a preference for shorter fellowship-type opportunities.
Fiscal year 2007 participation will be reduced to two faculty members.
The Science Undergraduate Laboratory Internship (SULI) programs will be
increased to add approximately 55 students. The Albert Einstein
Distinguished Educator Fellowship and the National and Middle School
Science Bowls will all continue.
Science Program Direction
Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriation--$159.1 Million; Fiscal Year
2007 Request--$170.9 Million
Science Program Direction (SCPD) enables a skilled, highly
motivated Federal workforce to manage the Office of Science's basic and
applied research portfolio, programs, projects, and facilities in
support of new and improved energy, environmental, and health
technologies. SCPD consists of two subprograms: Program Direction and
Field Operations.
The Program Direction subprogram is the single funding source for
the Office of Science Federal staff in headquarters responsible for
managing, directing, administering, and supporting the broad spectrum
of Office of Science disciplines. This subprogram includes planning and
analysis activities, providing the capabilities needed to plan,
evaluate, and communicate the scientific excellence, relevance, and
performance of the Office of Science basic research programs.
Additionally, Program Direction includes funding for the Office of
Scientific and Technical Information. The Field Operations subprogram
is the funding source for the Federal workforce in the Field
responsible for management and administrative functions performed
within the Chicago and Oak Ridge Operations Offices, and site offices
supporting the Office of Science laboratories and facilities.
In fiscal year 2007, Program Direction funding increases by 7.4
percent. Most of the increase will support an additional 25 FTEs for
program management positions, to address recent committee of visitor
recommendations and to manage the increase in the research activities
in the fiscal year 2007 budget. The increase also supports a 2.2
percent pay raise; an increased cap for SES basic pay; other pay-
related costs such as the government's contributions for employee
health insurance and Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS);
escalation of non-pay categories, such as travel, training, and
contracts; and increased e-Gov assessments and other fixed operating
requirements across the Office of Science complex. Finally, the
increase will cover requirements not requested in previous budget
requests, including travel expenses of Office of Science Advisory
Committee members and requirements related to Appendix A of OMB
Circular A-123, Management's Responsibility for Internal Control.
Safeguards and Security
Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriation--$68.0 Million; Fiscal Year
2007 Request--$71.0 Million
The Safeguards and Security (S&S) program ensures appropriate
levels of protection against unauthorized access, theft, diversion,
loss of custody, or destruction of DOE assets and hostile acts that may
cause adverse impacts on fundamental science, national security or the
health and safety of DOE and contractor employees, the public or the
environment. The Office of Science's Integrated Safeguards and Security
Management strategy encompasses a tailored approach to safeguards and
security. As such, each site has a specific protection program that is
analyzed and defined in its individual Security Plan. This approach
allows each site to design varying degrees of protection commensurate
with the risks and consequences described in their site-specific threat
scenarios.
The fiscal year 2007 budget will ensure adequate security posture
for Office of Science facilities by protecting fundamental science,
national security, and the health and safety of DOE and contractor
employees, the public and the environment. Fiscal year 2007 includes
funding necessary to protect people and property at the 2003 Design
Basis Threat (DBT) level. In fiscal year 2007, an increase in funding
for the Cyber Security program element is being requested to begin to
address the promulgation of new National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) requirements which are required by the Federal
Information Security Management Act (FISMA) to improve the Federal and
an Office of Science laboratory cyber security posture.
CONCLUSION
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing this opportunity
to discuss the Office of Science research programs and our
contributions to the Nation's scientific enterprise. On behalf of DOE,
I am pleased to present this fiscal year 2007 budget request for the
Office of Science.
This concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you might have.
Senator Domenici. First I want to commend you for your
approach to enhancing this office and trying to get it on the
path that is declared by the President and those who pursue it
with vigor, doubling the office. We have all wanted it to move
in the direction you are talking about. Let us hope you can
keep it going that way. That has tremendous, tremendous
consequences for our children and our country's future and
nobody quite figures that when you use all these words, but
believe it. That is what it is. It is developing the capacity
to make sure that the brains of our young people of the future
are able to be truly fully developed in competition with the
world. That is what we are talking about.
Now, having said that, you heard some concerns. Does any
one or two things pop out that you would like to answer right
now, or would you like to move on?
Dr. Orbach. I think I would prefer to move on and respond
to questions.
Senator Domenici. All right, we are going to start
questioning, and we are going to start with the Senator from
Colorado.
NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to start out with the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory in Colorado. As you know, you are aware of its
importance and I know that you are also aware of the
difficulties we have had there. I guess the question that comes
to mind is, do you believe that the Department of Energy has
all the tools it needs to see that a situation like that never
occurs again?
Mr. Garman. No, sir I do not. I have begun to explore with
the subcommittee staff a new tool that might help us in the
future have greater flexibility. This tool involves being able
to get at some old program dollars that are nonperforming or
underperforming and get them in the game so that we can have
more flexibility to prevent that sort of thing from happening
again. The subcommittee staff has been very accommodating in
listening to our ideas and we think we can come up with----
Senator Allard. I appreciate your efforts in that regard.
What portion of your budget is disbursed based on earmarks and
what portion is given under grants?
Mr. Garman. It varies by program. In the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which has received a
significant amount of attention, the biomass program is
earmarked or subjected to congressionally directed spending of
57 percent of the total program dollars, geothermal 16 percent,
solar 17 percent, wind 33 percent, freedom car and vehicle
technologies 11 percent. Those are the major earmarked
programs.
Senator Allard. What was the last one?
Mr. Garman. Freedom car and vehicle technologies.
Senator Allard. I see. What was the percentage on that?
Mr. Garman. 11 percent.
I do not want to be misconstrued. Some of the
congressionally directed projects are very good projects and
let me say that out front. We have some projects, excellent
work, excellent R&D outputs, and the only negative thing that
anyone in the program could say about it is that it was not
competitively awarded.
But we do subject these programs to merit review after the
fact and we evaluate them and we try to get the very best R&D
outputs that we can out of them. So I do not want this to be
misconstrued--they have presented us with some challenges, but
they also have presented us with some opportunities.
Senator Allard. Well, I thank you for your willingness to
try and work with the committee and work with our office.
Senator Domenici. What is an earmark? How did he--did he
define an ``earmark'' there?
Mr. Garman. No, sir.
Senator Domenici. Could we do that, Senator? Would that be
all right, if I asked him what that means?
Senator Allard. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Garman. Our definition of an earmark is, in its
simplest form, when the recipient of the funding is designated.
Senator Domenici. Is designated by the law?
Mr. Garman. In the report language, the report language
will specify projects, and our consultations with the
subcommittee staff will designate the recipient in many cases.
Senator Allard. Thank you for following up on that, Mr.
Chairman.
ROCKY FLATS MINERAL RIGHTS
Let me also go on to Rocky Flats. Last year Congress passed
legislation at my behest that authorized the Secretary of
Energy to purchase some mineral rights at Rocky Flats. This
authority was provided just for 1 year and I understand that
minimal progress has been made so far. What is the Department
of Energy's plan for purchasing the essential mineral water
rights there at Rocky Flats and when do you expect this
transaction to be completed?
Mr. Garman. I am going to have to take that question for
the record, Senator, and get back to you on that quickly, if I
can.
[The information follows:]
Rocky Flats Litigation
I have not personally been involved with this case, but I am
informed that the Department's lawyers' oversight of it has been quite
proactive. They advise that there is no evidence that properties in the
vicinity of Rocky Flats suffered extensive damage. Just last year the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) issued a
report concluding that the ``studies and sampling data generated by
numerous parties, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its contractors and
local community groups, universities and private researchers . . .
paint a consistent picture of the public health implications of
environmental contamination'' near Rocky Flats, and that picture is
that ``past, current and future exposures are below levels associated
with adverse health effects.'' In fact, ATSDR reported that ``estimated
total exposures to radiation from the soil . . . are 3,000 times lower
than the average exposures to ionizing radiation experienced by United
States residents.''
Senator Allard. I would appreciate it if you would. This is
something that is really important to get that wrapped up. We
want to transfer that over to the Department of the Interior to
be managed as a refuge. That cannot happen until we get this
issue resolved. So it is important, I think, that we get this
taken care of. I have received some information regarding that
perhaps maybe it was not progressing along as it should and if
it is not I would like to know why and what the hold-up is on
that. So the sooner you get back to us, I would appreciate it
very much.
Mr. Garman. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. With regard to--it looks like my time has
expired, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
Senator Murray.
PNNL 300 AREA
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Orbach, as you know, when we talk about Hanford cleanup
the plant and tank farms are the first thing that comes to
everybody's mind, but there is a lot of work to be done across
the complex and progress is being made. The river corridor
cleanup, which includes the 300 Area, is moving forward better
than expected right now, but there is an obstacle out there. As
you well know, the PNNL has a lot of capabilities. It is housed
in that 300 Area and it has to exit those facilities and
relocate.
The Capability Replacement Laboratory project has been
devised to meet that need and the goal of that project is to
keep both the cleanup at the Hanford site and the PNNL work on
track. In December of last year, the CD-1 for this project
which outlined a schedule for the PNNL exit was approved. But
it now appears that this schedule is going to cause a delay in
the river corridor cleanup. Are you familiar with that issue?
Dr. Orbach. Yes, I am, Senator. I believe that the 2015
date is still on track and that we can meet that commitment.
The change has been a consequence of the complexity of the
facilities required to receive the workers who are in the 300
Area. But we now have a robust plan with both the----
Senator Murray. You do understand it is going to be a cause
of delay now without additional funding?
Dr. Orbach. The funding is actually on track. There has
been a delay, that is correct. But the target date still
remains.
Senator Murray. Well, within the 2007 budget request all of
the funding is contained in the NNSA budget. Can you explain
why there are no Office of Science funds that are requested?
Dr. Orbach. Yes. It is simply a question of phasing. The
Office of Science funding in terms of our responsibility will
show up in the fiscal year 2008 budget and it is just a
question of when--which agency puts its funding in. But as I
say, we have a phased structure for both the Office of Science,
NNSA, and also DHS to create the facilities that will be
required to move people from the 300 Area.
Senator Murray. So there is no delay due to the PNNL exit
schedule?
Dr. Orbach. There is no delay with regard to the river
corridor commitment. There is a--we have extended the closing
of the 300 Area so that we can----
Senator Murray. To accommodate that.
WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
Dr. Orbach. To accommodate a proper facility, yes.
Senator Murray. Well, I want to keep working with you on
this because it obviously has a big impact on our State, and I
appreciate the work we have done on that.
Mr. Chairman, I see that Assistant Secretary Rispoli is in
the office and I wanted to ask him a question, with your
permission, about the EM budget regarding the vit plant and if
he could just tell us where we are on that and give us a quick
update on how we are going to address the new cost and schedule
while he is here, if you would not mind.
Senator Domenici. I have no objection, unless you all do.
All right. If there is none, let us--state your name and
glad to have you here.
Mr. Rispoli. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, members
of the subcommittee, I am Jim Rispoli, the Assistant Secretary
for Environmental Management.
Senator, I would be happy to take your question.
Senator Murray. Thank you. I just wondered if you could
give us while you are here a quick update of where we are on
the vit plant. We all know there is a long road ahead of us. I
appreciate the better communications we are having this year.
But if you could just give the committee a quick update on
where we are on this, how we are going to address the technical
issues, and where we stand on the new cost and schedule
baseline.
Mr. Rispoli. I would be happy to. As you all know, the
budget that was submitted as part of the President's budget did
not yet incorporate any of the new cost estimates that are
being worked, but subsequent to the budget being delivered, in
fact within just the several weeks afterward, we began
delivering reports to the appropriate committees and
subcommittees in the Congress as well as to the delegation of
Washington State.
We have now got approximate costs that have not been
validated by the Corps of Engineers, which is doing that effort
for us. So quickly where we are: The estimates that we have to
date are in the range of $10 to $11 billion. That does not
necessarily include risk that is not within the control of the
contractor or the Department. That is called programmatic risk
and that is addressed in some of the reports that we have
delivered. But we are in that range.
Meanwhile, the Army Corps of Engineers is reviewing a
technical estimate for the project cost and schedule that
amounts to, I am told, 87 looseleaf volumes of information.
They will be complete with the evaluation of the whole estimate
late this summer, in time for us to communicate that to the
Congress.
But the figures that I gave you are the range that we are
talking about. We have worked very vigorously to address the
issues. They are broken into three categories. One of them is
project management types of issues and we have taken strong
action based upon several of the reports that we have received
and provided to you and the subcommittee and the committees. We
have taken vigorous action to improve our project management
both at the site and at the headquarters by addition of key
qualified personnel. For example, we have certified--the
project manager there has been certified by an independent
board last December as qualified to be in charge of that
project. We have added people in the project management area at
both headquarters and the field, including contracts type of
people.
The technical issues, as you know, are very complex, and we
did deliver a report to this subcommittee and other committees
and your delegation. We have identified through bringing in a
team of best and brightest from all segments of the industry,
not just Bechtel but their competitors, academia, other areas,
and have identified the technical issues. The team, the
technical team, believes all of these can be solved, but the
good point is that we have them on the table now so that we can
solve them now and do not have to confront them downstream as
new surprises at that point.
So we consider this to be a major accomplishment that we
have brought in this team of very accomplished people to look
at the technical issues.
Senator Murray. I really appreciate that and I appreciate
your staying in touch with us and communicating on this.
Obviously it is going to have an impact. But my concern is now
the vit plant is going to be delayed, but the cleanup of the
tanks is still a really pressing issue, and how are we going to
pay for that when there is no funding for supplemental
treatment in the budget?
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, I understand the question. The question
is that we have been evaluating a supplemental treatment that
is called bulk vitrification. I have visited the site several
times to see the mockup of how that process would work. Our
intent is that this summer--I should mention that I have spoken
with executives at both CH2M Hill, which is the prime
contractor, as well as to corporate officers of AMEC, which is
the subcontractor that is doing that.
Our objective is to get a cost and schedule estimate--we
call it a baseline--this summer that we can then independently
validate. We do not know----
Senator Murray. Including the treatment?
Mr. Rispoli. Including that--this is for the supplemental
treatment.
We do not know at this point what the spending profile
would be because we do not yet have the cost and schedule
estimate in our hands to then be able to independently review.
Senator Murray. But you expect to have that for us by the
end of the summer so we can know what this committee
appropriations bill will need----
Mr. Rispoli. We expect to have that information from the
AMEC subcontractor through the prime contractor by the end of
the summer, so that we can then independently evaluate it and
determine the best path forward. In the mean time, however, the
funds that we have got right now are being used to develop that
cost and schedule estimate.
As I have stated before for the record, we need
supplemental technology. As you know, the vitrification plant
on the low activity waste side is not designed to handle 100
percent of the low activity waste. So we need the supplemental
technology. We believe this is the viable approach to do it. We
just need the cost and schedule estimates that reflect the
solution. They have technology issues as well that are being
solved, and once we have that and validate it we will be able
to communicate that to the Congress to come up with a path
forward for that.
Senator Murray. Well, I am concerned that we appear to have
a gap in funding and I want to pursue that. Mr. Chairman, I
know my time is up, but I would like to continue to have a
conversation with you about this, because this really is a
critical issue for all of us.
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, Senator, I understand your point.
Senator Murray. Thank you.
Mr. Rispoli. Thank you.
COAL RESEARCH AND FUTUREGEN
Senator Domenici. Well, let me just say to all of you--and
I guess this is a tribute to the top of the Department--I
really am convinced that you are all trying to get this job
done, and I am very impressed and enthused that we will get
there, in spite of budget problems.
Let me take an issue that I want to try to understand.
Could we bring Mr. Jarrett to sit by you, Mr. Under Secretary,
and let me talk about coal, wherever he could fit there. Now,
let me address the issue of coal in terms of what we are trying
to do. We have a very serious problem in the transportation
area of the United States, of using too much fuel that comes
from overseas that are derivatives of oil. We have this big
commodity over here in the United States called coal, which
obviously scientifically is not too far afield from oil. They
are very similar.
There are two things we have been trying to do. No. 1, we
have been trying to clean up the coal as we burn it, and we all
call that clean coal technology. No. 2, we have been trying to
convert it to fuel, to liquid, so it can be used for fuel. The
Nazis did a little bit of that to save them at the end of the
war, right. You know that.
Mr. Jarrett. Yes.
Senator Domenici. It was not very terrific, good, but they
did do some. We know how to do it. We have not moved very
dramatically.
The last one has to do with global warming. We are working
on the issue of how do you get carbon out of the coal as you
burn it, as you convert it. There are different technologies,
but we have been throwing around the word ``sequester'' or get
the carbon out.
Now, whoever can best explain to me on the record here for
5 minutes, what is going on in terms of these three areas?
Could you start with the last one first, the one of
sequestration, sometimes referred to as America's FutureGen
project or program, or an effort to develop an IGCC facility?
Now, where are we with reference to this in terms of the money
we have and the program you have put before us as you have
attempted to assimilate this?
I understand you are new, but you understand well, and I
compliment you and congratulate you for taking the job, Mr.
Jarrett.
Do you want to do that? Do you want to let him do that?
Mr. Garman. Sure.
Senator Domenici. All right.
CARBON SEQUESTRATION
Mr. Jarrett. There are a lot of questions in there, but I
will start with the issue of carbon sequestration. As you know
from conversations you and I have had previously, I am a strong
believer that we need to advance our clean coal technology
programs in this country because it is cheap, it is domestic,
and it is plentiful. We can produce power from coal today and
we do. Fifty-two percent of our electricity today comes from
coal. We believe that coal will maintain or actually grow its
market share in the decades to come, based on all of the
projections.
The obstacle that we have with developing our coal
resources are environmental, and I will say up front that today
we have the technology to utilize our coal and take care of the
environment. What we cannot do is do it at an affordable cost.
So all of our clean coal technology programs are aimed at
learning how to develop and utilize that vast resource that we
have in this country in an affordable way.
Many of the problems have been resolved. Many of the
environmental problems are well on the way to being resolved.
But I think the Holy Grail for the coal program is to figure
out the ways to eliminate carbon gas emissions from the
combustion of coal in an affordable way. We are working on a
couple of technology paths forward to do that. We are looking
at more efficient ways to remove carbon gases in the existing
fleet of pulverized coal powerplants that we have in this
country.
Senator Domenici. I understand. Now just let me interrupt.
Between you and the Secretary, just tell the committee. Our
objective is to use Government to the extent we can to move
this technology forward. We are not a sole player. The private
sector wants to do this, too, right?
Mr. Jarrett. That is absolutely correct.
Senator Domenici. And it would be a great big victory for
them. They have got a giant future use for coal and they are in
business, and they have told climate change people, we have
made a breakthrough, right?
Mr. Jarrett. Yes.
Senator Domenici. Now, what are we in this budget--how much
money do we have directed at this effort between the two of
you? And are we doing the right thing, and did you cut the
program or did you move money around, and are we still moving
ahead with FutureGen or whatever? Please tell me. A lot of
people come to our offices, his and mine, telling us they have
got a solution to this and you all just will not listen to
them. They have been in there to see you and they have got this
idea.
What is our role in all this? You have got my gist here.
Just talk at me for 5 minutes. What are we doing about all
this?
Mr. Garman. There are some common threads in here that we
are looking to exploit. First of all, it has become clear that
gasification of coal is a pathway that leads us to both
liquefaction, that can give us liquid fuels, it can lead us to
opportunities to sequester carbon dioxide, it can lead us to
opportunities to make a cleaner-burning conventional coal plant
through IGCC technology.
So gasification technology is something the Department has
worked on for a long time and there are commercial gasifiers
available today, just as there are commercial liquefaction
plants available today. The South Africans have been making
liquid fuels from coal. Syntroleum, an outfit that is working
today, has technology to do that.
The real issue is there are some technology risks, but
there are financial risks. These are more expensive. As I think
Senator Bond was commenting, there are ways to make diesel fuel
from coal today if you can finance something on the order of a
$6 billion plant for a 150,000 barrel-a-day capacity.
Getting financing for that is very tough in this market. If
Wall Street was convinced that oil was going to stay high, then
it might be easier. But it is a $35 or $40 per barrel threshold
most likely in getting that kind of financing. So in that
respect the loan guarantee authority could play an important
role in getting these technologies, which we think will work
and that they are proven, into the marketplace so we can get
some experience.
There are companies, AEP among them, who is committed to
building integrated combined cycle coal plants, gasifying the
coal. There are companies, BP among them, who are looking at
gasifying petroleum coke and sequestering the carbon dioxide in
an enhanced oil recovery activity. These are all good things
that are going on out there.
We think through a combination--FutureGen is really in my
mind the project that tries to package these technologies
together and demonstrate them as packaged technology in a way
that has not been done before. Thus it is very important to us
and we want to continue that work.
We also need to get the Office of Science more involved
with us in the carbon sequestration aspect. They are going to
do it and they are excited about the prospect, because we have
to be able to convince the public that when we capture and
sequester carbon dioxide in a saline aquifer or in an unminable
coal seam or in an old oil and gas field that it is going to
stay there, that it is not going to come out 10 or 50 or 100
years in the future.
Senator Domenici. We understand.
Mr. Garman. That is a scientifically rigorous process that,
frankly, we need Dr. Orbach and his folks' help with.
So what I am trying to do is to paint a picture that we
think, through partnerships with the private sector,
partnerships with the Office of Science, we think that we are
building a program that can demonstrate these technologies and
validate the costs and get them ready for the private sector to
take up.
The decision as to whether the private sector is going to
do that in large part is dependent on their guesstimates of
what you are going to do with respect to carbon.
Senator Domenici. They are going to make a marketplace
decision.
Mr. Garman. That is right. If they think carbon is going to
cost $30 a ton, they will go in one direction. If they think
carbon emissions are going to be free, they will go in another,
in my view.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Jarrett, any further comments?
Mr. Jarrett. No.
Senator Domenici. Okay, good.
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question on
that?
Senator Domenici. Yes.
Senator Allard. If we have carbon left over, these
synthetic carbons, is that a potential use for that carbon?
These are very lightweight, very tough materials.
Mr. Garman. Yes.
Senator Allard. Is that a place for the carbon?
Mr. Garman. Yes. Yes, it is. We do not necessarily have to
take the carbon dioxide and put it in the ground. We can--it is
potentially possible to take this carbon from that stream and
use it to make carbon fiber, to lightweight vehicles and what-
not.
There are also interesting opportunities--and this is again
part of why I am so excited about getting the Office of Science
involved in this. There are things that we are not looking at
that have great potential. An interesting example is there are
folks in Arizona that are fooling around with the notion of
taking a carbon dioxide stream directly from a coal plant,
pumping it into brine water in the desert in between large
panels of glass, growing algae, which flourishes in the brine
water, exposed to all this carbon dioxide, and taking that
algae twice a day, harvesting it twice a day because it grows
so quickly, and turning that into ethanol, which is an
interesting and novel approach.
This is something that other folks are looking at. Now that
we are in essence getting the Office of Science more integrated
with us, which is long overdue and a great credit to Dr.
Orbach, these are the sorts of things that we hope we are able
to get involved in.
Senator Domenici. But all this is not tomorrow. People are
asking if we are going to get this done, are we going to get
somebody to propose to build a $6 billion IGCC plant within the
next year, do we have a program in place that might facilitate
somebody doing that.
Mr. Garman. That was a coal liquefaction plant. The IGCC
plant could come in below that.
Senator Domenici. Well, tell me which one would be first?
Mr. Jarrett. Well, Senator, the IGCC plants are being
proposed----
Senator Domenici. Pilots.
Mr. Jarrett [continuing]. Today as we speak. But the coal
liquefaction plants, there are proposals or ideas that come to
me from across the country in the 2 months that I have been
there, and they all have a common problem. We have the
technology to produce, to go coal-to-liquids, to produce ultra-
clean jet fuel and diesel fuels and other petroleum products
out there. But the stumbling block for all of them is
financing, and whether it is a $6 billion plant or--I think the
first several will be much more modest than that.
But the problem with all of them is the uncertainty about
what is going to happen with world oil prices, because we know
that right now--we know we can produce fuel from coal at the
low $40 per barrel equivalent for a first- or second-of-a-kind
plant, and that by the time we get to a fourth- or fifth-of-a-
kind plant we will have that technology worked so that we can
produce fuel at about $35 a barrel.
But the concern is when you make that kind of a substantial
capital investment and then world oil prices were to drop to
some number below that. Then you have threatened the financial
viability of that plant.
Senator Domenici. Can you get straight one last question in
my mind, then I am off this issue. I am sorry it took so long.
Which is going to come first in these plants that we are going
to build? Which commercial consortia or company is going to get
the first one and what is it going to be? Coal liquefaction for
diesel fuel, is that what it is going to be, diesel and related
products?
Mr. Jarrett. I believe that coal-to-liquids and commercial
deployment of IGCC plants for producing electricity will happen
simultaneous. We know that there are IGCC commercial plants on
the drawing boards today.
Senator Domenici. And we have within the Department now the
facilities to be helpful if the loan guarantee works? That is
one instrumentality to help with the financing. And secondly
the issue of base price, a bottom line price. If the United
States were to adopt a statute establishing a bottom line for
the price of crude oil at $35 right now and said that is going
to be it, or $40, and said we are going to take care of any
price that varies from that, that would shake this industry up,
would it not?
Mr. Jarrett. My personal view is that would shake the coal-
to-liquids industry up in a hurry. But we are having
conversations with that industry and asking them the very
questions that you are asking right now. That is really as a
follow-up to the meeting you and I had not too long ago to talk
about those questions.
Mr. Garman. My personal view is that IGCC plants will come
first, simply because there are folks that know that if they
propose to build a pulverized coal plant they will be sued, and
they are just looking at IGCC as a cleaner--they will not
capture and sequester carbon dioxide, but it will be a cleaner
burning plant that is more efficient than a pulverized coal
plant.
The interesting thing is that there is a lot of--and I want
to make this point. There is a lot of DOE past technology work
in this area. These gasifiers--this is a success story for the
Department and it is technology that this Department has been
involved in and you have been involved in promoting for
decades. And finally we are at the threshold of seeing these
technologies coming----
Senator Domenici. But is it the right thing to happen now?
Mr. Garman. I believe it is. I believe it is time for our
technologies to enter the market.
Senator Domenici. Tell me which one it is going to be,
again?
Mr. Garman. I think it is going to be integrated gasified
combined cycle coal plants that will come into the market.
Senator Domenici. What are they going to do with the
carbon?
Mr. Garman. These first ones will not capture carbon
dioxide. They will simply gasify the coal for burning in a
turbine and generating electricity. These first plants will not
capture carbon dioxide, but they are more efficient than
pulverized coal plants.
Senator Domenici. Are these not a little more expensive?
Mr. Garman. Yes, sir, they are, and that is why they have
not been built. Compared to a pulverized coal plant, they are
more expensive.
GASIFIER TECHNOLOGY
Senator Allard. That brings up, Mr. Chairman, a
quantitative question I wanted to ask you. How much natural gas
can be brought on line with a lot of these technologies? Is
there research and testing? Do you have any idea?
Mr. Garman. I would have to take that one for the record to
give you a good authoritative answer.
[The information follows:]
Gasifier Technology
The National Coal Council examined that question and in their March
2006 report to the Secretary: ``Coal: America's Energy Future.'' One of
their key findings was that using coal to produce natural gas could
provide an alternative to at least 15 percent of America's annual
natural gas consumption by 2025, or the equivalent of 4 trillion cubic
feet (Tcf) per year. They projected that this additional supply would
use an additional 340 million tons of coal per year. This amount of gas
is roughly equal to Energy Information Administration's (EIA's)
projection of liquefied natural gas imports in 2025.
Currently, the Great Plains Gasification plant in Beulah, ND
produces 148 million standard cubic feet per day (54 billion standard
cubic annually) of substitute natural gas (SNG) from North Dakota
lignite. This plant, which came on line in 1984, uses older fixed-bed
gasification technology. The SNG produced in the plant is added into
the existing natural gas pipeline network to heat thousands of homes
and businesses in the United States. It should be noted that carbon
dioxide generated in the process is sent via a 330 km pipeline to
Saskatchewan, where it is used for enhanced oil recovery--the Weyburn
project. This is one of the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum
projects which DOE has been sponsoring along with other international
participants. This carbon dioxide remains sequestered in the oil field,
and therefore this plant provides an early preview of the kind of
advanced near zero-emission coal technology we are developing in the
DOE coal program.
The technology to produce SNG is commercially available today. The
DOE research and development program in coal gasification is focused on
the development of advanced technology to reduce cost, improve
efficiency, and enhance reliability when used in future near zero-
emission coal plants. These developments are also expected to provide
significant benefits for plant configurations that produce SNG alone or
in conjunction with other products such as electricity.
Senator Allard. Okay.
Senator Domenici. Senator, I took a lot of time. Do you
want to take a little more time?
ROCKY FLATS LITIGATION CLAIMS
Senator Allard. Just one more question. That was one of
them, and this fits in here very naturally. This has to do
again with Rocky Flats. The former weapons contractors, Dow and
Rockwell, and the property owners nearby have been engaged in a
protracted legal discussion about whether these property owners
will be compensated for damage caused by the environmental
contamination at Rocky Flats.
Last February a jury awarded the property owners, in my
view an incredible amount of money, over $550 million in
damages. I understand the contractors are now appealing the
decision. It seems to me that the only people who are really
benefiting from this are the attorneys. They have already
collected more than $100 million in legal fees.
Because Dow and Rockwell now are going to be indemnified by
the Federal Government, I guess the real losers are going to be
the American taxpayers. To what extent are you involved with
this case and do you have any evidence of extensive damage from
the operation?
Mr. Garman. Because this is a matter in active litigation,
I would--and I apologize for doing this--but I would like to
take that for the record. I am not a lawyer and it is dangerous
for me to comment on issues in active litigation.
[The information follows:]
Rocky Flats Mineral Rights
The Department of Energy (DOE), in partnership with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Natural Resources Trustees (Trustees),
has established and is currently executing a plan for purchasing the
essential mineral rights at Rocky Flats.
The acquisition strategy for the mineral rights will be conducted
in two phases. First, the Trust for Public Lands (TPL), a nonprofit
group specializing in real estate acquisitions for Federal Government
entities, will purchase the mineral rights from willing owners at fair
market value, and will perform any appraisal updates required. In the
second phase, these rights will be purchased by the DOE, with the funds
provided in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for
fiscal year 2006.
At this time, TPL, DOE, and USFWS are finalizing a letter of
agreement, stipulating the process for contacting willing sellers and
ascertaining fair market values.
DOE and the USFWS fully expect to accomplish the acquisition of
mineral rights well within the timeline mandated by Congress, and in
harmony with the local stakeholder community.
Senator Allard. Well, give us some thoughts, if you would,
in response, to the extent that you think you can.
Mr. Garman. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. I understand your point on this.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LOS ALAMOS NEUTRON SCIENCE CENTER
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
Dr. Orbach, it is not well known that the Office of Science
funds a considerable amount of research at some of the NNSA
laboratories, which is the defense nuclear-related
laboratories. The Office of Science supports around $70 million
worth of research at Los Alamos, including work at the Neutron
Science Center, called LANSCE. That is one of the most powerful
linear accelerators in the world. Albeit quite old, it is still
one of the most powerful.
As you know, NNSA, the principal sponsor of LANSCE, is
considering a major accelerator refurbishment project to secure
lifetime extension of the facility. If NNSA goes forward with
this project, would the Office of Science continue to support
science research at LANSCE?
Dr. Orbach. Mr. Chairman, yes. The Lujhan Center, which is
our pulsed neutron center feeding off of LANSCE, has been a
very successful exercise in the last few years and we have
every intention of continuing that support. It will be a very
helpful adjunct to the SNS.
ALTERNATE SOURCES OF ENERGY
Senator Domenici. The President has made curing our
Nation's addiction to oil as a top priority. In fact, the
President's statement about that was one of the most exciting
things that he said, and also setting a goal for reduction in
the amount of oil that we might have to import. That has caused
everybody around here to want to double that goal. I am kind of
beset by Senators wanting a new law that will do more than that
and we are wondering about how we are going to do that.
But one of the--I am aware of the fact that the Department
has provided $40 million to support nuclear energy research and
that the Energy Policy Act authorized $49 million to be used by
the Office of Science to support what is called integrated
bioenergy R&D with regard to cellulosic biomass. What promising
technologies are on the horizon that will enable us to turn
corn stalks and wood waste into ethanol, and what other types
of research in your office support the reduction of our use of
fossil fuels?
Dr. Orbach. We have a broad portfolio which ranges from
alternate sources of energy through ITER, for example, also
through efficiencies, lighter materials and so on, that we
think will increase efficiencies and reduce consumption of
energy. But to be very direct, we also believe that our
programs that involve genomics, genomics GTL, will address the
bioenergy opportunities directly. We have a commitment to
expand and create new research centers for bioenergy that will
be focused on cellulosic ethanol.
In addition, we have every reason to believe that we can
mimic nature's structures in photosynthesis to go from solar to
fuels, as well of course as photovoltaics. So we are examining
a wide variety of really transformational approaches to
reducing our dependency on oil.
INTERNATIONAL LINEAR COLLIDER
Senator Domenici. I have a number of questions about the
genome program, the genome project that you have got going, but
I think I am going to submit them. They require a very long
introduction to the question and I do not want to take that
much time.
But I want to move to a rather interesting subject matter,
at least between you and me. Perhaps nobody else in the world
cares. It relates to the International Linear Collider. This
year the--no, I am not going to do that one either. I am going
to give you that one to answer, okay.
I am going to talk with you a little about the Linear No
Threshold Standard. Have you got that, Linear No Threshold
Standard. Last year we discussed this Linear No Threshold Model
research that the Department was assembling. I understand that
there is a French study that was published last year that
challenged the validity of the Linear No Threshold model that
we were putting together. The effect--all of this has to do
with the effect of low dose radiation, and the French study
urged a total reevaluation of this model.
Am I correct so far?
Dr. Orbach. Yes, you are, sir.
Senator Domenici. As it applied to low doses of ionized
radiation, below 10 rems. Now, first let us stop for a minute.
Regardless of whether there is any big application to this
subject or not, what does ``10 rems'' mean?
Dr. Orbach. It is a measure of the effect on biological
material of radiation, either alpha or gamma radiation, and the
energy deposited in the material itself. The energy deposited
is measured in terms of rads. It is in ergs per gram. Then that
is converted to rems to take account of the fact that the
different kinds of radiation have different effects on the
biological material.
Ten rems is our maximum for what we call low dose
radiation.
Senator Domenici. So if we are trying to say you can use
something that is dispensing with radiological material that is
going to let that get out, we have a standard that says it is
safe if it is 10 or under; is that what you are saying?
Dr. Orbach. No, our standards are actually much lower than
that.
Senator Domenici. Okay, tell me about it?
Dr. Orbach. The epidemiology research that we have seen
does not show significant or any cancerous effects for
radiation of 10 rems or less. But the actual amounts of
radiation that are used as our standards are orders of
magnitude lower than that value.
Senator Domenici. But it is an attempt at quantifying?
Dr. Orbach. Yes. Our program is completely consistent with
the French observations and we are now, I believe, at a point
where we can work with the EPA to begin to reassess the
radiation risks that low dose radiation might involve.
Senator Domenici. We jumped ahead here. I was trying to get
here on the record how various people in their daily lives are
exposed. So I get in an airplane tonight in New York and I fly
all the way across the continent to Los Angeles. I am exposed
to radiation, right?
Dr. Orbach. That is correct.
Senator Domenici. And it is different than the radiation
that I am going to be exposed to if I stand on the ground here,
certainly at sea level. And I fly all the way across and I get
exposed to radiation, but nobody thinks there is anything wrong
with that, right?
Dr. Orbach. That is correct.
Senator Domenici. How much am I exposed to when I fly?
Dr. Orbach. My memory is about 10 millirems. That is--the
round trip I took from New York to London, is of the order of
10 millirems, which would be a hundredth of a rem or a
thousandth of the 10 rems.
Senator Domenici. Okay. And you did it round trip, it is
double?
Dr. Orbach. Yes.
Senator Domenici. Now, let us proceed. The reevaluation of
this model that I had gotten to and then we got sidetracked,
the model applies to low doses. This is significant for a
variety of reasons. But the most significant is that we base
all our standards and regulations on levels far below 10 rems;
correct statement?
Dr. Orbach. That is correct.
Senator Domenici. In fact, we set our cleanup levels which
we just referred to over here for Colorado's cleanup, we set
those standards for cleanup levels at levels below 10 and some
cleanup levels are under 20 millirems, which you have just
described how much smaller that is, far below the natural
background of between 200 and 400 millirems.
Dr. Orbach. That is correct.
Senator Domenici. Is this study consistent with the data
that the Department has collected under the Linear No Threshold
Standard, and are we confident that the conclusion will change
current regulations based on science if it is flawed?
Dr. Orbach. We are convinced that the Linear No Threshold
Model is incorrect at the low dosages of 10 rems or less. We
are convinced that the scientific data has accumulated,
certainly in recent years, to require a reevaluation of the
risk of low dose and especially low dose rate radiation, and we
are convinced that the epidemiology at 10 rems or less needs to
be investigated to determine whether there is any evidence of
cancerous consequences.
Senator Domenici. How much resistance are you getting and
from whom for this rather dramatic statement that you are
making here?
Dr. Orbach. Well, first of all, we do our own research,
thanks to the support of this committee and the appropriations
over the last 5 years. So our peer-reviewed research projects
that are done by researchers all over our country have been
accumulating, especially in recent years, to enable me to make
this statement.
But then last spring a remarkable set of documents emerged
from the French Academies of Science. The French Academy of
Science and the French Institute--the French Academy of
Nuclear--sorry--of Medical Research published a joint statement
which was consistent with our own research findings and in fact
made categorical remarks that the Linear No Threshold Model is
not based on evidence that exists in the literature today at
low dosage.
Senator Domenici. We might one day have a half day hearing
on what this means, what it could mean.
Dr. Orbach. I would be pleased to put such a hearing
together.
Senator Domenici. If this is applied, the reduction in the
cost to society could be in the hundreds of billions of dollars
over time because we are wasting money protecting ourselves
from what we are now told needs no protection. Am I reading it
right?
Dr. Orbach. I would agree. I would agree with that
conclusion.
HYDROGEN POWERED FUEL CELLS
Senator Domenici. Mr. Secretary, one of the major elements
of the bill that we passed, title VIII, was a road map that
included revised funding and milestones for the development of
hydrogen and fuel cells under the freedom car and the fuel
partnership. Can you locate that in your mind or in your
recollection, material there? The provision as a result of
extensive collaboration between hydrogen and fuel stakeholders
and policymakers, in which the research and development needs
of the DOE and the industries that were participating were
extensively evaluated. I think you might have even been a party
to that.
Section 8 reflects Congress' determined will that we wanted
the President's 2010 and 2015 goals for hydrogen-powered fuel
cells. Can you discuss how the statutory directives of EPAct
2005 figured in the 2007 budget and can you tell us how DOE
plans to meet these goals?
Mr. Garman. The statutory requirements in the Energy Policy
Act comport very, very closely, almost precisely, with our road
mapping plan and our long-term and short-term program plans. We
have fallen behind in some areas. Our overall goal is still on
track. Our goal is to be able to put industry in a position to
make a commercialization decision with the technical barriers
solved by 2015.
Because of some shortfalls in appropriations and
congressionally directed spending, we have let some aspects
slip. Last year I think we got about 60 percent of our
request----
Senator Domenici. I have to excuse myself. I have a phone
call here. There is nobody else here, so do not talk.
It looks like that was a most opportunistic moment in time.
Others had to leave also. Now we are going to take just 5 more
minutes and give you about 100 questions to answer.
Mr. Garman. Okay. I will keep the answers very brief then.
Senator Domenici. Okay. Finish that answer.
Mr. Garman. We have had some programs and some projects
slip, but not to the extent that we are moving away from our
2015 goal.
Senator Domenici. You mentioned in that statement that part
of that problem was because of budget shortfalls. I would
assume that there are some technological problems along with
it, or is it all money?
Mr. Garman. Well, there are some technical challenges that
confront us in achieving the full-blown hydrogen vision, and I
will just illustrate one and it is another illustration of how
we think the Office of Science can be helpful. One of the most
challenging aspects of the program is carrying enough hydrogen
on board a fuel cell vehicle to give that vehicle the kind of
range that a consumer expects, 300, 350 miles.
Today, with current technology the fuel cell vehicles that
we have on the road go about 150 miles. That will not fly with
the consumer. So we are looking at a variety of different
technologies, perhaps involving metal hydrides, carbon
nanotubes, a variety of different materials and structures that
could hold a lot more hydrogen in a manner that is closer to
ambient temperatures and pressures, so that you do not have to
use high pressure tanks and some of the other things that,
frankly, might be of concern to a consumer.
Just last week in SLAC, I was able to see some work that
was being done there to look at how to stack more hydrogen in
the carbon nanostructures so that, instead of going to a
conventional fueling station the way we do today, you just
might pick up a canister of hydrogen-impregnated carbon at Wal-
Mart and stick that in your car and that would be your fuel.
So there are all kinds of novel ideas and approaches that
we are looking at. Our partners, such as General Motors and
Ballard and others, have been doing some very good work. This
money is being well leveraged in my view with private sector
dollars in achieving these goals.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN LICENSE APPLICATION
Senator Domenici. The last question has to do with the
Yucca Mountain license application. Secretary Bodman testified
that the Department anticipates providing a new schedule for
license application and repository operations by early summer.
The budget justification material indicates among the tasks to
be accomplished in the 2007 budget is defending the license
application before the NRC.
My question is twofold. Does the budget request assume that
a license application will occur in 2007 and, if not, would the
request need to be adjusted? And second, what is the
Department's current estimate for the cost of the rail line to
Yucca Mountain?
Mr. Garman. We do not expect to be in a position to submit
a license to the NRC in fiscal year 2007, and we will submit
some materials. Of course, obviously when our schedule later
this summer is there we will try to lay it out for you as
clearly as we can.
The cost of the rail line is highly variable based on the
final routing and of course the cost of steel, which lately is
accelerating. But it could be a $2 billion railroad.
Senator Domenici. Two billion dollars?
Mr. Garman. Yes, sir, it could.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Domenici. If it could, it probably will. If it
could, it probably will be more.
In any event, I am sorry we cannot go on. We have many more
questions. Your testimony will be reviewed and we will have
some questions on how we might adjust some dollars to
accomplish some of the things you could not do. I want to close
by commending you once again, you and all of the staff that is
here with you, for your hard work, and thanks for your patience
today.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
GENOMES TO LIFE PROGRAM
Question. Dr. Orbach, as you know, genomics research has been a top
priority of mine for some time. I am very proud that the Department of
Energy took the lead in mapping the human genome. This knowledge
provides us the opportunity to understand many biological questions. I
am very supportive of the Genomes to Life program, although I am
frustrated with the slow pace of deployment of the four facilities. I
believe 20 years is too long to wait to integrate the four planned
facilities.
I understand the National Research Council has reviewed the
Department's current plan and they have made several recommendations to
accelerate the implementation of genomics research within the
Department. The National Academies has suggested the Department
consider integrating the capabilities of each of the four facilities
into one facility to address one or two Department core missions such
as bio-energy or carbon sequestration. I believe this report has made
good recommendations that will save the Department time and money and
allow research to begin immediately.
Dr. Orbach, what do you think of these recommendations? Do you
believe the Department will realize the same scientific benefit by
integrating the four facilities into one?
Answer. The National Academies report was an excellent report. Its
recommendations played a key role, along with the announcement of the
President's Advanced Energy Initiative, in our recent decision to
recast plans for the GTL facilities. The Department believes that the
new facilities plan for vertically integrated centers focused on bio-
energy research, based partly on recommendations from the NRC panel,
should indeed be able to accomplish the GTL program's objectives more
rapidly and at reduced cost.
Question. The Department has already issued a Request for Proposals
on the first of four buildings. In light of this report, will you
cancel the RFP and reissue an RFP based on these recommendations?
Answer. On March 28, 2006, the Office of Science cancelled its
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for a planned GTL Facility for
the Production and Characterization of Proteins and Molecular Tags,
issued in early January. The Office of Science plans to issue a new
solicitation in the coming months for one or more centers for bio-
energy research. Centers focused on systems biology research into
carbon sequestration and bioremediation are also being considered for
future years.
Question. The Academies recommended the Department pursue one or
two core missions and support research into bio-energy, environmental
cleanup and carbon sequestration. What grand challenge do you believe
is the highest research priority?
Answer. In response to the President's Advanced Energy Initiative's
mandate for a strong focus on bio-energy, with an emphasis on producing
research results that will help reduce the Nation's dependence on
fossil fuel, GTL's energy mission is the highest research priority.
LOS ALAMOS NEUTRON SCIENCE CENTER
Question. Dr. Orbach, It is not well known that the Office of
Science funds a considerable amount of research at some of the NNSA
laboratories. The Office of Science supports around $70 million worth
of research at Los Alamos, including work at the Los Alamos Neutron
Science Center, (LANSCE), one of the most powerful linear accelerators
in the world.
As you know, the NNSA, the principal sponsor of LANSCE is
considering a major accelerator refurbishment project to secure a
significant lifetime extension of the facility.
If NNSA goes forward with this project, would the Office of Science
continue to support scientific research at LANSCE?
Answer. The Office of Science would likely continue to support
merit-based scientific research at LANSCE, particularly at the Manuel
Lujan Jr. Neutron Scattering Center.
SCIENCE AND ENERGY RESEARCH
Question. Dr. Orbach, the President has made curing our Nation's
addition to oil a top priority. I am aware of the fact that the
Department has provided $40 million to support nuclear energy research.
Also the Energy Policy Act authorized $49 million to be used by the
Office of Science to support integrated bio-energy R&D.
With regard to cellulosic biomass, what promising technologies are
on the horizon that will enable us to turn cornstalks and wood waste
into ethanol?
Answer. We believe that our efforts in the GTL program to harness
the powers of the microbial world hold the key to making the production
of cellulosic ethanol cost-effective on a large scale. Advances in GTL
genomics and systems biology approaches offer potential for improving
the enzyme systems that deconstruct plant cell walls and increasing the
yield of ethanol-producing microorganisms. In addition, systems biology
potentially provides powerful tools for enhancing the productivity of
biomass crops by optimizing them for industrial processing.
Question. What other type of research is your office supporting to
reduce our usage of fossil fuels?
Answer. In energy supply, the Office of Science is funding fusion
energy research, which holds the promise of an economic,
environmentally benign energy source. We are also funding research in
solar to fuels in which we will try to mimic photosynthetic processes
in plants. To reduce energy consumption, we fund combustion research to
improve combustion efficiency; research to create lightweight, high-
strength materials that improve efficiency; research into materials for
transportation, storage and use of hydrogen; and high-performance
computers that reduce the time-to-market for new, efficient engine
designs (virtual prototypes) and can lead to airframe and vehicle
designs that improve aerodynamics.
LINEAR-NO-THRESHOLD STANDARD
Question. Dr. Orbach, last year we discussed the liner-no-threshold
model research the Department is assembling. I understand a French
study was published last year that challenged the validity of the
Liner-No-Threshold model in assessing the effect of low dose radiation
and urged the re-evaluation of this model as it applies to low doses of
ionizing radiation below 10 rem. This is significant for a variety of
reasons, but the most significant is that we base all of our standards
and regulations on levels far below 10 rem. In fact we set our cleanup
levels at under 20 millirems--far below the natural background of
between 200-400 millirems.
Is this study consistent with the data the Department has collected
on the Linear-No-Threshold standard?
Answer. Yes, the French Report is consistent with much of the data
coming from the DOE Low Dose Program. The new data does not support a
linear extrapolation to low doses for cancer risk.
Question. If you are confident of these conclusions how will this
change current regulations that are based on a flawed scientific model?
Answer. Our understanding of the biological responses to low dose
radiation exposure has increased dramatically. The new data directly
challenge major underlying assumptions originally employed when the
task of estimating human health risk for low dose exposures was first
attempted, primarily using A-bomb survival data. I believe that the
scientific community will rethink risk estimation in light of the newer
more biologically rigorous assumptions. At the same time, more
attention will be paid to more relevant epidemiological studies of low
chronic exposures that mostly show no excess cancers. In the end, EPA
and other regulatory agencies which have the lead on setting
regulations will use these new scientific data provided by DOE's Office
of Science and others.
JOINT DARK ENERGY MISSION
Question. Dr. Orbach, you have consistently argued to sustain our
scientific leadership in areas where we can and should be the world
leaders. Unfortunately, I fear we are about to lose our leadership in
an area where the United States has assembled the best scientific minds
and maintain the most capable space program. I am referring to the
joint DOE/NASA Joint Dark Energy Mission which is supported by the
Office of High Energy Physics and ranked as No. 3 on the 20-year
Scientific Technology Roadmap. This project will investigate the
universe to understand the most fundamental questions about energy,
space and time. In order to fully realize its scientific value we must
launch a space-based telescope.
Unfortunately, insufficient funding for this program puts in
jeopardy the program and is likely to result in other countries picking
off the assembled scientific and engineering talent.
Despite the fact that this project was ranked No. 3 in the
Department's 20-year plan, this project seems to have lost favor within
the Department and NASA. Why is that? Why isn't the Department fighting
to maintain this world-class scientific capability?
Answer. The Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM) remains a high
priority in the Office of Science. In fact, funding for competitively-
awarded dark energy R&D goes up over three-fold in the fiscal year 2007
President's request. We continue to have discussions with NASA on how
best to move forward on an interagency basis on JDEM. In February 2005,
two interagency Federal advisory committees of DOE, NASA, and the
National Science Foundation established a Dark Energy Task Force as a
joint subcommittee to advise the agencies on the future of dark energy
research on the ground and in space. The final task force report should
be released in May 2006 and we expect that our path forward on dark
energy studies broadly, and JDEM in particular, could be significantly
impacted by the recommendations of this distinguished panel.
Question. How will the Department support the JDEM program as well
as other large projects, including the work on neutrino detection and
the Large Hadron Collider?
Answer. We believe the SC budget request will adequately support
the JDEM mission as well as other large projects, including the work on
neutrino detection and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). As you may
know, the just-released National Academies report on the future of
particle physics in the United States, ``Revealing the Hidden Nature of
Space and Time: Charting the Course for Elementary Particle Physics'',
recommends that our highest priority should be supporting our LHC
research program, followed by R&D on the proposed International Linear
Collider, and then research including dark energy and neutrinos.
Question. NASA has indicated that a re-plan of the Beyond Einstein
program, which supports the JDEM program, will be conducted in fiscal
year 2008-2009 to determine mission need. This would effectively kill
any opportunity for a space launch for a telescope to support this
research. Do you agree with this assessment?
Answer. We had discussions with NASA on this, and we understand
NASA will have a competition between the Constellation X-Ray
Observatory (Con-X), Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA), and
JDEM missions to decide which one could start about 2010. Thus, we
believe there is still the opportunity for a joint DOE-NASA JDEM
mission.
Question. Why isn't NASA supportive of this mission? Has this
changed the Department's view of this project?
Answer. We understand that JDEM remains an important part of the
NASA Beyond-Einstein program but they are limited by funding to only
moving one of the three missions (Con-X, LISA and JDEM) forward. DOE
and NASA both are currently supporting mission concept studies. DOE's
view of JDEM has not changed, and we support the JDEM mission.
Question. If NASA isn't supportive of this mission why isn't this
reflected in the budget justification?
Answer. NASA is supportive of the mission and will be doing a
competition between Con-X, LISA and JDEM in the 2008-2009 timeframe to
decide which of the three will go forward about 2010. Both NASA and DOE
are currently funding mission concept studies.
Question. How much would it cost for the Department to take over
this project and fund the space launch without financial support from
NASA?
Answer. An extremely crude early cost estimate for the full JDEM
mission and launch is somewhere in the range of $600 million to well
over $1 billion, but we would need to carry out a thorough mission
concept competition and scientific and technical reviews before
proceeding to a more mature cost estimate. We also expect that the
soon-to-be-released dark energy task force report (mentioned above)
could necessitate a re-evaluation of the optimal path forward including
the appropriate scope and scale of JDEM.
INTERNATIONAL LINEAR COLLIDER
Question. This year, the Large Hadron Collider located in CERN will
come on-line supporting high energy physics research. In fiscal year
2007, the DOE will fulfill its funding obligation of $450 million of
the $6 billion project.
The budget request includes a request of $60 million, an increase
of $30 million to support the United States R&D effort to build the
next generation collider to replace the LHC, which will initiate
operations this year. The budget justification also supports
construction studies and siting studies. I understand cost estimates
for this next generation machine begin at $7 billion.
Why is the United States rushing to support the next generation
machine, before the existing state-of-the-art facility has begun
operations? When does the Department hope to break ground on this new
machine and where?
Answer. The International Linear Collider (ILC) and the LHC are
synergistic from a scientific standpoint. Simply put, the LHC can
discover that new phenomena exist and the ILC will tell us what they
are and what they mean. It will likely take another 5 years of R&D
before we are technically ready to proceed with construction of the
ILC, should the decision be made in the affirmative on a domestic and
international basis. The current phase of the ILC is an internationally
planned and coordinated program of R&D that should result in technical
demonstrations of all major system components over the next several
years. Our domestic decision process for the construction phase rests
primarily on this R&D, the technical cost estimate from the Global
Design Effort, and on compelling scientific results from the early LHC
program. The next phase for the ILC would then be a thorough
multilateral international decision process, ultimately including a
competitive site-selection process, allocation of roles and
responsibilities, and so on. It is therefore premature for the
Department to hazard a guess on when the project could break ground.
Our current position is that Fermilab would likely be the optimal site
within the United States.
Question. How much does the Department expect the International
Linear Collider to cost and what are the cost share arrangements with
other countries? Is there a cost the Department believes is too much
for this facility?
Answer. We await the Global Design Effort, under Professor Barry
Barish, to report a credible cost estimate early next calendar year.
Based on the ITER fusion project, it would be reasonable to expect that
the host State would shoulder 50 percent of the cost.
Question. Does the Department intend to compete the siting of this
new facility among U.S. institutions?
Answer. Our current position is that Fermilab would likely be the
optimal site within the United States. The management and operation
contract for Fermilab will continue to be open for prudent and
necessary competition.
Question. Where does this facility rank in the Department's 20-year
plan?
Answer. ILC ranks No. 1 in the mid-term epoch.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE--20-YEAR PLAN
Question. Dr. Orbach, in November 2003, the Department put forward
a 20-year plan entitled ``Facilities for the Future of Science, a
Twenty-Year Outlook'' This report identified the facilities and mission
that the Department wanted to pursue in near-, mid- and long-term. The
selections were reviewed and prioritized by an Office of Science
Advisory Committee. One argument for this facility was that it would
establish priorities with clear goals that would help with balancing
budget priorities and adhere to scientific priorities. One of the
facilities identified in the plan was the Rare Isotope Accelerator,
listed as the third priority and a near-term goal. This project
apparently has been bumped another 5 years into the mid-term.
Is this project an exception and will the Department continue to
follow the 20-year plan implemented just a little over 2 years ago?
Answer. Achieving an optimal balance among the many competing
priorities for science funding is a formidable challenge. We devote
substantial effort to achieving this task. Our 2003 publication
``Facilities for the Future of Science, A Twenty-Year Outlook'' marked
the first time, to my knowledge, that any government agency either here
or abroad publicly issued such a long-range planning document on major
scientific facilities. The Facilities publication culminated many
months of careful deliberation that consolidated a list of 53
prospective facilities into a list of 28. The Facilities document
prioritized the 28 on the basis of ``Importance to Science'', grouped
into three ``epochs'' on the basis of ``Readiness for Construction.''
These epochs are Near-Term, Mid-Term, and Far-Term, spanning the 20
years. Priorities should be thought of as internal to the respective
epoch. Comparison of priorities between epochs would be incorrect.
The purpose of this construction was to recognize that technologies
change, and that the determination of which epoch a particular facility
fell into might well change with time. The introduction to the document
states, in fact: ``We know, however, that science changes. Discoveries
will alter the course of research and so the facilities needed in the
future. For this reason, the `Facilities for the Future of Science: A
Twenty-Year Outlook' should be assessed periodically in light of the
evolving state of science and technology.''
Thus, overall, the facilities identified and the priorities set in
the facilities outlook remain valid. Our prioritization among epochs,
however, has changed because we could not predict precisely how quickly
various technologies would develop.
Question. Have any of the other projects changed in their position
on the list? If so, why?
Answer. Yes, the elimination of BTeV last year because it was
determined that it could not be completed in time to provide meaningful
results before the Large Hadron Collider starts taking data. And the
top priority within the Far-Term epoch, the National Synchrotron Light
Source Upgrade (NSLS II), was placed in that epoch because, at the time
the facilities outlook was written, it was thought that the technology
would not be ready for construction for some years. But the technology
developed more quickly than anticipated, and NSLS II should now be
regarded as in the Near-Term epoch.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER COORDINATOR
Question. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created the position of a
Technology Transfer Coordinator. The Coordinator is meant to focus the
Department's efforts to transition energy technologies developed at the
National Laboratories into the marketplace. The Act also establishes an
Energy Technology Commercialization Fund, using a 0.9 percent set-aside
of funds used for applied energy research and development. I understand
the Department has not yet acted to comply with these requirements.
Has the Department determined which Under Secretary will have
responsibility for enacting these provisions?
Answer. The Department is studying this provision of EPAct and will
report back to you when a determination is made.
Question. Since the Office of Science oversees a larger number of
National Laboratories than any other office within the Department,
should the Technology Transfer Coordinator report to the Under
Secretary of Science?
Answer. Once the Department has concluded its assessment of the
EPAct provisions, the Secretary will make a determination whether the
Technology Transfer Coordinator will report to the Under Secretary for
Science.
Question. The provision creating the Energy Technology
Commercialization Fund applies to the current fiscal year. Will the
Department be able to account for the use of the funds set-aside for
the fund for fiscal year 2006?
Answer. The Department is still assessing this provision and will
respond once the assessment is complete.
Question. The same section of the Act requires the Department to
submit a technology transfer execution plan. What is the status of the
Department's efforts to develop this plan?
Answer. The Department is still working on the technology transfer
execution plan.
INDEPENDENTLY FINANCED FACILITIES
Question. Dr. Orbach, I understand that DOE is trying to address
aging infrastructure crucial for science at DOE and NNSA laboratories
through alternative financing such as the use of private third-party
financing without the upfront cost to the Federal Government.
What are the DOE plans for supporting and promoting third-party
financing, and what are the obstacles faced when initiating projects
such as the Science Complex at Los Alamos National Laboratory?
Answer. The Department's approach to alternative financing is to
consider it in the acquisition strategy phase of proposed new shorter-
term projects. The acquisition strategy is developed after the mission
need is approved. If alternative financing is recommended, then a
business case must be provided that supports this recommendation.
General-purpose type facilities with credible private-sector uses
(e.g., office buildings) are usually best-suited for alternative
financing.
Each opportunity is unique and the Department reviews each
opportunity individually based on its merits. It is not appropriate for
me to address opportunities that may be under consideration at Los
Alamos because the facility is under the stewardship of the National
Nuclear Security Administration.
RARE ISOTOPE ACCELERATOR
Question. The Nuclear Science Advisory Committee was charged in
2003 to compare the capabilities of the proposed Rare Isotope
Accelerator (RIA) and the planned GSI facility in Germany. The
committee concluded that RIA and the GSI were designed for different
purposes and that each would serve large and distinct user communities.
Does the Department accept the committee's conclusion that RIA and
the GSI are not duplicative? If not, what is the reason for
disagreement with the NSAC assessment?
Answer. The NSAC assessment found that RIA's rare isotope research
capabilities were more extensive than those of GSI. The Department
accepts these findings.
INDIA'S INCLUSION IN ITER
Question. At the December negotiations to complete the
international agreement on ITER, the delegations welcomed India as a
full party. With this development, I understand that the parties to
ITER now constitute over half of the world's population.
How will the inclusion of India as a full partner in ITER alter
U.S. financial commitments to the project?
Answer. The joining of India has not reduced the overall
contributions of the other parties, but within those contributions it
has enabled each of the Parties to provide an appropriate funding
contingency to cover unanticipated costs of the ITER Organization, the
legal entity responsible for oversight of the construction, assembly,
operation, and deactivation of the facility.
Question. How will the inclusion of India as a full partner in ITER
alter U.S. prospects for the development of new technologies likely
result in valuable intellectual property?
Answer. In order for India to be a full partner, the allocation of
in-kind hardware contributions was renegotiated among the ITER parties.
The European Union, China, Japan, Korea, Russia, and the United States
adjusted their high- and lower-tech contributions so that India's
allocation would also be such a mix. The United States will still be
providing significant amounts of high-tech hardware with the potential
to develop valuable intellectual property.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE RESEARCH
Question. The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research (EPSCoR) supports basic research in States that have
historically received relatively less Federal research funding, in
particular for University research. EPSCoR funding has been flat in
recent years, at about $8 million. Under the President's American
Competitiveness Initiative, Office of Science funding will double over
the next decade.
Do you anticipate that EPSCoR funding will remain a constant
fraction of the overall Office of Science budget, as the total budget
increases?
Answer. Yes, EPSCoR funding will at a minimum remain a constant
fraction of SC budget.
STANDBY SUPPORT FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
Question. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 638 authorized the
Department to implement ``risk assurance'' as a protection against
regulatory delays and litigation. This provision provides a $500
million guarantee for the first two plants.
How does the Department intend to implement this provision?
Answer. Consistent with EPAct, the Department is developing a
rulemaking to provide the procedures and process for implementation of
the standby support provisions in Section 638, otherwise referred to as
Federal risk insurance. The Department is on target to meet the
deadlines established in the legislation and to issue the interim final
rule by May 6, 2006. The rulemaking is expected be final by the
legislative deadline of August 2006.
Question. EPAct authorized the use of both grant funding and loan
guarantees, both requiring an appropriation. When will the Department
budget funds to support this activity?
Answer. The Department is currently evaluating the timing and
appropriate funding from both grant funding and loan guarantees under
EPAct.
NUCLEAR POWER R&D
Question. The President has made nuclear power a top priority in
this budget providing $250 million toward the GNEP program, which
largely funds advanced fuel cycle activities. This large funding
commitment seems to contrast with reductions in the Nuclear Power 2010,
which seeks to support the deployment of new, safer reactors. It also
runs counter to funding increases for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, which is preparing to review license applications developed
under the NP2010 program.
Will the Department be able to fully support all the proposed
combined operating license applications with this level of funding?
Answer. Yes. The Nuclear Power 2010 program remains a top
Departmental priority. The requested level of funding will fully
support the originally planned proposed combined operating license
application work scope for fiscal year 2007. The requested funding is
based on the scope of the work negotiated with the industry in fiscal
year 2005, when the New Plant Licensing Demonstration projects were
initiated. The award of the cooperative agreements was later than
expected, and there has been a slower-than-expected ramp-up of
activities. As a result, the NP2010 program costs have lagged behind
our obligated funding resulting in carry over from fiscal year 2005
into this fiscal year. With the unexpected additional appropriations in
fiscal year 2006, the NP2010 program anticipates carryover into fiscal
year 2007 that combined with the budget request will support the
originally-planned work scope.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENERGY POLICY ACT
Question. Mr. Garman, EPAct provided a broad authority to the
Department to support R&D, but also sought to support the deployment
and technology validation of specific alternative energy such as
biomass, clean coal technology, and solar, as well as others.
Unfortunately, there are a number of demonstration activities,
including Title 15, ``Ethanol and Motor Fuels'' that didn't receive any
funding even though Congress authorized over $800 million for grants
and other cost sharing arrangements to encourage the commercialization
of biomass conversion technology.
Can you please explain how and when the Department intends to
support the Biomass-to-Ethanol programs in Title 15?
Answer. Our biomass program currently supports the goals of Title
15 through investments in advanced technologies that will augment
biofuels production at existing corn wet and dry mills. The program
also fosters the development of the next generation biorefinery for the
production of fuels, power, and commodity chemicals from a wide variety
of feedstocks including the conventional grain crops as well as
perennial grasses and wood and forest residues.
As noted in the Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) submitted
to energy bill conferees on July 17, 2005, ``The House and Senate
versions of H.R. 6 also include authorization levels that in many cases
significantly exceed the President's Budget. These authorizations set
unrealistic targets and expectations for future program-funding
decisions.'' House and Senate SAPs contained similar language.
The Department prioritized activities, including those authorized
under EPAct, that would most contribute to the goal of reducing
America's growing dependence on foreign oil. The 2007 budget reflects
the Department's priorities.
Question. Section 942 also provided production incentives for
cellulosic biofuels. This activity hasn't been funded either. Can you
update me on the status of this provision and if the Department will
provide any funding in the near future? Also, is the Department
preparing regulations to support this program?
Answer. Section 942 authorizes the Secretary to use a reverse
auction to deliver the first billion gallons in annual cellulosic
biofuels production by 2015. The use of this authorization is timed to
the first year that 100 million gallons of cellulosic biofuels are
produced in the United States or in August of 2008. We are reviewing
the requirements for this program and determining what regulations will
be required and the schedule for such requirements.
CLEAN COAL POWER INITIATIVE
Question. The budget provides just $5 million toward the Clean Coal
Power Initiative, down $45 million from the current year levels. This
program supports the deployment of clean coal technology including
Integrated Gasification Combine Cycle (IGCC) facilities, which have the
potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Historically, the Department wouldn't go forward with a technology
solicitation without having secured at least $200 million. At this
point, there is roughly $50 million available for fiscal year 2006.
What is the rationale for cutting clean coal research at this
point?
Answer. The fiscal year 2007 funding request of $5 million will be
combined with that from prior appropriations and will go towards the
accumulation of funds for a future CCPI solicitation. In addition, if
other clean coal projects do not go forward, then any additional
funding that becomes available will also be applied towards a future
CCPI solicitation. Ongoing CCPI projects, FutureGen, and various tax
incentives including those authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005
continue to provide incentives for demonstration and deployment of
clean coal technologies with the potential to significantly reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
The budget reduces the addition of new funds to CCPI, so that the
program can take steps to improve the use of funds already provided for
projects. As identified in the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
review, delays in CCPI ongoing projects and selected projects still in
negotiation have contributed to high unobligated balances, currently
over $500 million. This is partially a result of lengthy negotiations
due to the complexity of the projects and statutory requirements to
provide full funding to projects. In addition, extended negotiations
over contract terms, private sector difficulty securing adequate
financing for their cost share, private sector difficulty obtaining
permits, and other issues have led to significant unobligated balances
tied to projects or independent components of projects that were
selected several years ago and have not begun construction.
Although some degree of unobligated balances are expected, and in
fact necessary, for forward funded, large scale, long duration,
demonstration projects, the program also sees unobligated balances tied
up in projects that are not moving forward to achieve CCPI's goals
expeditiously and are delaying the benefit of funds appropriated for
CPPI. The program is working to reduce the time between selection and
award for projects that are being negotiated for initiation, and the
time for those projects already awarded but requiring negotiated
agreements to go to the next budget phase for which funding will be
obligated. The goal of these improvements in the CCPI process is to
ensure that projects progress to commencement of construction in a
timely manner and strengthen the Department's ability to withdraw
funding from stalled projects. If a project does not go forward or
continue to the next budget phase, the available funds will be put
towards a future CCPI solicitation. The program is also working to
develop processes to ensure consistency of project selection with the
R&D Investment Criteria and improve contract and project management
controls to achieve the desired results.
Question. When do you envision the next technology solicitation?
Answer. The fiscal year 2007 request for the Clean Coal Power
Initiative (CCPI) of $5 million, along with funds from the prior
appropriations, will make available approximately $80 million that
could go towards the accumulation of funds for a future CCPI
solicitation. In addition, if other clean coal projects do not go
forward, then any additional prior year clean coal funding that becomes
available will also be applied towards the funding for a future CCPI
solicitation. The decision of when to issue a CCPI solicitation will be
made in the context of annual budget formulation and will be influenced
by steps the program is currently taking to improve the use of funds
already provided for projects and availability of prior year funds from
projects that may not go forward.
Question. The Secretary has previously testified that there is a
large amount of uncommitted funds within this account--can you please
provide more specific details of this funding and if any of those funds
can be rescinded?
Answer. By uncommitted funds the reference is to the fact that the
funds have not yet been obligated for some of the competitively
selected projects. When funds are obligated, they are committed to a
particular contract. However, there is a commitment to fund those
selected projects that currently are in negotiations to either be
awarded for start-up or to continue to the next budget phase.
Obligations of funds to the projects are done on a budget phase basis
after the project has been negotiated and awarded. As such there is a
funding commitment, but not a contractual funding obligation, tied to
the projects.
Lengthy negotiations due to the complexity of the projects,
statutory requirements to provide full funding to projects, and long
lead time acquisition of components have resulted in approximately $480
million in unobligated balances for projects in CCPI and its
predecessor programs (Power Plant Improvement Initiative and Clean Coal
Technology Demonstration Program) that were awarded in the last 2 years
and have not yet started and projects that were awarded up to 3 years
ago and are currently making progress towards construction or are under
construction. In addition, extended negotiations over contract terms,
private sector difficulty securing adequate financing for their cost-
share, private sector difficulty obtaining permits, and other issues
have led to approximately $195 million in unobligated balances for
projects or independent components of projects that were awarded 3, 4,
and 13 years ago, and have not yet started. If for some reason, a
project does not go forward, the funding would be made available for a
future CCPI solicitation.
GNEP
Question. Secretary Garman, as I have stated previously, I am very
encouraged by the Department's new energy initiatives, especially the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). This is an ambitious program
that will have significant impacts on the energy security of the
Nation. Over the years the DOE has invested in nuclear research that
can have a direct impact on new nuclear fuels and solve the problem of
large volumes of nuclear waste that could contribute to the
proliferation of nuclear weapons.
I am anxious to see the next level of detail from the Department on
how the funds will be spent in fiscal year 2007, in particular what
roles will be assigned to what national laboratories.
Can you tell me how DOE and GNEP will tap into the expertise
resident in the NNSA laboratories and when this committee should expect
to see the details of the work distribution?
Answer. While Idaho National Laboratory currently is the lead
laboratory for the advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, the participation by
and capabilities of all of DOE's national laboratories will be critical
to the success of GNEP. The seven national laboratories--Argonne, Los
Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, Sandia, Oak Ridge, Pacific Northwest, and
Idaho--have provided input into the Department's development of and
vision for GNEP. These seven national laboratories are also currently
involved in the preparation of more detailed work scope and funding
requirements. The details of the work distribution would be available
to the committee after careful consideration and approval by DOE. NNSA,
and its laboratories, are integral to the GNEP effort and are engaged
specifically in the areas of advanced safeguards and non-proliferation.
FOSSIL ENERGY BUDGET
Question. In your budget justification, the Department supports the
FutureGen program to build a cost-effective near-zero atmospheric
emissions from coal with the assumption that ``the successful and
timely achievement of the Fossil Energy R&D objectives'' and the
availability of technologies for are integrated into FutureGen.
However, the budget has proposed to nearly eliminate funding under the
Clean Coal Power Initiative--the driver for technology development.
How can the Department hope to build a state-of-the-art facility
using yet to be developed technology when you won't commit the
resources to develop such technologies?
Answer. The fiscal year 2007 budget request represents the
necessary funding to develop the technologies arising from our coal
research program for FutureGen and near-zero emission coal technologies
in general. We believe that the funding level is sufficient to advance
these technologies to the level of maturity and acceptable risk for
integrated testing in FutureGen. The Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI)
funding is focused on more mature technologies that are ready for
demonstration prior to commercial deployment. The CCPI, however, does
reduce the risk of the longer range commercial deployment of future
near-zero emission plants based on FutureGen technology by reducing
risks in technologies and operations that would have been demonstrated
in CCPI such as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle.
CLEAN COAL POWER INITIATIVE--USE OF CARRYOVER BALANCES
Question. The DOE 5-year budget justification claims that the
Department will provide out-year funding for Clean Coal Power
Initiative (CCPI) demonstration of advanced coal technologies,
``contingent upon improvement of use of funds already provided for
projects.''
What exactly does the Department expect in terms of ``improvement
of use of funds'' that will support future appropriations to the
Department's leading coal R&D program?
Answer. The program is working to reduce the time between project
selection and award as well as the negotiating time for ongoing
projects to proceed to the next budget phase, ensure that projects
progress to commencement of construction in a timely manner, strengthen
the Department's ability to withdraw funding from stalled projects,
ensure project selection consistency with the R&D Investment Criteria,
and improve contract and project management controls to achieve the
desired results.
Question. If the Department is dissatisfied with the performance of
the existing competitively-awarded clean coal projects, what do you
intend to do to improve performance of the projects?
Answer. As identified in the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
review, project delays in CCPI have resulted in high unobligated
balances, currently over $500 million. This is partially a result of
lengthy negotiations due to the complexity of the projects, and
statutory requirements to have available full funding for these
projects. In addition, extended negotiations over contract terms,
private sector difficulty securing adequate financing for their cost
share, private sector difficulty obtaining permits, and other issues
have contributed to the unobligated balances situation for projects or
independent components of projects that were selected several years ago
and have not begun construction.
The issue is two-fold. First, these are complex project agreements
to negotiate and frequently require the industrial participant to
obtain items such as power purchase agreements that the participant
must separately negotiate before coming to closure on the cooperative
agreement with the Department. Secondarily, the projects that have been
awarded are commercial demonstrations and therefore are also
susceptible post-award to changes in market conditions which could
result in loss of power purchase agreements or technology development
risks, which in turn lead to delays.
The Department is aiming to improve the process and minimize the
disruptions and delays due to changing market conditions by better
anticipating possible market impacts and addressing them earlier in the
negotiation process. The Department is also developing contract
provisions and other process improvements that strengthen the
Department's ability to withdraw funding from stalled projects. Project
selection will be improved by ensuring consistency of the selection
process with the R&D Investment Criteria.
If for some reason a Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) project
that was competitively awarded does not progress satisfactorily to the
next phase because of either not meeting the milestones, or incurs
inordinate delays, then the Department will to the extent possible
assist the project participant in overcoming hurdles to move a project
forward. If these obstacles cannot be resolved, the Department will
pursue a mutual agreement or exercise other contractual provisions to
terminate the project, and make the remaining funds available for a
future CCPI solicitation.
The Department is also working to improve contract management
processes in response to GAO and DOE Inspector General reports
identifying weaknesses.
Question. Does the Department have any plans to re-compete any of
the existing awards? If so, which one?
Answer. The Department does not plan to re-compete any of the
existing awards. In the case when a project is terminated, the
available funds will go towards a future CCPI solicitation.
HYDROGEN
Question. Secretary Garman, I have been pleased to see the
significant developments made at our national labs in the area of
hydrogen fuel cells. Los Alamos National Laboratory in particular has
been a leader in this area. The Department has developed an excellent
roadmap leading to the introduction of hydrogen fuel cells.
In your view are you receiving adequate resources to move to the
next level in your roadmap?
Answer. Yes, the administration's funding request is sufficient to
keep the hydrogen program on track to develop the critical technologies
that will enable industry to make a commercialization decision in 2015
on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and the infrastructure to refuel them.
NEXT GENERATION NUCLEAR PLANT
Question. Despite the significant support for the GNEP program, I
question whether or not the Department is as serious about the Next
Generation Nuclear Plant that will also support the President Nuclear
Hydrogen Initiative.
When does the Department intend to begin construction on the Next
Generation Nuclear Plant?
Answer. The Department is committed to meeting the Energy Policy
Act requirements for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant. A wide spectrum
of R&D activities is underway focusing on development of nuclear fuels,
metallic and graphite materials capable of high-temperature service,
and analytical methods to be used in assessing reactor system safety
and performance. The R&D program will inform a decision by 2011 to
proceed with the design competition for the NGNP as mandated by EPAct.
The design competition is expected to take 2 years. A decision to
construct would be expected to follow completion of final design
activities. The Department is working with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission on a licensing strategy for the NGNP.
Question. Without this plant, how will the Department validate the
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, much less develop hydrogen from non-fossil
sources such as natural gas?
Answer. The Department is currently developing two systems of
hydrogen production (thermochemical cycles and high-temperature
electrolysis) using nuclear energy. Prototype testing of these
processes are planned using non-nuclear heat sources. The results from
the prototype tests will be used to guide the design of the
engineering-scale facility to be coupled with the NGNP. While the NGNP
would be capable of driving either of these systems, research is being
conducted to lower the process heat requirements to reduce the
technical risks associated with the very high operating temperatures of
the NGNP.
URANIUM SUPPLY
Question. Congress and the Bush Administration are encouraging the
development of additional nuclear powerplants. Other nations are also
aggressively pursuing the construction of new nuclear reactors. This is
going to require more uranium to fuel our current and new reactors.
Has DOE done any analysis on the availability of uranium inside the
United States for nuclear power reactors over the next decade?
Answer. The Department has analyzed a number of commercially-
available reports on the quantity and quality of domestic uranium
reserves and resources that could be developed over the next decade. We
would be happy to provide you with a briefing if you would like.
BARTER OF URANIUM
Question. This subcommittee in the fiscal year 2006 Energy and
Water Appropriations conference report directed DOE to follow
government procurement procedures in any sales or bartering of DOE
uranium inventories.
Does DOE believe it is required to follow this directive?
Answer. The Department has fully complied with the Section 314 of
the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act
including the provision that ``applicable'' procurement laws and
regulations be followed. Because a sale, transfer or barter is not
considered a ``procurement,'' provisions of the Competition in
Contracting Act and the Federal Procurement Regulations are not
applicable. Nevertheless, DOE documented its justification for the
initial transfer of uranium to USEC for competitive sale as if those
provisions applied. This transfer of a small amount of uranium to USEC
(200 metric tons) was necessary to secure funding for USEC's
continuation of the uranium remediation activities with no disruption.
DOE recently conducted a competitive sale for 200 metric tons.
Question. What has DOE done to follow this directive?
Answer. The Department issued a Request for Proposals which closed
this month for the Department's sale of 200 metric tons.
AMERICAN CENTRIFUGE PROGRAM--USEC
Question. The Department has transferred the technology for the
American Centrifuge Program to USEC, Inc. to commercialize. As part of
the June 2002 agreement between DOE and USEC, there are a number of
milestones that USEC is required to meet this summer and fall. There is
concern since USEC's NRC license application appears to be delayed.
Have you been briefed on the technology development program and do
you believe that this technology is workable and is commercially viable
at full scale?
Answer. The Department is monitoring USEC's activities toward
meeting its obligations under the June 2002 Agreement with DOE. We
receive regular reports on the status of USEC's research and
development program. The technology was proven in the government's
program in the 1980's. The Department believes that the market will
decide if American Centrifuge Program is commercially viable.
Question. Are there any specific technical concerns you may have
regarding the deployment of this technology? Are you confident that
this project is well managed and following appropriate scientific
practices to validate this technology?
Answer. DOE is not in a position to assess the USEC practices since
this is a not a government-directed program.
URANIUM INVENTORY
Question. Given the increased national interest in nuclear power,
the key role that fuel supply policy will play going forward and the
increased interest by this subcommittee in DOE uranium inventory
management, this seems to me to be the wrong time to remove these
issues from DOE HQ and place them in a group whose experience is
primarily in selling assets.
I would feel much better knowing that these crucial functions, if
they are to be transferred from the Office of Nuclear Energy, be
transferred to your office, Mr. Under Secretary.
Will you give this serious consideration and report back on the
decision to the subcommittee?
Answer. No decision has been made on transferring the functions.
That said, these functions currently report to my office through the
Office of Nuclear Energy. Should the Department conclude that it is
more effective to transfer the functions, they likely would remain
within my purview. I will keep the subcommittee apprized as we consider
this issue.
URANIUM MINING
Question. Domestic producers of uranium recently wrote Secretary
Bodman and urged the DOE to maintain its uranium inventories for a
possible shortfall between supply and consumption that they believe
will grow annually over the next decade.
Did the Department meet with the domestic producers to address
their concerns?
Answer. Prior to receiving their letter, the Office of Nuclear
Energy staff met with the Uranium Producers of America. We believed
that we addressed their concerns. More recently, Assistant Secretary
Dennis Spurgeon met with several uranium companies this month to
discuss their concerns.
Question. What was DOE's response to this issue?
Answer. The Department closely monitors activities in the nuclear
fuel market for any potential major disruption of fuel supply to our
Nation's commercial nuclear power reactors and has a designated uranium
inventory to ensure the reliability of deliveries under the Highly
Enriched Uranium Purchase Agreement with the Russian Federation.
As part of a March 1999 Agreement concerning the transfer of source
material to the Russian Federation, DOE agreed to maintain a stock for
10 years of no less than 22,000 metric tons of natural uranium
equivalent. The Agreement states that ``the stock may be reduced,
through the withdrawal of uranium, in order to ensure the reliability
of deliveries under the Commercial Agreement.'' DOE continues to
maintain this stock.
Question. Has DOE made any effort to encourage new domestic uranium
production?
Answer. We believe that market forces (the current price as of
April 10 is $41.00/lb.) will stimulate new domestic production.
WIND ENERGY
Question. In the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Conference
Report, the Department was instructed to shift responsibility for the
integration of renewable technology to the Office of Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability. However, your budget provides nearly
$8 million in funding for program staff to interface with FERC,
regional transmission organizations, independent system operators and
State regulators.
Do you believe that the wind program staff is better able to
perform this function than the staff of the Electricity Delivery and
Reliability Office? If so, why have we bothered to establish the Office
of Electricity Delivery and Reliability?
Answer. Senior staff from the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE) and the Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability (OE), met May 16, 2006 to examine coordination
between offices, and the appropriate roles and responsibilities between
them. Our two offices have jointly decided to establish a formal
working partnership for coordinating the work on wind and electricity
systems integration.
Of the requested $8 million in fiscal year 2007, the majority of
funds will be used to characterize wind, turbine operations, plant
behavior and interconnection electronics, with $3.97 million devoted to
Systems Integration. Of the Systems Integration total, $500,000 is
planned for interfacing with FERC, regional transmission organizations,
independent system operators and State regulators of which OE will
serve as the lead DOE organization.
Question. Has the Department committed funds within the wind energy
program to support integration activities in fiscal year 2006--is the
Electricity and Reliability Office involved?
Answer. Yes, the Department has committed $2.4 million in fiscal
year 2006 for system integration activities in the Wind Technology
Program and program staff interacts on an ongoing basis with colleagues
in the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE). Wind
Program management recently discussed with OE the wind program vision
for improved grid availability, as well as the role of expected wind
development in the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor
Study under Section 1221 of EPAct. EERE continues to closely coordinate
all its electricity-related actions with OE.
SOLAR AMERICA INITIATIVE
Question. The President has proposed the Solar America Initiative
to achieve market competitiveness of solar electricity by 2015 instead
of 2020. This program appears to shift from a demonstration approach to
that of a technology development program with industry.
Which technologies will the Department focus on and which have the
greatest opportunities to meet the 2015 goal?
Answer. To meet its 2015 goals, the Solar America Initiative (SAI)
will support R&D and manufacturing improvements through industry-led
partnerships to reduce the cost of solar electric systems and optimize
system performance. The R&D work will be complemented by a technology
acceptance effort to help overcome the non-R&D barriers to
commercialization of solar electric systems. SAI focuses work on both
photovoltaics such as thin-film and multi-junction photovoltaics, but
also supports concentrating solar power (CSP) technologies such as
dishes and parabolic collectors.
Question. What technology developments have occurred that led the
Department to believe that it could make solar energy cost competitive
5 years ahead of schedule?
Answer. The Department believes that the cost competitiveness of
solar energy can be accelerated by focusing on the transfer of
demonstrated high-efficiency cells from the laboratory, to large scale
industrial production through public-private collaboration with
industry-led ``Technology Pathway Partnerships''. We also believe that
our increased funding request will accelerate the pace at which we will
achieve results that can lower costs.
HYDROGEN COMPETITIVENESS
Question. The President established the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative to
develop a hydrogen economy. One goal was to cut the production and
delivery cost of hydrogen in half by 2010.
How successful has the Department been in achieving this goal?
Answer. Significant progress has been made in reducing the cost of
hydrogen. For example, the cost of distributed hydrogen production from
natural gas has fallen from $5.00/gallon of gasoline equivalent (gge)
in 2003 to a current cost of about $3.10/gge. This cost is estimated
using an economic model developed by the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory and industry partners. Additionally, an independent panel
has been commissioned to verify that our 2005 target of $3.00/gge has
been met.
These analysis activities use the Energy Information Administration
(EIA) High A price projections for natural gas, which are typically
less than today's market price. Therefore, the Department will continue
to evaluate the effect of natural gas price volatility on the viability
of this hydrogen pathway to compete with conventional fuels such as
gasoline.
Question. What about achieving the stated goals for reducing the
cost of renewable production (distributed) sources?
Answer. The Department believes that renewable hydrogen production
pathways are critical to the long-term success of the President's
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and to
reduce greenhouse gas and criteria emissions. Multiple renewable
hydrogen production pathways are being pursued, including biomass
gasification/reforming, renewable fuel reforming, photoelectrochemical,
photobiological, solar high-temperature thermochemical, and water
electrolysis using renewable electricity resources.
Because appropriations have fallen short of request levels and
Congressionally-directed projects consumed a significant portion of the
budget in fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006, the Department had to
prioritize funding for its proposed projects. The Department chose to
focus on distributed natural gas technologies that would most likely
help to achieve the 2015 technology readiness milestone. Funding for
hydrogen production projects on electrolysis and distributed reforming
of renewable liquids was reduced, while funding for other longer-term
renewable technologies was eliminated (total funding of renewable
hydrogen production was reduced from a planned level of approximately
$24 million to $13.1 million). Therefore, progress on the cost
reduction of many renewable hydrogen production technologies has been
limited. For example, cost of hydrogen from renewable bio-liquids in
2003 was $6.70/gallon of gasoline equivalent and has not fallen
appreciably toward our 2015 target of $2.50/gallon of gasoline
equivalent. The President's fiscal year 2007 budget request includes
funding for renewable hydrogen projects.
HYDROGEN MANUFACTURING
Question. For the first time in the past 2 years the Department has
provided funding for manufacturing R&D within the hydrogen account.
What type of R&D is being proposed? Who will perform this activity?
Answer. On January 24, 2006, Secretary Bodman released a ``Roadmap
on Manufacturing R&D for the Hydrogen Economy'' for public comment.
This roadmap, developed with interagency and industry input, identifies
future high-priority manufacturing needs (automated/agile processing,
high speed forming/molding, joining technology, non-destructive
inspection techniques, etc.) in polymer electrolyte membrane fuel
cells, high pressure composite storage tanks, and fuel reformers and
electrolyzers for producing hydrogen.
Based on further industry comments, due April 24, 2006, the
Department will update the roadmap and establish priorities for an
upcoming solicitation. The organizations performing the new
manufacturing research will be competitively selected. Teams could
include industry, national laboratories, and university partners.
HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELL PROGRAM
Question. One of the major elements of the bill (Title 8) was a
roadmap that included revised funding and milestones for development of
hydrogen and fuel cells under the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. The
provisions are the result of extensive collaboration between the
hydrogen and fuel stakeholders and policy makers in which the research
and development needs of DOE and the participating industries were
extensively re-evaluated. Title VIII reflects what Congress determined
will be needed to meet the President's 2010 and 2015 goals for hydrogen
powered fuel cell vehicles.
Can you discuss how the statutory directives of EPAct 2005 figured
in the fiscal year 2007 budget request? Can you tell me how DOE plans
to meet the law's goals?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2007 budget request of $289.5
million for the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative is consistent with Title VIII
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
In particular, the Department's multi-year planning drove the
budget request which fully supports the statutory timeline and goals
related to vehicles and infrastructure stipulated in Section 805. We
plan to meet these goals through research partnerships with industry
technology developers, national labs, and universities. The majority of
funding will remain focused on research to help achieve cost and
performance targets, in accordance with the administration's R&D
investment criteria. Limited learning demonstrations covering multiple
applications will be used to refocus research and to periodically
validate progress.
BIOMASS
Question. The Department has requested a significant increase in
the Biomass program, including substantial increases in funding for
thermochemical platform R&D and biochemical platform R&D.
Which of these technologies has the greatest potential to reduce
the costs of biomass production?
Answer. It's difficult to answer this question with any degree of
certainty at this time. There are a wide variety of feedstocks that can
be converted to ethanol, and different feedstocks are available in
different regions of the country. Ultimately, the most economic
conversion technology--the biochemical (fermentation) or the
thermochemical (gasification and pyrolysis)--may depend on the
feedstock used.
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVES
Question. The fiscal year 2007 budget doesn't request any
additional funding to make repairs to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
after a direct hit by Hurricane Katrina.
Is it fair to say that the SPR handled oil supply shortages in the
Gulf region using already allocated funds?
Answer. The SPR had sufficient funds to repair the minor damage
that was caused by Hurricane Katrina. The damage included roofing,
fencing and damaged trailers. The total cost of repairs was less than
$1 million and was covered by our fiscal year 2006 appropriation.
HURRICANE KATRINA DISASTER RECOVERY
Question. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, you have created a
program within Building Technologies called, ``Disaster Recovery and
Building Reconstruction.''
Could you please expand upon this program and specify how it will
help in the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast?
Answer. In November 2005, the Department launched its Disaster
Recovery and Building Reconstruction web site (www.eere.energy.gov/
buildings), providing building resources, lessons learned from past
disasters, and a calendar of workshops and training sessions being
conducted throughout the Gulf region. This is not a new program as
such, but rather a compilation of our existing efforts and partnerships
applicable to rebuilding the Gulf region. We also continue to work with
State energy offices, universities, and businesses in the affected
States to encourage a broad regional exchange of information and best
practices on energy efficient building technologies.
KATRINA--EPACT
Question. The tragedy of Hurricane Katrina presents a unique
situation in which thousands of buildings and homes need rebuilding. In
addition the Energy Policy Act provided the Department with additional
authorities to establish in the Energy Policy Act. Sections 126 and 140
both authorize the Department to establish programs to facilitate
energy efficiency and the integration on renewable energy technology.
Obviously, the Gulf Coast region provides a great opportunity for the
Department to develop these pilot programs.
Has the Department taken any steps to help the disaster recovery by
promoting or encouraging the use of energy efficient building
materials?
Answer. Yes, the Department is actively working with universities,
extension services, builders, and building materials suppliers to
encourage the use of energy efficient practices and energy efficient
building materials. For example, the Department is partnering with The
Home Depot, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and State
energy offices on a series of weekend training sessions on how to
repair storm-damaged homes using energy efficient products and
practices. Training sessions were held in New Orleans, Louisiana on
January 22-23, Biloxi, Mississippi on January 28-29, and in Mobile,
Alabama on February 4. These events attracted over 2,000 attendees. We
are working closely with The Home Depot and other retailers to design a
series of on-going events in the spring and summer to prepare for the
upcoming hurricane season.
WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM
Question. The Department has proposed cuts to cut the
Weatherization Assistance Program by $77 million. This will impact
33,000 families who will pay an estimated $200 million in heating and
cooling assistance if they don't receive this aid.
At a time when home energy bills are very high and there are a
large number of people in the Gulf States who will be struggling to pay
their bills this year, why did you decide to cut money from these
grants?
Answer. From 2002 through 2006, the administration requested a
total of $1.359 billion for the Weatherization Program, nearly doubling
the baseline funding assumptions (using 2001 appropriations).
Unfortunately, Congressional appropriations from 2002 through 2006 fell
short of the administration's requests by a cumulative total of $208
million. Nevertheless, increased appropriations driven by the
President's 2002 through 2006 budgets led to energy and cost savings
for hundreds of thousands of the neediest low-income families.
The administration made very difficult choices in developing the
fiscal year 2007 budget. Reducing America's growing dependence on
foreign oil and changing how we power our homes and businesses are
among the Department's highest priorities, as outlined in the
President's Advanced Energy Initiative.
The Department's benefits models indicate that the Weatherization
Program does not provide significant energy benefits compared to the
potential benefits of other programs where we are increasing our
investments.
We note that financial aid for helping low-income families pay
their energy bill is provided by the Department of Health and Human
Service's Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).
PHOTOVOLTAIC ENERGY COMMERCIALIZATION PROGRAM
Question. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created the ``Photovoltaic
Energy Commercialization Program,'' which aims to establish
photovoltaic solar electric systems for electric production in public
buildings. The request for photovoltaic energy systems is up more than
50 percent from fiscal year 2006.
Is this effort to increase the use of solar power in public
buildings included in the President's Solar America Initiative? In what
other ways is the Solar America Initiative planning to use the
requested $65 million plus up from fiscal year 2006?
Answer. The ``Photovoltaic Energy Commercialization Program''
contained in Section 204 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is not part
of the President's Solar America Initiative (SAI). Section 204
authorizes the Administrator of the General Services Administration
(GSA) to establish a photovoltaic (PV) commercialization program. The
Department is willing to provide technical assistance to GSA, should
GSA decide to implement such a program.
The additional funding that the Department of Energy is requesting
in fiscal year 2007 for the Solar America Initiative is to achieve the
goal of cost-competitive (currently estimated at 5 to 10 cents per
kilowatt-hour) solar power by 2015. The majority of requested SAI funds
will be used to support a competitive solicitation for industry-led R&D
to reduce costs along multiple photovoltaic technologies, some of which
may be down-selected in future years. Ultimately, we aim to have
partners demonstrate the ability to produce fully-integrated cost-
competitive photovoltaic systems optimized for U.S. markets by 2015. In
addition, the Department is also planning to issue a second, smaller
competitive solicitation in the area of solar technology acceptance
that may include funding for technology assistance to promote the
commercialization of photovoltaic systems in public buildings. The
Department is in the process of developing its strategy for this
technology acceptance solicitation, and will seek public feedback
shortly to help inform the structure and content of the solicitation.
OFF-SHORE WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
Question. As part of the Energy Policy Act, Congress streamlined
the permitting process and jurisdictional confusion regarding the
permitting of offshore renewable energy projects, which have been a
barrier to development. Several offshore wind projects have been
announced, but none of the projects have been developed. In addition
the Department has announced that it will support an offshore wind
demonstration.
What is the status of the regulatory reform process and are you
confident that this will result in an efficient and streamlined
permitting process?
Answer. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 outlined a path to develop
new regulations to manage the approval process for offshore wind and
other renewable energy projects on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
and assigned the Department of the Interior's Minerals Management
Service (MMS) as the lead agency. There are no interim policies or
guidelines; however, MMS issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking to solicit comments from stakeholders in developing the
language for the new regulations. The Department of Energy's Office of
Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program will continue providing
technical and other assistance to MMS under a soon-to-be-finalized
Memorandum of Agreement related to offshore wind energy issues.
Question. How many wind projects have been announced or are under
consideration? How many megawatts of fossil energy will these projects
displace and by when?
Answer. Several offshore wind projects have been announced,
although only two have taken formal steps required to begin the
regulatory review process required for sites in Federal waters. The two
commercial projects include the Cape Wind Project (420 megawatts), and
the Long Island Power Authority/FPL Energy project (143 megawatts). The
wind generated power from these projects would likely displace oil and
natural gas-fired peaking powerplants.
Question. How many megawatts of energy could the United States
expect to produce from offshore wind?
Answer. Preliminary estimates conducted at the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) indicate that more than 1,000 gigawatts of
offshore wind energy potential exist in the United States between 5 and
50 nautical miles off the coastlines, including the Great Lakes, with
approximately 810 gigawatts over waters that are 30 m and deeper
(Future of Offshore Wind Energy in the United States, June 2004;
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/36313.pdf). Realizing even a fraction of
this presents major economic, technical, and social challenges.
AMERICAN CENTRIFUGE PROJECT
Question. As you know, the Department of Energy signed in 2002 a
lease agreement with the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC)
for centrifuge technology. Currently, USEC is planning on constructing
the American Centrifuge Plant (ACP) based upon a former DOE design that
was never fully proven. History tells us that DOE spent more than two
decades and $3 billion on centrifuge technology.
What compensation did the Federal Government receive for this
technology transfer?
Answer. To obtain access to the restricted data related to the gas
centrifuge enrichment process, identified at 10 C.F.R. 725.31 Appendix
A as category C-24 isotope separation. USEC was required by regulation
to pay, and did pay, $25,000. USEC also is fully funding development
activities under the Cooperative Research and Development Agreement
(CRADA) with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Finally, the Department
is currently negotiating, but has not yet executed, a technology
licensing agreement with USEC that addresses royalty payments for
USEC's commercialization of DOE centrifuge technology.
Question. Is the Federal Government liable should the technology
prove unworkable?
Answer. No.
Question. Does DOE currently have departmental personnel working on
this project?
Answer. Since USEC's CRADA is with ORNL, there are some laboratory
personnel working on the project. USEC pays 100 percent of the costs
under the CRADA. Some DOE employees provide the required regulatory
oversight.
Question. At what stage in machine development is USEC?
Answer. Because USEC is a private company and the technology
development program is privately funded, its detailed development
information is considered business proprietary to USEC and may be
subject to protections under the Trade Secrets Act. Under this Act, DOE
is obliged to take measures to protect such business proprietary
information from public disclosure. In response to the committee's
request for business proprietary information in its oversight capacity,
the Department will provide the information requested in the
Department's possession under separate cover in a secure fashion in
accordance with applicable law and the Department's procedures.
Question. Are individual prototype machines still being tested as
reported in November 2005? What is the DOE's level of participation?
Answer. As noted previously, this information is business
proprietary to USEC. As a result, a response will be provided under
separate cover. DOE provides regulatory oversight to ensure that
industrial safety and environmental requirements are met.
Question. What does prototype machine testing by USEC actually mean
and involve? What is the DOE's level of participation?
Answer. As noted previously this information is business
proprietary to USEC. As a result, a response will be provided under
separate cover. DOE is involved in a regulatory capacity to ensure that
industrial safety and environmental requirements are met.
Question. Is there any chance that the reliability and performance
data will not be ready for the DOE October Milestone?
Answer. The Department is not in a position to respond to this
question.
Question. Will the October data include economic performance data?
If not, when will such data be available?
Answer. The Department is not in a position to respond to this
question.
Question. Will economic data be proven for financing commitments to
be obtained by January 2007 for the 1 million SWU plant?
Answer. The Department is not in a position to respond to this
question.
Question. If ``cast-iron'' economic data is not available by
January 2007, how can construction begin to meet the DOE June 2007
Milestone?
Answer. The June 2007 construction milestone is tied to a licensing
decision by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which is required before
USEC can begin construction. The economic data requirement is an for
USEC to resolve.
Question. Is there a ``fall-back'' strategy in the event that the
ACP cannot be developed as a commercially viable economic option in
accord with the DOE June 2002 Agreement?
Answer. The Department is not currently evaluating alternatives to
the APC option.
Question. Are real and proven alternative production technology
options being investigated, other than continued and indefinite
operation of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant?
Answer. The Department is closely following developments in the
domestic enrichment marketplace including the proposed LES centrifuge
plant plans in New Mexico. We believe that market forces will work to
provide sufficient domestic capacity to meet U.S. utility requirements.
RECLASSIFYING WASTE AT HANFORD, WASHINGTON
Question. Mr. Rispoli, the Congress reclassified certain waste as
being ``incidental to reprocessing'' and as a result, this would allow
the Department to leave a small amount of material in the tanks that
would be filled with grout to permanently immobilize any remaining
waste. This is the standard being applied to cleanup at Idaho and
Savannah River. I am told that applying this same authority to the
Hanford tank farm has the potential to save between $10-$15 billion.
If this authority was extended to Hanford, can you estimate the
budgetary impact would be for this project? How much time could be
saved?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) committed during the debate
on section 3116 of the National Defense Authorization bill that we
would not work unilaterally to add another State to the
reclassification authorization. That being said, DOE has not completed
an analysis to determine how much time or money could be saved should
this authority be extended to Washington State.
Question. Does the Department believe this standard should be
applied to the Hanford tank farm cleanup?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) has discussed with State of
Washington officials on several occasions the benefits it perceives
that application of section 3116 would offer to the citizens of the
State of Washington. These benefits include a provision for the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's consultation and monitoring, and the
certainty concerning the process to be used in making determinations.
However, the DOE committed during the debate on section 3116 of the
National Defense Authorization bill that we would not work unilaterally
to add another State to the reclassification authorization. That being
said, DOE has not completed an analysis to determine how much time or
money could be saved should this authority be extended to the State of
Washington.
HANFORD CLEANUP--FAVORITE AMONG EQUALS
Question. The Environmental Cleanup budget is down by over $762
million. Funding for cleanup at virtually every site in the complex is
down. Los Alamos has been reduced by over $50 million; Idaho is down
$20 million; Savannah River is down by $94 million. In contrast,
funding for Hanford is up, despite the fact that we still don't have a
clear idea how much the Waste Treatment Facility will cost.
We do know that Bechtel, the current contractor, estimates it will
cost over $11 billion. This is up from the original cost estimate of
$4.3 billion in 2000.
In the 2006 budget request, the Department predicted with 80
percent certainty that the cost of the project would be $5.8 billion
and be completed by 2011. This is incredible to me that in 1 year the
cost of the project could go from $5.8 billion to $11 billion.
It appears that everything that could go wrong with this project
has gone wrong. There has been tremendous technical risk, poor
engineering and design management, and regulatory uncertainty as a
result of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
Mr. Garman, when will you have a better sense of the final cost
estimate for the Waste Treatment Project?
Answer. In December 2005, the Department of Energy directed the
Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) prime contractor,
Bechtel National Inc., to deliver an updated Estimate-At-Completion
(EAC) to reflect available funding for fiscal year 2006 and impacts of
the results of the independent technical and cost reviews by May 31,
2006.
DOE has engaged the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to perform an
independent expert review of the EAC and to validate the EAC. The USACE
has retained a number of recognized industry experts working with its
own senior staff to perform this review. The USACE's report is
scheduled to be completed by late summer 2006. Once the EAC is
validated by the USACE, DOE would then validate and approve the
baseline for the WTP project.
Question. What can and will be been done to get control of this
project and to reverse the cost increases?
Answer. I think it is important to note that all prior planned
designs for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) were
based on a plant capable of treating and immobilizing only one-fourth
of the high-level waste at the Hanford site. The current plant is sized
to treat and immobilize 100 percent of the high-level waste, thus
eliminating the need for a second, very sizeable and costly plant that
the Department of Energy's (DOE's) prior plan had envisioned. In
addition, since this project first got underway in the late 1990's,
major advancements in technology have been recognized that will improve
WTP performance. These advancements include: development of an ion
exchange material to more effectively and less expensively remove
radioactive cesium from tank waste liquids; improvement of throughput
capacities for the furnaces used to vitrify the radioactive waste; and
enhanced blending ability of pumps to maintain a consistent waste mix.
We anticipate that benefits from these improvements will avoid the
necessity of building a second plant for high-level waste, improve
turnaround time, reduce personnel exposure, reduce performance risk and
operating cost, and reduce the total number of canisters produced,
thereby decreasing the volume of material ultimately sent to a
repository for permanent disposal.
On June 23, 2005, the Secretary of Energy made key decisions to
address the WTP project scope, cost, schedule, contract, and management
issues. The management actions included direction to: (1) conduct an
After Action Review to assess the causes of the project cost, schedule,
scope and project management issues, (2) assemble a new DOE
Headquarters senior level management team, (3) submit the
qualifications for a Federal Project Director to the DOE Project
Management Certification Board, (4) provide weekly progress reports to
the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management,
(5) conduct quarterly progress reviews with the Secretary, and (6)
develop an execution plan and master schedule for all of the major
activities associated with the path forward for the project.
The Secretary indicated to Bechtel Corporation that it must
demonstrate its commitment and project management capabilities to this
critical project by accomplishing the following:
--Address the current technical issues, increasing the confidence in
design, contain costs, and develop a viable schedule.
--Obtain the ``best and brightest'' from other major firms to
critically assess the current technical approach, evaluate
risks, review the cost/schedule, and develop recommendations to
promptly and dramatically improve project performance.
--Provide the ``best and brightest'' site project management team
(executives, engineers and technicians) for the duration of the
project.
--Develop and submit to DOE a complete and credible Estimate-At-
Completion.
Based on the actions directed by the Secretary of Energy and the
reviews implemented by independent industry experts, there is now a
strong project management framework in-place, a clear understanding of
the technical issues surrounding the project, and a path forward for
establishing a credible project cost and schedule baseline.
Question. What guarantee can you provide that Federal managers will
do their job to control costs and demand the best from their
contractors?
Answer. To improve project oversight the Department of Energy (DOE)
has implemented the following key actions: establishment of a DOE
Headquarters senior level oversight team, which is engaged in all
aspects of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) project;
recruitment by DOE of experienced personnel proficient in contracting,
procurement, contract law, and project management; Federal
certification of the WTP Project Director who is directed to strictly
comply with the requirements of DOE Order 413.3, Program and Project
Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets; the requirement that
the WTP contractor implement an Earned Value Management System, a
proven, industry-standard performance monitoring tool, that fully
complies with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 748-A-1998;
a structured weekly and monthly reporting system, plus a Quarterly
Performance review conducted by the Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management; and delivery of regular project status
updates to senior DOE management.
The DOE continues to proactively upgrade its project management
capabilities at the WTP and strengthen the framework needed to ensure
effective planning and long-term execution in all areas of this large,
complex environmental remediation project.
Question. Do you believe you have the proper contract in place and
what incentives are included in the contract to encourage cost
reduction?
Answer. Yes, I believe the Department of Energy (DOE) has the
proper contract in place at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization
Plant. DOE has initiated actions to increase and strengthen Federal
oversight of this contract. These actions include putting in place a
coordinated and aggressive infrastructure of reviews and validations of
project costs, schedules, technical design, seismic criteria, overall
project management and controls. In parallel, DOE is considering
various changes to the incentives structure for an impending contract
modification to challenge the contractor to deliver a quality plant
that meets the mission need and schedule expectations while achieving
cost effectiveness. We hope to complete the contract modification early
in fiscal year 2007.
Question. What impact have the recommendations by Defense Nuclear
Facility Safety Board had on the cost estimate and cost schedule?
Answer. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) has
been actively involved in reviewing the adequacy of the seismic
criteria used in the design of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization
Plant (WTP). Based on all the reviews, DOE estimates that the impact of
revising the seismic criteria, including the associated verification
activities, for the WTP has resulted in an estimated overall project
cost increase in the range of 10-15 percent with a resulting increase
of approximately 20 percent to the overall project completion schedule.
DOE has engaged the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to perform
an independent expert review of the Estimate-At-Completion (EAC) and to
validate the EAC. This review includes an evaluation of those costs
attributable to the inclusion of revised seismic criteria. The USACE's
report is scheduled to be completed by late summer 2006.
LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LAB
Question. The budget reduces soil and water cleanup activities at
Los Alamos National Lab by $70 million. It has been 2 years since the
Department negotiated and signed the 2005 Consent Order with the State
of New Mexico on a fence-to-fence cleanup strategy to fully remediate
the site by 2015.
The budget justification claims that despite the Department has yet
to complete its validation of the site baseline in cost estimate. I
find it remarkable that the Department, which has been onsite for more
than five decades, doesn't have an accurate picture of the cleanup
responsibilities or cost estimate.
The Consent Order requires that the LANL site be cleaned up by
2015. How will a $70 million reduction in soil and water remediation
activities impact this cleanup date?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) has had significant
performance issues for several years with the previous contractor's
environmental work at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).
Additionally, LANL has not yet been able to provide an integrated cost
and schedule baseline that DOE is able to validate.
Senior officials within DOE have asked for the involvement of
senior executives of the parent companies of the new contractor in
delivering efficiencies and a cost and schedule baseline able to
withstand scrutiny and that can be validated by DOE. To that end, we
believe that the new contract will address these performance issues,
offer new opportunities to continue significant cleanup and risk
reduction, and enable progress towards a new baseline. We assure you
that we remain committed to the Los Alamos Compliance Order on Consent
(March 2005) with the State of New Mexico and its environmental
milestones.
Question. What specific cleanup activities will the Department
forego as a result of the $70 million cut?
Answer. The Department of Energy is continuing a broad base of
remediation activities. We are evaluating soil and water remediation
activities including characterization, protection of groundwater
resources, and remediation for opportunities for better performance
under the new contract. We believe that the new contract will address
past performance issues, offer us new opportunities to continue
significant cleanup and risk reduction, and deliver progress towards a
new baseline. Until we have a cost and schedule baseline from the new
contractor that is independently validated we are not able to determine
what work, if any, will not be accomplished. However, we remain
committed to the Los Alamos Compliance Order on Consent.
Question. What expectations does the Department have for the new
contractor, Los Alamos National Security LLC, to find cost savings to
offset the funding reduction in soil and water remediation?
Answer. Senior officials within the Department of Energy (DOE) have
asked for the involvement of senior executives of the parent companies
of the new contractor in delivering efficiencies and a cost and
schedule baseline that is able to withstand scrutiny and that can be
validated by the DOE. To that end, we believe that the new contract
will address the Los Alamos National Laboratory's (LANL) performance
issues, offer new opportunities to continue significant cleanup and
risk reduction, and deliver progress toward a new baseline. We remain
committed to the Los Alamos Compliance Order on Consent.
Question. As a result of short-changing cleanup at Los Alamos as
specified in the 2005 Consent Order, how much do you believe will the
Department incur in the way of fees?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) has had performance issues
for several years with the previous contractor's environmental work at
the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). Additionally, the LANL has
not yet been able to provide an integrated cost and schedule baseline
that the DOE is able to validate.
We believe that the new contract will address these performance
issues, offer new opportunities to continue significant cleanup and
risk reduction, and deliver progress toward a new baseline. We remain
committed to the Los Alamos Compliance Order on Consent and as such do
not anticipate any fines.
WASTE TREATMENT PLAN SEISMIC REGULATION
Question. It seems odd to me that the Department didn't have a
clear picture of the seismic risk before they turned the first spade of
dirt at the Waste Treatment Plant.
Why is the Department only now coming to terms with the changes in
seismic standards?
Answer. The initial seismic design for the Hanford Waste Treatment
and Immobilization Plant (WTP) was based on an extensive probabilistic
seismic hazard analysis conducted in 1996 by Geomatrix Consultants,
Inc. In 1999, the Department of Energy (DOE) approved this design basis
following reviews by British Nuclear Fuels, Inc., and seismologists
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory.
DOE used the best information available starting in 1997 regarding
the seismic hazard, namely the 1996 DOE Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Analysis. However, seismic information has continually evolved as
seismic prediction methodologies have improved. This scientific
progress led to the 2004 increases in seismic ground motion that
provided a greater allowance for unknown soil and rock properties
underneath the WTP site than were considered necessary in 1996. No new
information regarding the likelihood of earthquakes or their strength
contributed to this change. Rather, the change was due to the
possibility that soil and rock underneath the WTP might attenuate
earthquake movement less than was assumed in the 1996 work.
Question. Can you quantify the cost increases attributed to the
change in seismic standards raised by the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board?
Answer. Based on all the reviews, the Department of Energy (DOE)
estimates that the impact of revising the seismic criteria, including
the associated verification activities, for the Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant has resulted in an estimated overall project cost
in the range of 10-15 percent of the Estimate-At-Completion (EAC) with
a resulting increase of approximately 20 percent to the overall project
completion schedule.
The DOE has engaged the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to
perform an independent expert review of the EAC and to validate the
EAC. This review includes an evaluation of those costs attributable to
the inclusion of revised seismic criteria. The USACE's report is
scheduled to be completed by late summer 2006.
Question. What other facilities in Washington might be designed to
the same seismic standard at the Waste Treatment Plant?
Answer. Presently, there are no planned facilities in the State of
Washington, including Department of Energy (DOE) facilities that are
designed to the current DOE seismic standards. These standards would
only apply to new nuclear facilities having the potential for
significant onsite consequences.
SAVANNAH RIVER SITE--SEISMIC REGULATIONS
Question. I understand that new seismic standards have forced the
Department to reevaluate the design standard of the Salt Waste
Processing Facility at Savannah River Site. This halt in progress will
increase project costs and delay the start of this project by 2 years.
Why did this happen?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) has established design and
performance standards associated with Natural Phenomena Hazards
(including seismic) in DOE Guide 420.1-2, ``Guide for the Mitigation of
Natural Phenomena Hazards for DOE Nuclear Facilities and Non-Nuclear
Facilities'', and DOE Standard 1021-93, ``Natural Phenomenon Hazards
Performance Categorization Guidelines for Structures, Systems and
Components'', that are tailored to the hazards associated with our
nuclear facilities. Performance Category 3 (PC-3), representing the
most stringent earthquake design requirements, is invoked where the
highest hazards exist in these types of facilities.
In accordance with the DOE Directives, early in the design of
facilities, the performance categorization is determined and the
analysis is refined as the safety documentation matures. The Salt Waste
Processing Facility (SWPF) preliminary safety analysis and the original
facility design were based on a lower performance category
determination. However, while addressing issues raised by the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board the Department determined that the PC-3
design requirements would provide greater assurance that confinement of
radioactive materials was adequate given the range of hazards.
ACCELERATED CLEANUP--CHANGE IN COURSE
Question. Last month Secretary Bodman testified that he would not
be bound by the commitments by his predecessors regarding funding for
Environmental Cleanup. By and large, the funding profile contained in
the DOE's 5-year funding plan shows a decline in funding for most of
the cleanup activities.
Are we to assume that the Department will reduce funding for
environmental cleanup activities, and if so, where and to what end?
Answer. As part of the administration's Accelerated Cleanup
Initiative, beginning in fiscal year 2003, increased funding was
provided to accelerate cleanup and address urgent risks sooner than had
been planned. Fiscal year 2005 was the peak year of funding for this
initiative. We remain committed to completing the Environmental
Management (EM) mission in a manner that protects the environment and
public, and is safe for workers, while being fiscally responsible. The
Department of Energy will continue to focus on risk reduction and
cleanup completion while maintaining balance with other departmental
and national priorities.
Question. How will out-year funding reductions impact the schedule
for the cleanup at all of the cleanup sites?
Answer. The funding levels that had been developed in the 5-Year
Plan to support the accelerated site closure strategy were based, in
part, on overly optimistic assumptions. The Department of Energy (DOE)
is currently updating these assumptions to reflect changes that have
taken place in regulatory and statutory requirements, to incorporate
lessons learned based on actual program performance, and to incorporate
technological and acquisition strategies that have matured, with the
goal of meeting the DOE's long-term environmental commitments. When
these assumptions are fully updated, we will be in a position to assess
potential impacts.
HANFORD CLEANUP--FAVORITE AMONG EQUALS
Question. The Environmental Cleanup budget is down by over $762
million. Funding for cleanup at virtually every site in the complex is
down. Los Alamos has been reduced by over $50 million; Idaho is down
$20 million; Savannah River is down by $94 million. In contrast,
funding for Hanford is up, despite the fact that we still don't have a
clear idea how much the Waste Treatment Facility will cost.
Bechtel, the current contractor, estimates the project will cost
over $11 billion. This is up from the original cost estimate of $4.3
billion in 2001.
In the 2006 budget request, the Department predicted with 80
percent certainty that the cost of the project would be $5.8 billion
and be completed by 2011. This is incredible to me that in 1 year the
cost of the project could go from $5.8 billion to $11 billion.
It appears that everything that could go wrong with this project
has gone wrong. There has been tremendous technical risk, poor
engineering and design management, and regulatory uncertainty as a
result of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
Mr. Garman, when will you have a better sense of the final cost
estimate for the Waste Treatment Project?
Answer. In December 2005, the Department of Energy directed the
Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) prime contractor,
Bechtel National Inc., to deliver an updated Estimate-At-Completion
(EAC) to reflect available funding for fiscal year 2006 and impacts of
the results of the independent technical and cost reviews by May 31,
2006.
DOE has engaged the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to perform an
independent expert review of the EAC and to validate the EAC. The USACE
has retained a number of recognized industry experts working with its
own senior staff to perform this review. The USACE's report is
scheduled to be completed by late summer 2006. Once the EAC is
validated by the USACE, DOE would then validate and approve the
baseline for the WTP project.
Question. What can and will be been done to get control of this
project and to reverse the cost increases?
Answer. I think it is important to note that all prior planned
designs for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) were
based on a plant capable of treating and immobilizing only one-fourth
of the high-level waste at the Hanford site. The current plant is sized
to treat and immobilize 100 percent of the high-level waste, thus
eliminating the need for a second, very sizeable and costly plant that
the Department of Energy's (DOE's) prior plan had envisioned. In
addition, since this project first got underway in the late 1990's,
major advancements in technology have been recognized that will improve
WTP performance. These advancements include: development of an ion
exchange material to more effectively and less expensively remove
radioactive cesium from tank waste liquids; improvement of throughput
capacities for the furnaces used to vitrify the radioactive waste; and
enhanced blending ability of pumps to maintain a consistent waste mix.
We anticipate that benefits from these improvements will avoid the
necessity of building a second plant for high-level waste, improve
turnaround time, reduce personnel exposure, reduce performance risk and
operating cost, and reduce the total number of canisters produced,
thereby decreasing the volume of material ultimately sent to a
repository for permanent disposal.
On June 23, 2005, the Secretary of Energy made key decisions to
address the WTP project scope, cost, schedule, contract, and management
issues. The management actions included direction to: (1) conduct an
After Action Review to assess the causes of the project cost, schedule,
scope and project management issues, (2) assemble a new DOE
Headquarters senior level management team, (3) submit the
qualifications for a Federal Project Director to the DOE Project
Management Certification Board, (4) provide weekly progress reports to
the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management,
(5) conduct quarterly progress reviews with the Secretary, and (6)
develop an execution plan and master schedule for all of the major
activities associated with the path forward for the project.
The Secretary indicated to Bechtel Corporation that it must
demonstrate its commitment and project management capabilities to this
critical project by accomplishing the following:
--Address the current technical issues, increasing the confidence in
design, contain costs, and develop a viable schedule.
--Obtain the ``best and brightest'' from other major firms to
critically assess the current technical approach, evaluate
risks, review the cost/schedule, and develop recommendations to
promptly and dramatically improve project performance.
--Provide the ``best and brightest'' site project management team
(executives, engineers and technicians) for the duration of the
project.
--Develop and submit to DOE a complete and credible Estimate-At-
Completion.
Based on the actions directed by the Secretary of Energy and the
reviews implemented by independent industry experts, there is now a
strong project management framework in place, a clear understanding of
the technical issues surrounding the project, and a path forward for
establishing a credible project cost and schedule baseline.
Question. What guarantee can you provide that Federal managers will
do their job to control costs and demand the best from their
contractors?
Answer. To improve project oversight the Department of Energy (DOE)
has implemented the following key actions: establishment of a DOE
Headquarters senior level oversight team, which is engaged in all
aspects of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) project;
recruitment by DOE of experienced personnel proficient in contracting,
procurement, contract law, and project management; Federal
certification of the WTP Project Director who is directed to strictly
comply with the requirements of DOE Order 413.3, Program and Project
Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets; the requirement that
the WTP contractor implement an Earned Value Management System, a
proven, industry-standard performance monitoring tool, that fully
complies with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 748-A-1998;
a structured weekly and monthly reporting system, plus a Quarterly
Performance review conducted by the Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management; and delivery of regular project status
updates to senior DOE management.
The DOE continues to proactively upgrade its project management
capabilities at the WTP and strengthen the framework needed to ensure
effective planning and long-term execution in all areas of this large,
complex environmental remediation project.
Question. Do you believe you have the proper contract in place and
what incentives are included in the contract to encourage cost
reduction?
Answer. Yes, I believe the Department of Energy (DOE) has the
proper contract in place at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization
Plant. DOE has initiated actions to increase and strengthen Federal
oversight of this contract. These actions include putting in place a
coordinated and aggressive infrastructure of reviews and validations of
project costs, schedules, technical design, seismic criteria, overall
project management and controls. In parallel, DOE is considering
various changes to the incentives structure for an impending contract
modification to challenge the contractor to deliver a quality plant
that meets the mission need and schedule expectations while achieving
cost effectiveness. We hope to complete the contract modification early
in fiscal year 2007.
Question. What impact have the recommendations by Defense Nuclear
Facility Safety Board had on the cost estimate and cost schedule?
Answer. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) has
been actively involved in reviewing the adequacy of the seismic
criteria used in the design of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization
Plant (WTP). Based on all the reviews, DOE estimates that the impact of
revising the seismic criteria, including the associated verification
activities, for the WTP has resulted in an estimated overall project
cost increase in the range of 10-15 percent with a resulting increase
of approximately 20 percent to the overall project completion schedule.
DOE has engaged the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to perform
an independent expert review of the Estimate-At-Completion (EAC) and to
validate the EAC. This review includes an evaluation of those costs
attributable to the inclusion of revised seismic criteria. The USACE's
report is scheduled to be completed by late summer 2006.
LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LAB
Question. The budget reduces soil and water cleanup activities at
Los Alamos National Lab by $70 million. It has been 2 years since the
Department negotiated and signed the 2005 Consent Order with the State
of New Mexico on a cleanup strategy to fully remediate the site by
2015.
The budget justification claims that the Department has yet to
complete its validation of the site baseline in cost estimate. I find
it remarkable that the Department, which has been onsite for more than
five decades, doesn't have an accurate picture of the cleanup
responsibilities or cost estimate.
The Consent Order requires that the LANL site be cleaned up by
2015. How will a $70 million reduction in soil and water remediation
activities impact this cleanup date?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) has had significant
performance issues for several years with the previous contractor's
environmental work at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).
Additionally, LANL has not yet been able to provide an integrated cost
and schedule baseline that DOE is able to validate.
Senior officials within DOE have asked for the involvement of
senior executives of the parent companies of the new contractor in
delivering efficiencies and a cost and schedule baseline able to
withstand scrutiny and that can be validated by DOE. To that end, we
believe that the new contract will address these performance issues,
offer new opportunities to continue significant cleanup and risk
reduction, and enable progress towards a new baseline. We assure you
that we remain committed to the Los Alamos Compliance Order on Consent
(March 2005) with the State of New Mexico and its environmental
milestones.
Question. What specific cleanup activities will the Department
forego as a result of the $70 million cut?
Answer. The Department of Energy is continuing a broad base of
remediation activities. We are evaluating soil and water remediation
activities including characterization, protection of groundwater
resources, and remediation for opportunities for better performance
under the new contract. We believe that the new contract will address
past performance issues, offer us new opportunities to continue
significant cleanup and risk reduction, and deliver progress towards a
new baseline. Until we have a cost and schedule baseline from the new
contractor that is independently validated we are not able to determine
what work, if any, will not be accomplished. However, we remain
committed to the Los Alamos Compliance Order on Consent.
Question. What expectations does the Department have for the new
contractor, Los Alamos National Security LLC, to find cost savings to
offset the funding reduction in soil and water remediation?
Answer. Senior officials within the Department of Energy (DOE) have
asked for the involvement of senior executives of the parent companies
of the new contractor in delivering efficiencies and a cost and
schedule baseline that is able to withstand scrutiny and that can be
validated by the DOE. To that end, we believe that the new contract
will address the Los Alamos National Laboratory's (LANL) performance
issues, offer new opportunities to continue significant cleanup and
risk reduction, and deliver progress toward a new baseline. We remain
committed to the Los Alamos Compliance Order on Consent.
CONSOLIDATION OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL IN THE COMPLEX
Question. The Secretary has wisely assembled a team to consider
various options to reduce the amount of special nuclear material in the
complex that must receive high level security.
By locating unnecessary nuclear material in a central secure area,
it can reduce the security costs dramatically. By permanently disposing
of this material we can eliminate security costs entirely.
I understand that Charlie Anderson with Environmental Management
has been chosen to lead this team of DOE and NNSA officials.
What is the status of this evaluation and when will the Department
propose a waste consolidation and disposal plan to Congress for its
consideration?
Answer. We currently expect that the strategic plan will be
completed within a year.
Question. What are the greatest challenges the Department is facing
in consolidating this material?
Answer. The greatest challenge facing the Department of Energy
regarding the consolidation of special nuclear materials is to ensure
that our departmental consolidation efforts are consistent with
individual program needs while maximizing security and cost savings and
minimizing the number of consolidation moves.
Consolidation of nuclear materials also requires, among other
things, adequate storage space and availability at the receiving site,
compliance with applicable laws, appropriate National Environmental
Policy Act analyses, and sufficient transportation resources. Community
support is also critical, particularly in the State and around the site
where the materials would be received.
Question. Are their any legislative or regulatory impediments that
currently prevent the Department from moving forward?
Answer. Although there may be legislative or regulatory
requirements that would need to be met before the Department of Energy
may move forward with its consolidation activities, none of these
ultimately would prevent us from moving forward when met. For example,
there may be National Environmental Policy Act requirements to be met
for some activities. Other requirements may also apply, for example, in
the case of the shipment of surplus weapons-usable plutonium to the
Savannah River Site previously destined for the now-cancelled Plutonium
and Immobilization Plant, there are requirements under section 3155 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law
107-107) for the submission of a plan to Congress identifying a
disposition path for such plutonium prior to shipment.
RECLASSIFYING WASTE AT HANFORD, WASHINGTON
Question. Mr. Garman, the Congress reclassified certain waste as
being ``incidental to reprocessing'' and as a result, this would allow
the Department to leave a small amount of material in the tanks that
would be filled with grout to permanently immobilize any remaining
waste. This is the standard being applied to cleanup at Idaho and
Savannah River. I am told that applying this same authority to the
Hanford tank farm has the potential to save $10 to $15 billion.
If this authority was extended to Hanford, can you estimate what
the budgetary impact would be for this project? How much time could be
saved?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) committed during the debate
on section 3116 of the National Defense Authorization bill that we
would not work unilaterally to add another State to the
reclassification authorization. That being said, DOE has not completed
an analysis to determine how much time or money could be saved should
this authority be extended to Washington State.
Question. Does the Department believe this standard should be
applied to the Hanford tank farm cleanup?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) has discussed with State of
Washington officials on several occasions the benefits it perceives
that application of section 3116 would offer to the citizens of the
State of Washington. These benefits include a provision for the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's consultation and monitoring, and the
certainty concerning the process to be used in making determinations.
However, the DOE committed during the debate on section 3116 of the
National Defense Authorization bill that we would not work unilaterally
to add another State to the reclassification authorization. That being
said, DOE has not completed an analysis to determine how much time or
money could be saved should this authority be extended to the State of
Washington.
WASTE TREATMENT PLAN SEISMIC REGULATION
Question. It seems odd to me that the Department didn't have a
clear picture of the seismic risk before they turned the first spade of
dirt at the Waste Treatment Plant.
Why is the Department only now coming to terms with the changes in
seismic standards?
Answer. The initial seismic design for the Hanford Waste Treatment
and Immobilization Plant (WTP) was based on an extensive probabilistic
seismic hazard analysis conducted in 1996 by Geomatrix Consultants,
Inc. In 1999, the Department of Energy (DOE) approved this design basis
following reviews by British Nuclear Fuels, Inc., and seismologists
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory.
DOE used the best information available starting in 1997 regarding
the seismic hazard, namely the 1996 DOE Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Analysis. However, seismic information has continually evolved as
seismic prediction methodologies have improved. This scientific
progress led to the 2004 increases in seismic ground motion that
provided a greater allowance for unknown soil and rock properties
underneath the WTP site than were considered necessary in 1996. No new
information regarding the likelihood of earthquakes or their strength
contributed to this change. Rather, the change was due to the
possibility that soil and rock underneath the WTP might attenuate
earthquake movement less than was assumed in the 1996 work.
Question. Can you quantify the cost increases attributed to the
change in seismic standards raised by the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board?
Answer. Based on all the reviews, the Department of Energy (DOE)
estimates that the impact of revising the seismic criteria, including
the associated verification activities, for the Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant has resulted in an estimated overall project cost
in the range of 10-15 percent of the Estimate-At-Completion (EAC) with
a resulting increase of approximately 20 percent to the overall project
completion schedule.
The DOE has engaged the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to
perform an independent expert review of the EAC and to validate the
EAC. This review includes an evaluation of those costs attributable to
the inclusion of revised seismic criteria. The USACE's report is
scheduled to be completed by late summer 2006.
Question. What other facilities in Washington might be designed to
the same seismic standard as the Waste Treatment Plant?
Answer. Presently, there are no planned facilities in the State of
Washington, including Department of Energy (DOE) facilities that are
designed to the current DOE seismic standards. These standards would
only apply to new nuclear facilities having the potential for
significant onsite consequences.
SAVANNAH RIVER SITE--SEISMIC REGULATIONS
Question. I understand that new seismic standards have forced the
Department to reevaluate the design standard of the Salt Waste
Processing Facility at Savannah River Site. This halt in progress will
increase project costs and delay the start of this project by 2 years.
Why did this happen?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) has established design and
performance standards associated with Natural Phenomena Hazards
(including seismic) in DOE Guide 420.1-2, Guide for the Mitigation of
Natural Phenomena Hazards for DOE Nuclear Facilities and Non-Nuclear
Facilities, and DOE Standard 1021-93, Natural Phenomenon Hazards
Performance Categorization Guidelines for Structures, Systems and
Components, that are tailored to the hazards associated with our
nuclear facilities. Performance Category 3 (PC-3), representing the
most stringent earthquake design requirements, is invoked where the
highest hazards exist in these types of facilities.
In accordance with the DOE Directives, early in the design of
facilities, the performance categorization is determined and the
analysis is refined as the safety documentation matures. The Salt Waste
Processing Facility (SWPF) preliminary safety analysis and the original
facility design were based on a lower performance category
determination. However, while addressing issues raised by the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board the Department determined that the PC-3
design requirements would provide greater assurance that confinement of
radioactive materials was adequate given the range of hazards.
ACCELERATED CLEANUP--CHANGE IN COURSE
Question. Last month Secretary Bodman testified that he would not
be bound by the commitments by his predecessors regarding funding for
Environmental Cleanup. By and large, the funding profile contained in
the DOE's 5-year funding plan shows a decline in funding for most of
the cleanup activities.
Are we to assume that the Department will reduce funding for
environmental cleanup activities, and if so, where and to what end?
Answer. As part of the administration's Accelerated Cleanup
Initiative, beginning in fiscal year 2003, increased funding was
provided to accelerate cleanup and address urgent risks sooner than had
been planned. Fiscal year 2005 was the peak year of funding for this
initiative. We remain committed to completing the Environmental
Management (EM) mission in a manner that protects the environment and
public, and is safe for workers, while being fiscally responsible. The
Department of Energy will continue to focus on risk reduction and
cleanup completion while maintaining balance with other Departmental
and national priorities.
Question. How will out-year funding reductions impact the schedule
for the cleanup at all of the cleanup sites?
Answer. The funding levels that had been developed in the 5-Year
Plan to support the accelerated site closure strategy were based, in
part, on overly optimistic assumptions. The Department of Energy (DOE)
is currently updating these assumptions to reflect changes that have
taken place in regulatory and statutory requirements, to incorporate
lessons learned based on actual program performance, and to incorporate
technological and acquisition strategies that have matured, with the
goal of meeting the DOE's long-term environmental commitments. When
these assumptions are fully updated, we will be in a position to assess
potential impacts.
WERC/DOE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
Question. The Department has failed to live up to its commitment to
provide funding under the cooperative agreement with WERC. Why is this?
Answer. As directed by the Conference Report (109-275) accompanying
the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act
(Public Law 109-103), the Department of Energy provided the American
Water Works and the Waste Education Research Consortium (WERC) with
$7,000,000 for advanced concept desalination and arsenic treatment
research. WERC received $749,790 of these funds. WERC will also receive
the prior year uncosted carryover of $5,500,000.
CLEANUP DELAYS AT K-25
Question. I understand the completion date for the ETTP have been
delayed from fiscal year 2008 until mid-fiscal year 2009.
Why is this and what impact will this have on the cost of the
project?
Answer. The current contract calls for physical completion of the
East Tennessee Technology Park by September 30, 2008. The Department of
Energy is currently reviewing performance against the baseline for this
project to determine the cost and schedule impacts associated with
numerous factors including, but not limited to, the complexity of the
work, safety concerns, unexpected issues, and increased cleanup
requirements.
Question. Do you need additional funding in fiscal year 2007?
Answer. No additional funding in fiscal year 2007 is needed. The
Department of Energy is currently reviewing the baseline for this
project to determine the cost and schedule impacts, which would provide
the basis for any future budget requests.
GAO REPORT ON TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES
Question. The GAO reported that the Department's total estimated
cleanup responsibilities could exceed the $180 billion, by as much as
$25 billion.
GAO found that cost significant increase can be attributed to
delays in opening up Yucca Mountain and the Department's ability to
dispose of high level waste.
Do you agree with the assessment by GAO? Please explain.
Answer. Several assumptions made as part of the Department of
Energy's (DOE) Accelerated Cleanup initiative were overly optimistic
and have not materialized. In addition, we have identified legacy
cleanup requirements at several sites that have not been included in
prior Office of Environmental Management (EM) work scope, and some key
projects have experienced performance issues. As a result, the life-
cycle cost of the cleanup program could increase by $25 billion, as
indicated in the Government Accountability Office's report. DOE has
established and implemented a more stringent, highly monitored project
management program that is making every effort to identify and address
unexpected developments in project design, construction, schedule and
scope as they emerge.
In addition, the $180 billion estimate included approximately $15
billion for high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel disposal at the
Yucca Mountain geological repository which was planned to begin
receiving shipments from EM in 2010. The DOE estimates that a 5-year
delay in opening the Yucca Mountain geological repository could
potentially increase costs by as much $1 billion to EM's total cost for
managing waste. The actual amount of this increase would depend on a
number of factors, including when EM completes the cleanup of various
sites and had the waste at those sites ready for shipment, the need to
build additional storage buildings, and added operating costs.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN FUNDING
Question. The 5-year funding profile provided to Congress shows
essentially flat funding for this program over this period. In years
past, the out-year funding levels were shown to sharply increase during
the time period of license application, work on-site preparation, and
rail route preparation activities--ordering the steel for the rails
alone will be a very costly venture.
Will that level of funding be sufficient to defend a license
application and undertake other activities necessary to prepare for
construction and operation of the repository?
Answer. The 5-Year Plan DOE submitted to Congress contains two
scenarios. The scenario using a formula-based approach for out-years in
the fiscal year 2007 budget would not allow the Yucca Mountain program
to accelerate pre-licensing construction activities. The above-target
scenario moves the program forward as quickly as possible.
While there is a flat funding case as you described, the Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management also developed ``above target''
estimates of $661 million in fiscal year 2008, $963 million in fiscal
year 2009, $1.07 billion in fiscal year 2010, and $975 million in
fiscal year 2011. The above-target scenario is more consistent with
planned construction activities needed to timely develop the
repository. The administration is committed to developing Yucca
Mountain as a geologic repository. We have made no policy decisions on
out-year funding for Yucca Mountain, but I can assure you we will
continue to support expeditious development of the repository.
Question. If not, do you expect that the out-year budgets will need
to be adjusted once a new program schedule is established?
Answer. The amounts in the 5-Year Plan for the out-year budget
reflect steady progress toward the receipt of a construction
authorization for a repository at Yucca Mountain in the near term.
However, in order to reach the goal of an operating geologic repository
at Yucca Mountain in a timely manner, significant budget increases for
the program will be required for construction and operations of both
the repository and the rail line in Nevada. The administration has
supported legislation calling for funding reform for the program in the
form of reclassifying mandatory Nuclear Waste Fund receipts as
discretionary offsetting collections, in an amount equal to
appropriations from the Fund for authorized waste disposal activities.
This will address a technical budgetary problem that has acted as a
disincentive to adequate funding.
The Department's legislative proposal, the ``Nuclear Fuel
Management and Disposal Act'' was submitted to Congress after the date
of this hearing on April 6, 2006, and contains a provision to implement
this funding reform.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN REQUIREMENTS
Question. Administration witnesses have consistently testified that
it is important to move forward with the Yucca Mountain project
regardless of the outcome of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP). One of the reasons relates to defense waste.
How much defense waste is currently planned for permanent
disposition at Yucca Mountain?
Answer. The Department currently has approximately 2,500 metric
tons of defense spent fuel and 10,500 metric tons of defense high-level
radioactive waste. Because of the 70,000 metric tons statutory limit,
the Department currently plans to dispose of only 7,000 metric tons of
defense spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain.
Question. Under the current schedule when will this waste be ready
for shipment to Yucca?
Answer. Each Department of Energy site that manages spent fuel or
high-level waste destined for disposal in the repository will need to
place the waste into disposable canisters and load them into NRC
certified casks. For most sites, this has not yet occurred. These
canisters are designed to be transported in NRC certified casks to the
repository and be disposed in waste packages at Yucca Mountain.
Currently, Savannah River has waste that has been vitrified; Hanford
and Idaho have not yet vitrified their waste. Readiness to ship spent
nuclear fuel and high-level waste from each site is dependent on site
plans and schedules for high-level waste treatment, spent nuclear fuel
disposition and packaging activities, and the construction of cask
loading facilities. Current plans developed by the Office of
Environmental Management for each site are summarized in the table
below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Date of
Capability to Capability to
SITE Ship HLW Ship SNF
Canisters Canisters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Savannah River.......................... 2012 2015
Hanford Site............................ 2020 2018
Idaho National Lab...................... 2022 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. If Yucca were not available how would this waste be
handled?
Answer. If a repository were not built, the waste would continue to
be stored at the current sites.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROGRAM STATUS
Question. In the past year, a decision was made to redirect the
approach taken to fuel handling at the repository to a ``clean''
approach utilizing a single canister for transportation, aging and
disposal (TAD) package.
Please explain this new approach and its rationale.
Answer. We believe that the clean-canistered approach to receiving
commercial spent fuel will allow us to greatly simplify the licensing,
construction, and operation of the facilities at Yucca Mountain. With a
clean-canistered approach personnel will be handling primarily
canistered waste, not individual fuel assemblies as previously planned.
These canisters will provide another contamination barrier between the
worker and the waste. For example, when routine maintenance is required
in the canistered operating facilities, workers will not have to deal
with radiological contamination as they would with individual fuel
assembly handling operations.
The canistered approach will simplify the licensing and
construction of the repository, while easing complexities of Yucca
Mountain's post-construction operations. The new approach envisions
spent fuel being delivered to Yucca Mountain primarily in transport,
aging, and disposal (TAD) canisters which are then placed in a waste
package for emplacement. Handling of bare fuel will be limited and will
be accommodated by much smaller facilities. Switching to a primarily
clean facility plan will improve safety and operations and dramatically
improve the overall performance of Yucca Mountain operations.
Question. What impact has this redirection had on preparing the
license application?
Answer. To incorporate the new clean-canistered approach, we have
reviewed the existing designs for the repository surface facilities,
and have initiated efforts to redesign these facilities to incorporate
the benefits that result from the clean-canistered approach. We believe
that the redesigned surface facilities will be smaller, less costly,
and simpler to design, license, construct and operate. As a result, the
Department believes any additional time spent incorporating the clean-
canistered approach will be offset by reductions in the time required
to license and construct the repository facilities.
Question. Have you analyzed the impact that this redirection could
have on the timing and cost of license review, program construction and
operations?
Answer. As part of the critical decision process in the Department,
the program is required to provide a revised cost and schedule for the
program that incorporates the canister approach. That process is
expected to be completed and the revised cost and schedule provided to
the Secretary this summer.
INTERIM STORAGE AND REPROCESSING
Question. The Energy and Water Conference report for fiscal year
2006 provided the Department with funding to support the siting
selection process of interim storage and reprocessing facilities.
Communities would be provided $5 million to support a site development
plan and licensing strategy.
What is the status of this program? When will the Department
provide the funding support to these communities, and under what terms?
Answer. DOE issued a request for Expressions of Interest (EOI) in
the Federal Register on March 17, 2006, announcing its intention to
initiate a competition to conduct site evaluations to aid in selecting
one or more sites suitable for development of integrated recycling
facilities. The EOI sought information to assist in the preparation of
a solicitation for proposals to prepare site evaluation reports. A
total of 43 responses were received to the EOI.
The solicitation, planned for spring 2006, will be open to domestic
sources, public and private, and will encourage teaming and community
involvement. Proposals will be evaluated for 90 days, followed by the
selection of those proposals for which funding will be provided to
prepare a site evaluation report. Each of the resulting site evaluation
reports will be reviewed for potential inclusion as an alternative in
the EIS analysis for the GNEP Technology Demonstration Program (TDP).
DOE currently intends to solicit proposals only for non-DOE sites,
given that information relating to the identification of DOE sites for
potential inclusion as alternatives in the GNEP-TDP EIS is already
available to the Department. The potential sites will be evaluated, in
connection with the EIS process, and DOE currently anticipates that it
will make site location decisions in the summer 2008 following
completion of the EIS.
To evaluate the potential environmental impacts at candidate sites
for the demonstration facilities, DOE has taken steps to initiate the
preparation of an EIS for the GNEP-TDP. This process began with a March
22, 2006 Advance Notice of Intent (ANOI) which requested comments from
interested parties on the scope of the EIS, reasonable alternatives,
and other relevant information. Comments received will be used to
develop the Notice of Intent (NOI) and to assist DOE in completing the
EIS. The Draft EIS is scheduled to be completed by late spring, 2007
and the Final EIS by late spring, 2008. A Record of Decision (ROD) is
expected to be issued in summer 2008.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN--LICENSE APPLICATION
Question. Secretary Bodman testified that the Department
anticipates providing a new schedule for license application and
repository operations by early summer. The budget justification
materials indicate that among the tasks to be accomplished in fiscal
year 2007 is defending a license application to the NRC.
Does the budget request assume that a license application will
occur in fiscal year 2007, and if not, would the request need to be
adjusted?
Answer. No. The fiscal year 2007 budget request does not assume the
license application will be submitted in fiscal year 2007 and
accordingly does not need to be adjusted. The license defense
activities in fiscal year 2007 relate to preparation of the license
application, and include identifying and preparing information in an
acceptable format to submit to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
electronic hearing docket, which is an electronic information system
that will receive, distribute, store and retrieve docket materials for
licensing and proceedings. It also includes identification of expert
witnesses and preparation of information that may be needed to respond
to contentions raised by other parties to the licensing proceedings.
Prior to submitting the license application, the Department plans to
have in place procedures and processes to respond to NRC's requests for
additional information once the license application is submitted.
Recognizing that the NRC staff is only planning an 18-month review
period prior to the hearings, the Department needs to be able to
respond to Requests for Additional Information rapidly and
comprehensively. A thorough legal and regulatory review process,
combined with timely interactions with the NRC during the pre-
application period, will help the program develop a license application
that the NRC can docket, review and adjudicate in the 3-year period
required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Question. What is the Department's current estimate for the cost of
the rail line to Yucca Mountain?
Answer. The current estimate is approximately $2 billion for the
life cycle cost of the rail line to Yucca Mountain. The estimate is
specific to the Caliente rail corridor and includes the cost of
facilities related to rail operations. These facilities include sidings
and basic maintenance capability where the Nevada rail line connects to
existing mainline track, maintenance-of-way facilities along the track
and an end-of-line facility proximate to the repository. The Department
believes the cost of constructing rail access to the repository along
the Caliente corridor is still viable based on these considerations,
but is reviewing its ability to reduce the costs.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN REPOSITORY OPERATIONS
Question. Some degree of aging of fuel at the site before
emplacement in the repository has always been assumed.
What is your current thinking on fuel aging at Yucca and how might
it be accomplished?
Answer. Currently, our plans for spent fuel aging at Yucca Mountain
include several large above-ground aging pads. With the program's
change to the clean-canistered approach for transport, aging and
disposal (TAD) of spent fuel, it is expected that TAD-based storage
systems will be used for most of the required spent fuel aging. We
currently expect the license application will provide for aging
capacity in the range of 20,000 to 40,000 metric tons.
Question. Could the duration of fuel aging be influenced by
developments with GNEP?
Answer. Repository designs have consistently included aging
capability needed to allow the spent fuel received from the utility
sites to cool until it is suitable for permanent underground disposal.
These aging facilities are an integral part of our disposal operations.
Although Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) offers the promise of
development of recycling technologies over the next several decades,
there are no current plans to store existing spent fuel inventories for
possible recycling in the future. If commercial GNEP technologies are
proven feasible and eventually developed, repository operations may
need to be adjusted, as appropriate, to incorporate the benefits for
future inventories of spent fuel that GNEP processing might provide.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN CAPACITY
Question. Yucca Mountain currently has a legislated capacity limit
of 70,000 metric tons as set forth by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Based on technical factors alone, what is the physical capacity of
Yucca to accommodate spent fuel?
Answer. The environmental impact statement for the Yucca Mountain
repository in its cumulative impacts section evaluated the disposal of
approximately 120,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
waste. However, the actual physical capacity of Yucca Mountain is
exceeds that amount. The Department believes the physical capacity of
Yucca Mountain is at least adequate to dispose of the commercial and
DOE spent fuel and high-level waste that currently exists, and could
provide for the disposal of all the spent nuclear fuel from the
existing suite of nuclear plants with life extensions.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your holding this hearing to
review budgets of the Department of Energy's Office of Science, Office
of Nuclear Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Office of Environmental
Management as well as many other important accounts with the Department
of Energy. I want to join you in thanking the witnesses for being here
to provide testimony and answer questions.
I am pleased that the Department is continuing to look for
alternate and renewable sources of energy to correct the trend toward
unnecessary reliance on foreign sources of oil and gas. My State
continues to conduct research to develop cleaner and more efficient
sources of energy. After Hurricane Katrina, fuel costs rose as much as
$3 per gallon and finding diesel to transport necessities or to run the
electrical generators used to cool poultry production facilities became
a challenge. Our biodiesel suppliers provided this needed fuel which
proved not only to be a cleaner fuel, but a fuel that is a substitute
for foreign oil.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you this year on these
important accounts as well as the new American Competitiveness
Initiative and the Advanced Energy Initiative.
It is important to implement a regional approach to biomass
research because of the diversity of sources in the United States.
Biomass sources and techniques in Mississippi are much different than
the biomass opportunities available in the Midwest.
How do you perceive the Department's role in facilitating a
regional approach to research and development?
Answer. The Department has requested funding in fiscal year 2007 to
implement the concept of regional feedstock development partnerships.
We agree that the opportunities for biomass feedstocks development are
best approached regionally, because differences in soils, rainfall,
climate, agricultural land-use patterns, and established markets exist
at a regional level. Partnerships are needed because of the complexity
of feedstock issues that include basic and applied science to develop
the feedstock resources, infrastructure feedstock needs for
biorefineries including reliability, availability, and cost; and
sustainability issues as they pertain to resource development.
Partnership efforts will bring Federal funding together with the
biofuels production industry with the grower community and university
researchers to better define the actual resource on a regional and
local basis.
LOAN GUARANTEE
Question. One of the important loan guarantee programs authorized
under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 would encourage the
commercialization of projects which reduce air pollutants as well as
employ improved technologies in many areas such as renewable energy
systems, carbon capture, and advanced fossil energy technology. I
understand that the Department has not asked for funding for the loan
guarantee program or demonstration project authorized under Title 17.
What is the Department's view of this program and why was funding
not requested this year?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) is working to meet the
Secretary's previously-stated goal of accepting the first preliminary
applications for ``self-pay'' loan guarantees under Title XVII before
the end of fiscal year 2006. We are proceeding, but we are doing so
with no small measure of caution and prudence. The Department has
established a small loan guarantee office under the Department's Chief
Financial Officer. In implementing the program, we will follow the
Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA) and Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) guidelines, and we will emulate ``best practices'' of
other Federal agencies. Toward that end, we are drafting program
policies and procedures, establishing a credit review board, and are
planning to employ outside experts.
Title XVII authorizes DOE to issue loan guarantees for projects
that avoid, sequester, or reduce air pollutants and/or anthropogenic
emissions of greenhouse gases, and ``employ new or significantly
improved technologies as compared to commercial technologies in service
in the United States at the time the guarantee is issued.'' Section
1703(b) lists some specific categories of projects that are eligible
for these loan guarantees. Title XVII allows for project developers to
pay the subsidy cost of loan guarantees issued by DOE. While this
``self-pay'' mechanism may reduce the need for appropriations, it is
possible that the ultimate cost to the taxpayer could be significantly
higher than the cost of the subsidy cost estimate. To minimize this
possibility, DOE's evaluations of applications will entail rigorous
analysis and careful negotiation of terms and conditions.
FCRA contains a requirement that prevents us from issuing a loan
guarantee until we have authorization to do so in an appropriations
bill. We do not believe we have authority to proceed with an award
absent having the necessary explicit authorization in an appropriations
bill.
Question. What type of interest from researchers and the public has
the Department received regarding this newly authorized program?
Answer. The loan guarantee provisions in the Energy Policy Act of
2005 are generating a great deal of interest. The Department regularly
receives questions about every aspect of the loan guarantee program
from prospective project sponsors and other constituencies. The topics
of these questions range from the application and transaction closing
processes to the criteria for eligible projects.
Question. Has the Department received applications, from whom, and
for what projects? If not, when will the DOE be accepting applications
for ``self-pay'' loan guarantees, and how long does DOE anticipate it
will take to process an application?
Answer. Although the Department has received many inquiries about
loan guarantees, DOE has not received any applications for loan
guarantees.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is working to meet the Secretary's
previously stated goal of accepting the first preliminary applications
for ``self-pay'' loan guarantees under Title XVII before the end of
fiscal year 2006. We are proceeding, but we are doing so with no small
measure of caution and prudence. The Department has established a small
loan guarantee office under the Department's Chief Financial Officer.
In implementing the program, we will follow the Federal Credit Reform
Act of 1990 (FCRA) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
guidelines, and we will emulate ``best practices'' of other Federal
agencies. Toward that end, we are drafting program policies and
procedures, establishing a credit review board, and are planning to
employ outside experts.
Title XVII authorizes DOE to issue loan guarantees for projects
that avoid, sequester, or reduce air pollutants and/or anthropogenic
emissions of greenhouse gases, and ``employ new or significantly
improved technologies as compared to commercial technologies in service
in the United States at the time the guarantee is issued.'' Section
1703(b) lists some specific categories of projects that are eligible
for these loan guarantees. Title XVII allows for project developers to
pay the subsidy cost of loan guarantees issued by DOE. While this
``self-pay'' mechanism may reduce the need for appropriations, it is
possible that the ultimate cost to the taxpayer could be significantly
higher than the cost of the subsidy cost estimate. To minimize this
possibility, DOE's evaluations of applications will entail rigorous
analysis and careful negotiation of terms and conditions.
FCRA contains a requirement that prevents us from issuing a loan
guarantee until we have authorization to do so in an appropriations
bill. We do not believe we have authority to proceed with an award
absent having the necessary explicit authorization in an appropriations
bill.
Question. In working with Fischer-Tropsch technologies, does the
Department have suggestions on how to provide government assistance to
those companies who are interested in commercializing this technology?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) completed its successful
RD&D program on coal-to-liquids including related Fischer-Tropsch (FT)
technologies several years ago. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct
2005) authorizes new DOE and other assistance (e.g., investment tax
credits) to early commercial projects that employ FT technologies,
including loan guarantees under Title XVII.
The Department is working to meet the Secretary's previously-stated
goal of accepting the first preliminary applications for ``self-pay''
loan guarantees under Title XVII before the end of fiscal year 2006. We
are proceeding, but we are doing so with no small measure of caution
and prudence. The Department has established a small loan guarantee
office under the Department's Chief Financial Officer. In implementing
the program, we will follow the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990
(FCRA) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines, and we
will emulate ``best practices'' of other Federal agencies. Toward that
end, we are drafting program policies and procedures, establishing a
credit review board, and are planning to employ outside experts.
Title XVII authorizes DOE to issue loan guarantees for projects
that avoid, sequester, or reduce air pollutants and/or anthropogenic
emissions of greenhouse gases, and ``employ new or significantly
improved technologies as compared to commercial technologies in service
in the United States at the time the guarantee is issued.'' Section
1703(b) lists some specific categories of projects that are eligible
for these loan guarantees. Title XVII allows for project developers to
pay the subsidy cost of loan guarantees issued by DOE. While this
``self-pay'' mechanism may reduce the need for appropriations, it is
possible that the ultimate cost to the taxpayer could be significantly
higher than the cost of the subsidy cost estimate. To minimize this
possibility, DOE's evaluations of applications will entail rigorous
analysis and careful negotiation of terms and conditions.
FCRA contains a requirement that prevents us from issuing a loan
guarantee until we have authorization to do so in an appropriations
bill. We do not believe we have authority to proceed with an award
absent having the necessary explicit authorization in an appropriations
bill.
VEHICLE PROGRAMS
Question. The fiscal year 2007 budget request for Energy Supply and
Conservation Accounts supports development of a number of new energy
technologies, including programs that fund basic and applied research,
development, demonstration, and technical assistance. These efforts
promote the deployment of new technologies needed to support both
Hybrid Electric and Fuel Cell vehicle development under the FreedomCAR
program. Lightweight materials, electronic power control, electric
drive motors, and advanced energy storage devices are specifically
identified in the fiscal year 2007 budget as areas where Federal R&D
investment seeks to achieve technology breakthroughs.
Is it fair to state that the United States has fallen behind its
global competitors in the race to develop the next generation of Hybrid
Electric Vehicles (HEV) to meet projected consumer demand? How far
behind is the United States in developing next generation HEVs that
will ensure our competitiveness in this market?
Answer. No, we do not believe that the United States is lagging
behind any country from a next-generation perspective. The fiscal year
2007 presidential request reallocated vehicle funding program resources
to increase focus on plug-in hybrid electric vehicle research. Our
technological goals are ambitious, and progress to date is good. We
have seen pre-competitive advances in the reduction in the cost of the
next generation of batteries, as well as improvements in the cost and
performance of other essential components of HEVs. Other indicators of
progress include advances in the nickel metal hydride battery developed
through DOE-sponsored R&D. Work is underway to develop the high energy
batteries for plug-in HEVs, expected to keep the United States dominant
in this key area.
There is also a need to reduce the cost of HEV technology to
increase consumer acceptance. A recent poll indicated that over 50
percent of the American public desires HEVs, but believes they are too
costly (based on a telephone poll of 1,001 adults conducted March 10-12
and released April 10 by CNN/USA Today/Gallup). The FreedomCAR 2010
technology targets aim to resolve the issue of cost barriers. This goal
is shared by industry; for example, Toyota recently announced an effort
to reduce their HEV component costs by two-thirds in the same time
frame.
Question. Electronic power control is one of the activities for
which R&D investment has been targeted under the FreedomCAR program.
Has the program identified and documented the technical approaches that
have the most potential to provide radical improvements or
``breakthroughs'' in electronic power control for next generation HEVs?
If so, what are the potential breakthrough technologies?
Answer. We have identified and documented the technical approaches
for the next generation of hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), and feel
the potential breakthrough technologies for high-temperature operation
include wide bandgap materials, advanced packaging, and high-
temperature capacitors. Silicon Carbide (SiC) is the only wide bandgap
material currently available to produce useable power devices. Ongoing
research and development efforts are focused on these technologies. In
fiscal year 2007 we anticipate funding efforts to build an all SiC
inverter and a high-temperature DC/DC converter. A new solicitation is
also planned in fiscal year 2007 to seek other alternative, high-
temperature technologies.
Question. Which of these potential breakthrough technologies in
electronic power controls have the greatest potential to accelerate
U.S. efforts to develop the next generation HEVs?
Answer. The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership's Electrical and
Electronics Technical Team has identified the cost, weight, and volume
targets and reliability requirements to help make HEVs a cost-
competitive choice for consumers. Meeting these targets would require
improvements over current technologies to reduce weight and volume by a
factor of two and cost by a factor of four. Power electronics capable
of operating at ambient temperatures of 200 C would likely require
silicon carbide (SiC) devices, and high-temperature packaging to enable
high-temperature operation. These technologies are the highest priority
research need for the next generation HEVs. The fiscal year 2007 budget
supports continued research to address these challenges.
Question. Would the successful development of air-cooled vehicle-
class power electronics at a vastly accelerated pace provide the kind
of ``breakthrough'' that would allow the United States to catch up with
our global competitors? If so, what are the most promising and highest
priority technologies for air-cooled vehicle-class power electronics to
which additional investment should be targeted?
Answer. Air-cooled power electronics offer the potential to meet
the targets and requirements for size, weight, cost, volume, and
reliability to make hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) an economic choice
for large numbers of consumers. Simply accelerating the pace of power
electronics development is not the only technology breakthrough
required to successfully market this technology. Automakers have yet to
demonstrate air-cooled HEV technologies for high-power traction drives
in consumer vehicles. Success in this area would allow an automobile
manufacturer to leap-frog current HEV vehicles.
The most promising and highest priority technologies in sequential
order are air-cooled inverters, high-temperature DC/DC converters, and
the functional integration of inverters and converters to allow sharing
of components. The fiscal year 2007 budget request will fund research
and development efforts to build an all-silicon carbide (SiC) inverter
and a high-temperature converter. Research and development of the
functional integration of a high-temperature inverter/converter is
planned for fiscal year 2007.
Question. Has Wide Bandgap Silicone Carbide technology been
identified as a potential breakthrough technology for air-cooled
vehicle-class power electronics? If so, what would its successful
insertion into the air-cooled vehicle-class power electronics program
mean for the United States in the global competition?
Answer. Yes, wide bandgap technology, such as silicon carbide
(SiC), is one of several enabling technologies required to achieve a
breakthrough in air-cooled power electronics for hybrid electric
vehicles (HEVs), plug-in hybrid vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles.
Current HEV technologies exceed the weight and volume targets by a
factor of two, and exceed the cost target by a factor of four. Success
with SiC technology alone, however, will not guarantee successful
development of cost effective air-cooled devices. An air-cooled
inverter offers the potential to reduce the size and weight of an
inverter by 75 percent when compared to the current HEV technology. It
also offers the potential for the inverter to meet the FreedomCAR cost
target, with greatly improved reliability.
Question. What are your internal estimates of the potential, in
terms of accelerating the schedule, if this technology were
successfully demonstrated as an R&D breakthrough in the air-cooled
vehicle-class power electronics? Would 3 to 5 years be a reasonable
estimate? Does the current budget for ``electronic power control'' R&D
provide sufficient funding to evaluate the potential breakthrough
technologies, such as Wide Bandgap Silicone Carbide, that may provide
the greatest potential for restoring U.S. leadership in the development
of next generation HEVs?
Answer. The current budget for power electronics research and
development provides sufficient funding to evaluate, research, and
develop the technologies necessary for the next generation of hybrid
electric vehicles (HEVs), including those required for high-temperature
operation such as silicon carbide (SiC). The potential to accelerate
the schedule and produce technology solutions in a 3- to 5-year period
exists due to the combined government and industry efforts to advance
SiC and other high-temperature components and devices required for next
generation HEVs. There is increasing interest among firms that produce
and use SiC devices in power electronics, and it is highly likely that
the development schedule could be accelerated by appropriate teaming of
suppliers, national laboratories, universities, and U.S. automakers.
The DOE FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership solicitation planned for late
fiscal year 2006 is intended to stimulate the formation of such teams.
Question. Given the growing consumer acceptance for HEVs and the
global competition in the HEV marketplace, has the FreedomCAR program
assessed what it will mean to the United States, if we fail to regain
our leadership in the critical R&D needed for the next generation of
HEVs? Is there a concern that it will leave North American automotive
manufacturing uncompetitive in price and technology?
Answer. Achievement of the 2010 FreedomCAR goals and the program's
subsequent R&D will help assure that our domestic industry partners can
successfully compete in both the United States and the world markets.
One central objective of our 2010 goals is reducing the cost of HEV
components so that the vehicle manufacturing cost allows them to be
offered at prices competitive with standard vehicles.
Question. Please provide estimates of the additional Federal R&D
investment that would be required to insert the highest priority
potential breakthrough technologies for Advanced Power.
Answer. The Department's fiscal year 2007 budget request provides
adequate funding to support research and development of hybrid electric
and fuel cell propulsion technologies under the FreedomCAR and Fuel
Partnership Program. It has been appropriately apportioned to address
the technology challenges associated with the development of next
generation hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) with wide consumer
acceptance.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
Question. Mr. Garman, in response to my question to you regarding
the administration's cuts to the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI),
you indicated that the Department of Energy had $500 million in un-
obligated funds available. Where, specifically, in the Department of
Energy are these un-obligated funds? What account? And, once
identified, will the administration ask that these funds be re-
programmed to the CCPI and other commitments in the President's
Advanced Coal Research Initiative?
Answer. The un-obligated funds are in the CCPI and the original
Clean Coal Technology Demonstration accounts and represent funds that
have been formally committed to projects competitively selected under
CCPI (and the predecessor programs, namely the Clean Coal Technology
Demonstration and the Power Plant Improvement Initiative programs) that
are either in negotiations for awards or projects that have been
awarded but have not yet been completed. The structure of CCPI projects
is such that some amount of un-obligated funds remains on projects
until they enter their final budget phase. The Department is working to
withdraw funds from projects in the CCPI and Clean Coal Technology
accounts that are not going forward. The Department is also working to
change CCPI contract provisions and other processes to strengthen its
ability in the future to withdraw funds from stalled projects. If a
project does not go forward and the Department withdraws funds, then
the available funds will be put towards a future CCPI solicitation.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
Question. Last year Congress passed legislation, at my request that
authorized the Secretary of Energy to purchase essential mineral rights
at Rocky Flats. This authority was provided for 1 year. I understand
that minimal progress has been made so far.
What is the Department of Energy's plan for purchasing the
essential mineral right at Rocky Flats? When do you expect this
transaction to be completed?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE), in partnership with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Natural Resources Trustees
(Trustees), has established and is currently executing a plan for
purchasing the essential mineral rights at Rocky Flats.
The acquisition strategy for the mineral rights will be conducted
in two phases. First, the Trust for Public Lands (TPL), a nonprofit
group specializing in real estate acquisitions for Federal Government
entities, will purchase the mineral rights from willing owners at fair
market value, and will perform any appraisal updates required. In the
second phase, these rights will be purchased by the DOE, with the funds
provided in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2006.
At this time, TPL, DOE, and USFWS are finalizing a letter of
agreement, stipulating the process for contacting willing sellers and
ascertaining fair market values.
DOE and the USFWS fully expect to accomplish the acquisition of
mineral rights well within the timeline mandated by Congress, and in
harmony with the local stakeholder community.
Question. With regard to Environmental Management funding, why
didn't the Department of Energy take the money it saved at Rocky Flats
and use it to accelerate clean-up at other sites?
Answer. Prior to fiscal year 2001, the Department of Energy's (DOE)
Environmental Management funding strategy was that as sites such as
Rocky Flats completed cleanup, and their funding requirements
decreased, those savings would be made available to other sites.
However, beginning in fiscal year 2003, as part of the administration's
Accelerated Cleanup Initiative, increased funding was provided to
accelerate cleanup at most sites, rather than waiting until cleanup at
sites such as Rocky Flats was completed. This allowed the DOE to
address its urgent risks sooner and to accelerate cleanup.
Question. To what extent is DOE using contract mechanisms similar
to those used at Rocky Flats to incentivize the contractor to achieve
greater performance? What can we do to further encourage the
accelerated clean-up of other sites?
Answer. The contract mechanisms used at Rocky Flats were part of a
successful three-pronged management strategy. The first element used
contract devices designed to provide incentives to the contractor to
complete site closure within targeted costs and schedules. Second, it
included application of innovative technologies and development of
regulatory agreements that focused on end states. Third, it involved
extensive stakeholder participation. The Department of Energy (DOE)
currently is using the same elements employed at Rocky Flats for the
Mound, Fernald, Columbus, and Oak Ridge projects.
The DOE is using its lessons learned from the Rocky Flats project
to accelerate cleanup efforts at its other sites. It is transferring
Rocky Flats personnel to support closure at other sites and is
providing lessons-learned seminars to managers at other sites. The DOE
also developed and is widely disseminating lessons-learned documents
and a digital video disk explaining its cleanup and closure successes.
The DOE continues to examine its cleanup work at each of the
Environmental Management sites to identify areas where an accelerated
approach is feasible.
The former Rocky Flats weapons contractors (Dow and Rockwell) and
the property owners near Rocky Flats have been engaged in a protracted
legal battle over whether these property owners should be compensated
for the damage caused by the environmental contamination at Rocky
Flats. Last February, a jury awarded the property owners an incredible
sum of over $550 million in damages. I understand the contractors are
now appealing this decision. It seems to me that only people who are
benefiting from this battle are the lawyers who so far have taken $100
million in legal fees. And, because Dow and Rockwell are indemnified by
the Federal Government, the real losers are the American taxpayers.
Question. To what extent is DOE trying to settle this case? Is
there any evidence that suggests that these properties suffered
extensive contamination?
Answer. An appeal has not yet been filed in this case because a
judgment has not yet been entered. One reason for that is that the
jury's verdict needs to be adjusted by the court to eliminate
duplicative damages and punitive damages that are in excess of what
Colorado law allows. When a judgment is entered, it should be for
substantially less than the $550 million figure that has been reported.
It is also not the case that the legal fees that have so far been
incurred in this litigation amount to $100 million. That said, this
litigation has clearly already been very costly for the American
taxpayers, and if an adverse judgment were to be upheld on appeal the
taxpayers will be, as your question says, the ``real losers.'' Prior to
the trial in this case we were advised that the plaintiffs would be
willing to consider settling their claims for approximately $100
million. We believed then that a settlement anywhere near that amount
could not be justified and, notwithstanding the jury's verdict, that
remains our view. In part, this is because there is no evidence that
properties in the vicinity of Rocky Flats suffered extensive
contamination. Just last year the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) issued a report concluding that the ``studies
and sampling data generated by numerous parties, including the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) and its contractors and local community groups, universities and
private researchers . . . paint a consistent picture of the public
health implications of environmental contamination'' near Rocky Flats,
and that picture is that ``past, current and future exposures are below
levels associated with adverse health effects.'' In fact, ATSDR
reported that ``estimated total exposures to radiation from the soil .
. . are 3,000 times lower than the average exposures to ionizing
radiation experienced by United States residents.''
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
Question. In fiscal year 2005, this committee generously approved
my request to increase funding for cleanup at the Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion Plant to accelerate the disposal of legacy waste and
decommissioning activities at the site. Can you update the committee on
how those funds have been used and what progress has been made in
accelerating these projects?
Answer. The following progress has been realized to date at the
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant:
Legacy Waste Disposal Acceleration
The Department of Energy (DOE) disposed of more than 1,900 drums
(over 1,000,000 pounds) of stored uranium by-products in fiscal year
2006, accelerating this action by more than 2 years.
DOE accelerated by 3 years the disposal of more than 24,000 cubic
feet of low-level radioactive waste which is stored outside.
Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D) Acceleration
The C-410-A Hydrogen Holder Tank has been completely removed, 8
years ahead of the original schedule.
The characterization and disposal of waste located in three DOE
Material Storage Areas (DMSA) is ahead of the original schedule and is
expected to be completed in fiscal year 2006. More than 80 percent of
the targeted waste has been processed and the outside DMSA has been
completely emptied.
The C-603 Nitrogen Facility removal is complete with the exception
of a small amount of residual waste. This project was accelerated by
approximately 5 years.
The C-402 Lime House removal is on schedule for completion in
fiscal year 2006, 2 years early. A streamlined regulatory approval
process was implemented in cooperation with the State and Federal
regulators.
A project to remove the C-405 Incinerator is undergoing final
regulatory approval with actual decontamination and decommissioning
(D&D) scheduled to begin in late fiscal year 2006 and be completed in
fiscal year 2007. This schedule is an acceleration of approximately 3
years.
DOE is also working to get final approval from the regulators to
remove the C-746-A West-End Smelter. The D&D should begin in early
fiscal year 2007 and will be complete in fiscal year 2007, 2 years
ahead of schedule.
I remain concerned by the continuing delays in the construction of
the Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF<INF>6</INF>) conversion facility
at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Congress has twice enacted
legislation I authored to make sure this project moves forward in a
safe and expeditious manner. This committee has met or exceeded funding
requests for this project in each fiscal year. Yet in its fiscal year
2007 budget justification, DOE again pushes the construction completion
date back to November of 2007 and to start operations in the spring of
2008.
Question. What are the reasons for the delays? What assurances can
the Department offer this committee that it will be able to meet this
deadline? Given that one of the deadlines DOE has met on this project
was the statutory deadline to begin construction by July 31, 2004, does
Congress need to legislate a mandatory date for start of operations?
Answer. On September 30, 2005, the Deputy Secretary approved the
Project Performance Baseline and Start of Construction for the depleted
uranium hexafluoride (DUF<INF>6</INF>) project with commencement of
operations projected for April 2008. Previous schedules were based on
conceptual and preliminary designs that had not been validated by the
Department of Energy (DOE), unlike the current approved schedule which
is based upon the final conversion facility design. The need to adjust
the original schedule reflects the considerable uncertainty associated
with large construction projects during early design stages. DOE has
high confidence in the new schedule now that the design is complete.
The schedule includes 4 months of schedule extension necessary to
incorporate design and fabrication activities to achieve greater
assurance of safety for chemical operations during natural phenomena
events, such as earthquakes or high wind events. The schedule also
includes 5 months of contingency to account for unexpected events, to
give DOE the confidence in our commitment to this approved baseline.
Schedule contingency was not included in previous schedules.
Since approval of the Project Baseline in September 2005, we have
seen continuous progress at the site, including construction of the
conversion buildings and steady progress on the warehouse/maintenance
and administration buildings. The major construction is more than 35
percent complete. Equipment procurement contracts for about 75 percent
of the major equipment have been awarded, totaling more than $70
million. In addition, approximately $60 million in subcontracts for
construction and fabrication have been awarded to date. We are
committed to our schedule, and to commence operations in a manner that
is safe and protective of the community.
Question. Like many members of the Paducah community, I am
concerned about the economic impact of the plant possibly ceasing
enrichment operations in 2010. In its fiscal year 2007 budget
justification. DOE notes that portions of the Paducah site ``will be
used to promote the development of private-sector enterprises in ways
that are consistent with and complementary to current site missions''.
Given that the Paducah has a skilled workforce and an acceptance of
nuclear operations not found in other parts of the country, has the
Department identified what those sorts of ``private-sector
enterprises'' might be?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) is not conducting re-
industrialization activities at the Paducah site. The availability of
this large cleaned-up industrial site is expected to be promoted as an
attractive resource by the community in its long-term industrial
development after DOE has completed cleanup. DOE anticipates that its
final cleanup activities will support future community private sector
development initiatives.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Mr. Garman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. We stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., Thursday, March 30, the subcom-
mittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the
Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2007
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:40 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Domenici, Craig, Bond, Allard, Murray,
Dorgan, and Landrieu.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
STATEMENT OF JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. The hearing will please come to order.
Because of schedule problems, we are going to let some Senators
speak out of order. Senator Bond would like to make an opening
statement at this point. I yield to you, Senator.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND
Senator Bond. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for your
kind courtesies.
Mr. Woodley, we have had long discussions about the need
for locks on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, and one of
these days I hope we will have an authorization coming out of
our Environment and Public Works Committee which will allow
this committee to do the vitally important work it should do in
funding our vitally needed Nation's infrastructure.
I have here in my hand an article from the Wall Street
Journal which I would share with you and those with whom you
discuss. It's called ``As Utilities Seek More Coal, Railroads
Struggle to Deliver.'' It reports that their shipping fees are
going up a reported 20 to 50 percent. The Department of
Transportation predicts that commercial shipping volume over
the next 20 years will increase by 70 percent. Most people, at
least outside Washington, recognize the bulk commercial freight
cannot be emailed, so transportation capacity is an issue that
will demand leadership, and the sooner the better.
Last month Secretary Johans of the Department of
Agriculture, Deputy Connor, and Chief Economist Dr. Keith
Collins testified before the Appropriations Committee. Mr.
Woodley, if you and your team are not routinely in touch with
Collins I would be very disappointed. Dr. Collins has been
Chief Economist or in that office serving at least four or five
presidents.
He testified again that any 50-year study is highly
speculative, noting that even the 10-year forecasts USDA does
are speculative and that 10 years is heroic enough. However, he
is clear that they do not see stalled or dwindling or flat
export activity through the gulf. In fact, he said they see a
substantial increase, in testimony previously he said 40 to 45
percent in corn alone, and he sees a good long-term market for
grains and oilseeds in the world and he noted that having
efficient infrastructure will help make that possible.
As we all know, the demand for goods, agricultural goods,
one item transported on the rivers, depends upon
transportation. In good years ag exports exceed imports by $30
billion, bringing great economic boost to the breadbasket of
America as well as helping our balance of payments.
Secretary Johans agreed firmly that the existing lock
system, built 70 years ago, has proved an important and wise
investment and that should be obvious even to the fiercest
opponents of commercial shipping.
Mr. Woodley, with help of able staff I want to introduce
you to Major Charles L. Hall, Rock Island Engineer from 1927 to
1930. He advised President Hoover and Congress in 1929 that the
proposed system, the one which currently exists on the
Mississippi River, was not economically feasible and argued
that ``limited barge traffic did not indicate that a viable
barge industry would develop.'' Fortunately, President Hoover
and the Congress ignored the advice and President Hoover said
modernization would ``put the rivers back as great arteries as
commerce after a half century of paralysis.''
Now, with 80 million tons moved annually and two-thirds of
our exported grain moving through that system, it is clear that
the Congress and President Hoover were wise to ignore the
expert advice of Major Hall. I suspect and fear that the Major
may have a grandchild working dutifully somewhere, maybe at the
Office of Management and Budget.
So I ask that you let history help inform your future
decisions and that you consider that we must not only try to
predict the future, but shape the future. In some cases,
opinions of experts deserve to be very strongly considered just
before they are very thoroughly rejected. I believe that some
80 members of the Senate believe that we should pass a Water
Resources Development Act which will enable my good friend the
outstanding chairman to act appropriately in this subcommittee.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your comments.
Senator Domenici. Well, I thank you for your comments, and
I just want to ask you, since you are one of the proponents,
and quite properly and appropriately, of the WRDA bill, what is
your--in 2 minutes, what is holding it up?
Senator Bond. Initially there were objections from the
Office of Management and Budget. We had an opportunity to go
above their heads to policymakers who have a broader
perspective and they agreed that the Office of Management and
Budget would not threaten a veto. Currently there are, as I
said, 80 signatures on a letter to the Republican and
Democratic leaders saying that we need to move the bill. There
are still holds in the Senate from people who want us to go
back to the horse and buggy days and rely on overcrowded
railroads and tremendously crowded highways to ship not only
grain for the export market, but the tremendous amount of
commercial commodities.
Senator Domenici. Those are Senators?
Senator Bond. Those are Senators.
Senator Domenici. We do not know who they are at this point
and you cannot get them released. We are stuck.
Senator Bond. We intend to do everything we can and ask the
leaders to call for a vote if the holds are not relieved and
not pay attention to the holds, and we hope that the Office of
Management and Budget will not follow Major Hall and have a
last minute reconversion to their opposition.
Senator Domenici. All right.
Senator Bond. Thank you, sir.
Senator Domenici. Having said that, the Democrats are
present. When I opened they were not. I apologize for that. It
was only 3 minutes, Senator, and then you came.
I am not going to have any opening statements. I think we
are going to run out of time. Any opening statements desired on
your side? I knew Senator Bond had to say something or else we
would have a----
Senator Dorgan. Did he talk about the Missouri River
management? If so, I will have an opening statement.
Senator Domenici. No.
Senator Dorgan. If not, I will not.
Senator Domenici. No. But I knew if I did not----
Senator Bond. I will be sure and cc you.
Senator Domenici. I knew if I did not let him speak the way
he wanted to we would have problems.
How about over here?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief
statement.
Senator Domenici. Let us do it.
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank
you for holding the hearing. The Corps of Engineers does a
great deal for the country, as well as for Colorado, but I must
express my disappointment with the fact that funding to
complete the Fountain Creek watershed study was not included in
the President's proposed budget again this year. The study was
originally contracted at $2.9 million with a 50 percent
Federal, 50 percent local funding split. The locals have long
ago put in over $1.4 million, but the Federal Government has
not lived up to its side of the bargain.
In what should be the final year of the study, it mystifies
me why the Corps did not place enough value on the study to
include it in the budget request. But I will have questions on
that later on, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your tolerance.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
On the Democrats' side, Senator Mary Landrieu.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement for the
record, but I do want to say that I will come back after the
vote. I have a series of questions that really do need answers
today based on the situation that we are facing in the gulf
coast and some charts I want to share with you, Mr. Chairman,
and the committee about the backlog of current projects.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing to review the
President's budget for the Army Corps of Engineers.
Before I comment on any specific budget matters, I wish to express
my appreciation for being a member of this subcommittee. Its
jurisdiction over both energy and water are matters of monumental
concern to my State of Louisiana, the Gulf Coast, and our Nation. Now
is a critical time for action on these issues.
Because of these monumental issues and because of the relationships
with you and Senator Reid that we have built, I sincerely look forward
to working with both of you. I appreciate the time that each of you
have taken over the years to join me in Louisiana to see the Nation's
worst coastal erosion as well as successful projects such as the SELA
flood control project.
For many years, Congress has received the administration's request
for funding for the Civil Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers
and has increased this request. In recent years, Congress has
appropriated approximately 10 percent to 15 percent more funding. Once
again, the administration has requested less funding for fiscal year
2007 for the Corps than was provided by Congress for the current fiscal
year.
Simply stated, the administration's fiscal year 2007 budget request
for the Corps puts the Nation at risk, and we cannot be complacent.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita shred that curtain of complacency and gave
the Nation a look at the inadequate infrastructure as it relates to
water management and flood protection. We must act.
Underfunding infrastructure puts our Nation at risk. Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita exposed this risk. These storms were not the real
culprits. Instead, the real culprit was the failure to fund a levee
system that would have protected us against hurricanes such as these.
This failure caused the deaths of more than 1,000 people in
Louisiana alone. More than 215,000 homes were destroyed with thousands
more damaged. Countless businesses, churches, and schools were wiped
out. The cost of recovering from this levee failure will be hundreds of
billions of dollars. The cost will be far more than it would have cost
to build the infrastructure that would have prevented this catastrophic
loss.
The impact of the administration's inadequate Corps funding
requests are also felt throughout the Nation on vital projects causing
a delay in their completion and resulting benefits. Many of these
projects are physically located in Louisiana but greatly impact the
entire Nation.
For example, numerous hurricane protection and flood control
projects in Louisiana are intended to protect millions of Americans
living in coastal Louisiana. These projects are also intended to
protect energy infrastructure that supplies oil and gas throughout the
Nation.
The existing backlog of authorized projects combined with the WRDA
authorizations currently under consideration amount to more than $50
billion. Yet, the administration asks for only $1.5 billion for
construction in fiscal year 2007. At this pace, it will take at least
35 years to construct the backlog of projects assuming no inflation and
no new projects are added during that time.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita showed that we have not provided enough
funding for levees and pumps. The current cost of recovering from the
destruction caused by these storms shows that it is more expensive to
pay for re-building than for prevention.
Another component of protecting Louisiana and the Nation is the
coastal restoration effort to save America's Wetland.
The Louisiana Coastal Area comprises one of the Nation's largest
expanses of coastal wetlands. As an environmental treasure, it supports
a diverse collection of migratory birds, fish, and other species. As a
productive natural asset, the Louisiana Coastal Area supports an
extensive energy infrastructure network responsible for an estimated 20
percent of our Nation's energy and provides over 20 percent of the
seafood consumed in the United States. Additionally, offshore oil and
gas production off of Louisiana's coast is one of the U.S. Treasury's
largest revenue sources. This production contributes approximately $6
billion a year to the Federal Government, and this amount is rising.
Despite these significant national contributions made by the
Louisiana Coastal Area and its resulting standing as America's Wetland,
it accounts for 90 percent of the Nation's total coastal marsh loss.
This destruction puts all of its national benefits at risks.
Accordingly, the Corps along with the State of Louisiana has been
engaged in the development of a comprehensive coastal restoration plan.
Hopefully, implementation of this plan will begin soon, and this
Congress will provide the Corps with the funding necessary to do the
job. I will continue to work with all of you toward achieving this
vital goal.
Another example of a project physically located in Louisiana having
national implications is the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) lock
project. This project at the Port of New Orleans was wrongly zeroed out
in the President's budget. Congress first authorized the replacement of
this lock in 1956! It is a project of national significance that
impacts trade in over 25 States on a daily basis. In fact, over 16
million tons of cargo move through this lock each year. Additionally,
its completion directly relates to closing the Mississippi River Gulf
Outlet which has destroyed more than 27,000 acres of wetland and
thereby eliminated a hurricane buffer to metro New Orleans.
In closing, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita show us that we must invest
more in our infrastructure. We either heed their warning or peril.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your continued leadership on
the Nation's water issues. I look forward to the testimony of our
witnesses and the opportunity to question them when appropriate.
Senator Domenici. Senator Craig.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent
that my full statement be a part of the record, but I want to
recognize when a job well done is well done and completed, and
I want to thank the Corps for their completing of the channel
improvement project on the Snake River between Idaho and
Washington. Critical importance to the aid of transportation in
that region. I want to thank you for the work done.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Your statement is made a part of the
record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Larry Craig
First, I want to take a moment and thank all of those in the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers who have served their country in Iraq. I also
want to commend those who served their fellow Americans in the wake of
devastating hurricanes. It has been a trying year for many, and I
appreciate the support you have provided those in need.
I also want to thank the Army Corps of Engineers for all the work
they have done in many of our rural communities to get drinking and
wastewater infrastructure updated. In my State, rural water
infrastructure is an increasing need, with many rural communities
struggling with funding and expertise to fulfill their responsibility
of providing safe and reliable drinking water. As infrastructure
continues to age and water quality standards rise, an agency like the
Corps becomes more and more vital, and I hope to continue working with
the Corps to see our water infrastructure meets the appropriate
standards.
Additionally, I want to thank the Corps for completing the channel
improvement project on the Snake River between Idaho and Washington.
This project has aided farmers by providing a safe, efficient means of
shipping to meet demands, not only for our country, but also other
countries as well. As gas prices continue to rise and roads become
increasingly crowded, barges will serve as a critical and efficient
means of transporting commodities, and I will continue working with the
Corps on similar projects.
I have a couple of concerns, one of which is the change in the
Corps' budgeting practices. In the past, the Corps enjoyed considerable
flexibility and were able to reprogram funds fairly easily, but with
the changes, that will no longer be the case. At the appropriate time,
I'll have a question about that issue.
I look forward to hearing your testimony.
Senator Domenici. Senator.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to welcome
Secretary Woodley and General Strock. Thank you for your
testifying today. I think what happened in the last few months
in Senator Landrieu's State and elsewhere really showed all of
us how important the work is you do and how important it is
that we maintain that.
I want to compliment you for the three district offices
that operate in my State. We have a really varied landscape
when it comes to Corps projects. We have got hydroelectric,
flood control, navigation, irrigation, and the Army Corps work
is really essential to our economy and to our ability to
maintain the critical infrastructure in our community. We have
the Portland District that is maintaining the Columbia River
dredging and the jetties, repairs to the jetties, critical for
safety. The Seattle District is working on some really complex
flooding issues and the Walla-Walla District is providing some
really important engineering expertise for us for the waste
treatment plant out of Hanford.
So I want to compliment you on that work, but I just want
to say I have another hearing, but I want to say publicly I am
deeply concerned about the investment to our infrastructure, to
the Corps. We have got to do better than what we have been
presented, because we have to continue, as I think the Senator
from Louisiana well knows, to maintain the critical
infrastructure we have and to make the important investments in
our Nation's future. So I will join with all of you in working
towards that direction.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Very well. Thank you.
Well, I have a long analytical statement that, it would not
help here. The atmosphere has been so nice that it would make
things look very, very bad. Just suffice it to say that I think
the way you handled the budgeting is a mess, and I do not think
that you can expect us to do it the way you recommended.
You are short of money and we know that. The President did
not fund--did not put in as much as we need. But the way you
went around, went about trying to make the money work in my
opinion has made matters worse. So do not look for us, for it
coming out the way you recommended. It is going to come out,
but with no damage, we hope.
My statement and Senator Cochran's statement will be made
part of the record.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Pete V. Domenici
Good afternoon--the hearing will come to order.
Today, the subcommittee will take testimony on the fiscal year 2007
budget request for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Our panel will consist of witnesses from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
Testifying for them will be: John Paul Woodley, Principle Deputy,
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, and Lieutenant General
Carl A. Strock, Chief of Engineers for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
Mr. Woodley, General Strock, thank you for appearing before us
today.
The President's budget for the Corps of Engineers proposes $4.73
billion, which is $596 million below the fiscal year 2006 enacted of
$5.33 billion after rescission.
PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING
The Corps' budget was again prepared using performance-based
budgeting. I have several concerns with developing the budget in this
manner. This method seems to concentrate budget development at OMB
rather than at the District level where it belongs.
Again for fiscal year 2007, the Remaining Benefits to Remaining
Costs Ratio is the primary criteria for prioritizing funding decisions.
There does seem to be more of an effort to ensure obvious national
priorities were not overlooked, but no attempt to capture traditional
items of importance to Congress.
For example, no attention has been given to workforce distribution
in project selection. Congress has repeatedly demonstrated a desire for
a geographically diverse Corps of Engineers organization. In order to
maintain that distribution, a suite of projects needs to be selected to
maintain the workforce at a stable level. The budget request does not
consider this factor.
PROJECT SUSPENSIONS
The administration has budgeted $41.4 million to suspend/terminate
10 construction projects that have been budgeted in the past in order
to redirect resources to complete high-priority projects. However the
532 projects and studies that were included in the fiscal year 2006
Energy and Water Act are not addressed by the fiscal year 2007 Budget
Request. It is as if termination of these items are either free or
Congress's problem. I believe when the President signs an appropriation
bill, all of those studies and projects become the joint property of
the administration and Congress. Treating Congressional priorities
differently will lead to consequences.
MAJOR ISSUES BY APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT
The General Investigations account is a disaster. Of the $94
million requested, only $16.7 million is provided for ongoing study
efforts nationwide. This compares to $102 million in the current fiscal
year.
The budget request shifts projects totaling $342 million from the
Construction, General account to the Operations and Maintenance,
General account. Beach renourishment due to navigation impacts,
Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance, beneficial use of dredged
material and major rehabilitations are the categories of the items
shifted.
A large portion of the shifted funds is Endangered Species Act
compliance items. An example is Columbia River Fish Mitigation. In
fiscal year 2006 this was an $85 million CG line item. In fiscal year
2007, it is distributed across eight O&M projects for the Columbia
River. There is no easy way to determine how much funding is for these
mitigation activities and how much is for O&M. It is all considered
O&M.
The other category of funding shifted to O&M is for major
rehabilitations of locks and dams. Gentlemen, I have been around long
enough to remember when these projects were funded in the O&M account.
We moved them to the Construction, General Account and allowed half the
costs to come from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund because they were not
being sufficiently budgeted in O&M. Now, because of the backlog in the
CG account, you are proposing to move them back to O&M. Why not try
budgeting sufficient funding for them rather than playing three-card
monte?
There were a couple of increases proposed in your budget for fiscal
year 2007.
The budget proposes $173 million for the Regulatory Program versus
$158 million enacted after rescission, a 9.5 percent increase. This
account has increased from $117 million since fiscal year 2000, by far
the largest percentage growth in any Corps account over the same
period, yet complaints about permits seem to be on the rise. I have
been made aware several issues in New Mexico over the last 3 months.
General Strock, you and I will need to have further discussions about
this at another time.
The General Expenses account traditionally funds the Corps
Headquarters and Division offices is proposed at $164 million, a 7.9
percent increase. However, this includes $6 million for the Office of
the Assistant Secretary of the Army. When you compare the fiscal year
2006 enacted General Expenses of $152 million to the fiscal year 2007
proposal of $158 million, it is only a 3.9 percent increase.
Secretary Woodley, I understand that this $2 million increase in
your budget over the fiscal year 2006 enacted of $4 million is to cover
joint costs previously covered by the Department of the Army.
As you are aware, this office was funded in a separate account in
the fiscal year 2005 and 2006 Energy and Water Acts. Prior to fiscal
year 2005, your office was funded in the Defense Army OMA account. I
think we should look at moving funding for your office back to the
Defense Army OMA account due to your other duties as Assistant
Secretary in addition to the Corps Civil Works Program.
You should know that I will oppose the regionalization of the O&M
budget for fiscal year 2007. This method of displaying O&M effectively
disguises the underfunding of O&M projects and allows the Corps the
ability to freely move funds around. It appears that you invented a
whole new way to aggregate and appropriate O&M just so you could get
around the Congress's fiscal year 2006 reprogramming guidance.
The fact that you went to this much trouble in this budget proposal
demonstrates our need to seriously reexamine reprogramming guidance as
we prepare the fiscal year 2007 bill.
Finally, we will need to revisit contracting and reprogramming
issues for fiscal year 2007. It is clear to me, that the language
agreed to in fiscal year 2006 is not improving the management of the
Civil Works program. If anything, it appears to be hindering getting
work accomplished.
Secretary Woodley, General Strock, your full statements will be
made a part of the record. I would ask that you summarize your
statements.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing and thank the
witnesses for their willingness to appear today before the Energy and
Water Subcommittee.
While I understand that this hearing is being held to consider the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2007, I must mention at the
outset the good work of the Corps of Engineers in my home State of
Mississippi in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. I know there have been
some concerns over the speed with which the Corps has had debris
removed and the number of out-of-State companies that are leading the
debris removal effort.
The Vicksburg District has been thoughtful in their proposal to use
Mississippi contractors for smaller, more manageable contracts. The
Government Accountability Office recently agreed that set-aside
contracts are allowed in Mississippi, and this action will result in
local people leading local debris removal contracts. I think this is
good for recovery and good for Mississippi victims as well as
businesses in our State. Thank you for this assistance.
I understand that the Corps of Engineers continues to use a
performance based budgeting formula, which has led to the proposal to
terminate 10 projects this year. Last year you proposed to terminate 35
projects. This means that important projects that were previously
budgeted for by the Corps are, under this budget submission, not going
to move forward.
Another area of concern is the language that was included in the
fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations bill regarding the
Corps of Engineers' use of the continuing contract clause and their
reprogramming guidelines. My constituents in Mississippi are already
feeling the negative impacts of this language, and it is my
understanding that the Corps will likely carry over large amounts of
the historic funding levels provided in the current year's
appropriations bill.
I appreciate the efforts of the Corps of Engineers but worry about
inadequate funding of important missions under your jurisdiction. The
Corps is charged with improving safety and security for our Nation's
citizens, and I hope that this committee will provide the resources
necessary complete these missions.
STATEMENT OF JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR.
Senator Domenici. Having said that, we are ready for you to
speak. I gather that you want to do it in the normal order; is
that correct, where you want the Honorable Paul Woodley to
speak first and then the General? Is that what we want to do?
General Strock. Yes.
Senator Domenici. All right. Mr. Secretary, make your
statement brief. It will be made part of the record.
General, we look forward to hearing from you next. Make
your statement long. It will be made a part of the record also.
Mr. Woodley, please proceed.
Mr. Woodley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today and ask that the full statement be
put in the record.
Our 2007 budget includes about $4.7 billion----
Senator Domenici. Pull the mike up a little. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Woodley [continuing]. A 5 percent increase from last
year. We provided a 5-year budget plan along with the other
budget justification materials, including three potential 5-
year funding scenarios for planning purposes and analytical
purposes.
The budget includes an increase of about $280 million for
construction projects compared to the fiscal year 2006 budget.
The funding is allocated according to guidelines that emphasize
economic returns, reduction of risk to human life, and
ecosystem restoration benefits.
Mr. Chairman, the budget provides $173 million to the
Corps' regulatory program to protect wetlands and other waters
of the United States. This represents a $15 million increase
compared to fiscal year 2006 appropriations and a 20 percent
increase in budgeted funding for the regulatory program over
the last 3 years. The funding will be used to reduce permit
processing times, improve aquatic resource protection through
monitoring and compliance activities, and advance watershed
approaches to permitting.
The budget also reassigns about $340 million of work at
existing projects from the construction account to the
operation and maintenance account. This reassignment improves
accountability and oversight, reflects the full cost of
operation and maintenance, and supports an integrated funding
strategy for existing projects.
The operation and maintenance budget has been revamped and
is presented by major river basin and mission areas. This lays
the groundwork for improved management of appropriated funds
and more strategic formulation of future budgets.
The budget includes increased funding for preparedness,
response and recovery activities related to flood and coastal
storm emergencies. The budget does not include funding for
recovery from last year's hurricanes since supplemental
appropriations are being sought to provide that funding.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the budget and the 5-year plan
incorporate performance budgeting principles, allocate funding
to activities with the highest returns, and advance important
national objectives.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Paul Woodley, Jr.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee, and to
present the President's budget for the Civil Works program of the Army
Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2007.
OVERVIEW OF FISCAL YEAR 2007 ARMY CIVIL WORKS BUDGET
The fiscal year 2007 budget for Army Civil Works provides funding
for development and restoration of the Nation's water and related
resources within the three main Civil Works program areas, namely,
commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction, and
aquatic ecosystem restoration. The budget also supports hydropower,
recreation, environmental stewardship, and water supply services at
existing water resources projects owned or operated by the Corps of
Engineers. Finally, the budget provides for protection of the Nation's
regulated waters and wetlands; cleanup of sites contaminated as a
result of the Nation's early efforts to develop atomic weapons; and
preparedness, response, and recovery activities related to flood and
coastal storm emergencies.
The budget does not fund work that should be the responsibility of
non-Federal interests or other Federal agencies, such as wastewater
treatment, irrigation water supply, and municipal and industrial water
supply treatment and distribution.
The fiscal year 2007 budget includes new discretionary funding of
$4.733 billion, the highest civil works budget transmitted to Congress
by any President. The estimate for fiscal year 2007 outlays is $5.846
billion. Enclosure 1 displays the current estimate for the distribution
of new discretionary funding among eight appropriation accounts, eight
program areas, plus executive direction and management, and five
sources including the general fund of the Treasury and trust funds.
Enclosure 2 is a crosscut between appropriation accounts and program
areas.
A 5-year budget development plan (FYDP) is being provided, as
called for in the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act Conference Report. The FYDP includes three scenarios
or projections--one based on the President's proposed fiscal year 2007
budget, one above that level, and one below that level. The projections
are formula driven. They do not represent budget decisions or budget
policy beyond fiscal year 2007 but they can provide perspective on the
Army Civil Works program and budget.
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
To date, the Corps has received $3.3 billion in emergency
supplemental appropriations to address the impacts of the 2005
hurricane season. In addition, on February 16 of this year the
President transmitted to Congress his request for $1.46 billion in
additional emergency supplemental appropriations to strengthen and
improve hurricane and storm protection in the greater New Orleans
metropolitan area.
PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING
The fiscal year 2007 budget builds upon lessons learned from the
2005 hurricane season, one of which is the importance of setting
spending priorities to meet water resources needs that are the most
compelling from a national perspective.
One of my priorities for the Army Civil Works program is to develop
the Civil Works budget and manage the program based on objective
performance measures. The fiscal year 2007 budget reflects significant
progress toward this goal, by focusing funding those activities that
are expected to provide the highest net returns to the Nation.
The fiscal year 2007 budget also supports performance-based
budgeting by funding ongoing efforts to develop better risk-based
facility condition indices and asset management systems. These
analytical tools will improve our ability in the future to develop
long-term asset management strategies and establish priorities for the
operation, maintenance and management of Civil Works assets. Our goal
is to begin using these improved analytical tools within 2 years.
The focus on Civil Works program performance has a number of
foundations. First, the Civil Works Strategic Plan, which was updated
in 2004, provides goals, objectives, and performance measures that are
specific to program areas as well as some that are crosscutting.
Second, each program area is assessed using the Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART). Both the Civil Works Strategic Plan and the PART-
based program evaluations are works in progress and will continue to be
updated.
The Environmental Stewardship sub-program and the Formerly Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program were assessed in the most recent
assessment period (2005). Based upon the findings of these program
assessments, the Corps is taking follow-up actions to address
identified problems. Summaries of all completed civil works program
assessments can be found on the administration's new website,
www.ExpectMore.gov.
Budget decisions link to performance in a number of ways. First,
alternative funding levels relate to alternative performance targets,
or levels of outputs and outcomes, as measured by the program area
metrics. Second, related metrics and decision guidelines (see
``Construction,'' below) are used to rank work within each account or
within each program area.
CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
The fiscal year 2007 Civil Works budget proposes five program
improvements, as discussed below.
Funding Activities in the Operation and Maintenance Account
In addition to introducing the concept of watershed and system
budgeting for operation and maintenance, described in detail below, the
budget proposes to fund four types of operation and maintenance-related
activities in the Operation and Maintenance account, rather than in the
Construction account as has been the case in the recent past. It is
appropriate to assign responsibility for these activities to the
Operation and Maintenance program, both because of the nature of the
work and because of its integral connection to operation and
maintenance. This reassignment improves accountability and oversight,
reflects the full cost of operation and maintenance, and supports an
integrated funding strategy for existing projects. Total fiscal year
2007 funding for the activities being reassigned to the Operation and
Maintenance program is about $340 million. The four types of activities
are described in greater detail below.
First, the Operation and Maintenance account would fund activities
to comply with Biological Opinions at existing projects pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act. These activities facilitate the Corps
continuing to operate its existing multi-purpose projects, principally
in the Columbia and Missouri River Basins. The compliance costs would
be allocated among the project purposes of the operating projects.
Second, the account would fund rehabilitation of existing projects.
Rehabilitation work would compete for funding on a level playing field
with other operation and maintenance activities. The O&M program would
consider each potential investment and develop recommendations based on
a long-term strategy for maintaining the existing infrastructure. Fifty
percent of the costs of rehabilitations for inland waterway projects
would be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, just as was the
case when they were funded in the Construction account.
Third, the account would fund the construction of facilities,
projects or features that use maintenance dredging material. These
include beneficial uses of dredged material for island and marsh
creation, shore protection, and other environmental purposes pursuant
to the Section 204/207/933 Continuing Authority Program and specific
authorizations (such as for the Poplar Island, Maryland, project).
These also include dredged material disposal facilities for material
from maintenance dredging (including Indiana Harbor, Indiana, which had
been line-item budgeted in the Construction account). Funding for the
dredged material disposal facilities would be derived from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, just as was the case when they were funded in
the Construction account.
Fourth and finally, funding in the account would be used to replace
sand lost from shores due to the operation of Federal navigation
projects (navigation mitigation). This activity would be carried out
pursuant to specific authorizations for shore protection projects that
involve navigation mitigation, and pursuant to the Section 111
Continuing Authority Program. The budget proposes that funding for
navigation mitigation be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund. The estimated amount for fiscal year 2007 that would be derived
from the trust fund for this purpose is $27 million.
Accompanying the budget is proposed appropriations language that
would clarify that these activities are to be funded in the Operation
and Maintenance account. For example, the budget proposal includes a
provision, which the Congress adopted in the fiscal year 2005 Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act, indicating that among the
purposes for which funding is provided is ``for the benefit of
federally listed species to address the effects of civil works projects
owned or operated by the Corps''. The budget language also provides
that funding for ``eligible operations and maintenance'' is to be
derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Consistent with section
201 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, eligible operations
and maintenance activities include not only harbor dredging but also
the dredged material disposal facilities and navigation mitigation
discussed above.
Watershed and System Budgeting for Operation and Maintenance
Although the concept of watershed and system budgeting and program
execution for operation and maintenance (O&M) was adopted too late in
the budget cycle to be fully implemented in formulating the fiscal year
2007 budget, the O&M budget is presented on a watershed/system basis
and, if Congress concurs on the benefit of planning and carrying out
the O&M program in accordance with system-wide priorities, then during
fiscal year 2007 the O&M program would be managed by watershed and
business program, rather than primarily project-by-project.
Proposed fiscal year 2007 funding is consolidated according to
Civil Works program areas, such as commercial navigation and flood and
storm damage reduction, for each of the 21 major river basins in the
United States, as established by the U.S. Geological Survey. The
specific projects that would receive funding in each basin also are
identified by name. For future fiscal years, the budget not only will
be presented by basin or system, but also will be developed in the
first place based on basins and systems. Should operation and
maintenance work be funded in the manner presented, managers in the
field would be better able to adapt to uncertainties and changed
conditions throughout the fiscal year, consistent with budget and
appropriations decisions.
Repayment of the Judgment Fund
We are proposing that funds that (1) were appropriated in fiscal
year 2006 or a prior year, (2) are not needed for the purpose for which
they were appropriated, and (3) are carried over unobligated to fiscal
year 2007 be reprogrammed to begin to repay the Department of the
Treasury's Judgment Fund. The repayments would be for judgments against
the United States that were paid by the Fund on Civil Works projects.
Currently over $150 million is owed to the Judgment Fund for Civil
Works projects.
Expenses Account
The Expenses account funds the management and executive direction
expenses of the Army Corps of Engineers, both at its Headquarters and
Major Subordinate Divisions, as well as support organizations such as
the Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity, the Institute for Water
Resources, and the Finance Center. In addition, the fiscal year 2007
budget proposes that, beginning in fiscal year 2007, the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works--including some
indirect and overhead costs not previously allocated to this office--be
funded in an expanded Expenses account, rather than in its own separate
account or as part of the account funding the other Army Secretariat
offices.
Reprogramming and Contracting
The budget proposes reauthorization of sections 101, 106, and 108
of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006, with
certain changes. These sections established rules in law for fiscal
year 2006 on reprogramming and continuing contracts. I would like to
emphasize the programmatic need for one of these changes, namely, that
we would no longer require each partially funded contract for operation
and maintenance to be a continuing contract, so that the Corps would
have the flexibility to use other contracting tools in the O&M program,
such as base-plus-options contracts.
STUDIES AND DESIGN
The fiscal year 2007 budget concentrates funding on the 55 most
promising studies and preconstruction engineering and design (PED)
activities. For the navigation and flood and storm damage reduction
studies, performance was assessed based primarily on likely economic
benefits and costs. For PED activities for such projects, the estimated
ratio of remaining benefits to remaining costs is known, and PED
activities were funded for projects with ratios of 4.0 to 1 or greater
at a 7 percent discount rate. For aquatic ecosystem restoration studies
and PED activities, performance was assessed based on the likelihood of
projects that would meet the criteria in the construction guidelines.
The budget provides $94 million for the Investigations account and
$1 million for investigations within the Mississippi River and
Tributaries account. Among the $95 million total, $25 million is for
the Louisiana Coastal Area study of coastal wetlands restoration; $20
million is for a national inventory of flood and storm damage reduction
projects; $13 million is for other project-specific studies including a
new study needed to support continued land acquisition to further
reduce the risk of flood damage in the Atchafalaya Basin; $4 million is
for project-specific PED; $15 million is for research and development;
and $18 million is for other coordination, data collection, and study
activities.
One of my priorities is to improve analytical tools to support
water resource planning and decision-making. The budget supports this
with robust funding for the Navigation Economic Technologies research
program and for the development of benefit evaluation methods for
aquatic ecosystem restoration.
CONSTRUCTION
In recent years, many more construction projects have been
authorized, initiated, and continued than can be constructed
efficiently at any one time. This has led to the postponement of
benefits from the most worthy projects, which has significantly reduced
overall program performance. To remedy this situation and to achieve
greater value to the Nation from the Civil Works construction program,
the budget focuses significant funding on the projects that yield the
greatest return to the Nation, based upon objective performance
criteria.
The budget again proposes performance guidelines to allocate funds
among construction projects, including significant refinements to the
performance guidelines proposed in 2006. The most significant of these
changes is the addition of a non-economic performance criterion
covering flood and storm damage reduction projects that address a
significant risk to human safety.
Under the guidelines, the budget allocates funds among construction
projects based primarily on the remaining economic benefits of projects
relative to their remaining costs, their contributions to reducing
life-threatening inundation hazards, and the extent to which they cost-
effectively contribute to the restoration of nationally or regionally
significant aquatic ecosystems where the ecosystems have become
degraded as a result of Civil Works projects or to a restoration effort
for which the Corps is otherwise uniquely well suited. The 2007
performance guidelines are at Enclosure 3.
The funded construction projects include 6 considered to be
national priorities; 14 projects in their final year of construction
(including 1 dam safety project); 10 other dam safety, seepage, and
static instability correction projects; 1 high priority newly funded
project (Washington, DC and vicinity, which will reduce the risk of
flood damage to the museums on the National Mall, the Franklin Delano
Roosevelt Memorial, and the World War II Memorial and eliminate the
temporary closures at 23rd Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, and 2nd
and P Streets, SW in downtown Washington, DC); and 60 other ongoing
projects. Ninety-one projects are funded altogether.
After adjusting for the work reassigned to the Operation and
Maintenance account, the budget provides an increase in construction
funding of about $280 million compared to the fiscal year 2006 budget.
This robust funding level enables work on most of the 91 projects, as
well as on the ongoing projects reassigned from the construction
program to the operation and maintenance program, to proceed at between
80 percent and 100 percent of the maximum rate that the Corps can
efficiently spend funds in fiscal year 2007.
For low priority projects that are scheduled to have a construction
contract underway at the beginning of fiscal year 2007, the budget
provides funding either to complete each ongoing contract, or to
terminate it and pay the Federal share of settled claims, whichever is
estimated to be less costly. The budget includes $50 million for this
purpose, $42 million in the Construction account and $8 million in the
Mississippi River and Tributaries account.
CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM AREAS
The Army Civil Works program includes eight program areas, plus
oversight/executive direction and management. The eight program areas
are commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction,
aquatic ecosystem restoration, recreation, hydropower, water supply,
emergency management, and the regulatory program. Budget proposals for
the eight program areas are discussed below.
Emergency Management and Flood and Coastal Storm Damage Reduction
The budget for Emergency Management and Flood and Coastal Storm
Damage Reduction reflects a sharpened focus on flood and hurricane
preparedness and damage reduction.
The budget provides $20 million in the Investigations account for a
national inventory and database of flood and storm damage reduction
projects, and for developing and testing methods to assess the
structural and operational integrity and the associated risks of such
projects. This effort will dovetail with the Corps' ongoing risk
assessment for its portfolio of dams.
The budget provides $81 million in the Flood Control and Coastal
Emergencies account for planning, preparedness, and response to flood
and storm emergencies, and for rehabilitation of damaged flood and
storm damage reduction projects. This is an increase of $11 million
over the fiscal year 2006 budget. Our experience during the 2005
hurricane season underscores the need for securing funds in advance for
such purposes, and we urge the Congress to include this funding in the
annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
The budget continues to support Federal participation in the
initial phase of authorized beach nourishment projects for storm damage
reduction and ecosystem restoration purposes. The budget continues the
policy of funding Federal involvement in long-term, follow-on periodic
renourishment only to the extent that the operation and maintenance of
Federal navigation projects is the reason for the sand loss on
shorelines.
Commercial Navigation
The amount budgeted for the construction and rehabilitation of
inland waterway projects, $394 million, is the highest amount ever
included in a Civil Works budget. This funding will help ensure the
continued efficiency and reliability of our principal inland waterways.
Work will begin on rehabilitation of Lock and Dam 27, Illinois and
Missouri, and Markland Lock and Dam, Indiana and Kentucky. The budget
focuses operation and maintenance funding for the inland waterways on
those segments that support high volumes of commercial traffic,
including the Mississippi, Ohio, and Illinois waterways.
The budget gives priority to the operation and maintenance of
harbors with high volumes of commercial traffic. The budget also funds
harbors that support significant commercial fishing, subsistence,
public transportation, harbor of refuge, national security, or safety
benefits.
As discussed earlier, the budget provides funding under the
operation and maintenance program for authorized beach renourishment
work to the extent needed to replace sand lost due to Federal
navigation operation and maintenance. This work is now part of the
commercial navigation program area.
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
The budget includes $164 million for the Corps contribution to the
Everglades restoration effort. Of this amount, $35 million is for the
Corps to continue to participate financially in the Modified Water
Deliveries project, along with the National Park Service. Within this
amount, the budget also includes funds to initiate additional work on
the Kissimmee River, continue the pilot aquifer storage and recovery
projects program, continue other planning and design work on the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, and examine flows in the
vicinity of Lake Okeechobee.
The budget provides $27 million for the Upper Mississippi
Restoration Program, including $3 million for a study needed to
establish priorities for the next 10 years for this nationally
significant effort. To address the continuing loss of wetlands along
the Louisiana coast, the budget provides $20 million to continue
planning and design for the Louisiana Coastal Area aquatic ecosystem
restoration program and $5 million for the science program supporting
this effort.
As discussed above, the budget proposes that measures at operating
projects to comply with Biological Opinions pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act be funded from the Operation and Maintenance account and
allocated among project purposes.
Regulatory Program
The President's budget provides $173 million to the Corps
Regulatory Program to protect wetlands and other waters of the United
States. This represents a $15 million increase compared to fiscal year
2006 appropriations, which would result in a total increase of 20
percent in funding over the last 3 years. One of my priorities for the
Civil Works program is to improve the effectiveness of aquatic resource
protection and the efficiency of permit reviews and decision-making.
The added funds will be used to improve permit processing times,
increase aquatic resource protection, and advance watershed-based
approaches.
Investing in the Regulatory Program is a win-win proposition. The
added funds will enable most public and private development to proceed
with minimal delays, while ensuring that the environment is protected
consistent with the Nation's water quality laws.
Recreation
The fiscal year 2007 budget proposes a recreation modernization
initiative for Civil Works recreation facilities, based on a promising
model now used by other major Federal recreation providers such as the
National Park Service and the Forest Service. The administration has
proposed legislation for the Corps to use additional fees and other
revenues to upgrade and modernize recreation facilities at the sites
where this money is collected.
Specifically, the legislation includes authority for the Corps to
charge entrance fees and other types of user fees where appropriate,
and to cooperate with non-Federal park authorities and districts. The
Corps would use collections above a $37 million per year baseline to
provide facility modernizations and upgrades.
Hydropower
The budget provides funding for hydropower operation and
maintenance costs, as well as funding for ongoing replacements at three
hydropower projects. Unlike the budgets of recent years, the budget
does not propose that Federal power marketing administrations directly
fund the costs of hydropower operation and maintenance.
Environmental Stewardship
Corps of Engineers-administered lands and waters cover 11 million
acres. That is equal in size to the area of the States of Vermont and
New Hampshire. The budget proposes a total of $89 million for
environmental stewardship for these resources. Funded activities
include shoreline management, protection of natural resources,
continuation of mitigation activities, and protection of cultural and
historic resources.
Oversight and Executive Direction and Management
The fiscal year 2007 budget provides $164 million for the Expenses
account. This account funds executive direction and management
activities of the Corps headquarters, the Corps division offices, and
related support organizations that pertain to Civil Works.
In addition, $6 million of the funding for the Expenses account is
for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
This amount is needed to cover not only the Assistant Secretariat share
of costs that are usually allocated among offices in the Headquarters,
Department of Army, but also the appropriate share of centrally managed
and ordinarily non-allocated costs. The inclusion of funding for these
purposes is in accordance with the direction in the fiscal year 2006
Conference Report.
The Budget proposes to finance audits through the Revolving Fund.
The costs would be allocated among and then charged back to the
benefiting accounts as a normal cost of doing business.
PRESIDENT'S MANAGEMENT AGENDA
The Army Civil Works program is pursuing five government-wide
management initiatives, as are other Federal agencies. These are
competitive sourcing, strategic management of human capital, financial
management, e-government, and budget-performance integration. The Army
Civil Works program also is participating in the initiative for real
property asset management.
The Office of Management and Budget scores the status of each
agency in implementing each initiative. Like most agencies, the Army
Civil Works program started out with ``red'' stoplight scores across
the board. On four initiatives--all but competitive sourcing and human
capital--Civil Works status is still red. We are working to improve our
progress and status and welcome your support of our efforts.
CONCLUSION
At $4.733 billion, the fiscal year 2007 Army Civil Works budget is
the highest Civil Works budget in history.
The budget reflects progress in performance-based budgeting, as
called for in the President's management agenda. In developing this
budget, we made explicit choices based on performance. The emphasis on
the completion of high-performing construction projects, preparedness
for and mitigation of flood and hurricane hazards, and improved
execution of the Regulatory Program, for example, reflect a
performance-based approach.
The Army Civil Works budget for fiscal year 2007 will enable the
Civil Works program to move ahead with more resources to pursue
investments that will yield good returns for the Nation in the future.
The budget represents the wise use of funding to advance worthy,
mission-based objectives. I am proud to present it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for this
opportunity to testify on the President's fiscal year 2007 budget for
the Civil Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers.
ENCLOSURE 1.--DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL WORKS
BUDGET SUMMARY, FISCAL YEAR 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requested New Appropriations by Account:
Investigations..................................... $94,000,000
Construction....................................... 1,555,000,000
Operation and Maintenance.......................... 2,258,000,000
Regulatory Program................................. 173,000,000
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries... 278,000,000
Expenses........................................... 164,000,000
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies.............. 81,000,000
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.... 130,000,000
----------------
TOTAL............................................ 4,733,000,000
================
Requested New Appropriations by Program Area:
Commercial Navigation.............................. 1,926,000,000
Flood and Coastal Storm Damage Reduction........... 1,291,000,000
Environment........................................ 539,000,000
(Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration)................ (320,000,000)
(FUSRAP)....................................... (130,000,000)
(Natural Resources)............................ (89,000,000)
Hydropower......................................... 285,000,000
Recreation......................................... 267,000,000
Water Supply....................................... 2,000,000
Emergency Management............................... 86,000,000
(Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies)........ (81,000,000)
(National Emergency Preparedness).............. (5,000,000)
Regulatory Program................................. 173,000,000
Executive Direction and Management................. 164,000,000
----------------
TOTAL............................................ 4,733,000,000
================
Sources of New Appropriations:
General Fund....................................... 3,791,000,000
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund...................... 707,000,000
Inland Waterways Trust Fund........................ 197,000,000
Special Recreation User Fees....................... 37,000,000
Disposal Facilities User Fees...................... 1,000,000
----------------
TOTAL............................................ 4,733,000,000
================
Additional New Resources:
Rivers and Harbors Contributed Funds............... 445,000,000
Coastal Wetlands Restoration Trust Fund............ 75,000,000
Permanent Appropriations........................... 18,000,000
----------------
TOTAL............................................ 538,000,000
================
Total New Program Funding........................ 5,271,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENCLOSURE 2.--DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL WORKS BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2007--CROSSCUT BETWEEN APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS AND PROGRAM
AREAS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aq.
Navigation Flood/ Recreation Eco. Env. FUS-RAP Hydro- Water Emerg. Reg. ED&M TOT
Storm Rest Stewrd. Power Supply Mgmt. Prog.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigations........................ 23 34 .......... 37 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 94
Construction.......................... 596 653 .......... 278 ....... ....... 28 ....... ....... ....... ....... 1,555
Operation/Maint....................... 1,270 387 253 ....... 84 ....... 257 2 5 ....... ....... 2,258
MR&T--I............................... .......... 1 .......... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1
MR&T--C............................... 14 111 .......... 5 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 130
MR&T--M............................... 23 105 14 ....... 5 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 147
FUSRAP................................ .......... ....... .......... ....... ....... 130 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 130
FC&CE................................. .......... ....... .......... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 81 ....... ....... 81
Regulatory............................ .......... ....... .......... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 173 ....... 173
Expenses.............................. .......... ....... .......... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 164 164
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL........................... 1,926 1,291 267 320 89 130 285 2 86 173 164 4,733
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENCLOSURE 3.--DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL WORKS
BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2007--PERFORMANCE BUDGETING GUIDELINES FOR CIVIL
WORKS CONSTRUCTION
The budget for the construction account allocates funds based on
the following seven performance-based guidelines, which improve the
overall performance of the construction program by redirecting funds to
high-performing projects and limiting new construction starts.
1. Project rankings within mission areas.--All ongoing,
specifically authorized construction projects, including projects
funded in the Mississippi River and Tributaries account, will be
assigned based upon their primary purpose to one of the main mission
areas of the Corps (flood and storm damage reduction; commercial
navigation; aquatic ecosystem restorations) or to hydropower. Projects,
except for aquatic ecosystem restoration projects, will be ranked by
their remaining benefits divided by their remaining costs (RBRC),
calculated at a 7 percent real discount rate. Aquatic ecosystem
restoration projects will be ranked by the extent to which they cost
effectively contribute to the restoration of a nationally or regionally
significant aquatic ecosystem that has become degraded as a result of a
Civil Works project, or to a restoration effort for which the Corps is
otherwise uniquely well-suited (e.g., because the solution requires
complex alternations to the hydrology and hydraulics of a river
system).
2. Project completions.--Each project with an RBRC of 3.0 or
greater that can be completed in the budget year with a final increment
of funding will receive the balance of funding needed to complete
construction and related administrative activities. Likewise, each
aquatic ecosystem restoration project that cost-effectively contributes
to the restoration of a nationally or regionally significant aquatic
ecosystem that has become degraded as a result of a civil works
project, or to a restoration effort for which the Corps is otherwise
uniquely well-suited, and that can be completed in the budget year with
a final increment of funding will receive the balance of funding needed
to complete construction and related administrative activities.
3. Projects with very high economic and environmental returns.--The
projects with the highest RBRCs (or that are the most cost-effective in
contributing to the restoration of a nationally or regionally
significant aquatic ecosystem that has become degraded as a result of a
Corps project, for aquatic ecosystem restoration) will receive not less
than 80 percent of the maximum level of funding that the Corps can
spend efficiently in each fiscal year.
4. Projects with a low priority.--All ongoing flood and storm
damage reduction, commercial navigation, and hydropower constructions
projects that have RBRCs below 3.0, except for flood and storm damage
reduction projects that are funded in the budget to address significant
risk to human safety, will be considered for deferral. All ongoing
aquatic ecosystem restoration projects that do not cost-effectively
contribute to the restoration of a nationally or regionally significant
aquatic ecosystem restoration that has become degraded as a result of a
Civil Works project, and do not cost-effectively address a problem for
which the Corps is otherwise uniquely well-suited, and are less than 50
percent complete will be considered for deferral. Where a project
considered for deferral was previously budgeted, the budget will
include funding to cover the cost of terminating or completing each
ongoing contract, whichever is less. Budget year and future year
savings from project suspensions (after covering the cost of
terminating or completing ongoing contracts) will be used to accelerate
the projects with the highest net economic and environmental returns.
5. New starts and resumptions.--The budget will provide funds to
start up new construction projects, and to resume work on ongoing
construction projects on which the Corps has not performed any physical
work under a construction contract during the past 3 consecutive fiscal
years, only if the project would be ranked in the top 20 percent of the
ongoing construction projects in its mission area that year.
The term ``physical work under a construction contract'' does not
include activities related to project planning, engineering and design,
relocation, or the acquisition of lands, easements, or rights-of-way.
For non-structural flood damage reduction projects, construction begins
in the first fiscal year in which the Corps acquires lands, easements,
or rights-of-way primarily to relocate structures, or performs physical
work under a construction contract for non-structural project-related
measures. For aquatic ecosystem restoration projects, construction
begins in the first fiscal year in which the Corps acquires lands,
easements, or rights-of-way primarily to facilitate the restoration of
degraded aquatic ecosystems including wetlands, riparian areas, and
adjacent floodplains, or performs physical work under a constructions
contract to modify existing project facilities primarily to restore the
aquatic ecosystem. For all other water resources projects, construction
begins in the first fiscal year in which the Corps performs physical
work under a construction contract.
6. Other cases.--All other ongoing construction projects will
receive not more than the amount needed to meet earnings permitted
under ongoing multi-year contracts and related costs, except for flood
and storm damage reduction projects that are funded in the budget to
address significant risk to human safety, which will receive at least
the funding needed to pay contractor earnings and related costs.
Dam safety assurance, seepage control, and static instability
correction projects that are funded in the budget for construction will
receive the maximum level of funding that the Corps can spend
efficiently in each fiscal year.
Projects that are funded in the budget for construction will
receive the amount needed to ensure that they comply with treaties and
with biological opinions pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, and
meet authorized mitigation requirements.
7. Ten percent rule.--Up to a total of 10 percent of the funding
available for construction may be allocated to ongoing construction
projects regardless of the guidelines above. However, this may not be
used to start up or resume any project.
The budget proposes that the administration and the Congress apply
these guidelines to the Corps construction account and to the
construction activities in the Mississippi River and Tributaries
account.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
General.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL CARL A. STROCK, CHIEF
OF ENGINEERS
General Strock. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee:
I am honored to be testifying before you today with the
Honorable John Paul Woodley on the President's fiscal year 2007
budget for the Army civil works program. If I may, I would like
to briefly summarize the key points of my testimony and include
my complete statement for the record.
Senator Domenici. Please do and that will be done.
General Strock. Good, sir.
This budget is a performance-based budget that reflects the
realities of the national budget, supporting the Nation's
recent natural disasters and the global war on terror. This
budget focuses construction on funding of 63 projects that will
provide the highest returns on the Nation's investment,
including 11 dam safety projects. Funds will be used for
critical water resources infrastructure that improves the
quality of our citizens' lives and provides a foundation for
national economic growth and development.
The budget incorporates performance-based metrics for
continued efficient operation of the Nation's waterborne
navigation, flood control, and other water resource management
infrastructure, fair regulation of wetlands, and restoration of
important environmental resources.
There are six national priority construction projects
funded in the construction program. They are: the New York-New
Jersey Harbor Deepening Project; the Oakland River--the Oakland
Harbor Deepening Project; construction of Olmstead Locks and
Dam in Illinois and Kentucky; the Florida Everglades and South
Florida Ecosystem; the Side Channels of the Upper Mississippi
River System; and Sims Bayou in Houston, Texas; and two others,
the Missouri River Restoration and the Columbia River
Restoration, both funded in the operations and maintenance
account.
This budget also provides the quality of recreation
services through stronger partnerships and modernization. The
budget provides approximately $65.3 million to complete 14
projects, including one dam safety project, in 2007. As part of
a comprehensive strategy to reduce the construction backlog,
the fiscal year 2007 budget funds projects that provide the
highest returns and are consistent with current policies. In
all, 91 projects are funded so that we can provide benefits to
the Nation sooner.
The fiscal year 2007 budget includes $2.258 billion for the
operations and maintenance program and I can assure you that I
will continue to do all that I can to make these programs as
cost effective and efficient as possible.
Domestically, more than 8,000 volunteers from around the
Nation have deployed to help citizens and communities on the
gulf coast in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and
Wilma. Even now, more than 6 months after Hurricane Katrina,
2,000 USACE volunteers continue to execute our FEMA-assigned
disaster recovery missions along the gulf coast and to
accomplish the critical restoration work of the New Orleans
Area Levee System.
Internationally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers remains
committed to the monumental task of helping to rebuild the
infrastructure and economies of Iraq and Afghanistan, and more
than 1,700 USACE volunteers have deployed to Iraq since 2003.
They continue to make progress toward this Nation's goals of
restoring the security and quality of life for all Iraqis and
Afghans as they pursue democracy and freedom.
The Corps' Gulf Regional Division has overseen the
initiation of 3,000 reconstruction projects and the completion
of more than 2,100. These projects make a difference in the
everyday lives of the Iraqi people and are visible signs of
progress.
The water resources management infrastructure has improved
the quality of our citizens' lives in support of the economic
growth and development of this country. Our systems of
navigation, flood, and storm damage reduction projects and
efforts to restore aquatic ecosystems contribute to our
national welfare.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In closing, the Corps is committed to selflessly serving
the Nation and I truly appreciate your continued support in
this end. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
This concludes my statement.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Carl A. Strock
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am
honored to be testifying before your subcommittee today, along with the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), the Honorable John Paul
Woodley, Jr., on the President's fiscal year 2007 budget for the United
States Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works Program.
My statement covers the following 3 topics:
--Summary of fiscal year 2007 Program Budget,
--Civil Works Backlog,
--Value of the Civil Works Program to the Nation's Economy, and to
the Nation's Defense.
SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2007 PROGRAM BUDGET
Introduction
The fiscal year 2007 Civil Works Budget is a performance-based
budget, which reflects a focus on the projects and activities that
provide the highest net economic and environmental returns on the
Nation's investment or address significant risk to human safety. The
Civil Works Program, including the Direct and Reimbursed programs, is
expected to involve total spending (Federal plus non-Federal) of $7.3
billion to $8.3 billion. The exact amount will depend on assignments
received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
hurricane disaster relief and from the Department of Homeland Security
for border protection facilities.
Direct Program funding totals $5.271 billion, consisting of
discretionary funding of $4.733 billion and mandatory funding of $538
million. The Reimbursed Program funding is projected to involve an
additional $2 billion to $3 billion.
Direct Program
The budget reflects the administration's commitment to continued
sound development and management of the Nation's water and related land
resources. It incorporates performance-based metrics for the
construction program, funds the continued operation of commercial
navigation and other water resource infrastructure, provides a needed
increase in funding for the regulation of the impacts of development on
the Nation's wetlands, and supports restoration of nationally and
regionally significant aquatic ecosystems, with emphasis on the Florida
Everglades, the Upper Mississippi River, and the coastal wetlands of
Louisiana. It also improves the quality of recreation services through
stronger partnerships and modernization.
The budget emphasizes the construction and completion of water
resources projects that will provide a high return on the Nation's
investment in the Corps' primary mission areas. There are 91 projects,
including 6 national priority projects; 14 projects in their final year
of completion (including 1 dam safety project); 10 other dam safety
assurance, seepage control, and static instability correction projects;
1 high priority newly funded project (Washington, DC and vicinity,
which will reduce the risk of flood damage to the museums on the
National Mall, the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial, and the World
War II Memorial and eliminate the temporary closures at 23rd Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, and 2nd and P Streets, SW in downtown
Washington, DC); and 60 other ongoing projects. The focus of this
budget is on providing the highest net economic and environmental
returns on the Nation's investment and addressing significant risk to
human safety.
Reimbursed Program
Through the Interagency and Intergovernmental Services Program we
help non-DOD Federal agencies, State, local, and tribal governments,
and other countries with timely, cost-effective implementation of their
programs, while maintaining and enhancing capabilities for execution of
our Civil and Military Program missions. These customers rely on our
extensive capabilities, experience, and successful track record. The
work is principally technical oversight and management of engineering,
environmental, and construction contracts performed by private sector
firms, and is fully funded by the customers.
Currently, we provide reimbursable support for about 60 other
Federal agencies and several State and local governments. Total
reimbursement for such work in fiscal year 2007 is projected to be $2.0
billion to $3.0 billion. The exact amount will depend on assignments
received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
hurricane disaster relief and from the Department of Homeland Security
for border protection facilities.
CIVIL WORKS BACKLOG
The budget addresses the construction backlog primarily by
proposing that the administration and the Congress use objective
performance measures to establish priorities among projects including
potential new starts, and through a change in Corps contracting
practices to increase control over future costs. The measures proposed
include the ratio of remaining benefits to remaining costs for projects
with economic outputs; the extent to which the project cost-effectively
contributes to the restoration of a nationally or regionally
significant aquatic ecosystem that has become degraded as a result of a
Civil Works project or to an aquatic ecosystem restoration effort for
which the Corps is otherwise uniquely well-suited; and giving priority
to dam safety assurance, seepage control, static instability
correction, and projects that address significant risk to human safety.
With the exception of up to 10 percent of the available funds that
could be allocated to any project under construction regardless of
performance, resources are allocated based on Corps estimates to
achieve the highest net economic and environmental returns and to
address significant risk to human safety. Over time, this approach
would significantly improve the benefits to the Nation from the Civil
Works construction program.
We believe that narrowing the focus of our effort to fund and
complete a smaller, more beneficial set of projects will improve
overall program performance and bring higher net benefits per dollar to
the Nation sooner. That is why the budget proposes only one new, high
priority construction start and accelerates completion of the highest-
return projects.
Maintenance Program
The facilities owned and operated by, or on behalf of, the Civil
Works Program are aging. As stewards of this infrastructure, we are
working to ensure that it continues to provide an appropriate level of
service to the Nation. Sustaining such service poses a technical
challenge in some cases, and proper operation and maintenance also is
becoming more expensive as this infrastructure ages.
The operation and maintenance program supports the operation,
maintenance and security of existing commercial navigation, flood and
storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration works owned
and operated by, or on behalf of, the Corps of Engineers, including
administrative buildings and laboratories. Funds are also included for
national priority efforts in the Columbia River Basin and Missouri
River Basin to support the continued operation of Corps of Engineers
multi-purpose projects by meeting the requirements of the Endangered
Species Act. Other work to be accomplished includes dredging, repair,
and operation of structures and other facilities, as authorized in the
various River and Harbor, Flood Control, and Water Resources
Development Acts. Related activities include aquatic plant control,
monitoring of completed coastal projects, and removal of sunken
vessels.
The Operation and Maintenance program for the fiscal year 2007
budget consists of $2.258 billion in the operation and maintenance
account and $147 million under the Mississippi River and Tributaries
program. To improve accountability and oversight, reflect the full cost
of operating and maintaining existing projects, and support an
integrated investment strategy, the fiscal year 2007 Civil Works budget
transfers several activities to the O&M program from the construction
program. This budget also organized operation and maintenance
activities by river basin and by mission area to set the stage for
improved management of Civil Works assets and more systematic budget
development in future years. Furthermore, we are searching for ways to
reduce costs and thereby accomplish more with available resources.
The fiscal year 2007 budget also supports performance-based
budgeting for the operation and maintenance program by funding ongoing
efforts to develop better risk-based facility condition indices and
asset management systems. These analytical tools will improve our
ability in the future to develop long-term asset management strategies
and establish priorities for the operation, maintenance and management
of Civil Works assets. Our goal is to begin using these improved
analytical tools within 2 years.
value of the civil works program to the nation's economy and defense
We are privileged to be part of an organization that directly
supports the President's priorities of winning the global war on
terror, securing the homeland and contributing to the economy.
The National Welfare
The way in which we manage our water resources can improve the
quality of our citizens' lives. It has affected where and how people
live and influenced the development of this country. The country today
seeks economic development as well as the protection of environmental
values.
Domestically, more than 8,000 USACE volunteers from around the
Nation have deployed to help citizens and communities along the Gulf
Coast in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. Even
now, more than 6 months after Hurricane Katrina, 2,000 USACE volunteers
continue to execute our FEMA-assigned disaster recovery missions along
the Gulf Coast, and to work on rebuilding the New Orleans-area levee
system.
As to Hurricane recovery--the Corps of Engineers is repairing
significant damages to reaches of federally constructed levees,
floodwalls and other features, repairing damaged pumping stations that
were constructed or modified as a part of the Southeast Louisiana Urban
Flood Control project, and repairing non-Federal levees and pump
stations. Along the three outfall canals, we are installing interim
closure structures and temporary pumps until a more permanent solution
can be implemented. We have also initiated analyses that will explore
options to improve protection along the Louisiana and Mississippi
Coasts.
Mr. Chairman, we continue to work with you, this subcommittee, and
other members of Congress on the authorization and funding proposed by
the administration for modifications that will strengthen the existing
hurricane protection system for New Orleans.
Research and Development
Civil Works Program research and development provides the Nation
with innovative engineering products, some of which can have
applications in both civil and military infrastructure spheres. By
creating products that improve the efficiency and competitiveness of
the Nation's engineering and construction industry and providing more
cost-effective ways to operate and maintain infrastructure, Civil Works
Program research and development contributes to the national economy.
The National Defense
Internationally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers remains committed
to the monumental task of helping to rebuild the infrastructures and
economies of Iraq and Afghanistan. Corps' Civilians and Soldiers
continue to make progress toward this Nation's goals of restoring the
security and quality of life for all Iraqis and Afghanis as they pursue
democracy and freedom.
More than 1,700 USACE volunteers have deployed to Iraq since 2003.
The Corps' Gulf Region Division has overseen the initiation of nearly
3,000 reconstruction projects and the completion of more than 2,100.
These projects make a difference in the every day lives of the Iraqi
people, and are visible signs of progress.
In Afghanistan, the Corps is spearheading construction projects for
the Afghan national army and national police, supporting USAID, and
executing important public infrastructure and humanitarian projects.
CONCLUSION
The Corps of Engineers is committed to staying at the leading edge
in service to the Nation. In support of that, we are working with
others to transform our Civil Works Program. We're committed to change
that leads to open, transparent modernization, and a performance-based
Civil Works Program.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. This
concludes my statement.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
Now, I want to make a little announcement which I think we
all know up here, but let us make sure you know out there. The
Majority Leader has indicated to us Republicans that at 3:15 he
would like all Republicans present on the floor of the Senate.
He is going to address the issue that is before the Senate. And
we will try to be there. That is not mandatory for you all.
Senator Dorgan. Is it advisable?
Senator Domenici. It is whatever you will do.
What I would suggest, if you have no desire to go down and
be part of that, I am willing to say you proceed if you be
careful and do things right, and I am sure you will.
Now, we are going to--with your permission, I think we are
going to use the time between now and 3:15 without yielding to
you all and then give it to you. Everything will turn off. When
we give it over to you, it will turn off 15 minutes after you
take over. It will turn off, everything. So you will have 15
minutes also. I am kidding you.
The two Senators on this side, you want to split a little
time and leave me a little at the end?
Senator Allard. I do not think I will take too long. I just
have two or three important questions.
Senator Domenici. Proceed, Senator.
Senator Allard. I want to get back to this Fountain Creek
Watershed Study in Colorado. How much has been expended by the
Federal Government to conduct that study to date?
General Strock. Sir, we have spent $65,000 through fiscal
year 2003.
Senator Allard. Not anywhere near a match of 50 percent of
what local governments have spent, is that correct?
General Strock. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. Please share with me how you set priorities
for the budget and why the funding for the Fountain Creek Study
wasn't included this time around?
Mr. Woodley. Senator, in general the priorities within the
general investigations account were set in accordance with the
same priorities that are used with respect to the construction
account, on the concept that the one would lead into the other.
But this year our general investigations allocation was very
severely constrained because it was largely devoted to two very
large efforts that we are undertaking, one with respect to the
Louisiana Coastal Area Restoration Study and the other is in a
$20 million request for a nationwide study and inventory of
flood control structures, and in particular levees. So that put
enormous constraints and very, very many very worthy studies
were not able to be included in this year's budget request.
Senator Allard. Is that the same problem we are running
into with the tamarisk removals? There are tamarisk removal
projects I think all over the West. It is a water-drinking
tree.
Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir, I am very familiar with salt cedar.
Senator Allard. And you do not have any plans to conduct
any more of those removal projects in the West?
Mr. Woodley. I would have to get back to you on that. I
will tell you that I would advocate for that. That is a very
important--and indeed, the chairman and I have visited the
Bosque in his home State, in which a great part of our effort
that is ongoing along that watershed at Albuquerque is to
remove the tamarisk salt cedar. It is something we are finding
all over our properties and I think I would advocate for a
concerted national effort to rid our areas of that.
Senator Allard. I think that is going along the Rio Grande
in New Mexico. We have got the Rio Grande in Colorado and we
also have the Arkansas and Colorado Rivers. So I am
particularly interested in your responding as far as the
Colorado projects in the West. I would like to get that
information when you get a chance.
Mr. Woodley. Absolutely, yes, sir. I will get back to you
on that.
Senator Allard. Very good.
Then I will stop right there, Mr. Chairman, so you and the
other members can----
General Strock. Senator, if I could quickly amend my answer
to you. The $65,000 I cited was through 2003, but since that
time, in 2004 and 2005, we have had a total of $937,000 against
the project.
Senator Allard. Nine hundred thirty-seven thousand dollars?
General Strock. And in 2006 $125,000, for a total of
$1,032,000, which is matched by the State, and that is where we
are now.
Senator Allard. Yes, okay. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. General, I am going to talk about Katrina
a little bit. I am sure that the distinguished Senator from
Louisiana is going to follow up on a lot of this, but I want to
go through as much as I can, and what I do not get through I am
going to submit to you to answer.
First of all, General, can you give us a quick status
update on the current rebuilding efforts?
General Strock. Yes, sir. Currently our main target is by
June 1 of this year to have the entire system restored and
repaired to where it was when Katrina hit, and we are on target
to do that, sir.
Senator Domenici. I have been told that the United States
Geological Survey says that the storm surge from Hurricane
Katrina is the greatest recorded storm surge to ever hit the
United States. Can you confirm this was in fact a large
hurricane that struck, contrary to what may have been said? And
is that, is what I have just said, true?
General Strock. Sir, I cannot personally confirm that. I
have heard that cited, but I have not heard that directly from
the USGS. But I do understand that is the case. I know that it
was such a large system and storm surge, that it destroyed most
of the gauges that would tell us what actually occurred.
Senator Domenici. So do you think the USGS can confirm this
or do you think they cannot, what I have just said?
General Strock. I am sure they can, yes, sir. I have
absolute confidence in the USGS, yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. If we want that we should get it from
them?
General Strock. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. Along with everyone else, I have read
articles from various experts about the levee failures in New
Orleans. Most of those experts have indicated that the Corps
was aware of potential problems with the levees as designed and
constructed. Further, there has been considerable comment that
the levees should have withstood the effects of Katrina.
General, I need to know from you, what is the Corps'
response? Is there any fire to go with all this smoke or is
this speculation from self-described experts without access to
real concrete data?
General Strock. Sir, that is a tough one to answer. I think
that if you look at the history of these projects, the Lake
Pontchartrain study, which is the one, the project which
actually failed during the event, was authorized in 1965, so
there have been literally generations of people involved in
this. To say that at some point in this there may have been
some concerns expressed about adequacy of designs and so forth,
I really do not know.
I can tell you that as an institution we were not aware of
any particularly hazardous situations. Each time we are
confronted with that, we do look into that and ensure that we
did not have previous knowledge of any potential
vulnerabilities in the system.
Senator Domenici. Can you give us for the record a brief
overview of the findings from the inter-agency performance
evaluation team to date?
General Strock. Yes, sir. For the record or here, sir?
Here. Sir, I would be happy to expand in the record, but I can
tell you that we have gotten to the point now where the IPET
has reached some conclusions about the performance of the
system. Specifically, in the 17th Street Canal area we have now
concluded that we did have a problem with the design of the
structures there, something we had hoped would not be the case,
but now must confront that as a reality.
That finding is being reviewed by the American Society of
Civil Engineers and we expect their response to that soon. So
that is one of the most significant findings to date.
Other findings that the IPET has arrived at have to do with
the storm surge in the Mississippi River gulf outlet, ``MRGO,''
and the conclusion on that is that it does contribute to some
degree in storm surge on the inner harbor, but to a very small
degree. Point-two of a foot is being attributed to MRGO and I
think that is an important aspect to consider in the future.
But sir, the most dramatic conclusion is that, yes, we had
a design problem and that there may be other elements in the
system designed along that way that need to be addressed.
Senator Domenici. As I understand the current situation
concerning the levee rebuilding, funding provided through
enacted supplemental appropriations will complete the levee
system as currently authorized. This includes rebuilding levees
to the authorized levels, that is to the authorized level of
protection, I should say, as well as repairing non-Federal
levees and pump stations. This system was not completed before
Katrina; is that correct?
General Strock. Sir, the system was not completed before
Katrina. There are several projects involved in this, about six
in all. Our estimate is that we have sufficient funding to
complete those systems by September 1, 2007, and with the third
supplemental to provide some enhancements like those you
discussed.
I must caveat somewhat, though, sir, because the IPET
results call into question the flood walls that we are using,
we may have to replace some of the flood wall sections.
Replacement of flood walls is not currently in our current
estimates, with some small exceptions in the inner harbor area.
So there may be an additional requirement to rebuild flood
walls as we get into this. But generally speaking, we feel like
we have sufficient funding.
Senator Domenici. I am not going to have time to go through
this very difficult and bothersome issue of the $6 billion
authorization that has been alluded to by Director Powell and
what should be done with it. Suffice it to say that I will
submit to you three, four questions regarding that whole
situation. Would you answer them as soon as you can?
General Strock. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. Then I have a number of questions on
continuing contracts and reprogramming, which were very
difficult for us to handle in this budget. We had a very hard
time as we tried to put it together. I will submit those to you
and you can answer them as soon as possible.
General Strock. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. Now, having done that, I am going to
yield the gavel to you, Senator, and you do it as you see fit
between the two of you, and we may return and we may not. But
would you close it if we do not?
Senator Dorgan. Senator Landrieu, what did you want to say?
Senator Landrieu. Before Senator Domenici leaves, I just
wanted to thank him for his focus on this Katrina-gulf coast
issue. He has really been focused, as has his staff, with
trying to come up with solutions as well as suggestions. So
thank you, Senator, and I will have some others to follow up.
Senator Domenici. I did not mean to be critical. The
General understands. These questions I am asking have to come
out and we have to decide how to fix this, and it is very
difficult to explain to the public and we need your help in
explaining it. The authorized level and all this business, it
does not mean much to people, but it is very, very much the
order of the day for us on where we spend, why we spend, what
we did not spend. So we need to work together on it.
General and Mr. Secretary, thank you. Thanks for your help
in New Mexico, too. I skipped over that. Particularly, I thank
you for the Acequias funding. Since you funded it, I am not
going to ask you whether you can say it or not. Normally I try
to find out if you can pronounce it, but if you can put the
money in I do not care whether you can pronounce it or not.
Thank you very much.
General Strock. Thank you, sir.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Domenici, thank you very much, and
we will ask our questions and then adjourn the hearing, after
we have done some legislative business.
Senator Landrieu. You do it, we will fix it.
Senator Dorgan [presiding]. At any rate, we appreciate the
courtesy of Senator Domenici.
Let me ask a couple of questions, and state first that at
the moment the Red River is running north. It is flooding, well
above flood stage at Wapaton, crested now, we believe,
yesterday in Fargo. It is now being steered through the city of
Grand Forks.
This budget requests the final $12 million for the flood
control project in Grand Forks. We appreciate that. We have
spent a lot of money on flood control projects up and down the
Red River. That is I think a success story for the Corps of
Engineers and we appreciate very much the work the Corps has
done and believe that this is the last contingent of money that
is required to complete the Grand Forks flood control project.
So I want to say, especially in areas where we have seen really
excellent work by the Corps, that we appreciate that, because
we are experiencing this flood. I think it is the third highest
in history, these crests, not so far from the 1997 crest in
which the entire city of Grand Forks was evacuated. It is a
pretty aggressive flooding.
Let me ask General Strock and Secretary Woodley about a
parochial issue, but nonetheless an important one, the Fort
Stevenson Marina Project at Fort Stevenson in North Dakota. The
Corps of Engineers built a marina at Fort Stevenson and in half
of the years you have not been able to see the water from the
marina, so it has been unusable. I have been up there many
times.
We finally created a circumstance where the Corps said they
will move over--it is about 1 mile--and do a deeper water
marina. It is not something that would break the bank, but the
Corps made a commitment to do that. They were going to
reprogram funds to do it. Now I think there is a question of
whether the Corps is prepared and willing to proceed.
Can you tell me what the current thinking of the Corps is
and what your commitment is?
General Strock. Sir, what I do have on that is that we
estimate that it is about an $11 million requirement to
accomplish the movement of the marina. And yes, water is down,
as it is throughout the northern reservoirs. And I would
assume, since we have identified the cost associated, we feel
like we can do it. But we simply do not have the money to do
that now.
Senator Dorgan. When Mr. Rob Vining was making the
commitment on behalf of Corps, he talked about using
reprogrammed funds.
General Strock. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. It actually was $5 million. Back then the
cost was around $5 million or $6 million to do this. I do not
know how the Corps has gotten this to an $11 million project.
But the problem is these folks have a marina that's unusable.
It is the Corps' marina. The regulation of the water--instead
of retaining water in the upper reservoirs, we have been
flushing it out so that my friend from Missouri can run his
barges down south. So folks who want to use a marina at Fort
Stevenson do not have a marina to use, and moving a very short
distance would give them a deep water marina and it would not
cost a great deal. The Corps of Engineers actually built the
first one. We have not been able to use it every other year.
So it seems to me the Corps has a responsibility to provide
the money to move this.
General Strock. Sir, I can certainly provide you a better
informed answer for the record on why the cost has shifted. If
we are relying on reprogramming, I think you understand the
limits on reprogramming right now that have been placed on the
Corps, and it is very difficult to find both sources and then
get approval of moving money. That may be a factor in not being
able to move ahead on this.
Sir, we certainly recognize the challenges of the drought.
It has been going on for many, many years and we are trying to
operate the system in accordance with the master manual, which
has been recently revised and approved. And we do know that it
does cause problems for everyone in the system, not just the
upriver States but the downriver as well.
Senator Dorgan. Well, General, I am going to submit a list
of questions about this. But I do think the Corps has a
responsibility at Fort Stevenson and I do not know how you meet
it. We have a presidential budget now that cuts $0.5 billion. I
know you are getting some emergency funding, but in terms of
regular funding a cut of $0.5 billion when you have unmet
needs, you have commitments that have been made that are not
now apparently going to be kept, that is a pretty
unsatisfactory response to tell to the folks up in the northern
part of the reservoir.
The upstream benefits of tourism, recreation, fishing are
ten times the size of the downstream benefits of barging, and
yet we continue to see that water rush out of those gates
headed downstream.
You and I have more to talk about, I think, as well as the
Secretary, about how we meet the responsibility to the people
who have been told by the Corps that the Corps would move that
Fort Stevens marina.
General, let me talk about a subject that you are not going
to want to talk about at all. But I have tried to do this by
submitting questions last year. I have tried to do this by
letter to you, and I have never gotten a satisfactory answer.
That is the Bunnatine Greenhouse issue and the Rio contracts.
I have as a result of magazine reports of what has happened
at the Corps of Engineers, I have held policy committee
hearings. Ms. Greenhouse has testified. She has been demoted,
perhaps for that testimony or perhaps for other reasons, but
she has been demoted. And she has said that--let me read her
quote--``I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to
the contracts awarded to KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton,
represents the most blatant, improper contract abuse I have
witnessed during the course of my professional career.''
It takes a lot of guts for somebody to say that. She was
given excellent recommendations all along the way during her
career, a remarkable public servant. People outside of your
agency who know about contractors tell me that she is a first-
rate contract official in the Corps of Engineers. And for this
candor she has lost her job, been demoted.
I know there are legal issues in the Pentagon. You probably
cannot respond to the legal issues, but you could respond at
least by letter to me, and you could respond to the questions
that I propounded last year during the hearing about what is
going on here.
I assume that you will probably want to say that she is
wrong, there are no contracting abuses. I assume also that the
inspector general is looking into all of this. What has been
appearing in the popular literature, magazines and others,
about this situation is deeply troubling to me--the RIO
contract, the LOGCAP contracting, substantial evidence of
abuse, waste, and even fraud in sole source no-bid contracts in
Iraq.
I have tried, both in letters and in submitted questions,
to get candid responses from you and have been unsuccessful.
Can you tell me why?
General Strock. Sir, first of all I need to make sure that
we have responded in a timely way to your questions, and I will
have to go back and look at those responses. There are limits
to what we can talk about in this and one of the most important
aspects of this entire thing--and this may sound somewhat
contradictory to the situation you just laid out--is that we
have an obligation to respect the rights of the individuals and
privacy of the individuals here. So my ability to talk about
specific reasons for actions we took is very, very limited.
Therefore I must simply say that we have a process that is
very important to us. We followed the appropriate process in
disposition of Ms. Greenhouse's case. And I think that has been
reviewed on multiple times. She has been----
Senator Dorgan. If Ms. Greenhouse would waive those
provisions, if she would waive that and allow you to say
whatever you wish, would you be willing to do that?
General Strock. If that is possible, sir, and it was done
in the right kind of way and I was cleared to do that, yes,
sir, absolutely. I would be happy to do that. But it is all
about protecting her privacy.
Sir, in terms of the allegations, I can talk about those a
bit. I was personally involved in many of those decisions and
can look you right in the eye and say that we followed the
rules that were in existence at the time to make all those
calls. The Government Accountability Office has reviewed the
award of those contracts and has found that they were done in a
proper fashion. The Army Inspector General has also conducted
an investigation. The DOD Inspector General has also conducted
investigations. And to date we have not had any indication that
things were not done properly in the award of those contracts.
There have been many questions about the actual delivery of
products and services under those contracts and in most cases I
think the Government has shown to have acted in a reasonable
and appropriate manner in adjudicating claims paid and all that
sort of thing.
So this entire thing has been looked at in many, many ways
and many times and so far the results are that we did things in
the proper way.
Senator Dorgan. Well, General, I also have looked at some
of them and had whistleblowers come and testify and it
contradicts that answer. Food service, water quality. I will
give you an example. I do not know whether you had these, the
water quality contracts, on the bases. Was that yours?
General Strock. Sir, I did not. This particular contractor
has a number of contracts. One of them is the LOGCAP contract,
which is managed by the Army Materiel Command, which provides
for sustainment on military bases. Our contracts had to do with
the reconstruction of the oil industry, so the food and water
issues that you cite were not part of our contracts.
Senator Dorgan. Yours were the RIO contracts?
General Strock. Yes, sir, ours was RIO.
Senator Dorgan. I just observe on the LOGCAP contracts that
both the Department of Defense and Halliburton have been
dishonest publicly about that. We now have internal documents
from Halliburton that show that the responses by DOD and
Halliburton were not honest.
General Strock. And I cannot speak to that, sir.
Senator Dorgan. My understanding from the inspector general
on the issues surrounding the allegations Ms. Greenhouse made
is that there has been a referral to the Department of Justice
for a criminal investigation. Is that not accurate?
General Strock. Sir, I do not know that. I know that there
are a number of proceedings related to her case that are going
on right now and I am involved in some of those. But I do not
know if they have risen to the level of the Department of
Justice.
Senator Dorgan. I believe the inspector general has told us
that in a letter.
My point is not to badger you about this, except that there
are questions that demand answers. The American people demand
answers.
General Strock. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. We are spending an enormous amount of money
on these projects, contracts, the RIO contracts, LOGCAP
projects, feeding troops, providing water to troops, equipment
to troops, oil. The fact is there is a substantial amount of
evidence there has been dramatic waste and abuse and in my
judgment fraud. The Custer Battles issue comes to mind. I am
not going to lay all this on your shoulders, but I am telling
you it makes me sick when you take a look at what is going on
and the waste of money, and nobody seems to care very much.
All I am asking is that, with respect to those issues under
your jurisdiction, that you respond fully to the questions we
are asking. And if you cannot answer, I will ask Ms. Greenhouse
if she will provide a waiver so that you can give us all the
information.
I know that you are going to leave this room and mutter
things that I probably should not say out loud under your
breath, because this is not what you want to hear at this
hearing.
General Strock. Sir, not at all. If I might, not at all. I
share the same concerns you do. We have to treat people in the
right ways, and I think we have done that. So no, sir, I am not
going to mutter anything on the way out of the room.
Senator Dorgan. One other question. The person that has
been noticed in at least one publication to replace Ms.
Greenhouse it appears to me has no contracting experience.
General Strock. Sir, her replacement is Ms. Sandra Riley,
who has come to us after about 40 years of Government
experience. She did serve as a head of contracting agency,
which is the same level of responsibility that I have within
the Corps of Engineers, and she managed all the affairs for the
Department of the Army and the Pentagon related to that.
It is true that she is not an acquisition certified
professional under the Defense Acquisition Improvement Work
Force Act. But she has been given a waiver for some of the
criteria and she has gone to school and is currently being
brought up to speed on what it is she needs to know as a
contracting official.
She is really coming to us as a change agent, sir, which
she has a reputation for in the Army, and she brings us
leadership. It is part of the Army's intent that, like our
general officers that can serve in many capacities, our senior
civilians are expected to be true corporate leaders as well and
do not necessarily need the specific experience and credentials
of the particular area of the government that they are working,
that they have oversight for.
Senator Dorgan. General, with due respect, that seems
illogical to me, to have to bring her up to speed with respect
to knowledge. My colleague here from Louisiana has just
experienced FEMA's failures. Seven of the top eleven positions
in FEMA were staffed by cronies, I am sure who had good
management experience, but did not know a thing about emergency
response. So you put cronies in positions for emergency
response, they did not know how to respond to an emergency.
I am just making a point that Ms. Greenhouse, fairly or
unfairly--I guess ultimately the facts will judge this--lost
her job, was demoted, for speaking out about what she perceived
to be abuses. She regularly had excellent recommendations,
excellent performance evaluations, year after year, but has now
been demoted and replaced by someone who has no experience or
no substantial knowledge in contracting. That just seems
unbelievable to me.
General Strock. Yes, sir, I would not characterize her as
having no experience, no substantial knowledge, but she is not
certified as an acquisition professional at this point, that is
true.
Senator Dorgan. Well, we have more to exchange on that and
I will do that by letter, General Strock. I hope and expect we
want the same thing, that we want accountability and we want
facts to speak for themselves.
Let me close then on a positive note so that I can tell you
again, we have--we are a semi-arid State. North Dakota would
hold ten Massachusetts in land mass. We are a big, big State,
and 642,000 people spread out. We have got a big Missouri River
running in one part of it and we have got a Red River running
north.
We have a lot of water issues. We have got a flood in
Devil's Lake that came and stayed, and it is a huge problem. We
have got the need to move water from western North Dakota to
replenish the Red River in times when it does not have enough
water. At the moment it is busting out of its banks and
flooding in three large communities.
So having watched the Corps of Engineers in 1997 in action,
I can tell you that the performance of the Corps to do well is
critical to our surviving during floods and surviving during
droughts. I have not talked at great length about the
management of the Missouri River today, but that also is a
significant part of our angst.
But you have men and women working for the Corps of
Engineers that work day and night at times when we are in
crisis, and I hope you and the Secretary will communicate to
them our appreciation for that. I know they are doing that now
up and down the entire Red River valley and we want you to tell
them thank you on behalf of a grateful citizenry.
General Strock. Sir, thank you very much.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Dorgan.
Mr. Secretary and General Strock and others, I want to
begin by acknowledging that you have been down to Louisiana,
Mississippi, and the gulf coast many times since Katrina and
Rita and the multiple levee breaks that ensued, and you have
sent extra support and been attentive to our requests. So I say
that just to acknowledge that in my view you personally have
done what you can.
But my questions will be about the constraints that you are
operating under, which I think are very serious and actually in
fact put the Nation at risk. I want to start with you,
Secretary Woodley, if I could. Could you just for the record
before this Appropriations Committee that has the task of
funding critical civil works projects for energy and water for
the country say again clearly for the record what we are going
to be able to fund this year and what we are not, based on what
is the backlog of authorizations? And if you do not have that,
I think General Strock or others might.
What is our current backlog of authorized critical projects
that is not going to get funded based on the budget that you
have submitted?
Mr. Woodley. Senator, I want to preface what I say, I think
I understand what you mean by the backlog. It is a term, it is
a sort of a pejorative term for these, that I try to avoid
because I regard those projects not as being projects in some
kind of backlog, but rather it being opportunities that exist
for investment on the part of the Nation in water resource
development.
Senator Landrieu. That is fine. Then what are the
opportunities that we are not funding?
Mr. Woodley. I believe that we have something in excess of
400 different projects across the country that are eligible for
Corps funding, and of those I believe that about 90 to 100 are
actually receiving funding in the President's request.
Senator Landrieu. With the number about $44 billion be
about accurate, $44 billion, opportunities that are not funded?
Mr. Woodley. That might--well, of course that would not be
in any given year. That would be the total build-out for the
entire amount.
Senator Landrieu. That is correct.
Mr. Woodley. But I cannot confirm the number, but it would
not surprise me.
Senator Landrieu. Well, let me then try. I am going to say
a number and if you disagree with me for the record then you
can get back in writing. But basically our records reflect, my
records reflect, that we have about $44 billion in--let us use
your word--opportunity to protect Americans from flooding, to
promote navigation and economic development, and to protect
wetlands, coastal restoration, et al., as described in the
charge.
And the way that I look at it and many Members of Congress
is we are about $42 billion short, because in this budget we
have approximately $1.5 billion for new construction, then x
few billion for operations and maintenance.
But I want to focus on, because all the hearings are, as
you testified, we have 5 percent more money than last year.
Since the last year number is irrelevant to the people that I
represent, 1,200 of whom who have lost their lives because it
was too low, 5 percent more does not have any relevance to me
or to the people I represent or to the gulf coast. So I am
going to try to focus us on what the real pending crisis is.
That is that this budget is so far short of where this Nation
needs to be in investments in civil works it is almost in my
view not worth discussing.
For the record, I want to be clear that there is 44--before
we pass the next WRDA bill, which 88 of us have signed on to
get passed, which will add how much, $10 billion to $13 billion
in new authorized projects which everyone is clamoring for, we
have $44 billion worth of projects that do not have a penny
allocated to them in this budget.
Now, that is the first point. The second point I want to
make is I want to show you a little chart of why this is of
significance for the country. I am going to provide this to the
members. This is a chart that I got from the National Civil
Works--American Civil Works Society. You can see it goes back
to 1929. This is 2004, I guess. This is where the levees broke
in New Orleans, the bottom of this long, dangerous,
nonsensical, irrational, irresponsible, funding level. This is
where they broke.
You can see what happened in the early part of the century,
and even just going back as recently as--this is a percentage
of GDP. This is the investment gap in America today just on
civil works. But it is not just civil works; it is all water
projects, all flood control projects in the country. And this
is a disgrace. This budget is a disgrace because of that.
The paragraph that introduces this budget I would like to
read, is an insult to me and the people that I represent: ``The
fiscal year 2007 civil works budget is a performance-based
budget which reflects a focus on the projects and activities
that provide the highest net economic and environmental returns
on the Nation's investment or address significant risk to human
safety.'' That is an insult to the people I represent because
it is a lie, because it does not.
Now let me ask you this question. When the Corps conducts a
feasibility study on hurricane protection projects, does the
current law direct you or indicate to you that you have to
conduct that feasibility study for life and property, or is it
just for property? Do you take human life into your
calculations, technically? Do you do, General Strock? To
General Strock or really to the engineers. Go ahead.
General Strock. Not per se, ma'am. We do not take that in
as a factor. We use sort of a surrogate for that, which is we
do consider economic development, and typically where there is
economic development there are people. So the main driver is
economics and tradeoffs there.
Senator Landrieu. I just want to call to the attention of
this committee that that is something that we are going to have
to take a look at, because this comment about human life, human
safety, is a stretch based on the fact that it is just
extrapolated from economic data. So some of us are looking very
closely at asking for human life to be a calculation in these
studies because it may have a direct impact then on whether
some of this gets built or not.
But that is why I take issue with this, because it is not
included right now--I know that for a fact--in your
assumptions.
General Strock. Ma'am, if I could just modify a bit. That
is not our traditional method of valuing human life and human
lives exposed, but this year we do have a criteria in the
budget that for a given likelihood of an occurrence for a
certain amount of flows, for the density of populations, we do
consider projects as high-risk projects. It has to do with
warning time, people in the flood plain, potential depth of
flooding and velocities.
So this year in looking at high risk projects that should
be supported, we have taken that into account.
Senator Landrieu. Well, I appreciate you taking that, that
extra step, because in the current laws, which we are going to
recommend be changed, that has not been in the past
calculations. And besides these numbers being low, that is also
a critical component, with populations moving closer and closer
to water, whether they be coasts or along great rivers or
lakes, et cetera. It becomes a real serious issue that makes
these numbers that are pretty devastating even worse.
Let me ask for some clarification on the $6 billion, and
whoever can answer this the best. Last week our administration
received what I consider a bombshell of an additional $6
billion that is needed to meet the current authorization levels
or the current safety levels or the certification, if you could
explain which of those it is. How did you arrive at that figure
and do you think it is accurate for southeast Louisiana? And I
do not know who wants to take that. Maybe General Strock. You
conducted the--
Mr. Woodley. Actually, Senator, that figure had to do with
the question that was raised to the Corps at the local level,
at the district, on making assumptions with respect to the base
flood elevation that may eventually be determined by the FEMA
for the new flood maps. The question there was, can you give us
a rough order of magnitude, a very-swiftly-arrived-at estimate
of what the outside cost to raise those levees by a certain
amount might be.
We have--the only thing I can tell you is that we answered
that question. Those figures have been--are being refined even
now, so I would not----
Senator Landrieu. So you are saying, you are saying that
FEMA requested that information of you?
Mr. Woodley. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Landrieu. FEMA requested that information. How long
did they give you to--when did they request it? And when you
said you hurriedly put it together, did you put it together,
General, in 2 weeks or 3 weeks or 5 weeks?
Mr. Woodley. I would say perhaps even less than that. I am
not exactly sure of the precise chronology, but it was a very
swift question. It was based on, as far as I understand the
estimate----
Senator Landrieu. Did you take more than 48 hours to put it
together? General, try to testify. How long did it take you to
put that together----
General Strock. Yes, ma'am. If I could just back up a bit
and talk----
Senator Landrieu [continuing]. And is it accurate?
General Strock [continuing]. About the process here. Mr.
Woodley cited the base flood elevations, which determine the
100-year flood plain that is identified by FEMA. We participate
and support FEMA with hydrologic studies to determine just what
that flood plain should look like. So we are a supporting
agency to FEMA in making that determination.
We all recognize that after a storm of the magnitude of
Katrina that it would impact the base flood elevations that
would be applied post-Katrina, because Katrina is such a
massive storm that it really influenced the record which is
used to determine that.
It was about the November time frame, I think, when we
concluded what those base flood elevations should be, and in
fact we have issued those advisory notices in all the counties
and parishes along the coasts that were impacted except for the
four in the New Orleans area. We did not at that time go
forward because the initial feeling was that it was such a high
elevation that it would make a dramatic impact. So what we
asked is that we should delay the issue of those base flood
elevations until we had time to really do some more refined
analysis, and then also to consider the impacts.
In the process, we determined that, given the base flood
elevations that we arrived at, we could not certify most of the
levee system around New Orleans to a 100-year level. It was not
an important question on the gulf coast in Mississippi because
there are no levees to certify. It is what it is. But when you
are behind a levee, if you can certify the levee to a 100-year
it essentially takes out the people and infrastructure behind
that levee, it takes them out of the flood plain.
So our ability to certify levees was then an important
question. As we did that analysis, we determined that in most
cases we could not certify the levees to 100-year protection
levels, which essentially puts everybody in the flood plain and
they act like the levee is not even there. So it has tremendous
implications.
As a result of that, we were asked what it would cost to
raise the existing projects to 100-year level, and the number
that Chairman Powell put out last week was a preliminary
estimate which we are continuing to refine. I think that you
will see at such point as a decision has been made on this that
you will see that estimate should come down somewhat.
Senator Landrieu. Okay, I accept that and I know that this
number can be refined. We are actually hoping that it is
refined. It is hard to get any money around here, let alone $6
billion, so we are hoping it can be refined.
But I just want to press this for just a minute. You said
1-in-a-100-year flood. Would that roughly equate to category 2,
3, 4, or 5 roughly? I know they do not match up, but if you had
to chart it what would it be?
General Strock. I cannot answer that. I am not sure there
is a direct correlation between the flood plain and the
categorization of storms. What that tells you is that in that
area that there is a 1 percent chance in a given year that you
will see a storm of that magnitude.
Senator Landrieu. What do we have now in the other parts of
the city? Is that the same 1 percent in 100 years?
General Strock. Ma'am, about--well, first of all, I think
70 or 80 percent of the city is already in the flood plain.
This just adds more to that.
Senator Landrieu. That is not what I am asking, what is in
the flood plain. I am trying to ask--I am trying to establish,
so I can compare apples to apples--the $6 billion which you
have recommended, which will be refined, let us just say it is
refined to $4.5 billion. That number, whatever it ends up
being, is going to build category 2, 3, 4, or 5 levees around
the areas that you have proposed, just roughly? There is no way
for you to say whether they are 2's, 3's, 4's, or 5's?
General Strock. I truly cannot answer that. I think that we
are wrong in trying to describe these systems in terms of the
category of storms they can protect against. That has been one
of the challenges throughout, that we simply do not build the
category system for hurricanes----
Senator Landrieu. It may not be the accurate way, but I can
tell you one of the things that I am going to press very hard
as a Senator is to have some way. It does not have to be a
category 1 through 5. It does not have to be 100 to 10,000. But
I have to have some way to explain to people that the levees
are going to be either 1 foot, 4 feet, 5 feet, or protect them
from x.
So I suggest if you do not like the way we are doing it,
General, we have to come up with a way that is clear to people,
that is transparent, that everybody understands, like this is a
$1 bill, you know what a $1 bill is; this is a $10 bill, this
is a $100 bill. We cannot give you a $100 bill; we are giving
you a $1 bill. People are clear.
We need that, so it does not matter to me. So I am going to
leave that there, but I have to come back to this question. But
let me try, without having the benefit of any levels or any
storms, just say, ask you this way. Whenever we get this dollar
amount, if we do not get this dollar--let me just put it this
way. If we do not get this dollar amount that will be refined,
what happens to those areas in four parishes? They either have
to build up to about what height or what? You said--you did not
release the heights. I am not asking you to. But the general
height, is it 13 feet or 20 feet or 25 feet?
General Strock. I would have to get back with you, ma'am.
It varies by where you are in the city.
Senator Landrieu. Could you give just a range of those four
parishes that you looked at? I know you have it in your data.
You had to have it.
General Strock. Early on, I think in the November time
frame, it was about 17 feet, something like that. The challenge
here, ma'am, is that if the levees are not certified to a 100-
year level then FEMA acts as if they are not there at all. The
fact is there are levees providing protection and you are not
going to be fully inundated because there are levees there.
What we are trying to do to articulate the level of risk is
to show levels of inundation in a Katrina-like event that would
occur on June 1, 2006 when we complete our current work, what
we would see on September 1, 2007, and then, if we certify it
at 100-year and we build the levees to that, what people could
expect in different parts of the area in terms of depth of the
water.
That is how I think is the best way to articulate the risk
associated with this.
Senator Landrieu. Well, that may make sense to you,
General, but we are struggling with trying to make that sense
to 3 million people that live in south Louisiana and just need
to know whether the hurricane levees are going to be at a
category 3, 4, or 5 or some equivalent of that and whether it
will work or not.
But I am going to leave the testimony at: you are refining
the number, it is a real need for these four parishes, and you
have not requested it in the budget.
General Strock. That is correct.
Senator Landrieu. Secretary, can I ask you, does the
President have any intention of requesting this or what do you
think the status of that is?
Mr. Woodley. I believe that that is a decision that has not
yet been made by the President.
Senator Landrieu. So we still can remain hopeful that
perhaps it might be forthcoming. I will just remain hopeful
today.
Mr. Woodley. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Landrieu. Is there anything that you--I just wanted
to--I have 100 questions I could ask, but I wanted to try to
hone in on the $6 billion, on the study, and on the general
lack of funding, which I will conclude by saying that because
of that chart I would suggest that Katrina and Rita have, I
hope, ripped away the curtain of complacency, that we have had
a false sense of security in this country about the investments
that we are making. They are not adequate, and if we do not
find a whole other paradigm we just cannot not only protect the
people along the gulf coast, but we are investing so little of
our gross national product in what I would think are essential,
essential civil works projects, for not just trade and commerce
but for humans, safety of human life. And the safety and
protection of billions of dollars of investments that we have
made all along the coast and all along the great river systems
and all along the great lakes systems of America are at great
risk, because this line is about off the chart. You cannot get
much lower than where it is. You literally cannot go any lower
on the chart. You would be off the page, down to zero. Would
you hold it up again?
There is nowhere down to go. And it represents less than, I
think, one-tenth of what we spent in 1929 or 1930 and one-sixth
of what we spent in the 1970's.
This is what our delegation, just in conclusion, has been
looking at, this precipitous falloff, and thinking we have a
coast that has to be saved, wetlands that are washing away at
an alarming rate, levee systems that are underfunded and
underdesigned, and systems that have to give added money.
So we have got to change this, and we have recommended for
us a solution is getting revenue, offshore oil and gas revenue,
to start investing in the gulf. We have even recommended
sharing that with the other States to help them. Of course we
have been rebuked. We cannot do that. So now we are down to
just trying to find for Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and
Texas a new source of funding to help get these civil works,
essential civil works projects, up.
Because I said, this is where the levees broke. It is just
a matter of time until they break again some other place
because we are not investing nearly the money that we need to.
In all fairness to this administration that I have been very
critical of, this did not start with the current
administration. It has been going on quite a long time.
But I would say one final thing. The reason I am remaining
somewhat critical is in these years we did not always have
surpluses, but when we had surpluses we chose to do something
else with them, and funding of civil works was not one of them.
So we have a lot of work to do on this budget. Senator
Domenici has been very, very kind to let us go on. But the $6
billion issue has to get resolved. The way we define levee
protection, you pick a way, tell us what to do so people
understand it. Then the overall budget number for this budget
is something we are going to have to work on.
Do you want to add anything before we conclude?
General Strock. Ma'am, the only thing I would add is, one
of the ways that we can get at the business of articulating
risk is using the money that you gave us in the third
supplemental to create a national levee inventory and database,
and this budget also requests additional funds for that. That
would allow us to capture all the levees in this country from
private through Federal and then to build a model that would
allow us to articulate risk and reliability associated with
those, and that will really frame the problem and the potential
for investment and help us set priorities. So I think that is a
wonderful step that needs to be done.
Senator Landrieu. I thank you, General, for raising that. I
wanted to get a status report. I would just ask you to submit
it in writing, not to take any more time. But I am glad we were
able to get that study in for the Nation, because then you are
given an opportunity to present to the Congress the real needs,
and then it is up to Congress to decide and this
administration, are we just going to not fulfill our
responsibilities, pretend like it is not a real risk, hope we
do not get any more hurricanes, pray no river goes over its
boundaries?
I mean, this truly is a Nation at risk right here at home.
And I know we have risk around the world and I am cognizant of
what we are doing in Iraq, but I hope that the study--and you
should be finished with that when? I think it was June?
General Strock. There is a preliminary----
Senator Landrieu. A preliminary in June.
General Strock. August.
Senator Landrieu. In August. Preliminary in June and then a
final in August. That will help us. That will be very helpful
to the country.
Our situation is more urgent, as you know, because
hurricane season starts in 2 months. But we will continue to
work on it.
General Strock. Where the New Orleans levees are concerned,
we are doing a study now for those areas that were not
obviously impacted to make sure that they are still
structurally intact, and that will be done certainly in June.
The preliminary report on the levee inventory will be in
August, not the final report.
Senator Landrieu. Anything else, Mr. Secretary?
Mr. Woodley. Thank you, Senator. It has been a real
privilege to work with you and the rest of the Louisiana
delegation on these important response issues and we appreciate
your continued support for the agency and assure you that we
take your views very, very seriously.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Landrieu. Well, I appreciate that. You have worked
very closely with our delegation. But this is just not--this
current system does not work. It does not work, did not work
for us, does not work for anyone. We have got to have some
serious change.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
REGULATORY ISSUES IN NEW MEXICO
Question. General Strock, I have had Colonel Wang in my office a
couple of times this year concerning a couple of permitting issues with
the city of Albuquerque. One of these concerned the Montano Bridge,
which has since been resolved, the other was the Paseo Del Norte road
extension.
The Paseo project involves crossing an arroyo and the issue had to
do with the permitting required. I am simplifying the chain of events
here for brevity. The city originally planned to cross the arroyo with
a culvert. The permitting requirements became so onerous for the
culvert, particularly with Corps' discretionary decisions concerning
historic preservation consultation, that the city has committed to me
that they will build a bridge instead. A bridge will be considerably
more expensive. I have not heard any status on this project lately.
General Strock, do you know the current status of this project?
General Strock. The Albuquerque district is processing the Paseo
Del Norte as a Nationwide Permit 14 and 43 for a culvert crossing of
Piedras Marcadas arroyo. The district made a finding of no adverse
effect to historic properties. The Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP) objected to the district's determination. As
required by the National Historic Preservation Act, the district is
reevaluation their initial finding of no adverse effect and will
provide their decision to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
in accordance with the requirements of regulations 800.5(c)(3)(ii) and
800.5(c)(3)(B) in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Appendix
C. This completes the Corps responsibilities under section 106 of the
Historic Preservation Act.
Question. Can you comment on the Corps discretionary roles in the
permitting process, particularly in the area of historic preservation?
General Strock. Compliance with Section 106 is required for all
Federal undertakings which include issuance of Federal Permits in
jurisdictional waters of the United States. The Corps of Engineers uses
nationwide general permits and individual permits to authorize
activities in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations. The
Corps of Engineers must ensure activities comply with the National
Historic Preservation Act regardless of the type of undertaking. The
Corps has responsibility for determining the appropriate scope of
analysis and the effect of the undertaking, in this case the activity
in waters of the United States, on historic properties, including the
direct and indirect effects of these activities. The Corps must also
afford the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the ACHP an
opportunity to comment on its determination of effect. The Corps must
document how it considered the opinion of the ACHP and SHPO in its
administrative record for the permit decision. Once this is
accomplished the Section 106 process is complete.
Question. Also in New Mexico, there is a railroad project called
Abo Canyon. This canyon, which is about 4.5 miles long, has only a
single track through it and, as a result, is a major railway
constriction from the west coast to the Midwest and beyond.
To maintain efficient transit of goods, it's essential that a
second track be constructed through the canyon. I'm told that, before
the railroad can construct a second track parallel to the existing one,
they have to have a permit from the Corps because a grand total of 0.1
acre of wetlands might be impacted.
Now, General, these so-called wetlands are normally very dry--this
being New Mexico--but I do understand why the Corps would have to be
involved, given its Clean Water Act responsibilities. However, I don't
understand why the Corps is requiring an archaeological investigation
of the entire canyon, rim-to-rim, just because of this one-tenth of an
acre of dry wetlands.
Can you explain why the Corps has required this, and why it isn't
over-reaching on the part of the Corps in defining its jurisdiction?
General Strock. The Corps of Engineers is evaluating the second
rail track for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad project
in accordance with its regulations under the individual permit
procedures because the project will impact a total of more than 0.5
acre of waters of the United States at 24 separate locations along the
proposed 4.5 mile alignment. The permit process has been delayed by
historic property issues.
Most of the landowners affected by the proposed track have
cooperated with and sold their land to BNSF. The property owners of
Dripping Springs Ranch have not sold their land and oppose the project.
BNSF initiated the condemnation process for this parcel; however, the
process is currently in abeyance pending a final decision on the 404
permit. Thus far, Dripping Springs Ranch has not allowed BNSF to
complete a required survey for cultural properties on their property.
This is not an insignificant survey as BNSF has already identified over
100 historic sites along the proposed alignment. The Corps and BNSF are
meeting with the property owners to resolve this issue.
Due to potential impacts to at least 17 of the 125 sites already
identified, the Corps has determined that the proposed activity will
have an adverse effect on historic properties and has sent a letter to
the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer (NM SHPO) in
accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act. The Corps will
work with the consulting parties (BNSF, NM SHPO, Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), the owners of Dripping Springs Ranch) to develop an
MOA to mitigate for the adverse effects to historic properties in
accordance with the regulations and law. BLM is involved in this
process as BNSF must acquire a small piece of land from BLM to complete
the project.
The district expects to conclude permit evaluation, including the
MOA to address adverse effects on historic properties, in August 2006.
DROUGHT
Question. As you may be aware, we are facing significant drought
issues in the Southwest and particularly New Mexico this year. I wanted
to let you know that I am seeking $5 million in the current
Supplemental for the Corps to provide drought assistance.
Obviously this still has to be conferenced with the House before it
becomes law, but can you describe some of the drought assistance
measures that the Corps can provide under the Stafford Act?
General Strock. The Corps is the Department of Defense Agent for
Emergency Function 3 (public works and engineering) under the National
Response Plan which is implemented pursuant to the Stafford Act. During
a disaster, the Corps will do what is asked by Federal Emergency
Management Agency under the Stafford Act pursuant to the National
Response Plan.
Question. Are there any other programs within the Corps that would
allow you to respond to drought?
General Strock. There are several ways the Corps can help during
droughts independent of the Stafford Act. These authorities are
summarized below.
--Emergency Provisions of Clean Water.--Public Law 84-99, as amended.
Water can be provided to a community that is confronted with a
source of contaminated water.
--Emergency Well Construction.--Public Law 84-99, as amended.
Authorizes the construction of wells or the transport of water.
--Planning Assistance to States.--Public Law 93-251, as amended.
States may obtain Corps water resources planning expertise on
50/50 cost shared studies to develop plans related to the
overall State water plan. This plan must be developed prior to
any water shortage in order to be effective.
--Drought Contingency Plans for Corps Reservoirs.--Provides for
release of water from Corps reservoirs during drought. Not in
law, but is part of the operation of Corps reservoirs.
--Drought Contingency Water.--Section 6 of the 1944 FCA. When
available, the Corps can sell surplus water to a State or
political subdivision, which agrees to act as a wholesaler.
--Reallocation of Storage.--Public Law 85-500. This permits the
reallocation of storage from an existing purpose to M&I water
supply. This plan must also be developed prior to any water
shortage in order to be effective.
--Interim Use of M&I for Irrigation.--Section 931, Public Law 99-662.
This program is limited in that it is only applicable to
certain projects.
KATRINA
Question. Hurricane Katrina was a terrible blow to this Nation. The
costs in terms of human suffering are incalculable, and the costs of
response and recovery have been staggering to the Nation's treasury.
General Strock, can you give us a quick status update of the
current rebuilding efforts?
General Strock. Task Force Guardian has awarded all of the 59
separate construction contracts identified as being needed to restore
hurricane protection to southeast Louisiana. As of April 5, 2006, a
total of 20 of the 59 construction contracts have been completed.
Repairs to the Mississippi River levees (105 miles) have been completed
and all vessels (155) have been removed from the levees and floodwalls.
Of the 59 contracts, 54 (91 percent) were awarded to local businesses,
36 were awarded to small businesses, 15 were awarded to 8(a) firms, and
7 were awarded to HubZone firms. The total estimated cost of the
repairs is $800 million.
Question. General Strock, I have been told that the United States
Geological Survey says that the storm surge from Hurricane Katrina, is
the greatest recorded storm surge to ever hit the United States. Can
you confirm this? This was, in fact a large hurricane that struck,
contrary to what may have been said. Is that true?
General Strock. To our knowledge, the statement made by the USGS is
correct. The highest ``storm-tide'' (surge plus astronomical tide
component) other than Katrina of which we are aware of was generated by
Hurricane Camille, 1969. Camille's ``storm-tide'' is given by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Hurricane
Center as 24.6 feet at Pass Christian, Mississippi. Dr. Andrew Garcia,
of the Corps' Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, recalls others reports
of around 27 to 28 feet attributed to Camille, but Katrina's ``storm-
tide'' at Waveland, Mississippi was right at or exceeded even these
undocumented Camille values.
Question. Along with everyone else, I have read numerous articles,
from various ``experts'' about the levee failures in New Orleans. Most
of these ``experts'' have indicated that the Corps was aware of
potential problems with the levees as designed and constructed. Further
there has been considerable comment that these levees should have
withstood the effects of Katrina. General Strock, I need to know from
you what is the Corps' response? Is there any fire to go with all of
this smoke? Or is this speculation from self-described experts without
access to all relevant data?
General Strock. The Federal storm damage reduction system is
composed of multiple Federal projects, authorized and constructed over
many years. Some features had not yet been completed at the time of the
storm. Others were built by the local sponsors and incorporated into
the system under specific authorization language enacted by the
Congress for this purpose. The Corps was aware that some areas of the
levees were no longer at design grade due to subsidence or settling. We
now suspect that design deficiencies may also have played a role in the
failure of some I-walls. On a larger scale, the design of the built
system was significantly different from the design that the Corps
initially identified for the Lake Pontchartrain waterfront. To what
degree the Corps was aware of these or other problems, or of the
potential for such problems, prior to Katrina is a matter currently
being assessed. I can assure you, however, that the way in which the
Corps recommends projects and deals with any known, suspected, or
anticipated problems is a matter that I consider critical to our
future.
Question. General Strock, can you give us a brief overview of the
findings from the Interagency Performance Evaluation Team to date?
General Strock. The Interagency Performance Evaluation Team, or
IPET, is an outstanding group of experts from government, industry, and
academia that are literally working around the clock to complete an in-
depth analysis of the performance of the Hurricane Protection System.
IPET is looking at how the system was designed and constructed, the
forces it experienced during Katrina, how the system performed, and
what mechanisms caused the catastrophic breaching. IPET has done
everything from putting boots on the ground to collect data and
eyewitness accounts to pushing the modeling envelope with supercomputer
model runs of Katrina's storm surge.
The IPET draft final report is scheduled for release on June 1. I
expect both the consequence and risk analyses in that report will be
invaluable tools to evaluate additional hurricane protection measures
in the near term and for future higher levels of protection.
But IPET has already made great contributions from its findings to
date.
IPET determined the failure mechanisms for structures that breached
prior to reaching their design levels, such as the 17th Street and
London Avenue Canals. This knowledge of ``how and why'' is being used
to assess the integrity of all other similar sections of floodwalls in
the system. These results also helped in the development of specific
strategies to strengthen I-wall sections that are outside the outfall
canals, including stability berms, relief wells, deeper sheet piles and
limiting wall cutoff heights to significantly increase the stability of
these structures.
IPET determined why levee sections failed because of overtopping
and scour, such as those along the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal. This
information has fueled repairs that include substituting T-walls for I-
walls to increase resistance to scour from overtopping and resistance
to failure from lateral forces, such as surge and waves.
IPET found levee sections that were overwhelmed by surge and waves
with damages that related to the levee elevations and the strength of
the levee materials. IPET lessons learned are being used to select the
types of materials used in the levee reconstruction and the height of
their construction in areas such as St. Bernard Parish.
IPET also found sections of floodwalls and levees that performed
very well during Katrina, such as the Orleans Outfall Canal. IPET is
providing these equally important lessons learned to the repair and
reconstruction efforts.
Every lesson learned that IPET has provided has received immediate
attention in the repair efforts. In some cases, repair design
activities were halted and changed to take advantage of IPET knowledge.
IPET work also helped validate significant temporary measures, such as
the temporary gates and pumping capabilities at the Lake Pontchartrain
end of the outfall canals.
IPET input is also being used in design guidance for enhanced
protection projects to ensure the New Orleans area protection system is
better and stronger than before. We feel strongly that the IPET
contributions will help us achieve this goal.
Question. As I understand the current situation concerning levee
rebuilding situation, funding provided through enacted supplemental
appropriations will complete the levee system as currently authorized.
This includes rebuilding levees to the authorized levels of protection
as well as repairing non-Federal levees and pump stations. This system
was not completed before Katrina. Is that correct?
General Strock. That is correct, although cost increases are
possible. Funding was provided in the enacted supplemental
appropriations to repair the system to pre-Katrina conditions, to
accelerate completion of the system and to rebuild those parts of the
system that were below design height due to subsidence. Funding was
also provided to repair non-Federal levees and pump stations. The money
provided was based on the best information available at the time and it
is possible that the cost for some of this work may increase. For
example, at the time of the third supplemental, the IPET findings
concerning floodwall stability were not known. Further, long-term
subsidence will require that additional levee lifts be constructed for
some of the levees in the protection system. These lifts must be
constructed on average every 4-5 years until the subsurface soils
stabilize. Funds provided through the supplemental appropriations do
not cover these costs.
The system was not completed before Hurricane Katrina.
Question. Further, the President's latest supplemental takes the
first steps to improve this system beyond the project originally
authorized by authorizing and appropriating funding to remove many of
the now obvious weaknesses in the system. This includes closing off the
interior drainage canals and providing navigable closures on the
Industrial Canal and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, raising and
hardening interior pumping stations and armoring levees where
appropriate. These seem to be a reasonably measured approach to
improving the system, based on current information. Are you aware of
additional work that we should be considering as a part of this
supplemental?
General Strock. The President's supplemental provided appropriate
funding for these measures to improve the New Orleans hurricane
systems. Additional work has been considered but we are not prepared to
recommend these projects for funding at this time. Three of these
include a more costly plan ($190 million) to deal with the interior
canals that, if proven to be technically feasible, may be a more
reliable method of providing interior drainage; a plan to incorporate
into the system non-Federal levees on the East Bank in Plaquemines
Parish ($94 million); and a plan to repair some non-Federal levees in
western areas.
Question. Director Powell has recently indicated to the Congress
that it could cost as much as $6 billion just to restore the levees in
the New Orleans metro area to provide 100-year level of protection. Why
has the 100-year level of protection changed so drastically? What is
your confidence level in the cost estimates that compose this $6
billion figure?
General Strock. Restoring 100-year certification is now a much
different task than simply restoring the current levees, primarily
because of the new storm data and new abilities to better predict storm
impacts. Quite simply, the 100-year storm is now calculated to be a
much larger storm than envisioned in the past. Also, we now realize
that in some areas the generated storm surge, even from a smaller
storm, can be significantly larger than was indicated by models in the
past. Because of this new data, our task is not a matter of simply
restoring or rebuilding the current levees. Based on analysis of an
extended historical period of storm data including the Katrina and Rita
events and utilization of more refined modeling technology now
available, which considers such factors as losses in wetlands and
natural lines of defense that may limit attack during major storms,
land subsidence and other coastal area changes, the currently
authorized grade of levees would not be high enough to prevent
overtopping during occurrence of the revised 100-year frequency storm
surge. In many places the levees will have to be significantly higher
and stronger than they were before Katrina in order to provide
protection from the newly calculated 100-year hurricane.
The $6 billion figure for the cost to complete the system to
provide 100-year level of protection was a preliminary rough order of
magnitude estimate at a point of time, and further analysis is needed.
Question. We have requested the Corps to undertake studies for
improving protection to the New Orleans area to ``Category 5''. The
interim report for this study is due in June 2006. Where would 100-year
level of protection fall in improving levees to this new ``Category 5''
level? Is it possible that work undertaken to get to this 100-year
standard would be incompatible with the ``Category 5'' level?
General Strock. The revised 100-year level of levee protection for
the New Orleans area would be at a lower grade than the grade required
to protect the area from a major Category 5 storm using a single line
of levee protection along the existing alignment. However, the 100-year
levees along the basic ``footprint'' of the existing levee system
currently being repaired would function as a ``useable increment'' in a
system of hurricane protection that utilizes multiple or redundant
lines of protection.
Question. How does coastal restoration rank as a means of providing
immediate hurricane protection? Long range hurricane protection?
General Strock. The lessons of Hurricane Katrina show the dangers
of depending upon a single line of levee defenses. The presence of
coastal features, such as wetlands, cheniers, swamp forests, and
barrier islands, prevent inland hurricane protection structures from
being directly exposed to open gulf conditions during storms. Hurricane
protection systems having direct exposure to the Gulf have greater
potential for performance problems during storms, and will also likely
have higher construction, operations, and maintenance life cycle costs.
Protecting existing coastal features that provide this buffering
function to current hurricane protection systems has short-term
benefit, insuring against decreased system performance reliability and
increased systems operations and maintenance costs over the project
life cycle. Restoring coastal features is a long-term measure that
should increase reliability of the existing and future hurricane
protection systems that may be installed, as well as likely minimize
their construction, operations, and maintenance costs over a life
cycle.
Question. What do you see as the next steps in rebuilding the New
Orleans levees?
Mr. Woodley. By June 1, we will be restoring the level of
protection to pre-Katrina conditions. We have already begun the work to
accelerate construction on some of the uncompleted features of the
system and to rebuild subsided levees to design height and repair non-
Federal levees and pump stations. The next steps are providing a better
and stronger system, ensuring that floodwalls are reliable, building
the system high enough to provide 100-year protection, and evaluating
even higher levels of protection.
Question. As a result of Katrina, what have you learned about how
flood control and hurricane protection projects should be evaluated?
That is, how should we go about considering the possibility of serious
risks to human life as opposed to evaluating projects strictly on the
basis of economic losses prevented?
Mr. Woodley. Based on the lessons learned from Katrina, we need to
take a hard look at our policies for establishing levels of protection.
When risk to life is possible during events exceeding given levels of
protection, this loss of life risk must be addressed as a part of the
decision process on level of protection, along with the economics, that
is, net benefits of each level of protection. Formulation
considerations include minimizing catastrophic potential in areas where
large populations are at risk or evacuations are not easily
accomplished when emergencies occur. These technical considerations are
currently imposed only for design of high hazard dams, and similar
considerations need to be evaluated for high hazard levee and flood
protection systems. For instance, we are using risk and reliability
analysis concepts in the evaluation of alternatives for the South
Louisiana Hurricane Protection report. It should be noted that
selection of a plan that includes life safety considerations is
permitted under the Principles and Guidelines for water resources
planning, in that the agency head may recommend a plan that does not
maximize net national economic development benefits.
As an interim measure, the fiscal year 2007 budget proposes funding
for already authorized projects that provide significant reductions in
life risks. I expect that future budgets also will address life risk
considerations.
CONTINUING CONTRACTS AND REPROGRAMMING
Question. In the fiscal year 2006 E&WD appropriations act, the
Congress made significant changes in how funds are to be spent, which
will result in similarly significant changes in how the Corps manages
its program.
General Strock, has the Corps assessed the impact of these changes
on program execution and, if so, what are they?
General Strock. The guidelines for reprogramming and the use of
continuing contracts as set forth in the fiscal year 2006 E&WD
appropriations act and accompanying conference report have brought
about many significant changes in how we manage our Civil Works
Program. We no longer emphasize expenditures as a measure of success.
The volume of reprogrammings is significantly reduced. Reprogrammings
that exceed the dollar and percentage thresholds established in the
fiscal year 2006 act now require more coordination. We anticipate an
increase of carry-over funds in the short-term as we realign our
budgeting, planning, and execution practices.
Question. For many years, the Corps carried a fairly significant
amount of its available construction funds unobligated from one year
into the next. This unobligated carryover afforded the Corps
flexibility in meeting unforecasted needs and was a practice generally
supported by this committee.
Several years ago however, it became apparent to us that this
practice must be changed and, at the urging of this committee, the
Corps increased its execution performance and eliminated the carryover.
With the new program management practices required by the fiscal
year 2006 E&WD act, will this carryover reappear? If so, how much will
it be, approximately, by the end of the year? After next year, assuming
a constant appropriation level?
General Strock. As stated earlier, execution performance will no
longer be measured simply by the percentage of funds obligated or
expended and an increase in carried-over funds is expected. Our
estimate of unobligated funds to be carried over at the end of fiscal
year 2006, according to the execution schedules developed after the
appropriation of fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water funds, is as
follows. Dollars in are in thousands. Funds provided in supplemental
appropriations as of April 5, 2006 are included and account for the
majority of the total unobligated carryover.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unobligated Carryover $1,000
Appropriation -------------------------------
E&W Supplemental
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigations.......................... $49,495 $2,311
Construction............................ 345,702 7,406
O&M..................................... 164,345 10,384
MR&T.................................... 92,618 46,889
FCCE.................................... .............. 800,000
Expenses................................ .............. ..............
Regulatory.............................. 16 ..............
FUSRAP.................................. 974 ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the fiscal year 2006 appropriations were not enacted until
last November, adjustments had to be made in the scheduling of funds
during the Continuing Resolution. In addition, in fiscal year 2006 we
received substantial hurricane-related supplemental appropriations.
Therefore, the amount carried over from fiscal year 2006 may not be a
good indicator of what to expect at the end of the following year.
Question. What changes to the requirements contained in the fiscal
year 2006 act would you recommend to assist you in better use of the
funds appropriated to the program?
Mr. Woodley. The fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations
Act includes language that has enabled the Corps to limit the use of
continuing contracts and thereby increase the use of other kinds of
contracts (such as fully-funded contracts and base bid-plus-options
contracts) for projects authorized for construction. The fiscal year
2007 budget proposed to amend this language for fiscal year 2007 to
enable the Corps to limit the use of continuing contracts and thereby
expand the use of other kinds of contracting instruments for operation
and maintenance activities as well.
Question. If these changes remain unchanged for several years, will
you be able to award and carry out as many construction contracts as
you have under the previous rules? Can you estimate or characterize the
differences for us?
General Strock. The fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water
Appropriations Act has enabled the Corps to expand the use of
contracting instruments other than continuing contracts in its
construction program. The Corps recently issued guidance to ensure that
the construction program is using continuing contracts only where they
are the most appropriate contracting instrument. The fiscal year 2006
act did not, however, include a further reform proposed in the fiscal
year 2006 budget, which would have provided the Corps with the kind of
multi-year contracting authority used by other Federal agencies. In the
absence of such authority, efforts to reduce reliance on continuing
contracts could affect the number of awarded contracts during a
transition period of up to a few years.
Question. The Corps has been awarding so-called continuing
contracts for many years . . . since 1922, I'm told. This is where you
award a contract that will take more than a year to execute and where
you depend on appropriations in future years to fund the contract
earnings expected in those future years.
General Strock, what is the Corps' experience with that type of
contract? That is, have they presented great challenges or otherwise
not served the Nation well in the years you've been using them?
General Strock. Continuing contracts, like the multi-year contracts
used by other Federal agencies, enable the Corps to incrementally fund
work on any water resources project (studies, design, construction, or
operation and maintenance) that the Congress has not fully funded up
front. However, unlike the multi-year contracting authority of other
Federal agencies, the continuing contract authority of the Corps has
few constraints and allows the Corps to legally bind the Federal
Government to pay future costs in advance of appropriations. The use of
our continuing contract authority has resulted over the years in a
large number of long-term contracts with high out-year funding
commitments to one provider, and limited the ability of the Executive
Branch and the Congress to set priorities in the civil works program.
Obviously, there are other challenges as well, particularly when the
contractor's earning rate is greater than anticipated and significant
reprogramming from other projects is required.
Question. How do you plan to manage your contracting in light of
the guidance on continuing contracts contained in the fiscal year 2006
act? That is, will you award fewer contracts? If so, how many fewer
contracts in the current fiscal year would you expect to award than if
you didn't have this guidance?
General Strock. Generally, the Corps is issuing a continuing
contract in the construction program only when other contracting
options such as fully-funded contracts, incremental contracts, or other
contracts are not appropriate, and only with reasonable assurance that
the continuing contract will be funded in the out years. In the short-
term, fewer contracts are being awarded. However, I cannot make a
numerical projection of the difference. In the long-term, we would
expect the number of contracts to be as much or more than in previous
years, assuming the same overall funding level.
Question. What is the long-term impact on the number of projects
you will have underway at any given point in time? That is, will you
then be able to have fewer projects underway at any given time?
General Strock. Because we are waiting for sufficient funds to
fully fund some contracts, there will be a deferral of these contracts
in the short-term. In the long-term, at any given out-year funding
level, the number of projects underway at a given time would be the
same.
CONTINUING CONTRACTS
Question. How many continuing contracts has the Corps awarded in
fiscal year 2006 since fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act was passed?
General Strock. There have been a total of 12 continuing contracts
awarded as of the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 2006.
Question. How many continuing contracts have you disapproved and
why?
Mr. Woodley. There are three continuing contracts that have been
disapproved and/or sent back for reevaluation, because either the
proposal did not satisfy the criteria laid out in the Corps fiscal year
2006 program execution guidance, or the analysis of whether another
contracting mechanism would be efficient and effective in the
circumstances was inconclusive.
Question. What are your criteria for determining to award a
continuing contract?
Mr. Woodley. The Corps uses several criteria. In accordance with
the fiscal year 2006 Program Management EC, several questions must be
answered during evaluation. These questions include whether the amounts
available and that have been identified for reprogramming in fiscal
year 2006 are sufficient to fully fund the contract, and, if the amount
available in fiscal year 2006 is not sufficient to fully fund the
contract, whether the scope and schedule of the contract are
appropriate for the features of the project to be constructed. If the
amount available is insufficient and the scope and schedule are
appropriate, then different contracting vehicles are explored and
analyzed. If other relevant contracting options are not appropriate,
and delay of the contract to fiscal year 2007 or later would result in
significant consequences, a continuing contract may be recommended. My
office also assesses whether future appropriations to support the
contract are likely, based on recent funding history, the fiscal year
2007 President's budget, and the House, Senate, and Conference Reports
when available.
Question. Have the directions in the fiscal year 2006 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act caused any difficulties for the
Corps?
General Strock. The new guidelines have encouraged improved
discipline in the system, but they also have introduced some delays in
part by requiring elevation to the Washington level of day-to-day
operational decisions that previously were made in the district
offices.
With respect to reprogramming, we face the challenge of
transitioning our budgeting and execution practices to an environment
with limited reprogramming, including the challenge of funding
previously incurred payback commitments and the challenge of addressing
pressing or emergency situations and situations with strong business
cases.
With respect to contracting, the limited use of continuing
contracts will result in the delay of some contracts during a
transition period until funding and contracting decisions are aligned.
All told, these changes have not caused significant difficulties.
Carryover will increase in the short-term. These changes have also
provided an opportunity to look for ways to improve the overall
performance of the civil works program.
REPROGRAMMING
Question. How many reprogrammings have been approved within the
Corps authority?
General Strock. Such reprogrammings are an ongoing process
throughout the fiscal year and tend to become more frequent as the year
goes on. However, the following snapshot at the end of the second
quarter should give a reasonable estimate as to the rate of
reprogrammings within the appropriation accounts:
--Investigations--6 gainers, 2 sources;
--Construction--13 gainers, 14 sources;
--O&M--7 gainers, 5 sources;
--MR&T--7 gainers, 5 sources.
Question. How many reprogrammings that require prior notification
to Congress have been proposed and how many have been approved?
General Strock. As of the date of the hearing, the Army recently
has submitted ten requests for reprogramming to OMB. OMB has cleared
two of them already and is reviewing the others.
Question. To what do you attribute the failure to approve proposed
reprogrammings in a timely manner?
General Strock. Few reprogrammings are proposed due to the
difficulty in finding suitable sources. One type of suitable source
would be one for which the funds are excess to the total needs of the
source project due to savings, such as from a low bid or changed site
conditions; however, such situations are relatively rare. In the past,
another fairly reliable source was slipped earnings due to delayed
awards; but the expectation was that the revoked funds would be
restored when needed. The guidance in the fiscal year 2006 conference
report that there be no expectation of such payback commitments has
nearly eliminated sources with slippages.
Question. Have the directions regarding reprogramming in the fiscal
year 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act caused any
difficulties for the Corps and do you have any recommendations as to
how the directions in the fiscal year 2006 Appropriations bill might be
improved?
General Strock. The new guidelines have encouraged improved
discipline in the program. We face the challenge of transitioning our
budgeting and execution practices to an environment with limited
reprogramming, including the challenge of funding previously incurred
payback commitments and the challenge of addressing pressing or
emergency situations and situations with strong business cases.
The administration's proposals for fiscal year 2007 are reflected
in proposed bill language in the Budget Appendix. We would like to move
toward a system that retains the benefits of this discipline, but that
returns day-to-day operational decisions to the district level, perhaps
in combination with periodic reporting to the Appropriations Committees
on actions taken the prior quarter, to give them the opportunity to
assess whether the committee's guidance and the Corps' own policies
have been followed.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Arlen Specter
HOPPER DREDGE MCFARLAND
Question. Significant and timely maintenance, repair and
replacement of systems and equipment in the amount of $25 million have
been accomplished onboard the McFarland in the past 10 years. These
include:
--Complete replacement of riveted seams (both port and starboard
sides) resulting in all welded steel hull with estimated hull
life extension of an additional 25 years;
--Phased renewal of all 12 hopper door frames;
--Phased overhaul of all 12 hopper door operating gear;
--Replacement of Steering Gear Control System;
--New propeller shafts;
--Complete replacement of propulsion control system from pneumatic
system control to electronic controls; and
--Phased overhaul of all engines and generator.
In its November 2005 report to Congress regarding the future
operation and configuration of the Federal hopper dredge fleet, the
Corps states that an additional $20 million in major overhaul and
repair activities must be expended to keep the Hopper Dredge McFarland
operational.
It is my understanding that a one-time expenditure of this
magnitude would be required only if the decision were made to
transition the McFarland to ready reserve status, and that the
McFarland can continue to work without this $20 million overhaul.
On what grounds was the assertion made that the McFarland requires
$20 million in overhaul and repair work?
General Strock. The $20 million overhaul and repair would be needed
in either case, whether the McFarland were to be placed in ready
reserve or if it were to work a full schedule.
Question. What specific repairs in the amount of $20 million are
needed to keep the McFarland operational?
General Strock. The current engine room, with 11 engines, is not
the optimal configuration, nor the safest means of powering the
McFarland. The majority of the repair costs would be used to repower
the dredge with modern low emission engines, reduce the number of
engines, and substantially improve the efficiency of operating the
McFarland. The current manner of controlling the drag arms on the
dredge is also not the optimal manner in which to perform this
operational activity on the McFarland. Costs were included in the
estimate to reconfigure the dual drag tender stations into a modern
central drag tender station, thus reducing the crew requirements and
improving the operational efficiency of the dredge. Additional items
include removal of all asbestos on the dredge for the safety of the
crew and other improvements.
Question. Port stakeholders were not invited to be members of the
Industry/Corps Hopper Dredge Management Group (ICHDMG), formed by the
Corps and Dredging Contractors of America. The port and waterway
stakeholders, and the customers they serve, are the ultimate end users
of the any federally contracted dredging contracts.
Failure to adequately respond to emergency dredging requirements,
and the increasing cost of dredging, ultimately affects the
competitiveness of the Nation's ports and waterways transportation
system.
General Strock. The ICHDMG was formed in response to Section 237 of
WRDA 96. The purpose of the ICHDMG is to maximize the effectiveness and
efficiency of our Nation's hopper dredging resources, to enhance the
viability and competitiveness of our ports and waterways by maintaining
communication between the Corps and the hopper dredging industry and to
ensure procedures are in place and sufficient hopper dredges are
available to respond to urgent and emergency dredging while meeting
needed routine dredging requirements. The ICHDMG is a working group
that is focused on identifying hopper dredging problems and crafting
solutions, sharing information, diffusing potential problems, and
coordinating schedules on a national basis. In the past some of the
shipping stakeholders and ports have participated in ICHDMG meetings.
In addition, the Corps district offices work directly with the many
ports throughout the Nation to ensure that these important stakeholders
are fully engaged in all aspects of the Corps dredging program that
affects their interests.
Question. Should port stakeholders be included in the ICHDMG to
ensure their participation in the decision-making process regarding
Federal hopper dredging?
General Strock. Any interested port stakeholders would be most
welcome to participate in ICHDMG.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Mark Dayton
POWDER RIVER BASIN EXPANSION PROJECT
Question. What steps is the Army Corps of Engineers taking to
ensure that a complete and thorough review is conducted prior to
issuing permits under Sec. 404 of the Clean Water Act and Sec. 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act for the proposed construction of the Powder
River Basin Expansion Project, also known as the Dakota, Minnesota &
Eastern (DM&E) Railroad project?
General Strock. The Omaha District began coordination (pre-
application meeting) with the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern (DM&E)
Railroad relative to the Powder River Basin Expansion Project in
November 6, 1997. The Omaha District participated as a cooperating
agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with the
Surface Transportation Board (STB) in the formulation of an
Environmental Impact Statement to ensure that requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act were addressed concurrently with the STB's
review process.
The Omaha District received two Section 404 permit applications for
the Wyoming and South Dakota portions September 15, 2000. A Section 10
permit application was submitted to the U.S. Coast Guard for a bridge
replacement on the Missouri River at approximately the same time since
that agency is responsible for that action.
The STB rendered a decision to authorize the project under its
program responsibilities January 28, 2002 which was the subject of
litigation (Mid States Coalition for Progress v. STB). The 8th Circuit
Court of Appeals remanded the decision and required that additional
study and analysis be completed in four specific areas of the EIS. A
supplemental EIS was formulated, which the Omaha District participated
in as a cooperating agency. The supplemental EIS was released January
6, 2006. The STB issued a new decision authorizing the project and is
the subject of current litigation (Mayo Foundation v. United States of
America and STB) in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Omaha District has ensured that the information formulated in
the EIS addresses our information and data needs. Omaha has also
continued coordination with DM&E on the permit applications in an
attempt to address outstanding information needs that were identified
since December 4, 2001. Action on these applications since 2002 was
minimal due to DM&E's focus on litigation and addressing direction from
the court. A meeting with Omaha District staff in Cheyenne, Wyoming, is
scheduled to address outstanding information needs and administrative
processes to allow final permit decisions to be rendered.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Landrieu. Thank you so much and the hearing is
recessed.
[Whereupon, at 3:53 p.m., Wednesday, April 5, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2007
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:07 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Domenici and Allard.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
National Nuclear Security Administration
STATEMENT OF HON. LINTON F. BROOKS, UNDER SECRETARY FOR
NUCLEAR SECURITY, AND ADMINISTRATOR,
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
ACCOMPANIED BY:
JERRY PAUL, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, NUCLEAR
NONPROLIFERATION ACTIVITIES
ADMIRAL KIRKLAND DONALD, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR NAVAL
REACTORS
THOMAS D'AGOSTINO, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE PROGRAMS
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. The hearing will please come to order.
Today the subcommittee is going to hear testimony on the fiscal
year 2007 budget request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration. I would like to thank Ambassador Brooks for
joining us here today and providing his testimony. The
Ambassador is joined by Jerry Paul, the Principal Deputy
Administrator for Nuclear Nonproliferation Activities--is that
correct?--and Tom D'Agostino, Deputy Administrator for Defense
Programs; and Admiral Kirkland Donald, Deputy Administrator for
Naval Reactors. I appreciate everyone's participation and thank
you for coming.
Ambassador Brooks will provide the testimony and his three
deputies will be available to answer questions. I understand
that is our format.
The President's request for NNSA for 2007 is $9.3 billion,
up $211 million from last year's enacted level. Weapons
programs. The funding for the weapons programs is $6.4 billion,
up about $38 million. In large measure, this budget supports
the necessary investments in lab infrastructure. However, I am
concerned with the declining trend in science-based stockpile
stewardship activities, such as science, engineering, and
inertial confinement fusion.
I could not be more disappointed in what the Department has
proposed for inertial confinement fusion budget. The Department
continues to put all their resources behind the NIF project at
the expense of all the other stockpile activities. Funding for
NIF research is up over $50 million while the other high energy
density research has been cut by $115 million. The NIF-at-all-
costs attitude is now undermining balancing the weapons
stewardship research activities. Declining budgets for non-NIF-
related science has put weapons physics research on Z and Omega
clearly at risk.
Mr. Ambassador, I believe this strategy is not the right
one and we are going to work hard to correct it here in the
Senate energy and water bill and we hope the product that we
finish with will meet your satisfaction. It will be different
than that which you submitted to us.
On Monday, Tom D'Agostino briefed me, and I thank him for
that, on NNSA's plan to implement the nuclear complex of the
future. The Department has developed a plan to consolidate
operations in fewer locations, which should reduce security
costs and reduce the overall number of facilities that NNSA
must maintain out in the future, perhaps to 2030. In addition,
it supports the Reliable Replacement Warhead program and begins
to catch up on the dismantlement of weapons no longer in the
stockpile. That is good.
What I believe is missing from the plan is a decrease in
the overall number of weapons systems in the NNSA that they are
going to be expected to maintain. Under the plan the NNSA will
continue to support the same eight systems plus the new RRW
through 2030 if I understand it correctly. It seems to me that
you have traded off facilities, science, and people in exchange
for the same number of systems and responsibilities. I am not
sure that I got that figured right, but it looks like it, and I
am not sure that makes the best sense overall.
Why does this plan not contemplate reduction in existing
systems, perhaps the elimination of one of them? Many experts
wonder why we continue to maintain the W80. Maybe it is time to
revisit the need for the life extension of that weapon. We will
see.
Nuclear nonproliferation is the next issue, and the budget
continues to receive strong support from the President. That is
good news. Funding for the nuclear nonproliferation activities
are up $111 million, for a total of $1.73 billion. Funding for
MOX, the global threat reduction initiative, and the MPC&A all
received increases. I think that is good news.
One notable exception is the funding cut for the nuclear
detection R&D program. This activity supports research that
gives our national security teams the technical advantage over
terrorist countries that attempt to conceal their nuclear
programs. We will ask about that, why that should have been
reduced or eliminated.
In 1998 I worked very hard with a few others to provide
$200 million to encourage the Russians to come to the
negotiating table on plutonium disposition, 1998. The funding
was in good faith and the offer to the Russians to demonstrate
our sincerity and seriousness about nonproliferation. The
Department of Energy and State, the Department of State, have
secured $800 million from G-8 partners to construct the Russian
MOX plant, a real achievement.
However, I understand the Russians have raised the stakes
and are now demanding that the G-7 pay for the plant
operations. I think we are correct in that. You have to talk
about that, Mr. Ambassador. It is a matter of high, high
importance. Unless we allow them to use the plutonium for their
fast breeder reactor program, they insist that we are going to
have to pay for plant operations. Now, I am concerned that
these fact reactors could be turned into breeder reactors and
will create additional plutonium, the very substance we are
trying to eliminate.
We also continue to wait for the final approval of the
Russians--that is, their full governmental, governance-making--
on the liability deal negotiated last July. I feel that the
opponents of MOX will use these delays as an excuse to cut
funding for this project. The Russian delaying tactics have
created a liability for the U.S. program in my opinion.
I believe we should de-link the construction projects and
allow the U.S. efforts to go forward to create a disposal
pathway for our weapons-grade plutonium. We must live up to our
commitments of reducing our stockpile even if the Russians will
not or if for some reason they think they must continue to
delay this matter, as I have described it, or for other
reasons.
In the mean time, we should continue to talk and try to
work things out with the Russians, try to get an agreement
prior to or during the G-8 meeting. That is up to our two great
countries and that will take place this summer. But until we
have final agreement that will guarantee the destruction of the
34 tons of Russian weapons-grade plutonium, the United States
should not fund the Russian construction project and we must
not provide any further design on the MOX plant for the
Russians in my opinion.
My last observation has to do, Mr. Ambassador, with the
cost of operations of LANL. In 2 months, Los Alamos National
Security LLC will take over the M&O contract at Los Alamos from
the University of California, which has operated the facility
for 60 years. I am concerned about the increased costs of the
new contract negotiated by NNSA. I am not saying I am concerned
in the sense that this should not have happened, but I am
concerned that the new contract provides significant increases
in the fee, from roughly $8 million to $80 million, and it will
require the lab to pay the gross receipts tax to the State of
New Mexico of about $75 million. I think that is the estimate.
I suspect that there are operations--several other
increases that add to the bottom line operations because of the
new contract. I do not know that. Unfortunately, the Los Alamos
lab budget does not reflect any increases to accommodate these
added charges. All of these costs will come out of R&D,
science, and operational accounts, putting further strain on an
already tight budget.
I hope to get some answers from you, Mr. Ambassador, as to
how these costs will be offset without having a negative impact
on lab operations. I know the answer is going to be there will
be savings made here and there and elsewhere. That may be the
case, but clearly that is not going to go on forever, and we
are going to have some assurance that in the future we have got
to make this up in ways other than to continue to assume it
will come out of savings.
I will close now by saying how I remain impressed with the
success of the naval reactor program. I save it for last
because it is best and because it does not take very long to
explain it, to just say that the Navy needs nuclear propulsion
plants that are capable of responding to the challenges that we
face and we believe this program accomplishes these goals. The
5-year plan includes a small but a steady increase in the naval
reactors, which will prove beneficial in the coming months.
Now, I will ask if there are any others who want to make
opening remarks. If there are any opening remarks that are
needed to be put in the record, we will provide for that now
without objection.
Now, having completed that, we will move to the witness.
Mr. Ambassador, sorry I took so long, but I think you know how
I feel on a few of these subjects now. So you may proceed as
you see fit.
STATEMENT OF HON. LINTON F. BROOKS
Ambassador Brooks. Thank you, sir. I have submitted a
statement which I would like received for the record.
The President's budget supports three main missions: safe,
secure, and reliable stockpile; reducing the nonproliferation
threat; and providing reliable and safe nuclear propulsion
systems for the Navy. Most of our programs are similar to
previous years, are familiar to the committee, and are
described in my written statement, so I want to limit my
opening remarks to drawing your attention to a couple of
points.
First, as you noted, sir, although the stockpile remains
safe and reliable today, we must ensure reliability and safety
over the long term and this means transforming the stockpile
and the supporting infrastructure. Our approach to doing so
depends heavily on the concept of a Reliable Replacement
Warhead, taking advantage of our decision to relax cold war
design constraints. We believe we will be able then to design
replacement components that are easier to manufacture, safer,
use environmentally more benign material, and increase
performance margins.
I share your concern about the number of weapons systems.
The Department of Defense and we are working together closely.
The question is not: ``Will we still be maintaining eight
systems in 2030?'' The answer is almost certainly no. The
question is: ``How far along do we have to go in this new
effort before the military can have confidence that it can
eliminate a weapons system?'' Our assumption for the long-term
future demands, frankly, that there would be reductions in the
life extension programs. Otherwise the resources for
modernizing the complex are going to be very difficult to find.
We have completed, as you know and as you have been
briefed, an intensive effort to sustain and establish our
vision for the future, and I am quite pleased with it. Our
challenge has been to find a path that is both affordable and
feasible, and lets us continue to support the near-term
stockpile.
I want to make two other points about the weapons program.
Last year the Congress reduced life extension programs and
those reductions challenge our ability to meet DOD
requirements. I am especially concerned with the reduction to
the W76 submarine-launched ballistic missile warhead and,
assuming that it is retained, the W80 cruise missile warhead.
Also last year, the Congress significantly reduced funds
for the facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program.
That has made it impossible to meet the congressionally-
mandated date of 2011 to terminate this program and the
administration has submitted legislation to extend the effort 2
years. I hope that the Congress this year will support the
President's request in both those areas.
Turning to nonproliferation, I would like to highlight
three areas. First, we are on track to meet the various
commitments agreed to between President Bush and President
Putin at Bratislava in 2008. We will complete security upgrades
in Russia by that date.
Second, we are requesting a significant funding increase to
permanently shut down the three remaining weapons-grade
plutonium production reactors in Russia and we are also
proposing a significant increase for the global threat
reduction initiative, which secures both fissionable and
radioactive material.
Finally, as you noted, under the plutonium disposition
program we expect to begin construction of the MOX fuel
fabrication facility this fall, and approval of the entire
administration request is in my judgment crucial because we
will be seeking the peak funding construction year in 2007.
I would also like to turn to two points that you made in
your opening statement and respond briefly to them and then we
can respond further in questions. With respect to
nonproliferation research and development, our request this
year is almost identical to our request last year. Last year
the Congress increased funding. We did not take that as
intended to be direction to alter our long-term base, and so it
is not a question of cutting that program. It is a question of
assuming that that was a one-time increase.
Secondly, with regard to Los Alamos, I share your concern
that we make sure that the American taxpayers and the program
are not put at risk by the change we have made at Los Alamos.
Over the next 7 years we could potentially spend almost half a
billion dollars in fees at Los Alamos and I intend to get
something for it.
First, 70 percent of that fee will be performance-based and
we will not spend it unless the performance warrants it.
Performance very much includes efficiencies and improvements
that will free up resources. As you know, when the lab director
decided to shut the facility down, you can argue about the
bookkeeping, but we probably spent several hundred million
dollars. If we can guarantee that never happens again, we will
in fact have more money to go into the program.
I am also pleased that the new contractor has proposed a
decreasing fee that starts at $70 million a year and drops in
the seventh year to a maximum of $54 million. That is still a
lot of money, but it is an indication that they believe that
their task will be greatest in the early years.
Finally, as you noted, the naval reactors effort, which has
always been a model for performance efficiency, is the final
segment of our budget. Our request supports our No. 1 priority
of ensuring safety and reliability of 104 operating Navy
nuclear propulsion plants and it also continues research on
advanced technology.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, our budget request continues to transform the
stockpile, continues to transform the infrastructure, continues
to reduce the global danger from proliferation, and continues
to enhance Navy force projection capabilities, and I urge the
committee to support it.
With that, sir, I am ready for your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Linton F. Brooks
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal
year 2007 Budget Request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA). This is my fourth appearance before this
committee as the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security, and I want to
thank all of the members for their strong support for our important
national security responsibilities.
OVERVIEW
In the sixth year of this administration, with the strong support
of Congress, NNSA has achieved a level of stability that is required
for accomplishing our long-term missions. Our fundamental
responsibilities for the United States include three national security
missions:
--assure the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons
stockpile while at the same time transforming that stockpile
and the infrastructure that supports it;
--reduce the threat posed by nuclear proliferation; and
--provide reliable and safe nuclear reactor propulsion systems for
the U.S. Navy.
The budget request for $9.3 billion, an increase of $211 million,
supports these NNSA missions.
Weapons Activities
The NNSA is committed to ensuring the long-term reliability, safety
and security of the Nation's nuclear deterrent. Stockpile Stewardship
is working; the stockpile remains safe and reliable. This assessment is
based not on nuclear tests, but on cutting-edge scientific and
engineering experiments and analysis, including extensive laboratory
and flight tests of warhead components and subsystems. Each year, we
are gaining a more complete understanding of the complex physical
processes underlying the performance of our aging nuclear stockpile.
However, as we continue to draw down the stockpile to the levels
established in the Treaty of Moscow--between 1,700 and 2,200
operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons--we must consider the
long-term implications of successive warhead refurbishments for the
weapons remaining in the stockpile. Successive refurbishments will take
us further from the tested configurations and it is becoming more
difficult and costly to certify warhead remanufacture despite the
extraordinary success of the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
If we were starting to build the stockpile from scratch today we
would take a much different approach than we took during the Cold War.
Most of today's warheads were designed to maximize explosive yield with
minimum size and weight so that many warheads could be carried on a
single delivery vehicle. As a result, weapons designers designed closer
to the so-called ``cliffs'' in performance. If we were designing the
stockpile today, we would manage risk differently, trading size and
weight for increased performance margins and ease of manufacture and
maintenance.
Second, the legacy stockpile was not designed for longevity. During
the Cold War we introduced new weapons routinely, turning over most of
the stockpile every 15-20 years. Today, our weapons are aging and now
are being rebuilt in life extension programs that are both difficult
and costly. Rebuilding nuclear weapons will never be cheap, but Cold
War decisions to use certain hazardous materials mean that, in today's
health and safety culture, warheads are much more costly to
remanufacture.
Furthermore, we continue to evolve our deterrent posture from its
Cold War origins to one that requires far fewer weapons. Decisions the
President announced in 2004 will result, by 2012, in the smallest total
stockpile since the Eisenhower Administration. Even with these
unprecedented reductions, however, the stockpile--especially the
components we keep in reserve--is probably too large.
Finally, with regard to physical security, we must consider new
technology to ensure these weapons can never be used by those who wish
to harm us. During the Cold War the main security threat to our nuclear
forces was from espionage. Today, that threat remains, but to it has
been added a post-9/11 threat of well-armed and competent terrorist
suicide teams seeking to gain access to a warhead or to special nuclear
materials in order to cause a nuclear detonation in place. This change
has dramatically increased security costs. If we were designing the
stockpile today, we would apply new technologies and approaches to
warhead design as a means to reduce physical security costs.
Fortunately, we know how to address all of these problems.
The administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), completed in
December 2001, called for a transition from a threat-based nuclear
deterrent with large numbers of deployed and reserve weapons to a
deterrent based on capabilities, with a smaller nuclear weapons
stockpile and greater reliance on the capability and responsiveness of
the Department of Defense (DOD) and NNSA infrastructure to respond to
threats. Success in realizing this vision for transformation will
enable us to achieve over the long term a smaller stockpile, one that
is safer and more secure, one that offers a reduced likelihood that we
will ever again need to conduct an underground nuclear test, and one
that enables a much more responsive nuclear weapons infrastructure.
Most importantly, this effort can go far to ensure a credible deterrent
for the 21st century that will reduce the likelihood we will ever have
to employ our nuclear capabilities in defense of the Nation--through
demonstration of responsiveness in design and production, demonstration
of confidence in our abilities, cleanup of portions of the Cold War
legacy and demonstration of America's will to maintain nuclear
preeminence. We have worked closely with the DOD to identify initial
steps on the path to a responsive nuclear infrastructure.
What do we mean by ``responsive nuclear weapons infrastructure?''
By ``responsive'' we refer to the resilience of the nuclear enterprise
to unanticipated events or emerging threats, and the ability to
anticipate innovations by an adversary and to counter them before our
deterrent is degraded. Unanticipated events could include complete
failure of a deployed warhead type or the need to respond to new and
emerging geopolitical threats. The elements of a responsive
infrastructure include the people, the science and technology base, and
the facilities and equipment to support a right-sized nuclear weapons
enterprise. But more than that, it involves a transformation in
engineering and production practices that will enable us to respond
rapidly and flexibly to emerging needs. Specifically, a responsive
infrastructure must provide capabilities, on appropriate timescales and
in support of DOD requirements, to:
--Dismantle warheads;
--Ensure warheads are available to augment the operationally deployed
force;
--Identify, understand, and fix stockpile problems;
--Design, develop, certify, and begin production of refurbished or
replacement warheads;
--Maintain capability to design, develop, and begin production of new
or adapted warheads, if required;
--Produce required quantities of warheads; and
--Sustain underground nuclear test readiness.
As we and the DOD take the first steps down this path, we clearly
recognize that the ``enabler'' for transformation is our concept for
the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). The RRW would relax Cold War
design constraints that maximized yield to weight ratios and thereby
allow us to design replacement components that are easier to
manufacture, are safer and more secure, eliminate environmentally
dangerous materials, and increase design margins, thus ensuring long-
term confidence in reliability and a correspondingly reduced chance we
will ever need to resort to nuclear testing.
The combination of the RRW and a responsive infrastructure--each
enabled by the other--may be genuinely transformational. The reduced
stockpile the President approved in 2004 still retains a significant
non-deployed nuclear stockpile as a hedge against technical problems or
geopolitical changes. Once we demonstrate that we can produce warheads
on a timescale in which geopolitical threats could emerge, we would no
longer need to retain extra warheads to hedge against unexpected
geopolitical changes.
In addition to the mission of continuously maintaining the safety,
security, reliability and operational readiness of the Nation's nuclear
deterrent, establishing the capabilities to achieve and sustain this
transformation is a central focus of our activities. Transformation
will, of course, take time. We are starting now with improving business
and operating practices, both in the Federal workforce and across the
nuclear weapons complex, and through restoring and modernizing key
production capabilities. Full infrastructure changes, however, will
take a couple of decades. But I believe by 2030 we can achieve a
responsive infrastructure that will provide capabilities, if required,
to produce weapons with different or modified military capabilities. As
important, through the RRW program we will revitalize our weapons
design community to meet the challenge of being able to adapt an
existing weapon within 18 months and design, develop, and begin
production of a new design within 3-4 years of a decision to enter
engineering development--goals that were established in 2004.
As part of the transformation process we are also actively
reviewing the recommendations of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board
Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure Task Force to prepare a
comprehensive plan for transforming the nuclear weapons complex. Many
of the recommendations are consistent with initiatives that NNSA was
already considering or is implementing (design of a Reliable
Replacement Warhead, consolidation of Special Nuclear Materials,
accelerating dismantlement of retired weapons, managing the evolving
complex to enhance responsiveness and sustainability, and establishing
an Office of Transformation). The analysis of this report and its
recommendations is underway and should be completed and presented to
the Congress by this spring.
Transformation presents some significant near term challenges, one
of which is pit production. The NNSA considers an appropriate pit
production capacity to be essential to its long-term evolution to a
more responsive nuclear weapons infrastructure. We are disappointed,
therefore, that Congress declined to fund planning for a modern pit
production facility in fiscal year 2006. As a result, we did not seek
funding for this facility in fiscal year 2007; although we remain
convinced that increased pit production capacity is essential to our
long-term evolution to a more responsive nuclear weapons
infrastructure. In coming months, we will work with Congress to
identify an agreed approach to fund long-term pit production capacity.
In the meantime, we plan to increase the Los Alamos National Laboratory
pit manufacturing capacity to 30-40 pits per year by the end of fiscal
year 2012 in order to support the Reliable Replacement Warhead. This
production rate, however, will be insufficient to meet our assessed
long-term pit production needs.
Another challenge of transformation is maintaining the balance
between Life Extension Programs (LEP) for the current stockpile and
development of the RRW and new infrastructure. The warhead LEP is key
to our meeting the Department of Defense's (DOD) mission needs today
and during transformation. These programs deserve special attention and
I am concerned that fiscal year 2006 Congressional reductions for two
warhead LEPs have challenged our ability to meet our deterrence needs.
A reduction in the W76 LEP request significantly increased the risk to
achieving a first production unit by the end of fiscal year 2007.
Reductions to the W80 LEP request have delayed deployment of first
production units and delayed the introduction of important use control
features to strengthen security. We hope that this committee renews its
support for these critical LEPs.
Another significant near term challenge is ensuring the security of
our people, our nuclear weapons, our weapons-usable materials, our
information, and our infrastructure from harm, theft or compromise. The
job has become more difficult and costly as a result of two factors:
the increased post-9/11 threat to nuclear warheads and associated
fissile materials coupled with the primacy of ``denying access'' to
these key assets--a much more rigorous security standard than
``containment'' of the asset. We will meet the requirements of the 2003
Design Basis Threat (DBT) by the end of this fiscal year. We expect to
be compliant with the 2005 DBT revisions at the two most sensitive
locations, the Secure Transportation Asset and the Pantex Weapons Plant
by the end of fiscal year 2008 as required by Departmental policy.
The world in 2030 will not be more predictable than it is today,
but this vision of our future nuclear weapons posture is enabled by
what we have learned from 10 years of experience with science-based
Stockpile Stewardship, from planning for and carrying out life
extension programs for our legacy stockpile, and from coming to grips
with national security needs of the 21st century as laid out in the
NPR. A world of a successful responsive infrastructure isn't the only
plausible future of course. But it is one we should strive for. It
offers the best hope of achieving the President's vision of the
smallest stockpile consistent with our Nation's security. That's why we
are embracing this vision of stockpile and infrastructure
transformation. We should not underestimate the challenge of
transforming the enterprise, but it is clearly the right path for us to
take.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Let me now turn to our nuclear nonproliferation and threat
reduction programs. Acquisition of nuclear weapons, WMD capabilities,
technologies, and expertise by rogue states or terrorists poses a grave
threat to the United States and international security. The pursuit of
nuclear weapons by terrorists and states of concern makes it clear that
our threat detection programs are urgently required must be successful
and must proceed on an accelerated basis. The NNSA budget request
addresses this urgency and demonstrates the President's commitment to
prevent, contain, and roll back the proliferation of nuclear weapons-
usable materials, technology, and expertise.
Our programs are structured around a comprehensive and multi-
layered approach to threat reduction and nuclear nonproliferation. We
work with more than 70 countries to secure dangerous nuclear and
radioactive materials, halt the production of fissile material, detect
the illegal trafficking or diversion of nuclear material, and
ultimately dispose of surplus weapons-usable materials. We also work
with multilateral institutions including the International Atomic
Energy Agency and the Nuclear Suppliers Group to strengthen nuclear
safeguards and improve the nuclear export control regulatory
infrastructure in other countries. This multi-layered approach is
intended to identify and address potential vulnerabilities within the
international nonproliferation regime, reduce the incentive for
terrorists and rogue states to obtain WMD, and limit terrorists' access
to deadly weapons and materials.
A significant amount of our work falls at the intersection of
nonproliferation and peaceful use of nuclear materials. The United
States is setting an example by making a firm commitment to reducing
its nuclear arsenal and recycling substantial quantities of weapons-
usable highly enriched uranium for peaceful, civilian, energy-
generating purposes. In 1994, the United States declared 174 tons of
highly enriched uranium (HEU) to be in excess of our national security
needs. The great bulk of that material is now in the process of being
down blended for use in civilian nuclear power reactors. Last year, we
announced that 17.4 MT of this material will be down blended and set
aside to establish a fuel bank in support of our efforts to develop an
international reliable fuel supply mechanism, an issue I will return to
later in my statement.
In addition, in May of 2004, President Bush announced plans to
reduce our Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile by nearly half, to its
smallest size since the Eisenhower Administration. This decision
enables us to begin to dispose of a significant amount of weapons-grade
nuclear material. Last year, the administration committed to remove an
additional 200 metric tons of HEU--enough material for approximately
8,000 nuclear warheads--from any further use as fissile material in
U.S. nuclear weapons This represents the largest amount of special
nuclear material ever removed from the stockpile in the history of the
U.S. nuclear weapons program. The bulk of this material will be
retained for use in propulsion systems for our Nation's nuclear navy--a
step that will allow us to postpone the need to construct a new uranium
high-enrichment facility for at least 50 years. Twenty metric tons of
this HEU will be down blended to LEU for use in civilian nuclear power
reactors or research reactors.
We are also working with the Russian Federation to eliminate 34
metric tons of weapons-usable plutonium in each country that will be
converted into MOX fuel and burned in nuclear power reactors. We
believe we have now resolved the impasse over liability that has long
delayed the plutonium disposition program and the construction of the
MOX plant at our Savannah River site.
Much of our work focuses on emerging issues such as detecting
clandestine nuclear supply networks, monitoring efforts by more
countries to acquire nuclear weapons, and preventing the spread of
nuclear fuel cycle technology. We have taken a number of steps to shut
down illicit supply networks and keep nuclear materials out of the
hands of terrorists as reflected in U.S. leadership in support of the
Proliferation Security Initiative, Security Council Resolution 1540,
criminalizing proliferation, and in strengthening international export
control regimes.
We have worked to expand our programs designed to stop nuclear
smuggling and nuclear terrorism by cooperatively developing and
employing radiological and nuclear detection equipment at key border
crossings, airports, and major seaports, or ``megaports,'' worldwide.
NNSA also assists and trains customs officials at home and abroad to
detect the illicit trafficking of nuclear and radiological materials,
as well as dual-use commodities that might be useful in weapons of mass
destruction programs. We are also expanding our efforts to secure and
transform global inventories of weapons-usable materials. Our programs
include the Global Threat Reduction Initiative to reduce and secure
fissile and radioactive material worldwide; our International Material
Protection and Cooperation program, also known as ``MPC&A'', which has
accelerated efforts to improve the security of weapons usable material
in Russia and elsewhere; and our efforts to complete the conversion of
research reactors throughout the world to the use of low enriched
uranium within the next decade. There are also two complementary
programs that address the repatriation of fresh and spent HEU material
from Russian-supplied research reactors and U.S.-origin material from
research reactors around the world.
Cooperation with Russia on nonproliferation is nothing new for the
United States, but this cooperation has been heightened following the
rise of global terrorism and the events of September 11, 2001. The
Joint Statement on Nuclear Security Cooperation issued by Presidents
Bush and Putin at their Bratislava meeting last year is but one example
of the significant progress we have made over the last 5 years. This
joint statement has helped expedite our cooperative work with Russia.
For example, as a result of the Bush-Putin Bratislava joint statement,
we were able to make the return of fresh and spent HEU fuel from U.S.-
and Russian-design research reactors in third countries a top priority,
as well as a plan for joint work to develop low-enriched uranium fuel
for use in these reactors. As a result, we were able complete the
conversion of a Russian-supplied research reactor located in the Czech
Republic to low-enriched fuel and to airlift a significant amount of
HEU from the Czech Technical University reactor located near Prague for
safe and secure storage in Russia. We have also made significant
progress on the other Bratislava joint statement items, and we expect
this cooperation and success will continue.
Beyond the threat of nuclear terrorism, illicit networks engaging
in nuclear trade, and additional states seeking nuclear weapons
capability, the nonproliferation community also faces another
significant challenge--revitalizing nuclear energy throughout the globe
in a manner that also advances our nonproliferation interests. We have
the opportunity to reshape our collective approach to ensure that
nonproliferation is the cornerstone of the next evolution of civilian
nuclear power and fuel cycle technology. The challenge before us is to
make sure we design--from the very beginning--technologies and
political arrangements that limit the spread of sensitive fuel cycle
capabilities and ensure that rogue states do not use a civilian nuclear
power as cover for a covert nuclear weapons program.
Last month, the administration announced the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership, or GNEP, as part of President Bush's Advanced Energy
Initiative. GNEP is a comprehensive strategy to enable an expansion of
nuclear power in the United States and around the world, to promote
nuclear nonproliferation goals; and to help resolve nuclear waste
disposal issues. Fundamental to GNEP is a new approach to fuel cycle
technology. Under this proposed new approach, countries with secure,
advanced nuclear fuel cycle capabilities would offer commercially
competitive and reliable access to nuclear fuel services--fresh fuel
and recovery of used fuel--to other countries in exchange for their
commitment to forgo the development of enrichment and recycling
technology.
Over the next year, we will work with other elements of the
Department to establish GNEP, paying special attention to developing
advanced safeguards and developing the parameters for international
cooperation. Since the signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
the world has sought to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons
while expanding the benefits of nuclear technology. I believe that GNEP
takes us closer to that goal. By allowing us to move beyond abstract
discussions to tangible actions that will benefit directly those who
join us in this partnership. GNEP will offer us the opportunity to take
the international lead in making nonproliferation an integral part of
our global nuclear safety and security culture.
Naval Reactors
Also contributing to the Department's national security mission is
the Department's Naval Reactors Program, whose mission is to provide
the U.S. Navy with safe, militarily effective nuclear propulsion plants
and ensure their continued safe, reliable and long-lived operation.
Nuclear propulsion enhances our warship capabilities by providing the
ability to sprint where needed and arrive on station; ready to conduct
sustained combat operations when America's interests are threatened.
Nuclear propulsion plays a vital role in ensuring the Navy's forward
presence and its ability to project power anywhere in the world.
The Naval Reactors Program has a broad mandate, maintaining
responsibility for nuclear propulsion from cradle to grave. Over 40
percent of the Navy's major combatants are nuclear-powered, including
aircraft carriers, attack submarines, and strategic submarines, which
provide the Nation's most survivable deterrent.
FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST BY PROGRAM
The President's fiscal year 2007 budget request totals $9.3
billion, an increase of $211 million or 2.3 percent. We are managing
our program activities within a disciplined 5-year budget and planning
envelope. We are doing it successfully enough to be able to address the
administration's high priority initiatives to reduce global nuclear
danger in Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and provide for needed
funding increases in some of our programs within an overall modest
growth rate.
Weapons Activities
The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the programs funded within
the Weapons Activities appropriation is $6.41 billion, less than a 1
percent increase over fiscal year 2006. This request supports the
requirements of the Stockpile Stewardship Program consistent with the
administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and the revised stockpile
plan submitted to the Congress in June 2004. Our request places a high
priority on accomplishing the near-term workload and supporting
technologies for the stockpile along with the long-term science and
technology investments to ensure the design and production capability
and capacity to support ongoing missions. This request also supports
the facilities and infrastructure that must be responsive to new or
emerging threats.
Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) is an area of special emphasis this
year with a fiscal year 2007 request of $1.41 billion, a 3 percent
increase over fiscal year 2006. In fiscal year 2007, we will be
accelerating efforts for dismantlement of retired warheads and
consolidation of special nuclear materials across the nuclear weapons
complex. Both of these efforts will contribute to increasing the
overall security at NNSA sites. DSW also supports routine maintenance
and repair of the stockpile; refurbishes warheads through the Life
Extension Programs; and, maintains the capability to design,
manufacture, and certify new warheads, for the foreseeable future. DSW
also supports managing the strategy, driving the change, and performing
the crosscutting initiatives required to achieve responsiveness
objectives envisioned in the NPR. Our focus remains on the stockpile,
to ensure that the nuclear warheads and bombs in the U.S. nuclear
weapons stockpile are safe, secure, and reliable.
Progress in other parts of the Stockpile Stewardship Program
continues. The fiscal year 2007 request for the six Campaigns is $1.94
billion, a 9 percent decrease from fiscal year 2006. The Campaigns
focus on scientific and technical efforts and capabilities essential
for assessment, certification, maintenance, and life extension of the
stockpile and have allowed NNSA to move to ``science-based''
stewardship. These campaigns are evidence of NNSA excellence and
innovation in science, engineering and computing that, though focused
on the nuclear weapons mission, have much broader application.
Specifically, $425 million for the Science and Engineering
Campaigns provides the basic scientific understanding and the
technologies required to support the workload and the completion of new
scientific and experimental facilities. We will continue to maintain
the ability to conduct underground nuclear tests at the Nevada Test
Site if required, but let me be clear, nothing at this time indicates
the need for resumption for underground testing for the foreseeable
future.
The Readiness Campaign, with a request of $206 million, develops
and delivers design-to-manufacture capabilities to meet the evolving
and urgent needs of the stockpile and supports the transformation of
the nuclear weapons complex into an agile and more responsive
enterprise.
The request of $618 million for the Advanced Simulation and
Computing Campaign supports the schedule to enhance the computational
tools and technologies necessary to support the continued assessment
and certification of the refurbished weapons, aging weapons components,
and a Reliable Replacement Warhead program without underground nuclear
tests. As we enhance these tools to link the historical test base of
more than 1,000 nuclear tests to computer simulations, we can continue
to assess whether the stockpile is safe, secure, reliable, and performs
as required.
The $451 million request for the Inertial Confinement Fusion
Ignition and High Yield Campaign is focused on the execution of the
first ignition experiment at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) in
2010 and provides facilities and capabilities for high-energy-density
physics experiments in support of the Stockpile Stewardship Program. To
achieve the ignition milestone, $255 million will support construction
of NIF and the NIF Demonstration Program and $168 million will support
the National Ignition Campaign. The ability of NIF to assess the
thermonuclear burn regime in nuclear weapons via ignition experiments
is of particular importance. NIF will be the only facility capable of
probing in the laboratory the extreme conditions of density and
temperature found in exploding nuclear weapons.
The Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign request of $238
million continues work to manufacture and certify the W88 pit in 2007
and to address issues associated with manufacturing future pit types
including the Reliable Replacement Warhead and increasing pit
production capacity at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) and
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization
Program (FIRP)
In fiscal year 2007 we are requesting $1.98 billion for the
maintenance and operation of existing facilities, remediation and
disposition of excess facilities, and construction of new facilities.
This is of critical importance to enable NNSA to move toward a more
supportable and responsive infrastructure.
Of this amount, $1.69 billion is requested for Readiness in
Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF), an increase of 3 percent from
fiscal year 2006, with $1.4 billion in Operations and Maintenance and
$281 million for RTBF Construction. RTBF operates and maintains current
facilities, and ensure the long-term vitality of the NNSA complex
through a multi-year program of infrastructure construction.
This request also includes $291 million for the Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP), a separate and distinct
program that is complementary to the ongoing RTBF efforts. The FIRP
mission is to restore, rebuild and revitalize the physical
infrastructure of the nuclear weapons complex. FIRP works in
partnership with RTBF to assure that facilities and infrastructure are
restored to an appropriate condition to support the mission, and to
institutionalize responsible and accountable facility management
practices. FIRP activities include reducing deferred maintenance,
recapitalizing the infrastructure, and reducing the maintenance base by
eliminating excess real property. The FIRP Recapitalization projects
are key to restoring the facilities that house the people, equipment,
and material necessary to the Stockpile Stewardship Program, the
primary NNSA mission. FIRP Facility Disposition activities reduce
Environment, Safety and Health (ES&H) and safeguards and security
liabilities, address footprint reduction of the complex, and reduce
long-term costs and risks. The primary objective of FIRP Infrastructure
Planning is to ensure that projects are adequately planned in advance
of project start.
Last year the Congress significantly reduced funds for the FIRP
program. This reduction, coming on reductions in planned levels
dictated by fiscal constraints, means that the original (and
Congressionally mandated) goal of eliminating the maintenance backlog
and terminating the FIRP program by 2011 is no longer attainable. This
matter may require legislation extending the FIRP program to 2013. We
remain committed to the concept of FIRP as a temporary, ``get well''
program and to the long term, sustained funding of maintenance within
the RTBF program.
Secure Transportation Asset
In fiscal year 2007, the budget requests $209 million for Secure
Transportation Asset (STA), a minor decrease from fiscal year 2006
levels, for meeting the Department's transportation requirements for
nuclear weapons, components, and special nuclear materials shipments.
The workload requirements for this program will escalate significantly
in the future to support the dismantlement and maintenance schedule for
the nuclear weapons stockpile and the Secretarial initiative to
consolidate the storage of nuclear material. The challenge to increase
secure transport capacity is coupled with and impacted by increasingly
complex national security concerns. To support the escalating workload
while maintaining the safety and security of shipments, STA is
increasing the cumulative number of Safeguard Transporters in operation
by three per year, with a target total of 51 in fiscal year 2011.
Environmental Projects and Operations
We are requesting $17.2 million for Environmental Projects and
Operations. The $17.2 million request is for a new function, Long Term
Response Actions/Long-Term Stewardship, which covers continuing
environmental stewardship at NNSA sites after the completion of
Environmental Management activities. This new program at each site
begins when EM cleanup activities are completed, and will continue for
several years. Activities comprise routine inspections of landfill
covers/caps, and maintenance of pump and treatment systems, and
starting in fiscal year 2007, will be performed at three NNSA sites:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Kansas City Plant, and Sandia
national laboratories.
The fiscal year 2007-2011 Budget Request does not include the
transfer of legacy environmental management activities at NNSA sites
that was proposed in the fiscal year 2006 Budget Request. However, the
responsibility for newly generated waste at the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory and the Y-12 National Security Complex was
transferred to the NNSA in fiscal year 2006, and is managed in the
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities GPRA unit.
Nuclear Weapons Incident Response
The fiscal year 2007 request for Nuclear Weapons Incident Response
is $135 million, an increase of 15 percent over fiscal year 2006. The
NNSA Emergency Operations remains the U.S. Government's primary
capability for radiological and nuclear emergency response in support
of Homeland Security. The program is continuing efforts to enhance
Emergency Response capabilities, and the budget request supports all
assets as planned, with emphasis on recruitment and training of
personnel called into action during emergency situations. The fiscal
year 2007 increase is primarily associated with the research and
development efforts of the Render Safe Research and Development
program. This budget realigns this research and development funding to
Emergency Response where the program is managed.
Safeguards and Security
The fiscal year 2007 request for Safeguards and Security is $754
million. This budget supports two security-related activities. The
budget request proposes that the physical security portion of NNSA's
Safeguards and Security GPRA Unit be renamed ``Defense Nuclear
Security'', consistent with the responsible NNSA organization. This
program is responding to a revision in threat guidance affecting
physical security at all NNSA sites. Meeting the Design Basis Threat
will require further upgrades to equipment, personnel and facilities,
and NNSA is committed to completing these activities. The Cyber
Security program activities, managed by the NNSA Chief Information
Officer, comprise the rest of this account, and the fiscal year 2007
request is essentially level with the fiscal year 2006 funding level.
The Request includes funding for the DOE Diskless Conversion
initiative. Meeting the post-9/11 security requirements has required a
significant long-term investment, reflecting DOE's continuing
commitment to meet these requirements.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program goal is to detect,
prevent, and reverse the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD) while mitigating nuclear risk worldwide. Our programs address the
danger that hostile nations or terrorist groups may acquire weapons of
mass destruction or weapons-usable material, dual-use production or
technology, or WMD capabilities. Our primary focus in this regard is
securing or disposing of vulnerable stockpiles of weapon-usable
materials, technology, and expertise in Russia and other countries of
concern. The administration's request of $1.73 billion to support NNSA
activities to reduce the global weapons of mass destruction
proliferation threat represents almost a 7 percent increase over the
budget for comparable fiscal year 2006 activities.
The administration's fiscal year 2007 Fissile Material Disposition
budget request is $638 million, an increase of $169 million over fiscal
year 2006. This increase reflects the progress in implementing the
plutonium disposition program in the past year. Of this amount, $551
million will be allocated toward disposing of surplus U.S. and Russian
plutonium and $87 million will be allocated toward the disposition of
surplus U.S. highly enriched uranium. The plutonium disposition
program, the Department's largest nonproliferation program, plans to
dispose of 68 metric tons (MT) of surplus Russian and U.S. weapons-
grade plutonium by fabricating it into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for use
in civilian nuclear power-generating reactors. The United States and
Russia successfully completed negotiations of a liability protocol for
the program, and senior Russian government officials have assured the
United States that this protocol will be signed in the near future. DOE
has also been working to validate the U.S. MOX project cost and
schedule baseline as part of our project management process, and we
will have a validated baseline in place before construction begins. DOE
received authorization to begin construction of the MOX facility from
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, began site preparation work for the
MOX facility at the Savannah River Site, and implemented a number of
improvements to strengthen the management of the MOX project. Current
plans call for construction of the U.S. MOX facility to start in 2006,
with operations to start in 2015. The administration's budget request
is essential for continuing this work in fiscal year 2007, which will
be a peak construction year. Now that the liability issue is nearing
resolution, high-level U.S.-Russian discussions are taking place to
confirm the technical and financial details for the Russian
construction program.
The administration's fiscal year 2007 budget request of $107
million for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) is a 10
percent increase over fiscal year 2006 and supports the urgency carried
in ambitious completion dates and objectives set by the program. GTRI
represents the Department's latest effort to identify, secure, recover,
and/or facilitate the disposition of the vulnerable nuclear and
radioactive materials worldwide that pose a threat to the United States
and the international community. Since the creation of GTRI, we have
enjoyed a number of successes. Under our radiological threat reduction
program, we have completed security upgrades at more than 340
facilities around the world. As a result of the Bush-Putin Bratislava
joint statement on enhanced nuclear security cooperation, we have
established a prioritized schedule for the repatriation of U.S.-origin
and Russian-origin research reactor nuclear fuel located in third
countries. As part of our nuclear materials threat reduction efforts
under GTRI, three successful shipments in fiscal year 2005 to
repatriate Russian-origin fresh highly enriched uranium (HEU) from the
Czech Republic (two shipments) and Latvia.
In accordance with the President's Bratislava commitment, we have
also begun working with the Russian Federation to repatriate Russian-
origin spent fuel. We have also conducted several successful shipments
to repatriate U.S.-origin spent nuclear fuel from Japan, the
Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, and Austria. We have converted three
research reactors in the Netherlands, Libya, and the Czech Republic
from the use of HEU to the use of low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel so
far in 2006, and we have completed physical security upgrades at three
priority sites housing dangerous materials in Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and
Uzbekistan.
The International Material Protection and Cooperation fiscal year
2007 budget request of $413 million is a 2 percent decrease from fiscal
year 2006. For more than a decade, the United States has worked
cooperatively with the Russian Federation and other former Soviet
republics to secure nuclear weapons and weapons material that may be at
risk of theft or diversion. As part of the Bush-Putin Bratislava joint
statement, we agreed to accelerate security upgrades at Russian sites
holding weapons-usable materials and warheads. The Bratislava joint
statement also provided for a comprehensive joint action plan for
cooperation on security upgrades of Russian nuclear facilities at
Rosatom and Ministry of Defense sites. In addition, this statement
called for enhanced cooperation in the areas of nuclear regulatory
development, sustainability, secure transportation, MPC&A expertise
training, and protective force equipment. A number of major milestones
for this cooperative program are on the horizon, and the fiscal year
2007 budget ensures that sufficient funding will be available to meet
these milestones. Security upgrades for Russian Rosatom facilities will
be completed by the end of 2008--2 years ahead of schedule. By the end
of 2008 we will also complete cooperative upgrades at the nuclear
warhead storage sites of the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces and the
Russian Ministry of Defense sites. By the end of fiscal year 2007, we
will have provided security upgrades at more than 80 percent of all the
nuclear sites in Russia at which we now plan cooperative work.
The administration's budget request will enable us to expand and
accelerate the deployment of radiation detection systems at key transit
points within Russia and accelerate installation of such equipment in
five other priority countries to prevent attempts to smuggle nuclear or
radiological materials across land borders. Through our Megaports
initiative, we plan to deploy radiation detection capabilities at three
additional major seaports in fiscal year 2007 to pre-screen cargo
containers destined for the United States for nuclear and radiological
materials, thereby increasing the number of completed ports to 13.
The fiscal year 2007 budget request of $207 million for the
Elimination of Weapons Grade Plutonium Production (EWGPP) is an
increase of 18 percent from fiscal year 2006. The EWGPP program is
working toward complete the permanent shut down of the three remaining
weapons grade plutonium production reactors in Russia at Seversk and
Zheleznogorsk. Every week, these reactors currently produce enough
fissile material for several nuclear weapons. The overall EWGPP plan is
to shutdown these reactors permanently and replace the heat and
electricity these reactors supply to local communities with energy
generated by fossil fuel plants by December 2008 in Seversk and
December 2010 in Zheleznogorsk. The reactors will shut down immediately
when the fossil plants are completed. The first validated estimate of
total program cost--$1.2 billion--was determined in January 2004. After
extensive negotiations with Russia, we achieved $200 million in cost
savings. Also, under the authority to accept international funding as
provided in the Ronald W. Reagan Defense Authorization Act for fiscal
year 2005, we have received pledges of $30 million from six Global
Partnership participants. Construction of the fossil fuel plant at
Seversk started in late 2004, and the start of construction of the
fossil fuel plant at Zheleznogorsk was recently approved. The increased
funding as part of the fiscal year 2007 budget request allows for both
construction projects to remain on schedule and thereby hold the line
on cost.
The fiscal year 2007 budget requests $269 million for
Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development. This effort
includes a number of programs that make unique contributions to
national security by researching the technological advancements
necessary to detect and prevent the illicit diversion of nuclear
materials. The Proliferation Detection program advances basic and
applied technologies for the nonproliferation community with dual-use
benefit to national counter-proliferation and counter-terrorism
missions. Specifically, this program develops the tools, technologies,
techniques, and expertise for the identification, location, and
analysis of the facilities, materials, and processes of undeclared and
proliferant WMD programs. The Proliferation Detection program conducts
fundamental research in fields such as radiation detection, providing
support to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the
Intelligence Community. The Nuclear Explosion Monitoring program builds
the Nation's operational sensors that monitor from space the entire
planet to detect and report surface, atmospheric, or space nuclear
detonations. This program also produces and updates the regional
geophysical data sets enabling operation of the Nation's ground-based
seismic monitoring networks to detect and report underground
detonations.
The fiscal year 2007 budget request for Nonproliferation and
International Security is $127 million. This figure cannot be directly
compared to fiscal year 2006 because of a budget structure change that
has realigned the Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention and
HEU Transparency programs to this GPRA unit. Through this program the
Department provides technical and policy expertise in support of U.S.
efforts to strengthen international nonproliferation institutions and
arrangements, fosters implementation of nonproliferation requirements
through engagement with foreign partners, and helps develop the
mechanisms necessary for transparent and verifiable nuclear reductions
worldwide. This budget request addresses our need to tackle key policy
challenges including efforts to strengthen the IAEA safeguards system,
attempts to block and reverse proliferation in Iran and North Korea,
attention to augmenting U.S. cooperation with China, India, and Russia,
and our plan to build-up the nonproliferation component of the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership.
Naval Reactors
The Naval Reactors fiscal year 2007 budget request of $795 million
is an increase of $13.5 million from fiscal year 2006. The Program's
development work ensures that nuclear propulsion technology provides
options for maintaining and upgrading current capabilities, as well as
for meeting future threats to U.S. security.
The majority of funding supports the Program's No. 1 priority of
ensuring the safety and reliability of the 104 operating naval nuclear
propulsion plants. This work involves continual testing, analysis, and
monitoring of plant and core performance, which becomes more critical
as the reactor plants age. The nature of this business demands a
careful, measured approach to developing and verifying nuclear
technology; designing needed components, systems, and processes; and
implementing them in existing and future plant designs. Most of this
work is accomplished at Naval Reactors' DOE laboratories. These
laboratories have made significant advancements in extending core
lifetime, developing robust materials and components, and creating an
array of predictive capabilities.
Long-term Program goals have been to increase core energy, to
achieve life-of-the-ship cores, and to eliminate the need to refuel
nuclear powered ships. Efforts associated with this objective have
resulted in planned core lives that are sufficient for the 30-plus year
submarine (based on past usage rates) and an extended core life planned
for CVN 21 (the next generation aircraft carrier). The need for nuclear
propulsion will only increase over time as the uncertainty of
conventional fuel cost and availability grows.
Naval Reactors' Operations and Maintenance budget request is
categorized into six areas: Reactor Technology and Analysis; Plant
Technology; Materials Development and Verification; Evaluation and
Servicing; Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) Operations and Test Support; and
Facility Operations.
The $212 million requested for Reactor Technology and Analysis will
support continued work on the design for the new reactor plant for the
next generation of aircraft carriers, CVN-21. These efforts also
support the design of the Transformational Technology Core (TTC), a new
high-energy core that is a direct outgrowth of the Program's advanced
reactor technology and materials development and verification work.
Reactor Technology and Analysis also develops and improves the
analysis tools, which can be used to safely extend service life beyond
our previous experience base. The increasing average age of our Navy's
existing reactor plants, along with future extended service lives, a
higher pace of operation and reduced maintenance periods, place a
greater emphasis on our work in thermal-hydraulics, structural
mechanics, fluid mechanics, and vibration analysis. These factors,
along with longer-life cores, mean that for years to come, these
reactors will be operating beyond our previously proven experience
base.
The $131 million requested for Plant Technology provides funding to
develop, test, and analyze components and systems that transfer,
convert, control, and measure reactor power in a ship's power plant.
Reactor plant performance, reliability, and safety are maintained
through a full understanding of component performance and system
condition over the life of each ship. Naval Reactors is developing
components to address known limitations and to improve reliability of
instrumentation and power distribution equipment to replace aging,
technologically obsolete equipment. Additional technology development
in the areas of chemistry, energy conversion, instrumentation and
control, plant arrangement, and component design will continue to
support the Navy's operational requirements.
The $118 million requested for Materials Development and
Verification funds material analyses and testing to provide the high-
performance materials necessary to ensure that naval nuclear propulsion
plants meet Navy goals for extended warship operation and greater power
capability. More explicitly, materials in the reactor core and reactor
plant must perform safely and reliably for the extended life of the
ship.
The $179 million requested for Evaluation and Servicing sustains
the operation, maintenance, and servicing of Naval Reactors' operating
prototype reactor plants. Reactor core and reactor plant materials,
components, and systems in these plants provide important research and
development data and experience under actual operating conditions.
These data aid in predicting and subsequently preventing problems that
could develop in Fleet reactors. With proper maintenance, upgrades, and
servicing, the two prototype plants will continue to meet testing needs
for at least the next decade.
Evaluation and Servicing funds also support the implementation of a
dry spent fuel storage production line that will put naval spent fuel
currently stored in water pits at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and
Engineering Center and at the Expended Core Facility (ECF) on the Naval
Reactors facility in Idaho into dry storage. Additionally, these funds
support ongoing decontamination and decommissioning of inactive nuclear
facilities at all Naval Reactors sites to address their ``cradle to
grave'' stewardship responsibility for these legacies, and minimize the
potential for any environmental releases.
The $64.6 million requested for Advanced Test Reactor Operations
and Test Support sustains the ongoing activities of the INL ATR
facility, owned and operated by the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE),
Science, and Technology.
In addition to the budget request for the important technical work
discussed above, program direction and facilities funding is required
for continued support of the Program's operations and infrastructure.
The $57 million requested for facilities operations will maintain and
modernize the Program's facilities, including the Bettis and Knolls
laboratories as well as ECF and Kesselring Site Operations (KSO),
through capital equipment purchases and general plant projects. The
$2.8 million requested for construction funds will be used to complete
construction of a materials development facility and to support the
design of a materials research technology complex. Finally, the $31.2
million requested for program direction will support Naval Reactors'
DOE personnel at Headquarters and the Program's field offices,
including salaries, benefits, travel, and other expenses.
Office of the Administrator
The fiscal year 2007 budget request of $387 million, and increase
of 14.2 percent over the fiscal year 2006 appropriation. NNSA completed
the reengineering of its Federal workforce last year and has begun to
recruit to fill critical skill gaps in safety, security, facilities,
and business positions, in addition to the Future Leaders Intern
program initiated in fiscal year 2005. The fiscal year 2007 request
increases to provide additional personnel and support for mission
growth in the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation area, as well as in
safety and security functions. The remainder of the increase reflects
functional transfers to NNSA of 18 people from other Departmental
elements, and fact of life changes including pay adjustments, increased
space and occupancy charges, and cost of living increases in pay and
benefits. We plan to support a slightly higher workforce level than in
previous years, reflecting support for mission growth areas and skill
gap closures.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities Support
A research and education partnership program with the Historically
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) and the Massie Chairs of
Excellence was initiated by the Congress in the Office of the
Administrator appropriation in fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006.
NNSA has established an effective program to target national security
research opportunities for these institutions to increase their
participation in national security-related research and to train and
recruit HBCU graduates for employment within NNSA. The NNSA's goal is a
stable $10 million effort annually. The majority of the efforts
directly support program activities, and it is expected that programs
funded by the Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation and
Naval Reactors appropriations will fund research with the HBCUs in
areas including engineering, radiochemistry, material and computational
sciences and sensor development. A targeted effort in education and
curriculum development, and support for the Massie Chairs, will also be
continued.
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
NNSA has fully embraced the President's Management Agenda through
the completion of the NNSA re-engineering initiative by creating a more
robust and effective NNSA organization. Additionally, NNSA's success
has been recognized with consistently ``Green'' ratings from the DOE,
including Budget and Performance Integration. NNSA's Planning,
Programming, Budgeting and Evaluation (PPBE) process was implemented
simultaneously with the standup of the new NNSA organization, and is
now the established management construct that integrates management,
financial data and performance information in a multi-year context.
The PPBE process is in its fifth year of implementation, and
provides a fully integrated, multi-year perspective. The linkages
within NNSA mirror the Headquarters and field organization structures,
and are supported by management processes, contracting, funds control
and accounting documentation. The cascade and linkages are quite
evident in our updated NNSA Strategic Plan, issued last November.
We take very seriously the responsibility to manage the resources
of the American people effectively and I am glad that our management
efforts are achieving such results.
Finally, to provide more effective supervision of high-hazard
nuclear operations, I have established a Chief, Defense Nuclear Safety
position and appointed an experienced safety professional to the
position. I believe this will help us balance the need for consistent
standards with my stress on the authority and responsibility of the
local Site Managers.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am confident that we are headed in the right
direction. Our budget request will support continuing our progress in
protecting and certifying our nuclear deterrent, transforming our
stockpile and infrastructure, reducing the global danger from
proliferation and weapons of mass destruction, and enhancing the force
projection capabilities of the U.S. nuclear Navy. It will enable us to
continue to maintain the safety and security of our people,
information, materials, and infrastructure. Above all, it will meet the
national security needs of the United States of in the 21st century.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. A statistical appendix
follows that contains the budget figures supporting our request. My
colleagues and I would be pleased to answer any questions on the
justification for the requested budget.
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION: APPROPRIATION AND PROGRAM
SUMMARY TABLES, OUT-YEAR APPROPRIATION SUMMARY TABLES
FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET TABLES
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION APPROPRIATION AND PROGRAM SUMMARY
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2005 Current 2006 Original 2006 2006 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriations Appropriation Adjustments Appropriation 2007 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA):
Office of the Administrator....... 363.4 341.9 -3.4 338.5 386.6
Weapons Activities (after S&S WFO 6,625.5 6,433.9 -64.3 6,369.6 6,407.9
offset)..........................
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.. 1,508.0 1,631.2 -16.3 1,614.8 1,726.2
Naval Reactors.................... 801.4 789.5 -7.9 781.6 795.1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, NNSA..................... 9,298.3 9,196.5 -92.0 9,104.5 9,315.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--The fiscal year 2006 column includes an across-the-board rescission of 1 percent in accordance with the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006, Public Law 109-148.
The NNSA budget justification contains information for 5 years as
required by Sec. 3253 of Public Law 106-065. This section, entitled
Future-Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP), requires the
Administrator to submit to Congress each year the estimated
expenditures necessary to support the programs, projects and activities
of the NNSA for a 5-year fiscal period, in a level of detail comparable
to that contained in the budget.
OUT-YEAR APPROPRIATION SUMMARY NNSA FUTURE-YEARS NUCLEAR SECURITY PROGRAM (FYNSP)
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal
Year 2007 Year 2008 Year 2009 Year 2010 Year 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NNSA:
Office of the Administrator..................... 387 394 402 410 418
Weapons Activities (after S&S offset)........... 6,408 6,536 6,667 6,800 6,936
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................ 1,726 1,761 1,796 1,832 1,869
Naval Reactors.................................. 795 811 827 844 861
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total, NNSA................................... 9,316 9,502 9,692 9,886 10,084
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEAPONS ACTIVITIES FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2005 Current 2006 Original 2006 2006 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation Adjustments Appropriation 2007 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weapons Activities:
Directed Stockpile Work............ 1,351,206 1,386,189 -13,862 1,372,327 1,410,268
Science Campaign................... 277,253 279,464 -2,794 276,670 263,762
Engineering Campaign............... 258,767 250,411 -2,504 247,907 160,919
Inertial Confinement Fusion 536,756 549,073 -5,491 543,582 451,191
Ignition and High Yield Campaign..
Advanced Simulation and Computing 698,196 605,830 -6,058 599,772 617,955
Campaign..........................
Pit Manufacturing and Certification 263,570 241,074 -2,411 238,663 237,598
Campaign..........................
Readiness Campaign................. 265,472 218,755 -2,188 216,567 205,965
Readiness in Technical Base and 1,657,712 1,647,885 -3,130 1,644,755 1,685,772
Facilities........................
Secure Transportation Asset........ 199,709 212,100 -2,121 209,979 209,264
Nuclear Weapons Incident Response.. 98,427 118,796 -1,188 117,608 135,354
Facilities and Infrastructure 313,722 150,873 -1,508 149,365 291,218
Recapitalization Program..........
Environmental Projects and ............. ............. ............ ............. 17,211
Operations........................
Safeguards and Security............ 751,929 805,486 -7,735 797,751 754,412
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Weapons Activities..... 6,672,719 6,465,936 -50,990 6,414,946 6,440,889
Use of Prior Year Balances............. -16,372 ............. -13,349 -13,349 ............
Security Charge for Reimbursable Work.. -30,000 -32,000 ............ -32,000 -33,000
Transfer to the Office of the -3,205 ............. ............ ............. ............
Administrator for Pajarito............
Undistributed Budget Authority \1\..... 2,400 ............. ............ ............. ............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Weapons Activities........ 6,625,542 6,433,936 -64,339 6,369,597 6,407,889
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Results from application of the 0.8 percent across-the-board rescission against the gross Weapons Activities
appropriation prior to receipt of the $300,000,000 which was derived by transfer from the Department of
Defense in accordance with Public Law 108-447.
Note.--The fiscal year 2006 adjustments column includes an across-the-board rescission of 1 percent in
accordance with the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006, Public Law 109-148. It also reflects the
approval of the following reprogrammings for Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities using prior year
funding--Savannah River General Plant Projects and Project 03-D-102, National Security Sciences Building.
Public Law Authorization.--Public Law 109-163, National Defense Authorization Act, fiscal year 2006; Public Law
109-103, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006.
OUT-YEAR FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2008 2009 2010 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weapons Activities:
Directed Stockpile Work..................... 1,381,893 1,431,364 1,462,287 1,494,962
Science Campaign............................ 282,223 281,344 274,296 268,441
Engineering Campaign........................ 169,012 152,114 149,639 147,584
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and 426,035 415,222 414,823 400,013
High Yield Campaign........................
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign. 632,095 621,943 607,746 593,761
Pit Manufacturing and Certification 249,588 252,174 260,096 255,832
Campaign...................................
Readiness Campaign.......................... 202,636 198,090 192,401 187,659
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities.. 1,767,586 1,833,813 1,907,510 2,008,941
Secure Transportation Asset................. 225,057 237,344 244,212 247,580
Nuclear Weapons Incident Response........... 137,766 140,019 142,332 144,701
Facilities and Infrastructure 310,369 339,257 368,054 396,996
Recapitalization Program...................
Environmental Projects and Operations....... 17,518 17,805 18,099 18,400
Safeguards and Security..................... 768,269 781,279 794,608 808,235
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Weapons Activities.............. 6,570,047 6,701,768 6,836,103 6,973,105
Security Charge for Reimbursable Work........... -34,000 -35,000 -36,000 -37,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Weapons Activities................. 6,536,047 6,666,768 6,800,103 6,936,105
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR OUT-YEAR CONSIDERATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2008 2009 2010 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weapons Activities.............................. 6,570,047 6,701,768 6,836,103 6,973,105
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2005 Current 2006 Original 2006 2006 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation Adjustments \1\ Appropriation 2007 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation and
Verification:
Nonproliferation Research 219,836 322,000 -3,220 318,780 268,887
and Development...........
Nonproliferation and 143,764 75,000 -750 74,250 127,411
International Security....
International Nuclear 403,451 427,000 -4,270 422,730 413,182
Materials Protection and
Cooperation...............
Global Initiatives for 40,675 40,000 -400 39,600 ..............
Proliferation Prevention..
HEU Transparency 20,784 19,483 -195 19,288 ..............
Implementation \1\........
Elimination of Weapons- 67,331 176,185 -1,762 174,423 206,654
Grade Plutonium Production
Fissile Materials 619,060 473,508 -4,735 468,773 637,956
Disposition...............
Offsite Recovery Project... 7,540 .............. ............... .............. ..............
Global Threat Reduction .............. 97,975 -980 96,995 106,818
Initiative................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense Nuclear 1,522,441 1,631,151 -16,312 1,614,839 1,760,908
Nonproliferation........
Use of Prior Year Balances..... -14,475 .............. ............... .............. -34,695
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Defense Nuclear 1,507,966 1,631,151 -16,312 1,614,839 1,726,213
Nonproliferation........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This budget request includes an across-the-board rescission of 1 percent for fiscal year 2006 in accordance
with the Department of Defense Appropriations Act 2006, Public Law 109-148.
Note.--The fiscal year 2006 column includes an across-the-board rescission of 1 percent in accordance with the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006, Public Law 109-148.
Public Law Authorization.--Public Law 108-148, The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2006.
OUT-YEAR FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2008 2009 2010 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation:
Nonproliferation and Verification Research 279,439 293,924 311,551 324,034
and Development............................
Nonproliferation and International Security. 132,458 134,706 138,835 146,990
International Nuclear Materials Protection 403,351 444,405 530,723 542,859
and Cooperation............................
Elimination of Weapons Grade Plutonium 182,017 139,363 24,949 ..............
Production.................................
Fissile Materials Disposition............... 642,853 654,469 710,178 737,976
Global Threat Reduction Initiative.......... 120,619 129,085 115,635 116,649
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation... 1,760,737 1,795,952 1,831,871 1,868,508
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR OUT-YEAR CONSIDERATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2008 2009 2010 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................ 1,760,737 1,795,952 1,831,871 1,868,508
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NNSA describes major out-year considerations at each GPRA-Unit
level within this appropriation.
NAVAL REACTORS FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2005 Current 2006 Original 2006 2006 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation Adjustments Appropriation 2007 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval Reactors Development
(NRD):
Operations and Main- 765,041 728,800 -7,288 721,512 761,176
tenance....................
Program Direction........... 29,264 30,300 -303 29,997 31,185
Construction \1\............ 7,132 30,400 -304 30,096 2,772
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Naval Reactors 801,437 789,500 -7,895 781,605 795,133
Development..............
Use of Prior Year Balances...... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Naval Reactors..... 801,437 789,500 -7,895 781,605 795,133
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the Conference report to Public Law 109-103, Congress directed that NR transfer $13.5 million to DOE-NE
to support the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) Life Extension Program (LEP). However, the report included the
$13.5 million specified for ATR under the Construction Heading Vice Operations and Maintenance. The additional
$13.5 million has been transferred to NE to support the LEP (NR total transfer to NE for ATR in fiscal year
2006 was $70.8 million). Actual NR Construction requirements in fiscal year 2006 are $16.9 million.
Note.--The fiscal year 2006 column includes an across-the-board rescission of 1 percent in accordance with the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006, Public Law 109-148.
Public Law Authorization.--Public Law 83-703, ``Atomic Energy Act of 1954''; Executive Order 12344 (42 U.S.C.
7158), ``Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program''; Public Law 107-107, ``National Defense Authorization Act of
2002'', Title 32, ``National Nuclear Security Administration''; Public Law 108-375, National Defense
Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2005; Public Law 108-447, The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005; Public Law
109-163, National Defense Authorization Act, 2006.
OUT-YEAR FUNDING SCHEDULE
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2008 2009 2010 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval Reactors.................................. 811,036 827,257 843,802 860,678
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR OUT-YEAR CONSIDERATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2008 2009 2010 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval Reactors:
Operations and Maintenance.................. 765,186 777,407 780,702 804,078
Program Direction........................... 32,700 33,900 35,100 35,900
Construction................................ 13,150 15,950 28,000 20,700
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Naval Reactors..................... 811,036 827,257 843,802 860,678
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NNSA describes major out-year considerations at each GPRA-Unit
level within this appropriation.
PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
Could we talk first about MOX?
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. First, I am surprised by the lack of
detail in your statement regarding MOX. Your statement makes no
mention of the fact that the Department is rebaselining the
entire program and that cost estimates have increased to over
$3 billion. It makes no mention of the steps the Department is
taking to respond to the DOE IG report, which found that we
lack sufficient contractor oversight, which has contributed to
the increased costs.
It also fails to mention that the Russians have made it
clear that they will no longer pay for the operations of MOX if
they are limited to using the fuel in light water reactors, in
the same manner as the United States. Apparently the Russians
have made a unilateral decision that their only interest is in
fast reactors.
Finally, I am becoming increasingly frustrated that the
Russians continue to stall the final approval of the liability
agreement. I believe the Russians are now the biggest liability
facing the program and we should sever the link between the
construction projects.
So I have questions since your statement fails to mention
any of these issues. Could you update the committee on them and
what are you doing to improve the contract oversight and to
rein in the contractor?
Ambassador Brooks. Certainly, sir. Let me start with the
Russian program first. Every Russian official at every level
continues to assure us that the holdup in giving final approval
to the liability agreement is entirely procedural. I share your
frustration. I will note, however, that the Russian bureaucracy
is legendary for taking a long time to do even simple things.
So the information we have as recently as 2 weeks ago is an
assurance from very senior Russians that there is no issue.
Second, the Russians have made it clear that they will
dispose of plutonium in light water reactors as we had
envisioned if the entire cost is borne by the international
community. The Russians have interpreted the 2000 agreement as
suggesting that. I believe the United States does not interpret
it that way. In any event, the State Department and the
Russians and I believe that we are unlikely to raise all of the
operating money from the international community. Therefore, to
preserve our options to go in both directions we are working
with the Russians on disposing of some fuel in an existing fast
reactor called the BN-600.
The BN-600 was envisioned in 2000 as one method for
disposition and it is not a new idea. It is new that it is seen
as the primary approach. Part of this effort would be to remove
the blanket that makes it a breeder and to do that in a way
that is verifiable to the United States.
I share your view that it would be lunacy to use surplus
plutonium in order to make more plutonium and I do not believe
the Russians have any interest in that and we would certainly
not agree to it.
That would then allow a potential path forward. The BN-600
cannot eliminate all the 34 tons of MOX in any reasonable time.
It would simply prove the technology and allow a Russian-
planned reactor called the BN-800, not yet built, to be a path
for disposition.
We intend to work with the Russians to continue to ensure
that they live up to their end of the agreement. At the same
time, I no longer believe that holding up U.S. construction is
in our interest. I believe that because of the need to meet our
own obligations and the relationship between a credible
disposition path and material consolidation, that construction
should go forward in South Carolina.
With regard to the Government Accountability Office and the
cost increase, there are three reasons for the cost increase.
One reason is that the initial figures we gave the Congress in
2002 were in constant 2001 dollars and we are now looking at
out-year dollars.
The second reason is that the initial figures we gave the
Congress were based on an erroneous, as it turns out, belief
that we would have an optimal funding profile and that has not
proved feasible. As a result, our strategy now is to fund at a
constant rate. So it is probable that the 2008 request will be
very similar to the 2007 request. That is more efficient from
the standpoint of orderly budgeting. It is less efficient from
the standpoint of construction, so there is an increase.
Then, as you correctly noted, we have had some management
problems. Some of them have been caused by the protracted
delay. Some of them have been caused by reductions,
understandable reductions, based on the Russian delay. We are
renegotiating the contract with DCS, the contractor. We decided
to renegotiate rather than to recompete because I believe it is
important to get on with it. We will have a 100 percent
incentive fee. We will have stronger accountability and we will
have new contractor management, and I believe that these steps
will in fact give us greater assurance. I do not want to
overpromise, Mr. Chairman. The Department's record on large-
scale construction projects is not one of the things to be
hugely proud of. But I believe that we are now on top of this
and that we will be able to go forward in a responsible manner.
Senator Domenici. Maybe this is not a question for you, but
let us just talk about this anyway. Why are we doing these
things we are doing for the Russians? We started this program,
these programs--the first of the kind was Nunn-Lugar. It took
3, 4, 5 years for it to get operating. It is about 20 years
old. At that point we had lots of potential proliferation
around and the Russians had no money and things were really
going to hell in a handbag.
It was hard at first for Americans to get the idea that we
ought to give them help, but we did, and we got into this in a
big way. We got three major programs that we call
nonproliferation in the world and almost all of the money goes
to something that is Russian, including the safeguard program.
That is still going in, is it not, where we make sure things
are guarded properly?
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. That is American money to safeguard
things over there.
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. The reason I say I do not know if it is
for you to answer, but why do we still do these things for
Russia? Why do they not do it themselves?
Ambassador Brooks. Well, increasingly they are, sir, and I
agree.
Senator Domenici. Wait a minute. You agree with what?
Ambassador Brooks. I agree with what I take to be your
view, that it is increasing for them to bear the burden of
doing their own efforts.
We support improving security in Russian nuclear material
for the same reason we did when you and others started it,
because we believe that it is the way you protect the United
States.
Senator Domenici. Absolutely.
Ambassador Brooks. The best way to keep nuclear material
out of the hands of those who would do us harm is at the
source.
At the same time, we are coming to the end of that phase
and President Bush and President Putin have explicitly stated
at Bratislava they want to see us move from assistance to
partnership. We are going to finish our work in improving
Russian security in 2008. In fact, the Russians have already
picked up a substantial--some of the sites that when I sat
before you last year I expected we would be doing, the Russians
are now going to be doing.
We are shifting our effort to much more of a collaborative
understanding of sharing best practices, of working on how we
make sure that they sustain this effort. So I think that,
although perhaps less rapidly than you might like, we are
moving away from sending money there.
Senator Domenici. Well, I appreciate your answer, and I
have not been back to Russia since we started this a long time
ago. It was all different people and a completely different
government, so I do not know how they feel or what they think
about this dialogue here today.
But this whole business of MOX and plutonium disposition
and the 34 tons that we made a deal on, made an agreement on,
it is incredible to me that they are ready to pay for all of
this. It has taken us so long to get something done that it
would appear to me this is in their benefit as much as ours or
more. And we are having so much trouble getting it done.
That is why I am pleased to hear you say that we ought to--
you did not use my language of ``de-link'' because that is too
strong a word, but you indicated we should proceed----
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici [continuing]. If I heard you right.
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, sir, you did hear it right.
Senator Domenici. You can rest assured that in the
appropriations process to the extent that we can have anything
to do with that, that is what we are going to say. It is a long
way, we've been waiting long enough. America has a rare chance
to make a breakthrough with MOX that we waited 25 years to do
and should have done, and we just as well get on with it.
I think the State that has agreed it has some empathy,
deserves some empathy, too. They cannot sit around forever and
wait either. Maybe others do not understand that, but we do. It
is a tough program.
Ambassador Brooks. Thank you, sir.
Senator Domenici. So we understand each other on MOX, and
on plutonium disposition what I have described is what we are
going to do, and you can decide as the legislation moves
through what the administration's position is going to be.
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, sir.
NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY
Senator Domenici. All right. The NIF budget. Does the
fiscal year 2007 budget support the administration's goal of
ignition by 2010?
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, sir, it does.
Senator Domenici. Do you agree with the JASON's report on
the NIF ignition plan, that it was fair and an accurate
estimate of the NIF program?
Ambassador Brooks. It was, and what it said was that they
agree that we will be able to conduct the ignition experiment
in 2010. They are less confident whether the first experiment
will work, and we share this view. This is something that has
never been done before. But we were pleased to see the JASON's
report support the basic notion that the program is on track to
conduct an ignition experiment in 2010. We intend to keep it on
track.
Senator Domenici. Well, they say that--the JASON report,
which you believe to be an accurate report, stated that 2010
ignition was ``unrealistic.'' If this top-caliber review
believes this goal is unrealistic, then why should we support a
budget request that makes deep cuts in all these other programs
to support this program that says it is unrealistic to expect
the 2010 ignition?
Ambassador Brooks. Respectfully sir, what they said was
that it was realistic to assume that we could meet our goal to
conduct the experiment in 2010, that it was not clear--if you
say they used the word ``unrealistic,'' I accept that; I do not
remember it when I read the report--that it was not clear
whether the first experiment would succeed.
I will say it is unrealistic to assume that the first time
you try anything that has never been done before that you can
guarantee it is going to work. I do not want to suggest that I
am promising the committee that we will achieve ignition on the
first try. I believe that we will conduct an experiment in
2010. I believe we have a chance that it will work. But they
call it research because we have not done it yet.
So I do think that the decisions we have made are sound,
although I think that we will try to start shifting some
resources as we get through this peak period in the NIF, I
think we will try to shift some resources back to using some of
the other tools in inertial confinement fusion. For example,
the Z refurbishment project will be complete in fiscal 2007,
and I think that we did in fact reduce the amount of money that
went into some of the other valuable areas like Z and Omega.
Senator Domenici. Well, the people at NIF know where this
Senator stands and I stand by watching and waiting and hoping
that it works. It is one of the biggest gambles I have ever
voted for and, looking back on it, while I take great pride in
saying I really love big science, that is one I would like to
go back and see whether my arms would fit around it again. I am
not quite sure they would.
But, having said that, I see another Senator here and I
have lots of questions, but he does not have as many as me, nor
as much time. Would you have questions at this point?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. Well, I do, Mr. Chairman, and thank you.
Thank you for holding this hearing today. I do have a full
statement I would like to make a part of the record if I might.
Senator Domenici. It will be made a part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Wayne Allard
Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to attend this hearing
today.
Ambassador Brooks, it is a pleasure to see you again. I enjoyed our
meeting a couple of weeks and appreciate your taking the time to stop
by. I want you to know that I support you and the rest of Department. I
look forward to working with you this year.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the Bush Administration has received far
too little credit for its efforts to reduce proliferation and reduce
the threat of a nuclear conflict. Many folks still have not recognized
that the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions (Moscow Treaty) will
reduce the size of the U.S. stockpile to a level that has not been seen
in 50 years. Indeed, we are pulling weapons out of the stockpile so
fast that the Department of Energy had to double its fiscal year 2007
budget request for dismantlement of nuclear weapons.
And, the administration hasn't stopped there. Under your
leadership, Ambassador Brooks, we are moving forward with the reliable
replacement warhead program, which could further reduce the number of
weapons in our stockpile. I think those who oppose this program have
not really looked at it closely.
Their opposition to the RRW program does not make sense when the
only alternative is the costly refurbishment process. Their opposition
certainly does not make sense if, as promised, this program results in
significantly greater reductions in our stockpile.
I firmly believe that nuclear weapons remain a critical element of
our national security and are a significant deterrent to potential
adversaries. The threat has not gone away and is unlikely to do so in
the distant future. I think we can be much smarter and much more
efficient in how we approach the stockpile without losing the
effectiveness that we require. Programs like the reliable replacement
warhead are a right step in this direction.
Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to speak today. I look
forward to the Ambassador Brook's testimony.
CHANGES IN THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX
Senator Allard. I have a news release here where Mr.
D'Agostino prepared a statement, I guess yesterday to the
House, laying out the future of the nuclear weapons complex. I
am wondering if maybe you might go into--as you know, I am
interested in that.
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. And I wonder if you might go into a little
more detail than what I am seeing here.
Ambassador Brooks. Certainly, sir.
Senator Domenici. I see he is here. Whoever wants to do it.
Ambassador Brooks. Well, let me.
Senator Allard. Okay. Well, we can have--whatever, just so
I get an answer.
Ambassador Brooks. Let me try.
Senator Domenici. Sure.
Ambassador Brooks. We have pretty much all the knowledge we
have got in this room, so we can tell you where we are going.
We have for the last couple of years been looking at the
question of the complex of the future. We had an external look
done by the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, and we received
the report late last year. That external look recommended
moving very quickly to a single site for everything that
involves uranium and plutonium at a location yet to be
determined and it made a number of other recommendations, many
of which we have adopted.
Our approach to the future of the complex has a number of
parts. First, we intend to continue to emphasize the
development of the Reliable Replacement Warhead because if we
can simplify the ability to maintain and improve warheads then
any complex can be made more efficient. So we see that as good
in itself, but also as an enabler for the improved complex.
Second, we believe that one of our weaknesses today which
we do not need to wait for the future is that the complex does
not function in an integrated manner. Deputy Administrator
D'Agostino has already put out guidance to make our incentive
package for each of the sites based in part on the ability of
the whole complex to meet its requirements.
Third, we think that we should dramatically reduce the
number of places where we do plutonium and uranium work, both
for efficiency, but in order to reduce the cost of security.
For uranium, we believe that the investments we are making and
have planned at Y-12 make it the long-term uranium, highly
enriched uranium center for the United States. We are building
a facility called the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials
Facility, which will be the storage facility, the Fort Knox of
uranium, if you wish, and we will be working with the Congress
in coming years to build a facility next to it where all the
uranium processing work is done.
Putting these two facilities next to each other will do two
things. It will dramatically reduce the number of buildings
that actually have material in it and it will dramatically
shrink the area that we have to guard and protect.
With regard to plutonium, we believe that we should
consolidate by the early 2020's essentially all plutonium work,
both in making pits and in doing research on plutonium, at a
single facility. Until that facility exists, the capability at
Los Alamos will provide the interim capability.
We believe that the long-term future of the weapons labs--
and we do not know where that plutonium facility should go, but
our general view is it should go at an existing site that uses
category I and category II material. We do not think it is
particularly worth the physical and political cost of moving
plutonium to places where it has never been.
As a result, we intend to over time eliminate having
special nuclear material at the three weapons laboratories.
Sandia, which has the Sandia Pulse Reactor, has the primary
material. We will finish the last series of experiments on that
reactor later this year and we will be in a position to make
Sandia special nuclear material-free.
We expect to begin moving material out of Livermore in
2008. I would like to be a little fuzzy right now about where
we are going to put it, but we are going to begin moving it and
intend to have Livermore free of special nuclear material by
2012. One precursor to that is obviously we want both Los
Alamos and Livermore to continue to have intellectual
involvement in plutonium metallurgy, which is so crucial to the
stockpile, and we are going to have to work arrangements so
that can be done from a single consolidated site.
Ultimately, if Los Alamos does not become the site of the
new plutonium center, we would much later move out of Los
Alamos. We intend to create a new non-nuclear production
facility by 2012. Our facility in Kansas City is one of our
best-run and best-managed facilities, but it is still operated
as a government-owned, contractor-operated facility. It still
has 3 million square feet of floor space and the United States
does not need that, and we intend to move toward a different
kind of facility. We still believe that there are things that
need to be made under direct contract to us, that not all non-
nuclear components can you simply go out and procure. But we
want to move to more commercial procurement where that is
appropriate.
We intend to make it clear to the Congress and the American
people and the world that this is not the start of some new
arms race, by accelerating the rate at which we dismantle
weapons. Between 2006 and 2007, we will have a 50 percent
increase in dismantlement and we are still looking at what we
can do in the out-years.
Finally, we intend to look with regard primarily to the
laboratory complex. We believe that we should retain the three
existing laboratories. We believe that we should work more
diligently than we have to look at the one of a kind facilities
as user facilities that truly support the entire complex. We
also think that over time the more complex high explosive
experiments should be centralized in Nevada.
Then finally we have recently, inspired, to be candid, by
some outside looks, we have concluded that any kind of
complex--we have gotten too risk-averse. We have emphasized
fourth decimal point analyses of safety over the expense of
getting things done. So we are in the process of a series of
internal looks to make sure that, whatever the complex of the
future is, it will be operated more efficiently.
So that is the broad approach. There are a number of things
in this budget that will contribute to that approach, but we
will obviously be working with the Congress in the coming
years, most particularly as we start the process of making site
selection for this consolidated plutonium center.
NUCLEAR MATERIALS
Senator Allard. You are thinking the disposal site would be
at Yucca Mountain in Nevada?
Ambassador Brooks. I am assuming that at the moment. The
complex makes--we make two assumptions. One is that, with
regard to plutonium disposition, that it will leave the weapons
system, if you will, through Savannah River. In terms of high-
level disposal, that is not our formal responsibility, but we
are obviously assuming that Yucca is where--for example, I
believe that almost certainly we will continue to decide we
have too much plutonium and I believe that we will turn more
and more of it into MOX fuel and that will go in commercial
reactors, and the output of that is just like the output of any
other commercial reactor. And at the moment Yucca is where that
is slated to go.
Senator Allard. Yes.
Ambassador Brooks. But there is relatively little that goes
directly from the weapons program into Yucca.
Senator Allard. You are passing it through the MOX
facility----
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard [continuing]. Which right now we have at
Savannah River.
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. And that is also used to reprocess spent
nuclear rods.
Ambassador Brooks. Well, the MOX facility does not at the
moment.
Senator Allard. It does not?
Ambassador Brooks. No, sir.
Senator Allard. Okay, but it has the capability to do that?
Ambassador Brooks. No, sir.
Senator Allard. We would have to build another facility to
do that?
Ambassador Brooks. Yes. The Department--I want to
distinguish between things for which I have responsibility.
Senator Allard. Okay.
Ambassador Brooks. The Department as part of the global
nuclear energy initiative will be recommending, has
recommended, that we move to the construction of some
demonstration facilities for both reprocessing and for an
advanced burner reactor. We do not have sites located for that
and they are not in the NNSA area of responsibility.
Senator Allard. And those sites would be the MOX Plus, is
that correct?
Ambassador Brooks. I think that it is probably a better way
to think of them as really sort of separate issues. The time
scales are different. The principle is different. We looked at
whether or not we should somehow combine all of this in one
galactic program and decided we should not.
Senator Allard. So, moving on then, if we should get in--we
are going to have more nuclear power plants. If we are going to
decide to reprocess those rods, you are thinking of a separate
facility altogether.
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. And in that process you will use--if I say
the ``Plus MOX,'' you know what I'm talking about.
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. I do not know what your official technology
is there. But it is an enhanced reprocessing.
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, sir. The vision that we have now--
when I say ``we'' I do not mean NNSA; I mean the administration
generally--for the future of nuclear power has a number of
components, but it is based on the belief that we should not
plan to put once-through fuel in a geologic repository because
(a) you are going to use up all the space available, and (b)
you are in fact putting a lot of energy content there; and
finally, you are putting a huge amount of stuff with very long
half-lives, which means that you have to analyze for periods
that are probably beyond our capability.
So the idea is that we would take the fuel that comes out
of traditional light water reactors, we would reprocess that
through a new approach not previously used, that will give us a
trans-uranic fuel, if you will, a fuel that is plutonium plus
other trans-uranic isotopes, and that that fuel will go into
fast reactors.
What this will do for you is--there is still sooner or
later going to be stuff that is going to go in a geologic
repository. But the volume will be reduced substantially and
the peak dose period will be reduced substantially and you will
get more of the energy content out of the fuel.
If you do that, then what you have to do is guard against
any question that you are harming our traditional
nonproliferation approach, which is one of the reasons the
United States has been skeptical of reprocessing in the past.
Our approach is to reprocess in a way that is different from
traditional reprocessing and that makes the fuel less
interesting--I do not want to say uninteresting, but less
interesting from a proliferation perspective--but then also to
create a global regime of essentially fuel leasing. That is not
exactly the term we use, but where only a limited number of
States would do this reprocessing and those are States with
traditional strong safeguards.
So what we think all this will do is it will allow us to
meet the future energy needs through nonpolluting nuclear
power, it will allow us to do that in a way that does not
require small countries to bear all the burden of disposal,
because large countries would send them fuel and then take it
back for reprocessing, and that would not put us in the
situation where we are now, where, depending on your
projections of future nuclear power, we need nine more Yucca
Mountains this century, which I think most of us believe are
not likely to be easy to find.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. His response took
longer than I anticipated.
Ambassador Brooks. My apologies.
Senator Allard. I figured you would be interested in it, so
I did not try and cut his response short. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. It is all right. I was interested.
Senator Allard. I figured you would share some interest
there.
Senator Domenici. I already knew about it, but I was
interested.
Senator Allard. I hope I did not duplicate a previous
question you asked.
Senator Domenici. No, no.
I think the new word that we are all trying to use is
``recycling''.
Senator Allard. Yes, recycle.
Senator Domenici. Instead of ``reprocessing''.
Senator Allard. That is correct.
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. It is an enhanced recycling process.
Senator Domenici. Yes, it is recycling. And the process we
are going to use has not been used before in full-scale. That
is why this process is pretty risky, because it is going to
take a long time. Everything sounded so nice, but you see, that
means you are going to have Yucca sitting over here waiting for
this new recycled fuel. It has got to wait over there, circling
the globe, for about 30 years, it looks to me, 20, 30 years.
I do not quite know how we are going to get legislation
passed to do that.
Senator Allard. Are we not in the courts on that right now,
Mr. Chairman?
Senator Domenici. Yes. But we have got to pass something
soon deciding what happens to the Yucca property.
Senator Allard. I see.
Senator Domenici. The real estate, the railroads, and the
physical site. And in doing that, we have got to kind of
decide, kind of say what we are going to use it for, so Harry
Reid will know. If nothing else, we have got to tell him. Right
now we are telling him, it looks like we are telling the world
we are going to put spent fuel rods in there.
You just heard him say we are not going to do that. He said
it round-about. But everybody is saying we are not going to do
that. So we have got a facility that we are moving in that
direction and we are not going to use it for that. We have got
to change the law and say what is it we are going to use it
for.
And we have got one hang-up. There is a law that says we
have got to put military waste in that facility, and we do not
quite understand how that fits. I do not know, the Ambassador
may have negotiated that arrangement. Maybe he knows. That is a
big one. But if that was not in the way, we could make Yucca
sit over there for 30 years and wait for this new recycled
material.
You understand, this new recycled material is a fantastic
achievement, human achievement, if it works. Just remember this
number: you reduce the quantity a hundred-fold. So if you are
going to put a spent fuel rod in and it was going to take 100
cubic feet and you do this recycling, it is going to be one
cubic foot of material. That is pretty interesting, is it not?
Senator Allard. It is, and I have seen part of that
process.
Senator Domenici. The process, what you have got left over
is very easy to handle because it does not have the half-life
that he spoke of generally.
Senator Allard. With the enhanced process. I think that is
wonderful.
Senator Domenici. Right, terrific. Well, that is the
President's GNEP program. That is what we are going to try to
do. We do have some money in here; we are going to start it.
Senator Allard. Good.
Senator Domenici. Two hundred forty million dollars, $250
million. But that is such a little down payment. Japan is
interested, India is interested. Maybe we can start it and turn
into an international program. They might be willing to help us
pay for it.
I am willing to give it a shot if I could figure out how
Yucca fits in the middle of this.
Senator Allard. Well, I am with you, Mr. Chairman.
LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY
Senator Domenici. We will work on it.
Let me talk down to these things that are important to
people in New Mexico: the pension program over there at LANL. I
sent you a letter urging you to oppose the University of
California's efforts to separate the LANL pension from the
broader university retirement system. I got your letter, in
which you indicated you did not have enough information. Has
anything changed since you wrote me the letter that might
affect the LANL retirees?
Ambassador Brooks. I continue to be absolutely committed,
as I told you before, to making sure they are treated fairly. I
continue to have nothing from the university other than what I
have heard in the press. I am told that a letter will arrive
shortly explaining what the university proposes. I have not
seen it yet as of this morning. So I know nothing more than I
knew when I signed the letter.
GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP
Senator Domenici. I have one question on GNEP. Mr. Paul,
can you please tell me what the NNSA role is in the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership and what NNSA's budget provided for
2007 to 2011? Can you do that or, Mr. Ambassador, you do it,
whichever?
Ambassador Brooks. Mr. Paul is up here.
Mr. Paul. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. We just
recently as of last week reached an understanding with the
Office of NE, the Nuclear Energy Office, about the areas where
NNSA would play in Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. They are,
in broad categories: the development of the advanced safeguards
and security technologies that are a key element to GNEP. They
are the establishment of the reliable fuel services bank, that
independent central bank, the 17.4 metric tons designated HEU
to be blended down to LEU to allow recipient States to access
that energy, in return for not developing a fuel cycle
indigenously. And thirdly, providing the primary support for
establishing the ``G'' and the ``P'' part of ``GNEP,'' the
global partnership portion, that is putting together the
supplier group partnership that you eloquently alluded to,
France, Japan, Russia, China, United Kingdom, ourselves, with
strong involvement by the IAEA, and potentially others, as well
as the recipient State partnership, those countries that would
forswear developing an in-house capability.
Those are the three primary areas where the NNSA and
largely NA-20, the nonproliferation shop, would play a lead
role. The most significant area where we anticipate a budget
impact would be in developing the safeguards technologies. We
do not have a specific request in the 2007 budget for that
because it is an extension of the current safeguard technology
advancement work that we are doing, for example, at the Rekasho
site in Japan. But we anticipate in the near future having a
budget request tailored to those three areas, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. I had two other questions with reference
to GNEP and that pertain to you, Mr. Paul. I am going to submit
them. You can answer them for the record.
Mr. Paul. Thank you, sir.
Senator Domenici. You have got 10 days, whatever it takes.
We have some further questions that we will submit in writing,
Mr. Ambassador.
Senator, do you have any further question, either now or
that you want to submit?
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Allard. I may have a couple of questions to submit
later on, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. All right. The record will be open for a
couple of days for you to submit them.
Senator Allard. That would be good, thank you. I will
review with my staff.
Senator Domenici. All right. If there are no further
questions, we stand recessed, and we thank you for your
testimony.
Oh, I have one last thing, Mr. Ambassador. I make it as an
observation and I should have done it in my opening remarks and
I apologize. You still have a lot of contracts for big
construction projects and big pieces of equipment and big
things. You are still a big stuff guy. NIF is a big project,
getting it finished. I want to make sure that you know that,
even though we did not go through project by project, that we
are asking you clearly to make sure that somebody is watching
and being careful that those programs are being managed
properly.
We do not want overmanagement. That is, we do not want 10
people managing the same thing. But we do not want to get
caught with big errors that should have been found out months
and months earlier dropped on our head at the last minute on
any of these programs and projects. We have been told that that
is not going to happen any more, and I would just like your
thoughts on the subject. I know we have got new management in
one laboratory and you have got a lot of other things going,
but could you address that issue, please?
Ambassador Brooks. And we also have new management at the
Nevada Test Site, that started its transition today or
yesterday and will be taking over this summer.
The Secretary has made it very clear that he expects us to
do a much better job at making promises that we can keep and
then keeping our promises, and he regards stating that we are
going to build something for a fixed amount of money in a fixed
time as a promise. So he has made it very clear that he expects
us to improve the Department's historic performance.
Our performance right now is pretty good on those things
that we have done before and pretty bad on these large, one-of-
a-kind projects. But we are gradually improving. We are
absolutely committed to doing what you just told me to do, sir.
Senator Domenici. Well, let us hope that that is the case.
We do not have a lot of latitude in these budgets any more. We
cannot have another NIF with a $200 million, $300 million, $400
million disparity. We cannot pay for them. That is all there is
to it. So I hope we are not going to destroy some laboratory
because somebody makes a mistake.
Ambassador Brooks. I have no intention of doing that, sir.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the agency for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY--COSTS AND FUNDING
Question. Do we understand the costs of each of the three
facilities (NIF, Z, and Omega)? Specifically: What is the relative cost
of full-energy experiments on each facility?
Answer. The current cost for a full energy shot at the Omega laser
system is $10,000 per shot which includes operational costs of people
and material, (including optics replacements) to operate the laser and
full cost of laser and experimental diagnostics. Following completion
of the OMEGA Extended Performance (EP) Project, the cost per shot for
both OMEGA and OMEGA EP full energy operations will be approximately
$25,000.
In steady state operations, the equivalent facility cost at NIF
will be approximately $550,000 per full energy shot.
For the refurbished Z (ZR), the equivalent cost is approximately
$100,000 per full energy shot.
Question. Do we understand the costs of each of the three
facilities (NIF, Z, and Omega)? Specifically: What will be the annual
costs for activities at each facility in 2011--specifically what are
the budgets from RTBF, Campaigns, DSW, and other activities such as DOE
Office of Science and WFO at NIF, Z and Omega?
Answer. In 2011, the annual facility costs for the National
Ignition Facility (NIF), OMEGA and ZR will be approximately $150
million, $25 million and $30 million respectively.
In the fiscal year 2007 budget submission, 2011 facility and
operations costs for OMEGA and NIF all appear in the Inertial
Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign. The operations
costs for ZR are in the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
budget line.
Program costs for the design and execution of experiments at these
facilities are borne by Campaigns, Directed Stockpile Work, etc.
Campaigns (other than the Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High
Yield Campaign) do not pay for facility or operations costs.
Question. Although the NNSA is investing significant resources in
understanding and mitigating the issue of optics damage on NIF, we
understand that the present estimated cost of replacement optics on NIF
is $900,000 for each full energy shot. We also understand that the
operational costs of NIF have increased from the original estimate of
$60 million per year to the present estimate of $150 million in fiscal
year 2010.
How do you measure the benefits realized from the costs at each
facility--both benefits to the overall high-energy density physics
program and the NW program?
Answer. The annual operational cost estimate for the National
Ignition Facility (NIF) has remained essentially constant in as-spent
dollars since the new project baseline was established in fiscal year
2001. There have been (and will continue to be) refinements in the
estimates based on experience in operating the facility and changing
economic conditions. Optics refurbishment costs are modeled using
observations from the NIF Early Light campaign and off-line laboratory
data and are consistent with the annual operational cost estimate to
meet the 2010 and 2011 goals and steady state operations.
The cost estimate for replacement/refurbishment of NIF optics is
$30 million per year during steady state operations. This covers the
full spectrum of energies planned for the experimental campaigns and
corresponds to a per-shot optics refurbishment cost ranging from
approximately $40,000 to $400,000.
The benefits of NIF, OMEGA, and Z are measured by the degree to
which they meet Stockpile Stewardship Program requirements. Experiments
at these three facilities support weapon assessment and certification
and are required to meet level 1 and 2 milestones contained in National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) implementation plans. As
discussed in the 2001 NNSA High Energy Density Physics Study Report,
each facility has unique capabilities and is a component of the
integrated NNSA high energy density physics program. As an example,
experiments conducted in fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005 at
OMEGA were essential in validation of a new Advanced Simulation and
Computing (ASC) weapon secondary performance simulation code.
Validation of this code was a major ASC milestone completed in December
2005. Z has executed important experiments in materials science,
nuclear weapon effects, and will shortly execute materials science
experiments with special nuclear materials. NIF will examine issues
related to thermonuclear burn in nuclear weapons and other important
uncertainties that can only be addressed via access to the extreme
conditions of matter NIF provides. NIF experiments in the thermonuclear
burn area will address ``the most important outstanding issue in weapon
physics,'' as stated by the Defense Science Board in the summer of
2004. NIF ignition will also provide a critical integrated test of
NNSA's simulation code and design capability.
Question. What steps have been taken at each facility to minimize
experimental costs and optimize scientific return? Has consideration
been given to conducting staging experiments on smaller facilities in
order to obtain optimal return from the high-cost experiments on NIF?
Answer. Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) has effectively
implemented a ``six sigma'' process which has been used to increase
efficiency and reduce costs at Z and other Sandia facilities. The
National Ignition Facility (NIF) Project has engaged external
industrial participants and reviewers to carefully examine processes
for installation of laser components and other ``mass-production'' like
tasks required to complete the NIF Project. This has been important to
the NIF Project achieving its cost, scope and schedule targets and will
also enable efficient operations once the project is complete. The
University of Rochester utilizes a rigorous process to extract the
maximum number of OMEGA experiments in a given timeframe. Experimental
scheduling and facility configuration are managed so as to allow the
maximum amount of experimental shots per week.
OMEGA and Z/ZR use a peer review process to judge experiments
proposed for each facility. OMEGA and Z/ZR each have ``facility
directors'' who are charged by NNSA with providing an experimental
program that meets NNSA requirements and best satisfies the needs of
Stockpile Stewardship. Evaluation of the performance of Z/ZR and its
contribution to stockpile stewardship are a component of the NNSA
annual evaluation of SNL. Similar processes will be in place for NIF
following Project completion.
The Inertial Confinement Fusion Campaign has always employed a
staging strategy so as to allow effective use of all facilities. For
the case of NIF, all National Ignition Campaign participants are
engaged in developing integrated plans for optimally utilizing National
Nuclear Security Administration facilities (OMEGA, Z/ZR and Trident) in
support of the ignition goal. Integrated Experimental Teams with
representation from all sites communicate regularly to develop and
review plans for performing specific experiments at OMEGA, Z/ZR and
Trident. As an example, hundreds of shots per year will be executed at
OMEGA in support of the NIF indirect drive program between now and
fiscal year 2010. When NIF is in full operation, a portion of OMEGA
time will continue to be devoted to staging of experiments for NIF.
Question. Given the high cost of experiments on NIF, does the NNSA
plan to have users other than the ICF program pay full cost recovery to
utilize NIF?
Answer. The cost of National Ignition Facility (NIF) operations for
Defense Programs and other Department of Energy users will be paid for
directly by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). This
is the same model used for OMEGA, Z/ZR, and other major NNSA
facilities. NNSA also intends to pay the operational costs for the
small fraction of NIF devoted to university use, in the same manner
that operational costs for university use of OMEGA are covered.
Operational costs for users external to NNSA and the Department of
Energy will be paid for by the users. A few such experiments are under
discussion but none are currently planned or funded.
NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY BUDGET
Question. Does the fiscal year 2007 budget support the
administration's goal of ignition by 2010?
Answer. Yes, the National Ignition Facility Project and the
National Ignition Campaign are presently on schedule and within budget.
The President's budget supports ignition experiments commencing in
2010.
Question. Do you agree that the JASON report on the NIF ignition
plan was a fair and accurate estimate of the NIF program?
Answer. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) agrees
that the JASON report provides a valuable analysis of the ignition
campaign including many useful recommendations. NNSA has already begun
to implement many of these suggestions.
NNSA does not, however, agree with all of the details of the
report. In particular, we do not believe that there was adequate
recognition of the role the advanced target design has played. In the
last few years, advanced design has increased the margin for the first
experiments making ignition possible for laser energies of one mega
joule.
Question. The JASON report, which you believe to be an accurate
report, stated that ignition by 2010 was ``unrealistic.'' If this top-
caliber scientific review believes this goal to be ``unrealistic'',
then why should we support a budget request that makes deep cuts to
non-NIF sciences, such as Z, and makes reductions in the Science and
Engineering Accounts to support a goal that is ``unrealistic''?
Answer. It is important to recognize the context in which the JASON
used the term ``unrealistic.'' To quote their report, ``While it is not
impossible that everything will work `just so' in the very first
ignition attempts, it is unrealistic to expect that to happen. However,
that first campaign will be followed by two others in 2011, and each
experiment will move the program toward the goal of achieving fusion
ignition.'' In using the word ``unrealistic'' JASON is describing their
assessment of the likely outcome of the first few shots (i.e., ``very
first ignition attempts'') as opposed to the overall probably of
success of the ignition campaign.
The JASON report gave the following overall assessment of the plan
for the pursuit of ignition: ``The Program has identified a series of
tests of the key physical processes and diagnostic instruments that
provides a reasonable roadmap for progress toward ignition after the
initial attempts.'' The JASON report also states: ``First attempts to
achieve ignition on NIF are likely to take place in 2010--this is an
important and valuable goal that has strongly focused the efforts of
the NIF Program.''
In summary, JASON believes that while the initial attempts at
ignition will not succeed, execution of the first ignition experiment
promptly in 2010 will benefit the program, and the overall plan to
achieve ignition is reasonable.
Question. Your budget increases NIF experimentation, Demonstration
and Ignition budgets by over $50 million. At the same time funding for
non-NIF related science is down by $115 million. Funding for Z is cut
by $30 million. I was also disappointed to learn that you have moved
the entire Z machine budget to the Readiness and Technical Base and
Facilities Account and removing it entirely from the inertial
Confinement and High Yield Science Campaign.
I believe the NIF-at-all-cost-attitude of your organization is
short-sighted and irresponsible. Please explain why you ignored
congressional direction to establish a balanced program for the ICF
campaign?
Answer. Of the $115 million quoted, at least $60 million represents
congressional add-on activities which, while technically valuable,
could not continue to be supported in the fiscal year 2007 budget
request due to higher priorities and budget constraints. The $30
million figure quoted for reduction at Z does not include Readiness in
Technical Base and Facilities funds intended for Z operations.
Accounting for this, places the reduction at about $14 million.
The construction of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) and the
execution of ignition experiments is a major commitment for the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the Department of
Energy. As stated in the 2001 High Energy Density Physics Study Report,
however, a viable program at OMEGA, Z/ZR, and NIF is also needed to
support Stockpile Stewardship. NNSA has maintained an adequate program
at these three major facilities since the inception of NIF; however,
budget constraints make this impossible in fiscal year 2007. The fiscal
year 2007 budget request for the Inertial Confinement Fusion and High
Yield Campaign is $85 million less in total than the fiscal year 2007
Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign Future Years
Nuclear Security Program budget shown in the fiscal year 2005 NNSA
budget request.
NNSA has chosen to reduce experimental availability at Z/ZR in
fiscal year 2007 in order to maintain the schedule of the National
Ignition Campaign as defined in the plan submitted to Congress in June
2005. This reflects the importance of NIF and the ignition program. As
the Z machine will be down for refurbishment in fiscal year 2007, the
reduction to Z operations will impact the facility for only the latter
portion of the year. NNSA intends to operate Z at the level required to
support Stockpile Stewardship Program goals in fiscal year 2008.
Experiments not conducted at Z/ZR in fiscal year 2007 will be
rescheduled to fiscal year 2008 or later years with minimal long-term
impact to Stockpile Stewardship.
Question. Why is it no longer in the best interest of the NNSA to
support a balanced program that will complement scientific research at
all three institutions?
Answer. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
believes it is important to support a balanced program in high energy
density physics consistent with program priorities and the budget. As
stated in the 2001 High Energy Density Physics Study Report, the
National Ignition Facility (NIF), OMEGA, and Z provide complementary
capabilities and are essential to the success of the Inertial
Confinement Fusion Program and stockpile stewardship.
NNSA has chosen to reduce experimental availability at Z/ZR in
fiscal year 2007 in order to maintain the schedule of the National
Ignition Campaign as defined in the plan submitted to Congress in June
2005. This reflects the importance of NIF and the ignition program. As
the Z machine will be down for refurbishment in fiscal year 2007, the
reduction to Z operations will impact the facility for only the latter
portion of the year. NNSA intends to operate Z at the level required to
support Stockpile Stewardship Program goals in fiscal year 2008.
Experiments not conducted at Z/ZR in fiscal year 2007 will be
rescheduled to fiscal year 2008 or later years with minimal long-term
impact to Stockpile Stewardship.
The fiscal year 2007 budget request supports a solid program of
experiments at OMEGA in support of the National Ignition Campaign. Non-
ignition weapon physics experiments have been realigned due to budget
constraints. Experimental scope changes are being planned so stockpile
program risks are minimized.
COMPLEX OF THE FUTURE
Question. On Monday, Tom D'Agostino briefed me on the Nuclear
Complex of the Future. The Department has developed a plan to
consolidate its operations in fewer locations, which should reduce
security costs and reduce the overall number of facilities the NNSA
must maintain by 2030.
In addition it supports the Reliable Replacement Warhead program
and begins to catch up on the dismantlement of weapons no longer in the
stockpile.
What I believe is missing from this complex of the future is the
decrease in the overall number of weapons. If we don't decrease the
number of weapons, the complex will still need to support the same
eight systems plus the RRW.
It seems to me that you have traded off facilities, science and
people but kept the same number of weapons and workload unchanged.
Why doesn't this plan contain a proposal to support fewer weapons
systems? What actions does the DOD need to see before it will release
one of the aging weapons systems?
Answer. Our Complex 2030 planning scenario is based on a smaller
stockpile to meet the President's vision for the lowest number of
warheads consistent with the Nation's security. However, pending a
change in requirements from the Department of Defense (DOD), the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) must support the
current Nuclear Weapon Stockpile Memorandum signed by the President and
the Joint DOD-NNSA Requirements Planning Documents as approved by the
Nuclear Weapons Council.
Ongoing discussions with the DOD indicate that progress on Reliable
Replacement Warhead concepts and on actions to achieve a responsive
nuclear weapons complex infrastructure as described in the 2001 Nuclear
Posture Review would be major factors in changing existing DOD plans.
In addition, NNSA must demonstrate that we can follow through on
existing commitments as we transform the stockpile and its supporting
infrastructure.
Question. Has the DOE discussed with the DOD the benefits of
reducing the diversity of weapon systems?
Answer. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has
shared with the Department of Defense (DOD) the costs and benefits
associated with maintaining specific warheads. As expected, the costs
of maintaining a number of warhead types significantly exceeds the unit
costs of maintaining specific quantities of any particular type of
warhead. The DOD appreciates the assurance gained by avoiding single-
mode failures enabled by having diversity in the stockpile. Cost-
benefit analyses weighing the more quantitative costs of maintaining a
number of warhead types compared to the harder-to-quantify benefits of
warhead diversity are continuously made and figure heavily into
discussions regarding the future stockpile.
Question. Why don't you eliminate or delay the W-80 Life Extension
Program?
Answer. The Department of Defense (DOD) and the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) are working in partnership to define the
stockpile of the future. The 2030 stockpile that we envision would be
smaller with a majority of warheads based on Reliable Replacement
Warhead (RRW) concepts as well as a limited number legacy warheads that
have been refurbished in life extension programs (LEPs). Thus we must
support some number of legacy warheads, and their associated LEPs, even
as we seek to evolve to a stockpile consisting primarily of RRW
designs. In recent discussions, the DOD is working now to define plans
for the future of nuclear cruise missiles. Pending a final decision
from the DOD, the NNSA remains committed to supporting the plans
contained in the current Nuclear Weapon Stockpile Memorandum signed by
the President and the Joint DOD-NNSA Requirements Planning Documents as
approved by the Nuclear Weapons Council.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
Question. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has raised
``safety basis'' issues over the past several years that have
significantly impacted the throughput at Pantex. Deputy Secretary Sell
has commented on the need for NNSA to retain risk-related decision-
making authority while assessing DNFSB recommendations.
What actions has the NNSA taken to assure safety in its operations
at Pantex while addressing the significant backlog in surveillance and
dismantlement?
Answer. For each nuclear weapon system, the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) conducts an extensive hazard analysis
and corresponding hazard mitigation process to assure safety of
operations. This process is known as Seamless Safety for the 21st
Century, SS-21. However, since the end of the Cold War, this process
has become more and more risk averse. The zero-risk approach results in
over-conservatism, which similarly impacts the ability to accomplish
work at the Pantex Plant. Therefore, the NNSA is transitioning to a
risk-informed decision approach that allows us to manage risk more
effectively in ensuring safe and secure operations at Pantex and other
facilities. The NNSA has several ongoing initiatives related to nuclear
explosive operations that will incorporate this revised approach. These
initiatives include the elimination of specific threats such as thermal
and electro-static discharge via facility upgrades and modifications,
the allowance of a more qualitative hazard analysis approach as opposed
to the existing practice of over-conservative quantitative probability
estimates, and the revision and clarification of existing rules and
standards to reduce the possibility of misinterpretation and to confirm
their added benefit to safety. These initiatives are ongoing and
increased ability to perform work and reduction in backlogs should be
realized starting in late fiscal year 2006.
Question. How do the budget priorities reflect these decisions and
what are examples of specific steps to increase throughput?
Answer. The budget priorities reflect risk-related decision making
in the fiscal year 2007 budgets and beyond. The dismantlement budget
has been increasing since 2005 and the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) is ensuring that all Stockpile Systems activities
supporting the accomplishment of surveillance work at the Pantex Plant
are funded. The corresponding Seamless Safety for the 21st Century (SS-
21) hazard analysis activities have top funding priority so that weapon
operations are upgraded to new safety criteria.
In early February 2006, the NNSA developed an extensive plan that
contains several activities to increase throughput. The activities
include steps to authorize specific multi-unit operations in Pantex
facilities, additional facility configurations to prevent postulated
accident scenarios, a review of existing Nuclear Explosive Safety
practices and standards, additional hazard analysis process
efficiencies, and a streamlining of the existing stockpile evaluation
program.
Regarding Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board recommendations,
the NNSA expects that in early fiscal year 2007, the only open
recommendation related to nuclear explosive operations at the Pantex
Plant, Recommendation 98-2, ``Accelerating Safety Management
Improvements at the Pantex Plant'', will be closed.
Question. What actions has the NNSA taken to assure the ``safety
basis'' process is fixed?
Answer. Over the past 19 months, the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) has initiated several activities to install risk-
informed decision-making throughout the nuclear weapons complex. These
activities include an effort to identify and remove inefficiencies in
our hazard analysis process, streamlining of the process itself, and
better documentation and communication with the national laboratories
and the Pantex Plant. Specifically, in early fiscal year 2005, the NNSA
revised the process steps and interfaces between the national
laboratories and the Pantex Plant for addressing identified hazard
scenarios for nuclear weapons operations. This process revision is
currently being implemented for the W76 and W80 Seamless Safety for the
21st Century programs. The NNSA is also in the process of updating the
standard approach for conducting hazard analyses.
Question. How will the increase in W76 dismantlement and subsequent
Life Extension Program rebuild affect throughput?
Answer. For the W76, there is sufficient throughput planned at
Pantex for both the dismantlement and Life Extension Program within the
existing safety authorization basis. We are also examining increased
throughput at Pantex by seeking improved means to mange risk in
ensuring safe and secure operations at that facility.
GNEP
Question. Mr. Paul, can you please tell me what the NNSA's role is
in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and what the NNSA budget
provide for fiscal year 2007-fiscal year 2011?
Answer. NNSA plays a key role in GNEP--to reduce the threat of
nuclear proliferation through the enhancement of international regimes
that advance nonproliferation goals and the deployment of safeguard
technologies and systems. These missions are currently addressed by
ongoing programs within our Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
(NA-20). As such, initial support to GNEP is part of the base funding
for this Office and additional funds for fiscal year 2007 were not
requested. NNSA expects that future budget requests will be necessary
but must be tied to the level of engagement by the international
community in advancing GNEP concepts and initiatives such as the
reliable fuel services, developing and deploying advanced safeguards,
and collaboration on small-scale reactor development.
GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP
Question. How does the NNSA nuclear weapons program contribute to
our non-proliferation objectives?
Answer. Having a safe, secure and reliable nuclear weapons
stockpile is one element of our national security posture that
contributes to the defense policy goals of dissuasion and assurance. As
stated in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, maintaining a robust
nuclear deterrent helps the United States to ``shape the choices of
countries at strategic crossroads.'' Potential adversaries are
dissuaded from developing their own weapons of mass destruction
programs because the United States nuclear forces are so powerful that
trying to compete militarily is beyond the means of all but a few,
already nuclear-weapons-capable countries. Our allies, such as Japan
and the Republic of Korea, are assured of our willingness to come to
their defense with our nuclear weapons if necessary, so they do not
feel the need to develop their own nuclear weapons programs.
Additionally, knowledge gained from research and development in our
nuclear weapons program assists our intelligence community in
developing key intelligence indicators of proliferant activity,
enabling early intervention by all elements of national power--
diplomatic, economic, and military--to be engaged in efficient and
effective nonproliferation activities.
The nuclear weapons program also sets a high standard for material
accountability, nuclear weapons safety and security, and identification
and transfer of highly enriched uranium, that is excess to national
security needs, for downblending. Finally, the weapon program
organizations provide expert analysis and support to agencies that have
a lead responsibility for special nuclear material detection,
improvised nuclear device detection and defeat, and nuclear accident
incident response.
NNSA MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT
Question. Over the last 5 years, we have had several events within
the Complex that have caused this committee great concern. They
include: (1) Multi-billion dollar cost growth and delay of the NIF at
LLNL; (2) Pantex production plant that has come to an effective
standstill, without producing one refurbished device in almost a year;
(3) The LANL shut down; (4) Mixed Oxide Facility--the estimated cost
has risen from roughly $1 billion to an estimated $3.5 billion; (5) A
major error in the construction of a multi $100 million uranium storage
facility at Y-12 that halts construction and jeopardizes the secure
storage of enriched uranium.
I am interested to know why you believe the NNSA has had such
difficulty in delivering these projects on time and on budget. What
actions is NNSA taking to prevent such occurrences in the future?
Answer. There have been problems with specific projects and our
analysis has led to both project specific remedies and overall process
improvements within the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA). Although the specifics of the cited examples vary widely, they
share three attributes--each developed over a long period of time; each
involved the actions and decisions of many levels of management; and
each involved significant stakeholder issues.
My senior management and I intend to prevent such occurrences in
on-going and future projects. Each of us, in dealing with subordinates
and with each other, will avoid or substantially reduce the potential
risk of problems of this type arising in the future by holding up all
actions and decisions to five screening criteria:
--Does the change improve line accountability?
--Does the change cause people to be more or less risk adverse?
--Does the change reduce micromanagement?
--Does the change comply with Headquarters/site office Feds set what
must be done and contractors determine how it is done?
--Is the change cost effective?
The first criterion--line accountability--is the unifying thread
for all five. This is a continuous, real time accountability, not an
``after-the-fact'' surrogate accountability accompanied with
punishment. It is imperative that all members of NNSA's dual lines of
accountability--programmatic accountability for setting goals and
operational accountability for conducting work--acknowledge openly all
factors affecting their actions, the unfolding of the consequences of
their actions over time; and the probable end result of those actions.
That acknowledgement, shared up and down the chain of authority, will
create a real-time accountability whereby each person will hold
themselves and their subordinates accountable for the performance of
their programs and their sites.
This is not a simple task. NNSA's dual lines of accountability
operate within a gauntlet of external players who could impose
decisions sharply focused on narrow segments of large interacting
systems. There is an ever-present temptation for line management to
adopt these narrow solutions solely to avoid risks inherent in doing
otherwise. More subtly, well-intended line management can usurp the
authority of subordinates through overly prescriptive goals and
policies. This real-time accountability will hold each individual
accountable for inappropriate avoidance of risks, for micromanagement,
and for making proactive, real-time course corrections when we realize
operations are heading other than toward the intended goal. These five
questions seem simple on their face, however if used aggressively,
daily, and purposefully from my level out to the factory floor they
will shape the performance of NNSA and support cost-effective success
across the complex.
SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL SECURITY
Question. Doesn't it make sense to consolidate the SNM to the
minimum number of locations? Why don't you immediately take those
actions to relocate the SNM to LANL, Pantex or Nevada?
Answer. We strongly agree with the principle of consolidating
special nuclear material (SNM) to a fewer number of locations. We
started consolidating Category I/II SNM to fewer sites, and to fewer
locations within sites. We will improve the long-term security posture
at our national laboratories by phasing out operations involving Cat I/
II quantities of SNM. This includes eliminating the need for a Cat I/II
SNM security posture at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico by
2008. Our plan is to remove all Cat I/II SNM from Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory by the end of 2014. By 2022, all research and
development (R&D)/production activities involving Cat I/II SNM would
cease in facilities operated by Los Alamos National Laboratory. As that
is accomplished, these labs could transition to a common defense
industry site security posture with reduced security costs. The
consolidated plutonium center, once operational, would host all R&D,
surveillance, and manufacturing operations involving Cat I/II
quantities of plutonium. The Uranium Processing Facility at the Y-12
National Security Complex would consolidate existing highly enriched
uranium contained in legacy weapons, dismantle legacy warhead
secondaries, support associated R&D, and provide a long-term capacity
for new secondary production. As a result, Y-12 would reduce its
production and SNM storage footprint by about 90 percent, leading to
significantly reduced costs for physical security at that site.
Question. What are your plans to control security costs without
consolidating SNM to a minimum number of locations? What number is
that, and why is that the minimum number? Does not the consolidation of
SNM also save substantially in the STA costs of the department as well?
If not, why not?
Answer. We strongly agree with the principle of consolidating
special nuclear material (SNM) to a fewer number of locations to
control security costs. However, we do not propose to consolidate at a
single location. Instead, we propose to consolidate to centers of
excellence with Category I/II quantities of SNM for: (1) uranium; (2)
plutonium; (3) weapon assembly/disassembly involving high explosives;
and, (4) large-scale testing. We will improve the security posture and
reduce costs at our national laboratories by phasing out operations
involving Category I/II quantities of SNM. Thus, there will be four or
fewer sites in the long-term with SNM requiring costly security.
In the long-term, consolidation of SNM will save secure
transportation asset (STA) costs for the Department as well. However,
moving material to de-inventory a site does increase the number of
shipments and resulting costs in the near term.
``Z'' 5-YEAR PLAN
Question. The NNSA's fiscal year 2007 congressional budget request
for the Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign
eliminates technical alternatives and near-term stockpile support
within the National HEDP program by redistributing resources from
fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2010 in order to focus on performing
the first ignition experimental campaign on NIF in fiscal year 2010.
What is the administration's plan to restore balance within the
national program and utilize the complementary strengths and
capabilities of Z, Omega and NIF to ensure the short-term as well as
the long-term health our nuclear deterrence?
Answer. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) budget
request for fiscal year 2007 is highly constrained. NNSA has chosen to
reduce experimental availability at Z/ZR in fiscal year 2007 in order
to maintain the schedule of the National Ignition Campaign as defined
in the plan submitted to Congress in June 2005. This reflects the
importance of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) and the ignition
program. As the Z machine will be down for refurbishment in fiscal year
2007, the reduction to Z operations will impact the facility for only
the latter portion of the year. NNSA intends to operate Z at the level
required to support Stockpile Stewardship Program goals in fiscal year
2008. Experiments not conducted at Z/ZR in fiscal year 2007 will be
rescheduled to fiscal year 2008 or later years with minimal long-term
impact to stockpile stewardship.
The fiscal year 2007 budget request supports the level of
experiments at the OMEGA laser facility required to support the
National Ignition Campaign. Support for non-ignition weapon physics
experiments has been realigned due to budget constraints. Experimental
scope changes are being planned so stockpile program risks are
minimized.
BALANCED NATIONAL PROGRAM--NIF AT ALL COST
Question. Clearly the NNSA has decided against a balanced program
for High Energy Density Physics program. NIF funding is up and every
competing technology is down or removed from the program entirely.
Given the series of successes in high energy density physics with
pulsed power technologies and the planned completion in fiscal year
2007 of NNSA's 5-year investment of ($165 million) in the Z
refurbishment project, doesn't it make sense to increase, not decrease
the funding for this facility in order to optimally utilize its
anticipated world record X-ray energy output and other enhanced
capabilities?
Answer. The fiscal year 2007 National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) budget is highly constrained. NNSA has chosen to
reduce experimental availability at Z/ZR in fiscal year 2007 in order
to maintain the schedule of the National Ignition Campaign as defined
in the plan submitted to Congress in June 2005. This reflects the
importance of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) and the ignition
program. As the Z machine will be down for refurbishment in fiscal year
2007, the reduction to Z operations will impact the facility for only
the latter portion of the year.
As stated in the 2001 High Energy Density Physics Study Report,
NIF, OMEGA, and Z are essential to the success of Stockpile
Stewardship. NNSA agrees that the sensible path is to use the
refurbished Z and its enhanced capabilities in support of Stockpile
Stewardship. Accordingly, NNSA intends to operate Z at the level
required to support Stockpile Stewardship program goals in fiscal year
2008. Experiments not conducted at Z/ZR in fiscal year 2007 will be
rescheduled to fiscal year 2008 or later years with minimal long-term
impact to Stockpile Stewardship.
NNSA has carefully reexamined the needs of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program and concluded that near-term program needs for
fiscal year 2008 and beyond can be met with approximately a single
shift of operations at Z/ZR. This is the historical level at which NNSA
has funded the operations of Z. While an additional shift of operation
would allow greater exploitation of the significant scientific
opportunities at Z/ZR, tough choices have been made within the current
constrained budget environment.
Question. From a risk management perspective, is it a sound
strategy to put our resources disproportionately on the NIF technology
and the associated approach to ignition, eliminating balance in the
National ICF Program?
Answer. Since the inception of the Inertial Confinement Fusion
(ICF) program, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has
supported numerous technologies and alternative approaches to
demonstrating inertial fusion ignition. Review committee reports from
the National Academy of Sciences and other groups have urged the NNSA
to focus on the demonstration of ignition using high power solid state
lasers (the National Ignition Facility (NIF) and OMEGA), as this was
the lowest risk and most expeditious path to success. NNSA agrees with
this conclusion and has focused on the solid-state laser path to
ignition since the mid 1990's.
It is a sound strategy to maintain an appropriate level of
technical diversity and risk mitigation within the program. The NIF
ignition program itself includes two major approaches to ignition,
namely indirect drive and direct drive. Within each of these programs a
wide variety of target and laser configurations is available for
ignition attempts; this provides further risk mitigation.
Pulsed power offers an important alternate approach for the longer
term, but no current analyses indicate that it could produce ignition
conditions similar to NIF with the scale of the ZR machine. A goal of
the NNSA ICF Campaign is to use Z/ZR to define the physics requirements
for pulsed power ignition by 2015. Assuming pulsed power fusion turns
out to be feasible, a robust ignition capability based on Z-pinch
technology would thus require a new machine and would not be available
for many years. The funding issues associated with Z operations in
fiscal year 2007 are primarily a 1-year problem and should not disrupt
NNSA's overall fusion strategy.
In summary, NNSA's strategy is to demonstrate ignition in the near
term with high power lasers and assess the feasibility of Z-pinches as
a possible future fusion capability.
Question. If the Z-pinch high-yield approach is the approach to
risk mitigation--in the event that NIF fails--are we adequately funding
the Z-pinch approach, and, more broadly are we performing the necessary
assessment of the required next generation pulsed-power technology?
Answer. The Z-pinch program is not the only approach to risk
mitigation within the Inertial Confinement Fusion Program. The National
Ignition Facility ignition campaign includes two major alternatives,
indirect and direct drive. In addition, within each of these
alternatives there is a wide range of target and laser configurations
available. As discussed by JASON and other review committees in the
past, this provides substantial risk mitigation.
The assessment of pulsed power fusion is also an important
component of the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA)
long-term plans for fusion. There is a specific NNSA program goal to
define the physics requirements for pulsed power ignition by 2015. The
reduction of shots available at Z/ZR in the latter portion of fiscal
year 2007 is a short-term issue that will not unduly impact this
overall strategy.
Question. What strengths does each facility (OMEGA, Z and NIF)
bring to the national high energy density physics program?
Answer. As stated in the 2001 High Energy Density Physics Study
Report, lasers and the Z pulsed power machine are complementary; each
provides unique capabilities for the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
Lasers (because of their high energy density) provide access to extreme
conditions of temperature and pressure unattainable at Z/ZR. Z, on the
other hand, provides a cost effective access to large-scale experiments
because of its high total X-ray energy output.
The OMEGA laser supports both indirect (X-ray) and direct drive
experiments. OMEGA also possesses a very large suite of diagnostics.
OMEGA's high shot rate and precision diagnostics provide an important
capability for experiments where large amounts of data are required.
OMEGA is an essential component of the National Ignition Campaign and
will also serve as the major near term laser experimental capability
for non-ignition weapon physics experiments. The OMEGA Extended
Performance laser will provide a valuable capability for diagnostic and
other measurements at OMEGA.
The National Ignition Facility (NIF), with its much larger total
energy and power, will be able to reach the extreme temperatures and
densities required in many weapons experiments. NIF can produce energy
densities approximately 20 times greater than those achievable at OMEGA
or Z/ZR. It is also the only venue for producing thermonuclear
ignition--a key Stockpile Stewardship Program requirement.
Z/ZR is ideally suited for experiments where large X-ray energies,
lower energy densities, and longer experimental durations are required.
Z is also well suited to conduct certain materials property
experiments; a particularly important example is material properties
experiments with special nuclear materials, which are planned for the
near future. The Z-Beamlet laser provides a powerful capability for
diagnosis of Z/ZR experiments.
Question. Why is funding for direct drive ICF included in the
national program to perform the first X-ray driven ignition campaign in
fiscal year 2010?
Answer. Given the current status of Inertial Confinement Fusion
technology, direct drive is the most important risk mitigation or
backup to the indirect drive experiments in 2010. A specific effort is
underway for developing direct drive and some preliminary experiments
will be possible in the 2011-2012 timeframe. The National Ignition
Campaign plan includes a decision point for these experiments in fiscal
year 2009.
The University of Rochester is a major partner in the National
Ignition Campaign and is responsible for a major piece of the National
Ignition Facility (NIF) indirect drive ignition program. The University
of Rochester also continues to make excellent progress in inertial
fusion research. As an example, University of Rochester scientists
recently executed the first ever OMEGA cryogenic direct drive implosion
experiment in which unwanted surface roughness in the solid deuterium-
tritium region was removed via use of the heat-generated from the beta
decay of tritium. This so-called ``beta layering'' technique will also
be used at NIF. The experience gained from cryogenic experiments at the
University of Rochester will be important to timely implementation of
cryogenics at NIF.
Question. What fraction of the budget is being identified to
address new technologies and scientific breakthroughs?
Answer. Excluding construction, the National Nuclear Security
Administration estimates that approximately $20 million per year
(averaged over the current 5-year Future Years Nuclear Security Program
period) within the Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign
fiscal year 2007 budget submission is devoted to new technologies in
addition to the mainstream National Ignition Facility indirect and
direct drive ignition programs. This includes $11 million per year
devoted to pulsed power fusion. The remainder of the $20 million is
devoted to short pulse laser-matter research (including petawatt laser
work) at the national laboratories and the University of Rochester
Laboratory for Laser Energetics as well as university activities.
Pulsed power fusion activities are aimed at evaluating the physics
feasibility and technical requirements of this concept by 2015.
The achievement of ignition is itself a major scientific
breakthrough. Many significant breakthroughs in laser technology,
plasma physics, and other fields will make this achievement possible.
SECRETARY OF ENERGY ADVISORY BOARD RELATED QUESTIONS
Question. The DOE received the draft of the SEAB nuclear weapons
complex infrastructure task force (NWCITF) report in mid-July 2005 and
the official SEAB report on October 4, 2005.
What is the DOE's specific position on the 5 recommendations made
in the report?
Answer. Our positions on the 5 recommendations made in the report
are set out in the following table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Nuclear Security
SEAB Task Force Recommendations Administration Complex 2030
Recommendations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) Same.
immediately.
Accelerate dismantlements................. Same.
Establish Office of Transformation........ Same.
Establish Consolidated Nuclear Production Establish distributed
Center (CNPC) by 2015. production centers of
excellence with a
consolidated plutonium
center at an existing Cat I/
II SNM site by early
2020's.
Consolidate all Category I/II special Consolidate Cat I/II SNM to
nuclear material (Cat I/II SNM) to CNPC fewer sites and fewer
long-term. locations with sites;
remove Cat I/II SNM from
laboratories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. If the SNM manufacturing and weapons storage were
underground in tunnels mines, would that not significantly reduce the
physical security costs for the complex?
Answer. Special nuclear materials (SNM) can be adequately protected
in either above-ground or underground facilities. SNM manufacturing and
weapons storage underground in tunnels or mines does offer
opportunities to reduce the physical security costs for the complex.
However, the cost of construction, operations, and maintenance for
underground facilities can be greater than structures on the surface.
In the end, we must balance total costs, operational efficiencies, and
long-term mission compatibility. We intend to begin a National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process to evaluate the impact of
reasonable alternatives. In parallel with this NEPA process, we plan to
complete independent business case assessments of the alternatives.
NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY PLANS
Question. In November 2005, DOE issued a Record of Decision in the
Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement on Livermore Lab Operations
that gave the ``green light'' to construction of a large neutron
spectrometer for NIF. The neutron spectrometer does not appear to be
reflected in the budget.
What will its ultimate construction costs be? What is its
construction schedule and what is its purpose?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) ``Site-wide Environmental
Impact Statement for Continued Operations of Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory and Supplemental Stockpile Stewardship and
Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement'' evaluated the
environmental impacts of the proposed construction of a large neutron
spectrometer for the National Ignition Facility. The Environmental
Impact Statement and its Record of Decision do not represent a DOE
programmatic decision to proceed with this spectrometer. Alternate
approaches have been identified for neutron spectroscopy that do not
require the construction of the large neutron spectrometer.
Question. In the same November 2005 Record of Decision, DOE
determined it would conduct experiments with plutonium, highly enriched
uranium, thorium 232, lithium hydride and other fissionable materials
and in NIF. I see no mention of this change in the budget request.
When will the experiments with plutonium begin and when will the
experiments with the other new materials begin?
Answer. The Department of Energy ``Site-wide Environmental Impact
Statement for Continued Operations of Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory and Supplemental Stockpile Stewardship and Management
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement'' evaluated the
environmental impacts of the proposed use of plutonium, other fissile
materials, fissionable materials, and lithium hydride in experiments at
the National Ignition Facility. The Record of Decision provides
appropriate National Environmental Policy Act analysis should the
National Nuclear Security Administration decide at a later date whether
to perform experiments with some or all of these materials. There is a
proposal under consideration to conduct experiments with milligram
quantities of specially prepared plutonium. In addition, non-ignition
experiments with lithium hydride have also been proposed. If there were
a programmatic decision to conduct these experiments, they would begin
around 2012. None of these experiments requires modification of the
chamber and do not represent any additional cost beyond the planned
experimental budget for 2012.
Question. The Final Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement on
Livermore Lab Operations mentioned that the NIF design would need to be
modified to accommodate the plutonium experiments, in particular.
When will these modifications begin and when will they be complete?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) ``Site-wide Environmental
Impact Statement for Continued Operations of Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory and Supplemental Stockpile Stewardship and
Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement'' evaluated the
environmental impacts of the proposed use of plutonium, and other new
materials (e.g., highly enriched uranium, thorium-232, lithium hydride
and other fissionable materials). The Environmental Impact Statement
and its Record of Decision do not represent a DOE programmatic decision
to proceed with these experiments. There is a proposal to begin
experiments with small quantities of specially prepared plutonium in
fiscal year 2012. In addition, non-ignition experiments with lithium
hydride have also been proposed. If there were a programmatic decision
to conduct these experiments, they would begin around 2012. None of
these experiments requires modification of the chamber and do not
represent any additional cost beyond the planned experimental budget
for 2012.
Question. What is the approximate cost of modifying NIF to conduct
these experiments?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) ``Site-wide Environmental
Impact Statement for Continued Operations of Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory and Supplemental Stockpile Stewardship and
Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement'' evaluated the
environmental impacts of the proposed uses of plutonium, and other new
materials (e.g., highly enriched uranium, thorium-232, lithium hydride
and other fissionable materials). The Environmental Impact Statement
and its Record of Decision do not represent a DOE programmatic decision
to proceed with these experiments. There is a proposal to begin
experiments with small quantities of specially prepared plutonium in
fiscal year 2012. Planned contamination control measures for other
National Ignition Facility materials (e.g., beryllium, depleted
uranium, activated metal particulate, and tritium) will be adequate to
manage the use of specially prepared plutonium. In addition, non-
ignition experiments with lithium hydride have also been proposed. If
there were a programmatic decision to conduct these experiments, they
would begin around 2012. None of these experiments requires
modification of the chamber and do not represent any additional cost
beyond the planned experimental budget for 2012.
Question. What will conducting experiments with plutonium add to
the NIF operating costs and what impacts will the other radioactive
material have on NIF costs? Are these included in the budget? If so,
where--what about in fiscal year 2008-2011?
Answer. For the proposed experiments with specially prepared
plutonium, no special modifications to the National Ignition Facility
(NIF) chamber would be needed. Planned contamination control measures
for use of other NIF materials (e.g., beryllium, depleted uranium,
activated metal particulate, and tritium) will be adequate to manage
the use of specially prepared plutonium. There are no additional
operating costs to conduct these experiments.
The Department of Energy ``Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement
for Continued Operations of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and
Supplemental Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement'' evaluated the environmental impacts of
the proposed use of plutonium, other fissile materials, fissionable
materials, and lithium hydride in experiments at NIF. The Record of
Decision provides appropriate National Environmental Policy Act
analysis should the National Nuclear Security Administration decide at
a later date whether to perform experiments with some or all of these
materials. There is a proposal under consideration to conduct
experiments with milligram quantities of specially prepared plutonium.
In addition, non-ignition experiments with lithium hydride have also
been proposed. If there were a programmatic decision to conduct these
experiments, they would begin around 2012. None of these experiments
requires modification of the chamber and do not represent any
additional cost beyond the planned experimental budget for 2012.
defense nuclear facilities safety board active confinement ventilation
Question. I understand the DNFSB is pushing the Department to
deploy active confinement ventilation systems for all Hazard Category 2
and 3 facilities.
I understand by applying this technology, at all DOE/NNSA
facilities would be extremely expensive. Does the Department have a
cost estimate for such retrofits?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) has developed a set of
Evaluation Guidelines (February 2006) to review the efficacy of
existing ventilation systems for applicable facilities across the
Complex (some of which are active and some passive) to assess their
performance attributes subsequent to hypothetical accident conditions.
DOE intends to apply these Evaluation Guidelines in the near future.
From the evaluations attendant to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board recommendation, DOE would be able to determine what, if any,
modifications to ventilation systems might be required and what their
costs would be. These data are not currently available.
Question. Has this request by the DNFSB adversely impacted any
current projects?
Answer. No modifications to any facility have yet been made
pursuant to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board recommendation
concerning active confinement and no facility has been significantly
impacted by the recommendation.
Question. Is this active ventilation systems fool-proof?
Answer. No, active ventilation systems are not fool-proof. The
utility of an active system depends upon its active components, such as
fans, and the passive components, like filters, working properly in the
applicable conditions.
RELIABLE REPLACEMENT WARHEAD--AGENT FOR CHANGE
Question. The NNSA fiscal year 2007 budget request continues to
support the current Life Extension Programs while the Reliable
Replacement Warhead (RRW) studies are completed. The RRW program has
the potential to serve as a means to transform the stockpile.
Please explain the timeframe for integration of the RRW program
into the Overall plan for Life Extension.
Answer. Two design teams that are being led by our nuclear weapons
laboratories--one from Los Alamos National Laboratory and one from
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, both supported by the
production agencies and Sandia National Laboratories--are engaged in a
Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) design competition that will be
completed later this year (November 2006). Upon favorable completion of
the current study, we will work with the Department of Defense (DOD) to
establish an RRW strategy as the ``enabler'' for stockpile
transformation. This will include establishing an RRW-based stockpile
plan before the end of 2007. The plan would also define the number of
legacy warheads of specific types that are processed through life-
extension programs. If RRW concepts are feasible and benefits
consistent with expectations, we will seek authorization to proceed to
engineering development and production consistent with a Nuclear Weapon
Stockpile Memorandum signed by the President and the Joint DOD-National
Nuclear Security Administration Requirements Planning Documents as
approved by the Nuclear Weapons Council.
NNSA VACANCIES
Question. I have continued to observe the number of ``vacant'' and
``acting'' positions within the NNSA and the apparent difficulty in
attracting suitable candidates.
What is the plan to address this shortfall in staffing and
leadership for these critical programs?
Answer. NNSA did have a number of ``vacant'' positions, but has
closed that gap considerably. In fact, NNSA's critical positions are
over 98 percent filled. Consequently, NNSA does not now have a serious
staffing shortfall in leadership or most other critical positions. NNSA
has an aggressive approach and comprehensive programs of recruitment
and retention to ensure that we do not encounter critical staffing and
leadership shortfalls in the future. NNSA has occasional difficulty in
filling positions in highly select circumstances, such as at remote
locations like Los Alamos, New Mexico, or when seeking highly selective
technical skills such as facility safety representatives, contracting
officers, and computer scientists. Overall, NNSA is not experiencing
difficulty in attracting and retaining highly qualified candidates to
fill critical skills and mission-essential positions.
With respect to a number of ``acting'' positions, NNSA is moving as
quickly as possible to recruit the best possible talent to fill these
key executive positions. For example, NNSA just selected the new
Associate Deputy Administrator for Fissile Materials Disposition, and
is now close to filling several other ``acting'' executive positions at
Headquarters.
We have made major innovations and improvements in NNSA's human
capital management programs the past 3 years. These innovations cover
the Administrator's statutory excepted service technical hiring
authority and a complementary pay-for-performance system; an NNSA-wide
performance management and recognition system; a merit promotion plan;
and various programs of monetary incentives relating to recruitment and
retention, including a student loan repayment program. Last year, we
developed and instituted a Future Leaders Program to hire and develop
entry-level technical, project management, and business talent. The
first class of 30 interns proved to be a success beyond our most
optimistic expectations, and we have just completed recruitment of a
second class of 30 talented interns. Just recently, we inaugurated an
enterprise-wide workforce analysis and planning process to inventory
our current skills profile and to better identify near- and long-term
staffing trends and skill needs.
With respect to addressing our selective and occasional staffing
difficulties, we have streamlined our hiring processes, making greater
use of automation, devising better marketing strategies and recruiting
tools, and encouraging greater managerial involvement in candidate
evaluation and selection. We are making maximum use of government-wide
recruitment incentives, and exploring the use of OPM's competitive
examination innovations, such as category-ranking procedures.
Meanwhile, NNSA's excepted service employment and pay-for-performance
system has allowed us to successfully compete with the private sector
for many top technical workers, though not in every instance to be
sure, as implied by your next question. And as NNSA has made full use
of the Administrator's existing excepted service hiring and pay
authorities, we are now considering alternative ways to build on and
augment our previous successes.
Question. How is the NNSA tapping into the skills at the national
laboratories to address shortfalls?
Answer. NNSA avails itself of the outstanding technical talent in
our national laboratories in three primary ways, through IPA
assignments, M&O contractor details, and consultant appointments. The
IPA and M&O detail mechanisms are used to retain the services of
current laboratory employees, and these mechanisms are used frequently
to retain the services of top laboratory talent. For example, about 60
laboratory employees are currently on M&O details to NNSA, the number
of laboratory employees on detail to NNSA usually fluctuating between
60 and 85 employees from month to month. There are four laboratory
employees currently on IPAs to NNSA. Additionally, NNSA occasionally
retains the services of retired laboratory employees through consultant
appointments.
Senior laboratory employees command salaries that generally exceed
Federal pay levels, which tends to negate NNSA's ability to recruit
laboratory employees to fill permanent Federal positions. On the other
hand, use of the Administrator's excepted service hiring and pay
authorities has recently bolstered NNSA's ability to attract top
technical talent, not only from the laboratories, but also from
industry and the universities.
Question. Are Alternative Personnel Systems that provide incentives
for specialized skills through performance-based pay being considered
for potential implementation?
Answer. There is no question that an agency's staffing and
recruitment effectiveness can be improved through various appointment
and pay features of an alternative personnel system. Toward that end,
NNSA designed, developed, and implemented an alternative excepted
service personnel system to implement the hiring and pay authorities
granted to the Administrator by the NNSA Act. We have used the
Administrator's entire statutory allocation of 300 scientific and
engineering positions. In addition, we have made extensive use of large
segments of the Department's two excepted service authorities and will
continue to use the remaining Departmental excepted service
authorities. We will also assess the need for potential additional
authorities and develop detailed plans for consideration of the
Congress in the appropriate out-year budget submissions.
Question. Can you comment on the success of this new governance
model and any lessons that you've learned in implementation?
Answer. NNSA view is that this ``model'' contract has provided new
tools that have been and will continue to be beneficial to both the
Government and the contractor. We are performing oversight with fewer
Federal employees and NNSA has seen improvement in Sandia's performance
as a result of this new governance model.
In the last 2 years, Sandia has developed and implemented a
Contractor Assurance System throughout the laboratory including a
corporate self-assessment program, corrective action and tracking
program, corporate issues tracking program, benchmarking processes, and
performance metrics for key laboratory operations. When combined these
processes and systems allow both Sandia and NNSA to have greater
insight into operational and program performance enabling them to be
able to identify and correct problems at lower levels before they
become systemic.
We have also seen improvement in Sandia's capitalization on private
sector experience. Sandia has now formalized a process to ensure that
lessons learned are implemented. Sandia has sought and achieved
certification against industry standards. An example is their ISO 9001
procurement system certification. Sandia is currently in the process of
seeking ISO 9001 certification of their Contractor Assurance System,
which they call the Integrated Laboratory Management System. Sandia
also completed a benchmarking study of their G&A by Hackett.
The model contract has increased contractor accountability. The
model contract features of Fixed Fee for the stockpile work, tied to
the Award Term Incentive, and Incentive Fee are useful to the
Government. We have learned that the award term (which Sandia did not
earn for fiscal year 2005) is an extremely powerful tool to focus a
contractor's attention. The model contract drives communication,
efficiencies, and accountability better than the previous contract
utilizing a fixed fee structure. We have noted increased involvement by
the parent entity, Lockheed Martin and the Sandia Corporation's Board
of Directors. The Board is very active with committees on CAS/ILMS or
governance and Security and Safety which Sandia VPs report to
routinely. The model is that once ILMS/CAS is up and running this form
of governance will be relied on to change oversight.
Finally, through this contract, NNSA has been able to realize cost
savings which have been applied to Laboratory operations. Examples of
completed projects include:
--enhancing classified network ($2 million);
--cleaning up beryllium contamination ($2 million);
--Implementation of a new JTA development process with a projected
reduction of cycle time of 50 percent (6 years to 3 years);
and,
--W80 Neutron Tube Development Welding Cell value stream mapping that
realized 96 percent reduction in cycle time.
We have learned some valuable lessons in our first 2 years. The
first is that it has been hard to redefine the contractor and
Government relationship. Both sides had grown accustomed to having the
Government telling the contractor not only the ``what'' but the ``how''
with old habits being difficult to change. Secondly, redefining the way
in which the Government operates has not been easy for either party.
When NNSA was established we eliminated the Operations Offices and
redefined the roles and responsibilities of the Site Office and
Headquarters. This change has been difficult but we are gaining
momentum and there is evidence that we are being more thoughtful in our
interactions and direction of the contractors. This new structure has
also allowed the Site Offices to focus on improving operations at our
facilities to include security and safety. Over the last 3 years at
Sandia this has resulted in significant improvement in security
operations and smaller improvements have been achieved in the safety
arena. The NNSA Leadership Coalition, consisting of senior mangers from
Headquarters, the Service Center, and Site Offices are working together
and are speaking with one voice. This has resulted in NNSA providing
more clear and concise direction.
LANL--NEW CONTRACT COSTS
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, you were the selection officer for the
Los Alamos contract award. You selected the Los Alamos National
Security, LLC--a partnership between Bechtel, University of California,
BWTX and Washington Group. These are all very well-qualified groups.
However, this contract is much more expensive than the previous
contract and I suspect you were attempting to attract the best talent
with a much higher fee.
This contract also requires the Lab to pay Gross Receipts Tax to
the State ($75 million). I suspect there are several other cost
increases that add to the bottom-line operations of the lab.
Unfortunately, the budget doesn't reflect an increase to accommodate
these added costs. All of these costs will come out of R&D budgets and
lab operations that we appropriate.
Do you know how much more it will cost to operate the new contract?
What impact will this have on the programs?
Answer. Under the new contract, NNSA could pay Los Alamos National
Security, LLC (LANS) significantly more fee than it pays the University
of California to manage the laboratory if LANS lives up to the
performance incentives and contractor assurance initiatives LANS
proposed in its winning proposal. In the first year, the difference
could be in the neighborhood of $66 million and varies somewhat over
the base term of the contract because LANS proposed a lesser fee in the
out-years than in the first few years.
LANS and the New Mexico Department of Revenue and Taxation have not
finalized LANS payment schedule and procedures and, therefore, it is
not possible to respond precisely with respect to the New Mexico Gross
Receipts Tax. It will not be on the order of $75 million more than at
present because the major for-profit subcontractors already pay gross
receipts tax and your $75 million figure does not take that into
account.
In addition, there will be additional set-up expenditures to
establish and maintain the pension plans and benefits arrangement for
LANS, a private entity; they are, therefore, different than the system
expenses associated with the pension and benefits provided by the
University of California.
NNSA expects minimal impact on program performance because of the
factors enumerated in response to the next question.
Question. Where will the new contractor find the funding to offset
the increased costs without negatively impacting the program?
Answer. Based on the LANS proposal, its multi-year strategy for
continuous improvement and its plan for parent organization oversight
and assistance, NNSA is confident that LANS will offset much of the new
expense through savings realized through better, more disciplined and
more streamlined operations. For example, through footprint reduction
LANS is expected to reduce operation and maintenance costs. Through its
integrated project teams, LANS is expected to reduce the cost of
operating facilities. By improving procurement and financial management
overall, LANS is expected to realize significant savings both in the
actual business operation and in the program supported by that business
operation.
NNSA anticipates ``locking in'' the promises of better and more
cost-effective performance through the objectives and measures in the
annual performance evaluation plan against which LANS must perform to
earn a significant portion of its fee.
Question. Do you have sense as to which programs might be impacted?
Will this impact jobs?
Answer. NNSA does not know at present on which (if any) programs
there may be an impact as a result of the changeover to LANS. We remain
hopeful that there will be little to no impact on the deliverables NNSA
needs within its mission requirements.
There could be some impact on jobs, the extent of which is not
certain at this time. This is because some current employees may choose
to retire and not seek employment with LANS, may retire and will not be
re-hired by LANS or may resign and seek employment elsewhere. NNSA does
not expect this number to be significant given the ``substantially
equivalent'' benefits and compensation offers NNSA directed to be
placed in the transition.
NNSA also believes that, over time, LANS' transformation of the
laboratory could change the nature of some jobs currently performed at
the laboratory as it develops science and programs to address the
National Security needs of the future. It is not certain whether, or in
which direction, it may affect the number of jobs at the laboratory as
NNSA insists on a forward-looking and dynamic Los Alamos National Lab.
Question. How much does the NNSA invest in developing technology
that can be used as early warning detection, or as a security
deterrent?
Answer. In addition to the technologies that are deployed at each
site with operational funds, the National Nuclear Security
Administration spends $8.0 million per year on a program dedicated to
security technology deployment. These technologies cover the entire
range of security requirements, from early warning and detection to
armor-piercing ammunition, and from new communications systems to
Classified Removable Electronic Media accounting systems.
Question. How effective has the NNSA been in the deployment of this
technology and what can be done from a technology standpoint to reverse
the growing trend line in security costs?
Answer. The National Nuclear Security Administration is effective
at deploying innovative security technologies. The trend line in
security costs will be held down as much as possible with these
technologies. But the return on investment is generally not immediately
evident--it takes several years for a new technology to start reducing
operational costs. In addition, the Design Basis Threat policy may
continue to drive the overall trend line upwards, in spite of the
savings from technology deployments.
Question. Why have these processes taken so long? Do you lack
confidence in the incumbent--who has been the subject of numerous
critical reports by the IG?
Answer. Proposals are currently being reviewed by the Source
Evaluation Board to select a suitable candidate for the security
contracts at Y-12 and the Nevada Test Site. Currently, the Y-12
proposal is being reviewed by the Source Evaluation Board. The Nevada
Test Site proposal has been sent back to the Source Evaluation Board
for further analysis. The Federal Acquisition Regulation parts 3.104-3
``Statutory and related prohibitions, restrictions, and requirements,''
and 3.104-4 ``Disclosure, protection, and marking of contractor bid or
proposal information and source selection information,'' does not allow
the Department to provide any specific information in relation to the
selection of these contracts.
Question. Is there insufficient competition? Are you uncertain of
the security mission at these sites?
Answer. Proposals are currently being reviewed by the Source
Evaluation Board to select a suitable candidate for the security
contracts at Y-12 and the Nevada Test Site. The Federal Acquisition
Regulation parts 3.104-3 ``Statutory and related prohibitions,
restrictions, and requirements,'' and 3.104-4 ``Disclosure, protection,
and marking of contractor bid or proposal information and source
selection information,'' does not allow the Department to provide any
specific information in relation to the selection of these contracts.
Question. Will you update me on measures taken to improve security
performance at the site?
Answer. The security posture at the Nevada Test Site has undergone
a complete transformation. We have brought on board a highly qualified
Federal security manager and nuclear security professionals to oversee
the build-up of physical security measures at the site. The physical
security and protective force upgrades being deployed are extensive and
strong. Over the past year we have increased the size, training, and
equipment of the protective force. These improvements include the
procurement of additional armored vehicles and improved firepower in
the form of heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, and armor piercing
ammunition. To enhance our adversary detection capabilities we are
installing state-of-the-art electronic surveillance and video
assessment systems. A major element of our upgrade plan involves the
fielding of a Special Response Team (SRT) capability whose training and
equipment rival those of a major city SWAT team. The combined effect of
these upgrades is significant, making the site one of the most heavily
defended locations in the Nation. We will continue to closely monitor
these upgrades and the performance of the protective forces at the
Nevada Test Site.
Question. Why should the public have confidence that change has
occurred, given Admiral Mies' finding that DOE/NNSA's ability to ``to
evaluate findings, assess underlying root causes, analyze alternative
courses of action, formulate appropriate corrective action, gain
approval, and effectively implement change'' is ``weak to non-
existent''?
Answer. In the year-and-a-half since the Deputy Secretary referred
to ``recent significant physical security performance problems at
Nevada Test Site . . .'' significant progress has been made. To confirm
this progress, the Administrator for the National Nuclear Security
Administration requested the Department of Energy, Office of
Independent Oversight, conduct a follow-up to its 2004 inspection. That
follow-up was completed in September 2005, and the Office of
Independent Oversight reported that ``performance has noticeably
improved.'' Specifically, ``significant improvements over the past year
include positive management initiatives, appropriate skills and
training, robust protection at the Device Assembly Facility, and
effective protection of classified matter.''
Question. How much is the complex proposing to spend on physical
security in 2007?
Answer. The fiscal year 2007 Defense Nuclear Security budget is
$665.7 million. Of this amount, $491.6 million is for ``physical
security'' programs.
Question. Is this security cost driven by the number of sites in
the complex, or the number of facilities within each site, or the
amount of SNM at each site?
Answer. All three factors contribute to the level of security
costs. At sites such as Pantex and Y-12 the size of the special nuclear
material holdings and the geographic spread of the storage and
processing facilities drives up the cost of security, as protective
forces are needed to control large areas of the site. At the remaining
National Nuclear Security Administration sites, we have been able to
effect on-site consolidation that has significantly reduced the cost of
protecting special nuclear material, the best example of this is the
removal of Category I/II special nuclear material from Los Alamos
National Lab's TA-18.
Question. What are the annual security costs at Kansas City, LLNL,
LANL, at Sandia Livermore and Sandia Albuquerque, at Savannah River,
and at Y-12?
Answer. Fiscal year 2007 Defense Nuclear Security allocations by
site are:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas City............................................. 11.3
Lawrence Livermore...................................... 83.9
Los Alamos.............................................. 113.7
Sandia.................................................. 70.9
Savannah River.......................................... 11.5
Y-12.................................................... 132.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Would the security costs at any given site go down if
they did not have SNM at that site?
Answer. While each site is unique, the security costs for
protecting special nuclear material ranges between 50 percent to 70
percent of the site security budget. The National Nuclear Security
Administration is aggressively pursuing further consolidation of
special nuclear material, both as a means for reducing security costs,
but also to reduce the overall risks posed by this material.
RUSSIAN HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM DEAL
Question. If the Russian Suspension Agreement is modified or
allowed to expire resulting in significantly increased amounts of
Russian low enriched uranium entering the U.S. market:
--1. It is expected to have a serious impact on the financing for the
$1.4 billion privately funded LES National Enrichment Facility
by creating a significant negative market impact from the
flooding of the United States with low enriched uranium;
--2. The financial community will likely raise serious concerns
regarding the long-term viability of the LES project if they
feel the market would be impacted by the expiration of the
Russian Suspension Agreement;
--3. A similar negative impact is expected on USEC's ability to build
and operate the American Centrifuge Facility; and
--4. It could prevent the nuclear industry from having a domestic
source of enriched uranium if the LES and USEC facilities are
not built because of this negative market impact.
Please provide the committee with the position of the NNSA on the
impact the modification or expiration of the Russian Suspension
Agreement resulting in the significant increase of Russian low enriched
uranium entering the U.S. market will likely have on the ability to
build and operate the new LES and USEC facilities and the impact on the
future U.S. domestic enrichment industry of large amounts of Russian
low enriched uranium entering the U.S. market.
Answer. DOE/NNSA supports the deployment of advanced centrifuge
uranium enrichment facilities in the United States--as was emphasized
in a DOE letter of July 25, 2002, to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission--and believes that such facilities are needed for both
energy security and national security purposes. The letter further
stated that, ``The Department firmly believes that there is sufficient
domestic demand to support multiple domestic enrichers and that
competition is important to maintain a healthy industry.'' I am aware
of no circumstance that has changed or diminished that statement and I
believe it is as appropriate today as it was in 2002.
Let me assure you that I share your concern on the fragility of the
current U.S. uranium enrichment infrastructure, and the need to
modernize and expand U.S. uranium enrichment capabilities. I recognize
that the decisions by USEC to build the American Centrifuge Facility
and by LES to build the National Enrichment Facility were based on
market projections that included continuation of the Russian Suspension
Agreement. It is clear that terminating or drastically modifying the
Suspension Agreement at this critical time could undermine these
ongoing plans to establish a modern, efficient and competitive uranium
enrichment industry in the United States.
Although NNSA is not a party of record in the Department of
Commerce's Sunset Review of the Suspension Agreement, NNSA has made
clear its support for continuing the Suspension Agreement in the
Interagency. NNSA fully supports Commerce's Preliminary Results of the
Sunset Review of the Suspension Agreement reported in the Federal
Register on Monday, April 3, 2006, which find that revocation of the
Suspension Agreement would likely lead to a recurrence of dumping.
I would like to express my concern for the 1993 Highly Enriched
Uranium Purchase Agreement (the HEU Agreement), which is eliminating
500 metric tons of excess Russian HEU from dismantled Russian nuclear
weapons by downblending it for use as fuel for U.S. power reactors. The
Suspension Agreement has been the legal basis by which Russian low
enriched uranium has entered the U.S. market duty free. Unilateral
Russian termination of the Suspension Agreement would automatically
trigger 115 percent antidumping duties on the HEU Agreement imports
from Russia, immediately threatening the economic viability of the HEU
Agreement, which supplies half of the nuclear fuel for U.S. power
reactors. An interagency review is underway to address this concern;
any proposed modification of the Suspension Agreement would require
careful review.
STATUS OF MOX
Question. I am surprised by the lack of detail in your statement
regarding MOX. Your statement makes no mention of the fact that the
Department is rebaselining the entire program and cost estimates have
increased to over $3 billion. It makes no mention of the steps the
Department is taking to respond to the DOE IG Report, which found the
Department lacks sufficient contractor oversight, which has contributed
to the increased costs.
It also fails to mention that the Russians have made it clear that
they will no longer pay for the operations of the MOX facility if they
are limited to using the fuel in light water reactors, in the same
manner as United States. Apparently the Russians have made unilateral
decision that their only interest is in fast reactors.
Finally, I am becoming increasingly frustrated that the Russians
continue to stall the final approval of the liability agreement. I
believe the Russians are now the biggest liability facing the program
and we should sever the link between the construction projects.
Since your statement fails to mention any of these issues can you
please update the committee? What are you doing to improve the contract
oversight and reign in the contractor?
Answer. I share your frustration over the fact that the Russian
Government has not yet signed the protocol covering liability
protection for the plutonium disposition program. Despite continued
delays, we have been assured repeatedly by officials from the Russian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Russian Atomic Energy Agency that
there are no substantive problems with the language that was agreed to
in July 2005, but rather it is a question of the protocol undergoing a
complete Russian interagency review that has been moving more slowly
than expected. We continue to believe that the protocol will be signed
shortly.
The Russian Government has repeatedly stated that it remains
committed to the 2000 U.S.-Russian Plutonium Management and Disposition
Agreement, which obligates both countries to dispose of their plutonium
by using it as mixed oxide (MOX) fuel in nuclear reactors. The
agreement states that any nuclear reactor agreed to by both parties may
be used for disposition. While Russian Government officials recently
reaffirmed its willingness to proceed with plutonium disposition in
light water reactors if the international community would provide full
funding for the program, they also expressed their desire to explore
the use of advanced reactors. In this regard, they agreed to begin
early disposition of limited quantities of plutonium in Russia's
existing fast reactor well before the United States could begin
disposition of its plutonium, demonstrating their commitment to dispose
of their surplus plutonium.
As a result, we are moving forward with construction of the U.S.
MOX facility at the Savannah River Site this year. To prepare for this
effort, we have already taken a number of steps to improve the
management of the MOX facility project. These include incorporating
performance incentives in future contract negotiations, improving
monthly project reports, controlling contractor spending, and reviewing
contractor performance. Now that the planned date for the start of
construction of the MOX facility has been set, the project cost and
schedule baseline is currently undergoing an independent review and
validation prior to the start of construction. This will enable us to
track project performance against the baseline and minimize the
possibility of future cost overruns. Plans are also underway to hire a
qualified MOX Federal Project Director and to streamline the
organizational structure of the project.
RADIOACTIVE SOURCES
Question. What is NNSA doing to ensure that both domestic and
foreign radioactive materials are not used in a malicious manner
against the United States?
Answer. NNSA's Office of Global Radiological Threat Reduction works
in both the United States and overseas to secure, consolidate and/or
remove high powered (i.e., suitable for use in an effective
radiological dispersal device (RDD)) and vulnerable radioactive
materials.
The U.S. Radiological Threat Reduction (USRTR) program, also known
as the Off-Site Source Recovery Program, has recovered over 12,000
excess and unwanted sources in the United States, containing over
160,000 curies of radioactivity. In addition, the USRTR program is
beginning a Source Security Program, which provides security
assessments of facilities, as well as training for users of high-risk
sources.
The International Radiological Threat Reduction (IRTR) program
works in over 40 countries with international and regional
organizations to secure radioactive materials, transfer detection
equipment, train regulators and police, and support international
conferences and training for foreign government officials on best
practices for security of radiological sources.
Question. Your agency, DHS, NRC and other agencies are involved to
some extent in the security of high-risk radioactive materials that
could be used for RDDs. Should there be one lead agency which takes
overall coordinating responsibility for ensuring that radioactive
materials are not used maliciously?
Answer. On December 13, 2003, the President issued Homeland
Security Presidential Directive 7. Item 29 of this directive states
that the Secretary of Homeland Security will continue to work with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and, as appropriate, the Department of
Energy, to ensure the necessary protection of nuclear (including
radiological) materials in medical, industrial, and academic settings
and facilities that fabricate nuclear fuel and the transportation,
storage, and disposal of nuclear materials and waste.
Question. What has been NNSA's budget allocation for both domestic
and international programs for the past 3 years to address the RDD
issues? Do you feel that NNSA has adequate, dedicated resources to
address these issues?
Answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Global Radiological Threat Reduction Program 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International RTR............................................... $27,000 $24,800 $24,078
U.S. RTR........................................................ 5,400 7,540 12,750
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding over the past 3 years has permitted the Office of Global
Radiological Threat Reduction to accelerate recoveries of orphaned
sources in the United States and expand our international program
beyond Russia and the Former Soviet Republics.
Question. What measures has NNSA taken to mitigate the consequences
of an RDD attack and to respond to such an attack if one should occur?
Answer. The core focus areas of the Office of Global Radiological
Threat Reduction are: (1) improving radioactive material security at
the ``first line of defense'', i.e., the facilities where sources
currently reside, beyond our borders; and (2) recovering disused
sources in the United States, so as to mitigate RDD use in an attack.
Additionally, the program works in concert with NRC and DHS
domestically to address security of in-use sources.
Question. What is the relative priority you would assign to taking
measures to ensure that an RDD attack does not occur against the United
States?
Answer. Reducing the threat of a radiological dispersal device
attack is a high priority for NNSA, DOE, and the Bush administration.
This administration has done more than any other to secure radiological
materials against their possible use by terrorists in a radiological
dispersal device (RDD or ``dirty bomb''). The 2003 International
Conference on Security of Radioactive Sources highlighted the need for
radioactive source security and DOE/NNSA's Office of Global
Radiological Threat Reduction is a response to that need. However, the
threat posed by weapons-useable nuclear materials in an improvised
nuclear device is considered a higher priority than the RDD threat
because of the dramatically greater consequences associated with a
nuclear explosion. This does not negate the severity of the RDD threat,
which remains a high priority for DOE/NNSA.
Question. Given the severe social, economic and psychological
consequences of an RDD and the greater likelihood for an RDD attack to
occur over an attack with a nuclear explosive, what can be done to
accelerate NNSA's efforts to protect against an RDD attack?
Answer. The Office of Global Radiological Threat Reduction has
qualified and dedicated Federal and national laboratory resources
working both overseas and in the United States to address the RDD
threat. We have established and are exercising our interagency and
international liaisons to share best practices and the ``security
perspective'' domestically and internationally. Current and out-year
funding will support commitments made in over 40 established project
countries and the United States.
Question. In light of the mass evacuation, property damage and
severe economic burden resulting from Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, how
would you compare such natural disasters to an RDD attack?
Answer. Comparing the effects of a natural disaster and those of an
RDD attack is difficult. Just as it is difficult to predict the damage
resulting from a natural disaster, it is equally difficult to predict
the relative strength and dispersal patterns of an RDD attack. Some
types of damage are likely to be similar: displaced populations,
economic losses, environmental damage, social panic and possible
societal breakdown. Damage from an RDD attack, however, could adversely
impact one additional element--denial of property. Denial of property
would last until an area could be decontaminated, potentially a
technically and financially demanding task. Additionally, the health
effects of an RDD attack could include substantial increases in long-
term cancer rates. Finally, the psychological impact and widespread
fear resulting from a radiation attack can is difficult to estimate.
Question. How do other countries perceive the consequences of an
RDD? Should we be building more effective partnerships with these
countries such that they take an active role to ensure that an RDD
attack does not occur?
Answer. The threat posed by the use of a radiological dispersal
devise (RDD) has only recently come to the attention of the
international community. The international community, led by the United
States, our G-8 partners, and international organizations such as the
IAEA, has convened three international conferences to address the
safety and security of radioactive materials around the world.
Fostering and maintaining partnerships with other countries is
essential due to the widespread use of radiological materials in
applications ranging from agriculture to oil exploration. The
International Radiological Threat Reduction (IRTR) program has
developed Regional Radiological Security Partnerships in Southeast Asia
(in sponsorship with Australia) and South America and is fostering
burgeoning relationships in Africa to address the security of
radioactive materials in those regions.
Question. What can be done to get other countries to allocate their
resources to address the RDD problem?
Answer. Recent international conferences have highlighted the issue
of the security of radioactive materials and are key to convincing
other countries to allocate resources to address the RDD threat.
Additionally, the International Radiological Threat Reduction (IRTR)
program has developed Regional Radiological Security Partnerships to
address the security of radioactive materials worldwide. A notable
success has been our Regional Radiological Security Partnerships that
was developed in Southeast Asia in sponsorship with Australia. This
partnership supports NNSA and IAEA objectives to improve the security
of high-risk radioactive materials. Australia has committed monetary
resources for this cooperative threat reduction effort. Furthermore, as
an integral part of our bilateral cooperative projects, the IRTR
program addresses sustainability of the security systems it provides
and works with countries to ensure that security costs are integrated
into operating budgets.
Question. What is NNSA doing to enlist support from other
international organizations, such as the IAEA and Europol, to address
the RDD problem?
Answer. Although NNSA has no interactions with Europol, we have
developed strong cooperative relationships with both the IAEA and the
International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) to address the
RDD problem.
NNSA's International Radiological Threat Reduction (IRTR) program
has been engaged in cooperative projects to prevent radiological
terrorism with Interpol since 2003. This cooperation includes assisting
Interpol to develop analytical reports that characterize the nature of
thefts and diversions of radioactive materials, and equipping and
training front line police officers to enable them to detect and
mitigate radiological security threats. This training allows these
officers to remain competent in the use of this equipment over an
extended period of time.
The IRTR program cooperates extremely well with the IAEA ranging
from multinational conferences to in-country support on topics ranging
from regulatory support to physical protection. The Office of Global
Radiological Threat Reduction continues to provide the IAEA's Nuclear
Security Fund significant donor support through extra-budgetary
contributions. To date, GRTR has contributed approximately $11 million
for our joint activities.
Question. I am aware that NNSA has worked in over 40 countries to
help ensure that their high-risk radioactive sources are secure. What
is being done to ensure that these security measures will remain in use
and effective for a period well beyond the length of the assistance
that NNSA is providing?
Answer. It is critical to ensure the continued operation and
maintenance of security systems and procedures after the work of the
Office of Global Radiological Threat Reduction is complete. One major
aspect of our project planning and execution overseas is developing a
sustainable physical protection system and incorporating security into
host country practices and foreign facility operational budgets.
Designing an effective and sustainable security system requires working
directly with national regulators and site personnel to make sure they
understand and evaluate the full gamut of operational considerations
that result from the installation of a physical security system.
LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Question. What does the budget propose in for the LDRD account?
Answer. Although LDRD levels are not proposed specifically in the
annual budget requests, the NNSA supports continuing funding for the
LDRD programs at its National Laboratories.
In accordance with guidance in the Conference Report to accompany
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006, (H. Rept.
No. 109-275 (2005)), and departmental policy, NNSA required its
Laboratories to modify cost accounting procedures and apply overhead
charges to the LDRD program. Implementing these changes while
sustaining the historical funding levels for LDRD requires a funding
rate of up to 8 percent. Our objective is to sustain the funding that
is applied directly to scientific and technical work so the changes
described above should not decrease the effective level of research
conducted under the LDRD program or increase the cost of DOE programs
or work for non-DOE customers.
The NNSA continues to believe the recommendations of the Packard
Commission and Galvin Commission that a robust LDRD program is
essential to the scientific and technical vitality of the National
Laboratories and their long-term contributions to national security.
LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Question. Does the budget contemplate any reforms to this program?
Answer. The NNSA and the National Laboratories have implemented the
changes required to apply all Laboratory overhead charges to the LDRD
program in fiscal year 2006. There is no specific initiative under way
that would result in further changes to the LDRD program to be
implemented in the near future. The NNSA and its National Laboratories
regularly review the LDRD program, how it operates, and the science and
technology it produces, to improve the program and its value to the
Nation. If this process identifies beneficial reforms within the
current constraints for the LDRD program, then the NNSA would work with
the Laboratories to implement them.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Domenici. We stand recessed until the Chair calls
another meeting.
[Whereupon, at 3:08 p.m., Thursday, April 6, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2007
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[Clerk's note.--At the direction of the subcommittee
chairman, the following statements received by the subcommittee
are made part of the hearing record on the Fiscal Year 2007
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers
Prepared Statement of the Clark County Regional Flood Control District
The United States Army Corps of Engineers Tropicana and Flamingo
Washes Flood Control Project, Las Vegas, Nevada.--$15,000,000,
Construction appropriations, which includes appropriations for work
performed pursuant to Section 211 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996.
Presented herewith is testimony in support of $15,000,000 for the
construction appropriation necessary for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to continue the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes flood control
project in Clark County, Nevada, which includes up to $9,000,000 to
reimburse the non-Federal sponsors, Clark County and the Clark County
Regional Flood Control District, for work performed in advance of the
Federal project pursuant to Section 211 of the Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) of 1996. The President's fiscal year 2007 Civil
Works budget request to Congress identifies $12,400,000 for this
project. It is imperative that we receive the requested Federal funding
to protect residents of the rapidly growing Las Vegas Valley in
Southern Nevada from devastating floods.
The Las Vegas Valley continues to experience unprecedented growth.
In the past 20+ years, people have moved into our area from all parts
of the Nation to seek employment, provide necessary services, retire in
the Sunbelt, and become part of this dynamic community. Approximately
6,000 people relocate to the Las Vegas Valley every month of the year.
Currently the population exceeds 1.8 million. The latest statistics
show that more than 25,000 residential units are built annually. Once
all of these factors are combined, the result is that the Las Vegas
Valley continues to be one of the fastest-growing metropolitan areas in
the Nation.
The Federal project being constructed by the Corps of Engineers
(Corps) is designed to collect flood flows from a 174-square mile
contributing drainage area. The Corps' project includes three debris
basins, five detention basins, 28 miles of primary channels, and a
network of lateral collector channels. The debris basins collect flood
flows from undeveloped Federal lands at the headwaters of the alluvial
fans and trap large bedload debris before it enters the channels and
causes erosion damage. The detention basins greatly reduce the
magnitude of the flood flows so that the flows can be safely released
and conveyed through the urbanized area at non-damaging rates. A
primary system of channels collects outflows from the debris and
detention basins and conveys these floodwaters through our urban area.
Lateral collector channels, which are funded locally, collect runoff
from smaller developed watersheds and deliver it to the primary
channels. Since flood flow over the alluvial fans, which ring the Las
Vegas Valley, is so unpredictable in terms of the direction it will
take during any given flood, all of the components of the Corps' plan
are critical.
Torrential rains deluged the Las Vegas Valley the morning of July
8, 1999, causing widespread drainage problems and major damages to
public and private properties. Some of the greatest rainfall depths
occurred over the southwest portions of the Las Vegas Valley resulting
in significant flows in the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes. The runoff
from this intense rainfall caused widespread street flooding and record
high flows in normally dry washes and flood control facilities. The
news media reported two deaths during this flood event, one of which
was a drowning in the Flamingo Wash. Damages to public property caused
by this storm were estimated at $20,500,000. The President declared
Clark County a Federal disaster area on July 19, 1999, recognizing the
severity of damages to public and private properties. Significant
damages could have been avoided if the Corps' Tropicana and Flamingo
Washes Project had been fully implemented. However, those features of
the Corps' project that were completed did help to mitigate damages.
On August 19, 2003 another flash flood hit the Las Vegas Valley and
damaged hundreds of homes and businesses. Storms of this magnitude only
reinforce the need to expeditiously build all flood control projects in
the Las Vegas Valley.
In the winter of 2004-2005, the area experienced heavier than
normal rainfall amounts. That winter brought twice the area's average
annual rainfall causing flooding in along the Virgin and Muddy Rivers
in Clark County, Nevada. Several areas in the Las Vegas Valley also
experienced drainage problems. The flood control features built as part
of the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes Project helped to protect vast
areas of our community.
The Feasibility Report for this project was completed in October
1991, and Congressional authorization was included in the WRDA of 1992.
The first Federal appropriation to initiate construction of the project
became available through the Energy and Water Resources Development
Appropriations Bill signed into law by the President in October 1993.
The Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) was fully executed in February
1995. Federal appropriations to date have totaled $269,345,000
(allocations $226.7 million), allowing continued project construction.
The total cost of the flood control portion of the project is currently
estimated at $336,342,000, higher than originally anticipated primarily
due to the delay in Federal appropriations which has resulted in
increases in real estate and construction costs.
The local community had constructed certain elements of the Corps'
plan prior to the execution of the PCA. These project elements required
modifications in order to fit into the Corps' plan and fulfill the need
for a ``total fan approach'' to the flooding problems in the Las Vegas
Valley. The work performed by the non-Federal sponsors, construction of
Red Rock Detention Basin and Flamingo Detention Basin, has been
accounted for in Section 104 credits and totals $9,906,000.
We have already realized some benefits from construction of flood
control features on the Federal project. We have removed 18.1 square
miles of flood zones from Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA)
Flood Insurance Rate Maps. This was accomplished through the completion
of the Red Rock Detention Basin Modifications, the Blue Diamond
Detention Basin, and the F-1 and F-2 Debris Basins and Outfall
Channels. We anticipate removal of an additional 0.7 square miles of
flood zones as a result of recently completed portions of the Federal
project and even more removed when the entire project is complete.
Both the Clark County Regional Flood Control District and Clark
County are looking forward to the completion of construction of this
flood control project in fiscal year 2007.
The non-Federal sponsors are requesting $15,000,000 for both the
continued construction and reimbursement to the local sponsors of this
project. Funding at this level will allow the Corps of Engineers to
complete the construction of the last project feature, the F-4 Debris
Basin and Channel.
In order to provide the required flood protection in a timely
fashion, the non-Federal sponsors are implementing certain features in
advance of the Federal Government pursuant to Section 211 of WRDA 1996.
An amendment to the PCA was fully executed on December 17, 1999, that
formalizes the provisions of Section 211 of WRDA 1996. Section 211(f)
of WRDA 1996 recognized the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes project as
one of eight projects in the Nation to demonstrate the potential
advantages and effectiveness of non-Federal implementation of Federal
flood control projects. The work funded by the non-Federal sponsors and
completed is substantial and includes features that were designed by
the non-Federal sponsors and constructed by either the Federal
Government or the non-Federal sponsors. To date, $13.5 million has been
reimbursed.
The non-Federal sponsors are requesting up to $9 million of the $15
million for reimbursement under Section 211. This amount is requested
in light of the language contained in the fiscal year 2000 Energy and
Water Development Bill, Senate Report 106-58, which states in part,
``The Committee expects . . . every effort to even out reimbursement
payments to lessen future budgetary impacts.'' The non-Federal
sponsors' contributions to the project are for the primary purpose of
providing flood protection as quickly as possible.
In summary, the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes project is an
important public safety project designed to provide flood protection
for one of the fastest growing urban areas in the Nation. We ask that
the committee provide the Secretary of the Army with $15 million, in
fiscal year 2007, in order to facilitate the completion of construction
of this critical flood control project and use up to $9 million of the
$15 million to reimburse the non-Federal sponsors the Federal
proportionate share of the work completed by the sponsors in advance of
the Federal Government.
The committee is aware that flood control measures are a necessary
investment required to prevent loss of life and damages to people's
homes and businesses. Flood control is a wise investment that will pay
for itself by preserving life and property and reducing the probability
of repeatedly asking the Federal Government for disaster assistance.
Therefore, when balancing the Federal budget, we believe a thorough
analysis will show that there is substantial future Federal savings in
disaster assistance that supports sufficient appropriations through the
Civil Works Budget.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ventura Port District
The Ventura Port District respectfully requests that the Congress
increase the administration's request from $1,700,000 to $3,370,000 for
inclusion in the fiscal year 2007 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Bill for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintenance
dredging of the Ventura Harbor Federal channel and sand traps.
BACKGROUND
Ventura Harbor, homeport to 1,500 vessels, is located along the
Southern California coastline in the City of San Buenaventura,
approximately 60 miles northwest of the City of Los Angeles. The harbor
opened in 1963. Annual dredging of the harbor entrance area is
necessary in order to assure a navigationally adequate channel. In
1968, the 90th Congress made the harbor a Federal project and committed
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the maintenance of the entrance
structures and the dredging of the entrance channel and sand traps
(Public Law 90-483, section 101).
The harbor presently generates more than $50 million in gross
receipts annually. That, of course, translates into thousands of both
direct and indirect jobs. A significant portion of those jobs are
associated with the commercial fishing industry which landed over 25
million pounds of seafood in 2005 (the harbor is consistently amongst
the top ten commercial fishing ports in the United States), and with
vessels serving the offshore oil industry. Additionally, the
headquarters for the Channel Islands National Park is located within
the harbor, and the commercial vessels transporting the nearly 100,000
visitors per year to and from the Park islands offshore, operate out of
the harbor. All of the operations of the harbor, particularly those
related to commercial fishing, the support boats for the oil industry,
and the visitor transport vessels for the Channel Islands National Park
are highly dependent upon a navigationally adequate entrance to the
harbor.
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE NEEDS
Maintenance Dredging
It is estimated that $3,370,000 will be required to perform the
maintenance dredging of the harbor's entrance channel and sand traps
during fiscal year 2007. Because of reduced funding in fiscal year 2006
more than 350,000 cubic yards of material was not removed by the Corps
of Engineers contractor during the current dredging effort and thus the
request is absolutely essential to the continued operation of the
harbor in fiscal year 2007.
______
Prepared Statement of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee
Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished committee, my name
is Lew Meibergen. I am Chairman of the Board of Johnston Enterprises
headquartered in Enid, Oklahoma. It is my honor to serve as Chairman of
the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, members of which are
appointed by the governors of the great States of Arkansas, Colorado,
Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.
In these times of war on terrorism, homeland defense and needed
economic recovery, our thanks go to each of you, your staff members and
the Congress. Your efforts to protect our Nation's infrastructure and
stimulate economic growth in a time of budget constraints are both
needed and appreciated.
Our Nation's growing dependence on others for energy, and the need
to protect and improve our environment, make your efforts especially
important. Greater use and development of one of our Nation's most
important transportation modes--our navigable inland waterways--will
help remedy these problems. At the same time, these fuel-efficient and
cost-effective waterways keep us competitive in international markets.
In this regard, we must maintain our inland waterway transportation
system. We ask that the Congress restore adequate funding to the Corps
of Engineers budget--$6.7 billion in fiscal year 2007--to keep the
Nation's navigation system from further deterioration. If this
catastrophic problem is not addressed immediately, we are in real
danger of losing the use of this most important transportation mode.
As Chairman of the Interstate Committee, I present this summary
testimony as a compilation of the most important projects from each of
the member States. Each of the States unanimously supports these
projects without reservation. I request that the copies of each State's
individual statement be made a part of the record, along with this
testimony.
Equus Beds Aquifer--Kansas
Equus Beds Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project.--Continuation of a
City of Wichita, Groundwater Management District No. 2 and State of
Kansas project to construct storage and recovery facilities for a major
groundwater resource supplying water to more than 20 percent of Kansas
municipal, industrial and irrigation users. The project will capture
and recharge in excess of 100 million gallons per day and will also
reduce on-going degradation of the existing groundwater by minimizing
migration of saline water. Federal authorization of the project through
House Bill 1327 introduce last year or through similar legislation this
year. Construction Phase One is scheduled for completion in 2007.
Continued Federal funding is requested for fiscal year 2007 consistent
with this legislation which will authorize funding for 25 percent of
the project cost up to a maximum of $30 million during the construction
phases.
Arkansas River Navigation Improvements
Mr. Chairman, Public Law 108-137 authorized a 12-foot channel on
the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. The Corps is now
obligated to operate and maintain the system as a 12-foot channel. Over
90 percent of the system currently is adequate for a 12-foot channel.
Deepening the remainder of the channel to 12 feet will allow carriers
to place 43 percent more cargo on each barge, which will reduce the
amount of fuel consumed and emissions released. Other environmental
benefits include the creation of new aquatic habitat through new dike
construction and the construction of least tern islands through
beneficial use of dredged material.
Therefore, we request $40 million to construct dike structures to
scour out the channel, and dredge necessary areas for improving the
depth of the channel. This investment will increase the cost
competitiveness of this low-cost, environment-friendly transportation
mode and help us combat the loss of industry and jobs to overseas.
Tow Haulage Equipment--Oklahoma
We request funding of $5.0 million to initiate the installation of
tow haulage equipment on the locks located along the Arkansas River
portion of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. Total
cost for these three locks is $5 million. This project will involve
installation of tow haulage equipment on W.D. Mayo Lock and Dam No. 14,
Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam No. 15, and Webbers Falls Lock and Dam No.
16, on the Oklahoma portion of the waterway. The tow haulage equipment
is needed to make transportation of barges more efficient and
economical by allowing less time for tows to pass through the various
locks.
The testimony we present reveals our firm belief that our inland
waterways and the Corps of Engineers' efforts are especially important
to our Nation in this time of trial. Transportation infrastructure like
the inland waterways need to be operated and maintained for the benefit
of the populace. Without adequate annual budgets, this is impossible.
Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, we respectfully request
that you and members of your staff review and respond in a positive way
to the attached individual statements from each of our States which set
forth specific requests pertaining to those States.
We sincerely appreciate your consideration and assistance.
ARKANSAS
PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL LATTURE II, CHAIRMAN FOR ARKANSAS
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to present testimony to this most important committee. I
serve as Executive Director for the Little Rock Port Authority and as
Arkansas Chairman for the Interstate Committee. Other committee members
representing Arkansas, in whose behalf this statement is made, are: Mr.
Scott McGeorge, President, Pine Bluff Sand and Gravel Company, Pine
Bluff; Mr. N.M. ``Buck'' Shell, CEO, Five Rivers Distribution in Van
Buren and Fort Smith; Mr. Jack Long, General Manager, Logistic
Services, Inc., Port of Little Rock; and Mr. Jeff Pipkin, President &
CEO of the Russellville Area Chamber of Commerce and Director of the
Arkansas Valley Alliance for Economic Development.
We call to your attention four projects on the McClellan-Kerr
Arkansas River Navigation System (the ``System'') that are especially
important to navigation and the economy of this multi-State area:
Arkansas River 12-Foot Channel, Little Rock Port, Backlog of Channel
and Structure Maintenance, and the Arkansas-White Rivers Cut-Off Study.
Arkansas River's 12-Foot Channel
Mr. Chairman, Public Law 108-137 authorized a 12-foot channel on
the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. The Corps is now
obligated to operate and maintain the system as a 12-foot channel. Over
90 percent of the system currently is adequate for a 12-foot channel.
Deepening the remainder of the channel to 12 feet will allow carriers
to place 43 percent more cargo on each barge which will reduce the
amount of fuel consumed and emissions released. Other environmental
benefits include the creation of new aquatic habitat through new dike
construction and the construction of least tern islands through
beneficial use of dredged material.
Therefore, we request $40,000,000 to continue the work towards
achieving the 12-foot navigation channel as noted in Public Law 108-
137. Corps of Engineers capability levels on this project are currently
$20,000,000 in both the Tulsa and Little Rock Districts. The goal of
completing this project in 4 years at the capability levels of the
Corps will increase the cost competitiveness of this low cost-
environment friendly transportation method and help us combat the loss
of industry and jobs to overseas.
Little Rock Port
We recognize the significant reduction in new work and understand
the need to combat the Global War on Terrorism. We also recognize the
need to look for economic advantages where the needs of the government
cross with the good of public entities to serve both needs. We believe
a prime example of this effort would be to utilize Section 107 of the
River and Harbors Act of 1960 (Public Law 86-645) in the Continuing
Authorities Program which would allow the disposal of dredge disposal
material to be utilized by the Little Rock Port for beneficial fill
material.
Therefore, $7.6 million is requested for this project. This project
will compliment the goal of Homeland Security by providing a safe, mid-
America environment for shipping while complimenting other Federal
investments, including the 12-foot channel project by providing
completion of a major economic development engine.
Backlog of Channel Structure Maintenance
We request $10 million Operation and Maintenance Budget which is
urgently needed for critical repairs to damaged and deteriorated dikes
and revetments to maintain channel alignment and provide original
channel configuration while reducing the need for dredging.
More than a decade of neglect to our navigation structures while
funding the construction of Montgomery Point Lock & Dam has created a
critical backlog of channel structure work that threatens the viability
of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.
Arkansas-White Rivers Cutoff Study
A cutoff is developing between the Arkansas and White Rivers which,
if not corrected, could have dramatic adverse effects on the navigation
system as well as significant bottomland hardwoods and pristine
environment that provides unique wildlife habitat in southeast
Arkansas.
Unless corrected, it is inevitable that a major cutoff will occur
negatively impacting navigation on the river, significantly increasing
siltation and dredging requirements and, at worst, cutting off the
lower end of the Navigation System from the Mississippi River.
We request, for the benefit of the entire system, $300,000 to
protect the Navigation System from incurring significant increases in
dredging, hazardous navigation conditions, and to preclude a
devastating loss of habitat in bottom land hardwoods in the Big Island
region between the Arkansas River, the White River and the Mississippi
River. This pristine habitat is being threatened from the meandering of
these rivers while also adversely impacting the Navigation System. The
funds are greatly needed to complete the study and do the required
environmental documentation.
In addition to these three vital requests, we urge you to continue
to support funding for the construction, and operation and maintenance
of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System which provides
low-cost and dependable transportation for farm products, construction
aggregates, raw materials and finished products important to our
Nation's economic recovery.
It is also most important that you continue construction authority
of the McClellan-Kerr Project until remaining channel stabilization
problems identified by the Little Rock District Corps of Engineers have
been resolved. The Corps needs to develop a permanent solution to the
threat of cutoffs developing in the lower reaches of the navigation
system and to use environmentally sustainable methods under the
existing construction authority.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the work of this essential committee
and thank you for your efforts that contribute so much to the social
and economic well-being of the United States of America.
We fully endorse the statement presented to you today by the
Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee and urge you
to favorably consider these requests that are so important to the
economic recovery of our region and Nation.
KANSAS
PREPARED STATEMENT OF GERALD H. HOLMAN, CHAIRMAN FOR KANSAS
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Gerald H. Holman,
Senior Vice President of the Wichita Area Chamber of Commerce, Wichita,
Kansas and Chairman of the Kansas Interstate Committee for the Arkansas
Basin Development Association (ABDA).
The Kansas ABDA representatives join with our colleagues from the
other Arkansas River Basin States to form the multi-State Arkansas
Basin Development Association. We fully endorse the summary statement
presented to you by the Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate
Committee.
Public Law 108-137 authorized a 12-foot channel on the McClellan-
Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. The Corps is now obligated to
operate and maintain the system as a 12-foot channel. Over 90 percent
of the system currently is adequate for a 12-foot channel. Deepening
the remainder of the channel to 12 feet will allow carriers to place 43
percent more cargo on barges, which will reduce the amount of fuel
consumed and emissions released. Funds in the amount of $7.0 million
were allocated in fiscal year 2005 with $1.5 million used to complete
the Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement with the other
$5.5 million used on engineering, design, and construction activities.
In conjunction with the deepening project the Corps is preparing a
Basin Wide Master Plan that will include an integrated major
maintenance construction and operational maintenance prioritized list
for investment opportunities. Other environmental benefits include the
creation of new aquatic habitat through new dike construction and the
construction of Least Tern islands through beneficial use of dredged
material.
Therefore, we request $40 million to maintain the authorized depth
by constructing dike structures to minimize dredging and dredging only
necessary areas. This investment will increase the cost competitiveness
of this low cost, environment-friendly transportation method and help
us combat the loss of industry and jobs to overseas.
The critical water resources projects in the Kansas portion of the
Arkansas River Basin are identified below. The projects are
environmental and conservation in nature and all have regional and/or
multi-State impact. We are grateful for your past commitment to these
projects.
We ask for your continued support for this important Bureau of
Reclamation project on behalf of the Wichita/South Central Kansas area:
Equus Beds Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project.--This is the
continuation of a Bureau of Reclamation project jointly endorsed by the
City of Wichita, Groundwater Management District No. 2 and the State of
Kansas. This model technology has proven the feasibility of recharging
a major groundwater aquifer supplying water to nearly 600,000
irrigation, municipal and industrial users. The demonstration project
has successfully recharged more than 1 billion gallons of water from
the Little Arkansas River. The project is essential to help protect the
aquifer from on-going degradation caused by the migration of saline
water.
The Equus Beds are vital to the surrounding agricultural economy.
Also, environmental protection of the aquifer, which this strategic
project provides, has increasing importance to ensure quality water for
the future since south central Kansas will rely to an even greater
extent on the Equus Beds aquifer for water resources.
The south-central Kansas economy including the Wichita MSA
represents:
--More than 20 percent of the State's employment.
--More than one-third of the State's manufacturing employment and
payroll.
--At least 20 percent of the State personal income.
The quality of life and economic future for more than 20 percent of
the State's population and economy is dependent upon the availability
of reliable, high quality water resources from the Equus Beds.
The State of Kansas supports the project as the needed cornerstone
for the area agricultural economy and for the economy of the Wichita
metropolitan area. The Chief Engineer of Kansas has authorized full-
scale construction.
The aquifer storage and recovery project is a vital component of
Wichita's comprehensive and integrated water supply strategy. The full
scale design concept for the aquifer storage and recovery project calls
for a multi-year construction program. Phase One is estimated to cost
approximately $25 million and is scheduled for completion in 2007. The
total project involving the capture and recharge of more than 100
million gallons of water per day is estimated to cost $130 million over
10 years. This is substantially less costly, both environmentally and
economically, when compared with reservoir construction or other
alternatives.
We are grateful for your previous cost share funding during the
demonstration phase, as a compliment to funds provided by the City of
Wichita. As we enter the construction phase, we request continued
Congressional support in two ways:
--House Bill 1327 was passed by the House of Representatives last
year. The Senate passed a very similar bill, Senate Bill 1025.
This legislation, or similar legislation, would authorize the
project and also provide cost share funding up to 25 percent of
the project cost to a maximum of $30 million. We request your
support of this legislation authorizing the Aquifer Storage and
Recovery Project as a Federal project and directing the Bureau
of Reclamation to participate in its final design and
construction to completion.
--Through continued cost share funding of the full-scale Aquifer
Storage and Recovery Project within the limits of House Bill
1327 or similar legislation for fiscal year 2007.
The Arkansas River Basin is a treasure that must be protected for
future generations. However, we are experiencing decline in water
quality due to sediment and nutrient loading. The quality of the water
in the Arkansas River and its tributaries, including the numerous
reservoirs in the system, is a reflection of its watershed and land use
practices. It is imperative that the subbasins within the system are
studied using the watershed approach and that protective remedies are
identified and implemented to reverse the continuing decline in water
quality. We recommend adding the following high priority watershed
studies to the fiscal year 2007 budget:
--Walnut River (El Dorado Lake) Watershed Feasibility Study.--A
reconnaissance study was conducted in July 2000 by the USACE,
Tulsa District, which identified ecosystem restoration as a
primary concern in the Walnut Basin. The Kansas Water Office
entered into an agreement with the USACE to begin a Walnut
River Basin Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study for the
entire basin.
Following the initial phase of the feasibility study, it was
decided that focusing the study to a smaller geographic area
would make more efficient use of existing local, State, and
Federal resources. The project was re-scoped to focus study
efforts on protection and restoration of El Dorado Lake and its
contributing watershed.
Public water supply storage in El Dorado Lake is owned by the
City of El Dorado and represents an important future regional
water supply source for the Walnut Basin. The reservoir and its
watershed have been designated by the Kansas Department of
Health and Environment as high priority for Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) implementation for eutrophication (nutrients) and
siltation. Fecal coliform bacteria is another high priority
TMDL pollutant. Because of the importance of protecting both
water quality and quantity in El Dorado Lake, and to more
effectively target limited resources, KWO has partnered with
the City of El Dorado to address long-term protection and
restoration needs for the reservoir and its watershed, in
cooperation with other local, State and Federal agencies.
Study efforts include addressing identified opportunities to
reduce sedimentation in El Dorado Lake and meet the watershed
total daily maximum load (TMDL) issues of sediment and
eutrophication for the purpose of preserving existing water
supply storage, restoring riparian and aquatic habitat in the
lake and watershed.
The fiscal year 2006 budget for this project in the amount of
$200,000 is for continuation of the feasibility study. We
support the President's proposed fiscal year 2007 budget which
includes $80,000 for completion of the feasibility study in
September 2007.
--Grand (Neosho) Basin Reconnaissance Study.--A need exists for a
basin-wide water resource planning effort in the Grand-Neosho
River basin, apart from the issues associated with Grand Lake,
Oklahoma. A Federal interest has been determined from the
reconnaissance study as a result from a Congressional add in
fiscal year 2003 and another add was appropriated in fiscal
year 2004. The Reconnaissance Report has been approved.
Feasibility Cost Share Agreements will be executed in 2006. The
study would support management efforts by Kansas and Oklahoma
agencies to address watershed and reservoir restoration issues
in the Grand Lake Watershed. Local interest exists for
ecosystem restoration projects and flood damage reduction
projects. We request funding in the amount of $450,000 in
fiscal year 2007.
Grand Lake Feasibility Study.--A need exists to evaluate solutions
to upstream flooding problems associated with the adequacy of existing
real estate easements necessary for flood control operations of Grand
Lake, Oklahoma. A study authorized by the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 was completed in September of 1998 and determined that if
the project were constructed based on current criteria, additional
easements would be required. Section 449 of the WRDA of 2000 directed
the Secretary to evaluate backwater effects specifically due to flood
control operations on land around Grand Lake and authorizes a
feasibility study at full Federal cost if the Secretary determines that
Federal actions have been a significant cause of the backwater effects.
The Tulsa District is preparing a letter report which will be submitted
to the ASA(CW) for a determination on proceeding with a full federally
financed feasibility study. If the ASA(CW) determines that Federal
actions have been a significant cause of the flooding, feasibility
study activities would be initiated at full Federal expense. Since
Grand Lake is an integral component of a system flood control operation
consisting of 11 principal reservoir projects in the Arkansas River
basin, changes in the operations of the project or other upstream
changes could have a significant impact on flood control, hydropower
and navigation operations in the Grand (Neosho) River system and on the
Arkansas River Basin system, as well. A feasibility study is necessary
to determine the most cost-effective comprehensive solution to the real
estate inadequacies. We urge you to provide $500,000 to fund
feasibility studies for this important project in fiscal year 2007 and
to direct the Corps of Engineers to execute the study at full Federal
expense. This project has been a Congressional add for the past 4
years, but there are no funds in the fiscal year 2007 President's
budget request to continue this project.
Continuing Authorities Programs.--We support funding of needed
programs including the Small Flood Control Projects Program (Section
205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, as amended), Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration (Section 206 of the 1996 Water Resources Development Act,
as amended), Ecosystem Restoration (Section 1135 of the 1986 Water
Resources Development Act, as amended) as well as the Emergency
Streambank Stabilization Program (Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control
Act, as amended). Smaller communities in Kansas (Iola, Liberal,
McPherson, Augusta, Parsons, Altoona, Kinsley, Newton, Arkansas City,
Coffeyville and Medicine Lodge) have previously requested assistance
from the Corps of Engineers under the Section 205 and Section 14
programs. The City of Wichita also requests funding through these
programs to address flooding problems. We urge you to support an
increase of these programs to the $65 million programmatic limit for
the Small Flood Control Projects Program, $35 million for Aquatic
Ecosystem Restoration, $35 million for the Ecosystem Restoration
Program and $25 million for the Emergency Streambank Stabilization
Program.
The Planning Assistance to States Program under section 22 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1974, as amended, provides Federal
funding to assist the States in water resource planning. The State of
Kansas is grateful for previous funding under this program which has
assisted small Kansas communities in cost sharing needed resource
planning as called for in the Kansas State Water Plan. We request
continued funding of this program at the $10 million programmatic limit
which will allow the State of Kansas to receive the $500,000 limit.
Finally, we are very grateful that both the Corps of Engineers and
Bureau of Reclamation have the expertise needed for the development and
protection of water resources infrastructure. It is essential to have
the integrity and continuity these agencies provide on major public
projects. Your continued support of these vital agencies, including
funding, will be appreciated. Our infrastructure must be maintained and
where needed, enhanced for the future.
Mr. Chairman and members of these committees, thank you very much
for the dedicated manner in which you have dealt with the Water
Resources Programs and for allowing us to present our funding requests.
OKLAHOMA
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES M. HEWGLEY, JR., CHAIRMAN FOR OKLAHOMA
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am James M. Hewgley,
Jr., Oklahoma Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate
Committee, from Tulsa, Oklahoma.
It is my privilege to present this statement on behalf of the
Oklahoma members of our committee in support of adequate funding for
water resource development projects in our area of the Arkansas River
Basin. Other members of the committee are: Mr. Ted Coombes, Tulsa; Mr.
A. Earnest Gilder, Muskogee; Mr. Terry McDonald, Tulsa; and Mr. Lew
Meibergen, Enid, who also serves as Chairman of the combined Arkansas
River Basin Interstate Committee.
The committee is encouraged about water resource developmental
opportunities in the Arkansas River Basin for not only navigation, but
also hydropower, flood control, recreation, water supply, and
environmental stewardship. However, we are concerned that existing and
proposed funding levels will not support the needs.
Mr. Chairman, Public Law 108-137 authorized a 12-foot channel on
the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. The Corps is now
obligated to operate and maintain the system as a 12-foot channel. Over
90 percent of the system currently is adequate for a 12-foot channel.
Deepening the remainder of the channel to 12 feet will allow carriers
to place 43 percent more cargo on barges, which will reduce the amount
of fuel consumed and emissions released. Funds in the amount of $7.0
million were allocated in fiscal year 2005 with $1.5 million used to
complete the Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement with
the other $5.5 million used on engineering, design, and construction
activities. In conjunction with the deepening project the Corps is
preparing a Basin Wide Master Plan that will include an integrated
major maintenance construction and operational maintenance prioritized
list for investment opportunities. Other environmental benefits include
the creation of new aquatic habitat through new dike construction and
the construction of Least Tern islands through beneficial use of
dredged material.
Therefore, we request $40 million to maintain the authorized depth
by constructing dike structures to minimize dredging and dredging only
necessary areas. This investment will increase the cost competitiveness
of this low-cost, environment-friendly transportation method and help
us combat the loss of industry and jobs to overseas.
Tow Haulage Equipment--Oklahoma.--We request funding of $5.0
million to initiate the installation of tow haulage equipment on the
locks located along the Arkansas River portion of the McClellan-Kerr
Arkansas River Navigation System.
The Power Plant at Webbers Falls Lock and Dam on the Arkansas River
has suffered from greatly reduced reliability due to turbine design
problems. One of the three turbines at the project has suffered major
damage and will remain unavailable for generation until it can be
rebuilt. Because this is a run-of-the-river facility with no storage,
energy spilled due to off-line units is energy that is lost forever. A
feasibility study recommending major rehabilitation of this unit has
been approved by the office of the Chief of Engineers.
Similar problems have been experienced at Ozark-Jeta Taylor Lock
and Dam on the Arkansas River in Arkansas. Congress approved a new
start and funding to begin the major rehabilitation of the Ozark
powerhouse in fiscal year 2003. Congress approved the administration's
fiscal year 2005 budget request of $5 million in Construction General
funding to continue this major rehabilitation. By combining the turbine
replacements into a single contract, the Little Rock District awarded a
contract in May 2005 to replace the turbines with a more reliable
design. This contract also includes three options to provide newly
designed turbines for the Webbers Falls project as well, if additional
funding is forthcoming as recommended by the Corps' Hydropower Design
Center. The Corps has saved $5 million over the life of the project.
Unfortunately, no funding for these projects was included in the
administration's fiscal year 2006 and 2007 budget requests, and the
conference report on the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill also excluded funding for them.
The wholesale power customers are providing essential funding for
the turbine replacement contract in fiscal year 2006 under terms of a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Corps, the customers and
Southwestern Power Administration. However, the MOA is not a viable
vehicle for long-term funding of the contract.
The committee recommends that Congress appropriate $19.5 million to
start the Webbers Falls major rehab in early in fiscal year 2007.
Arkansas-White Rivers Cutoff Study is to determine a solution to
prevent the developing cutoff from joining the Arkansas and White
Rivers near the confluence of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River
Navigation System and the Mississippi Rivers. If not corrected, this
occurrence could have a dramatic adverse effect on the navigation
system. Unless corrected, this will effectively drain the water from
the navigation system and halt the movement of commerce on the system.
Therefore we request an appropriation of $300,000 to protect the
navigation system from closure.
There has been over $5.5 billion invested in the construction and
development of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System by
the Federal Government ($1.3 billion) and the public and private sector
($4.2 billion+), resulting in the creation of over 50,000 jobs in this
partnered project.
Maintenance of the Navigation System.--In preparation for the
deepening of the navigation system from 9 feet to 12 feet, there is a
backlog of maintenance items that has been deferred due to insufficient
budgets to allow proper maintenance. These maintenance items are
required even to support navigation at the 9 foot depth in order to not
jeopardize the reliability of the system. Therefore, we request
additional funding in the amount of $1,549,000--plus the amount from
Little Rock, over and above normal funding, for deferred channel
maintenance. These funds would be used for such things as repair of
bank stabilization work, needed advance maintenance dredging, and other
repairs needed on the system's components that have deteriorated over
the past 3 decades.
In addition to the system-wide needed maintenance items mentioned
above, the budget for the Corps of Engineers for the past several years
has been insufficient to allow proper maintenance of the McClellan-Kerr
Arkansas River Navigation System-Oklahoma portion. As a result, the
backlog of maintenance items has continued to increase. If these
important maintenance issues are not addressed soon, the reliability of
the system will be jeopardized. The portion of the system in Oklahoma
alone is responsible for returning $2.6 billion in annual benefits to
the regional economy. The fiscal year 2006 O&M President's budget for
Tulsa District was $8.2 million less (over 11 percent) than the fiscal
year 2005 appropriation, which will result in no funding being
available for critical infrastructure maintenance in fiscal year 2006.
The fiscal year 2007 O&M President's budget is currently proposed at
$72.4 million which is presently $10 million more than the fiscal year
2006 budget. This $10 million increase is offset by higher energy,
labor, and construction costs. We therefore request that $2.1 million
be added to the budget to accomplish critical infrastructure
maintenance items on the Oklahoma portion of the system as follows:
--McClellan-Kerr.--$600,000 to repair plate seals for the weirs;
--Robert S. Kerr.--$1,500,000 to repair erosion and construct
emergency mooring wood dolphins.
Additional O&M funds are also requested for other high priority,
non-navigation, water resource needs including $600,000 for tainter
gate repair at Kaw Lake; $1,200,000 to repair sluice gates and liners
at Keystone Lake; $1,500,000 for tainter gate repair at Fort Gibson
Lake; and $400,000 for tainter gate hoist equipment replacement at
Tenkiller Ferry Lake.
Miami, Oklahoma and Vicinity Feasibility Study.--We request funding
of $350,000 to move into the feasibility stage for the vicinity in
Ottawa County including and surrounding Miami, Oklahoma in the Grand
(Neosho) Basin. Water resource planning-related concerns include
chronic flooding, ecosystem impairment, poor water quality, subsidence,
chat piles, mine shafts, health effects, and Native American issues.
The State of Oklahoma's desire is to address the watershed issues in a
holistic fashion and restore the watershed to acceptable levels. Study
alternatives could include structural and non-structural flood damage
measures, creation of riverine corridors for habitat and flood storage,
development of wetlands to improve aquatic habitat and other measures
to enhance the quality and availability of habitat and reduce flood
damages.
Oologah Lake Watershed Feasibility Study.--We request funding of
$500,000, which is $500,000 more than the President's budget request,
for ongoing feasibility studies at Oologah Lake and in the upstream
watershed. The lake is an important water supply source for the city of
Tulsa and protection of the lake and maintaining and enhancing the
quality of the water is important for the economic development of the
city. Recent concerns have been expressed by the City of Tulsa and
others regarding potential water quality issues that impact water
users, as well as important aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Concerns
are related to sediment loading and turbidity, oilfield-related
contaminants and nutrient loading.
Grand (Neosho) Basin Reconnaissance Study.--We request funding in
the amount of $450,000 to conduct a feasibility study of the water
resource problems in the Grand (Neosho) Basin in Oklahoma and Kansas.
There is a need for a basin-wide water resource planning effort in the
Grand-Neosho River basin, apart from the issues associated with Grand
Lake, Oklahoma. The reconnaissance report has been approved and
indicated that there is a Federal interest in this project and the
feasibility will focus on the evaluation of institutional measures
which could assist communities, landowners, and other interests in
northeastern Oklahoma and southeastern Kansas in the development of
non-structural measures to reduce flood damages in the basin.
Feasibility Cost Share Agreements will be executed in 2006 but the
fiscal year 2007 President's budget did not provide funding to continue
into the feasibility stage.
Spavinaw Creek Watershed Study.--Spavinaw Creek and its downstream
impoundments, Eucha and Spavinaw Lakes, are severely impacted by
nutrient loading and excessive algae growth as a result of agricultural
practices located in Arkansas and Oklahoma. Degradation of water
quality has led to taste and odor problems, increased treatment costs,
and a decreased recreational and aesthetic value of the lakes.
Together, Spavinaw and Eucha Lakes provide 47 percent of the water
supply for the Tulsa metropolitan area. The Metropolitan Utility
Authority entered into the feasibility cost-share agreement in June
2004. We request funds in the amount of $210,000 to continue this
study.
Grand Lake Feasibility Study.--A need exists to evaluate solutions
to upstream flooding problems associated with the adequacy of existing
real estate easements necessary for flood control operations of Grand
Lake, Oklahoma. A feasibility study is necessary to determine the most
cost-effective comprehensive solution to the real estate inadequacies.
We urge you to provide $500,000 to fund feasibility studies for this
important project in fiscal year 2007 and to direct the Corps of
Engineers to execute the study at full Federal expense. This project
has been a Congressional add for the past 4 years, but there are no
funds in the fiscal year 2007 President's budget request to continue
this project.
Section 205.--Although the Small Flood Control Projects Program
addresses flood problems which generally impact smaller communities and
rural areas and would appear to benefit only those communities, the
impact of those projects on economic development crosses county,
regional and sometimes State boundaries. There is limited funding
available for these projects and we urge this program be increased to
an annual limit of $65 million.
We also request your support of the Planning Assistance to States
Program (Section 22 of the 1974 Water Resources Development Act) which
authorizes the Corps of Engineers to use its technical expertise in
water and related land resource management to help States and Indian
tribes solve their water resource problems. The Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 increased the annual program limit from $6
million to $10 million and we urge this program be fully funded to the
programmatic limit of $10 million. We urge that you support the State
of Oklahoma in requesting their full allocation of $500,000 for the
Planning Assistance to States program for several important projects
awaiting execution including the cities of Tulsa, Bristow, and
Bartlesville and for State Water Planning efforts.
In addition, we request your support of the Section 107 Navigation
Program and ask that you provide $100,000 for the initiation of studies
for a port in Wagoner County, Oklahoma. A Wagoner County Port could
greatly benefit the region and utilize the authorized deepening of the
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation system to benefit the Nation.
We strongly urge the Appropriations Committee to raise the Corps of
Engineers' budget to $6.7 billion to help get delayed construction
projects back on schedule and to reduce the deferred maintenance
backlog which is out of control. This will help the Corps of Engineers
meet the obligations of the Federal Government to people of this great
country.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to present our view on
these subjects.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona
Chairman Domenici, Ranking Member Reid, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify on behalf of
the City of Flagstaff, Arizona in support of $22.6 million in the Army
Corps of Engineers budget for the Rio de Flag flood control project in
fiscal year 2007. I believe this project is critically important to the
city, to northern Arizona, and, ultimately, to the Nation.
As you may know, Mr. Chairman, with this subcommittee's help over
the last 2 fiscal years, Rio de Flag received nearly $10 million to
continue construction on this important project. We are extremely
grateful that the subcommittee boosted this project well above the
president's request both years, and we would appreciate your continued
support for this project in fiscal year 2007.
Like many other projects under the Army Corps' jurisdiction, Rio de
Flag received no funding in the president's fiscal year 2007 budget,
although the Corps has expressed $22.6 million as optimal funding to
continue construction on the project. We are hopeful that the
subcommittee will fund the Rio de Flag project at $22.6 million when
drafting its bill in order to keep the project on an optimal schedule.
Flooding along the Rio de Flag dates back as far as 1888. The Army
Corps has identified a Federal interest in solving this long-standing
flooding problem through the Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona
Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Study (EIS). The
recommended plan contained in this feasibility report was developed
based on the following opportunities: (1) flood control and flood
damage reduction; (2) environmental mitigation and enhancement; (3)
water resource management; (4) public recreation; and (5) redevelopment
opportunities. This plan will result in benefits to not only the local
community, but to the region and the Nation.
The feasibility study by the Corps of Engineers has revealed that a
500-year flood could cause serious economic hardship to the city. In
fact, a devastating 500-year flood could damage or destroy
approximately 1,500 structures valued at more than $400 million.
Similarly, a 100-year flood would cause an estimated $100 million in
damages. In the event of a catastrophic flood, over half of Flagstaff's
population of more than 60,000 would be directly impacted or affected.
In addition, a wide range of residential, commercial, downtown
business and tourism, and industrial properties are at risk. Damages
could also occur to numerous historic structures and historic Route 66.
The Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), one of the primary
east-west corridors for rail freight, could be destroyed, as well as
U.S. Interstate 40, one of the country's most important east-west
interstate links. Additionally, a significant portion of Northern
Arizona University (NAU) could incur catastrophic physical damages,
disruptions, and closings. Public infrastructure (e.g., streets,
bridges, water, and sewer facilities), and franchised utilities (e.g.,
power and telecommunications) could be affected or destroyed.
Transportation disruptions could make large areas of the city
inaccessible for days.
Mr. Chairman, the intense wildfires that have devastated the West
during the last several years have only exacerbated the flood potential
and hazard in Flagstaff. An intense wildfire near Flagstaff could strip
the soil of ground cover and vegetation, which could, in turn, increase
runoff and pose an even greater threat of a catastrophic flood.
In short, a large flood could cripple Flagstaff for years. This is
why the city believes it is so important to ensure that this project
remains on schedule and that the Corps is able to maximize its optimal
funding of $22.6 million in fiscal year 2007 for construction of this
flood control project.
In the city's discussions with the Corps, both the central office
in Washington and its Los Angeles District Office also believe that the
Rio de Flag project is of the utmost importance and both offices
believe the project should be placed high on the subcommittee's
priority list. We are hopeful that the subcommittee will consider this
advice and also place the project high on its priority list and fully
fund the project at $22.6 million for fiscal year 2007.
As you may know, project construction and implementation of Rio de
Flag was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of
2000. The total project cost is estimated to be $54,100,000 in and
above the reconnaissance study or the feasibility study. The Non-
Federal share is currently $24,000,000 and the Federal share is
currently $30,000,000. Final project costs must be adjusted based on
Value Engineering and final design features. It is important to note
the City of Flagstaff has already committed more than $10,500,000 to
this project, and an additional $2,000,000 in excess of its cost share
agreement. This clearly demonstrates the city's commitment to
completing this important project. Through this investment in the
project, the city has entered into the Project Cooperation Agreement
(PCA) with the Department of the Army.
The City of Flagstaff, as the non-Federal sponsor, is responsible
for all costs related to required Lands, Easements, Rights-of-Way,
Relocations, and Disposals (LERRD's). The city has already secured the
necessary property rights to begin construction in 2004. Implementation
of the city's Downtown and Southside Redevelopment Initiatives
($100,000,000 in private funds) are entirely dependent on the success
of the Rio de Flag project. The Rio de Flag project will also provide a
critical missing bike/pedestrian connection under Route 66 and the BNSF
Railroad to replace the existing hazardous at grade crossings.
Both design and construction are divided into two phases. Phase I
construction commenced in 2004. Phase II of the project commenced last
year.
Mr. Chairman, the Rio de Flag project is exactly the kind of
project that was envisioned when the Corps was created because it will
avert catastrophic floods, it will save lives and property, and it will
promote economic growth. In short, this project is a win-win for the
Federal Government, the city, and the surrounding communities.
Furthermore, the amount of money invested in this project by the
Federal Government--approximately $30 million--will be saved
exponentially in costs to the Federal Government in the case of a large
and catastrophic flood, which could be more than $395 million. It will
also promote economic growth and redevelopment along areas that are
currently underserved because of the flood potential.
In conclusion, the Rio de Flag project should be considered a high
priority for this subcommittee, and I encourage you to support full
funding of $22.6 million for this project in the fiscal year 2007
Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. Thank you in advance
for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development
Authority
Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to once again submit to you for your
consideration the Authority's requests for fiscal year 2007
appropriations for waterway projects of importance to our region,
including the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. This is the 47th
consecutive year that the waterway compact has presented its funding
requests to the Congress.
The Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development Authority is a
federally authorized interstate compact. Its member States are Alabama,
Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Governor Haley Barbour of
Mississippi is chairman of the development authority.
As we have reported to you in the past, the Authority is most
concerned that ports and waterways as well as the rest of the Nation's
aging infrastructure are woefully under-funded commensurate with needs.
While this Nation continues to underinvest in its infrastructure, China
will spend $242 billion on rail service and intermodal connections with
its seaports, alone, by 2020. China is projected to surpass the United
States as the world's dominant economic power by 2050, largely
supported by these kinds of improvements.
While it is encouraging that the proposed 2007 budget request for
the Corps of Engineers is the largest in memory by an administration,
it is still nearly $600 million less than that approved by the Congress
for this year. We are especially concerned that enough funds are not
being provided to adequately operate and maintain our ports and
waterways. Although the Tennessee-Tombigbee is a relatively new
waterway compared to other systems, it has already accumulated a $12
million backlog of indefinitely deferred maintenance and repairs due to
under funding in prior years assuming the proposed budget is approved.
The President's budget is nearly $4 million less than that needed to
adequately fund the Tenn-Tom as described below.
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority's
Fiscal Year Proposed 2007 2007
2006 Level Budget Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O&M............................................................. 24.0 20.6 24.5
Wildlife Mitigation............................................. 2.0 1.5 2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing the budgetary constraints the Congress faces, we are
recommending only level funding for the Tenn-Tom in 2007. If approved,
the requested $24.5 million will adequately maintain the waterway and
allow it to generate its expected benefits. This level of funding will
also decrease the O&M backlog by nearly $4 million.
The $3.9 million recommended increase above the President's budget
would be used for dredging and to provide more upland disposal capacity
to accommodate the increased dredging needs. Also, additional funds
will help eradicate a growing problem with aquatic weeds that have in
the past been so prevalent to stop the operation of one of the
waterway's locks. This is the No. 1 complaint from the public
concerning the waterway.
The recommended $2 million for the Wildlife Mitigation Project will
also provide level funding for the reimbursement of expenses incurred
by the States of Alabama and Mississippi to manage some 126,000 acres
of Federal wildlife habitat that is part of the project.
The Tenn-Tom has now been in operation 21 years. There have not
been any improvements made since its completion. The waterway has
helped attract over $6 billion of new and expanded industrial
development to the waterway corridor. Nearly $1 billion of new
investments were announced in 2005, alone, that will generate about 1
million tons of additional commerce for the project. The Authority is
requesting that $5 million be appropriated to enable the Corps of
Engineers to install cells near Columbus, MS, for mooring and fleeting
of the growing number of barges operating on the waterway. The cells
are also needed for mooring tows during high water when it is not safe
to transit the Bevill Lock and Dam located downstream. The Tenn-Tom is
the only major waterway where the Corps has not built these kinds of
facilities to provide safer and more efficient navigation.
KENTUCKY LOCK
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority's
Fiscal Year 2007 Proposed 2007
2006 Level Budget Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lock Construction............................................... 23.0 .............. 55.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction of a new lock at Kentucky Dam on the Tennessee River
is our highest priority of all the waterway improvements now being
undertaken by the Corps. The Tennessee-Cumberland system transports
nearly 60 million tons of commerce each year with nearly 40 million
tons traversing Kentucky Lock. The nearly 60-year-old existing lock
cannot accommodate such a large volume of traffic and is one of the
most inefficient bottlenecks on the entire waterway system. Delays to
transit the lock extend as long as 7 hours, costing shippers as much as
$70 million in unnecessary transportation expense each year.
Although construction has been underway for 6 years and nearly $200
million have been invested so far, the Office of Management and Budget
has again instituted a budget policy not to fund any Corps project that
has less than a 3-to-1 remaining benefits-to-remaining-cost ratio. The
Congress resoundingly rejected that arbitrary standard last year and we
strongly recommend it do the same for 2007. The project has a 2.7-to-1
B/C ratio, well above the 1-to-1 ratio the Congress has traditionally
adopted to determine a project's eligibility for Federal funding.
Fifty-five million dollars is requested to continue construction of
this important project on a reasonable and efficient schedule.
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority's
Fiscal Year Proposed 2007 2007
2006 Level Budget Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lock Construction............................................... 10.0 27.0 27.0
Lock Repairs.................................................... 2.4 1.25 1.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We support the President's budget for this important project and
recommend those funds shown above be approved. Twenty-seven million
dollars will permit the Corps to make reasonable progress in
constructing a new lock to replace the 60-year-old lock that is too
small to serve existing commercial traffic. It also has some serious
structural problems. These funds are critical to help preclude a
potentially serious safety problem with the old lock.
TENNESSEE RIVER
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority's
Fiscal Year Proposed 2007 2007
2006 Level Budget Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O&M............................................................. 18.5 19.3 22.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recommend that $22.5 million be appropriated for the operation
and maintenance of the Tennessee River, one of the busiest waterways in
the Nation. Like most of the Nation's waterways, many of the locks and
dams on the Tennessee have outlived their 50-year economic life and
need extensive repairs to prolong the project's physical life. This
aggressive maintenance requires increased funding.
In closing, we are very concerned about a new budget policy adopted
by the Corps and the administration to aggregate O&M funds by region
instead by individual projects as typically presented in the
appropriations bills. As a non-Federal sponsor of one of the Corps'
largest projects, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill
our responsibilities for ensuring the waterway is adequately funded
each year. Your committee, the project's congressional supporters and
the Authority would have no assurance of its level of funding, either
being proposed by the administration or what is finally allocated after
enactment of the appropriations bill. The current procedure has always
worked for the benefit of all parties, so why fix something that is not
broken?
Mr. Chairman, we greatly appreciate the leadership and support you
have given to developing the Nation's water resources. We especially
thank you for your continued support of the Tenn-Tom Waterway and its
funding needs. We respectfully ask for your careful consideration and
approval of the above requests for the Tenn-Tom Waterway and other
projects of such great importance to our region.
______
Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
(UMRBA)
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's UMRBA
Request Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction General:
Upper Miss. River Restoration 26.8 33.52
Program (aka EMP)..................
Lock and Dam 3 (Major .............. 4.30
Rehabilitation) \1\................
Lock and Dam 11 (Major 20.32 27.75
Rehabilitation) \1\................
Lock and Dam 19 (Major 5.44 5.60
Rehabilitation) \1\................
Lock and Dam 24 (Major 3.90 3.90
Rehabilitation) \1\................
Locks 27 (Major Rehabilitation) \1\. 3.40 5.20
Upper Mississippi and Illinois .............. 16.20
Rivers Navigation and Ecosystem
Sustainability Program (if
construction is authorized)........
Operation and Maintenance:
O&M of the Upper Mississippi and 174.36 263.44
Illinois Rivers Navigation System
\2\................................
General Investigations:
Upper Mississippi and Illinois .............. 24.00
Rivers Navigation and Ecosystem
Sustainability Program (PED).......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding for major rehabilitation projects would be shifted to the
O&M account under the President's budget proposal. Major
rehabilitation would still be cost-shared 50 percent from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund.
\2\ The administration has modified the structure of the O&M account in
its fiscal year 2007 budget. Rather than budgeting for individual
projects, the O&M request is organized by region and by business line
within region. The UMRBA is addressing its testimony to that portion
of the Region 7 navigation business line that is attributable to O&M
of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers navigation system. Thus,
we have disaggregated numbers from the President's budget.
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
organization created in 1981 by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to serve as a forum for coordinating
river-related State programs and policies and for collaborating with
Federal agencies on regional issues. As such, the UMRBA works closely
with the Corps of Engineers on a variety of programs. Of particular
interest to the basin States are the following:
CORPS CONTRACTING PRACTICES
In its fiscal year 2006 energy and water appropriations measure,
Congress included language generally barring the Corps from using
continuing contracts. While the States understand Congress' need to
retain appropriate control and oversight, this new provision, in
combination with restrictions on reprogramming, significantly reduces
the Corps' flexibility and efficiency in implementing ongoing programs,
such as operation and maintenance, the River Restoration Program, and
the proposed Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program. By
breaking work into smaller contracts, the Corps' planning and
administration costs increase, as do costs associated with repeated
mobilization/demobilization, purchasing in smaller quantities, etc. The
impacts of these increased costs in this very tight fiscal environment
are particularly deleterious. The UMRBA encourages Congress to develop
an approach to Corps contracting that ensures appropriate controls and
accountability while also permitting the Corps to execute its work
efficiently and effectively.
UPPER MISSISSIPPI AND ILLINOIS RIVERS NAVIGATION STUDY
It has been more than a year since the Corps completed its 14-year
Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers Navigation Study, issuing the
final feasibility report in September 2004 and the Chief's Report in
December 2004. While Congress has not yet authorized the recommended
integrated plan for navigation improvements and ecosystem restoration,
it has provided preconstruction engineering and design (PED) funding to
ensure that the necessary planning and design work can proceed, in
anticipation of construction authorization. Congress appropriated $13.5
million for PED in fiscal year 2005 and $10.0 million in fiscal year
2006. A similar bridging strategy will be necessary in fiscal year 2007
if authorization is still pending.
PED.--The UMRBA supports $24 million for PED in fiscal year 2007,
despite the fact that the administration has once again not included
PED in its budget request. Many of the large scale projects, such as
new locks or fish passage at dams, require 3 years or more of PED
before they can move to construction. It is thus critical that PED work
continue without pause and be sustained over time. In fiscal year 2005
and 2006, PED funding has been directed to both navigation improvements
and ecosystem restoration projects. Continuing this dual purpose
approach in fiscal year 2007 would require that $16.1 million be
directed to navigation measures (including mooring facilities, economic
modeling and evaluations, switchboats, and lock design at 3 sites),
$5.9 million to ecosystem restoration plan formulation and evaluation,
and $2.0 million for program management.
Construction.--If the integrated navigation and ecosystem
restoration program is authorized for construction this year,
construction could be initiated on some projects in fiscal year 2007.
In that event, UMRBA would recommend construction funding of $16.2
million. This funding would support mooring facilities at 7 sites,
switchboats at 2 sites, and 8 ecosystem restoration projects.
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM (AKA EMP)
For the past 19 years, the Upper Mississippi River Restoration
Program, commonly known as the Environmental Management Program (EMP),
has been the premier program for restoring the river's habitat and
monitoring the river's ecological health. As such, the EMP is key to
achieving Congress' vision of the Upper Mississippi as a ``nationally
significant ecosystem and a nationally significant commercial
navigation system.'' Congress reaffirmed its support for this program
in the 1999 Water Resources Development Act by reauthorizing the EMP as
a continuing authority and increasing the annual authorized
appropriation to $33.5 million. As the EMP embarks upon its 20th
anniversary year, the UMRBA is pleased that the administration has
identified the EMP as one of ``six construction projects considered to
be national priorities.'' Even with this emphasis, however, the
administration has requested only $26.8 million for the EMP in fiscal
year 2007. This would continue the trend of the past 9 years, in which
the annual EMP appropriation has fallen short of the authorized funding
level. The UMRBA strongly urges Congress to appropriate full funding of
$33.52 million for the EMP in fiscal year 2007.
The administration's proposed $26.8 million budget would support
planning and design work on eight habitat restoration projects and
construction work on an additional 13 projects. In addition, the fiscal
year 2006 request would support modest expansion of targeted research
and data management efforts under the Long Term Resource Monitoring
Program (LTRMP), which has suffered substantially from the funding
shortfalls in recent years. However, to realize its full promise, the
EMP requires funding at the full authorized amount of $33.52 million.
This would support design work on three additional projects and
construction on one additional project. It would also permit
accelerated work on several other projects, thereby increasing overall
program efficiency. Finally, funding at the full capability level would
support LTRMP research on adaptive management, fish and water quality
data analysis, and key modeling efforts. Therefore, the UMRBA urges
Congress to fund the EMP at its full authorized amount of $33.52
million.
UMRBA is particularly concerned about an apparent directive from
OMB that $3 million of fiscal year 2007 EMP funding be devoted to
development of a ``10-year aquatic ecosystem restoration plan.'' Such a
plan is unnecessary and would duplicate plans that the Corps just
completed as part of the Navigation Study. Given the backlog of EMP
habitat restoration projects awaiting construction, and the vast number
of unmet needs under the LTRMP, it would be misguided to divert
construction funds from this important work to develop a plan that is
largely duplicative. Congress should direct the Corps to use EMP funds
exclusively for construction of habitat restoration projects and long
term monitoring, as authorized in the 1999 Water Resources Development
Act.
UMRBA recognizes that one of the biggest challenges facing future
restoration efforts on the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) will be
integrating the work that is currently done under EMP with the new
ecosystem/navigation authority being proposed. Congress is currently
considering authorization of a new dual-purpose authority for the
Corps, as recommended in the navigation feasibility study. For now,
however, the EMP remains the single most effective and long-standing
UMR ecosystem restoration program. Moreover, the EMP's monitoring
element is entirely unique and would not be replicated in the proposed
new authority. Therefore, fully funding the EMP is as important today
as it has ever been. The EMP must not languish as questions related to
future program streamlining and coordination are being addressed.
MAJOR REHABILITATION OF LOCKS AND DAMS (L&D)
Most of the locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi River System
are over 60 years old and many are in serious need of repair and
rehabilitation. For the past 20 years, the Corps has been undertaking
major rehabilitation of individual facilities throughout the navigation
system in an effort to extend their useful life. This work is critical
to ensuring navigation reliability and safety.
The UMRBA supports the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request
for major rehabilitation work at L&D 24 ($3.9 million) and supports
increasing the President's request for rehabilitation work at L&D 11
($27.75 million), L&D 19 ($5.6 million), and Locks 27 ($5.2 million).
L&D 11, located near Dubuque, Iowa, is nearly 70 years old. The major
rehabilitation project currently underway includes new bulkheads,
extensive miter gate rehabilitation, lock chamber and guidewall
repairs, and electrical system upgrades. The increase of $7.4 million
above the President's request for L&D 11 is needed to fully fund the
Stage II contract. Rehabilitation needs are especially urgent at L&D
19, where temporary use of the only available spare lock gates risks
closure of the river north of Keokuk, Iowa, if those gates fail. The
increase of $156,000 above the President's request for L&D 19, combined
with anticipated fiscal year 2006 carryover, is required to fully fund
the Stage I upper gate major rehabilitation. L&D 24, located near
Clarksville, Missouri, is more than three-fourths through its $87
million rehabilitation. Fiscal year 2007 funding will support work on
dam tainter gate anchorages, dam bulkheads, and a bulkhead pickup beam.
Lock 27 is located at a critical juncture on the inland waterways
system, downstream of the Illinois and Missouri Rivers on the Chain of
Rocks Canal in the St. Louis area. Major rehabilitation needs on this
more than 50-year-old structure are extensive, including replacement of
lock dates, lift gate machinery, and culvert valves. Fiscal year 2007
would mark the first year of major rehabilitation at the structure. The
increase of $1.8 million above the President's request would fund a
range of design and construction work on lock lighting, culvert valves,
sill anchors, and lock wall tie downs.
The UMRBA also supports funding for a major rehabilitation project
that is not included in the President's request: L&D 3 at $4.3 million.
Navigation safety and embankment failure have been a concern for over
20 years at L&D 3, and river pilots agree that this is the most
dangerous stretch of the Upper Mississippi to navigate. Should there be
an accident, the adjacent embankments, which have been severely
weakened by age and past accidents, could be breached. In this event,
commercial navigation would be curtailed and two large power plants
would be forced to shut down. The $4.3 million in funding would be used
to complete planning and fully fund the first phase of construction.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) OF THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER
NAVIGATION SYSTEM
The Corps is responsible for operating and maintaining the Upper
Mississippi River System for navigation. This includes channel
maintenance dredging, placement and repair of channel training
structures, water level regulation, and routine care and operation of
29 locks and dams on the Mississippi River and 7 locks and dams on the
Illinois River. The fiscal year 2007 budget request totals
approximately $174.36 million for O&M of this river system. These funds
are critical to the Corps' ability to maintain a safe and reliable
commercial navigation system, while protecting and enhancing the
river's environmental values.
Unfortunately, the President's fiscal year 2007 budget represents a
further widening of the gap between the amount requested and the amount
required for adequate operation and maintenance of the navigation
system. In fiscal year 2006, the gap between the President's request
and the Corps' capability was $52.14 million. In fiscal year 2007, this
shortfall has increased to $89.08 million. For segments of the Upper
Mississippi System, this would mean multiple years during which
resources have not supported even baseline operation and maintenance,
resulting in an increasing backlog and a growing risk of failures and
service interruptions. The impacts of these funding shortfalls will be
amplified if Congress extends its fiscal year 2006 prohibition on
continuing contracts. Responses to these continued fiscal pressures may
include reductions in lock operating hours and cancellations of ongoing
contracts. Funding beyond the President's request is needed to restore
basic service levels, coordinate major maintenance with major
rehabilitation at L&D 11 and 19, and purchase stop logs to ensure the
Corps' ability to dewater lock chambers for emergency repairs.
The UMRBA supports increased funding for O&M of the Upper
Mississippi and Illinois River System to meet routine operation and
maintenance needs, and to address the growing unfunded maintenance
backlog. The Upper Mississippi River System is simply too valuable to
invite disaster through chronic underfunding of basic O&M. For fiscal
year 2007, O&M funding totaling $263.44 million is needed on the Upper
Mississippi River System to address ongoing needs and critical backlog
items.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Santa Barbara, California
As your distinguished subcommittee writes the fiscal year 2007
Energy and Water Resources Appropriations Bill, I would like to bring a
very important Corps of Engineers' project to your attention. The City
of Santa Barbara requests $2,020,000 from the Army Corps of Engineers'
(ACOE) Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Account in fiscal year 2007
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for essential annual
maintenance dredging of Santa Barbara Harbor's Federal Navigational
Channel.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
In 1970 Congress authorized (Public Law 91-611, Sec. 114) full
funding for ACOE maintenance dredging for the Harbor's Federal Channel
to reduce storm damage, shoaling and navigational hazards. Today more
than ever, the Harbor continues to serve and support our National
interests. The Harbor is home port for the 87 foot U.S. Coast Guard
Cutter Blackfin and NOAA R/V Shearwater serving Channel Islands
National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS). Blackfin's Harbor location is
crucial to its mission of patrolling waters all the way to Morro Bay
(100 miles north) and is critical to ocean safety and rescue, together
with emerging Homeland Security Defense System (USCG) requirements
along the California coastline. Santa Barbara Harbor also provides a
staging area, facilities and resources required for oil spill
prevention and response, and is a designated harbor of safe refuge.
Every winter, approximately 400,000 cubic yards of sand piles up at
Santa Barbara Harbor. Santa Barbara Harbor impedes the transport of
sand downcoast resulting in shoaling of the Federal Channel and
potential coastal erosion at several coastal communities. The Corps of
Engineers conducted comprehensive studies of the Harbor in the 1950's
and determined that annual dredging of the Harbor was necessary to
maintain navigability and nourish downcoast beaches preventing erosion.
It is essential to dredge at a minimum 250,000 cubic meters (c.m.) of
sand from the Federal Channel every year to maintain year round
navigability into and out of the Harbor.
A recap of the last several years demonstrates the continuing trend
of reduced dredge funding, which could impact Harbor operations and
eventually accumulated sand could close the channel during winter
storms.
--Fiscal Year 2005.--Harbor inadvertently left out of President's
Budget Submittal (approximately $1.8 million was eventually
restored and reprogrammed).
--Fiscal Year 2006.--President's Budget Submittal included $1.408
million (Congressional actions reduced dredge funding to $1.267
million).
--Fiscal Year 2007.--President's Budget Submittal includes $1.2
million (Corps of Engineers indicates funding obligations of
approximately $2 million).
On average, the Harbor has received approximately $1.8 million
annually to undertake and complete maintenance dredging of the Harbor
Federal Navigational Channel.
FUNDING REQUEST
The President's fiscal year 2007 budget recommendation includes
$1,200,000 for operations and maintenance dredging for Santa Barbara
Harbor. I respectfully request that the U.S. House of Representatives,
through your subcommittee, increase that level of funding to $2,020,000
for fiscal year 2007 Corps of Engineers' Maintenance and Operation
Account for dredging of the Harbor.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement.
______
Prepared Statement of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
FISCAL YEAR 2007 WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT REQUEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MURRIETA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT: Construction $11,500,000
General................................................
HEACOCK AND CACTUS CHANNELS: Section 205--Design and 6,200,000
Construction...........................................
NORCO BLUFFS BANK STABILIZATION PROJECT: Construction 1,000,000
General................................................
SAN JACINTO & UPPER SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WATERSHEDS 532,000
SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN (SAMP): General
Investigations.........................................
SANTA ANA RIVER--MAINSTEM: Construction General......... 71,300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MURRIETA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND RECREATION
PROJECT
Murrieta Creek poses a severe flood threat to the cities of
Murrieta and Temecula. Over $12 million in damages was experienced in
the two cities as a result of Murrieta Creek flooding in 1993. The 1997
Energy and Water Appropriations Act dedicated $100,000 to conduct a
Reconnaissance Study of watershed management in the Santa Margarita
Watershed ``including flood control, environmental restoration,
stormwater retention, water conservation and supply, and related
purposes''. The study effort was initiated in April 1997 and completed
the following December. The Reconnaissance Study identified a Federal
interest in flood control on the Murrieta sub-basin, and recommended
moving forward with a detailed Feasibility Study. This was completed in
September 2000 and recommended the implementation of Alternative 6, the
Locally Preferred Plan (LPP) for flood control, environmental
restoration and recreation. The LPP was endorsed by the Cities of
Temecula and Murrieta and by the community as a whole. H.R. 5483, the
Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 2000, included specific language
authorizing the Corps to construct ``the locally preferred plan for
flood control, environmental restoration and recreation described as
Alternative 6, based on the Murrieta Creek Feasibility Report and
Environmental Impact Statement dated September 2000''.
The Murrieta Creek Flood Control, Environmental Restoration and
Recreation Project is being designed and will be constructed in four
distinct phases. Phases 1 and 2 include channel improvements through
the city of Temecula. Phase 3 involves the construction of a 250-acre
detention basin, including a 160-acre environmental restoration site
and over 50 acres of recreational facilities. Phase 4 of the project
will include channel improvements through the city of Murrieta.
Equestrian, bicycle and hiking trails as well as a continuous vegetated
habitat corridor for wildlife are components of the entire 7-mile-long
project.
The Omnibus Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2003 provided $1
million for a new construction start for this critical public safety
project. Construction activities on Phase 1 of the project commenced in
the Fall of 2003. The appropriations for fiscal year 2004 and
additional funds allocated through re-programming allowed the Corps to
continue construction on Phase 1, which was completed in December 2004.
Phase 2 traverses Old Town Temecula, one of the hardest hit areas
during the flooding of 1993. The Corps anticipates having a Phase 2
construction contract ready to award in the Winter of 2007. The
District, therefore, respectfully requests the committee's support of
an $11.5 million appropriation in fiscal year 2007 to allow the Corps
to complete the Design Documentation Report, complete plans and
specifications on Phase 2, and initiate construction on Phase 2 of the
long awaited Murrieta Creek Flood Control, Environmental Restoration
and Recreation Project.
HEACOCK AND CACTUS CHANNELS PROTECTION OF MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE AND
ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS
Heacock and Cactus Channels are undersized, earthen channels that
border the eastern and northern boundary of the March Air Reserve Base.
Substantial vegetation becomes established within both channels and
impedes the conveyance of tributary storm flows to an existing outlet
located downstream. Storm flows overtop the Cactus Channel and traverse
the March Air Reserve Base causing major disruption of the Base's
operation, including the fueling of airplanes and transport of troops
and supplies. The inadequate size of the Heacock Channel also causes
storm drains from adjacent neighborhoods within the city of Moreno
Valley to back up, flooding local residential areas and impeding access
to these areas by residents as well as emergency services. The record
rainfall of 2004/2005 also caused extensive erosion along Heacock
Avenue jeopardizing existing utilities within the road right of way and
cutting off access to approximately 700 residences.
Under Section 205 of the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP), the
Corps received $100,000 in fiscal year 2005 and completed an Initial
Appraisal Report which determined the feasibility of proceeding with a
project to provide flood protection to this sensitive area. With the
$546,000 received in fiscal year 2006 the Corps completed a Project
Management Plan, executed a Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement and will
complete the Detailed Project Report by Fall 2006. The Corps expects to
initiate plans and specification during the Fall 2006 and be ready to
award a contract for construction by Spring 2007, providing the needed
funding is allocated during this fiscal year.
The District requests support from the committee for a fiscal year
2007 appropriation of $6,200,000 under Section 205 to complete the
design and specifications and begin construction of the critically
needed project.
NORCO BLUFFS BANK STABILIZATION PROJECT
The Norco Bluffs Bank Stabilization project consists of a soil
cement toe protection structure constructed to the 100-year flood level
at the base of the bluff, and a stable earthen buttress fill
constructed to the top of the bluff along the Santa Ana River, in the
city of Norco. The bluff stabilization work extends easterly from the
Interstate 15 bridge to near Center Avenue. The estimated total cost of
the project was approximately $14 million. The Corps received a total
of $7.2 million in construction funds in the fiscal year 1998, fiscal
year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 Federal budgets for the project. Since
the available Federal funding fell short of that necessary to construct
the entire project at once, the Corps decided to break it into two
phases. Phase 1, which was completed in May 2000, includes a soil
cement toe protection structure along the entire length of the project,
as well as construction of approximately 1,300 feet of buttress fill in
the most critical reach of the bluffs between Valley View and Corona
Avenues. The Phase 2 contract involved the construction of the balance
of the buttress fill. Construction of most of Phase 2 was completed in
December 2003, with the exception of hydroseeding the slopes, which was
differed until the appropriate season to ensure successful
establishment. Unfortunately, the record rainfall of the 2004/2005
season caused damages to the project that need to be repaired in order
to complete the project and turn it over.
The District requests support from the committee for a fiscal year
2007 appropriation of $1,000,000 to complete the repairs, hydroseed the
slopes and turn the project over to the District.
SAN JACINTO & UPPER SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WATERSHEDS SPECIAL AREA
MANAGEMENT PLAN
The County of Riverside recognizes the interdependence between the
region's future transportation, habitat, open space and land-use/
housing needs. Increased developmental pressure in the region has
challenged local, State, and Federal agencies to respond to this
unprecedented growth. In 1999, work was initiated on Riverside County's
Integrated Project (RCIP) to determine how to best address this growth.
In 2003 the County adopted a new General Plan and Multi-Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP) to address regional conservation and
development plans that protect entire communities of native plants and
animals, while streamlining the process for compatible economic
development in other areas.
The Corps began development of a Special Area Management Plan
(SAMP) for both the San Jacinto and Upper Santa Margarita Watersheds in
2001. This comprehensive planning effort will be used to assist
Federal, State and local agencies with their decision making and
permitting authority to protect, restore and enhance aquatic resources,
while accommodating various types of development activities. The final
product of the SAMP will be the establishment of an abbreviated or
expedited regulatory permitting process by the Corps under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act. This process will increase regulatory
efficiency and promote predictability to the regulated public. The plan
will also build on the protection of high value resource areas, as
envisioned in the MSHCP.
The District requests support from the committee for a fiscal year
2007 appropriation of $532,000 to complete the work on the Nation's
largest SAMP for the San Jacinto and Upper Santa Margarita Watersheds.
SANTA ANA RIVER--MAINSTEM
The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662)
authorized the Santa Ana River--All River project that includes
improvements and various mitigation features as set forth in the Chief
of Engineers' Report to the Secretary of the Army. The Boards of
Supervisors of Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties continue
to support this critical project as stated in past resolutions to
Congress.
For fiscal year 2007, an appropriation of $71.3 million is
necessary to provide funding for the following activities:
--$23 million to initiate construction activities on several features
within ``Reach 9'' of the Santa Ana River immediately
downstream of Prado Dam. This segment of the Santa Ana River
project is the last to receive flood protection improvements.
The streambed existing today in a relatively natural state
would receive only localized levee and slope revetment
treatment to protect existing development along its southerly
bank. The funding will also be used for landscape enhancement
of the river banks.
--$13.3 million to fund required mitigation, complete tunnel repairs
and conduct a water quality study of the Seven Oaks Dam
project.
--$35 million to continue with the construction of improvements to
Prado Dam's outlet works and embankment, and construction of
dikes to protect the properties within the Prado Dam basin.
The District respectfully requests that the committee support an
overall $71,300,000 appropriation of Federal funding for fiscal year
2007 for the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project.
______
Prepared Statement of the Board of Levee Commissioners for the Yazoo-
Mississippi Delta
On behalf of its citizens in 10 counties in the Mississippi Delta,
the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee Board joins with the other local
flood control operations within the Mississippi Valley Flood Control
Association, in requesting full U.S. Army Corps of Engineers capacity
funding of $510 million for the Mississippi River and Tributaries
Project (MR&T).
The Corps of Engineers projects that its engineering, construction
and maintenance capabilities in fiscal 2007 amount to $510 million, but
the administration's budget for this critical and highly cost-effective
project for the Nation's heartland is only $278 million. We urge
Congress, as it has before, to fully fund this vitally needed flood
control project which has performed at a benefit-to-cost-ratio of an
astounding 24-to-1 over the course of its history.
In addition to its flood control benefits, the MR&T also provides
almost $1 billion in navigation savings on the Mississippi River each
year. Conceived and designed as a multi-component system to convey
floodwaters that pass through the lower Mississippi Valley to the Gulf
of Mexico, its components drain 41 percent of the continental United
States. It simply must be completed.
A line-item-by-line-item breakdown of the MR&T's proposed 2007
works and cost estimates, along with suggested administration funding
and Corps capabilities is attached and follows. We urge Congress to
inspect this detailed project analysis and are confident that, as the
branch of government most directly responsible to the people, it will
reach favorable funding decisions.
For our part in this very important process, we will focus our
testimony on several aspects of one greater issue which we know to be
of primary concern and importance to the citizens of our levee
district.
The Upper Yazoo Project (UYP), for which my board is proud to serve
as local sponsor, represents a perfect model for what a flood control
project should be, anywhere in the country. It is a perfect example of
how critically-needed work can progress smoothly and without
controversy or public upheaval.
Designed to restore the Yazoo/Coldwater/Tallahatchie river system
to its flow capacity and eliminate damaging interbasin transfer, the
UYP has already provided flood protection to Greenwood, and upon its
completion, would also protect the additional areas of Marks, Lambert,
Moorhead, Mississippi Delta Community College, Tutwiler, Glendora,
Sumner and Webb.
The project is two-thirds complete. It needs only adequate funding
to bring long-needed relief to thousands of people and their
properties. Yet the proposed Federal budget for this public policy
initiative contains not a dime. Not a cent. Such is an enormous
injustice.
We urge the Congress to fully fund in 2007 the Upper Yazoo Project
at the Corps' capability of $22.5 million. The facts make the best case
for the Upper Yazoo Project.
The remaining stage--the final one-third--of the UYP is its most
critical. The remaining channels to be cleared convey the waters from
three-fourths of Mississippi's flood control reservoirs and 74 percent
of all the water from the State's hill section. Those reservoirs have
now exceeded their originally-projected lifespans and we cannot
continue to expose them to needless stress, which they are almost
annually, when existing stream capacities won't always allow timely
release of their waters.
The very successful Mississippi Delta Headwater Project (formerly
DEC) has been very helpful in attempting to control the waters which
flow from the hills to the Delta. We ask that it be funded to the Corps
capability of $25 million, but again, the success of that project only
makes sense within the context of the UYP.
It is also critically important to note that for the UYP to
proceed, it must be fully funded in the 2007 budget. With the
longstanding practice of continuing construction contracts for Corps of
Engineers' projects now eliminated, this project has come to a
standstill simply for lack of funds.
This badly-needed work has already been delayed from 8 to 10 months
this year because its Corps line item has run out of money and under
the new rules, it will continue to be delayed in 2007 as well, unless
Congress fully funds it at the prescribed $22.5 million level.
We implore the Congress not to make the same sort of mistake, the
effects of which we have so tragically seen in the wake of Hurricane
Katrina. Let not the question be asked: Why wasn't something done when
they knew about the danger?
Because of the stealthy nature of flooding in the unique area that
is the Mississippi Delta, dangerously high water levels can appear
literally overnight. We know these waterways must be restored to their
capacities. We know that lives and property are threatened in the
absence of that. We know we need to do this and we know the only issue
is money.
Should a mother, or God forbid her child, fall victim to the
present dangers which are only amplified through procrastination, this
year, then the all-too-easy anthem of ``wait until next year,'' will
ring very hollow indeed.
MISSISSIPPI VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION--FISCAL YEAR 2007 CIVIL
WORKS REQUESTED BUDGET--MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESIDENT'S
PROJECT AND STATE BUDGET MVFCA REQUEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SURVEYS, CONTINUATION OF PLANNING AND
ENGINEERING & ADVANCE ENGINEERING &
DESIGN:
Memphis Harbor, TN.................. .............. ..............
Germantown, TN...................... .............. ..............
Lower Steele Bayou.................. .............. $100,000
Homochitto River.................... .............. 100,000
Memphis Metro Storm Water .............. 152,000
Management, TN.....................
Bayou Meto, AR...................... .............. 1,553,000
Southeast Arkansas.................. .............. 800,000
Coldwater Basin Below Arkabutla $300,000 495,000
Lake, MS...........................
Quiver River, MS.................... .............. 100,000
Spring Bayou, LA.................... .............. 500,000
Point Coupee to St. Mary Parish, LA. .............. 100,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway Land 100,000 300,000
Study, LA..........................
Alexandria, LA to the Gulf of Mexico 200,000 200,000
Morganza, LA to the Gulf of Mexico.. .............. 4,000,000
Donaldsonville, LA to the Gulf of .............. 75,000
Mexico.............................
Tensas River, LA.................... .............. ..............
Donaldsonville Port Development, LA. .............. 500,000
Collection & Study of Basic Data.... 400,000 735,000
-------------------------------
SUBTOTALS--SURVEYS................ 1,000,000 4,157,000
ADVANCED ENGINEERING & DESIGN........... .............. 5,553,000
-------------------------------
TOTAL GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS...... 1,000,000 9,710,000
===============================
CONSTRUCTION:
St. John's Bayou--New Madrid 2,500,000 15,000,000
Floodway, MO.......................
Eight Mile Creek, AR................ .............. ..............
Helena & Vicinity, AR............... .............. ..............
Grand Prairie Region, AR............ .............. 33,000,000
Bayou Meto, AR...................... .............. 11,847,000
West Tennessee Tributaries.......... .............. 500,000
Nonconnah Creek, TN................. .............. 500,000
Wolf River, Memphis, TN............. .............. 1,500,000
Augusta to Clarendon Levee, Lower .............. 500,000
White River........................
St. Francis Basin, MO & AR.......... .............. 11,840,000
Yazoo Basin, MS..................... .............. 73,275,000
Atchafalaya Basin, LA............... 27,600,000 30,000,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, LA...... 4,840,000 10,809,000
MS Delta Region, LA................. 3,212,000 3,933,000
Channel Improvements, IL, KY, MO, 43,092,000 47,392,000
AR, TN, MS & LA....................
Mississippi River Levees, IL, KY, 40,756,000 118,800,000
MO, AR, TN, MS & LA................
-------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--CONSTRUCTION............ 122,000,000 358,896,000
SUBTOTAL--MAINTENANCE............. 147,000,000 226,327,000
SUSPENSION FUND......................... 8,000,000 ..............
-------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--MISSISSIPPI RIVER & 278,000,000 594,933,000
TRIBUTARIES......................
LESS REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS & SLIPPAGES.. .............. 84,933,000
-------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL--MISSISSIPPI RIVER & 278,000,000 510,000,000
TRIBUTARIES......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MISSISSIPPI VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION--FISCAL YEAR 2007 CIVIL
WORKS REQUESTED BUDGET--MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES PROJECT
MAINTENANCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESIDENT'S
PROJECT BUDGET MVFCA REQUEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wappapello Lake, MO..................... $4,768,000 $7,734,000
Mississippi River Levees................ 6,400,000 9,000,000
Mississippi River Channel Maintenance... 60,280,000 66,600,000
Memphis Harbor, TN...................... 1,013,000 1,942,000
Pidgeon Industrial Harbor, TN........... .............. 250,000
Helena Harbor, AR....................... 63,000 402,000
Greenville Harbor, MS................... 30,000 437,000
Vicksburg Harbor, MS.................... 71,000 385,000
St. Francis River & Tribs, AR........... 6,300,000 15,250,000
White River Backwater, AR............... 1,200,000 1,500,000
North Bank, Arkansas River, AR.......... 560,000 560,000
South Bank, Arkansas River, AR.......... 310,000 310,000
Boeuf & Tensas Rivers, LA............... 2,600,000 4,157,000
Red River Backwater, LA................. 3,350,000 6,650,000
Yazoo Basin, Sardis Lake, MS............ 7,199,000 12,425,000
Yazoo Basin, Arkabutla Lake, MS......... 6,170,000 9,251,000
Yazoo Basin, Enid Lake, MS.............. 5,397,000 12,532,000
Yazoo Basin, Grenada Lake, MS........... 5,690,000 10,949,000
Yazoo Basin, Greenwood, MS.............. 620,000 1,020,000
Yazoo Basin, Yazoo City, MS............. 770,000 770,000
Yazoo Basin, Main Stem, MS.............. 1,072,000 1,929,000
Yazoo Basin, Tributaries, MS............ 830,000 830,000
Yazoo Basin, Whittington Aux Channel, MS 430,000 430,000
Yazoo Basin, Big Sunflower, MS.......... 209,000 2,209,000
Yazoo Basin, Yazoo Backwater, MS........ 468,000 734,000
Lower Red River, South Bank, LA......... 66,000 66,000
Bonnet Carre, LA........................ 2,702,000 5,252,000
Old River, LA........................... 9,747,000 17,840,000
Atchafalaya Basin, LA................... 12,532,000 27,500,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, LA.......... 2,605,000 3,059,000
Baton Rouge Harbor Devil's Swamp, LA.... 17,000 715,000
Mississippi Delta Region, LA............ 241,000 349,000
Bayou Cocodrie & Tribs, LA.............. 56,000 56,000
Inspection of Completed Works........... 1,850,000 1,850,000
Mapping................................. 1,384,000 1,384,000
-------------------------------
TOTAL MR&T MAINTENANCE............ 147,000,000 226,327,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the USA Rice Federation
This is to convey the rice industry's request for fiscal year 2007
funding for selected programs under the jurisdiction of your respective
subcommittees. The USA Rice Federation appreciates your assistance in
making this letter a part of the hearing record.
The USA Rice Federation is the national advocate for all segments
of the rice industry, conducting activities to influence government
programs, developing and initiating programs to increase worldwide
demand for U.S. rice, and providing other services to increase
profitability for all industry segments. USA Rice members are active in
all major rice producing States: Arkansas, California, Florida,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas. The USA Rice Producers'
Group, the USA Rice Council, the USA Rice Millers' Association, and the
USA Rice Merchants' Association are members of the USA Rice Federation.
USA Rice understands the budget constraints the committee faces
when developing the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill. We appreciate
your past support for initiatives that are critical to the rice
industry and look forward to working with you to meet the continued
water and related needs of the rice industry in the future.
The Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer is the primary source
of irrigation water for one of the major rice-producing areas in the
United States. Groundwater is being withdrawn at such a rate that the
aquifer is in danger of being permanently damaged. Irrigation wells are
failing. Loss of rice production in this area would result in severe
economic and social repercussions to the local, State, and national
economies.
Rice producers continue to seek new sources of irrigation for their
crops. In many rice-growing regions the aquifers used by rice farmers
are the same aquifers used by local metropolitan populations. Some of
these vital aquifers are at risk. Water levels are dropping fast due to
deficit rainfall and expanding use from industrial, agricultural, and
metropolitan users. Rice producers are working to build new sources of
irrigation. The programs listed below are cost-share programs to help
rice producers ensure there will be a plentiful water supply for their
rice crops and their neighbors in the city. By using surface water from
man-made reservoirs, rivers or bayous to irrigate rice crops, these
precious aquifers can be saved for future generations. These water
projects also provide invaluable wildlife habitat.
To address these critical water needs the USA Rice Federation
supports the following:
White River Irrigation Demonstration Project.--Full funding to
continue construction on this important Demonstration Project. This
project is located in the major rice-growing region of East Arkansas
and will help provide the critical water resources necessary for rice
production, which plays such a vital role in the economy of Arkansas.
Bayou Meto Basin.--Continued construction funding for this project
located in East Central Arkansas in Lonoke, Pulaski, Prairie,
Jefferson, and Arkansas counties.
Boeuf Tensas Project.--Continued funding for work on this water
project located in portions of Jefferson, Lincoln, Desha, and Chicot
counties in Arkansas, as well as portions of Northeast Louisiana.
For California, a very critical wetland wildlife habitat
enhancement program was authorized by Section 3406(b)22 of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act. Unfortunately, the funds were sunset in
2002. When fully funded, this program provided funding for the winter
flooding of 35,000 to 40,000 acres of important rice wetland habitat in
the Pacific Flyway of California. These acres are not only critical to
the health of the Flyway for migrating waterfowl, but are also
designated as Shorebird Habitat of International Significance by the
Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. USA Rice supports
continuation of the winter flooding incentives program provided by
Section 3402(b)22 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and
requests restored funding for this important effort.
The rice industry also supports continued funding for the
Mississippi River and Tributaries Project, and within that, the St.
Francis Basin Project which provides flood control and drainage from
Cape Girardeau, Missouri to Helena, Arkansas. We also support the St.
John's Bayou Project in Missouri and urge that funding be maintained
for this project.
Please feel free to contact us if you would like further
information about the programs we have referenced. Additional
background information is available for all of the programs listed,
however, we understand the volume of requests the committee receives
and have restricted our comments accordingly.
Thank you for your consideration of our recommendations.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of San Marcos, Texas
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the City
of San Marcos, Texas, I am pleased to submit this statement in support
of our request for an earmark of $439,000 for a U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Section 206 Ecosystem Restoration Project for the San Marcos
River in the fiscal year 2007 bill.
The City of San Marcos seeks this allocation for the development of
the Detailed Project Report/Integrated Environmental Assessment (DPR/
EA) as the next step toward completing a $4,540,000 project with
Federal and local match to restore degraded aquatic and terrestrial
habitat in the upper San Marcos River.
San Marcos is located in south central Texas in Hays County,
approximately 30 miles southwest of Austin, Texas. The proposed
restoration area is located within the city limits of San Marcos along
and within the San Marcos River and its headwaters. The study area
consists of an approximate 1.0-mile stretch of the San Marcos River and
associated riparian corridor. The ecosystem restoration project will
restore and enhance degraded aquatic and terrestrial habitat along and
within the San Marcos River.
The spring-fed San Marcos River offers one of rarest aquatic
ecosystems found in the United States. The headwaters of the river
originate from underground springs from the Edwards Aquifer, producing
millions of gallons of crystal clear, constant temperature water daily.
The river creates a unique ecosystem supporting five threatened or
endangered species that live in the San Marcos River (San Marcos
salamander, fountain darter, Texas wild rice, San Marcos gambusia, and
Comal Springs riffle beetle).
The San Marcos River has attracted humans to its banks for more
than 12,000 years, making San Marcos one of the oldest continuously-
inhabited places in the United States. The City of San Marcos has
strived for the past 40 years to protect the river by establishing
parks along its banks and restricting intense development.
Still, the constant use of the popular river over many decades has
impacted the riparian and aquatic habitat of the river, requiring
restoration of this valuable waterway. The San Marcos River and
associated tributaries have experienced aquatic ecosystem degradation
due to a variety of human factors. Impoundment of water upstream, in
its tributaries, and within the study area has altered the normal flow
regime of the San Marcos River. The native aquatic plant communities
within the San Marcos River have been diminished by invasive exotic and
generalist plant species.
Increased nutrient and sediment loads from overland surface flow,
tributary runoff, non-point sources and storm water drainage have
reduced water quality and in-stream habitat values within the river.
The majority of the bottomland plant community within the study area is
highly disturbed and fragmented due primarily to urban encroachment,
installation of hardpan surfaces, recreational disturbance and invasion
of non-native plant species.
This degradation has resulted in the loss of high-quality in-stream
and riparian habitat for plant and wildlife species within the study
area. The proposed restoration plan will help restore aquatic and
terrestrial habitat that has degraded due to human activity, including
critical habitat for the federally-listed species.
The City of San Marcos applied for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Section 206 Aquatic Restoration Grant funds in 2002 to turn around the
trend toward degradation in our river corridor. A Preliminary
Restoration Plan (PRP) was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and submitted in March 2003. The PRP was approved and moved
forward to the next phase, the development of a Detailed Project Report
(DPR).
However, at this stage, Federal funding for this program was
reduced, placing the City of San Marcos PRP on the back burner. Funding
this project is essential to restore integrity to the San Marcos River,
the central point of our community for tourism, recreation, and quality
of life.
This project will directly benefit the environment by increasing
biodiversity, carrying capacity, stability and productivity of native
plant and wildlife species endemic to the area. Additional benefits
include improvement of existing recreational opportunities, enhancement
of water quality, and improvement of natural aesthetics.
Specifically, the project will restore and sustain approximately
22.0 acres of riparian woodland habitat, 6.0 acre of tall grass prairie
habitat, 4.0 acres of emergent wetland habitat and 16.0 acres of
aquatic habitat within a highly urbanized area. The total project cost
is estimated at $4,540,000, which will be cost-shared 65 percent
Federal Government and 35 percent City of San Marcos. The Federal share
is $2,951,000 with a local match of $1,589,000.
The only COE Section 206 projects that will now receive funding are
those that have Congressional support.
Therefore, we ask you to approve a special appropriation earmark
for $439,000 for the San Marcos River Section 206 Project to fund the
restoration. Thank you for your consideration of this project.
______
Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's recommendations for the
Army Corps of Engineers' fiscal 2007 appropriations. We understand and
appreciate that the subcommittee's ability to fund programs within its
jurisdiction is limited by the tight budget situation but appreciate
your consideration of these important programs. My name is Jimmie
Powell and I am the Director of Government Relations at the
Conservancy.
The Nature Conservancy is an international, nonprofit organization
dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is
to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent
the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they
need to survive. Our on-the-ground conservation work is carried out in
all 50 States and in 27 foreign countries and is supported by
approximately 1 million individual members. We have helped conserve
nearly 15 million acres of land in the United States and Canada and
more than 102 million acres with local partner organizations globally.
The Conservancy owns and manages approximately 1,400 preserves
throughout the United States--the largest private system of nature
sanctuaries in the world. We recognize, however, that our mission
cannot be achieved by core protected areas alone. Therefore, our
projects increasingly seek to accommodate compatible human uses, and
especially in the developing world, to address sustained human well-
being.
The Conservancy has several concerns with policies required in the
fiscal 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations bill and recommends some
revisions to those provisions. As the largest non-Federal sponsor of
ecosystem restoration projects (in numbers of projects, not total cost)
these limitations have had a significant impact on our partnership with
the Corps. The Conservancy urges the subcommittee to lift the ban on
``new starts''/project advancement, and to revise the restrictions on
re-programming of funds. The ban on ``new starts''/project advancement
has halted a number of our restoration projects which are widely
supported by local communities and important to local biodiversity. The
Conservancy also urges the subcommittee to revise the limitations on
re-programming. Several Conservancy projects, which had conference
report language indicating Congressional funding intent, had funds re-
programmed and now the Corps cannot reprogram the funds back to those
projects.
The Conservancy urges the subcommittee to support the following
appropriation levels in the fiscal 2007 Energy and Water Development
Appropriation bill:
Construction General Priorities
Section 1135: Project Modification for the Improvement of the
Environment.--The Section 1135 Program authorizes the Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to restore areas damaged by existing Corps projects.
This program permits modification of existing dams and flood control
projects to increase habitat for fish and wildlife without interrupting
a project's original purpose. This program continues to be in extremely
high demand with needs far greater than the $30 million appropriated in
fiscal 2006. This financial shortfall has stopped many important
projects. The Conservancy is the non-Federal cost share partner on six
ecologically significant Section 1135 restoration projects. These
projects include Spunky Bottoms, a floodplain restoration/reconnection
project on the Illinois River, which we seek $150,000 in fiscal 2007;
and Chain Bridge Flats, DC/MD/VA, a floodplain restoration on the
Potomac River which requires $210,000 in fiscal year 2007. In order to
further reduce the funding backlog, the Conservancy strongly encourages
a repeat of $30.0 million for the Section 1135 program in fiscal 2007,
an increase over the President's $15.0 million request.
Section 206: Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.--Section 206 is a newer
Corps program that authorizes restoration of aquatic habitat regardless
of past activities. This is another popular restoration program with
demand far exceeding the $30 million appropriated for fiscal year 2006.
The Conservancy is the non-Federal cost-share partner on 11 Section 206
projects. These projects restore important fish and wildlife habitats.
Ecologically significant projects for which the Conservancy is the non-
Federal sponsor include: Mad Island, TX, a coastal restoration project
that needs $1.475 million to continue construction; and Camp Creek, OR,
a headwaters stream restoration project that needs $575,000 to continue
the feasibility study. In order to further reduce the funding backlog,
the Conservancy strongly encourages a repeat of $30 million for the
Section 1135 program in fiscal 2007 an increase over the President's
$19.9 million request.
Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program.--
The Environmental Management Program (EMP) is an important Corps
program that constructs habitat restoration projects and conducts long-
term resource monitoring of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.
The EMP operates as a unique Federal-State partnership affecting five
States (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin). The EMP
was reauthorized in WRDA 1999 with an increased authorization in the
amount of $33.2 million. The Conservancy supports full funding of $33.2
million for fiscal year 2007, an increase over the President's $27.0
million request.
Estuary Habitat Restoration Program.--The Estuary Habitat
Restoration Program was established with the intent to restore 1
million acres of estuary habitat by 2010. This multi-agency program
will promote projects that result in healthy ecosystems that support
wildlife, fish and shellfish, improve surface and groundwater quality
and quantity, provide flood control; and provide outdoor recreation
opportunity. The Conservancy supports the President's $5.0 million
request for fiscal year 2007.
South Florida Everglades Ecosystem Restoration Program.--The
Everglades are home to a profusion of bird species, with 347 species
recorded within Everglades National Park alone. The ecosystem provides
breeding habitat for roseate spoonbills, snail kite, southern bald
eagle, Cape sable seaside sparrow, wood stork, white ibis, glossy ibis
and 11 species of egrets and herons. Beginning 60 years ago, the Corps
began building projects for human benefit that shunted water away from
the Everglades. Many factors, including these flood control projects
and agricultural and urban development, have contributed to the
reduction and degradation of the wetlands ecosystem. Restoration of
this globally significant region is a priority for the Conservancy. The
Conservancy requests $207 million in the South Florida Everglades
Ecosystem Restoration Program in fiscal year 2007. This program
includes the following suite of restoration programs:
--Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park ($35
million).--This project balances fresh water crossing Tamiami
Trail and entering the park. Completing this project is a
pressing concern to restore habitat and stave off the danger of
an estuarine collapse in Florida Bay.
--Critical Projects Construction ($15 million).--This special program
is made up of nine projects that are critical to the future of
the entire ecosystem's restoration. Fiscal year 2007 projects
will include completion of construction on the Lake Okeechobee
Water Retention Areas and Ten Mile Creek projects and
continuing construction on the Seminole Big Cypress project.
--Kissimmee River Restoration Construction ($50 million).--This
project involves restoring water-level fluctuations and
seasonal discharges from Lakes Kissimmee, Cypress and
Hatchineha in the upper basin. This project features 22 miles
of canal backfilling and structure removal along with land
acquisition of over 100,000 acres.
--Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Project
Construction ($20 million).--Components of this plan include
aquifer storage and recovery; construction of surface water
storage reservoirs; construction of storm water treatment
areas; seepage management; removal of 240 miles of barriers to
sheet flow; and reuse of wastewater at two regional plants.
--Central and Southern Florida Project to include the C111, CERP, and
STA 1 East projects ($87 million).--This program includes the
Upper St. Johns, Manatee Protection, C-51 and STA-1E, C-111,
Miami Canal Study and 10 initial projects of the CERP. Recent
progress includes initial construction of manatee pass gates,
with all gates expected to be completed this year; completed
construction on the C-51 and transfer of operations to the
South Florida Water Management District; and continuing design
for the next phase of buffer construction for the C-111
project.
General Investigation Priorities
Savannah Basin Comprehensive Water Resources Study.--The Savannah
Basin Comprehensive Water Resources Study will enable the Corps and
other partners to gain a better understanding of the influence of
hydrologic processes such as timing, duration, frequency, magnitude,
and rate of change of river flows on the river's ecology. The Nature
Conservancy, under a cooperative agreement funded by the Corps and its
cost share partners, Georgia and South Carolina, developed a set of
ecosystem flow recommendations for the Savannah River Basin. A test
release of the new flow recommendation was conducted March 15-18, 2004
and again in fall 2005. The Conservancy supports $250,000 in fiscal
year 2007. This study is not included in the President's budget.
Willamette River Floodplain Study.--This project will contribute to
the long-term restoration of floodplain habitat in the Willamette River
Basin, an important step toward the recovery of several threatened fish
species listed under the Endangered Species Act. The restoration
efforts associated with the Willamette River Floodplain Restoration
Study, including increasing floodplain connectivity and replanting
riparian forests, will contribute to the Corps' ability to reduce river
temperatures and meet their obligations under the Clean Water Act. This
project also leverages a unique national partnership between the Corps
and the Conservancy, the Sustainable Rivers Project, to improve dam
management in order to protect the ecological health of rivers and
surrounding natural areas while continuing to provide services such as
flood control and power generation. The Conservancy supports $436,000
in fiscal year 2007. This study is not included in the President's
budget.
Operations and Maintenance Priorities
Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery.--The Missouri River has
an extensive and diverse array of aquatic and terrestrial systems that
have had a dominant influence on the basin's biological diversity. A
predictable yet dynamic interaction of aquatic and terrestrial
ecological processes support more than 500 species of mussels, fish,
amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. The Corps has completed 30
projects along the river in the lower four States (Iowa, Kansas,
Missouri and Nebraska) resulting in over 40,000 acres of restored
aquatic and floodplain habitat. The Missouri River Fish and Wildlife
Recovery Program will not only enhance these restoration efforts, but
complement protection and restoration efforts by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Department
of Defense, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Park Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service in
the entire river basin. Three species dependent on the Missouri River
are federally-listed as endangered or threatened, two are candidates
for Federal listing, and at least eight are species of special concern
to State or Federal fish and wildlife management agencies. The
Conservancy supports an appropriation in the amount of $85.0 million in
fiscal year 2007.
Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's
comments on the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. We recognize that
you receive many worthy requests for funding each year and appreciate
your consideration of these requests and the generous support you have
shown for these and other conservation programs in the past. If you
have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ouachita River Valley Association
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, thank you
for the opportunity to present this testimony. The Ouachita-Black
Navigation Project is the backbone of much of the economy of our region
supporting employment, municipal water supplies, recreation, wildlife
habitat and conservation of the endangered Sparta Aquifer. The Project
was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1950 and modified by the
River and Harbor Act of 1960. The 337-mile Ouachita-Black Navigation
System is the only commercially navigable waterway serving the 11
Parishes and Counties in northeast Louisiana and Southeast Arkansas.
As a nonprofit organization, the Ouachita River Valley Association
has worked with private enterprise and governments at the Federal,
State, and local levels for more than 100 years to encourage
investments in projects that are economically sound, socially justified
and enhance the general welfare of the people in the Ouachita River
basin in Arkansas, Louisiana, and the Nation.
Mr. Chairman, we are grateful for the $13.9 million appropriated in
fiscal year 2006 that is permitting significant lock maintenance to be
performed for the first time in several years. This work is crucial
since all project benefits depend upon the adequacy of the four small
locks and dams (84 feet by 600 feet) that have been in place for up to
30 years without adequate maintenance.
The lack of investment in routine maintenance on Ouachita-Black
Navigation Project is symptomatic of infrastructure problems throughout
the country as was tragically demonstrated during the hurricanes of
2005 which passed on both sides of the Ouachita Basin.
We submit our funding request in three major categories for your
consideration. The first and foremost need is that of Operations and
Maintenance, General (O&M) funding; second is the need for funding for
stabilization of eroding banks that are endangering existing public and
private infrastructure; and the third is funding for a study to
identify and document the contributions of this waterway to the Nation
and the region it serves in Louisiana and Arkansas.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL
Historical funding shortfalls for Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
are seriously threatening the reliability and dependability of the
Ouachita-Black Navigation System. The waterway is an important
industrial/agricultural economic generator, vital transportation
artery, irreplaceable source for municipal, industrial and agricultural
water supplies, a vast recreational asset and natural resource
preservation project serving this region and the Nation. These many
benefits depend upon safe and reliable operation of four locks and dams
and periodic channel maintenance work. Programmed maintenance has been
demonstrated to be and is intuitively more economical than breakdown
maintenance. Economic losses from service failures brought about by
long-term system closures are magnified by unscheduled and more costly
``break down'' repairs.
An ominous concern specific to the Ouachita-Black System is the
inability to dewater the locks to inspect critical lock components and
to repair them in a timely manner without long and costly outages.
Absent the stoplog slots, a failure of the lock miter gates and other
underwater components as a result of deterioration or a marine accident
will require months or years to repair as compared to weeks with a
working stoplog system. Jonesville Lock was modified with stoplog slots
in fiscal year 2004 to provide this capability. However, funding
provided in fiscal year 2005 was insufficient to continue this work at
the three upstream structures. Work is continuing this year at Columbia
Lock and Dam and with the requested funding for fiscal year 2007 work
can continue upstream to Felsenthal Lock and Dam. We strongly urge and
recommend that the highest priority be given to continuation of the
stoplog slot installation program followed closely with inspection and
repair of the critical components that have not been maintained for 30
years.
--Request is made for $14.0 million for routine operations,
continuation of the stoplog slot modification program, repair
of critical components, initiation of preventive maintenance
work, and channel maintenance dredging. This amount is well
below the $17.25 million identified as the capability of the
Corps of Engineers to perform in fiscal year 2007.
CONSTRUCTION GENERAL, BANK STABILIZATION
The Ouachita River continues to erode the most vulnerable banks
with annually rising and falling river stages. The rate and degree of
this attack has increased and is now endangering critical public
infrastructure such as levees and State highways. Levees have been
``set back'' at several locations in the past year and bank caving is
occurring on the shoulders of Louisiana State Highways 8 and 124. The
most severe threat from this erosion is to the levees protecting the
cities of Columbia and Monroe. Studies conducted by the Tensas Basin
Levee District indicate damages from a failed levee at flood stage
would result in damages up to $2 billion with extensive residential and
business flooding, and rupture of transportation features such as the
municipal airport and Interstate Highway 20.
Protection of infrastructure such as levees, roads and bridges,
ports, as well as historical sites is best and most economically
provided by judicious hardening or stabilizing the banks of the river.
A Corps of Engineers Status Report identified numerous caving sites the
length of the river to Remmel Dam and prioritized them for protection.
In absence of project authorization, appropriation action is requested.
Prevention of damages is more economical than repair and replacement.
--Request is made for $5.0 million for bank protection at the highest
priority sites. Proposed Bill and Report language are attached.
general investigations, post-construction benefit study
Investment in our Nation's resources should be an integral part of
our national defense strategy and receive this level of consideration
in the national budget. Water resource infrastructure is the backbone
of production in the Nation and our means to competitiveness in the
global economy. Development and redevelopment of these resources
utilizing Federal funds should be thoroughly evaluated and justified on
the basis of sound investments. This requires study and evaluation
periodically to ensure the maximum return on the public investment.
Difficulty in providing acceptable evidence of waterway benefits
frequently casts unwarranted doubt on the advisability of funding
specific water resource projects. Efforts to abandon significant
portions of the national waterway infrastructure based on narrowly
defined, short-term measures of value or outdated uses based on 30-
year-old data will almost always result in unintended consequences.
Such is the case with the argument that ``low use waterways or
tributaries should be abandoned'' budget-wise for the main-stem
waterways. Analysis of Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center data by
Institute for Water Resources and TVA reveals that 68 percent of cargo
tonnage and 56 percent of waterway ton-miles are generated on tributary
streams. The consequence of this action would be a decrease in benefits
of the main-stem waterways while increasing the cost of the Nation's
transportation. The ancillary benefits such as water supply, recreation
and conservation generated in connection with navigation projects are
perhaps even greater than transportation benefits and should be
determined in greater detail through basin specific studies. Such a
study is needed for the Ouachita-Black Navigation Project and the
basin.
--Funds in the amount of $250,000 are requested to conduct a post-
construction benefit evaluation of the Ouachita-Black
Navigation System to provide a basis for future levels of
investments.
SUMMATION
Mr. Chairman we appreciate the opportunity to bring these issues to
the attention of the committee and to add our voice to those working to
strengthen our Nation through wise investment in our natural resources
from which springs our wealth. Investments by the Federal Government in
the Ouachita-Black Navigation System have and are continuing to make a
significant difference in the lives of the people residing in the
valley while contributing to the Nation at-large. For this we are
grateful. We urge the Congress through its power of the budget to
continue maintaining through very modest investments this important
component of the national waterway infrastructure. Proposed Bill and
Report Language are enclosed for bank stabilization work.
BILL LANGUAGE
Ouachita and Black Rivers Bank Stabilization, Arkansas and Louisiana
``Provided further, That using the funds appropriated herein, the
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is
authorized and directed to design and construct bank stabilization
measures, at Federal expense with local sponsors providing necessary
lands, easements, and rights of way, along the Ouachita and Black
Rivers, Arkansas and Louisiana, between mile 0 on the Black River,
Louisiana, to mile 460 on the Ouachita River, Arkansas at the outlet of
Remmel Dam, such measures to be constructed as the Secretary determines
necessary to maintain navigation, for flood damage prevention, for
control of erosion and for historic preservation.''
REPORT LANGUAGE
Ouachita and Black Rivers Bank Stabilization, Arkansas and Louisiana
``The Committee is aware of the severe bank caving and erosion
occurring along the Ouachita and Black Rivers, Arkansas and Louisiana,
between mile 0 on the Black River, Louisiana, to mile 460 on the
Ouachita River, Arkansas at the outlet of Remmel Dam and has included
bill language directing the Corps of Engineers to use funds provided,
to design and construct bank stabilization measures, at Federal expense
with local sponsors providing necessary lands, easements, and rights of
way, along the Ouachita and Black Rivers, Arkansas and Louisiana, as
the Secretary determines necessary to maintain navigation, for flood
damage prevention, for control of erosion, and for historical
preservation.''
______
Prepared Statement of the Red River Valley Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Wayne Dowd, and
pleased to represent the Red River Valley Association as its President.
Our organization was founded in 1925 with the express purpose of
uniting the Citizens of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas to
develop the land and water resources of the Red River Basin, Enclosure
1.
The Resolutions contained herein were adopted by the Association
during its 81st Annual Meeting in Bossier City, Louisiana, on February
24, 2006, and represent the combined concerns of the citizens of the
Red River Basin area as they pertain to the goals of the Association,
Enclosure 2.
The President's budget included $4.733 billion for the civil works
programs. Even though it is the largest budget provided by any
administration it is $596 million less than what was appropriated in
fiscal year 2006, $5.329 billion (11.2 percent reduction). The problem
is also how the funds are distributed. A few projects received their
full ``Corps Capability'' to the detriment of many projects that
received no funding. The $4.733 billion level does not come close to
the real needs of our Nation. A more realistic funding level to meet
the requirements for continuing the existing needs of the civil works
program is $6.5 billion in fiscal year 2007. The traditional civil
works programs remain at the low, unacceptable level as in past years.
These projects are the backbone to our Nation's infrastructure for
waterways, flood control, water supply and ecosystem restoration. We
remind you that civil works projects are a true ``jobs program'' in
that up to 85 percent of project funding is contracted to the private
sector, 100 percent of the construction, as well as much of the
architect and engineering work. Not only do these projects provide
jobs, but provide economic development opportunities for our
communities to grow and prosper, creating permanent jobs.
There are several policy changes proposed by the administration
that we have concerns with.
Major rehabilitation projects were moved from the CG account to O&M
account. When you take out these major rehab projects the O&M proposed
budget is actually $53 million less than fiscal year 2006. They have
``disguised'' an actual reduction in O&M project funding.
They also propose to continue using the Inland Waterway Trust Fund
(ITWF) to fund 50 percent of the major rehab projects that were moved
to O&M. The IWTF was authorized for CG projects, not O&M. If this is
allowed, it will then be easy to recommend that all O&M funding be
taken from the IWTF and this can never be allowed to happen.
The proposed reduction in GI from $162 million enacted last year,
to $94 million, proposed this year, is of concern. When you stop
funding studies you assume the economy will stop growing, since you are
preparing less projects for the future. Nobody is a proponent for a
weak economy. There is also the danger of the Corps losing their
planning expertise.
Another proposal allocates O&M funding by region and eliminates
funding by individual project. We do not accept this concept since you
will lose ownership and identity of each project; therefore, losing
grass root support. If this was done, due to reprogramming constraints,
then reprogramming should be addressed. Major reprogramming issues are
with CG projects, not with O&M projects.
We want to express our concern for ``fully funded'' contracts. It
is possible that the Corps will have a carryover that exceeds $1
billion. Our fear is that this will be viewed as the Corps unable to
execute their budget and be allocated less in following years. Another
serious consequence is that it neglects the workload distribution of
Corps Districts. Are we prepared to consolidate and close down
Districts that do not have a workload to support their current work
force?
The Corps of Engineers should not be micromanaged and should have
less restrictive reprogramming authority. They need to be able to
manage their budget and projects in a way that best serves the needs of
the Nation.
In the past we have worked hard to ``add'' funding to the Energy
and Water Bill for the Water projects. We want to bring to your
attention that in fiscal year 1998 the Water projects received
approximately 20 percent of the total bill. Over the last 8 years the
Water portion has steadily decreased to only 16.6 percent of the total
bill in fiscal year 2005 and increased slightly to 17.4 percent in
fiscal year 2006. The Nation's Energy program is very important, but we
believe the Water program is too. We ask that the subcommittee on
Energy and Water and the full Appropriations Committee support bringing
the Water ``share'' of the bill back to the 20 percent level it once
was.
The inland waterway tributary rivers continue to face scrutiny on
what determines a successful waterway. This has an impact on the
operations and maintenance funding a waterway receives. Using criteria
that only considers tons, actually moved on the waterway, neglects the
main benefit that justified the original waterway project,
transportation cost savings. Currently there is no criteria used to
consider ``water compelled rates'' (competition with rail). We know
that there are industries not using our waterway because rail rates
were reduced, to match the waterborne rates, the same year our waterway
became operational. If the operation of our waterway were terminated
the rail rates would increase. Many industries have experienced great
``national'' transportation savings without using the waterway, which
is why the project was authorized.
The main problem is that there is no ``post-project'' evaluation
for navigation projects. We support the development of such an
evaluation and volunteer the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway and our
efforts to develop one. Such an evaluation could be made once every 5
years to insure the waterway continues to meet the determined criteria.
We also believe any evaluation adopted must have input from and be
validated by the administration, Congress and industry. Too much money
has been expended to use an evaluation that is unfair and disregards
the true benefits realized from these waterway projects.
I would now like to comment on some of our specific requests for
the future economic well-being of the citizens residing in the four-
State Red River Basin regions.
Navigation.--The J. Bennett Johnston Waterway is living up to the
expectations of the benefits projected. We are extremely proud of our
public ports, municipalities and State agencies that have created this
success. This upward ``trend'' in usage will continue as new industries
commence operations. At the Port of Shreveport-Bossier ``Steelscape''
will be operational in April 2006 processing steel, eventually
employing 250 people and moving 500,000 tons per year on the Waterway.
A major power company, CLECO, is investing $1 billion in its Rodemacher
Plant near Boyce, Louisiana, on the lower Red River and is expected to
move over 3 million tons of Coal and ``petroleum coke'' by 2009.
Groundbreaking is set this year for an Edison-Chouest facility, a
shipbuilder of offshore support vessels, at the Port of Shreveport-
Bossier. These three projects are a reality and there are many more
customers considering using our Waterway.
You are reminded that the Waterway is not complete, 6 percent
remains to be constructed, $121 million. We appreciate Congress's
appropriation level in fiscal year 2006 of $13 million, however, the
President's fiscal year 2007 budget drastically cuts that to $1.5
million, which is unacceptable. There is a capability for $18.5 million
of work, but we realistically request $13 million to keep the project
moving toward completion.
Now that the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway is reliable year round we
must address efficiency. Presently a 9-foot draft is authorized for the
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway. All waterways below Cairo, Illinois are
authorized at 12-foot, to include the Mississippi River, Atchafalaya
River, Arkansas River and Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. A 12-foot channel
would allow an additional one-third capacity, per barge, which will
greatly increase the efficiency of our Waterway and further reduce
transportation rates. This one action would have the greatest, positive
impact to reduce rates and increase competition, bringing more
industries to use waterborne transportation. We request a 1-year
reconnaissance study be funded to evaluate this proposal, at a cost of
$100,000. Fact: Approximately 95 percent is already at 12-foot year
round.
The feasibility study to continue navigation from Shreveport-
Bossier City, Louisiana, into the State of Arkansas will be completed
in calendar year 2006. There is great optimism that the study will
recommend a favorable project; however, the administration must
consider the benefit analysis by modern day criteria, not by 25-year-
old standards. Benefit analysis is by administration policy and they
can consider benefits that impact society today. This region of SW
Arkansas and NE Texas continues to suffer major unemployment and this
navigation project, although not the total solution, will help
revitalize the economy. We request funding of $400,000 to initiate
planning, engineering and design, PED.
Bank Stabilization.--One of the most important, continuing
programs, on the Red River is bank stabilization in Arkansas and North
Louisiana. We must stop the loss of valuable farmland that erodes down
the river and interferes with the navigation channel. In addition to
the loss of farmland is the threat to public utilities such as roads,
electric power lines and bridges; as well as increased dredging cost in
the navigable waterway in Louisiana.
These bank stabilization projects are compatible with subsequent
navigation into Arkansas and we urge that they be continued in those
locations designated by the Corps of Engineers to be the areas of
highest priority. We appreciated the Congressional funding in fiscal
year 2006 and request you fund this project at a level of $10 million
in fiscal year 2007.
Flood Control.--The recent events in New Orleans have demonstrated
what will happen when we ignore our levee systems. We know the Arkansas
Red River Levees do not meet Federal standards, which is why we have
the authorized project, Red River Below Denison Dam, TX, AR & LA. Now
is the time to bring these levees up to standards, before a major flood
event, which will occur.
We continue to consider flood control a major objective and request
you continue funding the levee rehabilitation projects ongoing in
Arkansas. Five of eleven levee sections have been completed and brought
to Federal standards. Appropriations of $10 million will construct two
more levee sections in Lafayette County, AR.
The levees in Louisiana have been incorporated into the Federal
system; however, they do not meet current safety standards. These
levees do not have a gravel surface roadway, threatening their
integrity during times of flooding. It is essential for personnel to
traverse the levees during a flood to inspect them for problems.
Without the gravel surface the vehicles will cause rutting, which can
create conditions for the levees to fail. A gravel surface will insure
inspection personnel can check the levees during the saturated
conditions of a flood. Funding has been appropriated in the past and
approximately 50 miles of levees in the Natchitoches Levee District
will be completed this year. We request $2 million to continue this
important project in other Louisiana Parishes.
Water Quality.--Nearly 3,500 tons of natural salts, primarily
sodium chloride, enter the upper reaches of the Red River each day,
rendering downstream waters unusable for most purposes. The Truscott
Brine Lake project, which is located on the South Fork of the Wichita
River in King and Knox Counties, Texas became operational in 1987. An
independent panel of experts found that the project not only continues
to perform beyond design expectations in providing cleaner water, but
also has an exceptionally favorable benefit-to-cost ratio.
The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), in October 1998,
agreed to support a re-evaluation of the Wichita River Basin tributary
of the project. The re-evaluation report was completed and the Director
of Civil Works signed the Environmental Record of Decision. The plan
was found to be economically justified. This year the ASA (CW) directed
that construction would not proceed until a local sponsor was found to
assume 100 percent of the O&M for the project. We strongly disagree
with this position, since the current local sponsor signed a
cooperation agreement that did not include responsibility for O&M, no
project documents require this and the project truly benefits four
States. This makes it unreasonable to place the O&M burden on one local
sponsor. Since 1987 the Federal Government has funded over $1.5 million
per year for O&M on the existing features of the project. We support
language that directs 100 percent of the O&M and construction
responsibility be federally funded. Completion of this project will
reclaim Lake Kemp as a usable water source for the City of Wichita
Falls, Sheppard AFB and the region.
This project will provide improved water quality throughout the
four States of the Red River providing the opportunity to use surface
water and reduce dependency on ground water. We request appropriations
of $2,500,000 to continue the Wichita River features in Texas.
Over the past year there has been a renewed interest by the Lugart-
Altus Irrigation District to evaluate construction of Area VI, of the
Chloride Control Project, in Oklahoma. They have obtained the support
of many State and Federal legislators, as well as a letter from the
Oklahoma Governor in support of a re-evaluation report. We request an
appropriation of $1,625,000 to continue with this effort.
Water Supply.--Lake Kemp, just west of Wichita Falls, TX, is a
major water supply for the needs of this region. Due to siltation the
available storage of water has been impacted. A $750,000 reallocation
study is needed to determine water distribution needs and raising the
conservation pool. $375,000 is needed in fiscal year 2007. Since
$207,000 is required for the base annual O&M of Lake Kemp, a Total O&M
of $582,000 is requested for fiscal year 2007.
Operation & Maintenance.--Full O&M capability levels are not only
important for our Waterway project but for all our Corps projects and
flood control lakes. The backlog of critical maintenance only becomes
worse and more expensive with time. We urge you to appropriate funding
to address this serious issue at the expressed full Corps capability.
We are sincerely grateful to you for the past support you have
provided our projects. We hope that we can count on you again to fund
our needs and complete the projects started that will help us diversify
our economy and create the jobs so badly needed by our citizens. We
have included a summary of our requests for easy reference, Enclosure
2.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony and project
details of the Red River Valley Association on behalf of the
industries, organizations, municipalities and citizens we represent
throughout the four-State Red River Valley region. The Civil Works
program directly relates to national security by investing in economic
infrastructure. If waterways are closed companies will not relocate to
other parts of the country--they will move overseas. If we do not
invest now there will be a negative impact on our ability to compete in
the world market threatening our national security.
ENCLOSURE 1
RED RIVER VALLEY ASSOCIATION
The Red River Valley Association is a voluntary group of citizens
bonded together to advance the economic development and future well-
being of the citizens of the four-State Red River Basin area in
Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas.
For the past 81 years, the Association has done notable work in the
support and advancement of programs to develop the land and water
resources of the Valley to the beneficial use of all the people. To
this end, the Red River Valley Association offers its full support and
assistance to the various Port Authorities, Chambers of Commerce, Levee
and Drainage Districts, Industry, Municipalities and other local
governing entities in developing the area along the Red River.
The Resolutions contained herein were adopted by the Association
during its 81st Annual Meeting in Bossier City, Louisiana on February
24, 2006, and represent the combined concerns of the citizens of the
Red River Basin area as they pertain to the goals of the Association,
specifically:
--Economic and Community Development;
--Environmental Restoration;
--Flood Control;
--Bank Stabilization;
--A Clean Water Supply for Municipal, Industrial and Agricultural
Uses;
--Hydroelectric Power Generation;
--Recreation; and,
--Navigation.
The Red River Valley Association is aware of the constraints on the
Federal budget, and has kept those constraints in mind as these
Resolutions were adopted. Therefore, and because of the far-reaching
regional and national benefits addressed by the various projects
covered in the Resolutions, we urge the members of Congress to review
the materials contained herein and give serious consideration to
funding the projects at the levels requested.
ENCLOSURE 2
RED RIVER VALLEY ASSOCIATION FISCAL YEAR 2007 APPROPRIATIONS--CIVIL WORKS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year RRVA 2007 President
2006 Approp Request 2007 Budget Local Sponsor Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Studies (GI):
Continue Navigation into SW Arkansas: 150 400 ........... (ARRC)
Feasibility Study.
Red River Waterway, LA--12 foot ........... 100 ........... N/A
Channel, Recon Study.
Bossier Parish, LA.................... 75 258 ........... Bossier Levee
Cross Lake, LA Water Supply Supplement 99 252 ........... (Shreveport)
Mangum Lake, OK....................... ........... 59 ........... .............................
Southeast Oklahoma Water Resource 40 300 ........... (OWRB)
Study: Feasibility.
Washita River Basin, OK, Watershed 50 195 ........... (?)
Rehab: Recon Study.
SW Arkansas Ecosystem Restoration: 100 400 ........... (L)
Recon Study.
Mountain Fork River Watershed, OK & ........... ........... ........... (?)
AR, Recon Study.
Red River Above Denison Dam, TX & OK: ........... 100 ........... (L)
Recon Study.
Red River Waterway, Index, AR to ........... ........... ........... (?)
Denison Dam, Recon.
Wichita River Basin Study, TX......... ........... 100 ........... .............................
Construction General (CG):
Red River Waterway:
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.. 13,000 18,500 1,500 .............................
Index to Denison Reach, Bendway ........... ........... ........... (?)
Weir Demo Project (Note: Need
language for full federally
funded project).
Chloride Control Project:
Wichita River, TX................. 1,125 2,500 ........... .............................
Area VI, OK....................... 375 1,625 ........... .............................
Red River Below Denison Dam........... 3,000 10,000 ........... .............................
Levee Rehabilitation, AR.......... ........... ........... ........... .............................
Bowie County Levee, TX............ ........... ........... ........... .............................
Upgrade Levees, LA................ ........... ........... ........... .............................
Rehabilitate Levee Structures, LA. ........... ........... ........... .............................
Red River Emergency Bank Protection... 3,200 10,000 ........... .............................
Big Cypress Valley Watershed, TX: 530 500 ........... .............................
Section 1135.
McKinney Bayou, AR, PED............... ........... ........... ........... .............................
Little River County/Ogden Levee, AR, ........... 200 ........... 100 (ASWC)
PED.
Millwood, Grassy Lake, AR: Section 100 125 ........... (?)
1135.
Operation and Maintenance (O&M):
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA...... 11,804 21,000 10,542 .............................
Lake Kemp, TX Reallocation Study...... ........... 582 ........... .............................
Lake O' the Pines Dam, TX............. ........... 250 ........... .............................
Mississippi River & Tributaries (MR&T):
Old River Lock:
Old River Lock Structure.......... 9,690 10,000 9,747 .............................
Old River Lock Oxbow Dredging..... ........... 600 ........... .............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Local Sponsor Column--Sponsor indicated in ( ); (?) indicates No Sponsor Identified and need one to
continue. (L) indicates Sponsor not required now, but need one for feasibility; Blank--No Sponsor required.
______
Prepared Statement of the Calaveras County Water District
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Requests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSGROVE CREEK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT (Construction $100,000
General)...............................................
NEW HOGAN LAKE REOPERATION STUDY (General 200,000
Investigations)........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALAVERAS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Calaveras County (County) is located in the central Sierra Nevada
foothills about 25 miles east of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
(Delta). Ground elevations within the County increase from 200 feet
above mean sea level near the northwest part of the County to 8,170
feet near Alpine County. It is a predominately rural county with a
relatively sparse but rapidly developing population and limited
agricultural and industrial development. Calaveras County is located
within the watersheds of the Mokelumne, Calaveras, and Stanislaus
Rivers.
All three of these rivers flow west, running through San Joaquin
County into the Delta. Most of the County is underlain by the igneous
and metamorphic rocks of the Sierra Nevada. Alluvial deposits of the
Central Valley, which overlie the westward plunging Sierra Nevada, are
present along an 80-square-mile area located along the western edge of
the county and are part of the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin
(ESJCGB).
In the fall of 1946, the Calaveras County Water District (CCWD) was
organized under the laws of the State of California as a public agency
for the purpose of developing and administering the water resources in
Calaveras County. Therefore, CCWD is a California Special District and
is governed by the California Constitution and the California
Government and Water Codes. CCWD is not a part of, or under the control
of, the County of Calaveras. CCWD was formed to preserve and develop
water resources and to provide water and wastewater service to the
citizens of Calaveras County.
Under State law, CCWD, through its board of directors, has general
powers over the use of water within its boundaries. These powers
include, but are not limited to: the right of eminent domain, authority
to acquire, control, distribute, store, spread, sink, treat, purify,
reclaim, process and salvage any water for beneficial use, to provide
sewer service, to sell treated or untreated water, to acquire or
construct hydroelectric facilities and sell the power and energy
produced to public agencies or public utilities engaged in the
distribution of power, to contract with the United States, other
political subdivisions, public utilities, or other persons, and subject
to the California State Constitution, levy taxes and improvements.
COSGROVE CREEK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
The Cosgrove Creek Flood Control Project will address flooding that
occurs along the lower reaches of the creek, as well as flooding that
occurs on Spring Creek. Flooding in these areas impacts over 400 people
and 100 structures located in the 100-year floodplain. Within the
context of the flood control effort, the project will also address
options for the beneficial use of peak flows and address other local
concerns such as the need for recreational opportunities in the area.
The Calaveras County Water District respectfully requests $100,000
for this project in fiscal year 2007 from the Corps of Engineers
Construction General account.
NEW HOGAN LAKE REOPERATION STUDY
Funding for this project is needed to continue the study effort by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to examine other project purposes
including water uses efficiency, ecosystem restoration and recreation.
The New Hogan Lake Reoperation Study continues the study effort
initiated under Section 205 for reoperation of the New Hogan Reservoir
and for the Corps to look at other project purposes including water use
efficiency, ecosystem restoration and recreation.
The Calaveras County Water District respectfully requests $200,000
from the Corps of Engineers General Investigations Account to continue
this study effort.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of St. Helena, California
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Requests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ST. HELENA COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT (General $450,000
Investigations)........................................
UPPER YORK CREEK DAM REMOVAL AND RESTORATION PROJECT 1,600,000
(Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Program)....
ST. HELENA NAPA RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT (Section 206 350,000
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Program).................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF ST. HELENA
The City of St. Helena is located in the center of the wine growing
Napa Valley, 65 miles north of San Francisco. The area was settled in
1834 as part of General Vallejo's land grant. The City of St. Helena
was incorporated as a city on March 24, 1876 and reincorporated on May
14, 1889.
The City of St. Helena is a General Law City and operates under the
Council-City Manager form of government. St. Helena is a full service
city and encompasses an area of 4 square miles. The City Council is the
governing body and has the power to make and enforce all laws and set
policy related to municipal affairs. The official population of the
City of St. Helena as of January 1, 2003 is 6,041. Because of its size
and its rural nature, St. Helena has serious infrastructure, as well
as, flood protection and environmental needs that far exceed its
financial capabilities.
The city from its inception has served as a rural agricultural
center. Over the years, with the growth and development of the wine
industry, the city has become an important business and banking center
for the wine industry. The city also receives many tourists as a result
of the wine industry. While, the main goal of the city is to maintain a
small-town atmosphere and to provide quality services to its citizens,
this is becoming increasingly difficult. Regulatory, administrative and
resource requirements placed on the city through the listing of
threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act on
the Napa River, as well as significant Clean Water Act requirements
require the city with a small population base to face significant
financial costs.
The Napa River flows along the east boundary of the City of St.
Helena in northern Napa County. The overall Napa River Watershed
historically supported a dense riparian forest and significant wetland
habitat. Over the last 200 years, approximately 6,500 acres of valley
floor wetlands have been filled in and 45,700 acres of overall
watershed have been converted to urban and agricultural uses. This
degradation of natural habitats has had a significant effect on water
quality, vegetation and wildlife, and aquatic resources within the Napa
River Watershed.
Surface water quality of the Napa River is dependent upon time of
year, runoff from York and Sulphur Creeks, and urban area discharges.
During the winter months when stream flow is high, pollutants are
diluted; however, sedimentation and turbidity is high as well. During
the summer months when stream flow is low, pollutants are concentrated
and oxygen levels are low, thereby decreasing water quality.
Agricultural runoff adds pesticides, fertilizer residue, and sometimes
sediment. Discharges from urban areas can include contaminated
stormwater runoff and treated city wastewater. The Napa River has been
placed on the Clean Water Act 303(d) list and TMDL Priority Schedule
due to unacceptable levels of bacteria, sedimentation, and nutrients.
It is against this backdrop that the City of St. Helena faces its
biggest challenges.
ST. HELENA COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
The project site is on the City of St. Helena in Napa County,
California (County), along the Napa River and adjacent areas. Within
and adjacent to this reach of the River, the city proposes various
flood control components, ranging from widening the floodplain and
constructing new floodwalls and levee, to relocating homes. An
additional component includes flood protection at the Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) south of the city.
With this project, the City of St. Helena seeks to develop and
implement a plan that will reduce damage resulting from Napa River
flooding in a manner that is economically feasible, acceptable from a
public policy standpoint, and environmentally sensitive. In particular,
the city wishes to reduce flooding in a manner that will result in
overall improvement to the health of the ecosystem in the project
reach.
The project will re-connect the Napa River to its historic
floodplain, thereby reducing water surface elevations through the area
by several feet, avoiding large flood control structures and
canalization, and would provide 100-year flood protection to the area.
It will also restore habitat of the natural floodplain terraces,
including riparian and aquatic habitat. Within and adjacent to this
reach of the River, the city proposes various flood control components,
ranging from widening the floodplain and constructing new floodwalls
and levee, to relocating homes. The St. Helena Comprehensive Project
will also restore native plant and tree communities through re-
vegetation efforts.
The City of St. Helena respectfully requests the committee's
support for $450,000 under the Corps of Engineers General
Investigations Account.
UPPER YORK CREEK DAM REMOVAL AND RESTORATION PROJECT
The Upper York Creek Watershed originates at the western side of
the Napa Valley watershed and the creek flows through a narrow canyon
before joining the Napa River at a 225-foot elevation.
This project will improve fish passage and ecological stream
function for the York Creek, a key Napa River Tributary. The project
will open an additional 2 miles of steelhead habitat upstream from the
current dam location by removing an earthen dam and accumulated
sediment necessary to restore fish passage to provide unimpeded
upstream adult and downstream juvenile fish passage.
Revegetation, as part of the project, will restore a self-
sustaining native plant community that will help exclude non-native
invasive species.
The City of St. Helena respectfully requests the committee's
support for $1,600,000 under the Corps of Engineers Section 206 Aquatic
Ecosystem Restoration Program to design and initiate construction under
a design build contract in fiscal year 2007.
ST. HELENA NAPA RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT
The Napa River and its riparian corridor are considered Critical
Habitat for Steelhead and Salmon recovery. The Steelhead is one of six
Federally-listed threatened and endangered species within the Napa
River and its adjoining tributaries which requires attention. Current
conditions are such that natural habitats and geomorphic processes of
the Napa River are highly confined with sediment transport and
geomorphic work occurring in a limited area of the streambed and
channel banks. Napa River's habitat for the steelhead is limited in its
ability to provide prime spawning habitat. Limitations include
urbanization removing significant amounts of shading and cover
vegetation within and adjacent to the river; and a detrimental lack of
pool habitat.
In an effort to address these Federal environmental issues, the St.
Helena Napa River Restoration Project, a Section 06 Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration Project, was identified in the Napa Valley Watershed
Management Feasibility Study of April 2001 as a specific opportunity
for restoration.
This project will develop riparian planting regimes to maximize
habitat values for species, in particular, steelhead, California
Freshwater Shrimp and young salmon.
This project will address the lack of shading and cover vegetation
along the river which has impaired the river's ability to serve as a
critical habitat for many different species of fish and wildlife. It is
necessary to ensure and improve the viability of Federal and State
listed species by providing rearing, resident and migratory habitat in
the project's 3-mile stream corridor. The project will also work to
improve area habitat to benefit the migration of steelhead to high
value fisheries habitat in upper watershed channel reaches.
The City of St. Helena respectfully requests $350,000 in fiscal
year 2007 funding from the Corps of Engineers Section 206 Aquatic
Ecosystem Restoration Program to complete the feasibility study. This
study will recommend actions not only for maximizing habitat for
species by removing obstacles and hard bank stabilization, but to
implement improvements to in-stream habitat such as woody debris,
boulders and establishment of pools.
______
Prepared Statement of the California State Coastal Conservancy
SUMMARY
The following testimony is in support of the California State
Coastal Conservancy's fiscal year 2007 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations request. The Conservancy respectfully requests needed
funding for the following critical projects: $11.7 million for the
Hamilton Bel-Marin Keys Wetland Restoration Project, Army Corps of
Engineers, Construction General; $2 million for the South San Francisco
Bay Shoreline Study, Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations;
$550,000 for the Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration Project, Army Corps
of Engineers, General Investigations; $18 million for the Upper Newport
Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project, Army Corps of Engineers,
Construction General and $100,000 for the Redwood Creek Restoration
Project, Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations.
CONSERVANCY BACKGROUND
The California Coastal Conservancy, established in 1976, is a State
agency that uses entrepreneurial techniques to purchase, protect,
restore, and enhance coastal resources, and to provide access to the
shore. We work in partnership with local governments, other public
agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private landowners.
To date, the Conservancy has undertaken more than 950 projects
along the 1,100 mile California coastline and around San Francisco Bay.
Through such projects, the Conservancy: protects and improves coastal
wetlands, streams, and watersheds; works with local communities to
revitalize urban waterfronts; assists local communities in solving
complex land-use problems and protects agricultural lands and supports
coastal agriculture to list a few of our activities.
Since its establishment in 1976, the Coastal Conservancy has:
helped build more than 300 access ways and trails, thus opening more
than 80 miles of coastal and bay lands for public use; assisted in the
completion of over 100 urban waterfront projects; joined in partnership
endeavors with more than 100 local land trusts and other nonprofit
groups, making local community involvement an integral part of the
Coastal Conservancy's work and completed projects in every coastal
county and all nine San Francisco Bay Area counties. In addition, we
currently have over 300 active projects that are benefiting the
citizens of California.
HAMILTON BEL-MARIN KEYS WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
In fiscal year 2007 the California Coastal Conservancy is seeking
$11.7 million, consistent with Corps of Engineers' capability, for the
continued construction of this project.
This project is of critical importance as it will provide nearly
700 acres of restored tidal and seasonal wetlands at a former Army
base, in Marin County, California and provide much needed habitat for
several threatened and endangered species; as well as, shorebirds and
waterfowl migrating along the Pacific Flyway. In addition, this project
beneficially uses dredged material from the San Francisco Bay which
provides for increased navigation and maritime commerce for the Bay
Area, a much needed economic stimulus for the region.
The first phase of construction, which started last year, is taking
place on the former Army Airfield. Miles of levees are currently under
construction, after which the main runway and taxiways will be buried
under millions of cubic yards of clean dredged sediment. Subsequently,
the easterly levee will be breached allowing tidal waters to once again
flood the site. Later in the project, the Corps will work on the
adjacent Antenna field and Bel Marin Keys V property (subject to WRDA
approval) resulting in a total project area of nearly 2,500 acres. This
phased approach will be used to complete the design and construction
tasks in conjunction with the availability of land and dredged
material.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE STUDY
The Conservancy is seeking $2,000,000 in funding in order to
continue the Feasibility Study for this project. The study was
initiated in fiscal year 2005 and has been ongoing, receiving $600,000
in funds in fiscal year 2006.
This project is of national significance as it will create the
largest restored wetland on the west coast of the United States and
will provide extensive habitat for federally endangered species and
migratory waterfowl. In addition, the project is also critical to the
region as it will provide tidal and fluvial flood protection for the
South San Francisco Bay Area protecting approximately 42,800 acres,
7,400 homes and businesses, and significant urban infrastructure, to
include major highways, hospitals and airport facilities.
In order to continue to advance this important study it is
imperative that local interests and the Federal Government work
together to ensure a reliable funding stream for the project. In
accordance, substantial cost-sharing has already begun among the land
management agencies. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contributed $8
million toward the $100 million acquisition of the salt ponds. The
State of California provided $72 million and the Hewlett Foundation,
Packard Foundation, Moore Foundation, and Goldman Fund provided $20
million. The foundations are providing an additional $15 million for
restoration planning and $9 million for land management. The State of
California is providing $8 million for planning and $6 million for land
management.
NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH
For fiscal year 2007, we are seeking $550,000 in Federal funds in
order to complete Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED) for this
project which will allow construction to commence as soon as the
project is authorized by Congress. Last year, $125,000 was appropriated
to the Corps of Engineers for PED activities.
The funds requested would allow the Corps of Engineers to complete
design of the Napa River Salt Marsh Project. Upon authorization of the
project in WRDA, the Corps will be able to construct the project.
Construction of the project will provide extensive benefits to the
region, to include: providing extensive wetland habitat in San
Francisco Bay; the beneficial use for recycled water in the North Bay;
improve open space and recreational opportunities; and resolve urgent
issues associated with deterioration of the site's levee, water control
structures, and water quality.
The 10,000 acre Napa River Salt Marsh was purchased by the State of
California from Cargill in 1994 and is managed by the California
Department of Fish and Game. The State Coastal Conservancy has been the
non-Federal sponsor working with the Corps on the Feasibility Study.
The Corps' Feasibility Study was completed and the Chief's Report was
signed in December of 2004. Preconstruction Engineering and Design is
currently taking place with construction commencing once the project is
authorized in WRDA.
UPPER NEWPORT BAY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
In fiscal year 2007, we are seeking $18 million in funding to
complete construction and avoid cost increases and project delays.
Upper Newport Bay, one of the largest remaining tidal wetlands in
Southern California, provides significant habitat for numerous
federally endangered species, migratory waterfowl and shorebirds along
the Pacific Flyway, and anadromous fish and other aquatic species. To
ensure the long-term viability of this diverse salt marsh ecosystem as
well as the stability of the region's ecosystem, the Army Corps of
Engineers and the County of Orange developed the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Restoration Project, which was authorized in the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000.
The project will address the habitat conversion resulting from
sedimentation in the upper bay, increase the quantity and quality of
wetlands habitat, improve water quality by reducing sediment inflows
and algal blooms and preserve both Federal and local navigational
channels, which if unaddressed will require costly maintenance
dredging.
A construction contract was awarded in September 2005 and
construction is underway. The available funds (Federal and non-Federal)
will be expended by late summer 2006. The funding request of $18
million for fiscal year 2007 will complete construction of this project
and avoid cost increases from re-mobilizing equipment and inflation.
REDWOOD CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
For fiscal year 2007, we are seeking $100,000 to initiate a
reconnaissance study of the flood control project.
The Redwood Creek Federal Flood Control Project was originally
completed by the Corps of Engineers in 1968, however since the
completion of the project very few resources have been dedicated to its
management and maintenance and as a result the project is now in need
of overdue maintenance to key infrastructure. Despite this fact,
ecological concerns make project restoration to design standards
prohibitively expensive and legally infeasible.
The $100,000 in requested funding will facilitate a reconnaissance
study of the flood control project in order to allow the Army Corps of
Engineers to compile and analyze all prior hydrologic and ecological
research done on the project area. In addition, the study will bring
together local, State, and Federal stakeholders to understand the best
opportunities available for enhancement of the flood control and
natural areas in the lower river and estuary of Redwood Creek.
The project will provide numerous local and national benefits. For
example, the estuary's proximity to the Redwood National and State
Parks provides an excellent opportunity to enhance Federal park
resources while improving flood control for the community of Orick
while provide substantial rearing habitat for numerous federally
endangered species.
______
Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago
On behalf of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater
Chicago (District), I want to thank the subcommittee for this
opportunity to present our priority for fiscal year 2007 and, at the
same time, express our appreciation for your support of the District's
projects in the years past. The District is the local sponsor for the
Corps of Engineers priority projects of the Chicagoland Underflow Plan:
the O'Hare, McCook and Thornton Reservoirs. We are requesting the
subcommittee's full support for McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, as the
O'Hare Reservoir has been completed. Specifically, we request the
subcommittee to support the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request
of $45,000,000 from the Army Corps of Engineers Construction, General
account in the fiscal year 2007 Energy and Water appropriations bill.
The following text outlines these projects and the need for the
requested funding.
THE CHICAGOLAND UNDERFLOW PLAN
The Chicagoland Underflow Plan (CUP) consists of three reservoirs:
the O'Hare, McCook and Thornton Reservoirs. These reservoirs are a part
of the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP). The O' Hare Reservoir Project
was fully authorized for construction in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662) and completed by the Corps
in fiscal year 1999. This reservoir is connected to the existing O'Hare
segment of the TARP. Adopted in 1972, TARP was the result of a multi-
agency effort, which included officials of the State of Illinois,
County of Cook, City of Chicago, and the District.
TARP was designed to address the overwhelming water pollution and
flooding problems of the Chicagoland combined sewer areas. These
problems stem from the fact that the capacity of the area's waterways
has been overburdened over the years and has become woefully inadequate
in both hydraulic and assimilative capacities. These waterways are no
longer able to carry away the combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges
nor are they able to assimilate the pollution associated with these
discharges. Severe basement flooding and polluted waterways (including
Lake Michigan, which is the source of drinking water for millions of
people) is the inevitable result. We point with pride to the fact that
TARP was found to be the most cost-effective and socially and
environmentally acceptable way for reducing these flooding and water
pollution problems. Experience to date has reinforced such findings
with respect to economics and efficiency.
The TARP plan calls for the construction of the new ``underground
rivers'' beneath the area's waterways, connected to large CSO storage
reservoirs. The ``underground rivers'' are tunnels up to 35 feet in
diameter and 350 feet below the surface. All 109.4 miles of the tunnels
have just recently been completed. The tunnels capture the majority of
the pollution load by capturing all of the small storms and the first
flush of the large storms.
The completed O'Hare CUP Reservoir provides 350 million gallons of
storage. This Reservoir has a service area of 11.2 square miles and
provides flood relief to 21,535 homes in Arlington Heights, Des Plaines
and Mount Prospect. The Thornton and McCook Reservoirs are currently
under construction, but until and unless they are completed,
significant areas will remain unprotected. Without these reservoirs as
outlets, the local drainage has nowhere to go when large storms hit the
area.
Since its inception, TARP has not only abated flooding and
pollution in the Chicagoland area, but has helped to preserve the
integrity of Lake Michigan. In the years prior to TARP, a major storm
in the area would cause local sewers and interceptors to surcharge
resulting in CSO spills into the Chicagoland waterways and during major
storms into Lake Michigan, the source of drinking water for the region.
Since these waterways have a limited capacity, major storms have caused
them to reach dangerously high levels resulting in massive sewer
backups into basements and causing multi-million dollar damage to
property.
Since implementation of TARP, 823 billion gallons of CSOs have been
captured by TARP, that otherwise would have reached waterways. Area
waterways are once again abundant with many species of aquatic life and
the riverfront has been reclaimed as a natural resource for recreation
and development. Closure of Lake Michigan beaches due to pollution has
become a rarity. After the completion of both phases of TARP, 99
percent of the CSO pollution will be eliminated. The elimination of
CSOs will reduce the quantity of discretionary dilution water needed to
keep the area waterways fresh. This water can be used instead for
increasing the drinking water allocation for communities in Cook, Lake,
Will and DuPage counties that are now on a waiting list to receive such
water. Already, these counties have received millions of gallons of
additional Lake Michigan water per day, partially as a result of the
reduction in the District's discretionary diversion since 1980.
Additional allotments of Lake Michigan water will be made to these
communities, as more water becomes available from reduced discretionary
diversion.
With new allocations of lake water, many communities that
previously did not get lake water are in the process of building, or
have already built, water mains to accommodate their new source of
drinking water. The new source of drinking water will be a substitute
for the poorer quality well water previously used by these communities.
Partly due to TARP, it is estimated by IDOT that between 1981 and 2020,
283 million gallons per day of Lake Michigan water would be added to
domestic consumption. This translates into approximately 2 million
additional people that would be able to enjoy Lake Michigan water. This
new source of water supply will not only benefit its immediate
receivers but will also result in an economic stimulus to the entire
Chicagoland area by providing a reliable source of good quality water
supply.
THE MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS
The McCook and Thornton Reservoirs of the Chicagoland Underflow
Plan (CUP) were fully authorized for construction in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-676). These CUP
reservoirs, as previously discussed, are a part of TARP, a flood
protection plan that is designed to reduce basement flooding due to
combined sewer back-ups and inadequate hydraulic capacity of the urban
waterways.
These reservoirs will provide annual benefits of $115 million. The
total expected annual benefits of these projects are approximately
twice as much as their total annual costs. The District, as the local
sponsor, has acquired the land necessary for these projects, and will
meet its cost sharing obligations under Public Law 99-662.
These projects are a very sound investment with a high rate of
return. The remaining benefit/cost ratio for these two reservoirs
together is 3.0. They will enhance the quality of life, safety and the
peace of mind of the residents of this region. The State of Illinois
has endorsed these projects and has urged their implementation. In
professional circles, these projects are hailed for their
farsightedness, innovation, and benefits.
Based on two successive Presidentially-declared flood disasters in
our area in 1986 and again in 1987, and severe flooding in the last
several years, we believe the probability of this type of flood
emergency occurring before implementation of the critical flood
prevention measure is quite high. As the public agency for the greater
Chicagoland area responsible for water pollution control, and as our
past sponsorship for flood control projects, we have an obligation to
protect the health and safety of our citizens. We are asking your
support in helping us achieve this necessary and important goal of
construction completion.
We have been very pleased that over the years the subcommittee has
seen fit to include critical levels of funds for these important
projects. We were delighted to see the $27,500,000 in construction
funds for the McCook and Thornton Reservoirs included in the Energy and
Water Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006. However, it is
important that we receive a total of $45,000,000 in construction funds
in fiscal year 2007 to maintain the commitment and finish these
projects. This funding is critical in order to construct the McCook
Reservoir Stage 1 Grout Curtain, Stage 2 Slurry Wall, and Stage 1 Rock
Wall Stabilization Contracts and to continue the engineering design of
other McCook and Thornton Reservoir projects. The community has waited
long enough for protection and we need these funds now to move the
project in construction. We respectfully request your consideration of
our request.
SUMMARY
To emphasize the area's plight, I would like to relate a flooding
event that occurred when just under 4 inches of rain fell on the
greater Chicagoland area. Due to the frozen ground, almost all of the
rainfall entered our combined sewers, causing sewerage back-ups
throughout the area. When the existing TARP tunnels filled with
approximately 1.2 billion gallons of sewage and runoff, the only
remaining outlets for the sewers were our waterways. Between 9:00 p.m.
and 3:00 a.m., the Chicago and Calumet Rivers rose 6 feet. For the
first time since 1981 we had to open the locks at all three of the
waterway control points; these include Wilmette, downtown Chicago, and
Calumet. Approximately 4.2 billion gallons of combined sewage and
stormwater had to be released directly into Lake Michigan.
Given our large regional jurisdiction and the severity and
regularity of flooding in our area, the Corps was compelled to develop
a plan that would complete the uniqueness of TARP and be large enough
to accommodate the area we serve. With a combined sewer area of 375
square miles, consisting of the city of Chicago and 51 contiguous
suburbs, there are 1,443,000 structures within our jurisdiction, which
are subject to flooding at any given time. The annual damages sustained
exceed $150 million. With the TARP CUP Reservoirs in place, these
damages could be eliminated. We must consider the safety and peace of
mind of the 2 million people who are affected as well as the disaster
relief funds that will be saved when these projects are in place. As
the public agency in the greater Chicagoland area responsible for water
pollution control, and as the regional sponsor for flood control, we
have an obligation to protect the health and safety of our citizens. We
are asking your support in helping us achieve this necessary and
important goal. It is absolutely critical that the Corps' work, which
has been proceeding for a number of years, now proceeds on schedule
through construction.
Therefore, we urgently request that a total of $45,000,000 in
construction funds be made available in the fiscal year 2007 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act to continue construction of the
McCook and Thornton Reservoir Projects.
Again, we thank the subcommittee for its support of this important
project over the years, and we thank you in advance for your
consideration of our request this year.
______
Prepared Statement of the Napa County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Requests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAPA RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT (Construction, General) $31,000,000
NAPA RIVER DREDGING PROJECT (Operation and Maintenance, 3,172,800
General)...............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (District), I want to thank the subcommittee for this
opportunity to present our priorities for fiscal year 2007 and, at the
same time, express our appreciation for your support of the District's
projects in the years past. The District is the local sponsor for the
Corps of Engineers award-winning Napa River Flood Control project and
we are requesting the subcommittee's full support of this project to
ensure that it stays on schedule. Specifically, we request the
subcommittee to support our request of $31,000,000 from the Army Corps
of Engineers Construction, General account for the Napa River Flood
Control Project. We are also seeking $3,172,800 for the maintenance
dredging of the Napa River from the Army Corps of Engineers (Operation
and Maintenance, General account). The following text outlines these
projects and the need for the requested funding.
NAPA RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
Background
In the last 50 years, 19 floods have struck the Valley region,
exacting a heavy toll in loss of life and property.
Cleanup and claims processing continues today from the most recent
disaster, a massive flood that began in the overnight hours of December
30, 2005. This most recent event is estimated to have caused some $70
million in damage within the City of Napa--with the vast majority of
that damage in areas that will be protected by the project that is
currently under construction.
The flood in 1986 killed three people and caused more than $100
million in damage in 1986 dollars. Damages throughout Napa County
totaled about $85 million from the January and March 1995 floods. The
floods resulted in 27 businesses and 843 residences damaged
countrywide. Almost all of the damages from the 1986, 1995, and 1997
floods were within the project area.
Congress had authorized a flood control project in 1965, but due to
expense, lack of public consensus on the design and concern about
environment impacts, a project had never been realized. In mid-1995,
Federal and State resource agencies reviewed the plan and gave notice
to the Corps that this plan had significant regulatory hurdles to face.
The project is located in the city and county of Napa, California.
The population in the city of Napa, approximately, 67,000 in 1994, is
expected to exceed 77,000 this year. Excluding public facilities, the
present value of damageable property within the project flood plain is
well over $500 million. The Napa River Basin, comprising 426 square
miles, ranging from tidal marshes to mountainous terrain, is subject to
severe winter storms and frequent flooding. In the lower reaches of the
river, flood conditions are aggravated by local runoff. Floods in the
Napa area have occurred in 1955, 1958, 1963, 1965, 1986 (flood of
record), 1995, 1997 and 2005. In 1998, the river rose just above flood
stage on three occasions, but subsided before major property damage
occurred. In December of 2002, flooding occurred from the Napa Creek at
the transition to the Napa River, resulting in damage to numerous
residents and several businesses.
Approved Plan--Project Overview
In an effort to identify a meaningful and successful plan, a new
approach emerged that looked at flood control from a broader, more
comprehensive perspective. Citizens for Napa River Flood Management was
formed, bringing together a diverse group of local engineers,
architects, aquatic ecologists, business and agricultural leasers,
environmentalists, government officials, homeowners and renters and
numerous community organizations.
Through a series of public meetings and intensive debate over every
aspect of Napa's flooding problems, the Citizens for Napa River Flood
Management crafted a flood management plan offering a range of benefits
for the entire Napa region. The Corps of Engineers served as a partner
and a resource for the group, helping to evaluate their approach to
flood management. The final plan produced by the Citizens for Napa
River Flood Management was successfully evaluated through the research,
experience and state-of-the-art simulation tools developed by the Corps
and numerous international experts in the field of hydrology and other
related disciplines. The success of this collaboration serves as a
model for the Nation.
Acknowledging the river's natural state, the project utilizes a set
of living river strategies that minimize the disruption and alteration
of the river habitat, and maximizes the opportunities for environmental
restoration and enhancement throughout the watershed.
The Corps has developed the revised plan, which provides 100-year
protection, with the assistance of the community and its consultants
into the Supplemental General Design Memorandum (SGDM) and its
accompanying draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report (SEIS/EIR). Construction of the project began 2 years ago. The
coalition plan now memorialized in the Corps final documents includes
the following engineered components: lowering of old dikes, marsh plain
and flood plain terraces, oxbow dry bypass, Napa Creek flood plain
terrace, upstream and downstream dry culverts along Napa Creek, new
dikes, levees and flood walls, bank stabilization, pump stations and
detention facilities, and bridge replacements. The benefits of the plan
include reducing or elimination of loss of life, property damage,
cleanup costs, community disruption due to unemployment and lost
business revenue, and the need for flood insurance. In fact, the
project has created an economic renaissance in Napa with new
investment, schools and housing coming into a livable community on a
living river. As a key feature, the plan will improve water quality,
create urban wetlands and enhance wildlife habitats.
The plan will protect over 7,000 people and over 3,000 residential/
commercial units from the 100-year flood event on the Napa River and
its main tributary, the Napa Creek, and the project has a positive
benefit-to-cost ratio under the Corps calculation. One billion dollars
in damages will be saved over the useful life of the project. The Napa
County Flood Control District is meeting its local cost-sharing
responsibilities for the project. A countywide sales tax, along with a
number of other funding options, was approved 4 years ago by a two-
thirds majority of the county's voters for the local share. Napa is
California's highest repetitive loss community. This plan is
demonstrative of the disaster-resistant community initiative, as well,
as the sustainable development initiatives of FEMA and EPA.
NAPA RIVER DREDGING PROJECT
The Napa River navigation project was authorized by the Rivers and
Harbors Acts of 1888, 1935, and 1946.
The Napa River is a shallow draft navigation channel which serves
light commercial and recreational traffic. The project is normally
dredged by the Corps of Engineers on a 6-year cycle, with the most
recent dredging being completed in 1998. This dredging is 2 years
overdue and is causing not only impediment to commercial activity but
posing major obstacles for construction of the project from the river.
Maintenance dredging is required to restore depths required for
existing traffic and in anticipation of the additional boat traffic
resulting from replacement of Maxwell Bridge. The Napa County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District is responsible for providing a
suitable disposal site for the dredged material.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Arlington, Texas
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the City
of Arlington, Texas, I am pleased to submit this statement for the
record in support of our request for funding in the amount of $7.8
million in the fiscal year 2007 Appropriation Bill for Energy and Water
Development to support the city's continued efforts to reduce flood
damage, improve public safety, reduce erosion and sedimentation, and
enhance wildlife habitat and passive recreation within the Johnson
Creek corridor through Arlington, Texas.
PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Johnson Creek, a tributary of the Trinity River, has been the topic
of extensive study by the Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the City of
Arlington, Texas (city) since the early 1980's due to a history of
flooding, extensive erosion and sedimentation, recreational challenges
and opportunities, and important wildlife habitat.
In 1990, the Corps proposed to address flooding by planning and
allocating funds to channelize and line with concrete substantial
stretches of Johnson Creek. The city rejected this plan on the grounds
that it provided flood relief at the expense of recreational
opportunities, wildlife habitat and economic development. The city
adopted in 1997 a more holistic alternative called the Johnson Creek
Corridor Plan that received wide community support but was not
fundable. In 1999, the Corps prepared an Interim Feasibility Report and
Integrated Environmental Assessment for Johnson Creek in Arlington. The
document recommended a National Economic Development (NED) Plan for
flood damage reduction that also addressed the city's desires for
enhanced wildlife habitat and recreation in the Johnson Creek corridor.
In 2000, the city adopted the Corps' 1999 plan to purchase homes within
the floodplain of Johnson Creek, create linear parks with trails, and
acquire and restore open space for wildlife habitat and recreation.
In 2004, subsequent to the city's contract with the Corps, the city
entered into a partnership with the Dallas Cowboys to build a new
football stadium adjacent to the Texas Rangers' venue and land
purchased and restored as part of the 1999 plan. In 2005, the Corps'
1999 plan was amended to remove approximately 90 acres of city-owned
land north of Union Pacific Railroad tracks.
During ecological investigations associated with design and master
plan development of the football stadium, a number of critical issues
arose that the 1999 plan (as amended in 2005) only partially addressed.
The city realized that a holistic, watershed approach, in conjunction
with maximizing the use of on-site best management practices (BMPs),
would be required to truly address flooding, water quality, and
wildlife habitat/recreation issues at Johnson Creek. The challenge was
that deviations from 1999 plan, which largely has been implemented,
require explicit authorization from Congress.
In March 2006, the city prepared a watershed conservation plan
entitled Johnson Creek: A Vision of Conservation that modifies the
1999/2005 authorized plan. The modified plan allows the city to: (1)
implement and modify, if necessary, unfinished components of the 1999/
2005 plan; (2) design and construct new bank stabilization, flood
control, recreation, and habitat restoration projects on public lands
and easements along Johnson Creek; (3) acquire and/or receive
reimbursement for an additional 90 acres of environmental lands within
Trinity River and/or Rush/Village Creek floodplain; and (4) obtain
reimbursement for new acquisitions, if desired, and for the use of city
parks for funded Federal projects.
Total project cost to implement the modified plan is estimated at
$79,997,666, including contingency. This includes $30,000,000 in sunk
costs for completed Johnson Creek projects.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The modified plan is divided into a minimum of two phases as
summarized below:
Phase 1 includes property between the Union Pacific railroad tracks
between Division Street and Abram Street to the northerly Rangers'
Pond. Phase 1 was selected for a variety of reasons as follow: (1)
There is adequate open space for regional flood control; (2) the
riparian corridor has high potential for restoration to improve
wildlife habitat, water quality, and recreational opportunities; (3)
the property is owned by the city; (4) a significant portion of
existing environmental stresses, particularly erosion and
sedimentation, occur within this area; (4) the city has identified this
area as an entertainment district; and (5) this area includes the
future Dallas Cowboys stadium, the existing Texas Rangers stadium, and
a future Arlington, Texas town center. These developers have all agreed
to provide matching money for the city to improve the green space
within this corridor for environmental benefits listed above. Phase 1
work will provide the catalyst and inspiration for future work
throughout the remainder of the watershed.
Phase 1 work is all new work and includes constructing a major
flood control detention basin between the Union Pacific railroad tracks
and Division Street; constructing a detention/sedimentation basin just
west of the Stone Gate Mobile Park; restoring the south Rangers' pond
to a stream; bank stabilization and creek restoration; modifying the
north Rangers' ponds to maximize detention; installing two pedestrian
bridges across Johnson Creek; providing trails and other passive
recreational amenities; and enhancing remaining green space for
wildlife habitat.
Phase 2 includes the Johnson Creek corridor between Union Pacific
railroad tracks and Vandergriff Park, and 90 acres of environmental
land within Trinity River and/or Rush/Village Creek floodplain. Within
the Johnson Creek corridor, Phase 2 work will occur within three main
areas. At Vandergriff and Meadowbrook Parks, proposed activities
include creating a detention/sedimentation basin; restoring eroded
creek banks and creek restoration; enhancing passive recreational
opportunities using trails and other amenities; and enhancing wildlife
habitat. The third area includes the restoration of two tributaries of
Johnson Creek on either side of the main stem, between Sanford Street
and Randol Mill Road. Possible acquisition of three homes between
Collins Street and Park Row Avenue may also occur as part of Phase 2.
The city has long recognized that the ecological health of Johnson
Creek and its contributing watershed are inextricably tied to the
quality of life of its residents. In this light, the city hopes to
develop a stronger link between its residents and its natural
surroundings by restoring the creek, and, in doing so, revitalizing the
community. Immediate local benefits include flood damage protection,
habitat restoration, improved water quality and public health,
increased access to Johnson Creek for passive recreation, elevated
community pride, and economic redevelopment. The project complements
larger, regional efforts to improve water quality and maximize the
function of floodplain communities in the Trinity River watershed.
Nearly all local benefits also contribute to statewide water quality,
stormwater management, flood control, and environmental planning
efforts by the North Central Texas Council of Government, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Corps
of Engineers, Texas Parks and Wildlife, and Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality.
FUNDING NEEDS
The modified plan, which includes completed components of the 1999/
2005 plan and new Johnson Creek projects as described above, has a
total estimated cost of $79,997,666, of which 35 percent will be
provided by the city.
For fiscal year 2007, the City of Arlington, Texas is seeking $7.8
million from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Programs account through
your Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Santa Clara Valley Water District
UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT--SANTA CLARA COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
SUMMARY
This statement urges the committee's support a fiscal year 2007
administration budget request of $319,000 to complete the feasibility
study for the Upper Penitencia Creek Flood Protection Project.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
Background.--The Upper Penitencia Creek Watershed is located in
northeast Santa Clara County, California, near the southern end of the
San Francisco Bay. In the last 2 decades, the creek has flooded in
1980, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1995, and 1998. The January 1995 flood damaged
a commercial nursery, a condominium complex, and a business park. The
February 1998 flood also damaged many homes, businesses, and surface
streets.
The proposed project on Upper Penitencia Creek, from the Coyote
Creek confluence to Dorel Drive, will protect portions of the cities of
San Jose and Milpitas. The floodplain is completely urbanized;
undeveloped land is limited to a few scattered agricultural parcels and
a corridor along Upper Penitencia Creek. Based on an August 2004 U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Economics Analysis, over 5,000 homes
and businesses in the cities of San Jose and Milpitas are located in
the 1 percent or 100-year flood area. Flood damages were estimated at
$455 million. Benefit-to-cost ratios for the nine project alternatives
range from 2:1 to 3.1:1.
Study Synopsis.--Under authority of the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83-566), the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) completed
an economic feasibility study (watershed plan) for constructing flood
damage reduction facilities on Upper Penitencia Creek. Following the
1990 U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Bill, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service watershed plan stalled due to the very high ratio
of potential urban development flood damage compared to agricultural
damage in the project area.
In January 1993, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District)
requested the Corps proceed with a reconnaissance study in the 1994
fiscal year while the Natural Resources Conservation Service plan was
on hold. Funds were appropriated by Congress for fiscal year 1995 and
the Corps started the reconnaissance study in October 1994. The
reconnaissance report was completed in July 1995, with the
recommendation to proceed with the feasibility study phase. The
feasibility study, initiated in February 1998, is currently scheduled
for completion in 2007.
Advance Construction.--To accelerate project implementation, the
District submitted a Section 104 application to the Corps for approval
to construct a portion of the project. The application was approved in
December 2000. The advance construction is for a 2,600-foot-long
section of bypass channel between Coyote Creek and King Road. However,
due to funding constraints at the District and concerns raised by
regulatory agencies, the design was stopped and turned over to the
Corps to complete.
Fiscal Year 2006 Funding.--$628,000 was appropriated in fiscal year
2006 for the Upper Penitencia Creek Flood Protection Project for
project investigation.
Fiscal Year 2006 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
congressional committee support the administration's fiscal year 2007
budget request of $319,000 for the Upper Penitencia Creek Flood
Protection Project to continue the Feasibility Study.
COYOTE/BERRYESSA CREEK PROJECT, BERRYESSA CREEK PROJECT ELEMENT--SANTA
CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SUMMARY
This statement urges the committee's support for a fiscal year 2007
appropriation add-on of $2 million to complete with the General
Reevaluation Report and update of environmental documents for the
Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project element of the Coyote/
Berryessa Creek Project.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
Background.--The Berryessa Creek Watershed is located in northeast
Santa Clara County, California, near the southern end of the San
Francisco Bay. A major tributary of Coyote Creek, Berryessa Creek
drains 22 square miles in the City of Milpitas and a portion of San
Jose.
On average, Berryessa Creek floods once every 4 years. The most
recent flood in 1998 resulted in significant damage to homes and
automobiles. The proposed project on Berryessa Creek, from Calaveras
Boulevard to upstream of Old Piedmont Road, will protect portions of
the Cities of San Jose and Milpitas. The flood plain is largely
urbanized with a mix of residential and commercial development. Based
on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 2005 report, a 1 percent or
100-year flood could potentially result in damages exceeding $179
million. Benefit-to-cost ratios for the six project alternatives being
evaluated range from 2:1 to 7.3:1.
Study Synopsis.--In January 1981, the Santa Clara Valley Water
District (District) applied for Federal assistance for flood protection
projects under Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act. The Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 authorized construction on the
Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project as part of a combined Coyote/
Berryessa Creek Project to protect portions of the Cities of Milpitas
and San Jose.
The Coyote Creek element of the project was completed in 1996. The
Berryessa Creek Project element proposed in the Corps' 1987 feasibility
report consisted primarily of a trapezoidal concrete lining. This was
not acceptable to the local community. The Corps and the District are
currently preparing a General Reevaluation Report which involves
reformulating a project which is more acceptable to the local community
and more environmentally sensitive. Project features will include
setback levees and floodwalls to preserve sensitive areas (minimizing
the use of concrete), appropriate aquatic and riparian habitat
restoration and fish passage, and sediment control structures to limit
turbidity and protect water quality. The project will also accommodate
the City of Milpitas' adopted trail master plan. Estimated total costs
of the General Reevaluation Report work are $5 million, and should be
completed in the spring of 2007.
Fiscal Year 2006 Funding.--$375,000 was appropriated in fiscal year
2006 for the Coyote/Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project to
continue the General Reevaluation Report and environmental documents
update.
Fiscal Year 2007 Funding Recommendation.--Based on the continuing
threat of significant flood damage from Berryessa Creek and the need to
continue with the General Reevaluation Report, it is requested that the
congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $2 million
for the Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project element of the Coyote/
Berryessa Creek Project.
UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER PROJECT--SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SUMMARY
This statement urges the committee's support for a fiscal year 2007
appropriation add-on of $8.5 million to complete final design and
continue construction for the Upper Guadalupe River Flood Protection
Project.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
Background.--The Guadalupe River is one of two major waterways
flowing through a highly urbanized area of Santa Clara County,
California, the heart of Silicon Valley. Historically, the river has
flooded the central district and southern areas of San Jose. According
to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 1998 feasibility study, severe
flooding would result from a 100-year flooding event and potentially
cause $280 million in damages.
The probability of a large flood occurring before implementation of
flood prevention measures is high. The upper Guadalupe River overflowed
in March 1982, January 1983, February 1986, January 1995, March 1995,
and February 1998, causing damage to several residences and businesses
in the Alma Avenue and Willow Street areas. The 1995 floods in January
and March, as well as in February 1998, closed Highway 87 and the
parallel light-rail line, a major commute artery.
Project Synopsis.--In 1971, the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(District) requested the Corps reactivate an earlier study of Guadalupe
River. From 1971 to 1980, the Corps established the economic
feasibility and Federal interest in the Guadalupe River only between
Interstate 880 and Interstate 280. Following the 1982 and 1983 floods,
the District requested that the Corps reopen its study of the upper
Guadalupe River upstream of Interstate 280. The Corps completed a
reconnaissance study in November 1989, which established an
economically justifiable solution for flood protection in this reach.
The report recommended proceeding to the feasibility study phase, which
began in 1990. In January 1997, the Corps determined that the National
Economic Development (NED) Plan would be a 2 percent or 50-year level
of flood protection rather than the 1 percent or 100-year level. The
Corps feasibility study determined the cost of the locally-preferred
100-year plan is $153 million and the Corps NED 50-year plan is $98
million. The District requested that the costs of providing 50-year and
100-year flood protection be analyzed during the preconstruction
engineering design phase. The Corps is now proceeding with the
preconstruction engineering design phase and has refined the NED Plan
to address the District's comments and Endangered Species Act issues
and has reevaluated the locally-preferred plan for full Federal cost-
sharing. The findings were submitted to Corps Headquarters for approval
in March 2004 in a Limited Reevaluation Report on the Proposed Project
Modifications. This report contains an evaluation of the revised NED
Plan project and the Locally-preferred Plan project, which costs $165
million with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1:1.42 and $212 million with a
benefit-to-cost ratio of 1:1.24, respectively. The Report was approved
by the Corps in October 2005. The report recommended full cost-sharing
on the Locally-preferred Plan project. Current efforts are underway to
reauthorize the project at its current project cost in the Water
Resources Development Act of 2005 currently being considered by
Congress.
Fiscal Year 2006 Funding.--$3.5 million was authorized in fiscal
year 2006 for the Upper Guadalupe River Project to continue final
design and initiate construction.
Fiscal Year 2007 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $8.5 million
in fiscal year 2007 to complete final design and continue construction
on the Upper Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project.
THOMPSON CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT--SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SUMMARY
This statement urges the committee to support a fiscal year 2007
earmark of $400,000 within the Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration Program to continue the Thompson Creek Restoration Project.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
Background.--Thompson Creek, a tributary of Coyote Creek, flows
through the City of San Jose, California. Historically, the creek was a
naturally-meandering stream and a component of the Coyote Creek
watershed. The watershed had extensive riparian and oak woodland
habitat along numerous tributary stream corridors and upland savanna.
Currently, these habitat types are restricted to thin sparse pockets in
the Thompson Creek restoration project area.
Significant urban development over the last 20 years has modified
the runoff characteristics of the stream resulting in significant
degradation of the riparian habitat and stream channel. The existing
habitats along Thompson Creek, riparian forest stands, are threatened
by a bank destabilization and lowering of the water table. Recent large
storm events (1995, 1997, and 1998) and the subsequent wet years in
conjunction with rapid development in the upper watershed have resulted
in a succession of high runoff events leading to rapid erosion.
The upstream project limits start at Aborn Road and the downstream
project limit is Quimby Road where Thompson Creek has been modified as
a flood protection project. The project distance is approximately 1
mile.
Status.--In February 2000, the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(District) initiated discussions with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) for a study under the Corps' Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration Program. Based on the project merits, the Corps completed a
Preliminary Restoration Plan (PRP) and subsequent Project Management
Plan (PMP). After approval of the PRP the Detailed Project Report (DPR)
was initiated. The DPR will provide the information necessary to
develop plans and specifications for the construction of the
restoration project.
Project Timeline
Request Federal assistance under Sec. 206 Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration Program--Feb 2002;
Complete Preliminary Restoration Plan--Jan 2004;
Initiate Detailed Project Report (Feasibility Study)--Jan 2005;
Final Detailed Project Report to South Pacific Division of Corps--
Dec 2007;
Initiate Plans and Specifications--Jan 2008;
Project Cooperation Agreement signed--Nov 2008;
Complete Plans and Specifications--Dec 2008;
Advertise Construction Contract--Jan 2009;
Award Construction Contract--Mar 2009;
Construction Start--Apr 2009;
Complete Physical Construction--Mar 2010.
Fiscal Year 2006 Funding.--No funding was received for the project
in the fiscal year 2006.
Fiscal Year 2007 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
congressional committee support an earmark of $400,000 within the
fiscal year 2007 Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Program.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE STUDY--SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SUMMARY
This statement urges the committee's support for a fiscal year 2007
appropriation add-on of $2 million to continue a Feasibility Study to
evaluate integrated flood protection and environmental restoration for
the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
Background.--Congressional passage of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1976, originally authorized the San Francisco Bay
Shoreline Study, and Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) was
one of the project sponsors. In 1990, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) concluded that levee failure potential was low because the
existing non-Federal, non-engineered levees, which were routinely
maintained by Leslie Salt Company (subsequently Cargill Salt) to
protect their industrial interests, had historically withstood
overtopping without failure. As a result, the project was suspended
until adequate economic benefits could be demonstrated.
Since the project's suspension in 1990, many changes have occurred
in the South Bay. The State and Federal acquisition of approximately
15,000 acres of South Bay salt ponds was completed in early March 2003.
The proposed restoration of these ponds to tidal marsh will
significantly alter the hydrologic regime and levee maintenance
activities, which were assumed to be constant in the Corps' 1990 study.
In addition to the proposed restoration project, considerable
development has occurred in the project area. Many major corporations
are now located within Silicon Valley's Golden Triangle, lying within
and adjacent to the tidal flood zone. Damages from a 1 percent high
tide are anticipated to far exceed the $34.5 million estimated in 1981,
disrupting business operations, infrastructure, and residences. Also,
historical land subsidence of up to 6 feet near Alviso, as well as the
structural uncertainty of existing salt pond levees, increases the
potential for tidal flooding in Santa Clara County.
In July 2002, Congress authorized a review of the Final 1992 Letter
Report for the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study. The final fiscal year
2004 appropriation for the Corps included funding for a new start
Reconnaissance Study.
Project Synopsis.--At present, large areas of Santa Clara, Alameda
and San Mateo Counties would be impacted by flooding during a 1 percent
high tide. The proposed restoration of the South San Francisco Bay salt
ponds will result in the largest restored wetland on the West Coast of
the United States, and also significantly alter the hydrologic regime
adjacent to South Bay urban areas. The success of the proposed
restoration is therefore dependent upon adequate tidal flood
protection, and so this project provides an opportunity for multi-
objective watershed planning in partnership with the California Coastal
Conservancy, the lead agency on the restoration project. Project
objectives include: restoration and enhancement of a diverse array of
habitats, especially several special status species; tidal flood
protection; and provision of wildlife-oriented public access. A Corps
Reconnaissance Study was completed in September 2004 and the
Feasibility Study was initiated in September 2005.
Fiscal Year 2006 Funding.--$600,000 was appropriated in fiscal year
2006 to continue the Feasibility Study.
Fiscal Year 2007 Funding Request.--It is requested that the
congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $2 million
to continue the Feasibility Study to evaluate integrated flood
protection and environmental restoration.
SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
PROJECT--SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SUMMARY
This statement urges the committee's support a fiscal year 2007
appropriation add-on of $450,000 to continue a Feasibility Study of the
San Francisquito Creek Watershed.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
Background.--The San Francisquito Creek watershed comprises 45
square miles and 70 miles of creek system. The creek mainstem flows
through five cities and two counties, from Searsville Lake, belonging
to Stanford University, to the San Francisco Bay at the boundary of
East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. Here it forms the boundary between Santa
Clara and San Mateo counties, California and separates the cities of
Palo Alto from East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. The upper watershed
tributaries are within the boundaries of Portola Valley and Woodside
townships. The creek flows through residential and commercial
properties, a biological preserve, and Stanford University campus. It
interfaces with regional and State transportation systems by flowing
under two freeways and the regional commuter rail system. San
Francisquito Creek is one of the last natural continuous riparian
corridors on the San Francisco Peninsula and home to one of the last
remaining viable steelhead trout runs. The riparian habitat and urban
setting offer unique opportunities for a multi-objective flood
protection and ecosystem restoration project.
Flooding History.--The creek's mainstem has a flooding frequency of
approximately once in 11 years. It is estimated that over $155 million
in damages could occur in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties from a 1
percent flood, affecting 4,850 home and businesses. Significant areas
of Palo Alto flooded in December 1955, inundating about 1,200 acres of
commercial and residential property and about 70 acres of agricultural
land. April 1958 storms caused a levee failure downstream of Highway
101, flooding Palo Alto Airport, the city landfill, and the golf course
up to 4 feet deep. Overflow in 1982 caused extensive damage to private
and public property. The flood of record occurred on February 3, 1998,
when overflow from numerous locations caused severe, record
consequences with more than $28 million in damages. More than 1,100
homes were flooded in Palo Alto, 500 people were evacuated in East Palo
Alto, and the major commute and transportation artery, Highway 101, was
closed.
Status.--Active citizenry are anxious to avoid a repeat of February
1998 flood. Numerous watershed-based studies have been conducted by the
Corps, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, Stanford University, and
the San Mateo County Flood Control District. Grassroots, consensus-
based organization, called the San Francisquito Watershed Council, has
united stakeholders including local and State agencies, citizens, flood
victims, developers, and environmental activists for over 10 years. The
San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority was formed in 1999 to
coordinate creek activities with five member agencies and two associate
members. The Authority Board has agreed to be the local sponsor for a
Corps project and received congressional authorization for a Corps
reconnaissance study in May 2002. The Reconnaissance Study was
completed in March 2005 and the Feasibility Study was initiated in
November 2005.
Fiscal Year 2006 Funding.--$225,000 was appropriated to San
Francisquito Creek in fiscal year 2006 to initiate a Feasibility Study.
Fiscal Year 2007 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested the
congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $450,000 to
continue the Feasibility Study.
LLAGAS CREEK PROJECT--SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SUMMARY
This statement urges the committee's support for a fiscal year 2007
appropriation add-on of $618,000 for planning, design, and
environmental updates for the Llagas Creek Flood Protection Project.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
Background.--The Llagas Creek Watershed is located in southern
Santa Clara County, California, serving the communities of Gilroy,
Morgan Hill and San Martin. Historically, Llagas Creek has flooded in
1937, 1955, 1958, 1962, 1963, 1969, 1982, 1986, 1996, 1997, 1998, and
2002. The 1997, 1998, and 2002 floods damaged many homes, businesses,
and a recreational vehicle park located in areas of Morgan Hill and San
Martin. These are areas where flood protection is proposed. Overall,
the proposed project will protect the floodplain from a 1 percent flood
affecting more than 1,100 residential buildings, 500 commercial
buildings, and 1,300 acres of agricultural land.
Project Synopsis.--Under authority of the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83-566), the Natural Resources
Conservation Service completed an economic feasibility study in 1982
for constructing flood damage reduction facilities on Llagas Creek. The
Natural Resources Conservation Service completed construction of the
last segment of the channel for Lower Llagas Creek in 1994, providing
protection to the project area in Gilroy. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) is currently updating the 1982 environmental
assessment work and the engineering design for the project areas in
Morgan Hill and San Martin. The engineering design is being updated to
protect and improve creek water quality and to preserve and enhance the
creek's habitat, fish, and wildlife while satisfying current
environmental and regulatory requirement. Significant issues include
the presence of additional endangered species including red-legged frog
and steelhead, listing of the area as probable critical habitat for
steelhead, and more extensive riparian habitat than were considered in
1982. Project economics are currently being updated as directed by
Corps Headquarters to determine continued project economic viability.
Until 1996, the Llagas Creek Project was funded through the
traditional Public Law 83-566 Federal project funding agreement with
the Natural Resources Conservation Service paying for channel
improvements and the District paying local costs including utility
relocation, bridge construction, and right of way acquisition. Due to
the steady decrease in annual appropriations for the Public Law 83-566
construction program since 1990, the Llagas Creek Project had not
received adequate funding from to complete the Public Law 83-566
project. To remedy this situation, the District worked with
congressional representatives to transfer the construction authority
from the Department of Agriculture to the Corps under the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (Section 501). Since the transfer of
responsibility to the Corps, the District has been working the Corps to
complete the project. Efforts are underway to reauthorize the project
at its current project cost in the Water Resources Development Act of
2005 currently being considered by Congress.
Fiscal Year 2006 Funding.--$450,000 was appropriated in fiscal year
2006 for the Llagas Creek Flood Protection Project for planning and
design.
Fiscal Year 2007 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the high risk
of flood damage from Llagas Creek, it is requested that the
congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $618,000 in
fiscal year 2007 for planning, design, and environmental updates for
the Llagas Creek Project.
GUADALUPE RIVER PROJECT--SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SUMMARY
This statement urges the committee's support for a fiscal year 2007
administration budget request of $5 million and an appropriation add-on
of $2.5 million, for a total of $7.5 million to continue construction
of the final phase of the Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
Background.--The Guadalupe River is a major waterway flowing
through a highly developed area of San Jose, in Santa Clara County,
California. A major flood would damage homes and businesses in the
heart of Silicon Valley. Historically, the river has flooded downtown
San Jose and the community of Alviso. According to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) 2000 Final General Reevaluation & Environmental
Report for Proposed Project Modifications, estimated damages from a 1
percent flood in the urban center of San Jose are over $576 million.
The Guadalupe River overflowed in February 1986, January 1995, and
March 1995, damaging homes and businesses in the St. John and Pleasant
Street areas of downtown San Jose. In March 1995, heavy rains resulted
in breakouts along the river that flooded approximately 300 homes and
business.
Project Synopsis.--In 1971, the local community requested that the
Corps reactivate its earlier study. Since 1972, substantial technical
and financial assistance have been provided by the local community
through the Santa Clara Valley Water District in an effort to
accelerate the project's completion. To date, more than $85.8 million
in local funds have been spent on planning, design, land purchases, and
construction in the Corps' project reach.
The Guadalupe River Project received authorization for construction
under the Water Resources Development Act of 1986; the General Design
Memorandum was completed in 1992, the local cooperative agreement was
executed in March 1992, the General Design Memorandum was revised in
1993, construction of the first phase of the project was completed in
August 1994, construction of the second phase was completed in August
1996. Project construction was temporarily halted due to environmental
concerns.
To achieve a successful, long-term resolution to the issues of
flood protection, environmental mitigation, avoidance of environmental
effects, and project monitoring and maintenance costs, a multi-agency
``Guadalupe Flood Control Project Collaborative'' was created in 1997.
A key outcome of the collaborative process was the signing of the
Dispute Resolution Memorandum in 1998, which modified the project to
resolve major mitigation issues and allowed the project to proceed.
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2002 was signed into
law on November 12, 2001. This authorized the modified Guadalupe River
Project at a total cost of $226.8 million. Subsequent to the
authorization, the project cost has been raised to $251 million.
Construction of the last phase of flood protection was completed
December 2004 and a completion celebration held in January 2005. The
remaining construction consists of railroad bridge replacements and
mitigation plantings. The overall construction of the project including
the river park and the recreation elements is scheduled for completion
in 2006.
Fiscal Year 2006 Funding.--$5.6 million was authorized in fiscal
year 2006 to continue Guadalupe River Project construction.
Fiscal Year 2007 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $2.5
million, in addition to the $5 million in the administration's fiscal
year 2007 budget request, for a total of $7.5 million to continue
construction of the final phase of the Guadalupe River Flood Protection
Project.
COYOTE CREEK WATERSHED STUDY--SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SUMMARY
This statement urges the committee's support for a fiscal year 2007
appropriation add-on of $100,000 to initiate a Reconnaissance Study of
the Coyote Creek Watershed.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
Background.--Coyote Creek drains Santa Clara County's largest
watershed, an area of more than 320 square miles encompassing most of
the eastern foothills, the City of Milpitas, and portions of the cities
of San Jose and Morgan Hill. It flows northward from Anderson Reservoir
through more than 40 miles of rural and heavily urbanized areas and
empties into south San Francisco Bay.
Prior to construction of Coyote and Anderson Reservoirs, flooding
occurred in 1903, 1906, 1909, 1911, 1917, 1922, 1923, 1926, 1927, 1930
and 1931. Since 1950, the operation of the reservoirs has reduced the
magnitude of flooding, although flooding is still a threat and did
cause damages in 1982, 1983, 1986, 1995, and 1997. Significant areas of
older homes in downtown San Jose and some major transportation
corridors remain susceptible to extensive flooding. The federally-
supported lower Coyote Creek Project (San Francisco Bay to Montague
Expressway), which was completed in 1996, protected homes and
businesses from storms which generated record runoff in the northern
parts of San Jose and Milpitas.
The proposed Reconnaissance Study would evaluate the reaches
upstream of the completed Federal flood protection works on lower
Coyote Creek.
Objective of Study.--The objectives of the Reconnaissance Study are
to investigate flood damages within the Coyote Creek Watershed; to
identify potential alternatives for alleviating those damages which
also minimize impacts on fishery and wildlife resources, provide
opportunities for ecosystem restoration, provide for recreational
opportunities; and to determine whether there is a Federal interest to
proceed into the Feasibility Study Phase.
Study Authorization.--In May 2002, the House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure passed a resolution
directing the Corps to ``. . . review the report of the Chief of
Engineers on Coyote and Berryessa Creeks . . . and other pertinent
reports, to determine whether modifications of the recommendations
contained therein are advisable in the interest of flood damage
reduction, environmental restoration and protection, water conservation
and supply, recreation, and other allied purposes . . .''.
Fiscal Year 2006 Administration Budget Request and Funding.--The
Coyote Watershed Study was one of only three ``new start'' studies
proposed for funding nationwide in the administration fiscal year 2006
budget request. Congress did not include funding for the study in the
final fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill.
Fiscal Year 2007 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $100,000 to
initiate a multi-purpose Reconnaissance Study within the Coyote Creek
Watershed.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Los Angeles Board of Harbor
Commissioners and Port of Los Angeles
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony in support of full funding of the
Channel Deepening Project at the Port of Los Angeles/Los Angeles
Harbor; the largest container seaport in the United States and eighth
largest in the world. Our testimony speaks in support of a fiscal year
2007 appropriation of $12 million for the Federal share of continued
construction of the Channel Deepening Project. Proposed funding for the
Channel Deepening Project was not included in the President's fiscal
year 2007 budget because the enabling legislation enacted subsequent to
completion of the budget document. The Army Corps of Engineers has
acknowledged its capability to fully obligate a $12 million
appropriation for the project.
The Port of Los Angeles is America's busiest seaport with record
volumes of cargo moving through the 7,500-acre harbor. Its strong
performance is attributed to a solid U.S. economy and the recovering
Asian economies with a renewed manufacturing demand for American
exports. The Port itself is a major reason for the remarkable cargo
volumes. Its world-class facilities and infrastructure maximize the
``one-stop shopping'' concept of cargo transportation and delivery
favored by most shipping lines. Ocean carriers can send the majority of
their West Coast-bound cargo to Los Angeles with full confidence in the
Port's modern cargo terminals and efficient train/truck intermodal
network. The Channel Deepening Project is a critical Federal navigation
improvement project, and is the underpinning of shipping line
confidence in the Port of Los Angeles.
In the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, Congress authorized an increase in the total project cost to $222
million from $194 million, representing a Federal share of $72,000,000
and a local share of $150,000,000, in accordance with the Army Corps of
Engineers' revision. This revision accounts for credits for in-kind
services provided by the Port and other required project modifications,
including adjustments to the disposal costs for the dredged material,
adjustments for construction contract changes, and project
administration costs. The cost-share amounts for the Channel Deepening
Project is currently under review, as well as a Supplemental EIS/EIR
that will evaluate and determine the best alternative for increased
disposal capacity. Upon completion of both reviews, the new cost-
sharing amounts and the additional costs for disposal at the
recommended site(s) will be established. The need for a Supplemental
EIS/EIR has moved project completion to fiscal year 2007.
PORT NAVIGATION DEMANDS
The evolving international shipping industry prompted a
collaborative effort by the Port of Los Angeles and the Corps of
Engineers to implement the Channel Deepening Project in the early
1980's. With this project, the Port will deepen its main Federal
channel and tributary channels by 8 feet, from -45 to -53 feet Mean
Lower Low Water (MLLW), to accommodate the industry's shift to larger
container vessels. The first of these deeper-draft ships began calling
at the Port of Los Angeles in August of 2004, carrying 8,000 20-foot
equivalent units of containers (TEUs) and drafting at -50 feet.
Currently, carriers have on order more than 155 of these larger vessels
that range in size from 7,500 to 10,000 TEUs. These vessels will be
delivered at a steady pace over the next 3 years, which means that
ports unable to accommodate the bigger ships could be left out of the
surge in trade.
In addition to greater navigability for these larger ships,
deepening the Main Channel improves safety and security, shipping
efficiencies and provides beneficial use of dredged material to create
new land for future terminal development. Dredging for the project
began in early 2003 with construction scheduled for completion in 2006.
Currently, nearly 45 percent of containerized cargo entering the United
States goes/travels through the San Pedro Bay port complex. The Port of
Los Angeles, alone, handled a record 7.5 million TEUs in calendar year
2005, representing continued growth for any American seaport.
As we have testified before, cargo throughput for the San Pedro
Bay--the Port of Los Angeles in particular--has a tremendous impact on
the United States economy. We at the Port of Los Angeles cannot over-
emphasize this fact. The ability of the Port to meet the spiraling
demands of the steady growth in international trade is dependent upon
the speedy construction of sufficiently deep navigation channels to
accommodate the new containerships. These new ships provide greater
efficiencies in cargo transportation, carrying one-third more cargo
than most of the current fleet, and making more product inventory of
imported goods available to American consumers at lower prices. In
addition, exports from the United States have become more competitive
in foreign markets. However, for American seaports to keep up, they
must immediately make the necessary infrastructure improvements that
will enable them to participate in this rapidly changing global trading
arena.
Mr. Chairman, these state-of-the-art container ships represent the
new competitive requirements for international container shipping
efficiencies in the 21st Century, as evidenced by the increased volume
of international commerce. As such, we strongly urge Congress to
appropriate the $12 million for fiscal year 2007 that will enable the
Corps of Engineers to continue construction of the Channel Deepening
Project, on schedule, through the project's anticipated completion in
2008.
ECONOMIC BENEFITS
The Channel Deepening Project is clearly a commercial navigation
project of national economic significance and one that will yield
exponential economic and environmental returns to the United States
annually. The national economic benefits are evidenced by the creation
of more than 1 million permanent well-paying jobs across the United
States; more than $1 billion in wages and salaries, as well as local,
State and Federal sales and income tax revenues deposited into the
Federal treasury. As an aside, the 7.5 million TEUs handled by the Port
of Los Angeles in 2005 had a commercial value of more than $400 billion
in container cargo, with significant tax revenues accruing to the
Federal Government. Similarly, according to the U.S. Customs Service,
users of the Port pay approximately $12 million a day in Customs
Duties. The Los Angeles Customs District leads the Nation in total
duties collected for maritime activities, collecting more than $6
billion in 2005 alone. The return on the Federal investment at the Port
of Los Angeles is real and quantifiable, and we expect it to continue
to surpass the cost-benefit ratio--as determined by the Corps of
Engineers' project Feasibility Study--many times over.
In closing, Federal investment in the Channel Deepening Project
will ensure that the Port of Los Angeles, the Nation's busiest
container seaport, remains at the forefront of the new international
trade network well into this century. The Channel Deepening Project
marks the second phase of the 2020 Infrastructure Development Plan that
began with the Pier 400 Deep-Draft Navigation and Landfill Project. The
Port of Los Angeles is moving forward with the 2020 Plan designed to
meet the extraordinary infrastructure demands placed on it in the face
of the continued high volume of international trade. Mr. Chairman, the
Port of Los Angeles respectfully urges your subcommittee to appropriate
$12 million in fiscal year 2007 to support the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' continued construction of the Channel Deepening project on
behalf of the Port of Los Angeles.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to submit this
testimony for continued congressional support of the Channel Deepening
Project at the Port of Los Angeles. The Port has long valued the
support of your subcommittee and its appreciation of the role of the
Port of Los Angeles in contributing to this country's economic
strength, and the port industry's importance to the economic vitality
of the United States.
______
Prepared Statement of American Rivers
American Rivers, on behalf of more than 500 national, regional and
local organizations representing more than 5 million constituents
concerned with river conservation,\1\ urges the committee to provide
$2,399,145,000 for the following programs in the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007, including
programs run by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of
Energy and Department of Interior agencies. I request that this
testimony be included in the official record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These groups and individuals have endorsed the Citizen's Agenda
for Rivers which includes the ``River Budget'' for fiscal year 2007, a
report of national funding priorities for local river conservation. For
more information on the Citizen's Agenda for Rivers go to
www.healthyrivers.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Project Modification for Improvement of the Environment.--The
Project Modification for Improvement of the Environment program
(Section 1135) allows the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to
restore river systems degraded by existing Corps projects. Under
Section 1135, the Corps can modify existing dams and flood control
projects to increase habitat for fish and wildlife, and restore areas
affected by Corps projects. Non-Federal interests must provide for 25
percent of project costs, and modifications must not interfere with a
project's original purpose. American Rivers urges the committee to
appropriate $25 million for the Project Modification for Improvement of
the Environment program in fiscal year 2007.
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.--Section 206, the Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration program, allows the Corps to undertake small-scale projects
to restore aquatic habitat, even in areas not directly harmed by past
Corps projects. Projects carried out under this program must improve
the quality of the environment, be in the public interest, and be cost-
effective. American Rivers urges the committee to appropriate $25
million for the Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration program in fiscal year
2007.
Penobscot River Restoration Project.--The Penobscot River
Restoration Project is an unprecedented approach to river restoration
that will reconfigure hydropower facilities and maintain energy
production while opening up more than 500 miles of habitat to 10 native
species of anadromous fish, improve water quality, boost wildlife and
create new opportunities in communities along New England's second
largest river. The two lowermost Penobscot dams, Veazie and Great
Works, will be removed and a state-of-the-art fish bypass will be
installed at Howland Dam. American Rivers urges the committee to
appropriate $300,000 for a reconnaissance and feasibility study on the
Penobscot River Restoration Project for in fiscal year 2007.
Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery Project: IA, NE, KS &
MO.--The Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery Project is the
primary habitat restoration program for the lower Missouri River
between Sioux City and St. Louis. Congress established it in 1986 to
primarily help reverse the long-term impact on habitat due to the
federally sponsored channelization and stabilization projects of the
Pick-Sloan era. Supporting the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife
Recovery Project will help reverse the decline of river wildlife by
restoring historic chutes, side channels, wetlands, backwaters, and
other habitat that fish and wildlife need survive. American Rivers
urges the committee to appropriate $82.8 million for the Missouri River
Fish and Wildlife Recovery Project in fiscal year 2007.
Upper Mississippi Environmental Management Program.--The Upper
Mississippi River Environmental Management Program (EMP), the primary
habitat restoration and monitoring program on the Upper Mississippi,
has a goal of restoring more than 97,000 acres of habitat; the Army
Corps reports that EMP has restored or created 28,000 acres of habitat
to date. American Rivers urges the committee to appropriate $33.5
million for the Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management
Program in fiscal year 2007.
Lower Mississippi River Resource Assessment.--The Lower Mississippi
River Resource Assessment (LMRRA) was authorized by Congress in the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000. Conducting the Lower
Mississippi River Resource Assessment is the first step in
consolidating into one region-wide assessment all information about the
current status of aquatic habitat in the 954-mile-long Lower
Mississippi River, specific habitat development/enhancement
opportunities to restore the river ecosystem, and recreational needs.
American Rivers urges the committee to appropriate $1.75 million for
the Lower Mississippi River Resource Assessment project in fiscal year
2007.
Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine Restoration (Challenge 21).--
Challenge 21, a flood damage reduction program authorized in 1999, is
designed to help support non-structural flood control solutions.
Challenge 21 allows the Corps to relocate vulnerable homes and
businesses in smaller communities, restore floodplain wetlands,
increase opportunities for riverside recreation, and improve quality of
life in riverside communities. Challenge 21 also authorizes the Corps
to work with other Federal agencies to help local governments reduce
flood damages and conserve, restore, and manage riverine and floodplain
resources. American Rivers urges the committee to appropriate $50
million for the Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine Restoration
Program in fiscal year 2007.
Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Restoration, OR & WA.--Coastal
estuaries in the Pacific Northwest play a vital role in supporting
healthy stocks of wild salmon and steelhead trout and other species and
improving the quality of life of countless communities. The Northwest
Coastal Estuary Program is designed to restore more than 16,000 acres
of critical fish and wildlife habitat, augment existing monitoring
efforts, and help citizens protect and manage resources by bringing
together local governments, State and Federal agencies, environmental
groups, ports, and citizens. American Rivers urges the committee to
appropriate $3 million for the Lower Columbia River Ecosystem
Restoration project in fiscal year 2007.
The Estuary Restoration Act of 2000.--The Estuary Restoration Act
of 2000 created the Estuary Habitat Restoration Council to develop a
strategy for coordinating and prioritizing estuary restoration while
enhancing estuary monitoring, data sharing, and research capabilities.
If fully funded at its authorized level, the Act would restore 1
million acres of estuary habitat by 2010. American Rivers urges the
committee to appropriate $27.5 million for the Estuary Restoration Act
of 2000 in fiscal year 2007.
Individual River Restoration Projects.--Over the past 100 years,
the United States has led the world in dam building for a variety of
uses, including hydropower, irrigation, flood control and water
storage. While they can provide benefits to society, numerous dams have
outlived their intended purpose and no longer make sense. Many are old,
unsafe, and represent a threat to their river ecosystems. Several
individual dam removal projects will restore natural river functions,
restore access to migratory fish habitat, and provide economic benefits
to neighboring communities. American Rivers urges the committee to
appropriate to the Corps the following for individual river restoration
projects in fiscal year 2007: (i) $5 million for the removal of the
Matilija Dam on the Ventura River in southern California; (ii) $595,000
for the feasibility study on the removal of Rindge Dam on Malibu Creek,
CA; and:
--Kissimmee River Restoration.--Upon completion of the Kissimmee
River restoration project in 2011, over 40 square miles of
river and floodplain ecosystem will be restored, including
returning 43 miles of meandering river to its original course
and re-creating 27,000 of the 35,000 acres of wetlands that
were lost to past flood control efforts. The estimated $494.8
million restoration project is being jointly implemented and
equally cost-shared by the South Florida Water Management
District and the Army Corps of Engineers. American Rivers urges
the committee to appropriate $20 million for the Kissimmee
River Restoration in fiscal year 2007.
--Everglades Ecosystem Restoration Projects.--The 18,000-square-mile
Everglades ecosystem of central and southern Florida is one of
the world's most diverse and productive wetlands, but is also
one of the Nation's most imperiled natural wetland ecosystems.
Since 1900, more than half of the ecosystem has been drained
and lost to urban and agricultural development, and the
remaining marshes are criss-crossed by 1,400 miles of canals
that alter natural water flows: (i) American Rivers urges the
committee to appropriate $15 million for the Everglades and
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program in fiscal year
2007; (ii) American Rivers urges the committee to appropriate
$100 million for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Program in fiscal year 2007.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROGRAMS
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in Hydropower Licensing.--The
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is responsible for issuing
licenses and permits that govern the operation and construction of non-
Federal hydropower dams. Congress authorizes the amount of money FERC
may spend in a given year, but that money is collected entirely from
licensees through annual fees and not from tax dollars. Thus, an
increase in FERC's authorized hydropower budget will be passed onto the
dam owners and will not impact taxpayers or the deficit. American
Rivers urges the committee to appropriate $57.7 million for FERC
hydropower relicensing in fiscal year 2007.
Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
Resources.--Many different types of energy production, including
hydropower dams and fossil fuels, affect our rivers. As we advance in
energy-efficient technology and the use of renewable energy sources, we
can reduce demand and soften the impacts of energy production on
rivers. Congress should take steps to eliminate our dependency on
fossil fuels by supporting enhanced appropriations for DOE's energy
supply and energy conservation programs. American Rivers urges the
committee to appropriate $1.2 billion and $700 million, respectively
for DOE Energy Conservation program and the Energy Efficiency &
Renewable Energy Resources program in fiscal year 2007.
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR--BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Savage Rapids Dam Removal and Pump Replacement (Rogue River, OR).--
The Savage Rapids Dam, built in 1921, is the single largest killer of
salmon on the Rogue River, including coho salmon, which are listed as
threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Removing Savage
Rapids dam will provide an enormous boost to the Rogue River's
imperiled salmon and steelhead populations. American Rivers urges the
committee to appropriate $13 million Savage Rapids Dam Removal and Pump
Replacement in fiscal year 2007.
National Irrigation Water Quality Program (Departmental Irrigation
Drainage Program).--The National Irrigation Water Quality Program
(NIWQP) was created in 1985 in response to a waterfowl die off caused
by polluted irrigation discharges. The program focuses on the effects
of irrigation on rivers, lakes, and the wildlife that use them. NIWQIP
focuses on irrigation systems that discharge water from Federal lands,
addressing the impacts that any chemicals associated with agricultural
practices (including DDT, arsenic, selenium, and mercury) may have on
fish and wildlife. American Rivers urges the committee to appropriate
$3 million for the National Irrigation Water Quality Program in fiscal
year 2007.
Yakima River Basin Enhancement Project.--The Yakima River Basin is
home to Washington's largest Native American tribe and contains one of
the largest Bureau of Reclamation (Bur. Rec.) projects in the west. The
various Bur. Rec. projects in the basin have depleted and polluted
river flows, and water rights conflicts in this basin are legendary.
This program aims to restore the river and make better use of the
existing water supplies. American Rivers urges the committee to
appropriate $14 million for the Yakima River Enhancement Project in
fiscal year 2007.
Deschutes Resources Conservancy.--The Deschutes Resources
Conservancy (DRC) is focused on restoring streamflow and improving
water quality in the Deschutes Basin of Central Oregon. The DRC acts as
a catalyst, bringing together all groups working to restore the
Deschutes through its restoration grants program, enterprise programs
creating markets for environmental services, and community development
work aimed at developing a shared vision for basinwide restoration
smoothing the endangered species recovery process. American Rivers
urges the committee to appropriate $2 million for the Deschutes
Resources Conservancy in fiscal year 2007.
CALIFORNIA-FEDERAL BAY DELTA PROGRAM
The California-Federal Bay Delta Program (CalFed) is a partnership
between Federal and California agencies to provide a balanced,
collaborative approach to the water resource demands on the San
Francisco Bay and San Pablo Bay watersheds. The Ecosystem Restoration
and Watershed program within CalFed works to restore and improve
wildlife habitat through out the watershed, improve fish passage,
integrate flood control and ecosystem restoration, and implement
specific watershed restoration projects in conjunction with watershed
plans. American Rivers urges the committee to appropriate $15 million
from the Bureau of Reclamation and $5 million from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers for the CalFed Ecosystem Restoration and Watershed Program
in fiscal year 2007.
______
Prepared Statement of Granite Falls, Minnesota
Chairman Domenici and members of the Appropriations subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the
City Council and the citizens of Granite Falls, Minnesota. We are
requesting $2 million in Federal funds for the development of the
Detailed Design Report (DDR) plans and specifications, and the initial
construction of critical preventative measures to protect the city from
future flooding of the Minnesota River. These funds must be earmarked
under Section 205, through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood
protection work.
This request is based on the ``Supplement to the Locally Preferred
Plan for Flood Damage Reduction, January, 2002'' prepared on behalf of
FEMA, the city, and information from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Section 205 study not yet completed. The project has now been
authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 2005 for $12
million ($8 million Federal funds) in HR 2864, Sec. 3078 as a Section
205 project, in accordance with the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (100 Stat. 4184) as may be required.
The geological features of the terrain discourages the construction
of diversion channels due to the granite subsurface of the soil. Most
of the homes and businesses have been relocated using FEMA, State and
local resources. The existing uncertified and inadequate levee system
must be improved to provide adequate protection for the communities,
critical pumping stations installed, and the Municipal Water Plant
adjacent to the Minnesota River will require relocation.
THE CITY OF GRANITE FALLS
The City of Granite Falls is a community of slightly more than
3,000 citizens, is located in West Central Minnesota about 122 miles
west of St. Paul.
The Minnesota River runs through the northern and eastern portions
of the city, and is directly adjacent to the downtown area. The
majority of the city's residential and commercial properties are
located on the west bank of the Minnesota River in Yellow Medicine
County.
Low-lying residential areas on the north end of the city,
structures in the commercial business district along the river, and
residences located next to the secondary river channels in the
southwest part of the city are especially vulnerable to flooding.
RECENT DISASTERS
While the river represents a valuable resource to the community, it
has taken a severe toll on residents and businesses during spring
floods. The 1997 floods that devastated much of Western Minnesota and
North Dakota did not spare Granite Falls. The Flood drove many from
their homes and their downtown businesses, and resulted in millions of
dollars in damages. Virtually every downtown business was flooded. More
than $850,000 was spent by the city, and another $175,000 by the Corps
of Engineers to fight the flood.
Hundreds of volunteers from Granite Falls area and the State
prevented further devastation as the Minnesota River reached a peak
discharge of 53,000 cubic feet per second, more than 3 million cubic
feet of floodwater per minute. The rushing water was within inches of
the top of the temporary dike as volunteers continued to stack sand
bags. If the water had topped the dike, literally dozens of the workers
lives would have been severely endangered. Total costs and damages
exceeded $5 million.
In July of 2000, the city was hit by an F-4 tornado. An F-5 tornado
is the top of the scale. One person was killed, 14 badly injured, and
325 homes were either totally destroyed or severely damaged. The
tornado caused more than $26 million in damages in the community.
The following year, 2001, the city was again hit by another record
flood event. Though not as severe as the 1997 flooding, damage was
reduced significantly by careful city planning and preparation with
Federal and State governmental units. Even so, the costs to fight the
flood exceeded $500,000 for the city and the Corps of Engineers, and
much of the downtown commercial area was evacuated.
Other significant floods have occurred in 1951, 1952, 1965, 1969,
and 1994. While floods have cost the community millions of dollars in
extensive property damage and economic hardship, the primary concern is
the significant risk to the hundreds of volunteers whose work is
required building levees during flood events to protect the homes and
business.
The preparation for fighting disaster costs has reached nearly $4
million in the past 4 years. That amounts to thousands of dollars to
every property owner in the city. Total flood damages and costs were
more than $30 million from 1997 through 2001.
Granite Falls has received financial support from FEMA, the Corps
of Engineers, the State of Minnesota, in addition to local funds, to
clean up after the disasters and to repair damages. Funds have been
received to repair streets, housing rehabilitation and construction,
economic development, and special services. All the help has been
directed toward restoration after the floods and tornado event, but no
funds have been made available to protect the city and its citizens
from future flooding.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS SECTION 205 STUDY
Following the 1997 flood, the Corps of Engineers initiated a
Section 205 study in May, 1998, to evaluate the extent of the flooding
problem in Granite Falls, and to explore possible remedies. The study
is essentially complete, but has not been released to date. The major
problems of cost and funding level addressed in the 205 study have been
resolved in the project authorization in HR 2864.
STUDIES CONDUCTED
The city, through a FEMA project grant under the direction of the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources MN/DNR, conducted a study of
the flood problems confronting Granite Falls. The overall objective of
the study was to evaluate hazards for the Granite Falls area, and to
develop preliminary evaluation and prioritization for those hazards.
The Report states, ``Because of the tremendous impacts of flooding
on the Granite Falls community, and the relative frequency of flooding
events, the report begins with an all hazard evaluation, but then
focuses on flood hazards, and presents mitigation options and
preliminary costs for implementing those options.''
The Report evaluated each area of the community, determined the
risk factors, and suggested options available to protect the area
against flooding. In the conclusion of the Report, it was recommended
the most economical solution to provide the necessary protection was
buy out many of the properties and move them to a location outside the
flood plain. This work is currently in progress.
The elevation of other areas would have to be raised, pump stations
would need to be installed, some levees constructed, and the sanitary
lift station and the water plant would need to be relocated. It is
estimated the cost of this work would be approximately $12 million.
The Supplement to the Locally Preferred Plan (SLPP) provides a
level of flood protection for flood events up to the 500-year event.
The 1998 Corps of Engineers 205 study indicates the 500-year level of
protection is about the same as the 100-year flood plus 3 feet of
freeboard. This level of protection is necessary as the result of a
reevaluation by FEMA indicated that the current level of protection for
Granite Falls was violated in both the 1997 and the 2001 flood events.
The SLPP identifies seven areas severely impacted by flooding,
suggests the remedial action needed, and the cost of such work.
Relocation costs are not included in this report. The city believes
that with the financial assistance received from FEMA and the State of
Minnesota to relocate many of the structures in low-lying areas, the
remaining project needs are appropriately addressed under flood
protection programs administered by the Corps of Engineers.
The Locally Preferred Plan includes the removal of about 41
structures in the lower areas of the city, including several in the
commercial district. FEMA has provided the funds for 25 structure
moves, leaving only 15 additional structures to be moved as a part of
the project.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
The city requests $2 million from the committee for the purpose of
the development of the Detailed Design Report, preparation of plans and
specifications, and the placement of pumps stations at two of three
critical locations in the city. These pump stations will provide some
immediate flood relief during an emergency, but are also needed
permanently as a part of the total project.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. And may I also
take this opportunity to express our appreciation to the St. Paul
District Office of the Army Corps of Engineers for their help and
assistance during the crisis we have experienced in recent years. We
will be happy to respond to any questions you may have regarding the
needs of the city, and the flood protection project.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota
Chairman Domenici and members of the Energy and Water Development
Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony
requesting the $2 million needed to begin construction on Stage 3 of
the Stillwater, Minnesota flood control project. In 2001, the city
experienced its seventeenth flood since 1937, immediately after the
Corps completed construction work on Lock and Dam No. 3, 20 miles South
of the convergence of the Mississippi River and the St. Croix River.
This construction on the Mississippi River raised the water level at
Stillwater by 8-10 feet.
The first two stages of the project have been completed, and
Congress appropriated $2 million in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations
bill to begin construction on the critical Stage 3 of the project. When
the Corps did not make the funds available for Stage 3 flood wall
construction, Congress enacted Sec. 124 in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2004, which states,
``Sec. 124. The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, is directed to use previously appropriated funds to proceed
with design and initiate construction to complete the Stillwater,
Minnesota Levee and flood control project.''
The Corps was not able to locate the $2 million during fiscal year
2004, stating the funds had been redirected to another project(s). The
city had obtained the necessary property from the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe Railroad at a cost of $1 million on which a portion of the
floodwall will be constructed. Local funds were used to purchase this
property.
In 2005, Minnesota Representatives Jim Oberstar, and Mark Kennedy,
and Senators Norm Coleman and Mark Dayton contacted the Corps of
Engineers regarding the Corps lack of response to the language in the
fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill. These contacts resulted in a
meeting in a Stillwater City Hall that included members of Congress and
their staff, city officials, Brig. General Robert Crear, Commander of
the Mississippi Valley Division, and the leadership from the St. Paul,
MN Corps of Engineers District Office.
General Crear promised that the funds would be made available
immediately to begin work on the DDR, design, plans and specifications,
and the relocation of utilities for Stage 3 flood protection for the
city. The Corps has begun such work as promised. While not moving as
fast as the city would like, they plan to let bids and begin
construction early in 2007. Most of the appropriated funds have been
used by the Corps during 2005 and 2006, and additional construction
funding will be necessary during fiscal year 2007. The Corps states
they are awaiting approval from the House and Senate Appropriation
Committees to transfer additional funds back to the Stillwater project.
The $2 million in Federal funds requested this year, plus State and
local funds will make substantial headway toward the completion of the
project. It is projected that the project construction will require 2
years to complete.
PROJECT DELAY COSTLY TO THE CITY
The delay in the completion of the flood control has proven costly
to the city. A number of local projects have been held back, waiting
for the completion of the floodwall. The Lowell Park development, which
parallels the St. Croix River, and is adjacent to the floodwall
location, cannot be completed until the floodwall is constructed. The
city received to grants to assist in this effort, one for $250,000, and
one for $75,000. Both grants were aborted when the city was unable to
move forward on the park improvement grants.
There has also been a delay in the inflow and infiltration (I&I)
improvements to the trunk storm sewer line that is located
approximately where the floodwall will be constructed. Currently, the
amount of I&I flowing into the trunk sewer line that flows to the water
treatment plant is costing the city more than $10,000 each month,
paying for the treatment of river water. The 7-year delay in the
completion of the project has cost the city $840,000.
Other projects delayed include the expansion of Lowell Park to the
north of the levee system, delayed construction of a pedestrian pathway
connecting north Main Street, Lowell Park, the St. Croix River, and
downtown Stillwater. Approximately 1.5 million people visited the park
and the river area last year, yet we cannot build permanent bathroom
facilities until the floodwall in completed. More than 1,100 new
citizens will be moving into apartments and condominiums currently
under construction in downtown Stillwater. The Mayor and City Council
Members had hoped the newcomers would not be greeted with major
construction of the floodwall.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The project is divided into three stages. Stage 1 included the
repair and reconstruction of the existing retaining wall that extends
1,000 feet from Nelson Street on the South to the gazebo on the North
end of the levee wall system. Stage 2 consists of the extension of the
levee wall about 900 feet from the gazebo North around Mulberry Point.
The completion of Stage 2 was delayed by floods of 1997, costing
the city and the Federal Government nearly $500,000. After the waters
subsided, it was discovered that the soil beneath the planned levee
extension was very unstable, requiring a revision of plans, and the
addition of another stage in the construction process.
The floodwaters of the St. Croix River did not recede until August
of 1997. The construction area remained under water preventing
construction work to proceed as scheduled. Lowell Park, which extends
the full length of the levee wall system, several structures, and the
emergency roadway which is used to provide emergency medical assistance
for those using the recreational St. Croix River, and as a water source
for local fire departments, were all either under water or
inaccessible.
Phase I, the repair and reconstruction of the original levee wall,
was completed in the summer of 1998. Work on Stage 1 was completed in
late summer of 1997, and additional soil borings were taken for Stage
2. The soil was found to be very unstable, and unable to support the
levee system designed for Stage 2 of the project.
The construction of Stage 2 required remedial action, and was
designated as Stage 2S. A contract was awarded for Phase 2S in
November, 1998, and was completed in 1999. Phase 2 was begun in the
late Fall of 1999, and the major construction work was completed at the
end of the year 2000. The Design Memorandum schedule called for the
construction of Stage 3 in fiscal year 2002, and to be completed in
fiscal year 2003, according to the Corps schedule.
Stage 3 expands the flood protection system by constructing a berm
or a 3-foot floodwall, and driving sheet piling below the surface to
reduce seepage and to provide a base for the wall. The floodwall will
be constructed about 125 feet inland from the riverbank. Stages 1 and 2
were critical to the protection of the fragile waterfront, and also, to
prevent minor flooding on the North end of the riverfront.
Stage 3 is the component that provides the flood protection for the
city. The rising elevation of the terrain, the floodwall, and minimal
emergency measures are designed to provide the city with up to 100-year
flood protection.
The Mayor, City Council Members, and Engineering staff all
understand that Stage 3 of the flood control project is essential for
the protection of life and property of the citizens, that the Stage 3
flood wall is a critical phase of the project, and that the project
must be completed at the earliest possible date. The Corps acknowledged
the necessity for all three stages of the project when the Design
Memorandum included plans for all three stages.
The U.S. Congress directed the Secretary of the Army acting through
the Chief of Engineers to proceed with the design and construction to
complete the Stillwater Levee and Flood Control Project under Section
124 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004. The city
and the State of Minnesota have allocated matching funds for this work.
The State has appropriated half of the non-Federal matching funds
needed to complete Stage 3 of the project, as well as for Stages 1 and
2. The city has provided the remainder of the required matching funds,
consequently, only the Federal share is missing to complete the
project.
THE IMPACT OF LOCK AND DAM NO. 3 ON FLOODS STILLWATER
The Lock and Dam No. 3 was constructed in 1937-38 on the
Mississippi River at Red Wing, Minnesota. The Lock and Dam construction
raised the level of the St. Croix at Stillwater by 8 to 10 feet. It has
made the City of Stillwater vulnerable during periods of high water and
flooding of the St. Croix since that time. Records prove that the lock
and dam construction, raising the water levels of both the Mississippi
and the St. Croix River, has markedly increased the incidence of
flooding at Stillwater. The culpability of the Corps is clearly
evident.
The Mississippi and the St. Croix Rivers merge about 14 miles south
of Stillwater. When constructing the Lock and Dam at Red Wing in 1938,
the Federal officials recognized that detaining the flow of the
Mississippi would back up the water in the St. Croix at Stillwater. A
1,000-foot levee wall system was constructed at Stillwater by the WPA
under the supervision of the Corps to protect the fragile waterfront.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
The Stillwater Flood Control and Retaining Wall project first was
authorized in section 363 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
of 1992. An allocation of $2.4 million was made in the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act of 1994.
A committee report described the project in three parts--to repair,
extend, and expand the levee wall system on the St. Croix River at
Stillwater, Minnesota. ``To repair'' (Stage 1) the original existing
levee wall system constructed in 1936. ``To extend'' (Stage 2) the
original wall by approximately 900 feet to prevent the annual flooding
that occurs at that location, and ``To expand'' (Stage 3) the system by
constructing the flood wall approximately 125 feet inland from the
levee wall system to protect the downtown and residential section in
the flood plain.
In 1995, the Design Memorandum confirmed the cost estimate for the
project was much too low, and the project was reauthorized for $11.6
million by Congress in the 1996 WRDA legislation. In 2001, the Corps
estimated the Federal cost at $9.86 million, the non-Federal cost at
$3.29 million, and the total cost of the project to be $13.15 million.
SUMMARY
The Mayor and Council for the City of Stillwater, Washington County
Officials, the Governor and Minnesota State Legislature, and bipartisan
support of Minnesota Representatives and Senators in Congress, all
recognize the significant importance of completing this project by
constructing the Stage 3 flood wall on the St. Croix River at
Stillwater. The Members are committed to accomplishing this work as
soon as possible. It is critical to the protection of property, the
preservation of our history, the respect of historic Indian sites, and
the safety of our citizens and their homes and business.
We respectfully urge the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee
for Appropriations to allocate the $2 million needed to begin
construction of the Stage 3 flood wall in the fiscal year 2007
Appropriations Bill. If you have questions or would like additional
information regarding this project, please call on us.
______
Prepared Statement of the Western Coalition of Arid States
FISCAL YEAR 2007 CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM OF THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS BUDGET
The Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) is submitting this
testimony regarding the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request for
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
WESTCAS is a coalition of Western towns and municipalities, water
and wastewater agencies, irrigation districts, Native American nations,
companies with water and wastewater concerns and professionals in the
fields of engineering, the environmental sciences, and natural
resources law and policy. WESTCAS was formed in 1992 by Western water
and wastewater agencies concerned with the quality and management of
water resources in the Arid West. A grass roots organization, WESTCAS
is dedicated to encouraging the development of water programs and
regulations which assure adequate supplies of high quality water for
those living in the arid regions while protecting the environment.
The United States Army Corps of Engineering is the world's largest
public engineering, design, and construction management agency. Its
mission includes:
--Protecting the country's hundreds of rivers, lakes, wetlands, and
thousands of miles of coastal shoreline;
--Environmental restoration and stewardship;
--Maintaining direct control of 609 dams, 257 navigational locks and
75 Hydroelectric facilities which generate 24 percent of the
Nation's hydropower;
--Providing engineering expertise and emergency management abilities
for homeland security; and
--Building much of the infrastructure the Army and Air Force uses to
train, house, and deploy our troops.
The fiscal year 2007 budget for the Civil Works Program of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers emphasizes three critical Corps activities.
First, it funds the construction and completion of water resources
projects that will provide a high rate of return on the Nation's
investment in the Corps' primary mission areas of commercial
navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem
restoration.
Second, it increases funding for the Corps' regulatory program to
help protect and preserve the Nation's precious waters and wetlands.
Third, it reflects the administration's proactive support for the
Corps' critical emergency preparedness and response mission by funding
the mission in the regular budget process, and not through emergency
transfers or supplemental funding. These goals are all extremely
important to the arid southwest and general membership of the Western
Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS).
The fiscal year 2007 budget transmitted to Congress consists of
$5.271 billion in Direct Program funding which includes $4.733 billion
in discretionary funding and $538 million in mandatory funding for the
Civil Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Civil
Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be augmented by
additional Reimbursed Program funding in the range of $2 billion to $3
billion.
As shown below, over 80 percent of the Civil Works program of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be appropriated as Operation and
Maintenance and General Construction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Appropriation Accounts 2007 Percentage of
(millions) Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation & Maintenance................. $2,258 47.7
Construction............................ 1,555 32.9
Flood Control, Mississippi River........ 278 5.9
Regulatory Program...................... 173 3.7
General Expenses........................ 164 3.5
Formerly Utilized Remedial Action 130 2.7
Program................................
General Investigations.................. 94 2.0
Flood Control & Coastal Emergencies..... 81 1.7
-------------------------------
Total............................. 4,733 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following table illustrates that additional funding will be
appropriated to Operation & Maintenance and Flood Control and Coastal
Emergencies, while reducing the funding appropriation for General
Construction. The reduced funding in the Construction appropriation
account will result in fewer projects in the Civil Works backlog being
completed. This is a significant issue that should be corrected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
Fiscal Fiscal of Total Percentage
Appropriation Accounts Year 2006 Year 2007 Budget Change
(Millions) (Millions) Fiscal From Prior
Year 2007 Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation & Maintenance......................................... $1,979 $2,258 47.7 14.1
Construction.................................................... 1,637 1,555 32.9 -5.0
Flood Control, Mississippi River................................ 270 278 5.9 3.0
Regulatory Program.............................................. 160 173 3.7 8.1
General Expenses................................................ 162 164 3.5 1.2
Formerly Utilized Remedial Action Program....................... 140 130 2.7 -7.1
General Investigations.......................................... 95 94 2.0 -1.1
Flood Control & Coastal Emergencies............................. 70 81 1.7 15.7
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 4,513 4,733 100.0 4.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 2007 Civil Works budget is a performance-based
budget, which reflects a focus on the projects and activities that
provide the highest net economic and environmental returns on the
Nation's investment. However, the proposed budget is less than the
actual U.S. Army Corps of Engineers budget in fiscal year 2001. One
must ask whether our priorities are properly in focus.
The impacts caused by Hurricane Katrina could have been
significantly reduced with enhanced flood control projects in place to
protect the region. The Association Press has recently reported that
the estimates of Hurricane Katrina's staggering toll on the Treasury
are highly imprecise, costs are certain to climb to $200 billion in the
coming weeks. The final accounting could approach the more than $300
billion spent in 4 years to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would
seem prudent to invest in construction of facilities to protect the
Nation rather than expend hundreds of billions of dollars after a major
natural disaster.
Therefore, a priority should be placed on appropriating funds for
construction activities focusing on flood control and shoreline
protective measures in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers budget for
fiscal year 2007. The construction projects identified in the proposed
budget for flood control enhancements in the arid southwest such as the
American River Watershed and Santa Ana Mainstem projects in California,
the Alamogordo project in New Mexico, and the Brays Bayou project in
Texas all should be funded.
Thank you for considering our request.
______
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Letter From the Wyoming Water Association
Cheyenne, WY, March 6, 2006.
The Honorable Pete V. Domenici, Chairman,
The Honorable Harry Reid, Ranking Member,
Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, Committee on Appropriations,
United States Senate, 127 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid: On behalf of the members
of the Wyoming Water Association, I am writing to request your support
for an appropriation in fiscal year 2007 of $4,594,000 to the Bureau of
Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species
Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region.
Consistent with the requests made by our other Upper Colorado and San
Juan Recovery. Programs' partners, the funding designation the Wyoming
Water Association seeks is as follows: $3,104,000 for construction
activities for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program; $1,090,000 for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program and $400,000 for activities to avoid jeopardy.
The President's recommended budget for fiscal year 2007 has included
this line-item amount.
Founded in 1933, the Wyoming Water Association (WWA) is a Wyoming
non-profit corporation and voluntary organization of private citizens,
elected officials, and representatives of business, government
agencies, industry and water user groups and districts. The
Association's objective is to promote the development, conservation,
and utilization of the water resources of Wyoming for the benefit of
Wyoming people. The WWA provides the only State-wide uniform voice
representing all types of water users within the State of Wyoming and
encourages citizen participation in decisions relating to multi-purpose
water development, management and use.
The Wyoming Water Association is a participant in the Upper
Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. That program, and its
sister program within the San Juan River Basin, are ongoing
partnerships among the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act. These recovery programs
have become national models for collaboratively working to recover
endangered species while addressing water needs to support growing
western communities in the Upper Colorado River Basin region of the
Intermountain West. Since 1988, these programs have facilitated ESA
Section 7 consultation (without litigation) for over 1,000 Federal,
tribal, State and privately managed water projects depleting
approximately 2.9 million acre-feet of water per year.
The requested fiscal year 2007 appropriation will allow the Upper
Colorado River Endangered Fish Program to proceed with construction of
additional fish passage structures on the Green and Colorado Rivers to
provide access to historic habitat upstream of existing diversion dams.
The requested funding for the San Juan River Recovery Program will be
used for contracts for construction and cooperative agreements with the
State of New Mexico to provide and protect instream flows, fish
ladders, flooded bottom land restoration, propagation facilities,
stocking efforts, nonnative and sportfish management activities. These
programs' substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding demonstrates the
strong commitment and effective partnerships embodied in both of these
successful programs. The requested Federal appropriations are
critically important to these efforts moving forward.
The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency programs. On
behalf of the members of the Wyoming Water Association, I thank you for
that support and request the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year
2007 funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial
participation in these vitally important programs.
Sincerely yours,
John W. Shields,
Executive Secretary.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Water Conservation District
Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid, we are requesting your support
for an appropriation in fiscal year 2007 of $4,594,000 to the Bureau of
Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species
Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The
President's recommended budget for fiscal year 2007 includes this line-
item amount. The funding designation we seek is as follows: $3,104,000
for construction activities for the Upper Colorado River Endangered
Fish Recovery Program; $1,090,000 for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program and $400,000 activities to avoid jeopardy.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies, and water, power and
environmental interests.
The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
facilitated the success of these programs. We thank you for that
support and request the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2007
funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial
participation in these vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the San Juan Water Commission
Chairman Domenici, the San Juan Water Commission is requesting your
support for an appropriation in fiscal year 2007 of $4,594,000 to the
Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered
Species Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado
Region. The President's recommended budget for fiscal year 2007
includes this line-item amount. The funding designation we seek is as
follows: $3,104,000 for construction activities for the Upper Colorado
River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $1,090,000 for the San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program and $400,000 for activities
to avoid jeopardy.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies, and water, power and
environmental interests.
The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency programs. We
thank you for that support and request the subcommittee's assistance
for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation's
continuing financial participation in these vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Four Corners Power Plant
Chairman Domenici & Senator Reid, we are requesting your support
for an appropriation in fiscal year 2007 of $4,594,000 to the Bureau of
Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species
Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The
President's recommended budget for fiscal year 2007 includes this line-
item amount. The funding designation we seek is as follows: $3,104,000
for construction activities for the Upper Colorado River Endangered
Fish Recovery Program; $1,090,000 for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program and $400,000 activities to avoid jeopardy.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies, and water, power and
environmental interests.
The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
facilitated the success of these programs. We thank you for that
support and request the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2007
funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial
participation in these vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy
District
Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid, we are requesting your support
for an appropriation in fiscal year 2007 of $4,594,000 to the Bureau of
Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species
Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The
President's recommended budget for fiscal year 2007 includes this line-
item amount. The funding designation we seek is as follows: $3,104,000
for construction activities for the Upper Colorado River Endangered
Fish Recovery Program; $1,090,000 for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program and $400,000 activities to avoid jeopardy.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies, and water, power and
environmental interests.
The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
facilitated the success of these programs. We thank you for that
support and request the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2007
funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial
participation in these vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado Water Congress
Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid, we are requesting your support
for an appropriation in fiscal year 2007 of $4,594,000 to the Bureau of
Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species
Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The
President's recommended budget for fiscal year 2007 includes this line-
item amount. The funding designation we seek is as follows: $3,104,000
for construction activities for the Upper Colorado River Endangered
Fish Recovery Program; $1,090,000 for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program and $400,000 activities to avoid jeopardy.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies, and water, power and
environmental interests.
The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
facilitated the success of these programs. We thank you for that
support and request the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2007
funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial
participation in these vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Public Service Company of New Mexico
Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid, we are requesting your support
for an appropriation in fiscal year 2007 of $4,594,000 to the Bureau of
Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species
Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The
President's recommended budget for fiscal year 2007 includes this line-
item amount. The funding designation we seek is as follows: $3,104,000
for construction activities for the Upper Colorado River Endangered
Fish Recovery Program; $1,090,000 for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program and $400,000 activities to avoid jeopardy.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies, and water, power and
environmental interests.
The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
facilitated the success of these programs. We thank you for that
support and request the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2007
funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial
participation in these vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District
The Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) is pleased
to present written testimony regarding the fiscal year 2007 proposed
budget for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation).
CAWCD is a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, governed
by an elected 15-member board of directors. CAWCD was created in 1971
for the purpose of contracting with the United States to repay the
reimbursable construction costs of the Central Arizona Project (CAP)
authorized by the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968. CAWCD
subsequently assumed the responsibility for operating and maintaining
the Project. CAWCD has and continues to meet its repayment
responsibility. In addition to a $175 million upfront contribution from
CAWCD, Reclamation has been paid $655 million since repayment began in
January 1994.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
CAWCD generally supports Reclamation's budget request. However, we
believe that some of the priorities are misplaced. Reclamation has
begun a scoping process to develop new guidelines for managing the
Colorado River system and to adopt Lower Basin shortage sharing
guidelines. The Seven Basin States sent a letter to the Secretary of
the Interior, dated February 3, 2006, that strongly supports
Reclamation's process and encourages Reclamation to take several
actions to preserve, enhance and more efficiently manage the Colorado
River water supply. Reclamation's Lower Colorado River Operations
budget request has funds identified to complete the scoping process,
but does not have sufficient funds for structures and programs to
improve operational efficiency or augment supplies.
We would urge the committee to reorder priorities in this budget to
focus meaningfully on important strategies for the Lower Colorado
River.
LOWER COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION
Specifically, we are concerned about the lack of concrete focus on
preserving storage capacity in Lake Mead by undertaking activities that
would augment water availability and improve system operational
efficiency.
Congress is well aware of the huge impacts that a multi-year
drought has imposed on this region, and of the significant drawdown of
stored water in the river's reservoirs that has resulted from this
drought. A significant amount of water has been released over these
years from Hoover Dam that could have been retained if effective
downstream strategies had been implemented.
The construction of an off stream regulatory storage reservoir near
Drop 2 of the All-American Canal has been identified as capable of
saving over 60,000 acre-feet per year. The Colorado River Front Work
and Levee System budget request only has funds to complete designs,
specifications, and environmental compliance activities. Were
Reclamation serious about aggressively pursuing these strategies, its
request for these items would be in excess of $40 million, not the $2.5
million requested. In order to ensure that this critical reservoir is
constructed, the Seven Basin States have approved a program to make
contributed funds available from Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA)
to construct the reservoir. SNWA is prepared to contribute $84 million
over 2 years (the full estimated cost). Reclamation should be prepared
with plans, administrative procedures and personnel to accept the money
and initiate construction in fiscal year 2007.
YUMA DESALTING PLANT
Reclamation's budget justification concerning the Yuma Desalting
Plant (YDP) continues to be disingenuous. Reclamation continues to say
that the plant is in ``ready reserve'' status, but quickly states it
would take 4 years and $26 million to have the YDP fully operational.
The October 26, 2006, report to Congress and the budget request for a
pilot program to pay U.S. water delivery contractors to forebear use of
water indicate the Reclamation preference for a forbearance program as
opposed to salvaging the saline water by operating the YDP. A long-term
program relying primarily on forbearance in the United States is not
acceptable to CAWCD or any of the Lower Basin States. Decisions need to
be made and resources need to be applied to bring the YDP into actual
operation. Every year the YDP remains idle results in the loss of
enough water to supply the annual water needs of half a million people.
We urge the committee to direct Reclamation to make the Yuma Desalting
Plant operational at one-third capacity and initiate regular operations
no later than September 30, 2008.
COLORADO RIVER AUGMENTATION
CAWCD would like to call the committee's attention to the
provisions of Sections 201, 202 and 203 of Title 1 of the Colorado
River Basin Project Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-537). These provisions
call for studies and actions to augment the supply of water available
for distribution within the Colorado River Basin. These provisions
specifically make satisfaction of the obligations of the 1944 Treaty
with Mexico a national obligation and anticipate that that obligation
will be met through augmentation of the Colorado River supply. The
Seven Basin States have initiated a program, led and funded primarily
by the Southern Nevada Water Authority, to review previous augmentation
studies and evaluate new concepts. We intend to develop recommended
augmentation programs to be undertaken by local, State, and Federal
organizations. At the very least, Reclamation needs to commit
sufficient funds to support these studies in fiscal year 2007. CAWCD
suggests that at least $200,000 be committed from Reclamation's overall
appropriations for such activities as General Planning, Research and
Development, or Water 2025. CAWCD urges the committee to direct
Reclamation to take action and provide funding to fulfill the
commitment Congress made 37 years ago to augment the water supply in
the Colorado River Basin.
CAP INDIAN DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
We support Reclamation's request for $18,918,000 in funding for CAP
Indian Distribution Systems. A key element of the negotiated settlement
embodied in the Arizona Water Settlements Act is continued Indian
distribution system funding through 2009.
TUCSON RELIABILITY
We note that Reclamation has reduced its funding request for
``Tucson Reliability'' to a much lower level of $200,000. We have
testified before and we reiterate here that Reclamation is obligated to
confer with CAWCD before proceeding with any reliability projects that
would increase the CAWCD repayment obligation. That said, we believe
the $200,000 requested will be sufficient for Reclamation's planned
activities in fiscal year 2007.
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM
In its fiscal year 2007 budget request, Reclamation includes
$9,603,000 in its Lower Colorado River Operations Program for the Lower
Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP).
The MSCP is a cost-shared program among Federal and non-Federal
interests to develop a long-term plan to conserve endangered species
and their habitat along the Lower Colorado River from Lake Mead to
Mexico. CAWCD is one of the cost-sharing partners. Development of this
program will provide habitat for threatened and endangered species and,
at the same time, allow current water and power operations to continue.
CAWCD supports Reclamation's budget request for the Lower Colorado
River Operations Program. This funding level is necessary to support
the MSCP effort as well as environmental measures necessary to fully
implement the interim surplus criteria for the Lower Colorado River.
These are critical programs upon which Lower Colorado River water and
power users depend.
INCREASED SECURITY COSTS FOR RECLAMATION HYDRO POWER FACILITIES
We continue to oppose the funding of post-9/11 increased security
costs for Reclamation facilities through hydropower rates. The
increased costs are being incurred for national security reasons, not
project maintenance or operation. Details of these costs must be kept
secret and cannot be disclosed like other data in Power Marketing
Administration rate cases, raising serious due process issues. Other
project beneficiaries are not and, in some cases, cannot be charged a
fair share of these costs. Congress should make these increased
national security costs nonreimbursable.
CONCLUSION
We have worked for over 3 decades with the Congress and all the
succeeding administrations to make the Central Arizona Project a
reality as envisioned by Congress in the 1968 Act and to ensure its
major contribution to the economic welfare of the State of Arizona.
Improving the ability of the Lower Colorado River system to conserve
and store precious Colorado River water supplies is central to our
mission and, we believe, a core directive of the 1968 Act. The lengthy
drought on the Colorado River has proven the correctness of that focus
and the wisdom of Congress in passing the 1968 Act. It is time to
aggressively move forward to accomplish the additional tasks that have
been identified. We look forward to working with the Congress, the
Bureau of Reclamation and the other Federal agencies and the Basin
States to get this work done.
______
Prepared Statement of Denver Water
Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid, we are requesting your support
for an appropriation in fiscal year 2007 of $4,594,000 to the Bureau of
Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species
Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The
President's recommended budget for fiscal year 2007 includes this line-
item amount. The funding designation we seek is as follows: $3,104,000
for construction activities for the Upper Colorado River Endangered
Fish Recovery Program; $1,090,000 for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program and $400,000 activities to avoid jeopardy.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies, and water, power and
environmental interests.
The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
facilitated the success of these programs. We thank you for that
support and request the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2007
funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial
participation in these vitally important programs.
______
Letter From the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Berthoud, CO, March 7, 2006.
The Honorable Pete V. Domenici, Chairman,
The Honorable Harry Reid, Ranking Member,
Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, Committee on Appropriations,
United States Senate, 127 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid: On behalf of the Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District, I am writing to request your
support for an appropriation in fiscal year 2007 of $4,594,000 to the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) within the budget line item
entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program'' for the
Upper Colorado Region. The President's recommended budget for fiscal
year 2007 includes this line-item amount. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $3,104,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $1,090,000 for
the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program; and $400,000
for activities to avoid jeopardy.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies, and water, power and
environmental interests.
The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
facilitated the success of these programs. I thank you for your support
and request the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2007 funding
to ensure Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
Sincerely,
Eric W. Wilkinson,
General Manager.
______
Prepared Statement of the Pueblo Board of Water Works
Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid, we are requesting your support
for an appropriation in fiscal year 2007 of $4,594,000 to the Bureau of
Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species
Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The
President's recommended budget for fiscal year 2007 includes this line-
item amount. The funding designation we seek is as follows: $3,104,000
for construction activities for the Upper Colorado River Endangered
Fish Recovery Program; $1,090,000 for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program and $400,000 activities to avoid jeopardy.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies, and water, power and
environmental interests.
The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
facilitated the success of these programs. We thank you for that
support and request the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2007
funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial
participation in these vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Tri-County Water Conservancy District
Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid, we are requesting your support
for an appropriation in fiscal year 2007 of $4,594,000 to the Bureau of
Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species
Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The
President's recommended budget for fiscal year 2007 includes this line-
item amount. The funding designation we seek is as follows: $3,104,000
for construction activities for the Upper Colorado River Endangered
Fish Recovery Program; $1,090,000 for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 activities to avoid jeopardy.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies, and water, power and
environmental interests.
The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
facilitated the success of these programs. We thank you for that
support and request the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2007
funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial
participation in these vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District
Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid, we are requesting your support
for an appropriation in fiscal year 2007 of $4,594,000 to the Bureau of
Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species
Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The
President's recommended budget for fiscal year 2007 includes this line-
item amount. The funding designation we seek is as follows: $3,104,000
for construction activities for the Upper Colorado River Endangered
Fish Recovery Program; $1,090,000 for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 activities to avoid jeopardy.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies, and water, power and
environmental interests.
The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
facilitated the success of these programs. We thank you for that
support and request the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2007
funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial
participation in these vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southwestern Water Conservation District
Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid, the Southwestern Water
Conservation District was established by the Colorado General Assembly
in 1941 to conserve and protect the water of the San Juan and Dolores
Rivers and their tributaries in nine counties in Southwest Colorado.
Therefore, we are requesting your support for an appropriation in
fiscal year 2007 of $4,594,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The President's recommended
budget for fiscal year 2007 includes this line-item amount. The funding
designations we are seeking are as follows: $3,104,000 for construction
activities for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program; $1,090,000 for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for activities to avoid jeopardy
to the endangered fish.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies, and water, power and
environmental interests.
The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency programs. We
thank you for that support and request the subcommittee's assistance
for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation's
continuing financial participation in these vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of Wyoming
Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid, I am writing to request your
support and assistance in insuring continued funding for the Upper
Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River
Basin Recovery Implementation Program. These two successful ongoing
cooperative partnership programs involve the States of Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water,
power and environmental interests. Wyoming and the other participating
States request your support for an appropriation in the President's
recommended budget for fiscal year 2007 of $4,594,000 to the Bureau of
Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species
Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The
funding designation we seek is as follows: $3,104,000 for construction
activities for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program; $1,090,000 for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program and $400,000 for activities to avoid jeopardy.
These recovery programs have become national models for
collaboratively working to recover endangered species while meeting
water use and water development demands in compliance with the
Endangered Species Act, State law, and interstate compacts in the Upper
Colorado River Basin region of the Intermountain West. Since 1988,
these programs have facilitated ESA Section 7 consultation (without
litigation) for over 1,000 Federal, tribal, State and privately managed
water projects depleting approximately 2.9 million acre-feet of water
per year.
The requested fiscal year 2007 appropriation will allow the Upper
Colorado River Endangered Fish Program to proceed with construction of
additional fish passage structures on the Colorado River to provide
access to historic habitat upstream of existing diversion dams, a fish
screen on a major diversion on the Green River to avoid entrainment of
endangered fish, and construction of the Elkhead Project to provide low
flow augmentation water on the Yampa River. The requested funding for
the San Juan River Recovery Program will be used for construction of a
fish screen and fish passage in critical habitat on the San Juan River.
These activities are funded pursuant to Public Law 106-392, as
amended, which authorized the Federal Government to provide cost
sharing for these two ongoing recovery programs' remaining capital
construction projects. Raising and stocking of the endangered fish
produced at program hatchery facilities, restoring floodplain habitat
and fish passage, regulating and supplying instream habitat flows,
installing fish screens in canal systems and controlling nonnative fish
populations are key components of the programs' ongoing capital
construction projects. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding
exceeding 50 percent for capital construction activities demonstrates
the strong commitment and effective partnerships embodied in both of
these successful programs.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
continuation of these efforts. The past support and assistance of your
subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State,
multi-agency programs. Wyoming thanks you for that support and requests
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure
the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc.
Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc. respectfully submits this
written testimony to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development for appropriations of $6.0 million for fiscal year
2007. This project was authorized under Public Law 106-136.
Perkins County Rural Water System, (PCRWS) gained the approval of
the Office of Management and Budget and the Bureau of Reclamation to
proceed with construction in 2004. We have been appropriated to date
$11.71 million. The administration has zeroed out our funding for 2007.
To stay on course with our project, it is very important that we get a
write-in on the Senate's Appropriations Committee for $6.0 million.
Cost share for the System is 75 percent Federal, 10 percent State, and
15 percent local match. The State of South Dakota has legislated to
loan PCRWS the local share for 40 years at 3 percent interest to keep
costs down to the consumer.
Breakdown for the project for 2007 is as follows:
2007 BUDGET
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INCOME:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION............................... $6,000,000
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA............................... 1,500,000
MISC................................................ 350,000
---------------
TOTAL............................................. 7,850,000
===============
EXPENSE:
FINISH PIPE FOR 2006................................ 450,000
NORTH DAKOTA STATE WATER COMMISSION................. 1,320,000
RESERVOIR........................................... 800,000
SHADEHILL AREA...................................... 1,300,000
PRAIRIE CITY AREA................................... 925,000
BISON RURAL......................................... 925,000
BOOSTER PUMP STATION................................ 200,000
ENGINEERING......................................... 350,000
CONSTRUCTION MISC................................... 1,580,000
---------------
TOTAL............................................. 7,850,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCRWS will need $6.0 million for each of the next 3 years to
complete our project on schedule. This consists of 550 miles of various
size pipe ranging from 1.5 inches to 8 inches, one booster pump station
capable of moving 800 gallon per minute, a 1.0 million storage tank and
telemetry to operate the whole system from one localized location.
The quality of water in northwest South Dakota is the main concern
for the health and well being of the people. Although the water
typically meets primary standards established by the USEPA, most of the
dissolved solids are exceedingly high by the State of South Dakota
standards. Water quality and quantity in Perkins County, South Dakota
has been a plague for the county over many years. Droughts, both long
and short term, are a fact of life for the people in this area. Being
able to obtain quality water during these periods and having a back up
system for other times would make life a lot easier for those rural
areas. Due to the isolation from major water supplies, this may be our
only chance to obtain water at an affordable cost.
On behalf of the Board of Directors of PCRWS and the people of
Perkins County, South Dakota, thank you for you for allowing us to
enter this testimony in subcommittee's report.
______
Prepared Statement of the Grand Valley Water Users' Association
Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid, we are requesting your support
for an appropriation in fiscal year 2007 of $4,594,000 to the Bureau of
Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species
Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The
President's recommended budget for fiscal year 2007 includes this line-
item amount. The funding designation we seek is as follows: $3,104,000
for construction activities for the Upper Colorado River Endangered
Fish Recovery Program; $1,090,000 for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 activities to avoid jeopardy.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests.
The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
facilitated the success of these programs. We thank you for that
support and request the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2007
funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial
participation in these vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum's Recommendation:
--1. Title II Program (Basinwide Program) Authorized in 1995 (Public
Law 104-20)--$17,500,000.
--2. Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program--Administration
Request.
--3. Paradox Valley Unit and Grand Valley Unit--Administration
Request.
This testimony is in support of funding for the Title II Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program. The Congress has designated the
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), to be
the lead agency for salinity control in the Colorado River Basin. This
role and the authorized program were refined and confirmed by the
Congress when Public Law 104-20 was enacted. A total of $17,500,000 is
requested for fiscal year 2007 to implement the needed and authorized
program. Failure to appropriate these funds will result in significant
economic damage in the United States and Mexico.
In recent years, the President's requests have dropped to below $10
million. In the judgment of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Forum (Forum), this amount is inappropriately low. Water quality
commitments to downstream United States and Mexican water users must be
honored while the Basin States continue to develop their Colorado River
Compact-apportioned waters. Concentrations of salts in the river cause
about $330 million in quantified damage in the United States with
significantly greater unquantified damages. Damages occur from:
--a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use for leaching in the agricultural sector,
--a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector,
--an increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector,
--an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector,
--a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector,
--difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins,
--increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of
desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
For every 30 mg/l increase in salinity concentrations, there is $75
million in additional damages in the United States. The Forum,
therefore, believes implementation of the program needs to be
accelerated to a level beyond that requested by the President.
The program authorized by the Congress in 1995 has proven to be
very successful and very cost effective. Proposals from the public and
private sector to implement salinity control strategies have far
exceeded the available funding and Reclamation has a backlog of
proposals. Reclamation continues to select the best and most cost-
effective proposals. Funds are available for the Colorado River Basin
States' cost sharing for the level of Federal funding requested by the
Forum. Water quality improvements accomplished under Title II of the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act also benefit the quality of
water delivered to Mexico. Although the United States has always met
the commitments of the International Boundary & Water Commission's
(Commission) Minute No. 242 to Mexico with respect to water quality,
the United States Section of the Commission is currently addressing
Mexico's request for better water quality at the International
Boundary.
Some of the most cost-effective salinity control opportunities
occur when Reclamation can improve irrigation delivery systems at the
same time that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) program is
working with landowners (irrigators) to improve the on-farm irrigation
systems. Through the USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program,
adequate on-farm funds appear to be available and adequate Reclamation
funds are needed to maximize the effectiveness of the effort. These
salinity control efforts have secondary water conservation benefits at
the point of use and downstream at the point of reuse.
OVERVIEW
In 2000, the Congress reviewed the program as authorized in 1995.
Following hearings, and with administration support, the Congress
passed legislation that increased the ceiling authorized for this
program by $100 million. Reclamation has received cost-effective
proposals to move the program ahead and the Basin States have funds
available to cost-share up-front.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program was originally
authorized by the Congress in 1974. The Title I portion of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Act responded to commitments that the
United States made, through Minute No. 242, to Mexico concerning the
quality of water being delivered to Mexico below Imperial Dam. Title II
of the Act established a program to respond to salinity control needs
of Colorado River water users in the United States and to comply with
the mandates of the then newly legislated Clean Water Act. Initially,
the Secretary of the Interior and Reclamation were given the lead
Federal role by the Congress. This testimony is in support of adequate
funding for the Title II program.
After a decade of investigative and implementation efforts, the
Basin States concluded that the Salinity Control Act needed to be
amended. The Congress revised the Act in 1984. That revision, while
leaving implementation of the salinity control policy with the
Secretary of the Interior, also gave new salinity control
responsibilities to the USDA and to the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM). The Congress has charged the administration with implementing
the most cost-effective program practicable (measured in dollars per
ton of salt removed). The Basin States are strongly supportive of that
concept as the Basin States cost share 30 percent of Federal
expenditures up-front for the salinity control program, in addition to
proceeding to implement salinity control activities for which they are
responsible in the Colorado River Basin.
The Forum is composed of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona,
California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum
has become the seven-State coordinating body for interfacing with
Federal agencies and the Congress to support the implementation of the
program necessary to control the salinity of the river system. In close
cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and pursuant
to requirements of the Clean Water Act, every 3 years the Forum
prepares a formal report analyzing the salinity of the Colorado River,
anticipated future salinity, and the program elements necessary to keep
the salinities at or below the concentrations in the river system in
1972 at Imperial Dam, and below Parker and Hoover Dams.
In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system,
the salinity concentrations at these three locations have been
identified as the numeric criteria. The plan necessary for controlling
salinity and reducing downstream damages has been captioned the ``Plan
of Implementation.'' The 2005 Review of water quality standards
includes an updated Plan of Implementation. The level of appropriation
requested in this testimony is in keeping with the agreed upon plan. If
adequate funds are not appropriated, significant damages from the
higher salt concentrations in the water will be more widespread in the
United States and Mexico.
JUSTIFICATION
The $17,500,000 requested by the Forum on behalf of the seven
Colorado River Basin States is the level of funding necessary to
proceed with Reclamation's portion of the Plan of Implementation. In
July of 1995, the Congress amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Act. The amended Act gives Reclamation new latitude and
flexibility in seeking the most cost-effective salinity control
opportunities, and it provides for utilization of proposals from
project proponents, as well as more involvement from the private as
well as the public sector. The result is that salt loading is being
prevented at costs often less than half the cost under the previous
program. The Congress recommitted its support for the revised program
when it enacted Public Law 106-459. The Basin States' cost sharing up-
front adds 43 cents for every Federal dollar appropriated. The
federally chartered Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory
Council, created by the Congress in the Salinity Control Act, has met
and formally supports the requested level of funding. The Basin States
urge the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee to support the
funding as set forth in this testimony.
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT OF FUNDING
In addition to the funding identified above for the implementation
of the most recently authorized program, the Forum urges the Congress
to appropriate funds requested by the administration to continue to
maintain and operate salinity control facilities as they are completed
and placed into long-term operation. Reclamation has completed the
Paradox Valley unit which involves the collection of brines in the
Paradox Valley of Colorado and the injection of those brines into a
deep aquifer through an injection well. The continued operation of this
project and the Grand Valley Unit will be funded primarily through the
Facility Operations activity.
The Forum also supports funding to allow for continued general
investigation of the Salinity Control Program as requested by the
administration for the Colorado River Water Quality Improvement
Program. It is important that Reclamation have planning staff in place,
properly funded, so that the progress of the program can be analyzed,
coordination between various Federal and State agencies can be
accomplished, and future projects and opportunities to control salinity
can be properly planned to maintain the water quality standards for
salinity so that the Basin States can continue to develop their
Colorado River Compact-apportioned waters.
______
Prepared Statement of Colorado Springs Utilities
We are requesting your support for an appropriation in fiscal year
2007 of $4,594,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region. The President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2007 includes this line-item amount. The funding
designation we seek is as follows: $3,104,000 for construction
activities for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program; $1,090,000 for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 activities to avoid jeopardy.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies, and water, power and
environmental interests.
The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
facilitated the success of these programs. We thank you for that
support and request the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2007
funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial
participation in these vitally important programs.
______
Letter From the State Engineer's Office, State of Wyoming
Cheyenne, WY, March 16, 2006.
The Honorable Pete V. Domenici, Chairman,
The Honorable Harry Reid, Ranking Member,
Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, Committee on Appropriations,
United States Senate, 127 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid: This letter is sent in
support of fiscal year 2007 funding for the Bureau of Reclamation's
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project--Title II Program.
Congress has designated the Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation), to be the lead agency for salinity control
in the Colorado River Basin. A total of $17,500,000 is requested for
fiscal year 2007 Reclamation activities to implement authorized
Colorado River Basin salinity control program programs. Failure to
appropriate these funds will directly result in significant economic
damages being accrued by United States and Mexican water users.
In addition to the funding identified above for the implementation
of the most recently authorized program, the State of Wyoming urges the
Congress to appropriate funds requested by the administration to
continue to maintain and operate salinity control facilities as they
are completed and placed into long-term operation. Reclamation has
completed the Paradox Valley unit which involves the collection of
brines in the Paradox Valley of Colorado and the injection of those
brines into a deep aquifer through an injection well. The continued
operation of this project and the Grand Valley Unit will be funded
primarily through the Facility Operations activity.
The State of Wyoming also supports funding to allow for continued
general investigation of the Salinity Control Program as requested by
the administration for the Colorado River Water Quality Improvement
Program. It is important that Reclamation have planning staff in place,
properly funded, so that the progress of the program can be analyzed,
coordination between various Federal and State agencies can be
accomplished, and future projects and opportunities to control salinity
can be properly planned to maintain the water quality standards for
salinity so that the Basin States can continue to develop their
Compact-apportioned waters of the Colorado River.
The Colorado River provides municipal and industrial water for 27
million people and irrigation water to nearly 4 million acres of land
in the United States. The River is also the water source for some 2.3
million people and 500,000 acres in Mexico. Limitations on users'
abilities to make the greatest use of this critically important water
supply due to the River's high concentration of total dissolved solids
(hereafter referred to as the salinity of the water) are a major
concern in both the United States and Mexico. Salinity in water
supplies affects agricultural, municipal, and industrial water users.
While economic detriments and damages in Mexico are unquantified, the
Bureau of Reclamation presently estimates salinity-related damages in
the United States amount to $330 million per year. The River's high
salt content is in almost equal part due to naturally occurring
geologic features that include subsurface salt formations and
discharging saline springs; and the resultant concentrating effects of
our users man's storage, use and reuse of the waters of the River
system. Over-application of irrigation water by agriculture is a large
contributor of salt to the Colorado River as irrigation water moves
below the crop root zone, seeps through saline soils and then returns
to the river system.
The Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation of the 1972
amendments to the Clean Water Act required the seven Basin States to
adopt water quality standards for salinity levels in the Colorado
River. In light of the EPA's regulation to require water quality
standards for salinity in the Basin, the Governors of Arizona,
California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming created the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum as an interstate
coordination mechanism in 1973. To address these international and
regionally important salinity problems, the Congress enacted the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974. Title I addressed
the United States' obligations to Mexico to control the River's
salinity to ensure the United States' water deliveries to Mexico are
within the specified salinity concentration range. Title II of the Act
authorized control measures upstream of Imperial Dam and directed the
Secretary of the Interior to construct several salinity control
projects, most of which are located in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.
Title II of the Act was again amended in 1995 and 2000 to direct
the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a basin-wide salinity control
program. This program awards grants to non-Federal entities, on a
competitive-bid basis, which initiate and carry out salinity control
projects. The basin-wide program has demonstrated significantly
improved cost-effectiveness, as computed on $1 per ton of salt basis,
as compared to the prior Reclamation-initiated projects. The Forum was
heavily involved in the development of the 1974 Act and its subsequent
amendments, and continues to actively oversee the Federal agencies'
salinity control program efforts.
During the past 32 years, the seven-State Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Forum has actively assisted the Federal agencies,
including the Bureau of Reclamation, in implementing this unique and
important program. At its October 2006 meeting, the Forum recommended
that the Bureau of Reclamation seek to have appropriated and should
expend for Colorado River Basin salinity control the sum of $17,500,000
in fiscal year 2007. We strongly believe the combined efforts of the
salinity control efforts of the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of
Agriculture and the Bureau of Land Management constitute one of the
most successful Federal/State cooperative non-point source pollution
control programs in the United States.
The State of Wyoming greatly appreciates the subcommittee's support
of the Colorado River Salinity Control Program in past years. We
strongly believe this important basin-wide water quality improvement
program merits continued funding and support by your subcommittee.
Thank you in advance for inclusion of this letter in the formal hearing
record concerning fiscal year 2007 appropriations.
With best regards,
Patrick T. Tyrrell,
Wyoming State Engineer.
______
Letter From the Duchesne County Water Conservancy District
Roosevelt, UT, March 9, 2006.
The Honorable Pete Domenici,
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Senate Appropriations
Committee, United States Senate, 127 Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Mr. Domenici: We are writing this letter to request your
support for continued funding for the Colorado River Salinity Control
Title II Program. This program has greatly assisted in removal of many
tons of salt from the Colorado River, but there is still a great deal
of work to be completed that will require an adequate level of funding.
The seven Colorado River Basin States, as well as Mexico, have greatly
benefitted from this important program. For many years high
concentrations of salt in the Colorado River had severely damaged
agricultural production in the West as well as resulting in poor
quality water being delivered to Mexico.
Great strides have been made in improving water quality in the
Colorado River since the inception of this program but we strongly feel
that there is still a great deal to be done. We understand that the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum is requesting $17,500,000
in funds be appropriated for this program for fiscal year 2007 and we
would like to add our full support to that funding level request. We
would also like to express support for the continued funding of the
Natural Resource Conservation Service program, the Environmental
Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) which works closely with the Salinity
Program. It is very important that adequate funding levels be
maintained for it also.
We request the subcommittee's assistance to ensure that the
Colorado River Salinity Control Title II program and EQIP program are
provided with continued adequate funding.
Sincerely,
Randy Crozier,
General Manager.
______
Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is writing
in support of the following Federal programs, in priority order, under
the Bureau of Reclamation and Department of Energy's budgets that we
believe are deserving of your subcommittee's support during the fiscal
year 2007 budget process: (1) California Bay-Delta Restoration, $38.61
million; (2) South Delta Temporary Barriers, $2.0 million; (3) Atlas
Mill Tailings Removal in Moab, Utah, $22.865 million; (4) Water
Conservation Field Services Program, $0.7 million; (5) Lower Colorado
River Investigations Program, Brine Management Study, $0.1 million; (6)
Colorado River Front Work and Levee System, Water Management Reservoir
Near the All American Canal Subactivity, $47.541 million; (7) Yuma Area
Projects, Excavating Sediments Behind Laguna Dam, $4.654 million; (8)
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control--Title II Basinwide Program;
$17.5 million.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is a public
agency that was created in 1928 to meet the supplemental water demands
of people living in what is now portions of a six-county region of
southern California. Today, the region served by Metropolitan includes
approximately 18 million people living on the coastal plain between
Ventura and the international boundary with Mexico.
Included in our region are more than 300 cities and unincorporated
areas in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and Ventura. We provide over half of the water used in our
5,200-square-mile service area and help our members to develop local
supplies through increased water conservation, recycling, storage and
other resource-management programs. Metropolitan's imported water
supplies come from the Colorado River via our Colorado River Aqueduct
and from northern California via the State Water Project's California
Aqueduct.
We are sensitive to the magnitude of these program requests during
tight budget times. We are also committed to supporting these Federal
programs as they are critical to meeting the challenges of water
resources management and source water quality protection throughout
California. These programs help to ensure long-term water security and
meet the water quality requirements necessary to provide our member
agencies with a safe, reliable water supply. We strongly urge your
support for these funding requests.
CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION
Metropolitan recommends your support of the President's fiscal year
2007 budget request of $38.61 million in new funding from the Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation) for funding the Federal share of the CALFED
Bay-Delta program to supplement the State's cost share. The Bay-Delta
system is critical to the State's economy and provides potable water to
two-thirds of California homes. Included in this budget are $10,890,000
for the Environmental Water Account; $11,385,000 to continue storage
activities related to the Shasta Enlargement Study, Sites Reservoir,
Upper San Joaquin Reservoir, and Los Vaqueros enlargement, and other
study and planning activities; $5,198,000 for conveyance activities;
$2,970,000 for science based studies; $2,970,000 for activities that
will help meet water quality standards; $1,980,000 for ecosystem
restoration; and $2,970,000 for planning and management activities.
Metropolitan also supports an emphasis on funding for Delta Emergency
Response actions, critical levee repairs, and CALFED habitat
conservation planning activities.
SOUTH DELTA TEMPORARY BARRIERS
Metropolitan strongly recommends that $2.0 million be added to
Reclamation's budget to fund the South Delta Temporary Barriers. The
Temporary Barriers project would protect water quality in the southern
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta from salt water that normally intrudes
into the Delta. As flow control structures, these structures would use
normal tidal action to trap fresh water behind the structures to
improve water quality and circulation in the South Delta, and to
provide for use of this fresh water by local agricultural agencies.
These Federal funds will leverage up to $6 million dollars in State
funding.
ATLAS MINE TAILINGS CLEANUP
In cooperation with the Utah State Department of Environmental
Quality, the Metropolitan Water District supports the President's
budget request of $22.865 million in fiscal year 2007 for DOE for the
purposes of moving forward with the clean-up of uranium mine tailings
at the Atlas Site in Moab, Utah.
WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICES PROGRAM
Metropolitan is requesting a $0.7 million augmentation of
Reclamation's budget for the Water Conservation Field Services Program.
This program encourages conservation of scarce water resources by
providing assistance to State, agricultural, and urban water districts
through training, technology transfer, technical guidance, and other
related activities. The requested funding would be above Reclamation's
current budget for the following programs and includes: $400,000 for
the California Friendly program for water conservation to improve water
efficiency in new construction and municipal landscapes; $100,000 for
industrial water efficiency surveys to survey opportunities to conserve
water in industrial water use; and $200,000 for weather based
irrigation controller and market research activities to pilot
innovative ways to speed distribution and acceptance of these landscape
efficiency devices.
LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM, BRINE MANAGEMENT STUDY
Metropolitan is requesting an additional $0.1 million for the Lower
Colorado River Investigations Program Brine Management Study in
Reclamation's budget. This study continues Reclamation's work toward
addressing brine concentrates. This additional money request would
allow Reclamation to gather additional data with its partners, create a
regional issue sensitivity analysis, and finalize and prioritize
alternative solutions that manage brine concentrates in an economic and
environmentally acceptable manner. The results of the study would also
provide benefits for future seawater and brackish desalination
projects.
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM
Water Management Reservoir Near the All-American Canal Subactivity
Reclamation has completed a multi-phased study quantifying the need
and options for regulatory storage to improve Colorado River management
downstream of Lake Mead. Reclamation has concluded that locating up to
a 10,000 acre-foot capacity water management reservoir in Imperial
County near Drop 2 of the All-American Canal would be of great benefit
to the Colorado River Basin States. Benefits include conservation of
reservoir system storage, improving river regulation and water delivery
scheduling, providing opportunities for water conservation,
facilitating storage and conjunctive use programs, and setting the
stage for new cooperative water supply and water quality management
endeavors with Mexico.
Colorado River Front Work and Levee System Project funding of
$47.541 million is needed in fiscal year 2007 in order to obtain
permits, acquire land, clear and prepare the site, procure materials
for construction, and for construction.
In recommending the Energy and Water Development appropriations
bill provisions for fiscal year 2006, the conference committee
submitted House Report 109-275 in which the conferees strongly
recommended that Reclamation proceed aggressively with this work and to
reflect the urgency of completing this project in future budget
requests. The conferees noted that this project would provide needed
improvements in river control and management, all of which are Federal
responsibilities. The President's fiscal year 2007 request does not
include funding needed for reservoir construction. Construction of the
Drop 2 Reservoir is a high priority of the Seven Basin States. On
February 3, 2006 the Basin States provided recommendations to the
Secretary of the Interior on future operations of the Colorado River
System. The States recommendations included creative opportunities to
conserve water and improve system efficiencies, including the potential
for non-Federal funding of certain efficiency improvement projects in
exchange for benefits to the funding entity. Drop 2 Reservoir may
provide an opportunity for such a partnership. We request that adequate
Federal funds be provided in fiscal year 2007, that in concert with any
non-Federal funding, will allow for the timely completion of the Drop 2
Reservoir.
YUMA AREA PROJECTS
Excavating Sediments Behind Laguna Dam
While work on a reservoir near the All-American Canal proceeds,
there is an immediate need to restore limited Colorado River regulatory
storage capacity downstream of Parker Dam. This can be partly
accomplished by excavating sediments that have accumulated behind
Laguna Dam since its completion in 1909. Reclamation funding of $4.654
million is needed in fiscal year 2007 to complete environmental
compliance and procurement and begin dredging behind Laguna Dam.
This subactivity under the Yuma Area Projects, Facilities
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Activity would restore 1,100 acre-feet
of storage behind Laguna Dam. Not only would this enhance the ability
to regulate flows arriving at Imperial Dam, it would capture and re-
regulate the water periodically released for the proper operation of
Imperial Dam, benefiting both the Colorado River Basin States and
Mexico.
The President's fiscal year 2007 request for the sediment control
subactivity is $1.154 million for completion of all necessary
environmental documentation and engineering design. Metropolitan
requests that Reclamation's funding for sediment control be augmented
so as to provide a total of $4.654 million to ensure funds are
available for the work to excavate sediments from behind Laguna Dam
immediately upon completion of the environmental documentation.
The construction of a new regulating reservoir, and dredging
sediments behind an existing dam will critically improve water delivery
efficiencies and prevent the loss of over 100,000 and up to 300,000
acre-feet per year from Colorado River reservoir storage.
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM--TITLE II
We ask for your support for additional Federal funding for
Reclamation's Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program (Salinity
Control Program)--Title II. We request that Congress appropriate $17.5
million for implementation of the Title II--Basinwide Program, an
increase of $8.59 million from the President's request of $8.91
million, to ensure water quality protection for this important source
of water supply to Arizona, California, and Nevada through construction
of off-farm measures to control Colorado River salinity. Concentrations
of salts in the river cause hundreds of millions of dollars in damage
in the United States.
We look forward to working with your office to further advance
sound water management activities in California. Please contact me if I
can answer any questions or provide additional information.
______
Prepared Statement of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission
SUMMARY
This statement is submitted in support of fiscal year 2007
appropriations for the Colorado River Basin salinity control program of
the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation. Congress
designated the Bureau of Reclamation to be the lead agency for salinity
control in the Colorado River Basin by the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act of 1974, and reconfirmed the Bureau of
Reclamation's role by passage of Public Law 104-20. A total of $17.5
million is requested for fiscal year 2007 to implement the authorized
Colorado River salinity control program of the Bureau of Reclamation.
The President's appropriation request of $10 million is inadequate
because studies have shown that the implementation of the salinity
control program has fallen behind the pace needed to control damages
from salinity. An appropriation of $17.5 million for Reclamation's
salinity control program is necessary to protect water quality
standards for salinity and to prevent unnecessary levels of economic
damage from increased salinity levels in water delivered to the Lower
Basin States of the Colorado River. In addition, funding for operation
and maintenance of existing projects and sufficient general
investigation funding is required to identify new salinity control
opportunities.
STATEMENT
The water quality standards for salinity of the Colorado River must
be protected while the Basin States continue to develop their compact
apportioned waters of the river. The salinity standards for the
Colorado River have been adopted by the seven Basin States and approved
by EPA. While currently the standards have not been exceeded, salinity
control projects must be brought on-line in a timely and cost-effective
manner to prevent future effects that could cause the numeric criteria
to be exceeded, and would result in unnecessary damages from higher
levels of salinity in the water delivered to Lower Basin States of the
Colorado River.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act was authorized by
Congress and signed into law in 1974. The seven Colorado River Basin
States, in response to the Clean Water Act of 1972, formed the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Forum, a body comprised of gubernatorial
representatives from the seven States. The Forum was created to provide
for interstate cooperation in response to the Clean Water Act and to
provide the States with information necessary to comply with Sections
303(a) and (b) of the Act. The Forum has become the primary means for
the Basin States to coordinate with Federal agencies and Congress to
support the implementation of the salinity control program for the
Colorado River Basin.
Bureau of Reclamation studies show that damages from the Colorado
River to United States water users are about $330,000,000 per year.
Damages are estimated at $75,000,000 per year for every additional
increase of 30 milligrams per liter in salinity of the Colorado River.
Control of salinity is necessary for the States of the Colorado River
Basin, including New Mexico, to continue to develop their compact-
apportioned waters of the Colorado River.
Timely appropriations for the funding of the salinity control
program are essential to comply with the water quality standards for
salinity, prevent unnecessary economic damages in the United States,
and protect the quality of the water that the United States is
obligated to deliver to Mexico. The Basin States and Federal agencies
agree that increases in the salinity of the Colorado River will result
in significant increases in damages to water users in the Lower
Colorado River Basin. An appropriation of only the amount specified in
the President's budget request is inadequate to protect the quality of
water in the Colorado River and prevent unnecessary salinity damages in
the States of the Lower Colorado River Basin. Although the United
States has always met the water quality standard for salinity of water
delivered to Mexico under Minute No. 242 of the International Boundary
and Water Commission, the United States through the U.S. Section of
IBWC is currently addressing a request by Mexico for better quality
water. Thus, continued strong support and adequate funding of the
salinity control program is required to control salinity-related
damages in the United States and Mexico.
Congress amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in
July 1995 (Public Law 104-20). The salinity control program authorized
by Congress by the amendment has proven to be very cost-effective, and
the Basin States are standing ready with up-front cost sharing.
Proposals from public and private sector entities in response to the
Bureau of Reclamation's advertisement have far exceeded available
funding. Basin States cost sharing funds are available for the $17.5
million appropriation request for fiscal year 2007. The Basin States
cost sharing adds 43 cents for each Federal dollar appropriated.
Public Law 106-459 gave the Bureau of Reclamation additional
spending authority for the salinity control program. With the
additional authority in place and significant cost sharing available
from the Basin States, it is essential that the salinity control
program be funded at the level requested by the Forum and Basin States
to protect the water quality of the Colorado River. Some of the most
cost-effective salinity control opportunities occur when Reclamation
improves irrigation delivery systems concurrently with on-farm
irrigation improvements undertaken by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). The
Basin States cost-share funding is available for both parts, on-farm
and off-farm, and EQIP funding appears to be adequate to accomplish
needed on-farm work. Adequate funding for Reclamation off-farm work is
needed to maintain timely implementation and effectiveness of salinity
control measures.
Maintenance and operation of the Bureau of Reclamation's salinity
control projects and general investigations to identify new cost-
effective salinity control projects are necessary for the continued
success of the salinity control program. Investigation of new
opportunities for salinity control are critical while the Basin States
continue to develop and use their compact-apportioned waters of the
Colorado River. The water quality standards for salinity and the United
States water quality requirements pursuant to treaty obligations with
Mexico are dependent on timely implementation of salinity control
projects, adequate funding to maintain and operate existing projects,
and sufficient general investigation funding to determine new cost-
effective opportunities for salinity control.
Continued funding primarily through Reclamation's Facility
Operation activity to support maintenance and operation the Paradox
Valley Unit and the Grand Valley Unit is critically needed. General
Investigation funding through Reclamation's Colorado River Water
Quality Improvement Program has been lacking in the recent past, and
needs to be restored to a level that supports the need for
identification and study of new salinity control opportunities to
maintain the levels of salinity control to meet water quality standards
and control economic damages in the Lower Colorado River Basin.
I urge the Congress to appropriate $17.5 million to the Bureau of
Reclamation for the Colorado River Basin salinity control program,
adequate funding for operation and maintenance of existing projects and
adequate funding for general investigations to identify new salinity
control opportunities. Also, I fully support testimony by the Forum's
Executive Director, Jack Barnett, in request of this appropriation, and
the recommendation of an appropriation of the same amount by the
federally chartered Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory
Council.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Commission of Nevada
As a Nevada representative of the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Forum, the Colorado River Commission of Nevada (CRC) supports
funding the fiscal year 2007 budget request for $17,500,000 for the
Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.
The CRC urges the Congress to appropriate funds requested by the
administration to continue to maintain and operate salinity control
facilities as they are completed and placed into long-term operations.
Reclamation has completed the Paradox Valley unit which involves the
collection of brines in the Paradox Valley of Colorado and the
injection of those brines into a deep aquifer through an injection
well. The continued operation of this project and the Grand Valley Unit
will be funded primarily through the Facility Operations activity. The
CRC also supports funding to allow for continued general investigation
of the Salinity Control Program as requested by the administration for
the Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program.
Salinity remains one of the major problems in the Colorado River.
Congress has recognized the need to confront this problem with its
passage of Public Law 93-320 and Public Law 98-569. Your support of the
Forum's current funding recommendations in support of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program is essential to move the program
forward so that the congressionally directed salinity objectives
embodied in Public Law 93-320 and Public Law 98-569 are achieved.
______
Prepared Statement of the Red River Valley Association
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Wayne Dowd, and
pleased to represent the Red River Valley Association as its President.
Our organization was founded in 1925 with the express purpose of
uniting the citizens of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas to
develop the land and water resources of the Red River Basin.
The Resolutions contained herein were adopted by the Association
during its 80th Annual Meeting in Bossier City, Louisiana on February
24, 2005, and represent the combined concerns of the citizens of the
Red River Basin Area as they pertain to the goals of the Association.
Our ``western rivers'' played a very important part in the
development and economic success of the States west of the Mississippi
River. An agency responsible for the development of those water
resources has been the Bureau of Reclamation. In our four-State region
they have been most active in Oklahoma.
I would like to comment on three specific requests for the future
economic well-being of the citizens residing in the Red River Valley
region in Oklahoma. We support the following studies and request that
the Bureau of Reclamation be funded at their full fiscal year 2007
capability.
North Fork of the Red River, OK, Investigation Study.--The W.C.
Austin (Altus Lake and Dam) Project in southwestern Oklahoma, is
authorized to provide water for irrigation to approximately 48,000
acres of privately owned land in southwestern Oklahoma; control
flooding on the North Fork of the Red River and augment municipal water
supply for the City of Altus. Secondary benefits include fish and
wildlife conservation and recreation opportunities. Project features
include Altus Dam, four canals, a 221-mile lateral distribution system
and 26 miles of drains. The Lugert-Altus Irrigation District (LAID) is
responsible for operation and maintenance of the project.
Water demand in the District and region is growing which, in turn,
is reducing future water availability and economic development
opportunities. This proposed investigation would: (1) develop a
hydrologic model of the NFRR watershed; and (2) evaluate opportunities
for augmenting water availability in the project region.
We support a comprehensive evaluation of water resources in the
North Fork of the Red River in Oklahoma. We sincerely appreciate your
support in past appropriations.
An allocation of $300,000 is requested for the fiscal year 2007
appropriations.
Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer Study.--The Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer has
been designated a sole source aquifer by EPA and a large number of
Oklahomans depend on its protection for their health and economic
future. This is an important source of water supply for: the citizens
of Ada, Sulphur, Mill Creek and Roff; the Chickasaw National
Recreational Area; Chickasaw and Choctaw Tribal members; and many
farmers and ranchers owning land overlying the basin. Contributions
from the aquifer also provide the perennial flow for many streams and
natural springs in the area. The Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer underlines
approximately 500 square miles of south-central Oklahoma.
During recent years, a number of issues have emerged which have
caused concerns about the utilization and continued health of the
aquifer. These concerns include issues over water use, exportation of
water out of the area, impacts of groundwater development on the flows
in the significant springs and rivers, and competition for water and
water quality.
In order to assure the future well-being of the aquifer we support
a 5-year study to include detailed assessments of: the formation's
hydrogeology, water quality and vulnerability; groundwater-surface
water interactions; land use changes and related impacts; Tribal-State
water rights; and overall management of the resources. We appreciate
your support of this study by funding the last 3 years of the study.
We request $1,500,000 be appropriated for fiscal year 2007 and
support that the study be cost shared, 90 percent Federal and 10
percent State/Local funds.
Fort Cobb, Washita Basin Project, Water Supply Augmentation
Appraisal Study.--Fort Cobb Reservoir is located at river mile 7.4 on
Pond (Cobb) Creek, a tributary of the Washita River, in the Red River
Basin in Caddo County, about 14 miles northwest of Anadarko. The
project is authorized for flood control, municipal water supply, fish
and wildlife and recreation. Construction of the project, by the Bureau
of Reclamation, began in February of 1958 and was completed in March of
1959. The project is designed to provide about 11.9 MGD of water
supply.
Over the past several years, the Fort Cobb Master Conservancy
District has begun to experience difficulty in delivering sufficient
water through their aqueduct to meet the peak demands of the service
population. Although the total demand has not yet exceeded the amount
contracted to the member cities and other user entities, there is an
urgent need to evaluate opportunities for augmentation of the project
supply to ensure the ability to meet the future needs of the member
communities. The appraisal study would evaluate both surface and ground
water resources in the area and look at alternatives to augment
available water supply from the project.
The RRVA requests the appropriation of $100,000 in the Bureau of
Reclamation's fiscal year 2007 budget to conduct an appraisal study of
water supply augmentation options at the Fort Cobb Reservoir, Washita
Basin Project.
The Red River Valley Association understands these are difficult
times with our Nation's budget, so we appreciate your support for these
studies in the past. We feel they are extremely important to the
welfare of the citizens in Oklahoma and request that you again support
these studies in fiscal year 2007.
We are always available to provide additional information and
answer whatever questions you may have.
ENCLOSURE 1
RED RIVER VALLEY ASSOCIATION
The Red River Valley Association is a voluntary group of citizens
bonded together to advance the economic development and future well
being of the citizens of the four-State Red River Basin area in
Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas.
For the past 80 years, the Association has done notable work in the
support and advancement of programs to develop the land and water
resources of the Valley to the beneficial use of all the people. To
this end, the Red River Valley Association offers its full support and
assistance to the various agricultural organizations and other local
governmental entities in developing the area along the Red River.
The Resolutions contained herein were adopted by the Association
during its 801st Annual Meeting in Bossier City, Louisiana on February
24, 2006, and represent the combined concerns of the citizens of the
Red River Basin Area as they pertain to the goals of the Association,
specifically:
--Economic and Community Development;
--Environmental Restoration;
--Flood Control;
--Bank Stabilization;
--A Clean Water Supply for Municipal, Industrial and Agricultural
Uses;
--Recreation; and,
--Navigation.
The Red River Valley Association is aware of the constraints on the
Federal budget, and has kept those restraints in mind as these
Resolutions were adopted. Therefore, and because of the far-reaching
regional and national benefits addressed by the various projects
covered in these Resolutions, we urge the members of Congress to review
the material contained herein and give serious consideration to funding
these initiatives at the levels requested.
______
Prepared Statement of the Santa Clara Valley Water District
CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM--SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SUMMARY
This statement urges the committee's support for a fiscal year 2007
administration budget request of $38.6 million and an appropriation
add-on of $61.4 million, for a total of $100 million for California
Bay-Delta Restoration.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
Background.--In an average year, half of Santa Clara County's water
supply is imported from the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta estuary (Bay-Delta) watersheds through three water projects: the
State Water Project, the Federal Central Valley Project, and San
Francisco's Hetch Hetchy Project. In conjunction with locally-developed
water, this water supply supports more than 1.7 million residents in
Santa Clara County and the most important high-tech center in the
world. In average-to-wet years, there is enough water to meet the
county's long-term needs. In dry years, however, the county could face
a water supply shortage of as much as 100,000 acre-feet per year, or
roughly 20 percent of the expected demand. In addition to shortages due
to hydrologic variations, the county's imported supplies have been
reduced due to regulatory restrictions placed on the operation of the
State and Federal water projects.
There are also water quality problems associated with using Bay-
Delta water as a drinking water supply. Organic materials and
pollutants discharged into the Delta, together with salt water mixing
in from San Francisco Bay, have the potential to create disinfection by
products that are carcinogenic and pose reproductive health concerns.
Santa Clara County's imported supplies are also vulnerable to
extended outages due to catastrophic failures such as major earthquakes
and flooding.
Project Synopsis.--The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is an
unprecedented, cooperative effort among Federal, State, and local
agencies to restore the Bay-Delta. With input from urban, agricultural,
environmental, fishing, and business interests, and the general public,
CALFED has developed a comprehensive, long-term plan to address
ecosystem and water management issues in the Bay-Delta.
Restoring the Bay-Delta ecosystem is important not only because of
its significance as an environmental resource, but also because failing
to do so will stall efforts to improve water supply reliability and
water quality for millions of Californians and the State's trillion-
dollar economy and job base.
The passage of H.R. 2828 in 2004 reauthorized Federal participation
in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and provided $389 million in new and
expanded funding authority for selected projects, including the San
Luis Reservoir Low Point Improvement Project. The San Luis Project is
one of six new projects, studies or water management actions authorized
to receive a share of up to $184 million under the conveyance section
of the bill. It is critical that Federal funding be provided to
implement the actions authorized in the bill in the coming years.
Fiscal Year 2006 Funding.--$37 million was appropriated for CALFED
activities in fiscal year 2006.
Fiscal Year 2007 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
committee support an appropriation add-on of $61.4 million, in addition
to the $38.6 million in the administration's fiscal year 2007 budget
request, for a total of $100 million for California Bay-Delta
Restoration.
SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM (SOUTH BAY WATER
RECYCLING PROGRAM)--SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SUMMARY
This statement urges the committee's support for a fiscal year 2007
administration budget request of $495,000 and an appropriation add-on
of $3.61 million, for a total of $4.1 million to fund the program's
work.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
Background.--The San Jose Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Program,
also known as the South Bay Water Recycling Program, will allow the
City of San Jose and its tributary agencies of the San Jose/Santa Clara
Water Pollution Control Plant to protect endangered species habitat,
meet receiving water quality standards, supplement Santa Clara County
water supplies, and comply with a mandate from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the California Water Resources Control Board to
reduce wastewater discharges into San Francisco Bay.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) collaborated with
the City of San Jose to build the first phase of the recycled water
system by providing financial support and technical assistance, as well
as coordination with local water retailers. The design, construction,
construction administration, and inspection of the program's
transmission pipeline and Milpitas 1A Pipeline was performed by the
District under contract to the City of San Jose.
Status.--The City of San Jose is the program sponsor for Phase 1,
consisting of almost 60 miles of transmission and distribution
pipelines, pump stations, and reservoirs. Completed at a cost of $140
million, Phase 1 began partial operation in October 1997. Summertime
2004 deliveries averaged 10.6 million gallons per day of recycled
water. The system now serves over 517 active customers and delivers
approximately 7,200 acre-feet of recycled water per year.
Phase 2 is now underway. In June 2001, San Jose approved an $82.5
million expansion of the program. The expansion includes additional
pipeline extensions into the cities of Santa Clara and Milpitas, a
major pipeline extension into Coyote Valley in south San Jose, and
reliability improvements of added reservoirs and pump stations. The
District and the City of San Jose executed an agreement in February
2002 to cost-share on the pipeline into Coyote Valley and discuss a
long-term partnership agreement on the entire system. Phase 2's near-
term objective is to increase deliveries by the year 2010 to 15,000
acre-feet per year.
Funding.--In 1992, Public Law 102-575 authorized the Bureau of
Reclamation to work with the City of San Jose and the District to plan,
design, and build demonstration and permanent facilities for reclaiming
and reusing water in the San Jose metropolitan service area. The City
of San Jose reached an agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation to
cover 25 percent of Phase 1's costs, or approximately $35 million;
however, Federal appropriations have not reached the authorized amount.
To date, the program has received $26.62 million of the $35 million
authorization.
Fiscal Year 2006 Funding.--$422,000 was appropriated in fiscal year
2006.
Fiscal Year 2007 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $3.61
million, in addition to the $495,000 in the administration's fiscal
year 2007 budget request, for a total of $4.1 million to fund the
program's work.
SAN LUIS RESERVOIR LOW POINT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT--SANTA CLARA COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
SUMMARY
This statement urges the committee's support for a fiscal year 2007
administration budget request of $1.485 million and an appropriation
add-on of $5.515 million, for a total of $8 million, to complete the
Feasibility Study. This request is included in the $100 million CALFED
Bay-Delta Program appropriation request.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
Background.--San Luis Reservoir is one of the largest reservoirs in
California, and is the largest ``off-stream'' water storage facility in
the world. The Reservoir has a water storage capacity of more than 2
million acre-feet and is a key component of the water supply system
serving the Federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and California's State
Water Project. San Luis is used for seasonal storage of Sacramento-San
Joaquin delta water that is delivered to the reservoir via the
California Aqueduct and Delta-Mendota Canal. The San Luis Reservoir is
jointly owned and operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the
California Department of Water Resources.
The San Luis Reservoir provides the sole source of CVP water supply
for the San Felipe Division contractors--Santa Clara Valley Water
District (District), San Benito County Water District and, in the
future, Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency. When water levels in San
Luis Reservoir are drawn down in the spring and summer, high water
temperatures result in algae blooms at the reservoir's water surface.
This condition degrades water quality, making the water difficult or
impractical to treat and can preclude deliveries of water from San Luis
Reservoir to San Felipe Division contractors. In order to avoid the
``low point'' problem, the reservoir has been operated to maintain
water levels above the critical low elevation--the ``low point''--
resulting in approximately 200,000 acre-feet of undelivered water to
south of the Delta State and Federal water users.
Project Goals and Status.--The goal of the project is to increase
the operational flexibility of storage in San Luis Reservoir and ensure
a high quality, reliable water supply for San Felipe Division
contractors. The specific project objectives are to: (1) Increase the
operational flexibility of San Luis Reservoir by increasing the
effective storage; (2) Ensure that San Felipe Division contractors are
able to manage their annual Central Valley Project contract allocation
to meet their water supply and water quality commitments; (3) Provide
opportunities for project-related environmental improvements; and (4)
Provide opportunities for other project-related improvements.
Preliminary studies by the District have identified six potential
alternatives to solve the problem. More funding is needed to fully
explore these alternatives.
The passage of H.R. 2828 in 2004 reauthorized Federal participation
in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The San Luis Reservoir Low Point
Improvement Project was one of six new projects, studies or water
management actions authorized in the bill to receive a share of up to
$184 million authorized under the conveyance section of the bill.
Fiscal Year 2006 Funding.--$2 million was appropriated in the
fiscal year 2006 CALFED appropriation.
Fiscal Year 2007 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $5.515
million, in addition to the $1.485 million in the administration's
fiscal year 2007 budget request, for a total of $8 million for the San
Luis Reservoir Low Point Improvement Project. The San Luis request is
included in the $100 million CALFED Bay-Delta appropriation request.
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Energy Distributors
Association
The Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (CREDA)
appreciates this opportunity to submit its views on recommendations in
the President's fiscal year 2007 budget proposal that affect specific
programs of the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) and the Western Area
Power Administration (Western) in the Energy and Water Development Act
of 2007. Our testimony will address two issues:
--Our request for the inclusion of language to fund additional, post
9/11 security measures at multi-purpose Federal dams from non-
reimbursable appropriations; and
--Our opposition to the proposal to change interest rate calculations
of the Federal Power Marketing Administrations.
CREDA is a non-profit, regional organization representing 155
consumer-owned, non-profit municipal and rural electric cooperatives,
political subdivisions, irrigation and electrical districts and tribal
utility authorities that purchase hydropower resources from the
Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP). CRSP is a multi-purpose Federal
project that provides flood control, water storage for irrigation,
municipal and industrial purposes; recreation and environmental
mitigation, in addition to the generation of electricity. CREDA was
established in 1978 and serves as the ``voice'' of CRSP contractor
members in dealing with resource availability and affordability issues.
CREDA represents its members in dealing with the Bureau--as the owner
and operator of the CRSP--and with Western--as the marketing agency for
CRSP hydropower.
CREDA members serve over 4 million electric consumers in six
western States: Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and
Wyoming. CREDA's member utilities purchase more than 85 percent of the
power produced by the CRSP.
costs of increased security at federal multi-purpose projects
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bureau of
Reclamation (Bureau) embarked upon an aggressive program to enhance the
security of Federal dams to protect the facilities against terrorist
attacks. Based on historical precedent dating to World War II, the
Bureau determined in 2002 that the costs of increased security measures
should remain a non-reimbursable obligation of the Federal Government.
For fiscal year 2003, the Bureau received $28.4 million in Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act (Public Law 108-7) and an
additional $25 million in supplemental appropriations. The Bureau also
received $28.5 million for increased security costs in the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-137).
Due to budget constraints, the President's fiscal year 2005 budget
directed the Bureau to recover $12 million from entities that benefit
from the multi-purpose projects. Of that amount, power customers were
asked to pay an estimated 94 percent. Federal power customers objected,
citing legislative precedent and the fact that the additional security
measures are intended to protect all features of the Federal multi-
purpose projects, not just the power features, from attack and
destruction. In fact, in the event of a catastrophic failure of these
projects, the power function could most likely be the purpose least
impacted.
Further, power users noted that Bureau's decision to allocate a
majority of the reimbursable costs to power users was not based on any
objective or risk analysis of the benefits of the security upgrades.
Congress has spoken annually regarding treatment of these costs. In
report language accompanying the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act of 2005 (Public Law 108-447), Congress recognized
the dramatic increase in security needs and corresponding costs at
Reclamation facilities following the September 11, 2001 attacks on our
country. Congress also recognized that the Reclamation security posture
``will not likely approach pre-September 11, 2001 levels for many
years, if ever.'' The conference committee then underscored its concern
for the reimbursability of security costs by including the following
directive to the Bureau:
``Reclamation shall provide a report to the conference no later than
May 1, 2005, with a breakout of planned reimbursable and non-
reimbursable security costs by project, by region. The conference
directs the Commissioner [of Reclamation] not to begin the
reimbursement process until the Congress provides direct instruction to
do so.''
The May 2005 Report indicated the desire of the Bureau to collect
the costs of guards and patrols from project beneficiaries (primarily
power) based on the existing project cost allocations for operation and
maintenance. In the CRSP, this would require about 95 percent of the
costs to be borne by the power customers.
In the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006 (HR
2419, November 7, 2005), Congress directed that $10 million of the
estimated $18 million for guards and patrols be provided by
reimbursable funding. Further, Congress directed that a report to
Congress be provided with further detail in 60 days.
``. . . the Bureau of Reclamation is expected to receive approximately
$10,000,000 in reimbursements for additional security guards and
patrols, which are considered project O&M costs. The conferees agree,
however, that all project beneficiaries that benefit from an enhanced
security posture at the Bureau's facilities should pay a share of the
security costs. Accordingly, the Bureau is directed to provide to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, not later than 60 days
after the enactment of this Act, a delineation of planned reimbursable
security costs by project prorated by all project purposes.''
The report (issued in March 2006) is similar to the previous (May
2005) report, except that it also includes ``facility fortification
upgrades'' as a reimbursable cost. Previously the USBR had assured its
stakeholders that only the costs of guards and patrols would be
reimbursable. This additional obligation in essence makes EVERYTHING
reimbursable at some point.
CREDA believes that the historic rationale established in the 1942
and 1943 Interior Department Appropriation Acts for treating costs of
increased security at multi-purpose Federal projects as non-
reimbursable obligations of the Federal Government is still valid. We
urge Congress to add language to the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act of 2007 to clarify that all costs of increased
security at dams owned and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation be
non-reimbursable.
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATION INTEREST RATE PROPOSAL
The administration's fiscal year 2007 budget includes a
recommendation that would raise electricity rates by changing the
interest rate charged by the Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA),
the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA), and the Western Area
Power Administration (WAPA) on all new investments in projects whose
interest rates are not set by law. Specifically, the Department of
Energy's (DOE) budget calls for the these three Power Marketing
Administrations (PMAs) to set their interest rates at the level that
government corporations pay to borrow funds from the Federal
Government. To implement this proposal, (DOE) will amend the regulation
that governs how the PMAs establish their rates and will do so
administratively, without any consultation with or action from
Congress.
The administration's budget proposes to increase the interest rate
charged on all new investments in these hydroelectric facilities to a
level that is charged government corporations--the rate that reflects
the interest cost for the Federal Government to provide loans to
government corporations. SEPA, SWPA and WAPA are neither government
corporations nor do they borrow funds from the U.S. Treasury. All rates
are set to recover the dollars appropriated by Congress for the
investment in the hydroelectric facilities and to cover the cost to
operate these projects. If implemented, this proposal could increase
rates considerably for customers served by most of the Power Marketing
Administrations.
This proposal creates a serious precedent and should be rejected,
because:
--The process for implementing the proposal can be done without
congressional involvement or approval;
--The proposal would arbitrarily raise revenue from electric
customers for deficit reduction; and
--The proposal reverses decades of rate making precedent and accepted
cost recovery practices by administrative fiat.
We urge the subcommittee to reject this proposal.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and
Dry Prairie Rural Water System
The Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and Dry Prairie Rural
Water respectfully request fiscal year 2007 appropriations in the
amount of $29,797,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation from the
subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. Funds will be used to
construct critical elements of the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water
System, Montana, (Public Law 106-382, October 27, 2000). The amount
requested is based on need to build critical project elements and is
well within capability to spend the requested funds as set out below:
FISCAL YEAR 2007 WORK PLAN--FORT PECK RESERVATION RURAL WATER SYSTEM
(PUBLIC LAW 106-382)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Peck Tribes:
Work Plan (100 Percent Federal)..................... $15,626,000
Water Treatment Plant Pipelines:
Poplar to Big Muddy............................. 5,021,000
Poplar to Wolf Point............................ 3,296,000
FP OM Buildings..................................... 654,000
---------------
TOTAL............................................. 24,597,000
===============
Dry Prairie:
Work Plan (Branch Pipelines): A, Bainville and Other
Branch Lines:
Federal......................................... 5,246,000
State and Local................................. 1,259,000
---------------
TOTAL............................................. 6,505,000
===============
Federal................................................. 29,843,000
State and Local......................................... 1,259,000
---------------
Total............................................. 31,102,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sponsor Tribes and Dry Prairie greatly appreciate the previous
appropriations from the subcommittee that have permitted building the
Missouri River intake, the critical water source, and the first phase
of the Culbertson to Medicine Lake Pipeline Project.
The request is less than the average annual appropriations needed
to complete the project in fiscal year 2012 ($34,446,000), as provided
by the authorizing legislation, but is within our capability to use:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Federal Funds Authorized (October 2005 Dollars)... $247,267,000
Federal Funds Expended Through Fiscal Year 2006......... $40,590,000
Percent Complete........................................ 16.42
Amount Remaining........................................ $206,677,000
Average Annual Required for Fiscal Year 2012 Finish $34,446,000
(Public Law 106-382)...................................
Fiscal Year 2006 Amount Requested....................... $29,797,000
Years to Complete....................................... 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that cost indexing from last year due to inflation increased
the cost of the project from $235 million to $247 million, an increase
of $12 million. Increases in the level of appropriations are needed to
outpace inflation.
PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
Public Law 106-382 (October 27, 2000) authorized this project,
which includes all of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in Montana and
the Dry Prairie portion of the project outside the Reservation.
Fort Peck Indian Reservation
On the Fort Peck Indian Reservation the Tribes have used
appropriations from previous years to construct the Missouri River raw
water intake, a critical feature of the regional water project. The raw
water pump station has also been constructed, and the raw water
pipeline between the Missouri River and the water treatment plant has
been constructed to within 2 miles of the water treatment plant. The
sludge lagoons at the water treatment plant are currently under
construction. All projects have bid under the engineer's estimate. The
critical Missouri River water treatment plant will begin construction
in spring 2006 and will use $12.600 million of funds on hand. At a cost
of $31.0 million the project (contract and non-contract costs) will be
constructed over a 3-year period. Fiscal year 2007 funds of $15.573
million are needed to honor the construction contract. The remaining
funds would be requested in fiscal year 2008.
The request for fiscal year 2007 also provides for construction of
pipelines from the water treatment plant toward the communities of
Poplar (Poplar to Big Muddy) and Wolf Point (Poplar to Wolf Point).
These are the principal core pipelines that extend east and west of the
water treatment plant to serve the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and to
connect to Dry Prairie facilities on the east and west boundaries of
the Reservation. The funds for the pipeline projects are $5.025 and
$3.299 million, respectively. The Tribes will also use $654,000 for an
administration, operation and maintenance building. The Bureau of
Reclamation can confirm that the use of funds proposed for fiscal year
2007 is well within the project's capability.
The pipeline project from the water treatment plant to Poplar will
provide a source of water for a section of the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation contaminated by oil drilling operations and the subject of
EPA orders to the responsible oil company. There is urgency in
completing the pipeline to Poplar before the advancing plume of
contamination reaches existing community wells. The oil company will
provide the distribution system necessary to mitigate the problems and
the Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water System will provide the
interconnecting pipeline without duplicating any facilities identified
in the Final Engineering Report.
Dry Prairie
Dry Prairie has used previous appropriations to construct core
pipelines and a booster pump station from the community of Culbertson
to serve the communities of Froid and Medicine Lake. This project
represents a significant portion of the main core pipeline for the
eastern half of the Dry Prairie Project. Pipelines were sized to serve
the area north of the Missouri River, south of the Canadian border and
between the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the North Dakota border
(see general location map attached).
The project relies on interim water supplies. The regional water
treatment plant will provide finished water when pipelines are
constructed to the interconnection point for Dry Prairie at the Big
Muddy River. The project between Culbertson, Froid and Medicine Lake is
in full operation and serves the last two mentioned communities and a
small number of rural users.
The completed system provides Dry Prairie with capability to build
branch pipelines and connect rural areas in the south half of the east
half of the Dry Prairie Project. Bainville and Dane Valley residents
can be served with the existing system capacity that is now constructed
and in operation. Fiscal year 2006 funds are being used to construct
part of the distribution to this area.
The request for fiscal year 2007 funds of $5,246,000, supplemented
by a non-Federal cost share of $1,259,000, will be used to finish
branch pipelines connecting with the Culbertson-Froid-Medicine Lake
core pipeline. Additional funds will be available to build other branch
lines in other areas of the project and continue bringing high quality
water to rural users in need. The Bureau of Reclamation can confirm the
capability to construct these pipelines based on the current status of
design.
ADMINISTRATION'S SUPPORT
The Tribes and Dry Prairie worked extremely well and closely with
the Bureau of Reclamation prior to and following the authorization of
this project in fiscal year 2000. The Bureau of Reclamation has heavily
reviewed and commented on the Final Engineering Report, and all
comments were incorporated into the report and agreement was reached on
final presentation. OMB reviewed the Final Engineering Report prior to
its submission to Congress in the final step of the approval process.
The Commissioner, Regional and Area Offices of the Bureau of
Reclamation have been consistently in full agreement with the need,
scope, total costs, and the ability to pay analysis that supported the
Federal and non-Federal cost shares. There have been no areas of
disagreement or controversy in the formulation of the project.
The Bureau of Reclamation collaborated with the Tribes and Dry
Prairie to conduct and complete value engineering investigations of the
Final Engineering Report (planning), the Culbertson to Medicine Lake
pipeline (design), the Poplar to Big Muddy River pipeline (design), the
Missouri River intake (design) and on the regional water treatment
plant (design). Each of these considerable efforts has been directed at
ways to save construction and future operation, maintenance and
replacement costs as planning and design proceeded. Agreement with
Reclamation has been reached in all value engineering sessions on steps
to take to save Federal and non-Federal costs in the project.
The Bureau of Reclamation conducted independent review of the final
plans and specifications for the Missouri River raw water intake, the
regional water treatment plant and the Culbertson to Medicine Lake
Project. The agency participated heavily during the construction phases
of those projects and concurred in all aspects of construction from
bidding through the completion of construction. (The regional water
treatment plant has not yet been constructed).
Cooperative agreements have been developed and executed from the
beginning phases to date between the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Tribes and between Bureau of Reclamation and Dry Prairie. Those
cooperative agreements carefully set out goals, standards and
responsibilities of the parties for planning, design and construction.
All plans and specifications are subject to levels of review by the
Bureau of Reclamation pursuant to the cooperative agreements. The
sponsors do not have the power to undertake activities that are not
subject to oversight and approval by the Bureau of Reclamation. Each
year the Tribes and Dry Prairie, in accordance with the cooperative
agreements, develop a work plan setting out the planning, design and
construction activities and the allocation of funding to be utilized on
each project feature.
Clearly, the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System is well
supported by the Bureau of Reclamation. Congress authorized the project
with a plan formulated in full cooperation and collaboration with the
Bureau of Reclamation, and major project features are under
construction with considerable oversight by the Agency.
LOCAL PROJECT SUPPORT
The Fort Peck Tribes have supported the project since 1992 when
they conceived it and sought means of improving the quality of life in
the region. The planning was a logical step after successful completion
of an historic water rights compact with the State of Montana. This
compact was the national ``ice breaker'' that increased the level of
confidence by other Tribes in Indian water right settlement
initiatives. The Tribes did not seek financial compensation for the
settlement of their water rights but expected development of meaningful
water projects as now authorized.
The 1999 Montana Legislature approved a funding mechanism from its
Treasure State Endowment Program to finance the non-Federal share of
project planning and construction. Demonstrating support of Montana for
the project, there were only three votes against the statutory funding
mechanism in both the full House and Senate. The 2001 through 2005
Montana Legislatures have provided all authorizations and
appropriations necessary for the non-Federal cost share.
Dry Prairie support is demonstrated by a financial commitment of
all 14 communities within the service area to participate in the
project. Rural support is strong, with about 70 percent of area farms
and ranches intending to participate as evidenced by their intent fees
of $100 per household.
NEED FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
The Fort Peck Indian Reservation was previously designated as an
``Enterprise Community'', underscoring the level of poverty and need
for economic development in the region. The success of economic
development within the Reservation will be significantly enhanced by
the availability of higher quality, safe and more ample municipal,
rural and industrial water supplies that this regional project will
bring to the Reservation, made more necessary by an extended drought in
the region. Outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, the Dry Prairie
area has income levels that are higher than within the Reservation but
lower than the State average.
The feature of this project that makes it more cost-effective than
similar projects is its proximity to the Missouri River. The southern
boundary of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation is formed by the Missouri
River for a distance of more than 60 miles. Many of the towns in this
regional project are located 2 to 3 miles from the river, including
Nashua, Frazer, Oswego, Wolf Point, Poplar, Brockton, Culbertson, and
Bainville. As shown on the enclosed project map, a transmission system
outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation will deliver water 30 to 40
miles north of the Missouri River. Therefore, the distances from the
Missouri River to all points in the main transmission system are
shorter than in other projects of this nature in the Northern Plains.
______
Prepared Statement of the Three Affiliated Tribes
Our lands were flooded in the early 1950's, over 50 long years ago,
with the construction of the Garrison Dam. That dam took from us over
156,000 acres of our best and most fertile land. We lost forever the
river bottomlands where our Tribal membership and our Tribal ancestors
lived and prospered. In the late 1940's, the Three Affiliated Tribes
would have been looking to construct two or three Rural Water Projects
on Fort Berthold. With the construction of the dam and a physical
barrier of Lake Sakakawea, we are now required to construct six or
seven water treatment plants as well as Rural Water Distribution
Projects to meet the needs of our Reservation. Our land is
geographically and physically split into six separate and distinct
areas. Many of our Tribal members still do not have access to safe and
abundant drinking water.
Under the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-554),
Congress has charged the Secretary of the Interior with the
responsibility to ``construct, operate, and maintain'' the Fort
Berthold Rural Water Supply System. The Three Affiliated Tribes depends
on funding appropriated for the purposes under this act to develop
water supply systems on the Fort Berthold Reservation. Funding for
tribal water construction projects has always been disproportionately
lower than funding for other projects in the Garrison Diversion Unit.
Over the last 30 years, Congress has appropriated well over $600
million for the Garrison Diversion Unit and less than $30 million of
these funds have been expended on all Indian MR&I projects combined.
To address the Fort Berthold Reservation's water supply problems,
the Tribes have undertaken the construction of the Fort Berthold Rural
Water Supply System. The Fort Berthold Rural Water Supply System
currently consists of four separate water treatment facilities and
distribution systems with a total of 750,000 linear feet of water mains
and the capacity to store 1,000,000 gallons of potable water. The Fort
Berthold Rural Water Supply System currently serves 586 households and
last year added 30 new households to the system.
With the passage of the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000, we have
begun a process of reevaluation of our critical water needs and an
analysis of actions and infrastructure we need to address those needs.
Currently we have plans for numerous water supply and water
distribution projects that will, when constructed in total, provide a
safe and dependable supply of water to the Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation. Our plan, when completed, will provide such benefits to
all residents of the Reservation, both rural and residential residents,
and both Indian and non-Indian alike.
We have carefully considered the opportunities now made available
to us. Our infrastructure projects are purposely fragmented and
designed so that we may adapt and accommodate both small and large
appropriation amounts and so that we can also proceed with multiple
projects in any given year. Preliminary estimates of the costs of our
identified projects indicate a need for over $95 million. The DWRA has
an indexing clause, which reflects the inflation percentage of
construction cost on MR&I Water Projects. The amount of indexing for
Fort Berthold's component has exceeded the $34 million that is
projected, at the end of 2008. To date, we have only received $3.805
million in funding for these water projects. The Tribes have borrowed
another $2.5 million towards construction of its water supply projects.
When completed in full we anticipate installation of nearly 1,000 miles
of pipeline, the construction of nine separate rural water reservoirs
and tanks, and a system capacity for service to over 1,500 rural
households. The work will also include an upgrade of our four existing
water treatment plants and Tribal participation in the water
infrastructure development of the various communities of the
Reservation.
Those projects identified in our six specific segments include the
following:
Four Bears Segment.--We have already installed approximately 17
miles of pipeline and an elevated storage tank at a cost of over $2
million. There is a need to expand the water treatment plant in this
segment as this plant is nearing its 200 gallon-per-minute capacity.
The total costs to resolve the water needs of this segment, and to
assist our McKenzie County neighbors with their critical water needs,
are estimated to be approximately $7 million.
North Segment.--We have joined the City of New Town in their
efforts in the construction of a new water treatment plant. Our
commitment to New Town in this effort is costing approximately $2.5
million. That plant has the capacity to provide water to all users of
the segment, including growth within this segment, for the next 40
years. Subsequent projects needed within this area include the
construction of a rural water system which will utilize the New Town
treatment plant. The total costs to resolve the water needs of this
segment are estimated to be approximately $22 million. With the
possibility of completing the negotiation with the City of New Town,
additional appropriations will be needed to bring this water source
into the FBRW. If sufficient water production can't be produced by the
city, a separate water treatment plant may be needed to provide potable
water to the North and Northeast Segment's Rural Water Lines. An
additional $350,000 of O&M funding will be necessary to accommodate the
new component to the FBRW System.
Northeast Segment.--There is an immediate need for the installation
of approximately 36 miles of pipeline and the construction of a ground
level storage tank. The cost for this project is estimated at $2.79
million. Subsequent projects needed within this segment will allow for
a continuation of the water line to other rural areas of the segment
and will allow us to furnish water to our neighbors of adjacent
Mountrail County and the North Central Rural Water Consortium to our
Reservation. The total costs to resolve the water needs of this
segment, and to assist our Mountrail County neighbors with their
critical water needs, are estimated to be $15 million.
West Segment.--We have already replaced an existing treatment plant
intake line. This project cost approximately $1.07 million. Subsequent
projects needed within this segment will allow for a construction of a
rural water system and an expansion of the existing water treatment
plant. The water needs of this segment, and to assist our McKenzie
County neighbors, will be addressed with this expansion. The total
costs to resolve the water needs of this segment are estimated to be
$23 million.
South Segment.--There is an immediate need for the replacement an
existing intake line, expansion of the existing water treatment plant
and a water storage reservoir. The anticipated cost is approximately
$3.3 million. Subsequent projects needed within this segment include
the construction of a rural water system and further expansion of the
existing water treatment plant. The total costs to resolve the water
needs of this segment are estimated to be $12 million.
East Segment.--There is an immediate need for the installation of
approximately 48 miles of pipeline. This first effort in this segment
is anticipated to cost approximately $1.92 million. Subsequent projects
needed within this area will allow a continuation of the water line to
other rural areas of the segment, and for a water treatment plant
expansion. The total costs to resolve the water needs of this segment
are estimated to be $16.59 million.
As you can see, the total funding needed to accommodate the water
supply system needs of the Three Affiliated Tribes is in excess of $95
million.
Over the next several years, major construction expenses for the
Fort Berthold Rural Water Supply System are expected to peak. A minimum
of $12.165 million is needed in fiscal year 2007 to enable the Tribes
to construct the next productive stage of the project. The Tribes also
require Operation, Maintenance and Replacement (``OM&R'') funding for
calendar year 2007 of at least $2.5 million. As our water supply
systems expand, our operation and maintenance costs increase. We ask
that appropriations for these rising OM&R be increased in future years
to cover these increasing costs. The Bureau of Reclamation is our
funding agency, but they are restricted from requesting sufficient
appropriations or budgeting sufficient amounts to cover the increasing
cost of operating and maintaining a water system of our design.
Currently another governmental agency (OMB) sets target budgeting
amounts that USBR must maintain and this doesn't address the amount of
appropriation actually needed. Congress needs to get the Office of
Management and Budget to make adjustments and to meet the TRUST
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.
Also, the Fort Berthold Rural Water Program currently provides
indirect costs to the Three Affiliated Tribes through its Construction
and OM&R program funds. The Bureau of Reclamation has PL638
capabilities with Indian Tribes. However, unlike the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Reclamation does not have an indirect cost pool which may be
utilized by Tribes. The current indirect cost funds are taken from the
direct OM&R line items, which hinders the program. In order to
alleviate this, an indirect cost pool should be implemented for USBR
for its contracts with Tribes.
Monies which may be provided for our immediate needs only allow us
to start the infrastructure development process in each segment. We
need to establish a process of continued funding in subsequent years to
complete the facilities of each segment in a timely fashion. If we
proceed at the present funding rate, it will take us years to complete
our projects and construction costs will undoubtedly increase beyond
increases in funding. After enduring a wait of 50 years to even begin
this process, it is not reasonable to continue to delay the needs
addressed by the Act by continuing to fund these projects at
unreasonable levels.
We request a favorable review of our request for $12.165 million
which will allow a start of construction of the immediately needed
facilities within each segment. We believe that, given adequate funding
levels in the $15 million to $20 million per year range, we could
substantially complete all infrastructure projects within the six
Reservation segments in a 4- to 6-year time frame.
______
Prepared Statement of the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System
MNI WICONI PROJECT (PUBLIC LAW 100-516, AS AMENDED)
FISCAL YEAR 2007 CONSTRUCTION BUDGET REQUEST
The Mni Wiconi Project beneficiaries (as listed below) respectfully
request appropriations of $43.032 million for construction as shown
below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System:
Core................................................ $1,492,000
Pine Ridge (Distribution)........................... 21,405,000
West River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water System............... 10,534,000
Rosebud Rural Water System.............................. 9,601,000
---------------
Total............................................. 43,032,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
and $9.256 million for operation, maintenance and replacement.
Note that the Lower Brule project will complete construction in
fiscal year 2006 and that no funds are requested for fiscal year 2007.
The project sponsors were provided by the 107th Congress (Public
Law 107-367) with authority to finish in fiscal year 2008. Three years
are needed to conclude our project at the rate requested with
completion in fiscal year 2009 (see table below). Completion of the
project is achievable in fiscal year 2009 if funded at the rate
requested.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Federal Funding (Oct 2005 Dollars)................ $439,927,980
Estimated Federal Spent Through Fiscal Year 2006........ $310,832,465
Percent Spent Through Fiscal Year 2006.................. 70.66
Amount Remaining........................................ $129,095,515
Completion Fiscal Year (Statutory Fiscal Year 2008; 2,009
Public Law 107-367)....................................
Years to Complete....................................... 3
Average Annual Required for Finish...................... $43,032,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The administration's fiscal year 2007 budget is $22.914 for
construction and $9.256 for OMR. The project is now over 70 percent
complete and can be completed in the next 3 years, but the fiscal year
2007 construction budget is highly inadequate and significantly less
than the $31 million for construction available to the project before
the PART exercise on rural water projects in 2003. The project sponsors
strongly urge that the subcommittee appropriate funds to complete the
Mni Wiconi Project over the next 3 years. The needs and merits of this
project are considerable as described in section 2. The testimony is
supplemented by sections 3 through 8.
UNIQUE NEEDS OF THIS PROJECT
This project covers much of the area of western South Dakota that
is the Great Sioux Reservation established by the Treaty of 1868. Since
the separation of the Reservation in 1889 into smaller more isolated
reservations, including Pine Ridge, Rosebud and Lower Brule, relations
between the Indian population and the non-Indian settlers on Great
Sioux Reservation lands have been improving in successive generations.
The Mni Wiconi Project is perhaps the most significant opportunity in
more than a century to bring the diverse cultures of the two societies
together for a common good. Much progress has been made due to the good
faith and genuine efforts of both the Indian and non-Indian sponsors.
The project is an historic basis for renewed hope and dignity among the
Indian people. It is a basis for substantive improvement in
relationships.
Each year our testimony addresses the fact that the project
beneficiaries, particularly the three Indian Reservations, have the
lowest income levels in the Nation. The health risks to our people from
drinking unsafe water are compounded by reductions in health programs.
We respectfully submit that our project is unique and that no other
project in the Nation has greater human needs. Poverty in our service
areas is consistently deeper than elsewhere in the Nation. Health
effects of water borne diseases are consistently more prevalent than
elsewhere in the Nation, due in part to: (1) lack of adequate water in
the home; and, (2) poor water quality where water is available. Higher
incidences of impetigo, gastroenteritis, shigellosis, scabies and
hepatitis-A are well documented on the Indian reservations of the Mni
Wiconi Project area. Progress has been made in the reducing the
occurrence of these diseases.
At the beginning of the third millennium one cannot find a region
in our Nation in which social and economic conditions are as
deplorable. These circumstances are summarized in Table 1.\1\ Mni
Wiconi builds the dignity of many, not only through improvement of
drinking water, but also through direct employment and increased
earnings during planning, construction, operation and maintenance and
from economic enterprises supplied with project water. We urge the
subcommittee to address the need for creating jobs and improving the
quality of life on the Pine Ridge, Lower Brule and Rosebud Indian
reservations of the project area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table 1 was based on census data that understates population
and poverty on the reservations and overstates income when compared
with Interior sources. The purpose of Table 1 is to compare statistics
from a single source between decades, namely the United States Census,
but use of the data does not imply acceptance of census statistics by
the Tribes.
TABLE 1.--PROFILE OF SELECTED ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS: 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income
Change ---------------------- Families
Indian Reservation/State 2000 From 1990 Per Median Below Unemployment
Population (Percent) Capita Household Poverty (Percent)
(Dollars) (Dollars) (Percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pine Ridge Indian Reservation......... 15,521 27.07 6,143 20,569 46.3 16.9
Rosebud Indian Reservation............ 10,469 7.97 7,279 19,046 45.9 20.1
Lower Brule Indian Reservation........ 1,353 20.48 7,020 21,146 45.3 28.1
State of South Dakota................. 754,844 8.45 17,562 35,282 9.3 3.0
Nation................................ 281,421,906 13.15 21,587 41,994 9.2 3.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment and earnings among the Indian people of the project area
are expected to positively impact the high costs of health-care borne
by the United States and the Tribes. Our data suggest clear
relationships between income levels and Federal costs for heart
disease, cancer and diabetes. During the life of the Mni Wiconi
Project, mortality rates among the Indian people in the project area
for the three diseases mentioned will cost the United States and the
Tribes more than $1 billion beyond the level incurred for these
diseases among comparable populations in the non-Indian community
within the project area. While this project alone will not raise income
levels to a point where the excessive rates of heart disease, cancer
and diabetes are significantly diminished, the employment and earnings
stemming from the project will, nevertheless, reduce mortality rates
and costs of these diseases. Please note that between 1990 and 2000 per
capita income on Pine Ridge increased from $3,591 to $6,143, and median
household income increased from $11,260 to $20,569, due in large part
to this project, albeit not sufficient to bring a larger percentage of
families out of poverty (Table 1).
Financial support for the Indian membership has already been
subjected to drastic cuts in funding programs through the Indian Health
Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This project is a source of
strong hope that helps off-set the loss of employment and income in
other programs and provide for an improvement in health and welfare.
Tribal leaders have seen that Welfare Reform legislation and other
budget cuts nationwide have created a crisis for tribal government
because tribal members have moved back to the reservations in order to
survive.
The Mni Wiconi Project Act provides that the United States will
work with us:
``. . . the United States has a trust responsibility to ensure that
adequate and safe water supplies are available to meet the economic,
environmental, water supply and public health needs of the Pine Ridge,
Rosebud and Lower Brule Indian Reservations . . . ''
Indian support for this project has not come easily because the
historical experience of broken commitments to the Indian people by the
Federal Government is difficult to overcome. The argument was that
there is no reason to trust and that the Sioux Tribes are being used to
build the non-Indian segments of the project and the Indian segments
would linger to completion. These arguments have been overcome by
better planning, an amended authorization and hard fought agreements
among the parties. The subcommittee is respectfully requested to take
the steps necessary to complete the critical elements of the project
proposed for fiscal year 2007.
SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY
OSRWSS CORE PIPELINE REACHES PINE RIDGE INDIAN RESERVATION IN FISCAL
YEAR 2006
The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and parts of West River/Lyman-
Jones remain without points of interconnection to the OSRWSS core. The
fiscal year 2006 funding level will complete the OSRWSS Kadoka to White
River pipeline to the northeast corner of the Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation where, in combination with the western part of West River/
Lyman-Jones, the remaining 50 percent of the design population resides.
OSRWSS will use $1,492,000 in fiscal year 2007 funds to begin
construction of the pipeline link between the OSRWSS North core and
South core. When completed, this essential pipeline will permit the
delivery of water to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and parts of
West River/Lyman Jones by alternative pipeline routes and will finalize
the strategy in the Final Engineering Report to provide reliability in
the delivery of a safe and adequate water supply.
Oglala Sioux Tribe supports the funding request of West River/Lyman
Jones for fiscal year 2007, which focuses on building the OSRWSS North
Core westerly toward Hayes through the West River/Lyman Jones service
area. The intent is to complete the OSRWSS North Core and all other
OSRWSS core facilities in fiscal year 2008. West River/Lyman Jones is
acting as the Tribe's contractor on the OSRWSS North Core.
Nearly half of the Mni Wiconi design population is located on the
Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. The fiscal year 2006 work plan and the
fiscal year 2007 funding request will make major advances in the
completion of the OSRWSS core. Fiscal year 2008 will be the final year
to complete the core facilities. Earlier stages of the OSRWSS core
facilities have served the Lower Brule Indian Reservation, Rosebud
Indian Reservation and eastern regions of West River/Lyman Jones.
Funding for OSRWSS core and distribution facilities is necessary to
address health needs and bring economic development to the Pine Ridge
Indian Reservation, designated as one of five national rural
empowerment zones in the late 1990's. The designation serves to
underscore the level of need. Economic development is largely dependent
on the timely completion of a water system, which depends on
appropriations for this project.
Finally, the subcommittee is respectfully requested to take notice
of the fact that fiscal year 2007 will significantly advance
construction of facilities that continue our progress toward the end of
the project. The subcommittee's past support has brought the project to
the point that the end can be seen in fiscal year 2009.
The following sections describe the construction activity in each
of the rural water systems.
OGLALA SIOUX RURAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM--DISTRIBUTION
With the conclusion of projects completed 5 years ago (2002), the
Oglala Sioux Tribe finished all facilities that could be supported from
local groundwater. The Tribe, representing nearly 50 percent of the
project population will rely on the OSRWSS core to convey Missouri
River water to and throughout the Reservation as a primary water source
to complement the groundwater source. Much pipeline has been
constructed, primarily between Kyle, Porcupine, Manderson and Red Shirt
and between Pine Ridge Village and the communities of Oglala and Slim
Buttes.
Of critical importance to the Oglala Sioux Tribe is the
continuation of the main transmission system from the northeast corner
(Highway 73/44 junction) of the Reservation to Kyle in the central part
of the Reservation. This transmission line construction has been
stalled due to decline in the appropriation levels for Mni Wiconi after
fiscal year 2003. The transmission line is needed to interconnect the
OSRWSS core system with the distribution system described in the
previous section. Groundwater sources with high arsenic and
radionuclides need replacement at the earliest possible time to reduce
exposure of the population relying on those sources. With completion of
the transmission pipeline to Kyle, Missouri River water can be
delivered to the existing OSRWSS distribution system constructed
between 1994 and 2002. The most populous portions of the Reservation
can then be served by the Missouri River water treatment plant for the
first time.
This critical segment of the project can be completed to the
halfway point in fiscal year 2007. It will require funds in fiscal year
2007 and fiscal year 2008 to complete. The component is urgently needed
for the OSRWSS core system to be utilized on the Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation and to provide a safe and adequate replacement supply for
contaminated groundwater sources.
WEST RIVER/LYMAN-JONES RURAL WATER SYSTEM--DISTRIBUTION
The requested appropriation is part of a 3-year effort directed to
serving WR/LJ members between the Mni Wiconi water treatment plant at
Ft. Pierre and the City of Philip, a distance of approximately 70
pipeline miles. Funds received in fiscal year 2007 will be used for
construction of the North Core pipeline and distribution lines to
service areas adjacent to the core pipeline.
The North Core pipeline serves as the primary water source for half
of the WR/LJ membership, most of which is now served by water sources
that do not meet SDWA standards or by interim sources of very limited
capacity and reliability. The North Core pipeline additionally provides
a limited capacity alternate source to the South Core pipeline serving
the Oglala Sioux Tribe.
Distribution pipelines in the Four Corners to Philip Junction
service area meets the domestic and livestock needs of the rural area
and the municipal needs of the Town of Midland. Recent membership
surveys from that area indicate that most of the residents haul their
domestic water and half of the ranchers also haul water for their
livestock. This area is in desperate need of a reliable supply of
quality water.
ROSEBUD RURAL WATER SYSTEM (SICANGU MNI WICONI)
As in past years, Rosebud's work plan focuses on bringing high
quality water to more people and improving critical infrastructure on
the Rosebud Reservation. The Tribe accomplishes this through the wise
use of project funds and working with other agencies and entities to
obtain the maximum value from available funds.
The East Todd project provides quality water to an area of Todd
County that is suffering from increasing nitrate concentrations in the
limited groundwater available in the area. This project was initiated
in 2006 and will be completed in 2007. This project includes more miles
of pipeline than any other in the Rosebud system and by bidding it as
one project the unit costs for pipelines are reduced.
The Old Rosebud Improvements are being designed in 2006 and will be
constructed in 2007. This project focuses on the replacement of older
corroded metallic pipelines and undersized pipelines. The replacement
pipelines will be able to meet critical demands in the center of
government for the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. The timing of construction of
this project is being coordinated with the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs is funding the replacement of the older
paved streets in the community and construction of pipelines will
coincide with street construction. This cooperative approach reduces
the cost of pipeline construction because the cost of pavement
demolition and replacement is eliminated as a Mni Wiconi Project cost.
The cooperative approach also protects the investment in the streets
and pipes because the new pavement will not have to be disturbed for
the replacement or repair of the water mains.
The Todd County Reservoirs project provides additional storage for
the Todd County portion of the Sicangu Mni Wiconi. Two similar
reservoirs are being combined into one bidding package as a means of
reducing the cost of the work. The eastern reservoir provides storage
for the East Todd project area and the other will replace the corroded
steel reservoir that supplies the town of Mission. The replacement of
the Mission reservoir is integral to the Mission Area Improvements.
The Mission Area Improvements address all facets of this older
municipal system that was transferred to the United States in trust for
the Tribe in 2002. The improvements address the deficiencies identified
in the transfer agreement and other aspects of the system. For example,
one of the low-yielding wells will be replaced and chlorination and
storage will be provided at the wellfield rather than 7 miles further
north near the town of Mission. This will provide treated water to the
residents along the pipeline route. The pipeline route is adjacent to
U.S. Highway 83 and is in one of the more rapidly growing areas on the
reservation.
The Two Strike North project fills in the gap north of Two Strike
and south of Rosebud where there is currently no service. Because of
proximity to two of the larger reservation communities, this is also a
rapidly expanding area.
The Service Lines and Connections project is an ongoing effort to
provide existing and new homes with high-quality water from the Sicangu
Mni Wiconi. It also provides for livestock water connections as well.
This work is done by tribal crews and provides direct employment
benefits as well as quality water to reservation residents. In addition
to the construction work, the tribal crew is now utilizing global
positioning system (GPS) equipment in the layout of the facilities and
preparation of the record drawings. This skill can be used by both the
individual tribal members and the Tribe as a whole in other endeavors
after the construction of Mni Wiconi is completed. This is just one
more example of the Tribe obtaining additional value from Mni Wiconi
Project funds.
LOWER BRULE RURAL WATER SYSTEM--DISTRIBUTION
The Lower Brule Rural Water System (LBRWS) has gained the support
of the other sponsors to complete its share of the project with funds
appropriated in the fiscal year 2006 budget. The vast majority of the
funds necessary to complete the LBRWS were provided in the fiscal year
2005 budget. LBRWS will only be receiving $440,000 from the fiscal year
2006 budget to fully complete its system. The result of completing the
funding for the LBRWS is a savings of $1.5 million to the project as a
whole.
With the funds received in fiscal year 2006, LBRWS will complete
the replacement of some water lines that were installed previous to
this project and that have become undersized.
The LBRWS would like to take this opportunity to thank the other
sponsors for their cooperation and support in completing the funding of
the LBRWS in this manner and Congress, especially the South Dakota
delegation past and present, for their continued support of this truly
needed project. It should be noted, however, that this will not end
LBRWS's involvement in the project. LBRWS will continue to work with
and support the other sponsors in seeing the entire project come to
fruition.
OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT BUDGET
The sponsors have and will continue to work with Reclamation to
ensure that their budgets are adequate to properly operate, maintain
and replace (OMR) respective portions of the overall system. The
sponsors will also continue to manage OMR expenses in a manner ensuring
that the limited funds can best be balanced between construction and
OMR.
The project has been treating and delivering more water over the
last 3 years from the OSRWSS Water Treatment Plant near Fort Pierre.
Completion of significant core and distribution pipelines has resulted
in more deliveries to more communities and rural users. The need for
sufficient funds to properly operate and maintain the functioning
system throughout the project has grown as the project has now reached
71 percent completion. The OMR budget must continue to be adequate to
keep pace with the system that is placed in operation.
The Mni Wiconi Project tribal beneficiaries (as listed below)
respectfully request appropriations for OMR fiscal year 2006 in the
amount of $9,256,000 as requested in the fiscal year 2007 budget:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System:
Water Treatment Plant and Core Pipeline............. $2,073,000
Pine Ridge Distribution............................. 2,400,000
Rosebud Rural Water System.............................. 2,200,000
Lower Brule Rural Water System.......................... 1,400,000
Reclamation Oversight................................... 1,183,000
---------------
Total............................................. 9,256,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be assured that water conservation is an integral part of the OMR
of the project. Water conservation not only provides immediate savings
from reduced water use and the need for extra production, it also
extends the useful life and capacity of the system.
______
Prepared Statement of the Western Coalition of Arid States
FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION & DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BUDGET
The Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) is writing in
support of the following multi-State Federal programs, in priority
order, under the Bureau of Reclamation and Department of Energy's
budgets that we believe are deserving of your subcommittee's support
during the fiscal year 2007 budget process:
--Colorado River Front Work and Levee System, Water Management
Reservoir Near the All American Canal Subactivity--$37.4
million;
--Yuma Area Projects, Excavating Sediments Behind Laguna Dam--$3.5
million;
--Water Reclamation/Reuse Title XVI--$30 million;
--Water 2025--$14.5 million;
--Science and Technology--$8.5 million;
--Atlas Mill Tailings Removal in Moab, Utah--$22.8 million.
WESTCAS is a coalition of Western towns and municipalities, water
and wastewater agencies, irrigation districts, Native American nations,
companies with water and wastewater concerns and professionals in the
fields of engineering, the environmental sciences, and natural
resources law and policy. WESTCAS was formed in 1992 by Western water
and wastewater agencies concerned with the quality and management of
water resources in the Arid West. A grass roots organization, WESTCAS
is dedicated to encouraging the development of water programs and
regulations which assure adequate supplies of high quality water for
those living in the arid regions while protecting the environment.
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM
Water Management Reservoir near the All-American Canal Subactivity
Reclamation is completing a multi-phased study quantifying the need
and options for regulatory storage to improve Colorado River management
downstream of Lake Mead.
Reclamation has concluded that locating up to a 10,000 acre-foot
capacity water management reservoir near the All-American Canal near
Drop 2, 15 miles east of the Imperial Valley would significantly
improve the flexibility of the Lower Colorado System. The reservoir's
location would be of great benefit to the Colorado River Basin States.
Benefits that include:
--conservation of reservoir system storage;
--improving river regulation and water delivery scheduling;
--providing opportunities for water conservation;
--storage and conjunctive use programs;
--and setting the stage for new cooperative water supply and water
quality management endeavors with Mexico.
Reclamation funding of $37.4 million is needed in fiscal year 2007
in order to obtain permits, acquire land, clear and prepare the site,
design the reservoir and its inlet and outlet canals, and procure
materials for construction.
This is one of four distinct subactivities to be undertaken in 2007
under the Water and Energy Management and Development Activity of the
Colorado River Front Work and Levee System Project.
The President's fiscal year 2007 request for this activity is $5.5
million. WESTCAS requests that Reclamation's funding for the Water
Management Reservoir near the All American Canal subactivity are
augmented so as to provide $37.4 million for this work to progress
sufficiently.
Yuma Area Projects, Excavating Sediments Behind Laguna Dam
While work on a reservoir near the All-American Canal proceeds,
there is an immediate need to restore limited Colorado River regulatory
storage capacity downstream of Parker Dam. This can be partly
accomplished by excavating sediments that have accumulated behind
Laguna Dam since its completion in 1909. Reclamation funding of $3.5
million is needed in fiscal year 2007 to complete environmental
compliance and procurement and begin dredging behind Laguna Dam.
This subactivity under the Yuma Area Projects, Facilities
Maintenance and Rehabilitation activity would restore 1,100 acre-feet
of storage behind Laguna Dam. Not only would this enhance the ability
to regulate flows arriving at Imperial Dam, it would capture and re-
regulate the water periodically released for the proper operation of
Imperial Dam, benefiting both the Colorado River Basin States and
Mexico.
WESTCAS requests that Reclamation's funding for sediment control be
augmented so as to provide $3.5 million for the work to excavate
sediments from behind Laguna Dam.
The construction of a new regulating reservoir, and dredging
sediments behind an existing dam will critically improve water delivery
efficiencies and prevent the loss of up to 200,000 acre-feet per year
from Colorado River reservoir storage.
WATER RECLAMATION/REUSE TITLE XVI
Projects funded under Title XVI of the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575) and the
Reclamation Recycling and Water Conservation Act of 1996 (Public Law
104-266) will greatly enhance the Arid West's water supply reliability
and the environment through effective water recycling and recovery of
contaminated groundwater. Funding in the fiscal year 2007 budget for
previously unfunded projects, as well as the continued support for
previously funded projects, is essential to realizing regional water
supply reliability. The Bureau of Reclamation's budget request for
research into the technologies and science of water recycling is
another vital step toward making water reuse a viable alternative for
communities faced with limited water supplies. WESTCAS urges your full
support for increasing the Title XVI funding to $30 million.
WATER 2025
Implementation of Water 2025 includes water system optimization
reviews that will assess the potential for water management
improvements, financial assistance for irrigation and water districts
in creating water markets and facilitating more efficient use of
existing water supplies through water conservation, efficiency, and
marketing projects. WESTCAS recommends your support of a Reclamation
fiscal year 2007 budget that includes $14.5 million in funding for the
Water 2025 Program.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
As the ``Voice of Water Quality in the Arid West,'' WESTCAS
advocates wise use of water resources by promoting scientifically-sound
laws, regulations, funding, and policies that protect public health and
the environment in the arid West. WESTCAS is dedicated to the use of
sound science in the promulgation of rules and regulations, and
supports funding for water quality research, in particular. The Science
and Technology Program uses funds for the development of new solutions
and technologies that respond to the Bureau's mission-related needs in
this area. WESTCAS strongly recommends your support of a Reclamation
fiscal year 2007 budget that includes $8,500,000 in funding for the
Science and Technology Program.
ATLAS MINE TAILINGS CLEANUP
In cooperation with the Utah State Environmental Quality
Department, WESTCAS supports the President's budget request of $22.8
million in fiscal year 2007 for the purposes of moving forward with the
clean-up of uranium mine tailings at the Atlas Site in Moab, Utah.
WESTCAS supports the Governor of Utah's position that these mine
tailings must be removed from their dangerously close proximity to the
Colorado River and advocates removal as the only acceptable solution to
this issue.
Thank you for considering our request.
______
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Prepared Statement of the Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of
Texas at Austin
This testimony addresses: (1) the fiscal year 2007 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations bill regarding funding for oil and natural
gas R&D; and (2) the Domestic Energy Production through Offshore
Exploration and Equitable Treatment of State Holdings Act of 2006
(proposed by Representative Jindal as H.R. 4761).
The bottom line: Eliminating Federal investment in oil and gas R&D
and mining programs is destroying the ability of U.S. universities to
train science and engineering students in energy- and mining-related
fields and significantly damaging independent oil and natural gas
producers, who are responsible for 90 percent of the wells drilled in
the United States. Contrary to a few decades ago, today, in terms of
U.S. oil and natural gas R&D investment, the major international oil
companies play a very limited role, do not benefit greatly from Federal
oil and gas R&D, and should therefore have limited-to-no voice in U.S.
R&D policy. The Office of Management and Budget does not appear to
understand these realities. The slow erosion of the already paltry oil
and gas R&D budget creates an instability that is destructive to the
program, and ultimately harmful to the energy future of the United
States. Congress must act to halt the annual OMB proposal to eliminate
Federal oil and gas R&D.
Budget cuts to the U.S. Department of Energy's Fossil Energy
Research and Development program have severely limited the amount of
research being conducted to promote a smooth transition to a natural
gas, cleaner energy economy. To get to tomorrow's energy future, we
must meet today's energy demand. Ironically, that means greater
investment in oil, natural gas, and coal, which make up more than 85
percent of U.S. energy consumption, with oil and natural gas
representing 60 percent, so that the bridge to the future is stable.
There is an overwhelming consensus that oil and natural gas will
continue to dominate the Nation's energy mix for decades to come. No
matter how attractive the potential of alternative energy sources may
appear today, none is seen as a viable alternative to meet the broad
needs of American consumers before the midpoint of the century. Fossil
fuels, led by oil and gas, will continue to account for the vast bulk
of U.S. energy consumption for the near future.
DOE's latest forecast projects a 35 percent increase in U.S. energy
demand to 2025. Fossil energy's share of that demand is expected to be
stable or even increase slightly. Oil and natural gas are predicted to
gain market share in that time, and DOE just ratcheted up its forecast
for oil and gas prices in that period.
The gap between domestic conventional oil supply and demand will
persist. In 2025, net imports of crude oil and refined products are
forecast to reach 68 percent of U.S. petroleum consumption. Natural gas
is following the same trend, with natural gas imports forecast to rise
to 30 percent, up from 16 percent. In addition, America's trade deficit
is at a record high, largely owing to soaring oil imports.
The easy (conventional) oil and gas are largely discovered. The
future demand must be met by more complex and unconventional resources.
Only research can bring the advances needed in technology to achieve
the increased efficiency that makes yesterday's untapped resources
economical to produce today. Yet, despite ever-increasing demands on
energy supply, both domestically and globally, the number of trained
scientists and engineers specializing in energy-related fields
continues to decline. This is not true of our friends in the Far East,
where enrollments in science and engineering programs continue to
increase, and dwarf those in the United States.
Besides the crisis of diminishing research and development (R&D)
capability and a declining workforce to address growing energy and
talent needs, coastal States disproportionately and inequitably bear
the cost of maintaining an infrastructure to develop energy resources
without replenishment of funds.
H.R. 4761 would provide incentive for coastal States to strengthen
educational programs that will train the next generation of scientists
and engineers entrusted with our national energy production needs. At
the same time, it will promote environmental accountability and
restoration at the State level, where the benefits are greatest--right
in the States' own ``backyard.'' Renewed investment in energy R&D will
stimulate a response to the call to discover more economically
efficient means to supply our Nation's energy needs, both now and in
the future.
The revenues returned to the States involved in oil shale and tar
sands production through H.R. 4761 would promote the development of the
infrastructure needed to realize this significant component of our
unconventional natural gas resources. The United States has the
opportunity to tap into this major resource that has not yet been
globally exploited. Potential resources include such ``exotic'' sources
as very deep gas (15,000 to 30,000 feet), natural gas below salt
formations, natural gas disseminated in saltwater brines, and methane
hydrates.
The United States has less than a tenth of Saudi Arabia's 240
billion barrels of estimated proved oil reserves, but it holds the bulk
of the world's oil shale resource--at more than 2 trillion barrels--and
its tar sands resource is pegged at more than 76 billion barrels.
Natural gas resources traditionally thought of as
``unconventional'' now account for the fastest growing segment of our
natural gas supply: coalbed natural gas (CBNG), low-permeability
(``tight'') formations, and deep gas. In addition, the U.S. Geological
Survey has estimated that deposits of methane hydrates probably hold
200,000 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas in place within the
U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone alone. Admittedly, this estimate is poorly
constrained, but even if it were two orders of magnitude too high, it
would still represent nearly a 100-year U.S. supply. Although economic
recoverability of these vast deepwater accumulations has not yet been
demonstrated, technical recoverability has been established through
Arctic field tests. As with shale gas, coalbed methane, and tight gas,
economic production of methane hydrates is perhaps only a matter of
significant investment and new talent.
The key to realizing the potential of these resources is
technological innovation. Despite today's high oil and gas prices,
America's private sector, largely composed of smaller to mid-sized
independent producers, is ill equipped to undertake the R&D needed to
yield such innovations. The oil price collapses of the early 1980's and
late 1990's decimated the research departments of the major U.S. oil
companies. Small, independent producers (average company size: 12
employees) drill almost 90 percent of the wells in the United States
and produce 60 percent of the Nation's natural gas and 40 percent of
its oil. Yet these small companies have virtually no R&D capabilities.
The Federal Government has an important role to play in spurring
the advanced technologies needed to recover domestic resources.
Developing these new technologies for domestic use will entail risky,
long-term R&D that the private sector has not undertaken on its own.
The Federal Government has already made a huge impact on U.S. oil
and gas technology. Game-changing technology initiatives--such as
carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery (CO<INF>2</INF> EOR, which also
provides an opportunity for CO<INF>2</INF> sequestration), CBNG, and
tight gas--have emerged from DOE-sponsored oil and gas research
programs. New technology paradigms, such as the Microhole and Deep Trek
initiatives, are on the brink of commercialization and widespread
acceptance by America's oil and gas industry.
At the same time, DOE's Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Solutions
program offers an opportunity to access and recover, in an
environmentally responsible manner, the 320 Tcf of gas and 22.2 billion
barrels of oil that underlie Federal lands. Here, DOE serves a critical
role as the ``honest broker'' in reconciling the Nation's conflicting
but equally important energy and environmental needs.
The costs of not investing in America's energy future are great.
Lack of Federal support of oil and natural gas R&D could have several
negative effects:
--Compromise ongoing efforts to ensure the sustainability and
reliability of the Nation's energy infrastructure.
--Contribute to the trends of ever-rising energy imports and
persistently high oil and gas prices.
--Cost the U.S. Treasury hundreds of billions of dollars in foregone
royalties, lease payments, taxes, and related economic ripple
effects.
Another problem vital to national security is maintaining an
adequate supply of mineral resources and trained professionals to find
and develop these resources. In a recent article investigating the
shortage of mining engineers, Peter Knights found that the supply of
mining engineers from five countries that have a strong mining
presence, the United States among them, decreased 25 percent from 2000
to 2002. Moreover, when commodity prices are high and demand peaks,
competition for this scare talent likewise peaks. During down cycles,
graduates tend to move to other industry sectors, further exacerbating
the problem. Knights found further that while university mining
programs in the United States are being cut, enrollments in existing
programs are declining.
A study of active, dormant, and recently closed programs related to
economic geology in U.S. higher education institutions shows 7 programs
closed within the last 5 years, leaving only 39 active institutions and
22 ``dormant'' institutions. Even many of the active institutions were
found to lack funding to focus research on areas related to mineral
resources. If programs at top-ranked schools like Stanford and Harvard
are closing, and ``active'' programs are compromised by funding
shortages, how will the United States populate a trained workforce to
meet future needs?
A task force formed in 2004 by the Society for Mining, Metallurgy,
and Exploration (SME)--an international professional society of more
than 11,500 members from the minerals industry in nearly 100
countries--has focused attention on the critical issue of the shortage
of mining engineers. Preliminary findings are that U.S. enrollment in
mining engineering programs may need to be tripled to meet expected
demand. Retiring faculty are creating another gap in the supply of
trained professionals. SME estimates that as much as $20 million per
year of additional funds will be needed to sustain educational programs
to meet the U.S. demand for mining engineers.
Funds from H.R. 4761 channeled into a Federal Energy and Mineral
Resources Professional Development Fund would help sustain mining and
petroleum schools and encourage growth of this important field.
The American Geological Institute (AGI), which has tracked
enrollments in the geosciences since 1952, in its 2001 Report on the
Status of U.S. Academic Geoscience Departments (http://www.agiweb.org/
career/rsad2001.pdf) showed a 66.8 percent decline in geoscience
enrollments from 1983 to 2000. AGI attributed the peak enrollment
levels from 1965 to 1983 to growth in the petroleum sector.
But funding in support of research declined in all categories--
private foundations, State, industry, other, and Federal--from 1999 to
2001. During that same period, AGI found the percentages of funding
support also changed. More than 70 percent of funding came from Federal
sources, which declined in total dollar amounts by more than 50 percent
in that short time. That is, greater dependence on Federal funds
accompanied drastically reduced research budget support. As in the
mining industry, AGI also found an aging workforce in the geosciences
that is not being replenished by new talent to meet anticipated needs.
Clearly, it is in the best interests of the United States for its
institutions of higher education to have support and incentive to grow
their programs to train geoscience and engineering professionals to
sustain the supply of energy and mineral resources necessary to
maintain a healthy U.S. economy.
Terminating the DOE's natural gas and oil research programs could
deal a crippling blow to America's energy future. Today marks an
unprecedented opportunity to reverse that trend. America has massive
untapped hydrocarbon resources, whose ultimate combined energy
potential outstrips that of any other country. And we are on the cusp
of the technological innovations needed to realize that untapped
potential.
America is the birthplace of the oil and gas industry and has long
been the leader in oil and gas technology. But it also has the world's
most mature oil and gas industry--and it still needs a technology
pipeline not only to sustain it but also to let it fulfill its
potential and thus deliver all the benefits that the Nation can receive
from that effort. It also needs a commitment to supporting a trained
workforce to achieve national energy, environmental, and mineral
extraction goals. Without Federal funding to spur technology
innovations and attract new professionals to the industry, America will
relinquish its leadership role--a trend that would be difficult to
reverse.
______
Prepared Statement of Anthony R. Kovscek
I write in regard to budget requests and appropriations for Oil and
Natural Gas Technology within the Department of Energy. Specifically, I
assert that zeroing out and shutting down DOE's oil and gas research
and development efforts at this time is both short-sighted and not in
the national interest. At the very least, I believe that you should
maintain spending at fiscal year 2006 levels: $32.7 million for natural
gas R&D and $31.7 million for oil R&D. Given the high prices of
gasoline at the pump and natural gas at the residential meter, it is in
the national interest to increase funding for Oil and Natural Gas
Technology as well as increase funding for the development of other
energy resources such as geothermal.
Full, consistent, steady funding of energy R&D efforts and
especially for oil and natural gas production is essential to meet the
energy challenge of the future. This research effort needs to continue
in conjunction with the DOE laboratories, universities, and the private
sector. Continuing effort is critical in the areas of unconventional
resources that include: heavy oil, oil shale, fractured low
permeability reservoirs, tight-gas sands, coalbed methane, and methane
hydrates.
You may ask what will be lost without Federal funding? The answer
has many different facets. First, the government and the public, loses
entirely its ability to have research conducted in the above
unconventional resources that are becoming increasingly important on
the national and international stage. The Nation loses its voice to
determine research directions and influence outcomes. Second, we lose
energy-critical programs. For example:
--microhole technology to drill smaller diameter wells into deep
resources;
--demonstration programs that reduce risk to early adopters and prove
environmental conformance;
--research across the spectrum of oil and gas exploration and
production technologies;
--advanced recovery concepts that allow the conversion of oil and gas
resources into producible reserves;
--programs that benefit independent producers who do not have in-
house research and technology development efforts nor access to
such efforts;
--the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council that provides critical
technology transfer services.
I have been told that oil and natural gas technology programs
within DOE have been rated as ``ineffective'' and that this is a major
piece of evidence cited for zeroing out these programs. I find this
rating to be counter to what I hear from the energy industry. Let me
cite three representative success stories that counter directly the
above rating:
--DOE Fossil Energy through Oil and Natural Gas Technology programs
has supported various institutions to study aspects of
``interfacial phenomena'' related to petroleum recovery. Three
institutions that come to mind that received such support are
the Petroleum Recovery Research Center in New Mexico, the
University of Wyoming, and Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. While much of this work was quite fundamental, one
conclusion reached is that the composition of fluids injected
into oil reservoirs can have a marked effect on oil recovery.
While not receiving extensive public fanfare, this work has
been followed for a number of years by industry and is now the
subject of extensive reservoir conditions testing in company
laboratories and field pilot tests. Results look very promising
and major capital investment in desalinization plants on the
Alaska North Slope are being planned. The process now referred
to within the industry as LoSal flooding has the potential to
increase oil production by more than 1 billion barrels on the
North Slope alone. Once proven successful, I predict that many
independents will pick up this technology.
--There are extensive ``diatomaceous'' or ``diatomite'' reservoirs in
California that are very tight, fractured, and consequently
difficult to produce. These are so-called unconventional
resources as discussed above. Cumulatively, these reservoirs
hold from 12 to 18 billion barrels of oil. This is a size that
is on-par with the initial estimates for the oil in place at
Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Again, DOE Fossil Energy through Oil and
Natural Gas Technology programs supported research that looked
into various aspects of production from these diatomaceous
reservoirs. Three institutions that come to mind are Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
and Stanford University. They studied well stimulation methods,
ground subsidence, and advanced recovery techniques for
diatomite. While specific production figures per company are
difficult to come by, it is well known that Aera Energy
produces oil from the South Belridge Diatomite Reservoir,
Chevron produces oil from the Lost Hills and Cymric Diatomite
Reservoirs, and Berry Petroleum produces from the Midway Sunset
Diatomite Reservoir. This names only a few that I could
identify easily. The California Division of Oil, Gas, and
Geothermal Resources confirms December 2005 production of about
63,760 bbl/day from diatomite reservoirs at South Belridge,
32,600 bbl/day from diatomite reservoirs at Lost Hills, and
23,000 bbl/day from diatomite/siliceous shale intervals at
Cymric. A more careful accounting surely would increase the
total production attributed to California diatomite.
--The last area is enhanced oil recovery and I will cite specifically
investment in R&D efforts aimed at thermal recovery that date
to the late 1970's and continue through the present. This is
mainly pointed at heavy-oil production. These are oils that are
very thick and viscous at reservoir temperature and, hence, do
not flow well under primary or water injection conditions. The
resource base of heavy oil within the United States is
significant and in the neighborhood of 200 billion barrels of
oil. At current consumption rates, this resource represents
about 45 years of total oil supply for the United States. Many
institutions have participated in research to unlock these
resources using the thermal technologies of steam injection,
hot water flooding, and in situ combustion. These institutions
include the University of Southern California, Stanford
University, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, among
others. According to the Oil and Gas Journal's biennial survey,
production from these technologies averaged 345,000 bbl/day in
2004.
These figures alone make the case that the small investment made by
the DOE through Oil and Gas Technology R&D have paid out. Stories such
as those above convince me that funding needs to be maintained and
actually increased to ensure adequate production of important domestic
resources.
______
Prepared Statement of Cummins Inc.
Cummins Inc. is pleased to provide the following statement for the
record regarding the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2007 budget for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability; and Fossil Energy programs. Cummins Inc., headquartered in
Columbus, Indiana, is a corporation of complementary business units
that design, manufacture, distribute and service engines and related
technologies, including fuel systems, controls, air handling,
filtration, emission solutions and electrical power generation systems.
The funding requests outlined below are critically important to
Cummins' research and development efforts, and would also represent a
sound Federal investment towards a cleaner environment and improved
energy efficiency for our Nation. We request that the committee fund
the programs as identified below.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies/Vehicle Technologies
Advanced Combustion Engine R&D--Heavy Truck Engine.--This program
is critical to the success of engine manufacturers achieving energy
efficiency enhancements while meeting EPA's near zero 2010 emissions
regulations. Heavy truck engines consume nearly 25 percent of all
surface transportation fuels used in the United States. Technologies
required to achieve EPA 2007 & 2010 emissions (90 percent reduction in
2007 and near zero emissions in 2010) are likely to decrease fuel
efficiency. This program supports R&D to increase on-highway engine
fuel efficiency while meeting future emissions regulations. The
objective of this program is to demonstrate 50 percent engine system
efficiency, an increase from an efficiency baseline of approximately 40
percent. To date, 45 percent engine efficiency has been demonstrated at
2007 emissions levels. Research is ongoing on advanced combustion
technologies--homogeneous charge, low temperature and mixed mode
combustion--which are capable of near zero levels of NOx and PM engine
out emissions. However, additional research is needed to develop low
temperature combustion recipes for all engine conditions and provide
overall engine control and power capabilities for market acceptance.
Planned research areas include simulation/modeling techniques, improved
fuel injection systems, technology validation on single cylinder
engines and controls development. Other major categories of work
involve vehicle system integration, sulfur management and robust
particulate filters. Cummins urges that $20 million be appropriated for
this program in fiscal year 2007.
Advanced Combustion Engine R&D--Waste Heat Recovery.--This DOE
program supports broader energy efficiency improvement and emissions
goals for diesel engines by developing technologies for waste heat
recovery and engine boosting. Nearly 60 percent of fuel energy is lost
in diesel engines through wasted heat in exhaust, lubricants or
coolants. This program is focused on identifying and developing
innovative energy recovery technologies, such as thermoelectric, turbo-
compounding and Rankine cycle technologies. Cummins has evaluated a
Rankine cycle concept which recovers waste heat from charge air and EGR
gas streams, and converts it into electricity. This electrical energy
is expected to supplement engine power output. Planned activities in
fiscal year 2007 include subsystem design, development and testing in a
laboratory, and system integration in a vehicle. The funding increase
will adequately fund recent DOE industry R&D funding awards in this
area. Cummins urges that $5.6 million be appropriated for this program
in fiscal year 2007.
Advanced Combustion Engine R&D--Combustion and Emission Control
R&D.--This program is critically important to the heavy-duty diesel
engine company efforts to meet stringent emissions requirements in the
future through better understanding of combustion technologies and
properties. The research focus for this program is to develop advanced
combustion regimes (HCCI & LTC) for light duty & heavy duty engine
applications. A funding split under the program between the 21st
Century Truck Partnership (21CTP) and the FreedomCAR partnership is
recommended as follows: 21CTP--$7.0 million (an increase of $3.32
million); FreedomCAR Partnership--$17.9 million. The 21CTP increase is
recommended to support CRADA activities at the Department of Energy's
national laboratories for broad research and development of advanced
combustion systems to improved engine-out emissions and fuel
efficiency. The increase will allow DOE to adequately support recent
industry awards for High Efficiency Clean Combustion research funded
under this initiative. Cummins urges that $24.9 million be appropriated
for this program in fiscal year 2007. A funding split under the program
between the 21 Century Truck Partnership (21CTP) and the FreedomCAR
Partnership is recommended as follows: 21CTP--$7.0 million and
FreedomCAR--$17.9 million.
Advanced Combustion Engine R&D--Off-Highway Heavy Vehicle Engine
R&D.--The off-highway engine program supports R&D efforts to minimize
fuel economy penalties while meeting EPA Tier IV emissions requirements
starting in 2008. Without major technological efforts, emission recipes
will cause a significant increase in fuel use. While some technologies
developed for on-road engines can be applied to off-road engines,
manufacturers face unique off-road challenges, including the lack of
cooling air flow to the engines, severe conditions of dust, debris, a
wide range of altitude, temperature and vibrations. Off-road engines
are applied to hundreds of different types of equipment in a wide range
of industries, such as agriculture, construction and mining. The
restricted space for accessories and engine components significantly
limits emission compliance strategies. These unique requirements
necessitate the development of new technologies to meet the demand of
off-highway equipment. Progress has been made in developing combustion
models to achieve in-cylinder emissions solutions. These have mitigated
the fuel economy penalty for Tier III emissions engine designs.
Continued funding of this initiative in 2007 is critical to achieving
lower fuel consumption, system robustness and lower cost for Tier IV
architectures. Cummins urges that $3.5 million be appropriated for this
program in fiscal year 2007.
Advanced Combustion Engines--Health Impacts.--The objective of this
program is to expand the knowledge base relating to the heath
implications of emissions technologies being developed to meet energy
efficiency goals. The Advanced Collaborative Emissions Study (ACES) is
funded under this program. ACES is a cooperative effort between
government (DOE, EPA) and industry (EMA, MECA, API) to assess health
effects of emissions from 2007 compliant heavy-duty engines. The ACES
program will include emissions characterization, chronic exposure
animal bioassays, and identification of any unanticipated emissions or
health effects from new engine technologies. Continuous monitoring of
air toxics and source apportionment techniques are also proposed.
Cummins urges that $2.5 million be appropriated for this program in
fiscal year 2007.
Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies/Fuels Technologies
Non-Petroleum Based Fuels & Lubes: Heavy and Medium Duty Truck
Programs (Natural Gas Vehicle).--This program funds development efforts
for biomass and synthetic fuels as blending agents and natural gas
engines for medium and heavy trucks. The increase is requested to
develop efficient techniques to remove water from biodiesel and No. 2
diesel fuel blends and complete ongoing natural gas engine development
activities. Biodiesel fuel blends are becoming acceptable in the market
place. Current fuel filters are less effective for separating
emulsified water in such blends and are likely to cause problems in the
field. Next generation natural gas combustion technologies can meet
2010 emissions, with simpler and more durable systems, and reduce fuel
efficiency losses compared to diesel engines. Natural gas engines are
practical in urban applications including school and city buses, and
could significantly reduce exhaust emissions. Natural gas combustion,
storage and infrastructure development also offers a bridge to the
hydrogen economy. Cummins urges that $8 million be appropriated for
this program in fiscal year 2007.
Advanced Petroleum Based Fuels (APBF).--This important program
supports the study of fuel properties that can enable engines to
operate in the most efficient mode while meeting future emission
standards. This activity is cross-cutting with the Advanced Combustion
Engine program. The modeling and experimentation activities under this
effort will include expertise and shared resources between DOE, engine
manufacturers and energy companies. Engine companies are required to
prove emissions compliance for over 435,000 miles of useful engine
life. The goal of this program is also to study the impacts of fuel and
lube oil sulfur content on durability and reliability of particulate
aftertreatment systems. Cummins urges that $4.5 million be appropriated
for this program in fiscal year 2007.
Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies/Materials Technologies
Propulsion Materials Technology--Heavy Vehicle Propulsion Materials
Program.--This program supports research and development of next
generation materials to enable diesel engine efficiency improvement,
improved reliability and reduced aftertreatment system costs.
Traditional engine materials may not be adequate for the next
generation of advanced combustion concepts, such as Homogeneous Charge
Compression Ignition (HCCI). High injection fuel systems are needed to
support these technologies. Smaller clearances in the fuel system
require new capabilities to remove submicron particles from the fuel.
Aftertreatment NOx reduction technologies are not fully developed and
particulate filters will be implemented in a large scale for the first
time in 2007. These efforts may require further technology
enhancements--lighter weight and higher strength materials are needed
to obtain lighter, more robust and higher cylinder pressure engine
systems for improvements in fuel consumption. Increased funding will
support studies on a range of advanced materials technologies,
including lightweight high strength engine components, composites,
catalysts and soot oxidation, filtration media modeling and nano-fiber
filter technologies. Cummins urges that $5.9 million be appropriated
for this program in fiscal year 2007.
Office of Hydrogen Technologies/Hydrogen Technologies
Transportation Fuel Cell Systems.--The program supports R&D and
system integration of energy efficient auxiliary power unit
technologies for mobile or off-road applications. The goal of this
effort is to demonstrate a SOFC-based auxiliary power unit (APU) for
Class 7/8 on-highway diesel trucks. Reduction of idling fuel
consumption is widely recognized as an important element in reducing
exhaust emissions from heavy trucks. It would also reduce our overall
dependence on foreign oil. It is estimated that a reduction of up to
800 million gallons of diesel fuel is possible if SOFC systems can
provide the hotel loads of truck fleets. In 2005, Cummins Power
Generation and our partner, International Truck and Engine Company,
conducted analysis and design work to accurately define the
requirements for such an APU, and believe the goal is achievable. R&D
work planned for 2007 includes the demonstration of a practical SOFC
prototype, integrated on a typical truck platform. Cummins urges that
the DOE request of $7.5 million be appropriated for this program in
fiscal year 2007.
ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY
Research and Development/Distributed Energy
Distributed Generation Technology Development--Advanced
Reciprocating Engine Systems (ARES).--The goals of this multi-year
program are to develop high efficiency, low emissions and cost
effective technologies for stationary natural gas systems between 500
to 6,500 kW by the year 2010. Natural gas-fueled reciprocating engine
power plants are preferred for reliability, low operating costs and
point of use power generation. Traditional natural gas engines are
approximately 32 to 37 percent efficient and have not kept pace with
the fuel efficiency of their diesel counterparts. Technologies
sponsored by the ARES program have demonstrated 44 percent engine
efficiency, higher power densities and an expected reduction in life
cycle costs and CO<INF>2</INF> emissions. Improved combustion, air
handling and controls developments have been successfully implemented
in a field test engine and genset for evaluation at a customer site.
Further technical challenges include combustion development for system
efficiency, NOx reductions, advanced sensors and controls, hardware
durability and lower life cycle costs. The development of point of use
energy production supports national energy security needs, improved
protection of critical infrastructure for homeland security concerns,
and less dependence on the national electrical grid system. Cummins
urges that $12 million be appropriated for this program in fiscal year
2007.
FOSSIL ENERGY
Office of Fossil Energy/Coal and Other Power Systems/Distributed
Generation Systems
Fuel Cells--Innovative Concepts--Solid State Energy Conversion
Alliance (SECA).--The goal of the Solid State Energy Conversion
Alliance (SECA) project is to develop a commercially viable 3 to 10 kW
solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) module for RV, commercial mobile, and
telecommunications markets. The modular nature of SOFCs makes them
adaptable to a wide variety of stationery and mobile applications.
SOFCs can play a key role in securing the Nation's energy future by
providing efficient, environmentally sound electrical energy from
fossil fuels or hydrogen. Progress on Phase 1 of the program has been
positive, including low cost ``balance of plant'' and essential control
systems for achieving the cost targets. An advanced SOFC stack
technology is planned. This is a 10-year program that combines the
efforts of the DOE national laboratories, private industry,
universities, and other research organizations. Federal funding is
critical to support research needed to keep this technology moving from
the laboratory to commercial viability. Cummins urges that the DOE
request of $75 million be appropriated for this program in fiscal year
2007.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our views on these
programs which we believe are of great importance to the U.S. economy
through viable transportation and power generation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology
The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
(FASEB) is a coalition of 22 independent scientific societies who
together represent more than 84,000 biomedical research scientists. The
mission of FASEB is to enhance the ability of biomedical and life
scientists to improve, through their research, the health, well-being
and productivity of all people. As your committee begins deliberations
on appropriations for agencies under its jurisdiction, FASEB would like
to offer its views on funding for the Department of Energy's Office of
Science. In keeping with the ``Energy Policy Act of 2005,'' FASEB
recommends an appropriation of $4.15 billion for the Department of
Energy's Office of Science in fiscal year 2007.
The DOE's Office of Science supports research programs that enable
the scientific discoveries and technological innovations that
strengthen the U.S. economy and protect our citizens. Its research
programs have led to discoveries of fundamental importance to the
economy of the United States and to the improvement of the health of
its citizens.
DOE is the single largest supporter of basic research in the
physical sciences in the United States, providing more than 40 percent
of the total funding for this area of vital national importance. DOE
funds fundamental research programs in basic energy sciences,
biological and environmental sciences, and computational science. The
Office of Science is the Federal Government's largest single funding
source for materials and chemical sciences. It supports unique and
vital programs for U.S. research in climate change, geophysics,
genomics, life sciences, and science education. This backing enables
DOE to accomplish its missions in energy security, national security,
and environmental restoration.
Each year the national laboratories are used by over 19,000
researchers from universities, other government agencies, and private
industry. The emphasis on interdisciplinary research at these state-of-
the-art facilities gives DOE a unique role, allowing it to support and
extend basic research sponsored by other Federal agencies. Since its
inception in 1977, 42 DOE funded scientists have won Nobel Prizes in
Chemistry, Physics, Physiology or Medicine. DOE plays a fundamental
role at the interface of different sciences and many research
activities funded by non-DOE agencies could not take place in the
absence of the highly specialized research infrastructure built and
managed by DOE. Sustained support for the research programs of DOE is
vital to the welfare of the citizens of the United States and to the
scientific enterprise.
DOE BASIC RESEARCH ENHANCES HEALTH AND WELL-BEING
Research conducted at DOE facilities has led to the development of
products and technologies that have improved the quality of American
life and given researchers better insight into perplexing health
questions. The following examples of DOE research accomplishments have
been selected from a list of more than 100 major success stories that
can be found on DOE's web site: (http://www.science.doe.gov/sub/
accomplishments/Decades_Discovery/decades.htm).
Human Genome Research
Genome scientists are beginning to unravel the deeper meaning of
the genetic code through the help of DOE funded research. Scientists at
Oak Ridge National Laboratory have combined advanced computer
technology with their knowledge of biology to develop a software
program called GRAIL (Gene Recognition Analysis Internet Link). GRAIL
emulates the human learning process as it searches large areas of human
DNA sequence to define the physical structures of genes and is
currently being used in more than 1,000 biotechnology companies and
laboratories to track down genes that play central roles in human
diseases.
Lyme Disease
Lyme disease, a bacterial infection transmitted to humans through a
tick bite, causes nerve damage, arthritis, and fever. Researchers at
Brookhaven National Laboratory used intense X-rays at the National
Synchrotron Light Source to solve the three-dimensional structure of a
key surface protein from the bacterium that causes Lyme disease. This
discovery has already led to the development of a rapid and highly
accurate diagnostic test for the disease. Ongoing research at
Brookhaven has the potential to further improve vaccines. DOE
synchrotron facilities are essential tools in a high percentage of
studies of the molecular structures of biological macromolecules.
X-Ray Microscopy Becomes a National Research Resource
X-rays have shorter wavelengths and higher energy than visible
light. These properties enable scientists to use X-rays to image
features in cells that are too small to be seen using optical
microscopy and other types of imaging. The DOE National Research
resource for X-ray microscopy enables biologists to study sub-cellular
structures in bacteria as well as human cells, enhancing our
understanding of basic molecular and cellular processes and how they
relate to damage or repair to DNA, disease development, and protein
interactions.
World's Largest Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectrometer
The world's largest, highest performance nuclear magnetic resonance
(NMR) spectrometer is now operational at the William R. Wiley
Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory. The 900-MHz NMR
spectrometer allows scientists to conduct projects of large size or
complexity that require the additional resolution and sensitivity that
a 900 MHz field can provide. The very high magnetic field of this
spectrometer makes it possible for scientists to determine the 3-
dimensional structures of biological macromolecules with high
resolution.
New DOE Design for Artificial Retina
The development of a pliable, biocompatible 60 electrode artificial
retina containing advanced microelectronics has undergone successful in
vitro and acute safety testing in animals. Long-term testing of the
device in animals under the conditions that it will be used in human
patients is ongoing. A Cooperative Research and Development Agreement
created by DOE's artificial retina program with the Second Sight
Corporation of California will facilitate the translation of DOE-
supported advanced technology into devices that will satisfy FDA
testing requirements for use in blind patients.
DOE Allocates Massive Supercomputer Resources to Drive Advances in
Combustion, Astrophysics and Protein Structure Research
DOE has allocated 6.5 million hours of supercomputing time to three
scientific research projects aimed at increasing our understanding of
ways to reduce pollution, to gain greater insight into how stars and
solar systems form, and advance our knowledge about how proteins
express genetic information. As one of the Nation's leading agencies
for advancing scientific research, the Energy Department is proud to be
able to award these major allocations for studying complex scientific
problems that can transform our energy future and boost scientific
research. The researchers will use their awards to compute on the IBM
supercomputer at DOE's National Energy Research Scientific Computing
(NERSC) Center in Berkeley, Calif. NERSC is the DOE Office of Science's
flagship facility for unclassified supercomputing. The three awards
amount to 15 percent of NERSC's annual computing resources.
ADVANCING SOLUTIONS TO ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
Research funded by DOE is advancing solutions to current
environmental problems, including the cleaning of toxic waste and
reduction of harmful fuel emissions. Research into alternative fuels
will help conserve energy, reduce the need for petroleum, and provide
environmentally sustainable solutions to our energy needs. DOE research
programs will lead to more cost efficient energy products with fewer
harmful effects on our environment and reduced dependence on foreign
oil. The following examples highlight contributions of research
supported by DOE.
DOE Publishes Roadmap for New Biological Research for Energy and
Environmental Needs
The DOE Genomics: Genomes to Life (GTL) Roadmap outlines a plan to
explore the unseen world of microbes--starting with information encoded
in their DNA sequences--to produce the new science needed for achieving
cleaner and more secure energy resources, remediating toxic wastes and
understanding the natural roles microbes play in the global climate.
The 2005 GTL Roadmap builds on and expands the GTL research program
begun in 2002. Scientific and technological progress achieved during
the Human Genome Project, initiated by DOE in 1986, and the Microbial
Genome Program, begun in 1994, provided the foundation for establishing
the GTL program.
Mobilizing Microbes to Manage Waste
Recently, DOE-funded scientists have determined the DNA sequence of
the genome of an organism that may be used to clean environmental
contaminants. Geobacter sulfurreducens, a microbe commonly found in
contaminated subsurface environments, can remove radionuclides and
metals, including uranium, from groundwater. Researchers have found
that the enrichment of groundwater samples with Geobacter
sulfurreducens decreased uranium concentrations below the prescribed
treatment level in some wells. Because this organism can be cultivated
by adding simple carbon sources such as acetate to the groundwater, it
may offer an inexpensive and simple way to remove environmental
contaminants that pose a threat to humans.
Creating Renewable Energy Sources
The majority of U.S. energy is currently derived from fossil fuels.
However, because fossil fuel reserves are finite and their continued
use contributes to global warming by emitting substantial
CO<INF>2</INF>, it is essential to develop more sustainable energy
sources. Biomass, or plant-derived, energy offers an appealing
alternative to fossil fuels. Plant products are renewable and they have
the potential to substantially reduce atmospheric CO<INF>2</INF>
accumulation. By combining experimental biology with advanced
computing, DOE's Genomes to Life program seeks to employ microbes to
increase the production of biomass feed stocks, thereby reducing
reliance on fossil fuels, decreasing CO<INF>2</INF> emission, and
curbing global warming.
Reducing Our Dependence on Foreign Oil
DOE research is making it possible to create economically valuable
products by modifying plants and microbes. By transferring genes from
certain bacteria to plants, researchers at Michigan State University
were able to create plants that synthesized biodegradable plastics.
These plant products have the potential to replace plastics that are
now derived from petroleum. DOE-funded researchers have also
streamlined the process of converting cellulose to ethanol and made it
possible to alter bacterial DNA to modify their production of ethanol
and promote ethanol production in bacteria that do not normally create
it. This work has important implications for meeting our Nation's
energy needs and reducing U.S. reliance on foreign oil.
Increasing Fuel Efficiency
The recent rise in fuel prices underscores the importance of
creating more fuel-efficient motor vehicles. Scientists in DOE's
Materials Sciences and Engineering subprogram, a research program
dedicated to finding economically feasible ways to increase materials
performance, have contributed to boosting the fuel economy of
automobiles. They have developed stronger, lighter weight materials
that could increase vehicle efficiency by reducing vehicle weight;
their study of alloys and ceramics has led to the creation of materials
that retain their strength at high temperatures. These materials could
potentially be used to increase the efficiency of the combustion
engine.
FUNDING RECOMMENDATION
The unique, interdisciplinary expertise and unparalleled research
facilities of the Office of Science merit significantly increased
funding. With this support, the Office of Science will be able to
continue to attack major scientific challenges of fundamental
importance to the security and well-being of our Nation. A significant
increase in DOE funding is essential to ensure the development of
necessary collaborations among physical, chemical, engineering, and
biological scientists and to preserve the vitality of our national
research enterprise. In keeping with the ``Energy Policy Act of 2005,''
FASEB recommends an appropriation of $4.15 billion for the Department
of Energy's Office of Science in fiscal year 2007.
______
Prepared Statement of the Distributed Energy Coalition
Distributed Energy Coalition.----The DE Coalition brings together
the undersigned manufacturers, utilities, propane companies, industry,
State agencies, and others who firmly believe that the Federal
Government is an essential partner in the transformation of our
electric infrastructure to a more secure, flexible, efficient and
growth-oriented energy resource for the 21st century. Distributed
Energy is an indispensable element of this transformation, one that
provides near term solutions with significant positive long-term
implications. The Coalition believes that DE technologies can
demonstrate their value and achieve full market readiness and
recognition only with Federal leadership and support. Industry stands
ready to invest their portion of the necessary resources in partnership
with this Federal leadership. Private industry investment already
exceeds and will ultimately be much greater than this modest request to
have DOE ``stay the course'' with its current level of research,
development and demonstration funding, but these programs cannot be
duplicated by the private sector.
The Challenge: Following-Through on Distributed Energy.--The
reliability and security of the Nation's energy infrastructure is
approaching a crisis situation; our continued prosperity is directly
linked to secure, reliable, and affordable energy. Fossil fuels are
increasingly globally traded commodities, facing ever-increasing global
demand. Electricity supplies are becoming strained in certain areas of
the country as economic development outpaces expansion. Other regions
face constraints on the ability to deliver power to where it's needed
when it's needed. The vulnerabilities of our energy infrastructure were
highlighted when the Great Lakes and Northeast regions lost power in
August 2003 and when hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck the Gulf Coast
in September 2005. And the possibility of terrorist attacks on central
station power plants and on critical transmission and distribution
facilities remains a major concern.
Recognizing that a key element of a sensible response to this
national crisis is the development and deployment of Distributed Energy
(DE) systems, Congress included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 a
number of provisions authorizing increased Federal focus on distributed
energy research, development, demonstration and policy support,
including authorization of $730 million for DE over the next 3 years.
The President enthusiastically signed EPAct05 into law. Congress and
the President, with these actions, clearly reaffirmed the critical role
DE can play in enhancing the efficiency, reliability, security and
flexibility of the Nation's energy infrastructure through solutions
applied at the local level.
What's Needed to Ensure Success.--Despite a very tough budget
climate, the Federal Government must now align its policy objectives
with a sustained commitment to invest in the Distributed Energy
programs that will provide these solutions. At a minimum, Congress must
act to maintain dedicated funding in the Department of Energy's DE
program within the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability at a level consistent with prior years by appropriating $60
million for fiscal year 2007. The three key focus areas of RD&D need
are:
--Alternative Energy Networks and Disaster Response.--Develop long-
term energy solutions to the Nation's rapidly expanding need
for reliable, secure, and efficient energy through the
integration of loads and DE sources into local energy networks
and microgrids.
--Advances in DE Technologies and Systems.--Complete the technology
development for the diverse array of DE systems that support
grid enhancement.
--Outreach and Technology Transfer at the Local Level.--Ensure
maximum impact through technology transfer to local
implementers, including those responsible for policies, codes,
and standards.
Benefits of the DE Program.--Distributed Energy includes
technologies and systems \1\ that, at the point of use, efficiently
produce electricity, recycle waste heat, and store energy. DE supports
and supplements the existing power generation and transmission
infrastructure, and provides critical societal benefits including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DE technologies and systems include high efficiency
reciprocating engines; microturbines; industrial gas turbines; fuel
cells; thermally activated technologies such as steam turbines,
absorption chillers and desiccants; advanced storage systems; control
systems; and integrated systems that incorporate advanced components
into highly efficient packages for heating, cooling, and useful energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Energy Reliability and Quality.--DE systems can operate in parallel
with the grid to provide enhanced power reliability without new
transmission or distribution infrastructure. DE technologies
deliver the high quality power required of our digital economy.
--Energy Security.--DE systems can operate independently of the grid
to sustain critical services (e.g. healthcare, communications,
shelter, public safety) after natural or man-made disasters.
--Energy Efficiency.--DE systems can recycle waste energy and put it
to productive use for heating and cooling, increasing fuel
utilization efficiency compared to central power and increasing
customer benefit from each cubic foot of natural gas or propane
consumed.
--Environmental Stewardship.--Use of efficient DE technologies
decreases emission of criteria pollutants (NOx/CO) and
greenhouse gases. DE can use local, renewable fuels (e.g.
landfill gas) to provide electrical and thermal energy.
--Economic Development.--DE directly relieves grid congestion and
provides power not only to remote sites but to any constrained
area, avoiding investment for new grid wires in cities and
beyond the ``end of the line.''
Energy market forces do not assign full value to recognized but
externalized DE benefits such as reduced pollution, enhanced energy
efficiency, improved productivity, and reduced infrastructure costs. In
fact, today's market provides disincentives for local distributed
energy systems, technologies, equipment and business models. The above-
described public benefits warrant public support of DE technologies; a
modest amount of public funding can leverage large amounts of private
resources by demonstrating value in the market and reducing artificial
barriers to deployment in industrial, commercial, and residential
applications.
America's DE Public/Private Partnership is a Success . . . So
Far.--The Department of Energy described the goal of the Distributed
Energy (DE) Program as: ``[b]y 2015, the Distributed Energy Resources
Program will develop and deploy a diverse array of high efficiency
integrated distributed generation and thermal energy technologies at
market competitive prices so that homes, businesses, industry,
communities, and electricity companies elect to use them.'' DOE's
leadership of this public/private partnership has brought us through
the initial stages of component development and system integration.
However, this is just a beginning. The accomplishments of the DOE/DE
program to-date include:
--The initial development phases of advanced prime movers--gas
turbines, microturbines, and reciprocating engines--that are
more efficient, less polluting, and more affordable.
--Adaptation of thermal technologies to recycle waste energy to cool,
heat, and dehumidify business spaces and industrial processes.
--First generation packaged DE systems of integrated prime movers and
thermal components that are designed to operate safely,
reliably, and efficiently without additional onsite
engineering.
--The establishment of eight Regional Application Centers, covering
all 50 States, that provide local guidance, tools, and training
to successfully apply DE.
Next Steps for DE to Achieve DOE's 2015 Goals.--DOE must maintain
its leadership of this public/private partnership in order to achieve
the goal of a diverse array of DE solutions that enhance the grid in an
affordable and environmentally-friendly manner. Only with Federal
leadership and support can DE technologies demonstrate their value and
achieve full market readiness and recognition. Achieving this goal
maximizes the public benefits of DE.
Industry stands ready to invest their portion of the necessary
resources in partnership with the Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability's leadership to develop advanced technologies, break
down barriers and realize our common goals. When balancing budgets
under critical times like these, industry recognizes the need to
prioritize and focus government support. The DE Coalition represents
over 1 million workers, holding jobs in every State, seeking to support
the Nation's electric grid with efficient local energy solutions that
can withstand hurricanes and ice storms, secure critical needs during
power disruptions or terrorist attack, and conserve energy supplies by
efficient generation close to the point of use as well as recycling
local energy that is otherwise wasted. Our request is simple: stay the
course and maintain research, development and demonstration funding for
the Department of Energy's, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability DE program.
This is a 10-year program that combines the efforts of the DOE
national laboratories, private industry, universities, and other
research organizations.
The Distributed Energy Coalition urges that $35 million be
appropriated for the Distributed Energy Technology Research program in
fiscal year 2007. The Distributed Energy Technology Research program
improves the energy and environmental performance of distributed
technologies (turbines, microturbines, engines, desiccants, chillers,
and heat exchangers) so that the Nation can have more energy choices to
achieve a more flexible and smarter energy system.
The Distributed Energy Coalition urges that $25 million be
appropriated for the System Integration and Cooling, Heating and Power
(CHP) program in fiscal year 2007. The System Integration and Cooling,
Heating, Power (CHP) activity develops highly-efficient integrated
energy systems that can be replicated across end-use sectors which will
help demonstrate an R&D objective or address a technical barrier. The
activities integrate power producing prime movers that generate heat
and utilize it for domestic hot water, steam, and/or thermally
activated technologies that drive absorption chillers and/or desiccant
units. These systems will reduce energy costs and emissions by using
energy resources more efficiently.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our views on this program
which we believe is of great importance to the U.S. economy through
viable on-site power generation solutions.
The Distributed Energy Coalition companies that support this
testimony are: ACEEE; Aegis Energy Services, Inc.; Allegiance Energy
Systems, LLC.; Association of State Energy Research and Technical
Transfer Institutions (ASERTTI); Atlantic Energy Services; Avalon
Consulting, Inc.; BroadUSA; Burns & McDonnell; Capstone Turbine Corp.;
Caterpillar Inc.; Cinergy Solutions; Climate Energy, Inc.; Cummins
Power Generation; Cummins Power Generation Project Company; DG Power
Systems, Inc.; Discovery Insights LLC; Elliott Energy Systems; Enercon
Engineering; Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.; Energy Solution
Center; Energy Spectrum Developers, LLC; Environmental Business
Association of NY State; EXERGY Partners Corp.; Gas Technology
Institute; Gas Turbine Association; Greenta.com; Infinia Corporation;
Ingersoll-Rand; International District Energy Association (IDEA)--
represents nearly 700 company and university members who operate
district energy systems in 38 of the 50 United States; Maine State
Energy Program; National City Energy Capital; National Fuel Gas
Distribution Corporation; National Propane Gas Association--3,500
companies in all 50 States and 38 affiliated State or regional
associations, representing every segment of the propane industry;
Northeast Combined Heat and Power Association; NiSource Energy
Technologies; North Carolina Solar Center; North East Midwest
Institute; Northern Power Systems; Pace Energy Project; Power Equipment
Associates; Primary Energy Ventures; Redwood Power Company, Inc.;
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute--Future Energy Systems Center;
Resource Dynamics Corp.; Sacramento Municipal Utility District; Siemens
Power Generation, Inc.; Solar Turbines, Inc.; Southern California Gas
Company; Southwest Gas Company; Spectra Environmental Group Inc. &
Spectra Engineering, PC; Steven Winter Associates; Sustainable
Resources Group; Turbosteam Corporation; TVC Systems; United States
Combined Heat and Power Association; UTC Power (a business unit of
United Technologies, Inc.); University of Illinois at Chicago; Waukesha
Engine Division; Woolpert, Inc.
______
Prepared Statement of the State Teachers' Retirement System, State of
California
Summary
Acting pursuant to Congressional mandate, and in order to maximize
the revenues for the Federal taxpayer from the sale of the Elk Hills
Naval Petroleum Reserve by removing the cloud of the State of
California's claims, the Federal Government reached a settlement with
the State in advance of the sale. The State waived its rights to the
Reserve in exchange for fair compensation in installments stretched out
over an extended period of time.
Following the settlement, the sale of the Elk Hills Reserve went
forward without the cloud of the State's claims and produced a winning
bid of $3.53 billion, far beyond most expectations. Under the terms of
the Settlement Agreement between the Federal Government and the State,
the State is to receive a 9 percent share of the sales proceeds as
compensation for its claims in installments. Each annual installment of
compensation is subject to a Congressional appropriation. For each of
the past 7 fiscal years, Congress has appropriated the annual
installments of Elk Hills compensation for the State as called for
under the Settlement Agreement.
The State respectfully requests an appropriation of at least $9.7
million in the subcommittee's bill for fiscal year 2007, in order to
meet the Federal Government's obligations to the State under the
Settlement Agreement. The Elk Hills appropriation has the broad
bipartisan support of the California House delegation.
Background
Upon admission to the Union, States beginning with Ohio and those
westward were granted by Congress certain sections of public land
located within the State's borders. This was done to compensate these
States having large amounts of public lands within their borders for
revenues lost from the inability to tax public lands as well as to
support public education. Two of the tracts of State school lands
granted by Congress to California at the time of its admission to the
Union were located in what later became the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum
Reserve.
The State of California applies the revenues from its State school
lands to assist retired teachers whose pensions have been most
seriously eroded by inflation. California teachers are ineligible for
Social Security and often must rely on this State pension as the
principal source of retirement income. Typically the retirees receiving
these State school lands revenues are single women more than 75 years
old whose relatively modest pensions have lost as much as half or more
of their original value to inflation.
State's Claims Settled, as Congress Had Directed
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106) that mandated the sale of the Elk Hills Reserve to
private industry, Congress reserved 9 percent of the net sales proceeds
in an escrow fund to provide compensation to California for its claims
to the State school lands located in the Reserve.
In addition, in the Act Congress directed the Secretary of Energy
on behalf of the Federal Government to ``offer to settle all claims of
the State of California . . . in order to provide proper compensation
for the State's claims.'' (Public Law 104-106, 3415). The Secretary
was required by Congress to ``base the amount of the offered settlement
payment from the contingent fund on the fair value for the State's
claims, including the mineral estate, not to exceed the amount reserved
in the contingent fund.'' (Id.)
Over the year that followed enactment of the Defense Authorization
Act mandating the sale of Elk Hills, the Federal Government and the
State engaged in vigorous and extended negotiations over a possible
settlement. Finally, on October 10, 1996 a settlement was reached, and
a written Settlement Agreement was entered into between the United
States and the State, signed by the Secretary of Energy and the
Governor of California, under which the State would receive 9 percent
of the sales proceeds in annual installments over an extended period.
The Settlement Agreement is fair to both sides, providing proper
compensation to the State and its teachers for their State school lands
and enabling the Federal Government to maximize the sales revenues
realized for the Federal taxpayer by removing the threat of the State's
claims in advance of the sale.
Federal Revenues Maximized by Removing Cloud of State's Claim in
Advance of the Sale
The State entered into a binding waiver of rights against the
purchaser in advance of the bidding for Elk Hills by private
purchasers, thereby removing the cloud over title being offered to the
purchaser, prohibiting the State from enjoining or otherwise
interfering with the sale, and removing the purchaser's exposure to
treble damages for conversion under State law. In addition, the State
waived equitable claims to revenues from production for periods prior
to the sale. The Reserve thereafter was sold for a winning bid of $3.53
billion in cash, a sales price that substantially exceeded earlier
estimates.
The Money Is There to Pay the State
The funds necessary to compensate the State have been collected
from the sales proceeds remitted by the private purchaser of Elk Hills
and are now being held in the Elk Hills School Lands Fund for the
express purpose of compensating the State. Taking into account the 1
percent government-wide rescission in the fiscal year 2006 Defense
Appropriations Act, the Elk Hills School Lands Fund should have a
positive balance of at least $18.18 million.
Congress Should Appropriate $9.7 Million for the Fiscal Year 2007
Installment of Elk Hills Compensation
As noted above, the State's 9 percent share of the adjusted Elk
Hills sales price of $3.53 billion is $317.70 million. To date,
Congress has appropriated seven installments of $36 million and one
installment of $48 million that was reduced to $47.52 million by the 1
percent across-the-board rescission under the fiscal year 2006 Defense
Appropriations Act, for total appropriations to date of $299.52 million
of Elk Hills compensation owed to the State. Accordingly, the Elk Hills
School Lands Fund should have a positive balance of at least $18.18
million.
The State recognizes that although the equity finalization process
to determine the final split of the sales proceeds between the Federal
Government and ChevronTexaco, as the selling co-owners of the Elk Hills
field, is in its final stages after some 8 years, the process still has
not been fully completed. DoE has calculated that under the worst case
scenario for the Federal Government based on the current status of the
equity finalization, the State's share would fall by a total of $6.03
million. The State has agreed to a ``hold-back'' of that amount to
protect the Federal Government's interest and is not seeking an
appropriation of that amount for fiscal year 2007. This reduces the
available balance in the Elk Hills School Lands Fund to $12.15 million.
The other factor affecting the total amount of the State's
compensation is its share of the direct expenses that had been incurred
to conduct the sale of the Elk Hills field back in February 1998. This
is an issue entirely independent of and unaffected by the resolution of
the equity finalization split just discussed above. The Settlement
Agreement provides that the Federal Government shall pay the State ``9
percent of the proceeds from the sale of the Federal Elk Hills
Interests that remain after deducting from the sales proceeds the costs
incurred to conduct such sale.'' This reflects the Congressional
direction that, ``In exchange for relinquishing its claim, the State
will receive 7 [9 in the final legislation] percent of the gross sales
proceeds from the sale of the Reserve that remain after the direct
expenses of the sale are taken into account.'' (House Rept. No. 104-
131, Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Public Law 104-
106).
The State agrees that the $27.13 million incurred for appraisals,
accounting expenses, reserves report, and brokers' commission are
appropriate sales expenses. (See Letter of the California Attorney
General to DoE, dated February 10, 2005 (attached)). Accordingly, the
State's 9 percent share of these proper sales expenses reduces the
available balance of the Elk Hills School Lands Fund by $2.44 million
to $9.7 million.
Costs of conducting the equity adjustment are properly viewed as
ongoing costs incurred due to the joint operation of the Elk Hills oil
field by the Federal Government and ChevronTexaco, since the equity
adjustment already was required under their joint operating agreement
and related to pre-sale production revenues. Similarly, costs of
environmental remediation of the Elk Hills field was a cost
attributable to the prior operation of the field, which created any
environmental problems that exist. That such environmental remediation
relates to the ongoing operation of the oil field is underscored by the
fact that the Federal Government is currently engaged in the phased
environmental remediation of a Naval Petroleum Reserve that it is not
selling--NPR-3 (Teapot Dome), as evidenced by its fiscal year 2006
budget request. Accordingly, the costs of the equity adjustment and
environmental remediation are not properly treated as direct costs
incurred to conduct the sale of the Elk Hills field back in February
1998 and should not be charged to the State's compensation.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, of the current Elk Hills School Lands Fund balance of
$18.18 million, taking into account the ``hold-back'' for worst case
scenario under equity finalization and deducting the appropriate direct
costs of conducting the sale, the State respectfully requests the
appropriation of at least $9.7 million for Elk Hills compensation in
the subcommittee's bill for the fiscal year 2007 installment of
compensation, in order to meet the Federal Government's obligations to
the State under the Settlement Agreement.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the largest single
life science organization in the world, with more than 43,000 members,
appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony on the
administration's fiscal year 2007 budget proposal for the Department of
Energy (DOE) science programs. The ASM mission is to enhance
microbiology, to gain a better understanding of basic life processes,
and to promote the application of this knowledge to improve health,
economic, and environmental well-being.
The DOE supports microbiological research through programs
involving microbial genomics, climate change, bioremediation, and
analyses of basic biological processes important in the search for
alternative energy sources. The ASM commends and supports the
administration's recommended 14 percent increase for a total of $4.1
billion for the DOE Office of Science. The DOE Office of Science is one
of the three priority agencies in the President's American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which supports a wide range of
research and development related to scientific innovation.
strong support is needed for the doe office of science
Scientific progress and the U.S. economy continue to benefit from
investments in basic sciences made by the DOE Office of Science. The
DOE Office of Science, the Nation's primary source of support for
research in the physical sciences, is also an essential partner in
several critical areas of biology and environmental science as well as
in mathematics, computing, and engineering. Furthermore, the Office of
Science supports a unique system of programs based on large-scale,
specialized user facilities that bring together teams of scientists
focused on such challenges as global warming, genomic sequencing, and
energy research. The Office of Science is also an invaluable partner
with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science
Foundation (NSF) through its support for several important
interdisciplinary research efforts. The Office of Science also supports
peer-reviewed, basic research at universities and colleges across the
United States in science areas relevant to the DOE. These programs
contribute to the knowledge base and training of the next generation of
scientists.
The Office of Science will play an important role in the American
Competitiveness Initiative, which seeks to double Federal spending in
the sciences during the next decade. In particular, the Federal
Advanced Energy Initiative aims to reduce American dependence on
imported energy resources. Many of the DOE scientific research programs
share the goal of producing and conserving energy in environmentally
responsible ways. These programs include basic research projects in
microbiology as well as extensive development of biotechnology-based
systems to produce alternative fuels and chemicals from biomass, to
recover and improve processes for refining fossil fuels, to remediate
environmental problems, and to reduce wastes and pollution. Our
Nation's future competitiveness and innovation capabilities rely
inclusively on all basic sciences and technologies.
The administration's proposed budget for fiscal year 2007 requests
$4.1 billion for the Office of Science. The ASM recommends that
Congress support the proposed budget of $4.1 billion for the DOE Office
of Science in the fiscal year 2007 appropriation, an increase of $505
million over fiscal year 2006.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (BER) PROGRAMS
The proposed budget for the base programs of the Biological and
Environmental Research (BER) program in fiscal year 2007 is $510
million, a $59 million increase over fiscal year 2006. For over 50
years, the BER program has been advancing environmental and biomedical
knowledge that promotes national security through improved energy
production, development, and use; international scientific leadership
that underpins our Nation's technological advances; and research that
improves the quality of life for all Americans.
BER GENOMICS: GTL PROGRAM
The DOE is the lead Federal agency supporting genomic sequencing of
non-pathogenic microbes through its Genomics: GTL Program. The sequence
information being compiled through this program provides knowledge into
how to design biotechnology-based processes that will function in
extreme conditions and could potentially address national priorities,
such as energy and environmental security, bioremediation of waste
sites, global warming and climate change, and energy production.
Microbes power global carbon and nitrogen cycles, clean up wastes, and
transform energy. They are an important source of biotechnology
products, making the DOE research programs extremely valuable for
advancing our knowledge of the non-medical microbial world. Knowing the
complete DNA sequence of a microbe provides important clues about the
biological capabilities of the organism and is an important step toward
developing strategies for efficiently detecting, using, or
reengineering particular microbes to address key national energy and
environmental issues. The DOE Genomics: GTL genomic sequencing program
has an important impact on nearly every other activity within BER. ASM
supports the administration's request of $135 million for the Genomics:
GTL program in fiscal year 2007, a $50 million increase over fiscal
year 2006.
In addition to this program, a substantial portion of the analytic
capacity within the DOE Joint Genome Institute (JGI) continues to be
devoted to the sequencing of individual microbial genomes as well as
the DNA in mixtures from microbial communities dwelling within
specialized ecological niches. As part of these efforts, the DOE
continues to analyze complete DNA sequences of genomes in microbes with
potential uses in energy, waste cleanup, and carbon sequestration.
About 40 percent of the JGI capacity is dedicated to serving the
DOE's direct needs, primarily through the Genomics: GTL program, while
the remaining 60 percent of this capacity serves as a state-of-the-art
DNA sequencing facility for scientists who submit proposals subject to
merit review. These sequencing projects will be conducted at no
additional cost for the wider scientific community and are expected to
have a substantial impact on the BER Environmental Remediation Sciences
program, with much of this program focused on using microbes to cleanup
environmental sites. In addition, the Genomics: GTL program will
continue to have a major impact on the BER Climate Change Research
program because of the role microbes play in the global carbon cycle
and the potential for developing biology-based processes for
sequestering carbon.
The ASM supports the administration's request for $62 million to
continue supporting the Joint Genome Institute program in fiscal year
2007. The ASM applauds the DOE's leadership in recognizing this
important need in science and endorses expanding these microbial genome
sequencing efforts, particularly to learn more about the functions and
roles of the many microorganisms that resist efforts to be grown in
culture. This program provides a basis for using genomic information
more broadly to understand life at the cellular and at even more
complex levels.
ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION
The overall goal of the DOE Environmental Remediation subprogram
(ER) is to support research that improves the science underpinning the
cleanup of the DOE's sites and to support related operations. Because
traditional cleanup strategies may not work or be cost effective, the
ER subprogram supports basic research that aims to develop and validate
technical solutions to these complex remediation problems. The goal is
to develop innovative new remediation technologies that reduce risks
and provide savings in costs and time. The ASM supports the
administration's request for nearly $97.2 million for the Environmental
Remediation subprogram in fiscal year 2007. The DOE environmental
remediation programs deserve sustained support.
CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH
Although the ASM is pleased to see that the administration is
continuing to support Climate Change Research in its fiscal year 2007
budget, the proposed budget of nearly $135 million for this important
activity is a $6.5 million decrease from fiscal year 2006. The Climate
Change Research subprogram seeks to apply the latest scientific
knowledge to the potential effects of greenhouse gas and aerosol
emissions on the climate and the environment. This program is the DOE's
contribution to the interagency U.S. Global Change Research Program
proposed by President Bush in 1989 and codified by Congress in the
Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-106).
The Ecological Processes portion of this subprogram is focused on
understanding and simulating the effects of climate and atmospheric
changes on ecosystems. Research will also identify potential feedbacks
from changes in the climate and atmospheric composition. This research
is critical to better understanding of the changes occurring in
ecosystems from increasing levels of atmospheric pollutants. This
program is vital to advance understanding of energy balances between
the surface of the Earth and the atmosphere and how this will affect
the planet's climate and ecosystems. The ASM recommends continued
support for important Climate Change research within the DOE Office of
Science.
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES
The administration request for the Office of Basic Energy Sciences
(BES) for fiscal year 2007 is $1.4 billion, an increase of $28.6
million over fiscal year 2006. The ASM is concerned with BES's efforts
to move away from energy biosciences research. This program is a
principal sponsor of fundamental research for the Nation in the areas
of materials sciences, chemistry, geosciences, and biosciences as they
relate to energy. The program supports initiatives in the
microbiological and plant sciences focused on harvesting and converting
energy from sunlight into feedstocks such as cellulose and other
products of photosynthesis, as well as how those chemicals may be
further converted into energy-rich molecules such as methane, hydrogen,
and ethanol. Alternative and renewable energy sources are of strategic
importance to the U.S. energy portfolio, and the DOE is advancing basic
research in this critical area. Genomic technologies are a tremendous
new resource for further advancing the DOE's bioenergy goals.
NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND UNIQUE FACILITIES
New technologies and advanced instrumentation derived from the
DOE's expertise in the physical sciences and engineering have become
increasingly valuable to biologists. Beam lines at the DOE's facilities
and other advanced technologies for determining molecular structures of
cell components are advancing our understanding of cell functions and
are being applied to new drug design. The DOE advances in areas such as
high-throughput, low-cost DNA sequencing, mass spectrometry, cell
imaging, and computational analyses of biological molecules and
processes are critical to our national biological research enterprise.
The ASM supports recommended funding of $15 million for infrastructure
development of research user facilities under BER.
The DOE has unique field research facilities for conducting
environmental research that is important for understanding
biogeochemical cycles and global change, and for restoring
environmental sites. The DOE's ability to conduct large-scale science
projects and to draw on physics, mathematics and the computer sciences,
and engineering is also critical for biological research.
CONCLUSION
The ASM supports the recommended 14 percent increase for a total of
$4.102 billion for the DOE Office of Science in fiscal year 2007, and
recommends strong support for the DOE BER programs.
The ASM appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony
and would be pleased to assist the subcommittee as it considers the
fiscal year 2007 appropriation for the DOE.
______
Prepared Statement of the Gas Machinery Research Council
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we appreciate the
opportunity to provide testimony in support of the DOE Natural Gas
Infrastructure Program and the fiscal year 2007 budget. We are
concerned that no funds were allotted for this program in fiscal year
2006 and request support of this program in fiscal year 2007 in the
amount of $25 million.
The Gas Machinery Research Council (GMRC) provides its member
companies and the natural gas industry with the benefits of an applied
research and technology program directed toward improving the
reliability and cost effectiveness of the design, construction, and
operation of mechanical and fluid systems. Membership includes 70
companies involved in all aspects of natural gas compression, including
all major natural gas pipelines, production companies, packagers, and
service companies.
The first generation compression infrastructure in the 1920's and
1930's consisted of many small slow-speed compressors to move gas from
producing regions to markets. To provide the necessary expansion of
these early pipeline systems in the decades after World War II, a
second generation of larger and higher-speed machines promised a
significant reduction in installed cost. As these compressors were
installed, they experienced many reliability and operational problems.
To address this challenge, in 1952 the pipeline industry formed what is
now the Gas Machinery Research Council. Through research done at
Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), an Analog Simulator was developed
to optimize the design of pulsation filter bottles and predict
pulsation performance. This design service has been operating
continuously since 1955, bringing pulsation problems under control.
In recent years the promise of dramatic cost reductions has driven
the industry towards even higher-speed, larger horsepower reciprocating
compression powered by modern gas engines or large electric motors.
With this new technology came new challenges. The industry now faces a
technology transition similar to 50 years ago.
The last generation of slow-speed machines is no longer
commercially available because they are perceived as unaffordable.
While affordable, the current generation of high-horsepower, high-speed
compression requires advancements in technology to meet their full
potential to address the pipeline industry's compression needs.
In fiscal year 2005, GMRC began the Advanced Reciprocating
Compression Technology (ARCT) project under the DOE Natural Gas
Infrastructure Program. The objective of the ARCT project was to
develop the next generation of compression technology to enhance the
efficiency, reliability and integrity of pipeline operations through
improved compression. The suite of technologies developed during this
program would provide pipeline operators with improved and affordable
choices for new compression and products that can be retrofitted to
existing machines. These retrofits would reduce the amount of fuel
consumed to move gas from the producer to market and reduce emissions,
resulting in savings for both the industry and the consumer.
We are continuing aspects of this program using industry funds, but
at greatly reduced levels. A resumption of the DOE partnership would
allow these technologies to be brought to the market place and to the
benefit of gas consumers far earlier.
Natural Gas will continue to be a major source of worldwide energy
as energy usage increases in the future. The majority of this increase
will be provided by fossil fuels with the natural gas share increasing
because of its worldwide availability and clean combustion
characteristics. Currently, the U.S. domestic production of natural gas
accounts for over 90 percent of our needs, whereas we import 65 percent
of our oil needs. Maintaining the country's natural gas independence is
vital to our security and will allow the United States to continue to
provide world leadership in the development and application of new
natural gas technologies. A joint industry/government research and
development program can ensure that the industry infrastructure is in
place for years to come.
The 70 member companies of GMRC strongly support the DOE Natural
Gas Infrastructure Program and urge you to re-establish the program
funding in fiscal year 2007 in the amount of $25 million. This will
allow development and implementation of technologies critical to
infrastructure needs.
We thank you for your consideration of these funding requests.
______
Prepared Statement of FuelCell Energy, Inc.
FuelCell Energy appreciates the opportunity to submit this
statement in support of the Department of Energy's Fossil Energy, Fuels
and Power Systems, Fuel Cell Program. We urge the subcommittee to
continue to support this breakthrough program by appropriating $75
million for development of this highly efficient, clean, and secure
energy technology.
DOE's Fossil Energy Fuel Cell Program, through the Solid State
Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) fuel cell and fuel cell hybrid
activity, is developing technology to allow the generation of highly
efficient, cost-effective, carbon-free electricity from domestic coal
resources with near-zero atmospheric emissions in central station
applications. The program directly supports the President's FutureGen
project through the development of cost-effective, highly efficient,
power blocks that facilitate sequestration in coal-based systems. The
technology will also permit grid independent distributed generation
applications by 2010.
SECA fuel cell/turbine hybrids operating on coal gas are building
blocks for zero emissions power, the ultimate goal of the President's
FutureGen Program. These hybrids are projected to be available at a
cost of $400/kW, a 10-fold reduction in cost from existing fuel cell
technology. In addition the technology developed in this program will
produce electricity at up to 60 percent in coal-based systems, produce
near-zero emissions, and be compatible with carbon sequestration.
In all applications SECA fuel cells will be both low-cost, with the
above-stated goals of $400/kW, as well as highly efficient. Integrated
with coal gasification, such systems will approach 60 percent
efficiency compared to the existing coal-based power generation fleet
average of about 33 percent efficiency. In distributed generation
applications even higher efficiencies may be reached, and cogeneration
opportunities can further increase efficiency.
Along with these attributes fuel cells are one of the cleanest
technologies available in terms of atmospheric emissions, which
enhances their attractiveness for urban applications or applications in
areas of non-attainment for Clean Air Act emissions. They also provide
24-hour, silent operation.
Finally, coal-based fuel cell systems will increase energy security
by using domestic resources. In distributed generation applications
fuel cells can eliminate transmission and distribution system
infrastructure concerns and issues by providing generation near the
point of use and by being able to operate in a grid-independent mode.
The SECA Program consists of six integrated industrial
manufacturing teams designing fuel cell or fuel cell/hybrid systems,
developing the necessary materials, and ultimately responsible for
deploying the technology. These teams are complemented by two to three
dozen core technology performers providing generic problem-solving
research needed to overcome barriers to low-cost, high-performance
technology as identified by DOE and the manufacturing teams. The core
technology teams are universities, national laboratories, and other
research-oriented organizations. Historically the manufacturing teams
receive 60 percent of the program funding and the core technology
developers receive 40 percent. This unique structure assures that a
variety of approaches to solving the problems associated with fuel
cells will be undertaken in a manner that will increase the chances of
success for this highly complex technology.
Three of the six manufacturing teams, including FuelCell Energy,
have recently been awarded contracts to develop fuel cell/hybrid
technology for application to large central generation systems
characterized by FutureGen. The remaining manufacturing teams are
developing fuel cells for possible use in both these large systems as
well as in distributed generation applications such as auxiliary power
units, military power applications and remote or on-site power
generation.
The DOE budget request for this program is $63.3 million, a slight
increase from fiscal year 2006 funding. This level of funding, if
dedicated to the base SECA program would be about $13 million more than
amounts available to the base program in fiscal year 2006, but still
below fiscal year 2005 funding levels. In fiscal year 2006 and 2007 the
program is entering Phase II of development, which involves larger
scale development work on the part of manufacturing teams in the
program and which will require more funding to continue to meet the DOE
proposed schedule. As part of this greater commitment, manufacturing
teams entering Phase II are required to provide a minimum of 50 percent
of the funds needed for the program, which is an increase from the 25
percent cost-sharing required in Phase I. For these reasons additional
funding is needed to continue progress apace for this exciting new
technology.
We believe that the SECA fuel cell/hybrid program has achieved the
progress to date as anticipated by the program managers, and will
continue to display such progress given sufficient funding support by
DOE and the Congress. Hybrid technology has been successfully
integrated into the program and an emphasis on use with coal-based
systems has been established. Industry partners in the program have
continued and increased cost-sharing support. This technology is
essential to meeting the efficiency and emissions goals of the
President's FutureGen program and will also provide low-cost, low-
emissions alternatives for distributed generation applications.
Therefore, we urge you to support our request for $75 million to
execute the DOE Fossil Energy, Fuels and Power Systems, Fuel Cell
Program in fiscal year 2007.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alaska Energy Authority
The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), the State of Alaska's lead
agency for energy planning and development, thanks the subcommittee for
this opportunity to present written testimony in support of U.S.
Department of Energy (USDOE) appropriations. AEA works in partnership
with USDOE, the Denali Commission, and other Federal agencies to
provide reliable and affordable energy to the citizens of our State. To
sustain this work, we request the subcommittee:
--Reinstate USDOE funding and support for the national Regional
Biomass Energy Program and the Geothermal Program. These
modestly funded programs help us develop valuable, locally-
funded projects such as:
--A sawmill waste-fired heating system that saves the City of
Craig, Alaska $100,000 per year, and
--A 400 kW geothermal power plant at Chena Hot Springs, Alaska that
saves $270,000 per year in diesel fuel costs;
--Support USDOE funding for the State Energy Program and the Combined
Heat and Power Program. These cost-share programs help us
identify efficiency projects such as:
--A waste heat recovery project that saves Kotzebue, Alaska
$150,000 per year, and
--A lighting upgrade project that saves the Iditarod School
District $16,000 per year;
--Support the USDOE's Arctic Energy Office in Fairbanks. The Arctic
Energy Office and its partner, the University of Alaska, play
crucial roles in the research, development, and deployment of
fossil energy technology in remote areas of Alaska. Recognizing
that Alaska also holds substantial renewable energy resources,
we request that the subcommittee consider support for the
Arctic Energy Office in the area of energy efficiency and
renewable energy.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to present these written
comments to the subcommittee. Your staff may contact me with questions
or requests for further information.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association for State Community
Services Programs
As Chair of the Board of Directors for the National Association for
State Community Services Programs (NASCSP), I am pleased to submit
testimony in support of the Department of Energy's (DOE) Weatherization
Assistance Program (WAP) and in support of DOE State Energy Programs
(SEP). We are seeking a fiscal year 2007 appropriations level of $275
million for the WAP and $74 million for SEP. NASCSP believes these
funding levels are essential in continuing and improving the
outstanding results of these State grant programs for our citizens.
NASCSP is the member organization representing the States on issues
related to the WAP and the Community Services Block Grant. The State
offices represented by our organization would like to thank this
committee for its continued support of the WAP and SEP through the
years. The $242.6 million in WAP funds provided by the committee in
2006 is expected to result in:
--An additional 97,000 homes occupied by low-income families
receiving energy efficiency services, thereby reducing the
energy use and associated energy bills; and
--Greenhouse gases and environmental pollutants being significantly
reduced due to the decrease in energy use by these newly
weatherized homes; and
--Nearly 20,000 full time, highly skilled, jobs being supported
within the service delivery network and in related
manufacturing and supplier businesses;
--Weatherization reduces the need for importing foreign oil by as
much as 18 million barrels per year and this number continues
rise.
The WAP is the largest residential energy conservation program in
the Nation and serves a vital function in helping low-income families
reduce their energy use. Developed as a pilot project in 1975, the WAP
was institutionalized in 1979 within DOE and is operated in all 50
States, the District of Columbia, and on several Native American
reservations. The WAP funds are used to improve the energy efficiency
of low-income dwellings using the most advanced technologies and
testing protocols available in the housing industry. The energy use
reduction resulting from these efforts helps our country reduce its
dependency on foreign oil and decreases the cost of energy for families
in need. With lower energy bills, these families can increase their
usable income and buy other essentials like food, shelter, clothing,
medicine, and health care.
The WAP provides an energy audit for each home to identify the most
cost-effective measures, which typically include adding insulation,
reducing air infiltration, servicing the heating and cooling systems,
and providing health and safety diagnostic services. According to the
Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook, 2005
projected first-year energy savings for households weatherized during
this year are estimated to be $440, reflecting revised assumptions
about future natural gas prices. For every $1 spent, the WAP returns
$2.83 in energy and non-energy benefits over the life of the
weatherized home, based on these same EIA long-term energy prices
outlook and studies conducted by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
These savings occur for several years into the future. Since the
program's inception, more than 5.5 million homes have been weatherized
using Federal, State, utility and other monies.
As we all know, these are troubling times facing our Nation--war,
budget deficits, homeland security needs, and a slowed economic
recovery. These times create added financial burdens for all Americans,
but especially for those who live at or below the poverty line. Low-
income families have always spent a disproportionate share of their
income for energy needs than their middle-income counterparts. For
example, a typical middle class family pays about 5 percent of their
annual income for energy costs (heat, lights, air conditioning,
appliances and hot water). Low-income families pay nearly the same
dollar amount each year for energy but this amount represents a
significantly higher percentage of their total household income (16 to
20 percent). In times of energy shortages and escalating energy costs,
the energy burden for these families can reach 25 to 40 percent or more
of their available income.
When energy costs rise, like they have during the 2005-2006 heating
season, even a nominal increase can have a dramatic negative impact on
low-income families. The expected increase in this year's energy costs
may amount to an additional $600 or more for most families. For middle-
income families, this increase will amount to less than one-half of 1
percent of the total household income. For many low-income families;
however, this increase will result in a 4 to 5 percent reduction in
their expendable income and will cause families to go without other
important essentials like food, medicine, or clothing to meet this
higher financial demand.
These families need long-term solutions to help them reduce their
energy use both now and in the future--resulting in lower energy bills.
That is the primary mission of the Weatherization Assistance Program--
``To reduce heating and cooling costs for low-income families,
particularly for the elderly, people with disabilities, and children,
by improving the energy efficiency of their homes while ensuring their
health and safety.''
The Oak Ridge National Laboratory reports entitled State Level
Evaluations of the Weatherization Program Conducted From 1990-2001
found that the WAP significantly improved its energy savings results
during those years. In 1996, the program showed savings of 33.5 percent
of gas used for space heating--up from 18.3 percent savings in 1989.
The increase in savings was based in large part on the introduction and
use of more sophisticated diagnostic tools and audits. Families
receiving weatherization services can reduce their heating energy use
by an average of 22 percent, making the cost for heating their homes
more affordable. The Evaluation report also concluded that the WAP
possessed a favorable cost-benefit ratio. Simply stated, the Federal
funds provided to support the program have a 140 percent return on
investment, or nearly $2.83 in benefits for every $1 invested. Meta-
evaluations in 1999 and 2001 confirmed the high level of energy saving
potential for the WAP.
The WAP has always served as a testing ground and provides a
fertile field for the deployment of research conducted by national
laboratories. For example, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory developed
the National Energy Audit (NEAT) for use by local agencies in assessing
cost effectiveness of service delivery. Oak Ridge is currently
investigating the cost effectiveness of including certain base load
measures (water heater replacement, lighting, small motor efficiency,
refrigerator replacements) into the program and continues to test other
protocols and material installation techniques to help State and local
agencies improve their field operations. The Florida Solar Energy
Center and the State of Hawaii are working on the development of cost
effective solar hot water heaters. Many of our States have implemented
refrigerator replacement programs to decrease energy base-load for low-
income families.
One of the major outcomes of WAP field deployment is that the
private sector eventually adopts these new technologies. This pattern
has been established through several advancements including blower
door-directed air infiltration, duct system testing and sealing,
furnace efficiency standards, and insulation and ventilation protocols.
The acceptance of these standards and protocols by the private sector
is enormously important as builders attempt to construct new properties
or rehabilitate existing ones using a renewed energy efficiency
philosophy.
Of equal importance to the technological and programmatic
foundation are the WAP contributions in achieving overall national
energy policies and social strategies. Some examples of how the program
helps achieve these goals include:
--Reducing harmful green house gas through reduced CO<INF>2</INF>
emissions by avoiding energy production. Each time a house is
weatherized, the reduction in energy needs reduces the
environmental impact associated with creating that energy
reduction of sulfur dioxide, carbon, and other pollutants
spilled into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels
like oil, coal, kerosene, wood, gas, and propane.
--Increasing jobs in communities throughout the country. For every $1
million invested in the WAP, more than 40 full-time jobs are
created and supported in the States. Another 20 jobs are
created in companies who provide goods and services to the
program.
--Investing money into communities through job creation, local
purchasing of goods and services, and tax revenues. These
investments result in many secondary benefits. These residual
benefits, known as ``economic benefit multipliers,'' are
applied to local community investment to value the real worth
of money used locally. This multiplier is 3.5 to 4 times the
actual investment. This means that an investment of $275
million in the WAP could yield nearly $1.1 billion in economic
benefits to local communities.
--Reducing consumption of imported fuels by reducing residential
energy consumption. Our country currently imports nearly 60
percent of its oil from foreign countries. This figure is
higher than the import percentage in the 1970's, when the oil
embargo threatened our ability to operate as a Nation. The
conservation efforts of the WAP network will help reduce our
country's dependency on foreign oil, thereby strengthening our
country's national security.
In 2001, the administration earmarked the WAP as a ``Presidential
Priority'' in its National Energy Policy Plan. President Bush committed
$1.4 billion to be added to WAP over a 10-year period to help thousands
of low-income families meet their energy needs while reducing their
energy burden. Each year since then, the administration has asked for
higher appropriations levels in their budgets submitted to Congress. In
response to these higher budget requests, Congress voted to fund the
WAP in 2006 at $242.5 million--$15 million more than the President's
request. In a complete reversal of the President's long-standing
commitment to the program, the administration has significantly reduced
its 2007 request to $164.2 million, or a 33 percent reduction. We are
writing to urge your subcommittee to restore funding for the Low Income
Weatherization Assistance Program to levels no less than $275 million
for WAP and $74 million for State Energy Programs (SEP) for fiscal year
2007.
Weatherization is a clearly proven investment which has helped over
5.5 million families live in safer, more comfortable living conditions.
If the President's budget is upheld, 33,000 low-income families will be
denied critical weatherization services this year. With this funding,
these families would have saved an average of $440 or more a year on
energy. This money could have been used for essential needs such as
food, clothing, and medicine. Instead, these low-income households will
have to spend more than $200 million from their meager incomes to pay
for energy that could have been saved if the homes were weatherized in
2007. At a time when oil and natural gas prices remain high and low-
income families are facing huge increases in their energy costs, it is
irresponsible for the administration to place added burdens on these
families by choosing not to help them conserve energy.
NASCSP is also concerned about the low level of funding provided
for the State Energy Programs (SEP) in 2006. SEP enjoys a broad
constituency, supporting State energy efficiency programs that include
energy generation, fuels diversity, energy use in economic development,
and promoting more efficient uses of traditional energy resources. SEP
funding has fallen steadily from a recent high in 1995 of $53 million
to its fiscal year 2006 level of $36 million. The State energy offices
are the crucial centers for organizing energy emergency preparedness.
They have been asked to do much new work in the sensitive area of
infrastructure security. Taking into consideration this growing burden,
the increasing difficulty of managing energy resources, together with
increasing opportunities for States to implement cost-saving measures,
we are supporting their request of $74 million for fiscal year 2007.
This level would restore the program's recent funding cuts, enhance
their ability to address energy emergency preparedness, and allow for
inflationary impacts since 1995.
By the evidence provided herein, this committee can be assured that
the funding invested in WAP and SEP will provide essential services to
thousands of low-income families, resulting in greater energy savings,
more economic investments, increased leveraging of other funds, and
less reliance on high-cost, foreign oil--outcomes that will benefit the
Nation. NASCSP looks forward to working with committee members in the
future as we attempt to create energy self-sufficiency for millions of
American families through these invaluable national programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the UF-DOE High Temperature Electrochemistry
Center, University of Florida
Chairman and members of the subcommittee, our quality of life,
standard of living, and national security depend on energy. The limited
supply of fossil energy, its accelerated consumption, and the
dependence on its supply from unstable Middle East countries are major
U.S. economic and security issues. To address these issues we must have
a strong balanced energy research program, which is based on the best
use of our indigenous natural resources while minimizing our dependence
on imported energy forms. Therefore, our testimony is directed to
programs in the Office of Fossil Energy of the U.S. Department of
Energy. Specifically we request that the High Temperature
Electrochemistry Center (HiTEC) be funded at the fiscal year 2006 level
of $8 million (including $750,000 at the University of Florida), and
that the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) be funded at $67
million for a total SECA-HiTEC appropriation within the Office of
Fossil Energy, Research and Development, Fuels and Power Systems of $75
million.
HiTEC.--The High Temperature Electrochemistry Center (HiTEC) is
part of the Research and Development Program and provides the research
necessary to develop enabling technologies for advanced power
generation systems, including the President's FutureGen, Clean Coal,
and Hydrogen programs. HiTEC not only supports DOE's mission, but
through the HiTEC Satellite Centers at Montana State University, the
University of Florida, and other U.S. universities, creates
concentrated centers of excellence where the fundamental research
necessary to meet U.S. energy needs are addressed.
As an example, at the University of Florida we are developing the
fundamental understanding of ionic transport in, and electrocatalytic
(electrochemical catalysis) phenomena on the surface of, ion conducting
materials. From first-principles calculations and molecular dynamic
simulations of ionic transport and gas-solid interactions to synthesis
and characterization (structural, electrochemical, and catalytic) of
novel ion conducting materials and electrocatalysts. The results of
these investigations will minimize the polarization losses of fuel
cells and batteries, maximize the hydrogen production from gas
separation membranes, and enhance the signal and selectivity of exhaust
sensors. In so doing this research will improve U.S. energy efficiency
and security.
A further benefit of this university-based research program is that
it provides for the education of the next generation of energy
scientists and engineers necessary to meet the employment needs of this
growth industry. As such, this university-based energy research program
is directly aligned with the goals of the President's ``American
Competitiveness Initiative,'' the pending Senate legislation
``Protecting America's Competitive Edge Acts,'' and the National
Academy's ``Gathering Storm'' report.
Therefore, we recommend continuation of this program at the fiscal
year 2006 level of $8 million including $750,000 at the HiTEC center at
the University of Florida.
SECA.--Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) is the DOE
Fossil fuel cell program. Fuel cells are a critical technology for
efficient utilization of our natural resources. What distinguishes the
SECA program from the Office of Energy Efficiency's fuel cell program
is the fuel flexibility of the type of fuel cell being developed by
SECA. Not only can these fuel cells contribute to a future Hydrogen
Economy, but unlike other fuel cells, they can operate using
conventional fuels (from natural gas to coal derived gasses, to
gasoline and diesel fuels) as well as renewable biomass based fuels.
Thus, development and deployment of the SECA fuel cells can improve
U.S. energy efficiency and security utilizing our current energy
infrastructure.
The SECA program is a successful DOE-industry-university
partnership involving 6 industry teams, 20 universities and 4 national
labs. This program is achieving its milestones and goals and as such
will see market entry in the next few years providing near term U.S.
energy efficiency gains. However, in order to deploy pre-commercial
prototypes a funding increase for the SECA program in fiscal year 2007
to $67 million is necessary.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony on these important
programs. We appreciate the support of the subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors
WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE,
AND REGIONAL BIOMASS ENERGY PROGRAM
The Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) is pleased to
provide this testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water,
and Related Agencies regarding fiscal year 2007 appropriations for
Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy programs of the U.S.
Department of Energy. The Governors recognize the difficult funding
decisions which confront the subcommittee this year and appreciate the
subcommittee's support for these programs.
At a time of record high energy prices and heightened attention to
the security, reliability and efficiency of the Nation's energy
systems, these conservation and renewable energy programs have taken on
an increased significance. Modest Federal investment in these programs
provides substantial energy, economic and environmental returns to the
Nation--leveraging additional State and private sector investment and
contributing to sound energy management. To continue the contribution
of these programs to cost-effective energy strategies, the CONEG
Governors request that funding for the State Energy Program be
increased to $49.5 million, and that funding for the Weatherization
Assistance Program be provided at a level of at least $250 million in
fiscal year 2007. The Governors support the President's request that
funding for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve be provided at a
level of $4.95 million in fiscal year 2007. The Governors also request
that the subcommittee provide $7.5 million to continue the National
Biomass Partnership (previously known as the Regional Biomass Energy
Program).
Administered by the 50 States, District of Columbia and
territories, the Department of Energy's State Energy Program and
Weatherization Assistance Program are a cost-effective way to achieve
national energy goals. The National Biomass Partnership helps sustain
public and private sector investment in biomass technologies and
contributes to expanded biomass energy development. These programs
provide valuable opportunities for the States, industry, national
laboratories and the U.S. Department of Energy to collaborate in moving
energy efficiency and renewable energy research, technologies,
practices and information to the public and into the marketplace.
State Energy Program.--The State Energy Program (SEP) is the major
State-Federal partnership program addressing energy efficiency and
conservation in all sectors of the economy. Cost-shared by the States,
the program allows State energy offices to increase the effectiveness
of the Federal funds by tailoring the energy activities to address
particular local energy priorities and opportunities.
Increased SEP funding in fiscal year 2007 will ensure that States
can continue their work toward the national energy goal of a balanced,
reliable and secure energy system. SEP provides the vital funds that
allow State energy offices to move energy efficiency and renewable
energy technology into the marketplace, assist both the private and
public sectors in reducing energy use and costs, and conduct extensive
public information activities. Increased SEP funding will also ensure
that States can rely on their State energy offices to continue vital
emergency preparedness activities.
The modest Federal funds provided to the SEP are an efficient
Federal investment, as they are leveraged by non-Federal public and
private sources. According to a recent study of the SEP done by the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory at the request of U.S. Department of Energy,
every dollar in SEP funding results in $7.22 in annual energy cost
savings and also yields $10.71 in ``leveraged'' funding from the State
and private sectors. SEP projects have resulted in more than $333
million in annual energy costs savings.
Weatherization Assistance Program.--Through a network of
partnerships with more than 970 local weatherization agencies across
the country, the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) improves the
energy efficiency of more than 100,000 low-income dwellings a year,
thereby reducing the heating and cooling bills of the Nation's most
vulnerable citizens. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, low-
income households spend more than 15 percent of their annual income on
energy, compared to 3.5 percent for other households. The
Weatherization Assistance Program strives to reduce this ``energy
burden'' of low-income residents through such on-going energy saving
measures as the installation of insulation and energy-efficient
lighting, and heating and cooling system tune-ups. These measures can
result in energy savings as high as 30 percent. According to the
National Association for State Community Service Programs, based on
current energy prices, the average family saves approximately $400 per
year after weatherization services are provided.
The WAP also provides numerous non-energy benefits. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory has concluded that for every $1 of DOE investment,
there are non-energy benefits worth $1.88. For instance, the WAP
generates more than 8,000 jobs nationwide, creating 52 new jobs for
every $1 million invested. In addition, the decreased energy use
resulting from weatherization measures also provides environmental
benefits through decreased carbon dioxide emissions.
National Biomass Partnership.--Renewable energy plays an
increasingly vital role in meeting the Nation's goal of reduced
reliance on imported fossil fuels. Some of the most promising renewable
technologies use biomass to achieve that goal. The National Biomass
Partnership (formerly known as the Regional Biomass Energy Program) is
a primary link among State, private, and Federal biomass activities. It
is a vital complement to the research and technology work of the
Department of Energy and its national laboratories, and can assist
Federal agencies in carrying out the biomass provisions in EPAct 2005
and the President's Advance Energy Initiative. The activities are
tailored to the specific resources and opportunities in each region of
the country, thus providing a critical link in the chain of research,
resource production and technology commercialization. The Partnership
has been successful in promoting the adoption of State policies that
encourage development of biomass resources, increasing public awareness
of the benefits and uses of bioenergy; leveraging Federal funding and
State resources, and increasing the intensity of biomass use. In the
Northeast, the Partnership has been instrumental in stimulating an
estimated $24 million in public and private investment in bioenergy
development; offering technical assistance that contributed to new
bioenergy and biopower development policies in six States; and
providing educational assistance to increase public and private sector
awareness of the potential of regional biomass development. As a
result, the Northeast has seen an increase in development plans for new
ethanol and biodiesel production facilities and biomass power capacity,
as well as a growth in demand for ethanol.
The Partnership is a recognized source of objective and reliable
information on biomass. It is also a valued resource for States in
their efforts to expand the use of biodiesel in transportation and
heating oil and in promoting appropriate use of biomass for expanded
electric power and combined heat and power applications. These biomass
applications are important to the Northeast's near term goals of
increased renewable energy use and voluntary programs to reduce
greenhouse gases.
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.--The Nation's heightened
emphasis on energy security places renewed importance on the Northeast
Home Heating Oil Reserve. The Northeast, with its reliance upon
imported fuels for both residential and commercial heating, is
particularly vulnerable to the effects of supply disruptions and price
volatility. The Reserve provides an important buffer to ensure that the
States will have prompt access to immediate supplies in the event of a
supply emergency.
In conclusion, we request that the subcommittee provide funding in
fiscal year 2007 for the State Energy Program at the President's
requested level of $49.5 million; provide $250 million for the
Weatherization Assistance Program; provide $7.5 million for the
National Biomass Partnership; and provide funding at the President's
requested level of $4.95 million for the Northeast Home Heating Oil
Reserve. These programs have demonstrated their effectiveness in
contributing to the Nation's goals of environmentally sound energy
management and improved economic productivity and energy security.
We thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to share the views
of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors, and we stand ready to
provide you with any additional information on the importance of these
programs to the Northeast.
______
Prepared Statement of the Biomass Energy Research Association
SUMMARY
This testimony pertains to the fiscal year 2007 appropriations for
biomass energy research, development, and demonstration (RD&D)
conducted by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). This mission-oriented biomass
RD&D is funded by the Energy and Water Development bill, and is
performed under the heading of Energy Supply and Conservation, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy. BERA recommends a total appropriation
of $150,000,000 in fiscal year 2007 under Biomass and Biorefinery
Systems R&D (Energy Supply and Energy Conservation), exclusive of
earmarks. Specific lines items for the DOE biomass RD&D budget are as
follows:
--$60,000,000 for Biochemical Conversion Platform Technology
(conversion of corn starch, corn stover and fiber, wood, forest
residues and perennial crops);
--$50,000,000 for Thermochemical Conversion Platform Technology
(conversion of wood and forest resources to pyrolysis oils and
syngas);
--$25,000,000 for Integrated Biorefinery Technologies; and,
--$15,000,000 for Utilization of Platform Outputs: Core Technologies
for Chemicals.
BACKGROUND
On behalf of BERA's members, we would like to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for the opportunity to present the recommendations of BERA's
Board of Directors for the high-priority programs that we strongly urge
be continued or started. BERA is a non-profit association based in the
Washington, DC area. It was founded in 1982 by researchers and private
organizations conducting biomass research. Our objectives are to
promote education and research on the economic production of energy and
fuels from freshly harvested and waste biomass, and to serve as a
source of information on biomass RD&D policies and programs. BERA does
not solicit or accept Federal funding for R&D.
There is a growing realization in our country that we need to
diversify our energy resources, develop technologies to utilize
indigenous fuels, and reduce reliance on foreign oil. Economic growth
is fueling increasing energy demand and placing considerable pressure
on our already burdened energy supplies and environment. The import of
oil and other fuels into the United States is growing steadily and
shows no sign of abating. Industry and consumers both are being faced
with rapidly rising costs for fossil fuels, which are vital to our
economy. A diversified energy supply will be critical to meeting the
energy challenges of the future and maintaining a healthy economy with
a competitive edge in global markets.
Biomass is the single renewable resource with the ability to
replace liquid transportation fuels. It can also be used as a feedstock
to supplement the production of chemicals, plastics, and other
materials that are now produced from crude oil. In addition,
gasification of biomass or biomass-derived pyrolysis oils produces a
syngas that can be utilized to supplement the natural gas supply and
electricity from fossil fuels. Viable fuel and chemical products are
already being produced from biomass, but on a very small scale compared
to the potential fuel markets. Research should be expanded to realize
the full potential of biomass as a component of our energy supply.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 has created various incentives for
diversifying our energy supply. The Act provides a good foundation, but
to be effective it must be supported by research that will enable the
United States to take advantage of our abundant, domestic, renewable
resources in a cost-effective way. The recently announced Biofuels
Initiative provides for additional funding to support the use of
cellulosic biomass as a feedstock for ethanol, with the potential to
replace as much as 30 percent of domestic gasoline demand in 2030. We
support this Initiative and believe it will help to accelerate the
development and utilization of this important resource.
BERA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DOE BIOMASS RD&D
BERA's recommendations support a balanced program of mission-
oriented RD&D, including projects to develop and demonstrate advanced
biochemical and thermochemical biomass conversion processes,
alternative liquid transportation fuels, and co-production of fuels,
chemicals, and power in integrated biorefineries. BERA's
recommendations for funding for DOE biomass RD&D are shown in Table 1
and outlined below. Note that recommended budgets for demonstration
projects do not include the required 50 percent industry cost-share.
Fund both biochemical and thermochemical conversion platforms as
foundations for integrated biorefineries.--The biochemical and
thermochemical platforms are both important and BERA urges that both be
funded to accelerate the development and demonstration of large-scale,
synergistic integrated biorefinery systems. These large-scale systems
have the most potential to enable biomass to have a major role in
displacing fossil fuels. BERA urges that biochemical conversion
research be funded at the DOE request, and that thermochemical
conversion R&D for biomass gasification, pyrolysis, and synthesis of
alternate liquid fuels be expanded and given a higher priority.
Support development/demonstration of integrated biorefineries.--
Activities should address integration of promising biological and
thermochemical process steps and processes to improve overall process
efficiency and reduce product cost, taking into consideration siting,
plant design, financing, permitting, environmental controls, waste
processing and disposal, and sustained operations; feedstock
acquisition, transport, storage, and delivery; and storage and delivery
of products to market. BERA recommends that industrial partners and
States should be carefully selected to demonstration mission-oriented
benefits for participation in this cost-shared program.
Reduce level of earmarks.--The level of earmarks in the last few
years has resulted in limiting new initiatives and premature reductions
of scheduled programs by EERE. BERA respectfully asks the subcommittee
to carefully consider the impacts of all earmarks on EERE's biomass
energy RD&D. If earmarks are slated for projects that do not contribute
to DOE's research goals, BERA urges that they be add-ons to the
baseline funds rather than deductions.
TABLE 1.--BIOMASS/BIOREFINERY SYSTEMS R&D (ENERGY SUPPLY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scale-Up &
Program Area Description of RD&D Research Demonstration All RD&D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biochemical Conversion Platform R&D... Conversion of corn $30,000,000 $30,000,000 $60,000,000
starch, stover and
fiber, wood and forest
residues, and perennial
crops.
Thermochemical Conversion Platform R&D Conversion of wood and 20,000,000 20,000,000 40,000,000
forest residues to
pyrolysis oils or
syngas.
Integration of Biorefinery Validation of benefits .............. 15,000,000 15,000,000
Technologies. of integrating
biochemical and
thermochemical
conversion technologies
in integrated
biorefineries.
Utilization of Platform Outputs: Core Development and co- 15,000,000 .............. 15,000,000
Technologies for Fuels, Chemicals, production of fuels,
and Electricity. chemicals and
electricity from
biochemical and
thermochemical platform
output streams.
State and Regional Biomass Outreach and support for .............. 5,000,000 5,000,000
Partnerships. regional bioenergy
projects.
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL........................... ........................ 72,000,000 78,000,000 150,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Build U.S. leadership in biomass science and technology through
mission-oriented bioenergy research.--BERA recommends that at least 50
percent of the Federal funds appropriated for biomass research,
excluding the funds for scale-up projects, are used to sustain a
national biomass science and technology base via sub-contracts for
industry and universities. While the national laboratories should
facilitate coordinating this research, increased support for U.S.
scientists and engineers in industry, academe, and research institutes
will encourage commercialization of emerging technologies and serious
consideration of new ideas. It will also help to build the skilled
workforce, scientific community, and state-of-the-art research
platforms needed to support a future domestic bioenergy industry.
Utilization of platform outputs R&D, core technologies for fuels,
chemicals and electricity.--In the past EERE has focused on competitive
selection of R&D projects based on an analytical effort that identified
the top 12 building block chemicals that can be produced from sugar
intermediates via biological or chemical conversions. BERA urges that
this effort focus instead on efficient and economical production of
liquid fuels and commodity organic chemicals, which have established
markets, rather than high-value chemicals, which are either new
products without established markets or specialty chemicals with niche
markets. Biomass-derived fuels and chemicals, with the ability to co-
produce electricity, will have a greater probability of reducing fossil
fuels consumption. BERA urges that this effort include continuing
research on sugar intermediates and be expanded to include direct
conversion of other intermediates and biomass to fuels and commodity
organic chemicals.
State and Regional Partnerships (Formerly Regional Biomass Energy
Program).--The State & Regional Partnerships (SRP) was created to
succeed the Regional Biomass Energy Program (RBEP) which functioned as
a biomass outreach program for 20 years. The SRP serves an important
function at the State level in promoting the use of biomass fuels. BERA
strongly urges that the SRP be continued in fiscal year 2007.
BIOMASS AND BIOPRODUCTS INITIATIVE
The goal of the Biomass and Bioproducts Initiative (BBI), created
through ``The Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000'' and Title
IX of the Farm Bill, was to triple the use of bioenergy and biobased
products. Congress has provided annual funding for the BBI since fiscal
year 2000. BERA strongly urges that the BBI be continued in fiscal year
2007 at the funding levels recommended by BERA for the cost-shared
demonstration projects shown in Table 1.
BERA congratulates DOE and USDA for the cooperation and joint
coordination of the programs of each department to increase the use of
biomass for production of affordable fuels, electricity, and products.
To meet accelerated goals for biofuels, the BBI must be fully
incorporated into DOE's and USDA's biomass research programs. Large,
strategically located, energy plantations are ultimately envisaged in
which waste biomass and harvested biomass production systems are
integrated with biorefineries and operated as analogs of petroleum
refineries to afford flexible slates of multiple products from multiple
feedstocks and to co-produce electricity.
BERA also recommends that implementation of the BBI should include
identification of each Federal agency that provides funding related to
biomass energy development and their programs and expenditures, as is
done by DOE and USDA. This on-going activity should be expanded to
include other Federal agencies and organizations (e.g., Environmental
Protection Agency, Department of Transportation, Department of
Commerce, National Science Foundation) to help fine-tune the critical
pathways to program goals, to coordinate R&D efforts, and to maximize
the return on RD&D investment.
______
Prepared Statement of Florida State University
Summary of Request.--Electric Power Infrastructure--Security
Research & Development; Agency.--Energy and Water (Dept. of Energy);
Program.--Electricity Transmission and Distribution; Fiscal Year 2007
Request.--$3,500,000. We respectfully request the committee consider
directing DOE to continue the funding committed to scientists already
working on DOE-funded projects in the Ocean Carbon Sequestration
Program administered by the Office of Biological and Environmental
Research.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the members of the
subcommittee for this opportunity to present testimony before this
committee. I would like to begin by strongly endorsing the President's
fiscal year 2007 budget proposal that focused on substantial increases
in research funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science.
The research funding provided by that Office for the physical sciences
and engineering is critical to our Nation's future. The approximately
14 percent increase proposed by the President as part of his American
Competitiveness Initiative is sorely needed by the research community
as an investment in our future security. It is our hope that this
subcommittee could support this effort in your fiscal year 2007 budget
plan.
Next, I would like to take a moment to briefly acquaint you with
Florida State University. Located in Tallahassee, Florida's capitol,
FSU is a comprehensive Research I university with a rapidly growing
research base. The University serves as a center for advanced graduate
and professional studies, exemplary research, and top-quality
undergraduate programs. Faculty members at FSU maintain a strong
commitment to quality in teaching, to performance of research and
creative activities, and have a strong commitment to public service.
Among the current or former faculty are numerous recipients of national
and international honors including Nobel laureates, Pulitzer Prize
winners, and several members of the National Academy of Sciences. Our
scientists and engineers do excellent research, have strong
interdisciplinary interests, and often work closely with industrial
partners in the commercialization of the results of their research.
Florida State University had over $182 million this past year in
research awards.
Florida State University attracts students from every State in the
Nation and more than 100 foreign countries. The University is committed
to high admission standards that ensure quality in its student body,
which currently includes National Merit and National Achievement
Scholars, as well as students with superior creative talent. We
consistently rank in the top 25 among U.S. colleges and universities in
attracting National Merit Scholars to our campus.
At Florida State University, we are very proud of our successes as
well as our emerging reputation as one of the Nation's top public
research universities.
Mr. Chairman, let me tell you about our primary interests today.
Recent large-scale failures in the electrical grid systems of North
America and Europe have made us aware of the critical nature of our
dependence on the availability of electrical power. A contributing
factor to these failures was a lack of detailed understanding of the
system dynamics in response to an initial minor disturbance. Lack of
investment in power systems grids over the last 20-30 years has eroded
the redundancy traditionally built into the system by allowing load
increases without an equivalent growth in the supporting transmission
network, control sophistication or distributed generation capability.
Over the same time, the lack of investment in R&D resulted the closure
of many power engineering educational programs. Authoritative estimates
suggest that in 2002 only 500 bachelor's degrees in power engineering
were awarded in the United States.
The proposed research activities within this System-wide project
will build on existing expertise at FSU, other universities within
Florida, and several of Department of Energy's National Laboratories.
The research will focus specifically on critical issues associated with
bringing modernization to the U.S. electric grid. Many of the projects
will have industrial partners, thereby ensuring rapid technology
transfer from research-to-practice. These activities include:
--Employing the real time digital simulator capability--present and
future--at FSU/CAPS to be able to simulate the real-time
behavior of a portion of a regional grid and its
interconnections to better understand the areas of
vulnerability for major outages and cascading failures. It is
envisioned that this will become a national user facility with
remote access capability over high-speed connections.
--Use of the real-time digital simulator through comparisons of
concurrent real time modeling and an actual system to assess
new technologies, including energy storage, intelligent agent
based controls, operating procedures, improved analytical and
simulation techniques, and security assessment of SCADA
systems.
--Advanced materials R&D for superconductivity applications in power
systems. Some of the areas of research include the
characterization of the engineering behavior of superconducting
conductors, and development of advanced insulation materials
specifically geared for low-temperature environments.
In a second area of interest, you are probably aware that
industrial by-products have increased the concentration of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere from 290 to 380 parts per meter over time.
This increase has been implicated in the rise of global temperature
because carbon dioxide interferes with the re-radiation of solar energy
back into space. One way to reduce the rate of increase of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere is to collect it from industrial sources and
store it, for example, in the deep ocean (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, 2006). The wisdom of this option is unclear because
little is known about the environmental consequences. The United States
Department of Energy (DOE) has been funding research to fill this
knowledge gap. In one case, DOE funded an initial 3-year grant and a 3-
year renewal for a cooperative effort between Louisiana State
University and Florida State University. This team is assessing the
sensitivity of deep-sea animals to carbon dioxide-rich seawater; is
studying the seafloor area that would be exposed to carbon dioxide-rich
seawater during full-scale ocean storage and to assess the risk
extinction; and is investigating its effects of carbon dioxide-rich
seawater on similar species that live in shallow water, which are
easier and cheaper to study.
The DOE fiscal year 2007 Congressional Budget Request eliminates
funding for the Ocean Carbon Sequestration Program administered by the
Office of Biological and Environmental Research, which supports the
research. Many of the benefits from DOE's investment in this important
area of research will be lost if funding is terminated. We respectfully
request the committee consider directing DOE to continue the funding
committed to scientists already working on DOE-funded projects in this
area.
Mr. Chairman, we believe this research is vitally important to our
country and would appreciate your support.
______
Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research
On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR) and the university community involved in weather and climate
research and related education, training and support activities, I
submit this written testimony for the record of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
UCAR is a 69-university member consortium that manages and operates
the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and additional
programs that support and extend the country's scientific research and
education capabilities. In addition to its member research
universities, UCAR has formal relationships with approximately 100
additional undergraduate and graduate schools including several
historically black and minority-serving institutions, and 40
international universities and laboratories. UCAR's principal support
is from the National Science Foundation with additional support from
other Federal agencies including the Department of Energy (DOE).
DOE OFFICE OF SCIENCE
The atmospheric and related sciences community appreciates
Congress' support for the DOE Office of Science, and enthusiastically
supports the inclusion of the DOE Office of Science in the American
Competitiveness Initiative within the President's budget request for
fiscal year 2007. The needs of the country demand that DOE continue to
produce a world-class program in science and energy security research.
The Office of Science manages fundamental research programs in basic
energy sciences, biological and environmental sciences, and
computational science, and supports unique and vital parts of U.S.
research in climate change, geophysics, genomics, life sciences, and
science education. The prospect of halting the recent slide in research
funding within DOE and actually doubling the agency's research budget
holds great promise for DOE's investment in and contribution to our
Nation's future.
I urge the subcommittee to fund the DOE Office of Science at the
level of the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request, or $4.1
billion, and to enable the agency to apply that entire amount toward
planned agency research priorities. This level of research funding will
augment and reinvigorate critical work of researchers throughout the
Nation.
Biological and Environmental Research (BER)
Within the Office of Science, the Biological and Environmental
Research (BER) program develops the knowledge necessary to identify,
understand, and anticipate the potential health and environmental
consequences of energy production and use. These are issues that are
absolutely critical to our country's well-being and security. The
President's BER request for fiscal year 2007 is $510.3 million, an
approximate increase of $60.5 million over fiscal year 2006 funding
when fiscal year 2006 congressionally directed programs are removed.
While this is a healthy increase, it should be seen in the context of
past appropriations and the decline of BER funding that has taken place
over the past several years. The fiscal year 2005 final appropriation
for BER was $502.0 million with add-ons subtracted. The fiscal year
2007 request therefore makes up much ground lost recently, but does not
get BER back to level funding when inflation is factored in.
Peer-reviewed research programs at universities, national
laboratories, and private institutions play a critical role in the BER
program by involving the best researchers the Nation has to offer, and
by developing the next generation of researchers. Approximately 27
percent of BER basic research funding supports university-based
activities directly and 40 percent supports basic research at national
laboratories. All BER research projects, other than those in the
``extra projects'' category, undergo regular peer review and
evaluation. I urge the subcommittee to fund Biological and
Environmental Research at the level of the fiscal year 2007 budget
request, or $510.3 million, and to enable BER to apply that entire
amount toward planned agency research priorities that are peer-reviewed
and that involve the best researchers to be found within the Nation's
university research community as well as the DOE labs.
Climate Change Research.--Within BER, the Climate Change Research
contributes substantially to the Nation's Climate Change Research
Initiative (CCRI) goals of understanding and predicting climate change,
including its causes and consequences. The long-term DOE goal is to
deliver improved climate data and models for policy makers and to
substantially reduce differences between observed temperature and model
simulations at regional scales. This work is critical to the ability of
policy makers and stakeholders to provide stewardship resulting in a
healthy planet--and it is particularly important as signs of
increasingly dramatic change in our climate and environment appear. The
Climate Change Research Request of $134.9 million is a 4.6 percent
decrease from the fiscal year 2006 appropriated level at a time when
the request for BER is up 13.4 percent after congressionally directed
projects are removed. I urge the subcommittee to fund Climate Change
Research at an fiscal year 2007 level that is consistent with the
request for BER stated above, and to enable DOE to apply the entire
amount toward planned national research priorities.
Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR)
Within DOE's Office of Science, the Advanced Scientific Computing
Research program delivers leading edge computational and networking
capabilities to scientists nationwide enabling advances in computer
science and the development of specialized software tools that are
necessary to research the major scientific questions being addressed by
the Office of Science. Development of this capacity is a key component
of DOE's strategy to succeed in its science, energy, environmental
quality, and national security missions.
ASCR's continued progress is of particular importance to
atmospheric scientists involved with complex climate model development,
research that takes enormous amounts of computing power. By their very
nature, problems dealing with the interaction of the earth's systems
and global climate change cannot be solved by traditional laboratory
approaches. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is
compiling its Fourth Assessment Report to be completed in 2007, and
ASCR's contribution to this international document is critical.
Therefore, it is encouraging to see the increase for ASCR in the
President's request for fiscal year 2007. I urge the committee to
support the President's fiscal year 2007 request of $318.6 million for
DOE Advanced Scientific Computing Research, and to enable DOE to apply
the entire amount toward planned national priorities.
Within ASCR, two programs are of particular importance to climate
change computer modeling work: the National Energy Research Scientific
Computing Center (NERSC) operated by Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, and the Energy Sciences Network (ESnet). NERSC is the high
performance production computing facility for the Office of Science,
serving thousands of scientists throughout the country at laboratories,
universities, and other Federal agencies. Computing time is awarded to
research groups based on peer review of submitted proposals. NERSC
represents an important element of the administration's American
Competitiveness Initiative strategy as outlined in the President's
State of the Union address referencing the doubling of ``the federal
commitment to the most basic research programs in the physical sciences
over the next ten years. This funding will support the work of
America's most creative minds as they explore promising areas such as
nanotechnology, supercomputing, and alternative energy sources.''
ESnet enables researchers at laboratories, universities and other
institutions to communicate with each other using collaborative
capabilities that are unparalleled. This high-speed network enables
geographically distributed research teams to collaborate effectively on
some of the world's most complex problems. Researchers from industry,
academia and national labs, through this program, share access to
unique DOE research facilities, support the frequent interactions
needed to address complex problems, and speed up discovery and
innovation. The fiscal year 2007 budget request will enable DOE to
deliver a network with two to four times the capability of today's
ESnet.
NERSC and ESnet play complementary roles in advancing the complex
and challenging science of climate change and other scientific areas of
extreme importance to the security and quality of life of our citizens.
I urge the committee to support the President's fiscal year 2007
requests of $54.79 million for the National Energy Research Scientific
Computing Center (NERSC), and $22.7 million for the Energy Sciences
Network (ESnet).
DOE plays a vital role in sustaining U.S. scientific leadership and
generating U.S. competitiveness in a time when other countries are
investing heavily in scientific research and technology. On behalf of
UCAR and the atmospheric sciences research community, I want to thank
the subcommittee in advance for your attention to the recommendations
of our community concerning the fiscal year 2007 budget of the
Department of Energy. We understand and appreciate that the Nation is
undergoing significant budget pressures at this time, and support
absolutely the effort to enhance U.S. security and quality of life
through the American Competitiveness Initiative, of which the DOE
Office of Science is a critical component.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of U.S. Petroleum Engineering
Department Heads
We are a committee of Department Heads for Petroleum Engineering
departments in the United States. We are writing to inform the
committee of the drastic harm that will be done to Petroleum
Engineering education in the United States unless the appropriation for
oil and natural gas technologies programs in the fiscal year 2007
Department of Energy budget is restored to at least its fiscal year
2006 appropriated level of $64 million. This program provides the
largest single source of funding for the research and graduate
education in Departments of Petroleum Engineering and related
disciplines throughout the United States. It directly benefits the
Nation in improved recovery from domestic oil and natural gas fields,
with a particular focus on providing research support for independents,
who are without their own large research organizations. Beyond that, it
directly benefits the education of both graduate and undergraduate
students in Petroleum Engineering, and thereby helps provide the
technical expertise that will be crucial as oil and natural gas
supplies become more and more scarce and precious.
In all estimates made by the Energy Information Administration, oil
and gas will serve as the major sources of energy to fuel our economy
for the foreseeable future. Enhancing the domestic production requires
innovative and advanced technologies to raise the recovery factor from
the U.S. mature fields to well above 60 percent and to tap
unconventional oil and gas resources. This is the only way we can buy
the 50-75 years that it may take to realize economical access to the
alternatives to oil and gas. Major oil companies, with their main focus
on their international operations, are gradually pulling out of the
U.S. oilfields and are not investing sufficiently in the university
research needed to train the U.S. work force. Scientific training of
the oil and gas work force is a task best done by the Petroleum
Engineering departments in this country and requires the continuous
support of the U.S. DOE.
One cannot maintain excellence in education at a research
university without funding for research for faculty to refine their
skills and for graduate-student education. No other program in the
Federal Government provides support for the broad range of topics in
Petroleum Engineering provided by this program. No other discipline in
the sciences or engineering is expected to fund long-term research
without help from the Federal Government. The loss of this DOE program
would cripple Petroleum Engineering education throughout the United
States.
The need to support Petroleum Engineering education in the United
States is severe. The loss of Petroleum Engineering programs in the
United States has become a critical problem. In 1986 there were more
than 30 accredited Petroleum Engineering programs in the United States.
Today the United States is left with only 18. In the mid-1980's, during
the last oil-price rise, there were over 1,400 graduates per year in
Petroleum Engineering; today there are only about 375 students
graduating from Petroleum Engineering programs. The average age of
petroleum engineers working in the United States is 52; the number of
students we are graduating from our current programs is not enough to
replace the retiring engineers, let alone expand the work force. This
has led to a shortage of petroleum engineers and, hence, fierce
competition among the oil companies. More important, unlike 1980's,
when most of the oil companies who could hire other types of engineers
and train them to be petroleum engineers through internal training
programs, do not have those training programs. All companies coming on
campus today prefer to hire petroleum engineers, hence the demand will
continue to grow. Another key difference from 1980's is that unlike
most of the oil companies that time, who actively had internal research
programs, companies today have largely abandoned research activities to
the universities and service companies. This has further increased the
need for conducting both fundamental and applied research in Petroleum
Engineering Departments. We need the support of DOE for fulfilling this
role.
Most conventional oil and natural gas reserves have already been
discovered. We are going to need more expertise and technology to
explore and exploit the more challenging, unconventional resources that
still exist, if we are to meet America's future energy needs. If these
programs so vital to the training of the professionals that provide our
energy needs are cut, the United States will be even more dependent on
oil and natural gas supplied from overseas, much of it from unstable
regions of the world.
The petroleum and natural gas industries have a multi-billion
dollar impact on the U.S. economy, and over 400,000 U.S. citizens have
good-paying jobs because of the petroleum industry. The demands for oil
and natural gas continue to grow each year, with an expected annual
increase of at least 2 percent in the foreseeable future. Large amounts
of oil from mature or unexplored basins in the United States can be
produced with improved technology that can be developed under the DOE
oil and gas technologies program.
We urge you to support this important appropriation that will
provide the citizens of this great country the needed access to the
products and services that make the United States the most
technologically advanced country in the world. We encourage you and
your fellow Senators on the committee to restore the fiscal year 2007
appropriation for DOE oil and gas technologies programs to their fiscal
year 2006 level of $64 million.
Respectfully,
Dr. Mohan Kelkar,
The University of Tulsa, on behalf of the Association of U.S.
Petroleum Engineering Department Heads:
Dr. Sam Ameri,
West Virginia University
Dr. Bob Chase,
Marietta College
Dr. Shari Dunn-Norman,
University of Missouri--Rolla
Dr. Thomas Engler,
New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology
Dr. Iraj Ershaghi,
University of Southern California
Dr. Turgay Ertekin,
Penn State University
Dr. Ali Ghalambor,
University of Louisiana--Lafayette
Dr. Lloyd Heinze,
Texas Tech University
Dr. Steve Holditch,
Texas A&M University
Dr. Roland Horne,
Stanford University
Dr. Mohan Kelkar,
The University of Tulsa
Dr. Santanu Khataniar,
University of Alaska--Fairbanks
Dr. Dean Oliver,
University of Oklahoma
Dr. William Rossen,
University of Texas at Austin
Dr. Steve Sears,
Louisiana State University
Dr. Jalal Torabzadeh,
California State University--Long Beach
Dr. Craig Van Kirk,
Colorado School of Mines
Dr. Laurence Weatherley,
University of Kansas.
______
Prepared Statement of the United States Advanced Ceramics Association
Chairman Domenici, Ranking Member Reid and honorable members of the
committee, on behalf of the members of the U.S. Advanced Ceramics
Association (USACA), I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
submit testimony on the funding for Science Research in the Department
of Energy's fiscal year 2007 Congressional Budget Request. We would
like to propose a comprehensive and cost-effective means of defining
national needs for advanced, high temperature ceramic materials--a
study during fiscal year 2007 to complete a Technology Investment
Roadmap for Advanced Ceramics. This would be included under the
American Competitiveness Initiative. We request $375,000 for an
independent report to Congress, to be completed by February 15, 2007,
that would explore and design a competitive, multi-year Federal and
industry cost-shared program to research, demonstrate and develop
advanced ceramics. An advisory oversight panel would be formed, and
USACA would retain an independent contractor to perform the analytical
work.
For over 20 years, we have been an association dedicated to
pursuing the research, development and demonstration of advanced
ceramic materials in many and varied aerospace, defense and energy
applications. Our members have plants and facilities in over 45
Congressional Districts and 20 States.
SUMMARY
My testimony will make the following points that reflect USACA's
policy priorities:
--Support for the concepts in the President's American
Competitiveness Initiative;
--Added funding needed for a Technology Investment Roadmap for
Advanced Ceramics.
The U.S. Advanced Ceramics Association (USACA) believes in the
enduring ability of U.S. technology to create jobs and enhance our
energy security. We strongly support the President's American
Competitiveness Initiative announced in the State of the Union address
and as part of the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2007 Budget
Request to Congress. As Secretary Samuel Bodman explained, ``We need to
restore U.S. dominance in the physical sciences . . .'' and ``Materials
Science'' is an explicit part of this planning.
We would like to suggest some possible report language for the
Energy and Water Appropriations bill that: directs the Secretary to
``initiate a Technology Investment Roadmap for Advanced Ceramics, to be
completed by February 15, 2007. This study shall explore and design a
competitive, multiyear cost shared program with industry to research,
demonstrate and develop advanced ceramic materials.''
In the past three decades, breakthroughs in advanced ceramics have
enabled significant new technology capabilities that are now having
far-reaching impacts on the U.S. economy and defense capability. For
example, ceramic catalytic converters are responsible for dramatically
reducing automobile emissions. Long-life bearings are used in a wide
range of high-performance energy and military applications to improve
overall system performance and reduce friction, while ceramic armor
plates are stopping bullets and shrapnel and saving the lives of
soldiers and police. The technological breakthroughs that have made
these life-changing innovations possible are the direct result of
sustained RD&D investment by both industry and government.
Now, the challenges for advanced ceramics are growing, fueled by
the need to create alternative energy technologies, more efficient,
cleaner environmental systems, and higher performance military and
aerospace systems. The Nation needs more from the industry, but there
are some critical ceramic technologies that are still left in the early
stages of product innovation cycles, and promising ideas sit in dark
closets.
WHAT VALUE DO ADVANCED CERAMICS BRING?
Advanced ceramics are enabling materials and provide added
performance and value to manufactured products. Ceramics can withstand
extreme heat, high pressures and corrosive environments. They are
simultaneously lightweight, strong, and durable. These attributes
result in more efficient power conversion for many different methods
and fuels, including hydrogen fuel cells, nuclear power, gas turbines
and other engines. They also translate into tougher materials that can
withstand the high temperatures of coal combustion systems, the
extremes of jet engine turbines, and the force of an enemy bullet or
roadside bomb.
There are several key reasons why research, development and
demonstration of advanced ceramics materials are premium public
investments, including:
--Advanced ceramics can increase U.S. industry competitiveness in
several key global technology markets. Investments here will
reverse the trend toward the movement of U.S. technology
offshore to foreign enterprises.
--Investments will retain and expand U.S. jobs in new product
manufacturing.
--The materials can tolerate the very high temperatures necessary for
the most efficient and cleanest energy conversion technologies,
whether hydrogen production from abundant domestic coal
resources, or advanced nuclear reactors.
--The direct benefits will help to reduce energy consumption and
carbon emissions in markets served over the next 20 years.
--Investments here would significantly reduce the normal 15-20 year
product development and introduction cycle for advanced
materials, speeding their use in critical energy and defense
applications.
The Roadmap would have several purposes:
--examine the history and effectiveness of Federal and industry cost-
shared investments already made in advanced ceramics research
and development;
--highlight key factors in the success of criteria projects;
--identify the critical future applications for both civil and
military needs;
--explore new types of partnership arrangements between industry and
government, management alternatives and incentives for early
market transition and Federal purchase;
--recommend to the Congress a multiyear, competitive, premium public
investment strategy for the research, development,
demonstration and deployment of advanced ceramics in critical
applications.
We hope that this proposal warrants your support in the fiscal year
2007 Federal budget. We thank you for your strong interest in the
advancement of technology, and its critical role in economic growth and
national security.
On behalf of USACA members: Ceramic Tubular Products, LLC; Clariant
Technologies; COI Ceramics, Inc.; Corning, Inc.; Deere and Co.; Extreme
Composite Products, Inc.; GE Power Systems Composites, LLC; Goodrich
Corporation; KiON Defense Technologies; Refractron Technologies
Corporation; Saint-Gobain High-Performance Materials; Siemens Power
Generation; Starfire Systems, Inc.; Surmet Corporation; Synterials,
Inc.; UT-Battelle.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
To the chair and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)
to provide its written perspective on the fiscal year 2007 budget for
oil and natural gas research and development (R&D) programs within the
subcommittee's jurisdiction.
The administration's budget submitted earlier this year contains
significant reductions for the Department of Energy (DOE), Office of
Fossil Energy, including the elimination of the oil and gas technology
programs. AAPG requests restoration of funding for DOE Fossil Energy
oil and natural gas technology programs as a matter of national policy.
AAPG endorses restoration of DOE's oil and natural gas research program
funding to at least 2006 levels of $64 million. AAPG also endorses full
funding for the Energy Policy Act of 2005 initiative titled Ultra-
Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and other Petroleum Resources
at $100 million. The AAPG firmly supports funding of the methane
hydrates technology program (reauthorized in the Energy Policy Act of
2005) at $20 million.
AAPG, an international geoscience organization, is the world's
largest professional geological society representing over 30,000
members. In the United States we have more than 20,000 members, the
majority of whom are independents or consultants to the domestic
petroleum industry. The purpose of AAPG is to advance the science of
geology, foster scientific research, promote technology and advance the
well-being of its members. Included among its members are numerous
CEOs, managers, directors, independent/consulting geoscientists,
educators, researchers, public servants and students. AAPG strives to
increase public awareness of the crucial role that geosciences, and
particularly petroleum and coal geology play in energy security and our
society.
AAPG applauds the administration's efforts to enhance research in
areas that diversify the options to supply energy in our economy. AAPG
supports the continued efforts to develop technologies to conserve
energy and technologies that will permit the economy to perform more
efficiently with reduced energy input. However, as a professional
organization, AAPG's 30,000 members understand that fossil fuels will
continue to be a mainstay of the U.S. energy economy and the world's
energy economy for decades to come. Moreover, oil and natural gas will
provide many of the raw materials that allow us to function in our
modern world.
The Association does not support the oversimplified projection of
the state of the industry as presented by the administration's budget
submission. The projection does not accurately reflect the needs of the
smaller companies and individuals who have supported DOE's efforts and
have benefited from the historical research conducted under DOE's
programs. They are the community of independent and small producers
that drill the preponderance of the domestic wells, and produce the
bulk of the domestic natural gas and crude oil. They are the community
who reinvest their profits in the search and development of domestic
resources. They are the community whose production serves the Nation's
energy needs directly. They are the community for whom the DOE programs
provide technology benefits that serve the American public, the Nation
and its security.
AAPG sees three vital needs that are supported by the DOE oil and
natural gas R&D programs. First, the effort sustains long-term
viability for recovery of the Nation's oil and natural gas endowment.
Maintenance of domestic industry capability is vital to the security
and well-being of the Nation. Second, publicly-funded research will
promote and insure technology capabilities that continue to foster U.S.
technical and economic preeminence in a rapidly changing global
economy. Third and often understated is the fact that these programs
contribute substantially to sustaining the institutions that educate,
train and nurture a capable and efficient workforce for the Nation's
energy industry.
The AAPG believe that the justification for publicly-funded
research remains strong and largely independent of the price at which
crude oil and natural gas commodities trade in any particular time
period. The primary recipients of the technology developed with public
funds are those companies/individuals who have no accessible
alternative mechanism for aggregating the resources which would foster
that research. They are the community of independent and small
producers, who drill 90 percent of the wells, produce 85 percent of the
domestic natural gas and 60 percent of the domestic crude oil in the
United States. They represent a large variety of engineers, geologists,
and investors that are not represented by any single society or
association. AAPG, with its extensive membership represents only one
portion of the diverse community of professionals and skilled technical
trades involved in producing the oil and gas resources that this Nation
depends on. If anything is true, research is even more important in
times of high oil prices, so that users of the technology developed
from the research can translate in continued domestic production.
Our Nation is the world's largest consumer and net importer of
energy. According to the Energy Information Administration, during
2005, the United States consumed 20.66 million barrels of oil per day,
with as much as 15.2 million barrels supplied by imports of crude and
products during November 2005. Our national energy and economic
security depends on a vibrant domestic oil and gas industry. While the
price of crude oil is established by a global market, the costs of
exploration, development, and production are influenced strongly by the
application of discoveries in geosciences and new developments in
technology. Thus, focused R&D can make a significant contribution to
sustaining our domestic petroleum industry and to national energy
security--it is important.
During the recent past, energy companies as well as most companies
have worked to reduce operating costs by adopting outsourcing
approaches. This has caused an unfortunate side effect of outsourcing
technical preeminence in a large number of areas where the United
States has been a global science and technology leader. The AAPG
believes that this phenomenon is increasingly recognized as a national
security issue. While Legislative and Executive Branch initiatives are
responding to the broad erosion of science and technology capability,
focused initiatives like the DOE oil and natural gas R&D programs that
have and will continue to foster our technology preeminence, should not
be overlooked or sacrificed. Such programs have been successful in the
past and should be continued for the Nation's energy well-being.
Many of the more than 40 national and global geoscience-related
professional organizations have reported shrinking and aging
memberships over the past 2 decades. In the energy arena this is
reflected in fewer and smaller, degree-granting, college and university
departments and loss of technical training institutions associated with
the industry. Currently, the demand for trained industry professionals
and qualified trade specialists has grown in response to growing world-
wide demand for oil, natural gas and coal and yet the fossil fuel
industry is facing serious shortages in trained and experienced
employees.
In effect, and for a number of reasons, the pipeline that has
supplied this workforce is not working well. Historically, a
significant portion of DOE's oil and natural gas R&D program has flowed
to and through these educational and training institutions, where funds
have supported faculty and attracted student researchers. No other
Federal program contributes effectively to these needs. AAPG believes
that funding DOE's oil and natural gas technology is absolutely vital
to sustaining the supply of trained and experienced individuals in the
petroleum industry workforce into this century. The lack of qualified
graduates to replace our graying membership may become a national
security issue within a decade if not addressed in the near term.
The Association is aware of and endorses the approach to funding
research and development outlined in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It
makes very good sense to our membership. Focusing DOE emphasis on
longer-term technology development and on research that the industry
would not ordinarily undertake within its purview, while providing a
new focus that shifts other operationally-oriented research into the
arena where the private sector plays a more important role in guiding
and conducting research.
AAPG supports funding for DOE R&D programs on natural gas hydrates;
advanced recovery technologies; next-generation limited-footprint
exploration and development technologies; fundamental studies that lead
to better understanding of reservoir architecture, unconventional
resources and continuous reservoirs; technology transfer to producers;
and workforce training and university programs that ensure future
critical national infrastructure capabilities. These programs
contribute to the basic understanding of the resource, and pave the way
for cleaner and lower-impact extraction of the energy resources vital
to National security.
Public support for technology transfer is an area that AAPG
considers to be a viable use of public funds. In a number of areas like
the Illinois Basin, the primary and sometimes the only source of
information on new technologies is the Petroleum Technology Transfer
Council. The efforts of the Council, funded under DOE's technology
program and heavily fortified by academic participation, are easily
accessed by smaller producers who lack the time, resources and
knowledge to independently pursue technological improvements in their
operations. Accelerating technology uptake is seen as a viable approach
to more efficient discovery, more complete recovery, and reduction of
the impact and footprint of oil and natural gas operation.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
committee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Society of Nuclear Medicine
The Society of Nuclear Medicine (SNM) appreciates the opportunity
to submit written comments for the record regarding funding in fiscal
year 2007 at the Department of Energy (DOE). SNM is an international
scientific and professional organization with over 16,000 members
dedicated to promoting the science, technology, and practical
application of nuclear medicine.
In fiscal year 2006, the Federal Government abandoned its 50-year
commitment to funding vital nuclear medicine research by eliminating
funding for the Medical Applications and Measurement Science Program at
DOE and making no accommodation to transition nuclear medicine programs
to another Federal department. In past years, nuclear researchers have
used Federal funding within DOE to make major accomplishments
benefiting millions of patients with heart, cancer, and brain diseases.
The loss of Federal funding for nuclear research will adversely impact
future innovation in the field. For that reason, SNM advocates the
immediate restoration of $37 million in funding for the Medical
Applications and Measurement Science Program at the DOE. In the long
term, SNM also believes that a permanent home and specific funding to
support basic science research in nuclear medicine are essential; and
SNM is prepared to work with the committee to identify such a home at
DOE or another agency, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
WHAT IS NUCLEAR MEDICINE?
Nuclear medicine is an established specialty that performs
noninvasive molecular imaging procedures to diagnose and treat diseases
and to determine the effectiveness of therapeutic treatments--whether
surgical, chemical, or radiation. It contributes extensively to the
management of patients with cancers of the brain, breast, blood, bone,
bone marrow, liver, lungs, pancreas, thyroid, ovaries, and prostate,
and serious disorders of the heart, brain, and kidneys, to name a few.
In fact, recent advances in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease can be
attributed to nuclear medicine imaging procedures.
Annually, more than 20 million men, women, and children need
noninvasive molecular/nuclear medicine procedures. These safe, cost-
effective procedures include positron emission tomography (PET) scans
to diagnose and monitor treatment in cancer, cardiac stress tests to
analyze heart function, bone scans for orthopedic injuries, and lung
scans for blood clots. Patients undergo procedures to diagnose liver
and gall bladder functional abnormalities and to diagnose and treat
hyperthyroidism and thyroid cancer.
LACK OF FEDERAL FUNDING THREATENS FUTURE INNOVATIONS
The mission of the Medical Applications and Measurement Science
Program at the DOE is to deliver relevant scientific knowledge that
will lead to innovative diagnostic and treatment technologies for human
health. The modern era of nuclear medicine is an outgrowth of the
original charge of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to exploit
nuclear energy to promote human health. This program supports directed
nuclear medicine research through radiopharmaceutical development and
molecular nuclear medicine activities to study uses of radionuclides
for non-invasive diagnosis and targeted, internal molecular
radiotherapy.
Over the years, the DOE Medical Applications and Measurement
Science Program has generated advances in the field of molecular/
nuclear medicine. For example, DOE funding provided the resources
necessary for molecular/nuclear medicine professionals to develop PET
scanners to diagnose and monitor treatment in cancer. PET scans offer
significant advantages over CT and MRI scans in diagnosing disease and
are more effective in identifying whether cancer is present or not, if
it has spread, if it is responding to treatment, and if a person is
cancer free after treatment. In fact, the DOE has stated that this
program supports ``research in universities and in the National
Laboratories, occupies a critical and unique niche in the field of
radiopharmaceutical research. The NIH relies on our basic research to
enable them to initiate clinical trials.''
The majority of the advances in molecular/nuclear medicine have
been sponsored by the DOE, including:
--Smaller, More Versatile PET Scanners.--Brookhaven National
Laboratory (BNL) has completed a prototype mobile PET scanner,
which will record images in the awake animal. The mobile PET
will be able to acquire positron-generated images in the
absence of anesthesia-induced coma and correct for motion of
the animal. The long-term goal is to develop PET
instrumentation able to diagnose neuro-psychiatric disorders in
children.
--Highest Resolution PET Scanner Developed.--Scientists at the
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) have developed the
world's most sensitive PET scanner. The instrument is 10 times
more sensitive than a conventional PET scanner and became
operational in 2005.
--Imaging Gene Expression in Cancer Cells.--Images of tumors in whole
animals that detect the expression of three cancer genes were
accomplished for the first time by investigators at Thomas
Jefferson University and the University of Massachusetts
Medical Center. This advanced imaging technology will lead to
the detection of cancer in humans using cancer cell genetic
profiling.
--Modeling Radiation Damage to the Lung.--Treatment of thyroid
disease and lymphomas using radioisotopes can cause disabling
lung disease. Investigators at Johns Hopkins University have
developed a Monte Carlo model that can be used to determine the
probability of lung toxicity and be incorporated into a
therapeutic regimen. This model will optimize the dose of
radioactivity delivered to cancer cells and avoid untoward
effects on the lung.
--New Radiopharmaceuticals With Important Clinical Applications.--The
DOE radiopharmaceutical science program has developed a number
of innovative radiotracers at the University of California at
Irvine for the early diagnosis of neuro-psychiatric illnesses,
including Alzheimer's disease, schizophrenia, depression, and
anxiety disorders.
--Rapid Preparation of Radiopharmaceuticals for Clinical Use.--The
DOE-sponsored program at the University of Tennessee has
developed a new method for preparing radiopharmaceuticals by
placing a boron-based salt at the position that will be
occupied by the radiohalogen. The method has been used to
prepare a variety of cancer-imaging agents.
With restored DOE funding, essential molecular/nuclear medicine
research will continue at universities, research institutions, national
laboratories, and small businesses. Moreover, research with
radiochemistry, genomic sciences, and structural biology will be able
to usher in a new era of mapping the human brain and using specific
radiotracers and instruments, to more precisely diagnose neuro-
psychiatric illnesses and cancer.
The future of life-saving therapies and cutting-edge research in
molecular/nuclear medicine and imaging depends on funding for the DOE
Medical Applications and Measurement Science Program. Therefore, SNM
recommends that funding for the DOE Medical Applications and
Measurement Science Program be restored to the fiscal year 2005 funding
level of $37 million.
In addition, to gain the full benefits of nuclear medicine, it is
important to ensure that nuclear medicine researchers have a steady
supply of radionuclides. One way to accomplish this goal would be to
create a National Radionuclide Enhancement Production program at the
DOE that would meet the Nation's medical and homeland security needs.
CONCLUSION
By restoring funding to the Medical Applications and Measurement
Science Program at the DOE or by making an appropriate provision for
nuclear research funding within another Federal department, policy
makers will keep our Nation at the forefront of nuclear medicine
research and innovation. We thank you for the opportunity to present
our views on funding for these initiatives at the DOE and would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association
The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national
service organization representing the interests of over 2,000 municipal
and other State and locally owned utilities throughout the United
States (all but Hawaii). Collectively, public power utilities deliver
electricity to one of every seven electric consumers (approximately 43
million people). We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement
outlining our fiscal year 2007 funding priorities within the Energy and
Water, and Related Agencies Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
FEDERAL POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS (PMAS)
Power Marketing Administration Interest Rate Proposal.--The
administration's fiscal year 2007 budget includes a recommendation that
would raise electricity rates by changing the interest rate charged by
the Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA), the Southwestern Power
Administration (SWPA), and the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA)
on all new investments in projects whose interest rates are not set by
law. Specifically, the Department of Energy's (DOE) budget calls for
the these three Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) to set their
interest rates at the level that government corporations pay to borrow
funds from the Federal Government. To implement this proposal, DOE will
amend the regulation that governs how the PMAs establish their rates
and will do so administratively, without any consultation with or
action from Congress.
The administration's budget proposes to increase the interest rate
charged on all new investments in these hydroelectric facilities to a
level that is charged government corporations--the rate that reflects
the interest cost for the Federal Government to provide loans to
government corporations. SEPA, SWPA and WAPA are neither government
corporations nor do they borrow funds from the U.S. Treasury. All rates
are set to recover the dollars appropriated by Congress for the
investment in the hydroelectric facilities and to cover the cost to
operate these projects. If implemented, this proposal could increase
rates considerably for customers served by most of the Power Marketing
Administrations.
This proposal creates a serious precedent and should be rejected,
because: (1) the process for implementing the proposal can be done
without congressional involvement or approval; (2) the proposal would
arbitrarily raise revenue from electric customers for deficit
reduction; and (3) the proposal reverses decades of rate making
precedent and accepted cost recovery practices by administrative fiat.
We urge the subcommittee to block the implementation of this proposal.
Bonneville Power Administration Rate Proposal.--Also included in
DOE's fiscal year 2007 budget is a proposed administrative action that
would direct the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) to use any net
``secondary market revenues'' in excess of $500 million per year
towards accelerated Federal debt repayment. Because the change would be
made through the rulemaking process, congressional approval is not
needed for the policy to go into effect. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) calculates that this plan would provide a total of $924
million from fiscal year 2007-2016 from these ``higher-than-historical
net secondary revenues.'' OMB believes that this measure is needed to
free up BPA borrowing authority. However, experts in the Northwest have
calculated that the proposal would result in a 10 percent wholesale
rate increase that BPA would be forced to pass on to ratepayers. The
Congressional Budget Office has calculated that the effect of the
administration's proposal on the U.S. Treasury would be $300 million
over 10 years beginning in 2008, which means it will have no impact on
the 2007 fiscal year budget. We urge the subcommittee to block the
implementation of this proposal.
Purchase Power and Wheeling.--We urge the subcommittee to authorize
appropriate levels for use of receipts so that the Western Area Power
Administration (WAPA), the Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) and
the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) can continue to purchase
and wheel electric power to their municipal and rural electric
cooperative customers. Although appropriations are no longer needed to
initiate the purchase power and wheeling (PP&W) process, the
subcommittee continues to establish ceilings on the use of receipts for
this important function. The PP&W arrangement is effective, has no
impact on the Federal budget, and is supported by the PMA customers who
pay the costs. We agree with the administration's budget requests for
PP&W for fiscal year 2007, which are as follows: $274.9 million for
Western Area Power Administration (WAPA); $34.4 million for
Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA); and $3 million for
Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA).
Costs of Increased Security at Federal Multi-Purpose Projects.--
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bureau of Reclamation
(Bureau) embarked upon an aggressive program to enhance the security of
Federal dams to protect the facilities against terrorist attacks. Based
on historical precedent, the Bureau initially determined that the costs
of increased security measures should remain a non-reimbursable
obligation of the Federal Government. In fiscal year 2005, however, the
Bureau reversed its position and asked for some of these costs to be
reimbursed from power customers. That year, Congress disagreed with the
Bureau's request that these expenses be reimbursable, but in the Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006 (HR 2419, November 7,
2005), Congress directed that $10 million of the estimated $18 million
for guards and patrols be provided by reimbursable funding. The bill
also directed the Bureau to provide a report to Congress within 60 days
that would delineate the planned reimbursable security costs by
project. The report (issued in March 2006) is similar to the previous
(May 2005) report, except that it also includes ``facility
fortification upgrades'' as a reimbursable cost. Previously, the Bureau
had assured its stakeholders that only the costs of guards and patrols
would be reimbursable. This additional obligation in essence makes
everything reimbursable at some point. Regardless of the details of the
Bureau's report, APPA continues to believe in the validity of the
historic rationale established in the 1942 and 1943 Interior Department
Appropriation Acts for treating costs of increased security at multi-
purpose Federal projects as non-reimbursable obligations of the Federal
Government. We therefore urge Congress to add language to the Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2007 to clarify that all
costs of increased security at dams owned and operated by the Bureau be
non-reimbursable.
Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) and Renewable Energy
Programs.--The Department of Energy's REPI program was created in
1992's Energy Policy Act (EPAct) as a counterpart to the renewable
energy production tax credits made available to for-profit utilities,
and was recently reauthorized through 2016 in the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (EPAct05). EPAct05 authorizes DOE to make direct payments to not-
for-profit public power systems and rural electric cooperatives at the
rate of 1.5 cents per kWh (1.9 cents when adjusted for inflation) from
electricity generated from a variety of renewable projects. According
to DOE sources, in order to fully fund all past and current REPI
applicants, over $80 million would be needed for fiscal year 2007.
Despite the demonstrated need, however, DOE has asked for only $4.96
million for fiscal year 2007, citing budgetary constraints. We greatly
appreciate the subcommittee's interest in this small but important
program as evidenced by its support of funding for the program either
at or above the administration's budget requests in the last few years
despite the tight budgetary environment. We urge the subcommittee to
continue its support with an even greater increase.
Energy Information Administration.--In order to fulfill the Energy
Information Administration's (EIA) data collection responsibility in
regard to the electric power industry, it has had to revise and expand
its data collection to include new participants. EIA now collects
information from all sectors of the power industry: investor-owned
utilities, rural electric cooperatives, public power systems and
Federal utilities, as well as power marketers and non-utility
generators. Most EIA data forms are filled out by all industry sectors.
However, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) collects data
from its jurisdictional utilities (investor-owned utilities) and the
Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) collects
information from its utility borrowers (rural electric cooperatives).
EIA does not duplicate electricity data collected by these Federal
agencies. Thus EIA uses a small number of forms to collect comparable
information from electric industry sectors not subject to the FERC or
RUS reporting requirements. EIA-412 is one of these forms. Funding for
the distribution, collection and analysis of EIA-412 was eliminated by
EIA in fiscal year 2005, but could be reinstated if EIA chose to
allocate a portion of its budget to the collection of the EIA-412 data.
We urge the subcommittee to encourage the EIA to provide funding for
this form in fiscal year 2007 within the context of its overall
appropriation. The indefinite elimination of form EIA-412 will leave a
gap in the electricity industry's data coverage.
Storage for High-level Nuclear Waste.--We support the
administration's efforts to finalize the location of a permanent
storage site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The President requested $544.5
million for fiscal year 2007 for the nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain is a step in the right direction and we encourage the
subcommittee to provide funding for the project at or above the
administration's request.
Advanced Hydropower Turbine Program.--APPA is disappointed with the
administration's decision to phase out this important program to
develop a hydroelectric turbine that will protect fish and other
aquatic habitats while continuing to allow for the production of
emissions-free hydroelectric power. We urge the subcommittee to
consider providing funding for this important initiative.
Energy Conservation.--APPA appreciates the subcommittee's interest
in energy conservation and efficiency programs at DOE and we hope that
the subcommittee will once again allocate a funding level over and
above the administration's request for fiscal year 2007.
Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.--APPA supports the
administration's request of $225 million for fiscal year 2007 for
helping to increase the efficiency of commercial and residential
buildings, including weatherization assistance, the State and community
energy conservation programs.
Clean Coal Power Initiative and FutureGen.--APPA is disappointed
with the administration's request of only $5 million for fiscal year
2007 for the Clean Coal Power Initiative. We urge the subcommittee to
substantially increase the funding for this program to be consistent
with the President's commitment to fund this program at $2 billion over
10 years. We also urge the subcommittee to provide $54 million in new
funding for fiscal year 2007 for the FutureGen program, as opposed to
drawing from deferred funds from fiscal year 2006 as the administration
proposes.
Distributed Generation Fuel Cells.--APPA is disappointed with the
administration's request of $63.35 million for fiscal year 2007 for
distributed generation fuel cell research and development, and urges
the subcommittee to allocate additional funding for this program.
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and Vehicle Technologies.--APPA supports
the administration's efforts to improve the feasibility of making
available low-cost hydrogen fuel cells, and support its request of
$289.5 million for hydrogen research and development in fiscal year
2007. APPA also supports the administration's request for $166 million
for vehicle technologies that would apply hydrogen fuel cell technology
to vehicles as well as provide for research for hybrid and electric
vehicle technologies to facilitate widespread deployment of these
technologies.
Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program.--APPA supports full
funding for the Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program at its $15
million authorized funding level for fiscal year 2007. The purpose of
the program is to provide electric power to the estimated 18,000
occupied structures in the Navajo Nation that lack electric power.
National Climate Change Technology Initiative.--APPA supports the
administration's efforts to promote greenhouse gas reductions through
voluntary programs and investments in new technologies. We are
therefore disappointed that the administration has only requested $1
million for fiscal year 2007 for the policy office of the National
Climate Change Technology Initiative. We encourage the subcommittee to
consider allocating additional funds for this program.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).--DOE has requested
$230.8 million for the overall operations of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) for fiscal year 2007. APPA supports this
request, which is an appropriate increase over fiscal year 2006 given
FERC's additional responsibilities under EPAct05.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alliance to Save Energy
The Alliance to Save Energy (the Alliance) is a bipartisan,
nonprofit coalition of business, government, environmental, and
consumer leaders committed to promoting energy efficiency worldwide to
achieve a healthier economy, a cleaner environment, and greater energy
security. The Alliance, founded in 1977 by Senators Charles Percy and
Hubert Humphrey, currently enjoys the leadership of Senator Mark Pryor
as Chairman; Washington Gas Chairman and CEO James DeGraffenreidt, Jr.
as Co-Chairman; and Representatives Ralph Hall, Zach Wamp and Ed Markey
and Senators Jeff Bingaman, Susan Collins and Jim Jeffords as its Vice-
Chairs. More than 100 companies and organizations currently support the
Alliance as Associates. The Alliance recommends increases of $17.9
million in several existing energy-efficiency deployment programs, $15
million for newly authorized programs, and increased funding for
building energy-efficiency research in fiscal year 2007, compared to
last year's appropriated levels.
BACKGROUND
Rationale for Federal Energy-Efficiency Programs.--We understand
that budgets are tight, but we have seen that the costs of not
addressing energy waste are just too high. Gasoline and natural gas
prices have doubled in the last few years, and electricity prices also
reached all-time highs. All told, recent energy price increases cost
American families and businesses over $300 billion last year. These
high prices have caused plant closings and loss of manufacturing jobs,
and have made many low-income homeowners unable to pay their heating
bills. President Bush recognized that our long-term energy security and
environmental issues due to our wasteful use of fossil fuels are
equally serious when he called for ending our ``addiction'' to oil. The
Energy Information Administration projects that without further action
our fossil fuel use will rise by a third by 2030, and our imports will
rise by a half.
Improved energy efficiency is the best near-term strategy to begin
balancing demand and supply and bring energy prices down, and is a key
component of a long-term energy strategy. Energy efficiency is the
Nation's greatest energy resource--we now save more energy each year
from energy efficiency than we get from any single energy source,
including oil, natural gas, coal, or nuclear power. The Alliance to
Save Energy estimates that if we tried to run today's economy without
the energy-efficiency improvements that have taken place since 1973, we
would need 43 percent more energy supplies than we use now.
A Record of Success.--DOE programs play a key role in these savings
through the research and development (R&D) of new energy-efficiency
technologies, and by helping these technologies achieve widespread use.
These programs reduce energy consumption, dependence on foreign oil,
and energy costs. They also help create jobs in the United States and
decrease harmful pollution. A 2001 National Research Council report
found that every $1 invested in 17 DOE energy-efficiency R&D programs
returned nearly $20 to the U.S. economy in the form of new products,
new jobs, and energy cost savings to American homes and businesses.
Environmental benefits were estimated to be of a similar magnitude.
Budget Authorizations and Studies.--A series of reports and bills
have supported a major increase in funding for DOE energy-efficiency
programs. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) authorized $783
million for energy-efficiency R&D in fiscal year 2007, an additional
$240 million for distributed energy and other electric R&D, and $820
million for various deployment programs. This follows calls for
expanding energy-efficiency research by the National Commission on
Energy Policy, the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and
Technology, the Energy Futures Coalition, and the President's National
Energy Policy.
Summary of the President's Request.--The President's overall fiscal
year 2007 budget request for energy-efficiency programs at DOE's Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is $517 million, down $111
million (18 percent) from the fiscal year 2006 appropriation, and $78
million below the administration's fiscal year 2006 request. This large
cut follows a gradual slide from $694 million appropriated for these
energy-efficiency programs in fiscal year 2002. Funding for these
programs is down one-third (34 percent) since 2002 after inflation. In
addition, the request for electricity R&D programs, many of which focus
on efficiency, is $96 million, down $41 million (30 percent) from the
fiscal year 2006 appropriation. After accounting for some program
transfers, funding for buildings, industry, and vehicles R&D also is
reduced. But some of the biggest cuts are to deployment programs,
including weatherization of low-income homes, support for State
building codes, industrial energy audits, and Federal energy
management.
ALLIANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to address the critical energy problems facing our Nation,
the Alliance recommends funding for DOE energy-efficiency programs in
line with the authorized levels. However, given fiscal realities, we
have included much smaller specific funding requests below.
The impact of DOE energy-efficiency programs has been multiplied by
the combination of research to develop new technologies, voluntary
deployment and market transformation programs to move them into the
marketplace, and standards and codes to set a minimum threshold for
using cost-effective technologies. All three legs are vital. However,
the Alliance believes that programs that focus on near-term energy-
efficiency deployment are especially critical right now to meeting our
Nation's natural gas and electricity needs. The administration's
proposed elimination of the Gateway Deployment function and cuts to
other key deployment programs are not consistent with achieving our
national energy policy goals of reducing high energy costs and reducing
our reliance on imported oil.
It is important that the program increases in the administration's
budget and proposed below not be paid for through cuts to other highly-
effective efficiency programs, which also address critical national
energy needs. While we support the fuel cell and biofuels programs,
they do not take the place of core programs that can have broader, more
certain, and more near-term energy savings impacts. In particular, the
Alliance opposes repeated cuts that now threaten the viability of
Industrial Technologies research programs and the dramatic proposed
cuts to the distributed energy R&D program and the Weatherization
Assistance Program.
Existing Deployment Programs (Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy)
Building Codes Training and Assistance (formerly Weatherization and
Intergovernmental Programs).--While residential and commercial building
codes are implemented at the State level, the States rely on DOE for
technical specifications, training, and implementation assistance. We
estimate that building energy codes could save 7.2 quads of energy by
2025. The new 2006 IECC model residential code includes measures to
simplify the code and ease implementation, and thus presents exciting
opportunities to increase code adoption and compliance. EPAct 2005
authorized $25 million a year for building codes, including a new
program to improve compliance. Yet the administration has proposed
eliminating funding for Building Codes Training and Assistance. The
Alliance recommends a $4.5 million increase above the fiscal year 2006
appropriations level, for total funding of $9.0 million.
Industrial Assessment Centers and Best Practices (Industrial
Technologies--Crosscutting).--One of the most effective DOE industrial
programs conducts plant-wide energy assessments, develops diagnostic
software, conducts training, develops technical references, and
demonstrates success stories. Oak Ridge National Laboratory reports
that DOE-ITP's Best Practices outreach saved 82 trillion Btu in 2002,
worth $492 million. University-based Industrial Assessment Centers
(IAC) have an immediate impact on the competitive performance of
hundreds of smaller U.S. factories. The same efforts train industry's
next generation of innovators. Yet the administration has proposed to
cut IAC by 30 percent. The Alliance recommends the following increases
above the fiscal year 2006 appropriations levels:
--a $2 million increase for Industrial Assessment Centers, for total
funding of $8.4 million,
--a $3 million increase for Best Practices, for total funding of
$10.9 million.
Federal Energy Management Program.--This program has helped cut
Federal building energy waste by 24 percent from 1985-2001--a reduction
that now saves Federal taxpayers roughly $1 billion each year in
reduced energy costs. But funding has steadily decreased for this
program, even though large savings remain untapped. EPAct 2005, in
addition to setting aggressive new energy saving targets, requires DOE
to implement rules, guidelines, and reports on the targets, Federal
building standards, Federal procurement, and metering. A needed funding
increase for this program will actually save taxpayer money in lower
Federal energy bills. The Alliance recommends a $3 million increase
above the fiscal year 2006 level, for total funding of $20.0 million.
Equipment Standards and Analysis (Building Technologies).--
Appliance standards have already reduced U.S. electricity use by an
estimated 2.5 percent (88 billion kWh/year) and reduced peak power
demand by approximately 21,000 MW, at a minimal Federal cost and with
major energy bill savings to consumers. But the program is already
years behind on about 20 standards. EPAct 2005 adds rulemakings on
three new products, and requires DOE to issue updates on several new
legislated standards. DOE has issued an ambitious plan to catch up, and
requested a $1.7 million increase. But more is needed to implement the
plan. The Alliance recommends a $2.5 million increase over the fiscal
year 2006 appropriations level for total funding of $12.7 million.
Energy Star (formerly Weatherization and Intergovernmental
Programs).--Energy Star is a successful voluntary deployment program at
EPA and DOE that has made it easy for consumers to find and buy many
energy-efficient products. In 2004 alone, Energy Star helped Americans
save enough energy to power 25 million homes and avoid greenhouse gas
emissions equivalent to those from 20 million cars--all while saving
$10 billion on their utility bills. Every Federal dollar spent on the
Energy Star program results in an average savings of more than $75 in
consumer energy bills and the reduction of about 3.7 tons of carbon
dioxide emissions. With additional funding, the Energy Star program can
update its criteria, label additional products, and provide Americans
with more information on how to save energy. The Alliance recommends a
$1 million increase over the fiscal year 2006 appropriations level for
total funding of $6.9 million.
New Deployment Programs Authorized in EPAct 2005
Energy Efficiency Public Information Initiative (Program
Support).--The quickest way to reduce energy demand and bring high
energy prices down is through consumer education. EPAct 2005 (Sec. 134)
authorizes $90 million per year for a public education program to
provide consumers the information and encouragement necessary to reduce
energy use. Such programs have a proven track record of success, as in
the 2001 ``Flex Your Power'' campaign in California, which
significantly reduced consumer electricity demand and assisted in
avoiding further black-outs. DOE has contributed a little to effective
education campaigns, but much more funding is needed. The Alliance
recommends at least $10 million for this new program.
Energy Efficiency Pilot Program (Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability).--State and utility energy-efficiency programs have
been remarkably successful at reducing electricity demand, strain on
the grid, and the need for costly new power plants. However, they have
been starved for funds due to electric restructuring. A few States are
experimenting with innovative performance-based policies to use the
efficiency resource. EPAct 2005 (Sec. 140) authorizes $5 million per
year for a new program to provide funding to several States to assist
in the design and implementation of energy-efficiency resource programs
that will lower electricity and natural gas use by at least 0.75
percent a year. The Alliance recommends $5 million for this new
program.
Other Key Programs
Building Technologies R&D.--Energy use by residential and
commercial buildings accounts for over one-third of the Nation's total
energy consumption. Of all the DOE energy-efficiency programs, Building
Technologies continues to yield perhaps the greatest energy savings.
The 2001 National Research Council study found that just three small
buildings R&D programs--in electronic ballasts for fluorescent lamps,
refrigerator compressors, and low-e glass for windows--have already
achieved cost savings totaling $30 billion, at a total Federal cost of
about $12 million. Current buildings research programs, such as
advanced windows and solid state (LED) lighting, are equally promising.
Yet the administration's proposed budget would reduce overall Building
Technologies funding by 7 percent. Buildings R&D should be a priority
for funding increases, especially for Windows and Insulation and
Materials R&D.
Energy Information Administration (EIA) Energy Consumption
Surveys.--EIA's Energy Consumption Surveys provide unique and
invaluable data to policy makers, congressional staff, researchers, and
industry. The administration's budget request includes $3.65 million,
just enough to continue the Residential, Manufacturing, and Commercial
Buildings Energy Consumption Surveys (RECS, MECS, and CBECS) every 4
years. The Alliance recommends an increase of $1.9 million, for total
funding of $5.5 million, in order to reinstate the residential
transportation survey, last conducted in 1994, and to conduct the
surveys every 3 years as required by the Energy Policy Act of 1992,
instead of the current 4-year schedule.
ALLIANCE TO SAVE ENERGY ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS FISCAL YEAR 2007 PRIORITIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year 2007 Alliance Increase
2006 Approp Request Rec. Over 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key existing deployment programs (in order of priority):
Building Codes Training and Assistance.................. 4.5 ........... 9.0 +4.5
Industrial Assessment Centers and Best Practices
(Industrial--Crosscutting):
Industrial Assessment Centers....................... 6.4 4.0 8.4 +2.0
Best Practices...................................... 7.9 8.8 10.9 +3.0
Federal Energy Management Program....................... 17.0 14.9 20.0 +3.0
Equipment Standards and Analysis (Buildings)............ 10.2 11.9 12.7 +2.5
Energy Star............................................. 5.9 5.8 6.9 +1.0
New deployment programs authorized in EPAct 2005 (in order
of priority):
Public Information Initiative (Program Support)......... ........... ........... 10.0 +10.0
Energy Efficiency Pilot Program (Electricity)........... ........... ........... 5.0 +5.0
Additional priorities:
Building Technologies R&D (Buildings)................... 83.4 77.3 ( \1\ ) ...........
EIA Energy Consumption Surveys.......................... 3.6 3.6 5.5 +1.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From testimony of Kateri Callahan, President, Alliance to Save Energy. All figures in millions of dollars. Also
oppose cuts to Industrial Technologies R&D, Distributed Energy R&D, and Weatherization Assistance Program.
\1\ Increase.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
Officials
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Peter Smith of
New York and Chair of the National Association of State Energy
Officials (NASEO). NASEO is submitting this testimony in support of
funding for a variety of U.S. Department of Energy programs. We are in
the midst of an energy emergency and the programs described below help
the American people respond. Specifically, we are testifying in support
of no less than $74 million for the State Energy Program (SEP). Forty
members of the Senate have written to this subcommittee supporting $74
million in SEP funding for fiscal year 2007. The 20 percent cut in SEP
in the fiscal year 2006 bill is devastating. SEP is the most successful
program operated by DOE in this area. The administration's proposed
increase to $50 million is an important first step. SEP is focused on
direct energy project development, where most of the resources are
expended. We also support $275 million for the Weatherization
Assistance Program (WAP). In addition, dramatic successes have been
achieved through the State Energy Programs Special Projects (SEP
Special Projects), which should receive at least funding of $15.1
million, equal to the fiscal year 2006 level. The administration has
proposed no funds for this program in fiscal year 2007. SEP Special
Projects has set a standard for State-Federal cooperation and matching
funds to achieve critical Federal and State energy goals. These
programs are successful and have a strong record of delivering savings
to low-income Americans, homeowners, businesses, and industry. We also
support increases of $1.6 million above the President's budget request
for the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of $89.8 million for
EIA's State Heating Oil and Propane Program, and to preserve EIA Forms
182, 856 and 767. EIA funding is a critical piece of energy emergency
preparedness and response. NASEO continues to support funding for a
variety of critical deployment programs, including Building Codes
Training and Assistance ($5.6 million), Rebuild America ($3.8 million),
Energy Star ($5.9 million) and Clean Cities ($7.9 million). NASEO
supports funding for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability at least at the fiscal year 2006 request of $161.9 million,
with specific funding for the Division of Infrastructure Security and
Energy Restoration of $18 million, which funds critical energy
assurance activities. We strongly support the R&D function, Operations
and Analysis and Distributed Energy activities within this office. The
industries program should be funded at a $74.8 million level, equal to
the fiscal year 2005 levels, to promote efficiency efforts and to
maintain U.S. manufacturing jobs, especially in light of the loss of
millions of these jobs in recent years. Proposed cuts in these programs
are counter-productive and are detrimental to a balanced national
energy policy.
Over the past 4 years, both oil and natural gas prices have been
rising in response to international events, increased international and
domestic use and the result of last year's hurricanes, etc. The $3.00/
gallon gasoline prices will be with us for some time. We also expect
$70 oil to continue for an extended period of time, with an expanded
crisis situation as summer approaches. The State energy offices are in
the forefront of energy emergency response, and this will be a
challenge a year after 20 percent cut in SEP funding. In addition, we
now have quantifiable evidence of the success of the SEP program which
demonstrates the unparalleled savings and return on investment to the
Federal taxpayer of SEP. Every State gets an SEP grant and all States
and territories support the program.CO<INF>2</INF>
In January 2003, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) completed a
study and concluded, ``The impressive savings and emissions reductions
numbers, ratios of savings to funding, and payback periods . . .
indicate that the State Energy Program is operating effectively and is
having a substantial positive impact on the Nation's energy
situation.'' ORNL has now updated that study and found that $1 in SEP
funding yields: (1) $7.22 in annual energy cost savings; (2) $10.71 in
leveraged funding from the States and private sector in 18 types of
project areas; (3) annual energy savings of 47,593,409 million source
BTUs; and (4) annual cost savings of $333,623,619. The annual cost-
effective emissions reductions associated with the energy savings are
equally significant: (1) Carbon--826,049 metric tons; (2) VOCs--135.8
metric tons; (3) NOx--6,211 metric tons; (4) fine particulate matter
(PM<INF>10</INF>)--160 metric tons; (5) SO<INF>2</INF>--8,491 metric
tons; and (6) CO--1,000 metric tons.
State Energy Program Special Projects and Other Deployment
Programs.--SEP Special Projects provided matching grants to States to
conduct innovative project development. It has been operated for the
past 10 years and has produced enormous results in every State in the
United States. We support funding of at least the fiscal year 2005
funding level of $15.1 million. The administration has proposed no
direct funding in fiscal year 2007 for SEP Special Projects. SEP
Special Projects grants are awarded competitively and thus complement
the SEP formula grant, with almost all the States submitting winning
proposals in 2005. These projects have provided successes in virtually
every congressional district. The other deployment programs, including
Rebuild America, Building Codes Training and Assistance (which the
administration proposed to zero out), Clean Cities and Energy Star
should receive funding of $23.2 million. The administration proposed
eliminating the Gateway Deployment Program by name, and shifted
resources to other activities.
Industrial Energy Program.--A funding increase to a level of $74.8
million for the Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) is warranted.
This is a public-private partnership in which industry and the States
work with the Department of Energy to jointly fund cutting edge
research in the energy area. The results have been reduced energy
consumption, reduced environmental impacts and increased competitive
advantage of manufacturers (which is more than one-third of U.S. energy
use). The States play a major role working with industry and DOE in the
program to ensure economic development in our States and to try to
ensure that domestic jobs are preserved.
EIA.--Additional funding is required to preserve EIA Forms 182, 856
and 767. The funding is only $1 million per year. The Domestic Crude
Oil Report (182) and Foreign Crude Oil Report (856) are not reliably
available elsewhere, and tracks our importation and distribution of
oil. As we are facing increased international tensions, there could
never be a worse time to eliminate these forms. The 767 form tracks
central station generation emissions, critical to State regulatory
programs. The State Heating Oil, Natural Gas and Propane Program
requires $600,000 for adequate sampling.
Examples of Successful State Energy Program Activities.--The States
have implemented thousands of projects. Here are a few representative
examples.
California.--The California Energy Commission has operated energy
programs in virtually every sector of the economy. The State has
upgraded residential and non-residential building codes, developed a
school energy efficiency financing program, industrial partnerships in
the food and waste industry, instituted a new replacement program for
school buses utilizing the newest natural gas, advanced diesel and
hybrid technologies. The buildings program has reduced consumption by
enormous amounts over the past few years, through alternative financing
programs and outreach.
Hawaii.--The State is considering comprehensive energy legislation
at the present time. A comprehensive program of energy efficiency for
commercial and residential buildings has saved $9.3 million annually.
The State recently moved forward with energy code revisions projected
to save tens of millions of dollars. The Hawaii ``Green Business
Program'' saves $175 in water, energy and waste minimization for every
$1 in SEP funds invested.
Idaho.--In Idaho the State has rated homes utilizing the Energy
Star tools and signed-up 77 new builders to participate in the program.
An aggressive energy efficiency financing program has produced 2,428
loans, totaling $15.8 million for significant energy savings. The
agricultural energy program has focused on reducing irrigation costs
and usage to improve agricultural productivity and costs.
Kentucky.--The programs supported by SEP have assisted in
construction of high energy performance K-12 schools, developed $45
million in energy savings performance contracts, and funded energy
efficiency and renewable energy projects at universities and local
governments.
Missouri.--The energy office in Missouri has been operating a low-
interest energy efficiency loan program for school districts, colleges,
universities and local governments. Thus far, public entities have
saved more than $72 million each year, with more than 400 projects. The
State energy office has also worked with the Public Utility Commission
and the utilities within the State to get $20 million invested in
residential and commercial energy efficiency programs. A new revolving
loan for biodiesel has also been initiated.
Mississippi.--The State operates an energy investment loan program
targeted to schools, hospitals and manufacturers. Mississippi has been
very active in the Energy Star program and has been attempting to
conduct post-Katrina reconstruction in an energy efficient manner.
Montana.--The State has issued over $7.5 million in bonds to fund
60 energy efficiency projects in State buildings. The savings pay for
themselves very quickly. The State has also upgraded building energy
codes and instituted 44 projects impacting over 2 million square feet
of building space, with non-Federal leverage of $11.5 million.
Nevada.--The State has focused on energy code training and
technical assistance to ensure that new housing construction is
conducted in an energy efficient manner, as well as a large expansion
in renewable energy programs.
New Mexico.--With new State legislation, the State energy office is
supporting and expanding renewable energy usage, tax incentives for
hybrid vehicles, school energy efficiency programs, technical
assistance to the wind industry and expansion of geothermal resources.
The State has arranged approximately 40 energy performance contracts
with annual energy savings in the millions. There has also been an
expansion in the use of ethanol and biofuels.
North Dakota.--The State energy office is supporting programs for
ethanol and biodiesel promotion. The State has also funded energy
efficiency programs for local builders, schools and for lower income
households.
Texas.--The Texas Energy Office's Loan Star program has long
produced great success by reducing building energy consumption and
taxpayers' energy costs through efficient operation of public
buildings. This saved taxpayers more than $172 million through energy
efficiency projects. Over the next 20 years, Texas estimates that the
program will save taxpayers $500 million. In another example, the State
promoted the use of ``sleep'' software for computers, which is now used
on 105,000 school computers, saving 33 million kWh and reducing energy
costs by $2 million annually. The State has initiated the Texas
Emissions Reduction Plan/Texas Energy Partnership in 41 urban counties
to reduce emissions through cost-effective energy efficiency projects.
Utah.--SEP funds have been utilized to support solar and wind
programs, as well as implementation of a stronger energy building code.
The State has also supported local government energy efficiency.
Washington.--The State energy agency works with the Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance to target $20 million in funding for energy
efficiency and renewable energy projects. The State is also closely
involved in energy emergency preparedness and response. The Resource
Efficiency Managers Program, supported by SEP, conducts on-site
training for energy savings. For example, working with Ft. Lewis and
Puget Sound naval facilities, the program has saved over $2.5 million.
West Virginia.--The energy office has focused on industrial energy
savings, including identified savings of $2.4 million in 2005 alone.
Energy projects in the industrial sector have totaled $29 million
during the past 9 years. The State has also supported dramatic
expansion of renewable energy programs and is projecting $3 million in
school energy cost savings each year through energy efficiency
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Mid-West Electric Consumers Association, Inc.
The Mid-West Electric Consumers Association (``Mid-West'')
represents hundreds of rural electric cooperatives, public power
districts and municipally-owned utilities in the nine States of the
Missouri River Basin, including: Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota,
Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming. This
testimony supports fiscal year 2007 funding for the Western Area Power
Administration (``WAPA''): (1) $275 million for purchase power and
wheeling; and (2) a total of $193,482 million for operations,
maintenance ($45,734 million) and program direction ($147,748 million),
utilizing the ``net-zero'' approach. Mid-West opposes: (1) the
administration's proposal to increase electric rates of the Power
Marketing Administrations (``PMAs'') by changing the interest rate on
new Federal power investments; and (2) reallocating certain irrigation
costs in the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program.
PURCHASE POWER AND WHEELING
Mid-West supports the proposed budget for purchase power and
wheeling. WAPA and other PMAs are responsible for marketing and
delivering hydropower generated at Federal dams to eligible consumer-
owned utilities. In light of soaring energy costs and record low
reservoir levels, funding is required for purchase power and wheeling.
The administration's budget request of $275 million for purchase power
and wheeling is minimally adequate. These costs are paid for by Federal
power customers. The persistent drought in the Missouri River Basin
means that the 2006 generation estimated by the Corps of Engineers will
be 61 percent of normal. Present projections could be further reduced
if the navigation season is shortened.
The language in the fiscal year 2002-2006 appropriations bills
should be retained so that the PMAs could continue to utilize customer-
generated receipts to help fund their purchase power and wheeling
costs. Otherwise, small utilities, such as rural electric cooperatives,
municipally-owned utilities, Native American tribes, irrigation and
public power districts, would have to develop their own transmission
and power firming agreements which would increase costs. The language
regarding purchase power and wheeling included in the fiscal year 2007
budget request should be inserted in the fiscal year 2007 Energy and
Water Appropriations bill. Mid-West supports this language.
``NET ZERO'' APPROPRIATIONS FOR FEDERAL PMAS
The administration's fiscal year 2006 budget proposed a ``net-
zero'' funding approach for the annual cost of the PMAs' operations,
maintenance and program direction. Unfortunately, this provision was
not included in the fiscal year 2007 budget request. The ``net-zero''
proposal recognizes that certain Federal outlays for a given fiscal
year will be returned to the Treasury in that same fiscal year. Mid-
West supports this proposal, which is already used to fund other
Federal energy agencies. The PMAs' budgets cover all the costs of their
operations. A budget scoring adjustment is required to make this ``net-
zero'' approach truly effective. Receipts collected by WAPA to repay
program direction and operation and maintenance expenditures should be
reclassified from ``mandatory'' to ``discretionary.''
INTEREST RATE CHANGE
Historically, the interest charged on Federal power investment has
been the U.S. Treasury's long term yield rate. Each year, the Treasury
provides to the PMAs the interest rate to be charged for investments
made in that year. Those investment costs plus interest are repaid to
the Treasury through power rates charged to Federal power customers.
Now, the administration has stated that it intends to change that
practice and charge the ``agency rate,'' which is the rate charged to
governmental corporations. The difference between this rate and
Treasury's long term yield rate is described as ``small,'' averaging
about 0.4 percent, which would garner about $2-$3 million per year from
Federal projects where the interest rate is not set by law.
The PMAs--WAPA, Southeastern, and Southwestern are not government
corporations. They do not have borrowing authority or other authorities
available to government corporations. The PMAs are Federal agencies
within the Department of Energy and are funded annually by
congressional appropriations.
The current practice of using Treasury's long-term yield rate has
worked well for decades. It is wrong to assign an interest rate formula
for a government corporation to Federal agencies that are not
government corporations.
REALLOCATION OF IRRIGATION COSTS
The proposed reallocation and acceleration of Pick-Sloan Missouri
Basin investment is apparently a rehash of a similar proposal in last
year's budget request. It is hard to tell exactly what is proposed
since there is no legislative language or even a detailed explanation
of the proposal.
The short ``explanations'' that have been offered are inconsistent.
One section of the budget calls for repayment of vaguely defined
construction costs--``Power customers will be responsible for repayment
of all construction from which they benefit.'' (p. 188 Department of
Interior: Mandatory Proposal Recover Pick-Sloan Project Costs).
However, Bureau of Reclamation Highlights (BH-36) calls for ``repayment
of construction and operations costs . . . ''.
The budget request erroneously states that Pick-Sloan power
customers have not heretofore been responsible for repaying these
costs. Pick-Sloan power customers are responsible for repaying all the
costs of the power investment, joint costs allocated to the power
function, and a huge portion of investment related to irrigation. These
repayment obligations have been organized under the ``ultimate
development'' concept.
Most simply put, the administration's budget request would destroy
the ultimate development concept that allocates costs among the various
project purposes and determines repayment practices.
corps of engineers ``construction general'' account
As part of its Operations and Maintenance budget, the Corps of
Engineers is requesting $85 million for recovery of the pallid sturgeon
on the Missouri River. In fiscal year 2006 the Corps is spending
roughly $54 million from its Construction General account. Mid-West
sees no reason to change the budget classification of these dollars in
fiscal year 2007. Monies related to pallid sturgeon recovery should be
transferred to the Corps Construction General account, where they more
properly belong, and where they have been accounted for in past years.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony to the
subcommittee on these important issues. We stand ready to respond to
any questions.
______
Prepared Statement of the Hospital for Special Surgery
Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony to the hearing record regarding
Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) in New York, New York. Since its
founding over 140 years ago, HSS has been the hospital of choice for
countless individuals of all ages--from infants to older adults--
suffering from musculoskeletal conditions. Today, HSS is considered the
premier specialty hospital for orthopedics and rheumatology in the
United States and abroad.
As you know, funds to support the establishment of the National
Center for Musculoskeletal Research at Hospital for Special Surgery
were included in Energy and Water Appropriations in fiscal year 2001
and fiscal year 2005. First, I would like to take this opportunity to
thank the subcommittee for its support and to report on the excellent
progress that has been made in achieving this goal.
With a combination of institutional, private, and government
support, HSS has transformed its research enterprise over the past 6
years, from the physical plant to the depth and focus of its scientific
expertise. HSS has conducted the largest recruitment drive in its
history. Expanded, state-of-the-art laboratories have increased the
quality and quantity of investigations. Today, 70 percent of HSS' basic
research activity is federally funded, meeting national benchmarks. Our
critical mass of expertise is composed of 34 bench scientists and 129
full-time laboratory fellows, technicians, and support. Of course, the
most important measure of success is HSS's capacity to improve quality
of life through treatments derived from a greater understanding of
disease. This has been fortified by the scientific talent and new
resources made possible by the Hospital's generous supporters. Today,
the National Center for Musculoskeletal Research at HSS is an
internationally recognized leader whose pioneering scientists are
making significant contributions to understanding diseases like
arthritis, osteoporosis, and lupus, and advancing progress toward the
development of better treatments and cures.
The Hospital's groundbreaking basic, translational, and clinical
research efforts are unique in that they are informed by its very
sizeable patient base, which is the largest of any musculoskeletal
hospital in the world. HSS's surgical techniques, rehabilitation
practices, orthopedic imaging, anesthesiology and pain management, and
non-surgical interventions are the ``best practices'' in the field. To
continue to advance the state-of-the-art, while meeting the needs of
increasing numbers of patients, HSS is now working to create an
entirely new platform of patient care for the 21st century. The
centerpiece of this initiative is the expansion and modernization of
its clinical facilities to provide the highest level of care to the
increasing number of patients seeking the expertise of the Hospital's
extraordinary medical staff. HSS has requested a fiscal year 2007
appropriation of $4 million to advance this important project.
The Hospital last expanded in 1996 when facilities meant for polio
patients and lengthy hospitalizations were redesigned and modernized.
In the succeeding years, pioneering advances in musculoskeletal
medicine have taken place, many of them using biosynthetic materials,
molecular diagnostics, innovative surgical tools and techniques, and
computer guidance and modeling. Since 1996, HSS has added 65 medical
staff and numerous specialized centers dedicated to research and
clinical care in orthopedics, rheumatology, complementary medicine,
sports medicine, non-surgical interventions, imaging, and pain
prevention.
New medical staff have the opportunity to learn from surgeons and
physicians who have practiced at HSS for decades, embracing a great
breadth and depth of experience, historical knowledge of the field, and
insight into patients' needs, expectations, and potential for recovery.
Building on experience, we have increased our efficiencies and ability
to help increasing numbers of patients from all over the world. For
example, the average length of stay for joint replacement has been
reduced from 6 days (1996) to less than 4.5 days. For patients who
qualify for minimally invasive surgery, many can leave the hospital
within 2-3 days. In the future, we feel certain some joint replacement
surgery will be carried out on an ambulatory basis.
The major demographic and sociological trends observed worldwide
are fueling a demand for care at HSS that is unprecedented. There has
been an extraordinary increase in the over-60 population and their need
for musculoskeletal medicine; and there is a more active, younger
population desiring to remain mobile and play sports as they grow
older. From 1996 to 2005, Special Surgery's annual surgical volume rose
from 10,700 to 17,500 and its annual outpatient visits rose from
147,000 to 230,000, a total increase of approximately 60 percent.
Special Surgery is also a magnet referral center for complex surgeries,
with growing numbers of patients requiring extensive, high-level care.
Meeting demand is only part of the equation. Bringing improved
treatments and interventions to patients is of utmost importance. HSS
continues to be a leader in advancing clinical treatments that enable
patients to recuperate more quickly and regain mobility. HSS-led
innovations on the horizon include:
--Minimally invasive knee, hip, and shoulder implants for younger
patients. ``Baby boomers'' are our fastest growing patient
segment.
--Spinal disc replacement surgery for degenerative disc disease, and
spinal stabilization without fusion.
--Effective treatments for early arthritic patients when there is a
``window of opportunity'' to slow and perhaps halt the
progression of disease.
--Biosynthetic materials that mimic everyday movements to repair
sports injuries to ligaments, tendons, meniscus, and cartilage.
--Biological solutions with minimal side effects to treat and prevent
the progress of a wide range of inflammatory conditions.
--New diagnostics to predict the efficacy of medical treatments.
--Advanced imaging techniques that can diagnose disease at the pre-
clinical stage, enabling earlier and more effective treatment.
--New medications to intervene before nerve injury and remold pain
pathways, minimizing post-operative pain.
--Computer-assisted surgical procedures.
An expanded clinical facility will enable the countless patients
who seek our help to have the benefit of these medical innovations.
Our new clinical facilities and extraordinary volume of patients
will also provide an unparalleled opportunity to create a robust
clinical research program. The potential for new knowledge in joint
replacement is significant, since HSS performs the greatest number of
hip and knee replacements in the world, more than 4,000 annually. The
clinical research program will be built on a strong basic research
foundation, which was strengthened over the past several years with the
vital support of the Energy and Water Subcommittee.
In our ``new hospital'' every patient would have an opportunity to
partner with us as a research patient in the effort to gain a deeper
understanding of bone and joint disease to perfect treatment for future
generations. With advanced technology, patients will help create their
own research records, containing uniform, prospective data on the
nuances of their treatment and progress. Each specialty service will
have its own clinical research coordinator, and patients will have
``real time'' access to information about clinical trials. Clinical
research analysis, coupled with our knowledge of disease at the basic
science level--particularly arthritis and inflammatory disease--will
provide a powerful resource for advancing musculoskeletal health and
restoring patients' mobility. We are currently recruiting new
leadership for this program and developing the required infrastructure
to successfully launch this initiative in our expanded facilities.
The Hospital's new facilities will be completed by 2009 and
encompass 201,000 square feet of new construction and 75,000 square
feet of renovated existing space. On-site patient services will be
significantly expanded and redesigned for greater efficiency and
comfort. Highlights include a modernized, expanded ambulatory surgery
center; enhanced rehabilitation facilities; new imaging, pain
management, and minor procedures facilities; and an enhanced sports
medicine rehabilitation center. In addition, the Hospital is
refurbishing the lobby of the Main Building to better serve patients
and their families. HSS took a unique approach to the design of this
project, forming a collaborative team of physicians, nurses,
architects, and planners to develop an optimum healing environment that
flows efficiently for both patients and medical staff.
Mr. Chairman, the objectives of Hospital for Special Surgery's
Clinical Facilities Expansion and Modernization Project are consistent
with those historically funded by the Department of Energy in the
Energy & Water Appropriations Bill. We hope that the subcommittee will
provide $4 million in fiscal year 2007 toward this capital expansion,
which will benefit countless patients as they grow older and seek help
for a range of musculoskeletal conditions. The chances are, no matter
where patients live, they will be helped by a medical advance pioneered
at HSS or by an HSS-trained physician. To keep this promise alive, we
must be able to expand clinically and lead the way, as we have done
since opening our doors as America's oldest existing orthopedic
hospital.
______
Prepared Statement of the GE Energy Advanced Technology Operation
The following testimony is submitted on behalf of GE Energy (GE)
for the consideration of the committee during its deliberations
regarding the fiscal year 2007 budget requests for the Department of
Energy (DOE). GE urges the committee to provide funding to initiate the
Western IGCC Demonstration Program, as authorized in the Energy Policy
Act of 2005. Additional resources also are needed for the Advanced
Turbines program, DOE's major research effort focusing on gas turbines
for electricity production which also addresses key needs for hydrogen
turbines. GE further recommends $10 million in additional funding for
the SECA program to support further advances in fuel cell technologies
for power production. Investments in these and the other important
programs discussed below will help to meet the challenges of assuring a
diverse portfolio of domestic power generation resources for the
future.
FOSSIL ENERGY PROGRAMS
Western IGCC Demonstration Program.--As the committee is aware,
there has been a substantial resurgence in interest in coal-fired
electricity generation. Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC)
is a leading technology for the next generation of coal plants. IGCC
reduces emissions of sulfur dioxide by 75 percent, nitrogen oxides by
33 percent, and particulate matter by approximately 50 percent compared
to a state-of-the-art pulverized coal plant. IGCC also is more cost
effective at removing mercury and carbon dioxide. Development of
several large-scale commercial IGCC plants is underway. These ``first-
of'' plants are a critical step towards reaching IGCC's entitlement in
performance and cost.
If the full national environmental and energy benefits of IGCC are
to be achieved, the ability of IGCC technology to efficiently use low
rank coals, such as those from the Powder River Basin that are
increasing in importance as a low cost, domestic fuel source, must be
addressed. Engineering design for the first-of-a-kind plant capable of
commercial operation on low rank coals is a key requirement. Unlike
natural gas plants, the first-of-a-kind advanced coal plant for low
rank coal will require significant preliminary engineering and
technology integration. Section 413 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
authorized the Western Integrated Coal Gasification Demonstration
Program. This cost-shared program would provide the framework for the
Federal Government and industry to work together to expand the envelope
of efficient, low emissions IGCC technology to economically use these
coals. This important initiative is deserving of the committee's
consideration.
IGCC.--GE recommends that the budget for DOE's Advanced IGCC
program be increased by $12 million in fiscal year 2007 to be used to
offset the first-of-a-kind project engineering development costs that
are required to deliver commercial IGCC plants capable of utilizing low
rank coals. This would relieve launch customers and early adopters of
being differentially burdened with advancing this technology, and will
ultimately lead to benefits throughout the industry as this up-front
development engineering is captured to provide designs for like-plants.
Clean Coal Power Initiative.--The budget request includes only
minimal funding for the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) in fiscal
year 2007, which will presumably delay future solicitations for the
program. While GE understands the administration's desire to increase
the effectiveness of the program, the need for a commercial
demonstration program for advanced coal power technologies is
undiminished. Federal investment in clean coal technology has produced
a profound improvement in coal-based generation technology. The pre-
commercial demonstrations of IGCC technology at TECO Polk and Wabash
through the predecessor Clean Coal Technology Program proved the
economic viability of IGCC and served as a catalyst for the industry to
develop IGCC into commercial power generation offerings.
While the development of several large-scale commercial IGCC plants
is underway, preliminary development at the pilot stage already is
ongoing for the next generation of IGCC technology. GE sees a
continuing need for the CCPI to serve as the vehicle for the scale-up,
plant integration, and initial deployment of advanced IGCC
technologies. The CCPI also would serve as means to support the
deployment at commercially-relevant scale of technologies that the
FutureGen initiative is likely to develop. Any failure to continue
funding for the CCPI program at prior year levels should not be seen as
a weakening of the commitment to this program.
Turbines.--GE recommends that funding be increased by $22 million
to a total of $35 million for the Advanced Turbines program, within the
Fossil Energy/Coal/Fuels and Power Systems budget line. This program
represents the Department's primary research effort focusing on gas
turbines for coal-based electricity production, such as FutureGen, and
is designed to enable the low-cost implementation of major policy
initiatives in the areas of climate change, reduced powerplant
emissions and future generation technologies. Continued turbine
research and development is needed to address DOE's efficiency and
emissions goals for power generation from coal, the Nation's most
abundant domestic energy resource.
Gas turbine R&D is focused on advanced combustion and high
temperature turbine technology for syngas/hydrogen fuels that will
result from IGCC and FutureGen type power plants. The program addresses
those gas turbine elements where the technology required for the use of
syngas/hydrogen fuels differs from the requirements for natural gas
fueled gas turbines. Work in this area is proceeding under DOE-awarded
cost-share contracts resulting from a March 2005 solicitation entitled
``Enabling Technologies for High-Hydrogen Fuels.'' Unless the fiscal
year 2007 budget for the Advanced Turbines program is increased,
funding will be inadequate for this promising work, and the progress
and benefits of this research will be delayed accordingly.
GE has experience with gas turbines operating on fuel blends
containing hydrogen, and has performed laboratory demonstration tests
on high hydrogen content fuel. This experience highlighted the need for
development of advanced combustion technology in order to drive down
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions and enable advanced hydrogen generation
processes. In addition, current strategies for effective integration of
all major subsystems need to be reviewed and redefined for use with
hydrogen fuel.
Continued funding of DOE's program is essential for FutureGen to
meet its goal of substantial improvement in the cost of carbon capture.
FutureGen is intended to serve as a demonstration for the technical
feasibility of achieving nearly carbon-free power with IGCC. FutureGen
is being structured to serve as a test bed for advanced technology that
is needed to reduce the performance penalty and improve the economics
of carbon capture. If it is to meet its goals, the FutureGen program
will need to draw on advancements resulting from the hydrogen turbine
program.
GE recommends the committee's attention to the testimony submitted
by the Gas Turbine Association relative to the allocation of additional
funding above the budget submission within the Advanced Turbines
program budget. In particular, GE encourages the committee to assure
adequate funding for the University Turbine Systems Research Program.
Solid-Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) Development, Solid State Energy Conversion
Alliance (SECA) Program
SOFC utilize an electrochemical process to cleanly convert a range
of fuels into electricity. A SOFC/gas turbine hybrid system utilizes
the fuel cell as the primary power generation source. The residual fuel
and energy from the fuel cell is combusted in a gas turbine to create
additional power. By combining these two technologies, SOFC/gas turbine
hybrid systems have the potential to revolutionize fossil-based power
generation with new standards for efficiency and reduced emissions.
DOE's SECA program supports the development of high temperature
SOFC fuel cell technology for stationary power generation. This
technology offers the potential for a step change improvement in
efficiency and reduction in emissions for power generation from coal.
Successful development of large scale (e.g., 500 MW) SOFC-turbine
hybrid based power plants would provide highly efficient, cost-
effective, near-zero atmospheric emissions in coal-based central power
generation applications capable of reaching the DOE target for
efficiencies up to 60 percent. The systems also would be compatible
with carbon-free concepts as planned for FutureGen.
GE successfully completed SECA Phase I SOFC system testing in 2005.
This success contributed to the DOE SECA program's achievement of its
key 2005 milestones, which is an important indicator that the program
is making good technical progress. Key technology challenges remain and
are being addressed as the DOE program proceeds. Continued joint DOE-
industry investment in SOFC-hybrid technology will position U.S.
industry as leaders in the rapidly growing worldwide ``ultra-clean''
energy market, in which other governments, including the Japanese and
European governments, are investing heavily.
An increase of $10 million above the administration's budget
request, for total funding of $73 million, is needed in fiscal year
2007 to fully fund the SECA program. GE recommends that DOE be given
the flexibility to apply funding as best needed to meet DOE's and the
program's goals.
RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS
Wind Energy.--Sustainable generation of clean energy from wind is
imperative to realizing the objectives of the President's Advanced
Energy Initiative, as well as the goals of the Energy Policy Act of
2005. The milestones established by the Department of Energy to reach
100 GW of wind energy capacity by 2020 demand a coordinated effort to
develop favorable long term policy, energy infrastructure, and product
technology advancement to continue to drive the cost of electricity
down for both on-shore and off-shore applications. Reaching the DOE
goals would result in 10 percent of U.S. power generation being
produced from renewable wind power. The emissions reduction benefit
would be the equivalent of removing 20 million automobiles from the
highways.
DOE's internal Wind R&D programs and cost-share programs with
industry are instrumental in accelerating technology advancement and
cost of electricity reduction. Unfortunately, constraints on fiscal
year 2006 funding caused DOE to slow some programs and cancel others.
In support of the DOE goals, for fiscal year 2007 these programs need
to be accelerated, and stopped programs restarted. Consistent with the
recommendations of the American Wind Energy Association, GE recommends
that DOE's fiscal year 2007 Wind program funding be increased by $30
million to a total of $74 million.
OFFICE OF ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY
Microgrids.--GE Global Research is collaborating with the Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) in a $4 million
program initiated in 2005 to design and demonstrate an Advanced Energy
Management System for Microgrids. The DOE's vision of the future
electric power infrastructure, GRID 2030, identifies microgrids as one
of three major technical cornerstones for a more reliable and
congestion-free energy delivery system, and describes distributed
intelligence and clean power as key technologies needing development.
GE supports an additional $10 million in funding to support the
realization of the GRID 2030 vision by bringing microgrid technologies
to market and also to better leverage into this effort the integration
of the Department's Distributed Energy Program into the OE
organization.
Cross Cutting Technologies--Ceramic Matrix Composites.--Work on
ceramic matrix composites (CMC) has been an important research
component of the budget for Distributed Energy Programs. As DOE's
budget request acknowledges, advanced materials research, such as
research on composites, is designed to enhance the efficiency and
environmental performance of gas turbines. CMCs offer greater than 300
to 500 F capability when compared to metallic materials currently used
in gas turbine products. A 50 F improvement in materials capability is
normally considered one generation of materials development. The
increased temperature capability of CMCs provides potential benefits in
power output, efficiency, emissions, and part life, depending on the
component and how it is utilized in power generation equipment. Other
potential energy-related opportunities for CMCs include aircraft
engines for commercial and military applications and aerospace
applications.
CMCs are a high-risk, high-payoff technology with great promise for
energy savings. GE Energy is committed to cost-sharing with DOE in a
multi-year effort to further the development of this critical
technology. Funding of $2 million is necessary for fiscal year 2007 for
CMC crosscutting technology material development, through the
Distributed Energy Technology Research program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Electric Drive Transportation Association
Last year when Congress was assembling the DOE budget, the cost of
a barrel of oil was just surpassing $50; today the price hovers above
$70 and the administration and Congress have declared greater oil
independence a priority. The committee has the opportunity, in the
fiscal year 2007 budget, to make substantial inroads in addressing oil
dependence through aggressive support for electric drive technology
programs at the Department of Energy.
The Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA) is a multi-
industry trade association whose mission is promotion of electric drive
technology in all its applications. Our members include a diverse
representation of vehicle and equipment manufacturers, energy
providers, component suppliers and end users who recognize the
potential for reduces petroleum consumption and decreased emissions of
greenhouse gases and pollutants that electric drive offers. A list of
our membership is provided with this statement.
Multiple technologies, including hybrids, battery electric and fuel
cells, as well as diverse fueling options, will be necessary to meet
the transportation needs of the Nation efficiently. Advances in these
technologies are supported in a number of existing programs in the DOE
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), including the
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Technologies Programs and the Vehicle
Technologies Programs. Important new programs, authorized in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 05), will enable even greater progress in
reducing the transportation sector's reliance on petroleum.
Unfortunately, the administration's request does not fully invest
in the programs that will move the Nation toward its petroleum goals.
Specifically, the administration's fiscal year 2007 request for
FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies is $166 million--a more than 8
percent decrease from the fiscal year 2006 appropriation and flat
funded with the fiscal year 2006 request.
Regarding the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technology Programs, the
administration request ignores the thoroughly vetted directives of
EPAct 2005. The $195 million requested for the Hydrogen Technology
Program is a welcome increase over the current appropriation but does
not address the funding and programmatic direction of EPAct 2005. We
are concerned that failure to adequately fund the program may undermine
the ability to meet program 2015 and 2020 milestones and postpone
achievement of commercial options for petroleum free transportation.
The request also omits funding for EPAct 2005 Loan Guarantees for
Innovative Technologies, which will expand the domestic infrastructure
for efficient technologies while minimizing the government's financial
exposure. We urge the committee to provide adequate resources to ensure
that this program can get underway as expeditiously as possible.
We support the administration's request for $14 million for
research and development of plug-in hybrid technologies. It is an
investment that will assist in proving out this new electric drive
option. It will also provide support for battery and other technology
advances that will advance all electric drive options: hybrid, battery
electric and fuel cells.
EDTA also encourages appropriate funding for the fleet-based
programs that support technology developments. In particular, the EPAct
2005 includes an important modification to the EPAct 92 fleet
requirements, directing the creation of an alternative compliance
waiver option for State and alternative energy provider fleets that
will permit the use of hybrid and other technologies to comply with
fleet fuel reduction requirements.
Although the request includes $11 million for Technology
Introduction subprogram, which is charged with implementing this
option, none are specifically directed to implementation of the waiver
option. With multiple, higher profile program responsibilities, we are
concerned that insufficient resources will be allocated to waiver
implementation.
Another important fleet-oriented petroleum reduction program, Clean
Cities works with voluntary coalitions to build clean and efficient
local fleets, including schools, airports, and municipal bus fleets.
The request for this program would cut already limited funding by a
third, to $4.4 million.
As the compounding consequences of oil dependence are being made
acutely clear, we urge the committee to take full advantage of the
solutions that are possible through the EERE vehicle programs. We
respectfully request that you fund these programs at the levels
commensurate with their benefits to the Nation: increased U.S.
security, a cleaner environment and a stronger economy.
Thank you for your consideration.
EDTA Members: A123 Systems; Advanced Transportation Technology
(ATTI); Air Products & Chemicals; American Honda Motor Company;
American Public Power (APPA); Austin Energy; Azure Dynamics
Corporation; Ballard Power Systems; CEREVEH; Chamber of the Americas;
CITELEC; City of New York; Curtis Instruments; DaimlerChrysler
Corporation; Edison Electric Institute; eGO Vehicles; Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI); Electricite de France; Electrovaya; Energy
Conversion Devices, Inc./Ovonic; Enova Systems; Fallbrook Technologies;
General Motors Corporation; Georgetown University; Global Electric
MotorsCars (GEM); Greater Oslo Public Transport; Hyundai-Kia America
Tech Center; Independent Energy Efficiency (IEEP); Long Island Power
Authority; Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources; Maxwell
Technologies; Methanex, Inc.; Michelin North America; Mid-Del Lewis
Eubanks (AVTS); National Alternative Fuels Training Consortium (NAFTC);
National Golf Car Manufacturers Association; New York Power Authority;
New York State Energy-NYSERDA; Nissan North America; Northeast
Sustainable Energy Association; Opal-RT; Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E);
Raser Technologies; Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD); Saft
America, Inc.; San Diego State University; Southern California Edison;
TM4, Inc.; Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO); Toyota; Tri-Met;
University of California, Davis/ITS; UQM Technologies, Inc.; U.S.
Department of Energy; Volkswagen; Voltage Vehicles/ZAP.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Plant Biologists
The American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB) appreciates this
opportunity to submit testimony on the fiscal year 2007 budget request
for the Department of Energy Office of Science. We urge the committee
to approve the President's proposal in the American Competitiveness
Initiative, Advanced Energy Initiative and fiscal year 2007 budget
request for an increase of 14 percent to $4.1 billion for the DOE
Office of Science. Included with the President's budget request is $255
million for the Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Energy Biosciences
Division. A total of $35.8 million within the division is requested by
the President for the Energy Biosciences program. We urge you to
support the President's request for Basic Energy Sciences, the Chemical
Sciences, Geosciences and Energy Bioscience Division and the Energy
Biosciences program within the division.
Basic energy research on plants and microbes supported by the
Energy Biosciences program contributes to advances in renewable
resources for fuel and other fossil resource substitutes, clean-up and
restoration of contaminated environmental sites, and in discovering new
knowledge leading to home-grown products and chemicals now derived from
petroleum.
The Energy Biosciences program supports leading research on plants
and microbes conducted primarily by university-based scientists
throughout the country. Grants are awarded through a competitive
process utilizing rigorous peer-review standards.
Energy Biosciences grantees include scientists who have received
recognition from a number of distinguished science institutions and
organizations, including national and international science societies,
the National Academy of Sciences, and a Nobel Prize selection
committee. Basic research on plants and microbes contributes to
advances that help address the Nation's future demands for
domestically-produced energy sources, such as energy crops.
We fully support the President in his State of the Union Address in
which he called for the Nation to conduct energy research for bio-fuels
to help break the Nation's addiction to foreign oil. The President
explained in the State of the Union Address and in subsequent talks in
Tennessee, Minnesota and Colorado soon after, that research on plant
cellulose to produce ethanol, on switch grass, wood chips and other
sources of bio-energy could help transition a significant portion of
the Nation's transportation sector away from imported gasoline to
domestically produced bio-fuels.
Research the committee supported within the Energy Biosciences
program led to the landmark discovery of how to break down plant
cellulose into ethanol. We applaud the committee for its support of
basic research on plants and microbes within the Energy Biosciences
program and within the Office of Biological and Environmental Research
to help make possible the President's achievable proposal to make
domestically produced bio-fuels directly cost competitive with
gasoline.
As ASPB President, Michael Thomashow, University Distinguished
Professor at Michigan State University, a member of the National
Academy of Sciences, noted, with the development of ``genomic
sciences'' and sophisticated new instrumentation, we can now probe the
life of plants at levels that just a few years ago seemed, at best, to
be wishful thinking. Indeed, given the distance that we have come since
the plant sciences entered the modern ``molecular genetic era,''
ushered in with the advent of plant transformation systems during the
1980's, the goal of understanding plant processes at a ``systems''
level would not appear to be just a trendy pipedream, but a real,
attainable goal within the not-too-distant future, Thomashow noted.
How will we use these powerful new approaches and the insights that
we gain about basic plant biology? The answer is that they will be used
in many ways and have many applications ranging from the nutritional
enhancement of food products to the production of bio-fuels and
feedstocks for the chemical and pharmaceutical industries. One area
that is particularly exciting is the development of renewable energy
sources.
We are all well aware of the geopolitical challenges that are posed
by our current dependence on non-renewable sources of energy. In
addition, we are well aware of the negative impacts that using many of
these energy sources can have on the environment, such as emissions of
greenhouse gasses attendant with the use of petroleum-based
transportation fuels. It would be wonderful if we could replace
petroleum-based transportation fuels with more environmentally friendly
``bio-fuels'' produced from renewable ``energy crops.'' For some within
the oil and related industries, the doubt arises whether this is even
within the realm of possibility. Could the United States, for instance,
grow and harvest enough ``biomass'' on an annual basis to produce
enough ethanol and bio-diesel to significantly decrease our dependence
on petroleum-based transportation fuels without jeopardizing the
production of food to feed the Nation and to meet export demands?
This general issue was addressed in a joint study by the U.S.
Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Agriculture released in
April 2005. The results were published in a report entitled ``Biomass
as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical
Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply'' (http://
www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/final_billionton_vision_report2.pdf).
In particular, the study committee asked whether the land resources of
the United States would be capable of producing a sustainable supply of
biomass sufficient to displace 30 percent or more of our current
petroleum consumption, a goal that would require the production of
approximately 1 billion dry tons of biomass feedstock per year. In
short, the study committee concluded that the answer to this question
is ``yes''; that annually, U.S. forest and agricultural lands have the
potential to produce, respectively, over 360 and 990 million dry tons
of biomass feedstock. Reaching these levels of biomass production,
however, will require a number of developments including changes in
production practices and significant increases in crop yields. For
example, crop land would likely be managed with no-till methods and a
50 percent increase in the yields of corn, wheat and other small grain
crops would be required.
Using biomass feedstocks to provide significant levels of renewable
energy is an exciting, inspiring vision for the future of America and
the greater world community. The goal set by John F. Kennedy of putting
a human being on the moon by the end of the 1960's served as a unifying
theme that helped nucleate efforts that led to spectacular advances in
science and technology and, equally importantly, helped attract young
people to these areas of study. Setting national and international
goals for producing renewable, environmentally friendly energy sources
also has the potential to stimulate important advances in science and
technology and to attract young people to these areas of study. In
regard specifically to plant scientists, such goals also provide a
framework for integrating much of plant biology research. Understanding
plant growth and development at a systems level feeds into increasing
biomass, as does understanding basic mechanisms of abiotic and biotic
stress tolerance. Understanding how cell walls are synthesized and
their composition determined is not only fundamental to our knowledge
of basic plant biology, but also is a central issue in biomass
production and conversion. The same can be said of understanding how
plants synthesize and regulate the production of lipids and oils as
well as many other plant constituents and processes.
Plant scientists have a fundamental role to play in developing
clean, renewable energy sources thanks in large part to the history of
strong support for the Energy Biosciences program of this committee.
The rigorous standards consistently followed by the Energy
Biosciences program in reviewing grant proposals and making awards have
contributed to the outstanding success of the program. For example,
research sponsored by the Biosciences program led to new findings on
the capture of energy from photosynthesis. This research led to the
presentation to Biosciences-program-grantee Dr. Paul Boyer of the
shared award of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (biochemistry).
Photosynthesis is an essential energy conversion process upon which all
life on earth depends. Photosynthesis in plants is nature's way of
utilizing sunlight to produce chemical energy and to bring carbon
dioxide into biological organisms. Increased knowledge in this area
could lead to a better understanding of how to manage carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere. Further research in this area could also contribute to
development of alternative energy sources.
Plants are a major source of renewable and alternative fuels in the
United States. Greater knowledge of the basic biology of plants will
lead to further economies in domestic production of renewable fuels.
ASPB is a non-profit society of nearly 6,000 scientists based
primarily at universities. ASPB publishes the two most-frequently cited
plant science journals in the world, Plant Physiology and The Plant
Cell. We deeply appreciate the continued strong support of the
committee for innovative research on plants and microbes sponsored by
the Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences through its
Energy Biosciences program and Office of Biological and Environmental
Research. Please let us know if we could provide any additional
information.
Disclosure Statement on Federal Grant Support.--The American
Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB) received Federal grants from USDA-
CSREES in the amount of $7,000 in each of fiscal years 2005 and 2006 to
help coordinate the USDA-CSREES Plant and Pest Biology Stakeholders'
Workshop and print the subsequent workshop report. Many associations
representing growers of commodity crops; science societies representing
the research community; and officials administering Federal research
programs participated.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Geological Institute
Thank you for this opportunity to provide the American Geological
Institute's perspective on fiscal year 2007 appropriations for
geoscience programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. The
President's budget requests significant cuts in the Department of
Energy (DOE) research programs related to energy resources. In
particular, the President's request would eliminate the Office of
Fossil Energy's oil and natural gas technology research programs and
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's geothermal
technology research program. Given the interest of the administration
and Congress to reduce the Nation's foreign oil dependence and reduce
gasoline prices, it seems like an inopportune time to eliminate
programs that could help with these objectives. We hope that Congress
will restore funding for these programs. AGI applauds the requested 14
percent increase for the largest supporter of physical science research
in the United States, DOE's Office of Science, and encourages the
subcommittee's full support for this increase. We also support the
President's Advanced Energy Initiative which includes increased funding
for clean energy research. The request focuses spending on solar,
biomass/biofuels, hydrogen fuel, FutureGen and nuclear power, however,
other clean energy alternatives, such as geothermal, could be included
in appropriations while remaining consistent with national needs and
objectives.
AGI is a nonprofit federation of 44 geoscientific and professional
associations that represent more than 100,000 geologists,
geophysicists, and other earth scientists. The institute serves as a
voice for shared interests in our profession, plays a major role in
strengthening geoscience education, and strives to increase public
awareness of the vital role that the geosciences play in society's use
of resources and interaction with the environment.
DOE FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
AGI urges you to take a critical look at the Department of Energy's
Fossil Energy Research and Development (R&D), Natural Gas Technology
R&D and Oil Technology R&D accounts as you prepare to craft the fiscal
year 2007 Energy and Water and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
Over the past 5 years, members of Congress have strongly emphasized the
need for a responsible, comprehensive energy policy for the country.
The growing global competition for fossil fuels has led to a repeated
and concerted request by Congress to ensure the Nation's energy
independence. The President's proposal that these programs be
eliminated is short-sighted and will not allow us to achieve energy
independence.
The research dollars spent by these programs go largely to
universities, State geological surveys and research consortia to
address critical issues like enhanced recovery from known fields and
unconventional sources that are the future of our natural gas supply.
This money does not go into corporate coffers, but it helps American
businesses remain competitive by giving them a technological edge over
foreign companies. All major advances in oil and gas production can be
tied to research and technology. AGI strongly encourages the conferees
to restore these funds and bring these programs back to at least fiscal
year 2003 levels.
Today's domestic industry has independent producers at its core.
With fewer and fewer major producing companies and their concentration
on adding more expensive reserves from outside of the contiguous United
States, it is the smaller independent producers developing new
technologies concentrated on our domestic resources. However, without
Federal contributions to basic research that drives innovation, small
producers cannot develop new technologies as fast, or as well, as they
do today. The program has produced many key successes among the typical
short-term (1 to 5 years) projects usually chosen by the DOE. And even
failed projects have proven beneficial, because they've often resulted
in redirection of effort toward more practical exploration and
production (E&P) solutions. Ideally, DOE and private sector
participants share the program's R&D funding on a 50/50 basis, with the
government contributing actual dollars and the company contributing
dollars or ``in kind'' products and services. To justify the use of
public funds, new technology developed from such projects is made
available to the industry.
In 2003, at the request of the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee, the National Academies released a report entitled Energy
Research at DOE: ``Was It Worth It? Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy
Research 1978 to 2000''. This report found that Fossil Energy R&D was
beneficial because the industry snapped up the new technologies created
by the R&D program, developed other technologies that were waiting for
market forces to bring about conditions favorable to commercializing
them and otherwise made new discoveries. In real dollars from 1986-2000
the government invested $4.5 billion into Fossil Energy R&D. During
that time, realized economic benefits totaled $7.4 billion. This
program is not only paying for itself, it has brought in $2.9 billion
in revenue. Why not continue to fund oil and gas R&D so we can attain
the energy independence we need for stable and continued economic
growth?
The Federal investment in energy R&D is particularly important when
it comes to longer-range research with diversified benefits. In today's
competitive markets, the private sector focuses dwindling research
dollars on shorter-term results in highly applied areas such as
technical services. In this context, DOE's support of fossil energy
research, where the focus is truly on research, is very significant in
magnitude and impact compared to that done in the private sector, where
the focus is mainly on development. Without more emphasis on research,
we risk losing our technological edge in this global and increasingly
more expensive commodity.
As we pursue the goal of reducing America's dependence on unstable
and expensive foreign sources of oil, we must continue to increase
recovery efficiency in the development of existing domestic oilfields,
conserving the remaining in-place resources. Since the 1980's, 80
percent of new oil reserves in this country have come from additional
discoveries in old fields, largely based on re-examination of
previously collected geoscience data. These data will become even more
important in the future with development of new recovery technologies.
The research funded by DOE leads to new technologies that improve
the efficiency and productivity of the domestic energy industry.
Continued research on fossil energy is critical to America's future and
should be a key component of any national energy strategy. The societal
benefits of fossil energy R&D extend to such areas as economic and
national security, job creation, capital investment, and reduction of
the trade deficit. The Nation will remain dependent on petroleum as its
principal transportation fuel for the foreseeable future and natural
gas is growing in importance. It is critical that domestic production
not be allowed to prematurely decline at a time when tremendous
advances are being made in improving the technology with which these
resources are extracted. The recent spike in oil and natural gas prices
is a reminder of the need to retain a vibrant domestic industry in the
face of uncertain sources overseas. Technological advances are
necessary to maintaining our resource base and ensuring this country's
future energy security.
DOE OFFICE OF SCIENCE
The DOE Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic
research in the physical sciences in the United States, providing more
than 40 percent of total funding for this vital area of national
importance. The Office of Science manages fundamental research programs
in basic energy sciences, biological and environmental sciences, and
computational science and, under the President's budget request, would
be grown by 14 percent from about $3.6 billion last year to $4.1
billion. AGI asks that you support this much needed increase.
Within the Office of Science, the Basic Energy Sciences (BES)
program supports fundamental research in focused areas of the natural
sciences in order to expand the scientific foundations for new and
improved energy technologies and for understanding and mitigating the
environmental impacts of energy use. BES also discovers knowledge and
develops tools to strengthen national security.
The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) would remain the largest program in
the office with an increase of 25 percent from $1.134 billion in fiscal
year 2006 to $1.420 billion in fiscal year 2007 in the President's
request. Within the BES, Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Biosciences
would receive a $47.9 million increase over their fiscal year 2006
budget. About half of this increase would go toward the President's
Hydrogen Initiative ($6 million increase) and basic research related to
energy technologies ($22.4 million increase) and the other half would
go toward nanoscale science research ($22.2 million increase). Other
programs would be reduced by $3.2 million to make up the difference
between these increases and the overall budget.
AGI strongly supports the requested increases for these programs.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Energy Sciences Coalition
Chairman Domenici, the Energy Sciences Coalition (ESC) expresses
its great appreciation for the leadership you have shown as Chairman of
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee. We
applaud your vision of how the programs of the Department of Energy's
Office of Science will lead to research discoveries and technological
developments benefiting this and future generations.
The Energy Sciences Coalition is a broadly-based organization
representing scientists, engineers and mathematicians in universities,
industry, professional societies and national laboratories. We share
your belief that the research supported by the Office of Science has
and will make significant contributions to our Nation's security and
standard of living.
ESC strongly and enthusiastically supports the President's fiscal
year 2007 budget request of $4.1 billion for the Department of Energy's
Office of Science. This historic level of funding, outlined in the
President's American Competitiveness Initiative, will allow the DOE to
move forward with the tremendous scientific opportunities outlined in
the Office of Science Strategic Plan and in its 20-Year Scientific
Facilities Plan. It is also consistent with your PACE legislation and
with the recommendations made by the National Academies' in its report,
``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.''
ESC believes that this landmark request is solid and necessary to
keep United States science and engineering at the forefront of global
research and development in the physical and biological sciences,
computing and many other critical scientific fields. It is an
investment in our future.
Our Nation benefits not only from the discoveries that will be made
with this support, but also from the training of America's next
generation of researchers. Such training will be instrumental in
maintaining our Nation's technological superiority in the international
marketplace. The Office of Science also plays an extremely important
and unique role in the design, construction, and operation of large-
scale user facilities used by researchers supported by the Department
of Energy, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science
Foundation, as well as private industry researchers.
In closing, I again express the Coalition's gratitude for the
leadership that you and your colleagues have demonstrated in supporting
the important work of the Office of Science. Please do not hesitate to
contact me if the Coalition can be of any assistance.
ATTACHMENT: FISCAL YEAR 2007 ENERGY SCIENCES COALITION FUNDING
STATEMENT
Support the President's Request for $4.1 Billion for the Department of
Energy (DOE) Office of Science
The Energy Sciences Coalition (ESC) strongly and enthusiastically
supports the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request of $4.1
billion for the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science, a 14.1
percent increase above the fiscal year 2006 funding level. This
historic level of funding outlined in the President American
Competitiveness Act will allow the DOE to move forward with the
tremendous scientific opportunities outlined in the Office of Science
Strategic Plan and in its 20-Year Scientific Facilities Plan. It is
also consistent with bipartisan legislation introduced in Senate (the
``Protecting America's Competitive Edge'' Act, or PACE legislation) and
by recommendations made by the National Academies in its report,
``Rising Above the Gathering Storm''.
ESC believes that this landmark request is solid and necessary to
keep United States science and engineering at the forefront of global
research and development in the physical and biological sciences,
computing and many other critical scientific fields. It is an
investment in our future.
The mission of the Office of Science is to deliver the discoveries
and scientific tools that transform our understanding of energy and
matter and advance the national, economic and energy security of the
United States. The DOE Office of Science is one of the primary sponsors
of basic research in the United States, leading the Nation in its
support for the physical sciences and critical to other fields such as
computing and biology. Strong support for DOE scientific research is
essential to advancing a broad array of research subjects in order to
improve our energy, economic and national security and in addressing
the ancillary issues such as super computing, nanotechnology,
environmental remediation, climate change, genomics and life sciences.
ATTACHMENT: STATEMENT ENDORSEES
Fiscal Year 2007 ESC Funding Statement Endorsements
Alliance for Science & Technology Research; American Institute for
Medical and Biological Engineering; American Institute of Physics;
American Physical Society; American Society for Microbiology; American
Society of Agronomy; American Society of Plant Biologists; American
Society of Mechanical Engineers; Association of American Universities;
Biophysical Society; Crop Science Society of America; Federation of
Materials Societies; Florida State University; Fusion Power Associates;
General Atomics; Indiana University; International Society for Optical
Engineering; Iowa State University; Michigan State University; National
Association of State and Land-Grant Universities; Ohio State
University; Oregon State University; Princeton University; Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute; Soil Science Society of America; Southeastern
Universities Research Association; Stanford University; University of
California; University of Chicago; University of Tennessee; University
of Wisconsin-Madison.
______
Prepared Statement of the Independent Petroleum Association of America
Members: The International Association Of Drilling Contractors; The
International Association of Geophysical Contractors; The National
Stripper Well Association; The Petroleum Equipment Suppliers
Association; The Association of Energy Service Companies; Public Lands
Advocacy; California Independent Petroleum Association; Colorado Oil &
Gas Association; East Texas Producers & Royalty Owners Association;
Eastern Kansas Oil & Gas Association; Florida Independent Petroleum
Association; Illinois Oil & Gas Association; Independent Oil & Gas
Association of New York; Independent Oil & Gas Association of
Pennsylvania; Independent Oil & Gas Association of West Virginia;
Independent Oil Producers Association Tri-State; Independent Petroleum
Association of Mountain States; Independent Petroleum Association of
New Mexico; Indiana Oil & Gas Association; Kansas Independent Oil & Gas
Association; Kentucky Oil & Gas Association; Louisiana Independent Oil
& Gas Association; Michigan Oil & Gas Association; Mississippi
Independent Producers & Royalty Association; Montana Oil & Gas
Association; National Association of Royalty Owners; Nebraska
Independent Oil & Gas Association; New Mexico Oil & Gas Association;
New York State Oil Producers Association; Northern Alliance of Energy
Producers; Ohio Oil & Gas Association; Oklahoma Independent Petroleum
Association; Oklahoma Commission on Marginally Producing Oil and Gas
Wells; Panhandle Producers & Royalty Owners Association; Pennsylvania
Oil & Gas Association; Permian Basin Petroleum Association; Petroleum
Association of Wyoming; Tennessee Oil & Gas Association; Texas Alliance
of Energy Producers; Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners;
Virginia Oil & Gas Association; and the Wyoming Independent Producers
Association.
These organizations represent petroleum and natural gas producers,
the segment of the industry that is affected the most when national
energy policy does not recognize the importance of our own domestic
resources. Independent producers drill 90 percent of domestic oil and
natural gas wells, produce approximately 82 percent of domestic natural
gas, and produce about 68 percent of domestic oil--well above that
percentage of the oil in the lower 48 States.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the critical need
for the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Fuels Oil and Natural
Gas Technologies programs. The Independent Petroleum Association of
America (IPAA), represents over 5,000 producers of domestic oil and
natural gas. Independents drill 90 percent of the Nation's oil wells
and produce 82 percent of the Nation's natural gas and 68 percent of
domestically-produced oil. IPAA urges the subcommittee to maintain
funding for the Department of Energy's (DOE), Office of Fossil Fuels
Oil and Natural Gas Technologies programs at $64 million, the
appropriated level for fiscal year 2006. In addition, IPAA urges the
subcommittee to fund the non-conventional onshore/ultra-deepwater/small
producer program and the methane hydrates technology program at the
authorized levels included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 ($100
million and $20 million respectively.)
IPAA is concerned that the administration's ``zero'' budget request
for the Department of Energy's oil and natural gas technologies
programs for fiscal year 2007 will diminish the development of key
exploration and production technologies designed to improve domestic
oil and natural gas production.
This is the second year that the administration has proposed to
terminate funding for these vitally important programs, 85 percent of
which historically have focused on exploration and production
activities associated with independent producers. In most instances,
these companies do not have access to the in-house technology
development capabilities of the larger, integrated, multi-national oil
companies. Therefore, federally funded research and development (R&D)
should be considered essential to maintain a viable, robust, domestic
producing sector.
With respect to both the non-conventional onshore/ultra-deepwater/
small producer program and the methane hydrates program the
administration included language in its budget request to repeal the
former, and to provide no funding for the latter, though both are
authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. IPAA believes that these
programs will play a crucial role, if we are to reduce our energy
dependence in the years to come.
Full, consistent funding for development of all these programs is
essential to meet the President's objectives to reduce our dependency
on foreign sources of energy. In the case of the existing oil and gas
technologies programs, they have provided a variety of functions,
primarily focusing on domestic exploration and production research and
development activities, resulting in sustaining and in most instances,
increasing domestic oil and gas production. Such research and
development activities, conducted by universities, DOE laboratories and
the private sector have culminated in the development of exploration
and production (E&P) technologies, which have resulted in an increase
in production of product, in a more environmentally sensitive manner,
with a much smaller environmental footprint.
In a statement issued on October 17, 2005, in conjunction with
DOE's announcement of 13 new oil and gas technologies/R&D projects,
Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman said, ``This administration continues
to seek out and develop new energy options to support our growing
economy.'' He continued, ``The projects we are funding today are an
investment in our Nation's energy security and economic security, and
will help us obtain the maximum benefit of our domestic energy
resources in an environmentally sensitive way.''
The statement went on to point out that the sources of
unconventional natural gas that these projects would assist in the
development of contain an estimated 700 trillion cubic feet (Tcf),
compared to an industry estimate of 190 Tcf in conventional natural gas
reserves.
The statement also attempted to put into context the significance
of accessing these reserves, noting that ``natural gas accounts for
nearly one quarter of total domestic supply, a share that will rise
with future technological advancements such as those being investigated
by the funded projects.''
Similarly, development of methane hydrates and non-conventional
onshore/ultra-deepwater represents tremendous potential for supplying
America's growing natural gas needs. In the case of methane hydrates,
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates the United States to have
about 200,000 trillion cubic feet of methane hydrate. Meanwhile, the
ultra-deep area alone will tap 1,300 trillion cubic feet of technically
recoverable reserves--enough to meet 60 years of demand at current
rates of consumption.
DOE's programs play an essential role in the training and
development of qualified people for the oil and gas sector, a challenge
which continues to grow at an alarmingly rapid rate. The DOE oil and
natural gas programs provide vital support to petroleum engineering
departments across the country. According to a letter dated April 4,
2005 from the University of Texas' Department of Petroleum and
Geosystems Engineering to the Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development Appropriations, ``. . . our ability to retain the best
faculty who are needed to train Petroleum Engineers for the coming
decades depends entirely on our being able to provide research funding
to the faculty.'' The letter goes on to say, ``Lacking this
opportunity, there will not be many viable petroleum engineering
programs left in the U.S.'' Ironically, this statement is reflective of
goals that are outlined in the recently introduced Protecting America's
Competitive Edge Act (PACE), and the President's American
Competitiveness Initiative.
IPAA commends the President's laudable goal expressed in his recent
``State of the Union'' address, in which he laid out a ``game plan'' of
appreciably reducing our dependency on foreign sources of oil by 2025.
However, our Nation's economy is currently fossil fuel ``dependent''--
65 percent of domestic energy supply coming from oil and natural gas--
and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Therefore, the
Nation finds itself at a time when concern over increasing dependence
on foreign oil is at an all time high, escalating fuel prices are
running roughshod over the American consumer in the form of home
heating bills and gasoline prices, and businesses are relocating and
taking valuable jobs overseas with them in the pursuit of affordable
fuel costs. The administration's failure to recognize the importance of
investing in oil and natural gas R&D to develop critically-needed
recovery technologies is all the more perplexing. Domestic oil and
natural gas reserves should be front and center in any balanced
national energy policy, treated comparably with renewable energy
sources, coal and nuclear. Yet, the administration would essentially
eliminate oil and natural gas from DOE's energy portfolio.
IPAA urges the committee to support full funding for these vital
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Center for Advanced Separation Technologies,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Chairman Domenici and members of the subcommittee, I represent the
Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST), which is a
consortium of seven leading U.S. mining schools. I appreciate the
opportunity to submit this testimony requesting your committee to add
$3 million to the 2007 Fossil Energy Research and Development budget,
U.S. Department of Energy, to support CAST. Research in advanced
separations is an integral part of the President's Hydrogen from Coal
Research Fuels Initiative, and is critical for the continued supply of
energy for economic growth and strategic minerals for national
security.
I am joined in this statement by my colleagues from the consortium:
Ibrahim H. Gundiler, New Mexico Tech; Maurice C. Fuerstenau, University
of Nevada-Reno; Richard A. Bajura, West Virginia University; Peter H.
Knudsen, Montana Tech of the University of Montana; Richard J.
Sweigard, University of Kentucky; and, Jan D. Miller, University of
Utah.
FUNDING REQUEST FOR THE CENTER FOR ADVANCED SEPARATION TECHNOLOGIES
The Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST) is a
consortium of the seven universities listed above. It was formed in
2001 to develop advanced technologies that can be used to efficiently
produce cleaner fuels in an environmentally acceptable manner and to
study the basic sciences and engineering involved. The new technologies
developed as a result of CAST research and the highly skilled personnel
trained during the course of its activities will help the United States
meet the challenges of energy independence. These missions are
consistent with President Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative,
announced in his 2006 State of the Union Address. The President's new
program includes doubling R&D commitments to basic research, supporting
universities for world-class education and research opportunities, and
training a work force with skills that can be used to better compete in
the 21st century.
ORGANIZATION
The Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST) was formed
initially between Virginia Tech and West Virginia University with the
objective of developing advanced solid-solid and solid-liquid
separation technologies that can help the U.S. coal industry produce
cleaner solid fuels. In 2002, five other universities listed above
joined the consortium to develop crosscutting technologies that can
also be used in the U.S. minerals resources industry. As a result, the
scope of CAST research was expanded to studies of chemical/biological
separations and environmental control.
As a consortium, the Center can take advantage of the diverse
expertise available in the member universities and address the
interests of the different geographical regions of the country. Working
together as a consortium is consistent with the recommendations of a
recent National Research Council (NRC) report on the U.S. Department of
Energy's fossil energy research, which states that ``consortia are a
preferred way of leveraging expertise and technical inputs to the
mining sector,'' and recommends that DOE should support ``academia,
which helps to train technical people for the industry.''
PROGRESS AND NEXT STEP
At present, a total of 45 research projects are being carried out
at the seven CAST member universities. Of these, 12 projects are in
solid-solid separation, 5 in solid-liquid separation, 12 in chemical/
biological separation, 7 in modeling and control, and 6 in
environmental control. The project selection was made by an industry
panel according to the priorities set forth in the CAST Technology
Roadmap developed in 2002 by industry representatives. Research results
have been presented at two workshops, the first in Charleston, WV,
November 19-21, 2003, and the second in Blacksburg, VA, July 26-27,
2005. Both meetings enjoyed strong participation from industry. The
third workshop will be held in July 2007 in Blacksburg.
CAST research has been focused on removing impurities (e.g., ash,
sulfur, mercury and other toxic elements) from coal. Various solid-
solid and solid-liquid separation technologies are used to remove these
impurities. In general, the efficiency of separation diminishes sharply
with decreasing particle size. As a result, coal companies discard coal
fines to impoundments. In the United States, approximately 70 to 90
million tons of coal fines are being discarded annually according to a
National Research Council report. The report was issued as a result of
a congressional directive to investigate a major failure of a fine coal
impoundment in Kentucky in October, 2000, which caused 300 million
gallons of coal sludge to flood an active mine and neighboring creeks
and rivers. There are more than 713 active water and slurry
impoundments in the eastern United States, many of which are rated
``high risk.'' The report suggested a study to identify appropriate
technologies that can eliminate the need for slurry impoundments.
CAST has been developing advanced separation technologies that can
help U.S. coal companies recover fine coal rather than discard it to
impoundments. One company, Beard Technologies, Inc., is currently
building a plant designed to recover fine coal from a large impoundment
in Pineville, WV, using the technologies developed by CAST. The plant
will be the first to recover practically all of the coal from a waste
impoundment without the benefit of a tax credit. If the project is
successful, it is anticipated that many other companies will follow
suit. The enabling technology used in the Pineville recovery plant is
the use of chemical additives that can remove moisture from fine coal
during vacuum filtration. CAST is developing several other dewatering
technologies, which include hyperbaric centrifuge, hyperbaric
horizontal belt filter (HHBF), and a flocculant injection system. In a
recent pilot-scale test conducted with the hyperbaric centrifuge, it
was possible to reduce the moisture of a fine coal (smaller than 0.15
mm) to below 10 percent by weight without using chemical additives. The
technology has been licensed to Decanter Machine Company, Johnson City,
TN, which plans to construct a prototype unit for onsite testing.
Development of the HHBF technology is also making progress.
Construction of a pilot-scale test unit has been completed, and is
ready for a trial. This new dewatering technology is also designed to
reduce fine coal moisture to less than 10 percent. The flocculant
injection system is already in use by many coal companies to minimize
the loss of fine coal associated with the use of screen-bowl
centrifuges, which represent the most widely-used conventional
dewatering technology in the U.S. coal industry. In addition, Arch Coal
Company is seriously considering installation of a deep-cone thickener,
as a result of the work conducted at CAST, to obviate the need to build
a fine coal impoundment.
Despite the importance of fine coal cleaning, the bulk of the coal
being cleaned today is coarse coal, most of which is being cleaned of
impurities using density-based separation methods. Therefore, there is
an interest in determining separation efficiencies using density
tracers. Typically, plastic blocks of known densities are added to a
feed stream, collected manually from product streams, and counted to
determine the efficiency of separation--a process which is cumbersome
and entails inaccuracies. Therefore, a new method has been developed in
which each tracer is tagged with a transponder so that the destination
of each tracer can be monitored electronically. The new technique has
been tested successfully in several plants and is ready for commercial
deployment. Precision Testing Laboratory, Beckley, WV, plans to market
the new technology. Its use can help coal companies maximize the
efficiency of cleaning coarse coal.
Much of the basic scientific principles and technologies involved
in coal cleaning also apply to processing ores. Therefore, CAST has
been developing crosscutting technologies that can be used in both coal
and minerals industries. As an example, a joint Krebs Engineers-CAST
research resulted in the development of a novel hydrocyclone that can
efficiently remove clay (slimes) from coal. The same technology can
also be used in processing many industrial minerals. For instance,
removal of clay minerals is an a priori requirement in processing the
potash (KCl) ores in New Mexico. Laboratory experiments showed that
more efficient desliming can increase potash recovery by 4 to 6 percent
downstream. Implementation of these new technologies being developed at
CAST will help the industry remain competitive against foreign
producers and retain high-paying jobs in the country.
The United States is the second-largest copper producer in the
world. However, much of the ores being mined are low grade, which makes
it difficult for U.S. companies to compete internationally.
Traditionally, copper is extracted from an ore through a series of
processes, including grinding, flotation, smelting, and refining, which
are energy-intensive and hence costly. CAST is currently developing new
technologies to facilitate the application of alternative leaching/
impurity removal/electrowinning processes that can replace the costlier
steps of grinding, flotation, smelting, and refining. The alternative
processes should require substantially lower capital costs and reduce
energy consumption by 50 percent.
The mining industry has been extracting gold using cyanide, which
is toxic. Therefore, CAST has been developing an environmentally benign
extraction method using alkaline sulfide. Bench-scale continuous tests
conducted using this new lixiviant showed that the extraction
efficiency is as good as those obtained using cyanide.
In addition to the more practical projects described above, CAST
has also conducted fundamental research. As an example, a mathematical
model has been developed to describe the flotation process, which is
the most widely-used and versatile solid-solid separation process used
in both the coal and minerals industries. The model is based on first
principles so that it has predictive and diagnostic capabilities. In
another project, a computational fluid dynamic (CFD) simulation
technique has been used to design optimal flotation machines. This
project is co-funded by Dorr-Oliver EIMCO, Utah. In addition, the
surface forces acting between two microscopic surfaces immersed in
water have been measured using the atomic force microscope (AFM) and
the surface force apparatus (SFA). The results show that strong
attractive forces are present between hydrophobic surfaces, the origin
of which is not yet known. The newly-discovered surface forces, which
are referred to as ``hydrophobic force'' play an important role in the
separation of hydrophobic energy ``minerals'' such as coal, oil,
bitumen, and kerogen from hydrophilic waste minerals such as clay,
silica and others.
FUNDING REQUEST AND RATIONALE
The United States is by far the largest mining country in the
western world, followed by South Africa and Australia. In 2004, the
U.S. mining industry produced $63.9 billion of raw materials, including
$19.9 billion of coal and $44 billion of minerals. Australia is a
smaller mining country but has five centers of excellence in advanced
separations as applied to coal and minerals processing. Last year,
Australia established the Mineral Science Research Institute, a
consortium of four mining schools, with a funding of $22.6 million for
the initial 5-year period. In the United States, CAST is the only
federally-funded consortium serving the mining industry. According to a
congressional testimony by K. Mark Le Vier, President of the Mining and
Metallurgical Society of America, 50 percent or more of the faculty in
the U.S. mining schools will retire in the next 5 years. Continued
funding of the CAST program is critical for producing a trained
workforce for the industry.
CAST has been developing a broad range of advanced separation
technologies. Although it is a relatively new research center, some of
the projects have yielded technologies that are already in use in
industry. Many other promising research projects are on-going and
require continued support. Working as a consortium is an effective way
of exchanging ideas and utilizing diverse expertise required to solve
major problems. Continued funding will allow CAST to develop advanced
technologies that can be used to produce cleaner coal in an
environmentally acceptable manner. Furthermore, the advanced
technologies can be used not only to clean up the troublesome waste
impoundments that have been created in the past but also to eliminate
the need to create them in the first place.
For fiscal year 2007, CAST is requesting $3 million to (i) develop
crosscutting separation technologies, (ii) better understand the basic
sciences involved, and (iii) produce highly-skilled engineers and
scientists. Although the aim of the proposed research is to benefit the
U.S. mining industry, its results should also help the President's
initiatives to develop a hydrogen economy and to produce biofuels more
efficiently (e.g., separating ethanol from water without distillation).
Further, the results can be used to develop technologies for extracting
kerogen from oil shale, of which the United States has 72 percent (1.2
trillion barrel equivalent of oil) of the world's reserves. A steady
supply of fuels and strategic minerals is critical for the continued
growth of the economy and for national security.
______
Prepared Statement of Fusion Power Associates
In marking up the fiscal year 2007 budget for the Dept. of Energy,
NNSA, Inertial Confinement Fusion Program, I strongly urge you to
provide funds, unrequested by the DOE, for Z-pinch repetitively pulsed
power program (approximately $15 million) at Sandia National
Laboratories and for High Average Power Laser efforts (approximately
$25 million). The Congress has supported the High Average Power Laser
program for several years. The Z-pinch repetitively pulsed power
program was funded by Congress in fiscal year 2005 but was not
specifically funded in fiscal year 2006 and hence was drastically
reduced this year.
These programs are needed to capitalize on the successes of the
NNSA single pulse inertial confinement fusion efforts for weapons
research so that the technology will be available in a timely manner
for energy applications.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Great Basin Center for Geothermal Energy,
University of Nevada, Reno
Senate Energy and Water Subcommittee, our need for energy
independence and indigenous energy sources has never been greater, yet
the U.S. DOE funding for geothermal energy research appears to be in
jeopardy in fiscal year 2007. As part of a comprehensive energy plan,
geothermal energy, among other renewable energy resources, must be
utilized to help offset fossil fuel uses, diversify the Nation's power
supply, and provide base load power. Geothermal energy should be one
component of a well-balanced implementation of the National Energy
Policy. As the National Research Council concluded (Renewable Power
Pathways, 2002), given the enormous potential of the geothermal
resource base, research by the U.S. DOE should be increased,
particularly into technologies that can reduce risk, reduce costs, or
expand the accessible geothermal resource base.
As a personal supporter of geothermal and renewable energy sources,
and as a long-time researcher in geothermal energy, I urge your support
of renewable energy sources in the coming budget cycles. We need to
increase, not decrease, geothermal energy support in the Department of
Energy. I express my support here for funding DOE's geothermal research
efforts in fiscal year 2007 and beyond at no less than $30 million. The
currently funded research at the Great Basin Center for Geothermal
Energy has found, and continues to find, new geothermal resources in
the Great Basin and we have developed new technologies to locate,
characterize and assess these resources with a relatively small
investment from the DOE geothermal technologies program. These programs
should be continued, and development of geothermal resources
accelerated. We should also continue evaluating geothermal energy for
the production of hydrogen, for which there is currently an actively-
funded research program here at UNR. Continued geothermal research will
benefit the industry, and a robust geothermal industry will greatly
contribute to alleviating national security energy concerns.
Thank you for consideration of this matter.
______
Prepared Statement of David J. Bardin
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, as a private citizen
who served at DOE during its formation, I urge you to:
--(A) Restore Office of Fossil Energy funding, that the
administration proposed to zero out, for petroleum research and
development (including CO<INF>2</INF>-EOR) and petroleum
technology transfer to independent oil producers and others,
and
--(B) add $4 million, half to OFE and half to the Energy Information
Administration:
--(1) to enhance OFE and EIA capabilities to assess domestic oil
resources and recovery potentials--especially for
production of liquid fuels from ``continuous-type''
formations that are scarcely touched today--and,
--(2) to stand up a ``Red Team'' (a) to challenge conventional-
wisdom ``Blue Team'' projections that lower-48 States
onshore production will inevitably decline from year to
year and (b) to identify in timely fashion critical
infrastructure issues that significant growth potentials
will likely raise.
A new crude oil production ``play'' in Montana and North Dakota
(depicted this month by the Wall Street Journal[1]) illustrates
compelling reasons for these recommendations.
BAKKEN FORMATION OF THE WILLISTON BASIN
Montana's production from the Bakken formation has more than
doubled each year since discovery of the Elm Coulee Field in 2000,
averaging 43,000 bbl per day during 2005, and exceeding 50,000 bbl per
day by year end.[2] This is already the largest onshore discovery in
the lower-48 States in half a century; it is still growing. ND Bakken
production is also up. OFE recently released a report[3] noting that
studies have suggested as much as 150 billion barrels (perhaps more) of
total resources in place in just the North Dakota portion of the
Williston Basin's Bakken. The Wall Street Journal reported an
unpublished estimate of more than 200 billion barrels of recoverable
oil in place.[4]
The 13 operators involved in MT's Elm Coulee field are
independents.[5] None of the oil industry giants is involved in the
Bakken play; those giant companies concentrate their efforts on multi-
billion-dollar projects overseas, in Canada, or in the deep waters of
the Gulf of Mexico. Today's MT and ND play, where a well may cost a few
million dollars, can produce enough to affect an independent's ``bottom
line''--but not a giant's.
RESTORE OFE BUDGET
Dry holes are virtually unknown in the continuous-type Bakken
Source System, but profitable production depends on applying
technologies that will work for this resource. Some of the technologies
are ready today--if brought to the attention of the operators.
The Petroleum Technology Transfer Council engages in just that
valuable work, for the Bakken resources (and others), yet the
administration unwisely proposes to zero out Federal support for the
PTTC (which is primarily funded through OFE's budget).[6]
Moreover, more R&D is still needed to adapt technologies to the
circumstances of the Bakken--with plenty of trial and error in all
likelihood. Otherwise 80-98 percent of the oil may remain stranded in
the rocks.[7] Yet the administration would zero out R&D.
Congress should make funds available to OFE, at least at last
year's level, to sustain technology transfer and help solve R&D
challenges, on a matching basis. Federal funding to support onshore
innovations is justified, particularly where independents are leading
the way.
Ideally, Congress should assure dedicated funding for onshore oil
and associated gas R&D (as well as non-associated gas funding, such as
the Gas Research Institute used to provide). Past industry and DOE
efforts succeeded in showing how to produce more domestic non-
associated gas resources--notably including such continuous-type
resources as coal bed methane and the Antrim Shale of the Michigan
Basin; and most recently the Barnett and Bossier Shales.[8] The MT and
ND Bakken resources invite similar breakthroughs for continuous-type
crude oil resources.
ENHANCE EIA AND OFE BUDGETS
Congress should also make new funds available to EIA and OFE in
order to enable DOE to provide critically important information--to the
investment community as well as independent producers. Restoration of
EIA capabilities might produce dividends of strategic importance to our
country over the next half century. A ``Red Team'' of OFE and EIA (and
possibly others) might help avoid painful surprises--e.g., by exposing
risks that transportation infrastructures may be inadequate to serve
increases in production.
Frankly, EIA projections (in all cases examined) now discourage
investments--both in production and in transportation facilities--by
seeming to show that domestic, on-shore, lower-48 production must
decline steadily over 25 years from close to 3 million barrels a day to
barely 2 million. Is that necessarily so?[9]
EIA models for crude oil production rely on extremely cautious
assessments of technically-recoverable resources by the USGS. In
contrast, EIA independently (and less cautiously) models non-associated
natural gas resources and recoverability. Some OFE assessments
(integral to research program efforts) may also have been modestly more
progressive than USGS's.
The estimate of total U.S. technically recoverable crude oil
resources on which EIA relies (175 billion barrels) includes barely 2
billion barrels in continuous-type deposits such as the Bakken.[10]
Contrast Leigh Price's estimate (held back by USGS) of over 200 billion
barrels of technically recoverable resource in the Bakken continuous-
type deposit alone. The discrepancy begs for frank acknowledgement and
rigorous investigation.
It is too many years since DOE prepared its own crude oil resource
assessment. The Bakken Source System offers a fine opportunity to try
out a DOE alternative to USGS. The current MT and ND Bakken play has
already increased domestic oil production at an important time for our
country and demonstrated that the 1995 USGS estimate (still used by
DOE) is far too low.[11]
Congress should direct OFE, working with EIA, to perform a resource
appraisal of the Bakken Source System of the MT and ND portions of the
Williston Basin as an example of continuous crude oil resources in a
self-sourced reservoir. Such reservoirs:
--represent a large portion of what is left to be found on-shore in
the lower-48 States generally and in the Rocky Mountain region
particularly;
--are under-studied; and
--have a significant potential that may not have been adequately
characterized in the past.
OFE has performed similar appraisals as part of its research
program. EIA used to perform such appraisals for foreign resources in
Russia, the Middle East, and other areas.
A new appraisal of these ND and MT resources here at home could be
important in and of itself as well as an exciting experiment that may
be applicable elsewhere in the lower-48 States, especially the Rocky
Mountain region. I envisage a series of reports:
--Step one, the easiest, would simply rerun EIA long-term projections
substituting an assumed increment of Rocky Mountain technically
recoverable Bakken oil resource over and above the USGS
assessment.
--Step two would arrive at an EIA/DOE estimate (or range) weighing
various studies suggesting over 150 billion barrels of Bakken
oil in place, including Price's 5-year-old estimate of 413
billion barrels in place of which half is technically
recoverable. This step will want a ``Red Team'' assigned to
challenge and debate conventional ``Blue Team'' views within
DOE.
--Step three would consider how EIA's existing models would handle a
huge increase in assessed lower-48 resources.
--Step four would ask whether EIA's existing models deal adequately
with issues such as expansion of crude oil pipeline capacity
and competition between USA oil production and syn-crude and
other crude oils exported by Canada. EIA would do well to
enlist expertise of USGS and others on such issues.
--Step five might lead to modifications of EIA models.
--Step six could entail OFE assessments of technically recoverable
resources using ``next generation'' CO<INF>2</INF> and other
enhanced oil recovery technologies to more fully recover vast
Bakken oil resources.
--Seventh, and most important, would be DOE leadership to identify,
in cooperation with the States of Montana and North Dakota and
industry (and our Canadian friends), potential prerequisites
for bringing barely tapped resources to market (e.g.,
increasing availability of geologic and other data, learning
lessons from Bakken well histories, deploying advanced
production technologies, planning for expanded infrastructure
on a timely basis) and to foster effective basin-specific moves
to get on with the job.
Congress should fund restoration of EIA's capacity to monitor and
inform about technology innovations in the oil and gas production
industry. Such information could improve EIA's take on recoverability
of resources for its long-term projections.
Technology goes to the heart of energy performance. Yet no one can
really evaluate USGS technology assumptions because USGS won't disclose
estimates of resources in place. An alternative DOE assessment of the
Bakken should certainly be transparent as to resources in place,
thereby challenging people inside and outside the industry to invent
ways to enhance recovery factors.
The bottom line goes far beyond assembling information. We want (a)
to understand more fully the value of our Nation's untapped oil
resources in the overall public interest in the broadest sense--
including oil resource in the Bakken (very little of which involves
federally-owned land)--and (b) to anticipate downstream issues, such as
today's impact of Canadian upgraded syn-crude, diluted bitumens, and
heavy oils.
CONCLUSION
In the face of energy uncertainty and insecurity, Congress should
fund and demand more R&D, technology transfer, and information about
domestic crude oil potentials and challenges because:
--so much domestic oil remains stranded;
--supporting R&D and technology transfer can help mobilize those
resources;
--giant oil companies, on whom the administration would rely, don't
do enough;
--too much of our domestic resources are unknown to Congress and the
public;
--we now project undue helplessness to ourselves, our friends, and
our enemies.
Thank you.[12]
END NOTES
[1] ``Second Look: WILDCAT PRODUCER SPARKS OIL BOOM ON MONTANA
PLAINS: After Majors Pulled Out, Mr. Findley Drilled Anew; Size of Find
Still Unclear'', WSJ Apr. 5, 2006, p. A1.
[2] On April 9 the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
conferred its Outstanding Explorer Award on Richard L. ``Dick'' Findley
of Billings, MT, in recognition of outstanding achievement in
exploration for petroleum--citing him as ``an intrepid oil finder,
accomplished stratigrapher, and entrepreneur for his efforts and
imagination in discovering the `sleeping' giant Elm Coulee oil field in
the Bakken Formation, Williston Basin, Richland County, Montana.''
[3] Advanced Resources International, February 2006, Basin Oriented
Strategies for CO<INF>2</INF> Enhanced Oil Recovery: Williston Basin,
prepared for the Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy, part of
a series on increasing domestic oil production.
[4] A comprehensive geological report by Leigh C. Price (a USGS
scientist for 27 years), documented his estimate of 413 billion barrels
in place and suggested why over half could be recovered. After Price's
untimely death in August 2000, USGS ``misplaced'' that document, but
the Energy and Environmental Research Center of the University of North
Dakota has posted it as a free download at www.undeerc.org, and the
Petroleum Technology Transfer Council has posted a link among its rich
collection of Bakken case studies. See www.mines.edu/research/PTTC/
(``Seminal Bakken Paper''). Price, L.C. ``Origins and Characteristics
of the Basin-Centered Continuous Reservoir Unconventional Oil-Resource
Base of the Bakken Source System, Williston Basin''.
[5] Source.--Jim Halvorson, MT Oil & Gas Conservation Board.
BAKKEN CRUDE OIL--ANNUAL PRODUCTION--ELM COULEE FIELD [BBL/YR]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company Name 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong Operating, Inc.... .......... 11,281 21,774 22,562 29,748 35,018
Burlington Resources Oil & .......... .......... .......... .............. 218,066 1,323,852
Gas Company LP.............
Chaparral Energy, LLC....... .......... .......... .......... .............. .............. 96,654
Continental Resources Inc... .......... .......... .......... 90,101 853,228 2,810,965
EOG Resources, Inc.......... .......... .......... .......... 73,824 660,040 1,018,896
Headington Oil LP........... .......... 20,788 145,610 1,293,039 2,554,072 3,675,139
Lyco Energy Corporation..... 21,164 245,715 630,691 1,147,021 2,406,618 4,035,471
Nance Petroleum Corpor- .......... .......... .......... 34,665 241,559 807,487
ation......................
Petro-Hunt, LLC............. .......... .......... .......... 48,883 308,299 376,506
Slawson Exploration Company .......... .......... .......... .............. 99,900 815,272
Inc........................
Staghorn Energy, LLC........ .......... .......... .......... .............. 53,342 20,942
Stone Energy Corporation.... .......... .......... .......... .............. .............. 214,252
Westport Oil And Gas Co., .......... .......... .......... .............. 140,254 483,059
L.P........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[6] See www.pttc.org and PTTC's Rocky Mountain regional page, cited
in note 4, for examples of presentations on Bakken oil geology and
technology at Rocky Mountain forums. See ``World Oil'' 's March 2006
issue for important hands-on technology information that the PTTC helps
to publish and spread. T. Lantz and C.B. Wiley, ``Learning process
optimizes horizontal drilling and completion techniques'' also posted
at http://www.pttc.org/case_studies/PTdigest03-06.htm.
[7] The current play started with one horizontal well (10,000 feet
deep vertically extending 4,000 feet laterally) completed in Richland
County, MT, in the year 2000. That well aimed at brittle, dolomite
rocks adjacent to the more plastic Bakken shale and used a brand-new
technology to fracture the lateral part of the well (a method of
stimulation that the operator recently repeated). These 13 operators
invested successfully, seeking oil in the most prolific part of the
Bakken Source System (the adjacent brittle rocks) while avoiding the
shale itself (at which a previous, disappointing horizontal play had
aimed). With the help of service companies, they apply new technologies
that are readily transplanted to their wells (notably fracturing a
lateral well bore). But the next step demands costly trial and error
experiments to figure out how best to enhance production of different
parts of the over-pressured Bakken Resource System oil. For example,
maximum crude oil recovery calls for injecting a fluid, such as carbon
dioxide, into rocks in order to maintain reservoir pressures and flow
of the oil. During trial and error, some operators have to give up a
part of their land holdings, some of their wells, surrendering their
production today to experiment for the future of everyone in the
industry--with no certainty of success.
[8] National Research Council, 2001, Energy Research at DOE: Was It
Worth It?--Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy Research 1978 to 2000.
[9] Cf. McCabe, P.J., 1998, Energy Resources--Cornucopia or Empty
Barrel? AAPG Bulletin, v. 82, p. 2110-2134, and Caruso, G., 2005, When
Will World Oil Peak? 10th Annual Asia Oil & Gas Conference, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia.
[10] U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Natural Gas Liquids Reserves
2004 Annual Report, App. G, p. G-3. This nationwide 2 billion barrels
of continuous-type resources includes USGS estimate of 150 million
barrels of undiscovered, technically-recoverable Bakken oil.
[11] The USGS baseline, released in 1995 for the entire Bakken
system in MT and ND combined, totaled 150 million barrels of
undiscovered, technically-recoverable oil for three sub-areas, with 70
million of those barrels in an ``intermediate'' area that includes the
current MT Bakken play--which has already produced 30 million of those
70 million barrels since 2000. Bakken wells are expected to produce for
25 years or more. Tens or hundreds of billions of barrels of Bakken oil
may reside in place--making recovery factors (and technology to enhance
recovery) strategically critical.
[12] Mr. Bardin is Of Counsel to Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn,
PLLC (as a retired member) where he specialized in public utilities,
energy and environmental law. Before joining Arent Fox in 1980, he
served as Deputy Administrator of the Federal Energy Administration
(1977) and Administrator of the Economic Regulatory Administration in
the Department of Energy (1977-79).
______
Prepared Statement of the Detroit Diesel Corporation
Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC), a DaimlerChrysler Company,
provides this statement for the record addressing the administration's
fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Department of Energy's Office
of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies (OFCVT). Specifically, the
following line items and recommendations are addressed in this
statement:
--Heavy Truck Engine.--$20.0 million funding recommended;
--Waste Heat Recovery (21CT).--$4.806 million funding recommended;
--Combustion and Emission Control (21CT).--$7.680 million funding
recommended;
--Advanced Petroleum Based Fuels (21CT).--$4.511 million funding
recommended.
We generally support the administration's budget request for OFCVT,
but we respectfully urge the committee to consider further enhancements
to critical key line items that require prompt and immediate attention
to reduce the U.S. demand for petroleum. These key line items will have
immediate near-term impact on energy security, will decrease emissions
of criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gases, and will enable the
U.S. transportation industry to sustain a strong and competitive
position in the domestic and world markets. Specific relevant OFCVT R&D
programs enjoy substantial industry cost share demonstrating a matched
commitment by the U.S. industry. In order to bring to fruition the
intended results, these programs require sustained or increased levels
of funding.
DDC's world headquarters and its main manufacturing plant are
located in Detroit, Michigan. DDC employs over 4,000 persons who
design, manufacture, sell and service engines for the transportation
and power markets. Our products cater to heavy-duty trucks, coach and
bus, automobiles, construction, mining, marine, industrial, power
generation and the military. DDC has operations and manufacturing
centers in various regions of the United States, along with a network
of over 100 distributors and 2,700 dealers throughout the United States
and worldwide. The DDC Series 60 engine has revolutionized the truck
engine technology, consistently setting new global performance, fuel
economy and life cycle cost standards. It has been the most popular
heavy-duty truck engine in the United States for the past 14 years.
As a founding member of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, DDC
supports Department of Energy efforts described in Energy Secretary
Bodman's comments to the SAE Government Industry meeting on May 10,
2005 that ``through the 21st Century Truck Partnership, and similar
initiatives, our Department is expanding the use of clean diesel, and
helping to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, improve energy
efficiency, and develop new, environmentally friendly fuels to power
our economy in the 21st century.'' In this regard, our comments will
focus on the program line items that provide substantial potential
payback for this important area of national interest.
We generally support the administration's budget request, while
respectfully urge the committee to consider further enhancements to the
following three line items under the proposed fiscal year 2007 Advanced
Combustion Engine R&D program element: Heavy Truck Engine, Waste Heat
Recovery, and Combustion and Emission Control, as well as the Advanced
Petroleum Based Fuels line item under the Fuels Technology program
element.
The Heavy Truck Engine has a fiscal year 2007 request of $14.490
million. The 2010 Federal emissions mandates require an extremely
aggressive R&D development plan to identify and implement new
technologies. Recent specific findings suggest that EPA's initial
estimates have underestimated the negative economic impact of the U.S.
2004 regulations by an order of magnitude. The 2007/2010 mandates will
further reduce both NO<INF>X</INF> and particulate emissions by an
additional 90 percent from the 2004 levels. The technological
complexities of meeting highly stringent emissions reduction while
maintaining and ultimately improving the fuel economy within an
extremely short time frame is the toughest challenge ever faced by the
U.S. heavy-duty transportation industry. We believe this provides the
strongest rationale for significant increases in government support to
these competitively bid, collaborative, 50/50 cost-shared R&D programs.
DDC is investigating advanced combustion systems, alternative emissions
reduction technologies including engine and exhaust aftertreatment
systems, and smart control strategies within an integrated powertrain.
We urge the committee to consider increasing the Heavy Truck Engine
line item by an additional $5.51 million above the fiscal year 2007
budget request (Total = $20 million) to assert and support the urgency
of accelerated development of these related high-risk emerging
technologies.
The 21CT portion of the Waste Heat Recovery has a fiscal year 2007
request of $3.806 million. This line item has a potential of making a
significant contribution to the overall efficiency of the heavy-duty
diesel engine by utilizing the thermal energy of the exhaust gases
which is currently lost. DOE's attention to this subject is supported
by a number of new collaborative R&D contracts in this area. We believe
that the budget should be reflective of the fuel-saving potential of
this research, and recommend increasing this line item by $1 million to
$4.806 million in fiscal year 2007.
The Combustion and Emission Control activity focuses on the
development of advanced emission control technologies for clean diesel
engines for U.S. personal transportation vehicle applications as well
as a heavy truck component supporting the goals of the 21st Century
Truck Partnership. For decades to come, clean diesel engines are the
most relevant solution simultaneously offering significant fuel economy
savings, reduced exposure to climate change issues and a cleaner
environment. Initial developments show potential for lower emissions
meeting the mandated 2007/2010 levels while maintaining the diesel
engine's inherently superior fuel efficiency. The initial performance
results are compelling, but many questions remain unanswered regarding
emerging technologies for aftertreatment and integration of a total
technically viable system. The administration's $3.680 million request
for the 21CT portion of this budget line item is significantly lower
than the historical level of the last few years. We suggest enhancing
this by an additional $4 million (Total = $7.680 million) to handle the
urgent technical issues of the relevant emerging technologies.
The Fuels Technologies is a separate OFCVT program element that
includes Advanced Petroleum Based Fuels line item request of $3.511
million for the 21CT portion. It has been demonstrated by the National
Labs that combustion efficiency of heavy-duty diesel engines can be
improved via tailoring certain properties of fuels. In fiscal year
2007, new programs with industry-led teams will attempt to advance this
research into the next stage of applied R&D. Therefore, we recommend
enhancing the 21CT portion of this line item by an additional $1
million (Total = $4.511 million) to enable the investigation of this
additional path for improved fuel efficiency.
We take this opportunity to affirm our strong endorsement to the
proposed Department of Energy's fiscal year 2007 referenced budget
requests with the stated specific enhancements. The trend-setting
partnership between the U.S. Government and a key industrial base
addresses this country's and world's needs in critical areas of
transportation, energy security, economy and environment. The exemplary
track record through competitive leveraging of government funding by
substantial industry cost share and the emerging high potential results
of these partnerships warrant strong congressional endorsement. This
affords a unique opportunity for a justifiable and a highly effective
return on investment of the U.S. taxpayers' money.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southern Company
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Southern Company
operates the Power Systems Development Facility (PSDF) (http://
psdf.southernco.com) in Wilsonville, AL for the U.S. Department of
Energy's (DOE's) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and
several industrial participants.\1\ The PSDF was conceived as the
premier advanced coal power generation research and development (R&D)
facility in the world. It has fulfilled this expectation. I would like
to thank the Senate for its past support of the PSDF and request the
committee's continued support. This statement supports the
administration's budget request for DOE coal R&D which includes $25
million for work at the PSDF. These funds are necessary to conduct the
future test program agreed to with DOE (see details below) and to
support FutureGen--the integrated hydrogen and electric power
production and carbon sequestration research initiative proposed by
President Bush. DOE has identified the PSDF as one of the primary test
centers to support FutureGen through sub-scale component testing. DOE's
FutureGen Program Plan submitted to Congress on March 4, 2004 described
the transport gasifier (one of the technologies under development at
the PSDF) as a promising candidate for inclusion in FutureGen because:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Current PSDF participants include Southern Company, the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), KBR, Siemens Power
Generation, Inc. (Siemens), Peabody Energy, the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe Railway Company, and the Lignite Energy Council. The Lignite
Energy Council includes major producers of lignite (who together
produce approximately 30 million tons of lignite annually); the
Nation's largest commercial coal gasification project; and investor-
owned utilities and rural electric cooperatives from a multi-State area
that generate electricity from lignite, serving 2 million people in the
Upper Midwest region. The Council also has over 250 contractor/supplier
members who provide products and services to the plants and mines. In
addition to the Wilsonville plant site major work is planned for the
PSDF, or components are being developed at the following locations:
Grand Forks, ND (sub-scale gasifier testing), Houston, TX (gasifier
development); Orlando, FL (gas turbine low-NO<INF>X</INF> burner),
Pittsburgh, PA (filter fabrication), Deland, FL (filter fabrication),
and Holly Springs, MS (gasifier fabrication).
``. . . its high throughput relative to size, simplicity, and
reduced temperature of operation compared with current gasifiers, will
yield benefits throughout the FutureGen plant . . . Planned
improvements in the coal feed system, particulate control device, and
the char cooling and removal system will significantly increase overall
reliability of the transport gasifier, which would further reduce
costs. The target is to achieve 95 percent availability rather than the
75 percent-80 percent availability typical of today's gasifiers.
``Because of its simplicity in design and lower temperature of
operation, the transport gasifier can potentially reduce the capital
cost of an IGCC plant by up to 20 percent (or from $1,400 to $1,120/kW)
over those employing today's technologies. In addition, the operations
and maintenance costs are expected to be lower and availability higher
because of the lower temperature of operation.''
A key feature of the PSDF is its ability to test new systems at an
integrated, semi-commercial scale. Integrated operation allows the
effects of system interactions, typically missed in un-integrated
pilot-scale testing, to be understood. The semi-commercial scale allows
the maintenance, safety, and reliability issues of a technology to be
investigated at a cost that is far lower than the cost of commercial-
scale testing. Capable of operating at pilot to near-demonstration
scales, the PSDF is large enough to produce industrial scale data, yet
small enough to be cost-effective and adaptable to a variety of
technology research needs.
As a follow-on to the ongoing development of the transport gasifier
at the PSDF, Southern Company and the Orlando Utilities Commission
(OUC) were recently selected by DOE as part of a competitive
solicitation under the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) to build an
advanced 285-megawatt transport gasifer-based coal gasification
facility at OUC's Stanton Energy Center in central Florida. The
facility will use state-of-the-art emission controls and will showcase
the cleanest, most efficient coal-fired power plant technology in the
world. The transport gasifier offers a simpler, more robust method for
generating power from coal than other available alternatives. It is
unique among coal gasification technologies in that it is cost-
effective when handling low rank coals (sub-bituminous and lignite) and
when using coals with high moisture or high ash content. These coals
make up half the proven U.S. and worldwide coal reserves.
Southern Company also supports the goals of the Clean Coal
Technology Roadmaps developed by DOE, EPRI, and the Coal Utilization
Research Council (CURC). These Roadmaps identify the technical,
economic, and environmental performance that advanced clean coal
technologies can achieve over the next 20 years. Over this time period
coal-fired power generation efficiency can be increased to over 50
percent (compared to the current fleet average of 32 percent) while
producing de minimis emissions and developing cost-effective
technologies for carbon dioxide (CO<INF>2</INF>) management. EPRI
recently used the modern financial technique called ``Real Options'' to
estimate the value of advanced coal R&D.\2\ The major conclusion of
this study is that the value to U.S. consumers of further coal R&D for
the period 2007-2050 is at least $360 billion and could reach $1.38
trillion. But, for these benefits to be realized the critically
important R&D program outlined in the Clean Coal Technology Roadmap
must be conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 2 EPRI Report No. 1006954, ``Market-Based Valuation of Coal
Generation and Coal R&D in the U.S. Electric Sector'', May 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY
The United States has always been a leader in energy research.
Adequate funding for fossil energy research and development programs
will provide this country with secure and reliable energy while
reducing our dependence on foreign energy supplies. Current DOE fossil
energy research and development programs for coal, if adequately
funded, will assure that a wide range of electric generation and
hydrogen production options are available for future needs. Congress
faces difficult choices when examining near-term effects on the Federal
budget of funding energy research. However, continued support for
advanced coal-based energy research is essential to the long-term
environmental and economic well-being of the United States. Prior DOE
clean coal technology research has already provided the basis for $100
billion in consumer benefits at a cost of less than $4 billion. Funding
the administration's budget request for DOE coal R&D and long-term
support of the Clean Coal Technology Roadmap can lead to additional
consumer benefits of between $360 billion and $1.38 trillion.
One of the key national assets for achieving these benefits is the
PSDF. The fiscal year 2006 funding for the PSDF needs to be $25 million
to support construction of new technologies that are critical to the
goals of the Clean Coal Technology Roadmap and to the success of
FutureGen. The major accomplishments at the PSDF to date and the future
test program planned by DOE and the PSDF's industrial participants are
summarized below.
PSDF ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The PSDF has developed testing and technology transfer
relationships with over 50 vendors to ensure that test results and
improvements developed at the PSDF are incorporated into future plants.
Major subsystems tested and some highlights of the test program at the
PSDF include:
Transport Reactor.--The transport reactor has been operated
successfully on sub-bituminous, bituminous, and lignite coals as a
pressurized combustor and as a gasifier in both oxygen- and air-blown
modes and has exceeded its primary purpose of generating gases for
downstream testing. It is projected to be the lowest capital cost coal-
based power generation option, while providing the lowest cost of
electricity and excellent environmental performance.
Advanced Particulate Control.--Two advanced particulate removal
devices and 28 different filter elements types have been tested to
clean the product gases, and material property testing is routinely
conducted to assess their suitability under long-term operation. The
material requirements have been shared with vendors to aid their filter
development programs.
Filter Safe-Guard Device.--To enhance reliability and protect
downstream components, ``safe-guard'' devices that reliably seal off
failed filter elements have been successfully developed.
Coal Feed and Fine Ash Removal Subsystems.--The key to successful
pressurized gasifier operation is reliable operation of the coal feed
system and the filter vessel's fine ash removal system. Modifications
developed at the PSDF and shared with the equipment supplier allow
current coal feed equipment to perform in a commercially acceptable
manner. An innovative, continuous process has also been designed and
successfully tested that reduces capital and maintenance costs and
improves the reliability of fine ash removal.
Syngas Cooler.--Syngas cooling is of considerable importance to the
gasification industry. Devices to inhibit erosion, made from several
different materials, were tested at the inlet of the gas cooler and one
ceramic material has been shown to perform well in this application.
Syngas Cleanup.--A syngas cleanup train was constructed and has
proven capable of meeting stringent syngas decontamination
requirements. This module that provides an ultra clean slip stream is
now available for testing a wide variety of technologies.
Sensors and Automation.--Several instrumentation vendors have
worked with the PSDF to develop and test their instruments under
realistic conditions. Automatic temperature control of the Transport
Reactor has been successfully implemented.
Fuel Cell.--Two test campaigns were successfully completed on 0.5
kW solid oxide fuel cells manufactured by Delphi on syngas from the
transport gasifier marking the first time that a solid oxide fuel cell
has been operated on coal-derived syngas.
Combustion Turbine Burner.--Integrating the existing 3.8 MW
combustion turbine with a new syngas burner developed by Siemens has
allowed system automation and controls development.
Syngas Recycle.--Added a syngas compressor in order to use syngas
instead of air or N<INF>2</INF> for aeration to promote recycle solids
flow in the Transport Gasifier and produced a higher heating value
syngas that more closely matched commercial operating conditions.
PSDF FUTURE TEST PROGRAM
Future testing at the PSDF is focused on supporting FutureGen and
the Technology Roadmaps. These programs aim to eliminate environmental
issues that present barriers to the continued use of coal including
major reductions in emissions of SO<INF>2</INF>, CO<INF>2</INF>,
NO<INF>X</INF>, particulates, and trace elements (including mercury),
as well as reductions in solid waste and water consumption. The focus
at the PSDF will remain on supporting commercialization of new coal-
based advanced energy technologies including those initially developed
elsewhere.
Plans for FutureGen recognize that some promising technologies will
not be ready initially for installation in the back-bone plant.
Therefore, a series of slip-stream installations to test new
technologies is also visualized. DOE has identified the PSDF as a key
location for support testing of the new technologies prior to inclusion
in FutureGen. With adequate funding, work at the PSDF will include:
Transport Gasifier.--Continue transport gasifier development to
further optimize performance, explore feedstock flexibility, and
provide syngas for testing of downstream systems.
Coarse Ash Handling.--Continue testing of a coarse ash
depressurization system, with no moving parts, which has been developed
at the PSDF. Like the fine ash removal system successfully developed
earlier, this system reduces capital and maintenance cost and improves
reliability.
Advanced Syngas Cleanup.--Test new advanced syngas cleanup systems
for reducing hydrogen sulfide, hydrochloric acid, ammonia, and mercury
to near-zero levels.
H<INF>2</INF>/CO<INF>2</INF> Separation Technologies.--Integrate
and test advanced H<INF>2</INF>/CO<INF>2</INF> separation technologies
to assess their performance on coal-derived syngas.
Syngas Cooler.--Test alternative designs that are less complex,
have lower capital cost, and offer better control of the syngas exit
temperature.
New Particulate Control Device Internals.--Evaluate alternative
filter system internal designs from several vendors.
Improved Fuel Feed Systems.--Evaluate alternatives to conventional
lock hopper feed systems that have been identified.
High-Temperature Heat Exchangers.--Test high-temperature heat
exchangers as they become available for use in both advanced combustion
and gasification technologies.
Fuel Cell.--Install and test a 5 to 10 MW hybrid fuel cell/gas
turbine module.
Sensors and Automation.--Evaluate automation enhancements that
simulate commercial control strategies. Further development at
gasification operating conditions is planned for measuring coal feed
rate, temperature, gas analysis, dust at low levels, and hazardous air
pollutants.
Water Gas Shift Enhancements.--A variety of water gas shift reactor
configurations and sizes can be tested at the PSDF. Optimizing the
operation of shift catalysts when exposed to syngas at the PSDF and
evaluating their economics will provide valuable input for the
FutureGen project.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Iron & Steel Institute
The basis for this testimony is to urge Congress to restore funding
of the Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) line item for Steel within
the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy section at the Department of
Energy [DOE] to the original level of $10 million dollars.
The stated goal of the ITP is to reduce the energy intensity of the
U.S. industrial sector through coordinated research and development,
validation, and dissemination of energy-efficiency technologies and
operating practices. The Department of Energy and domestic steelmakers
co-fund cutting-edge research that addresses the needs of the Nation
and our industry. The goal of these projects is to reduce energy
consumption [thereby diminishing the Nation's dependence on foreign
sources of oil], lessen environmental impact and increase the
competitiveness of domestic manufacturers. Furthermore, what makes the
ITP program so unique and appropriate is that only those projects with
``dual benefits'' [i.e., a public benefit such as reduced emissions or
petroleum use, which justifies the DOE investment; and an industry
benefit such as a more efficient steelmaking process, which justifies
the industry investment] are initiated. It is important to note that
Federal funding does not go to steel companies, it is pooled with steel
industry funds and awarded to qualified universities, national labs,
and private research organizations through a competitive process.
Government involvement and increased funding is crucial to the
continuation of this beneficial research. While it is plausible that
U.S. steelmakers could conduct similar collaborative research among
themselves without DOE funding, the ITP program accelerates technology
development by allowing the industry to make great strides in these
areas, rather than just steps. Greater energy reduction developments
are produced sooner, more environmentally-friendly methods realized
today, and domestic steel companies remain at the cutting edge of the
global technology race [which assures competitiveness]. Likewise, the
steel industry co-funding accelerates achievement of the DOE goals.
In 2003, Congress appropriated $10 million to fund the Steel
component of ITP. Unfortunately, in recent years the program [and the
projects it supported] suffered deep budget cuts. This is the case once
again, as for fiscal year 2007, the administration requested
approximately $3.5 million.
The decision to under-fund this program is peculiar, considering
President Bush--in his State of the Union address--declared that,
``Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. America is
addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the
world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology.''
The President went on to say that, ``By applying the talent and
technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our
environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our
dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.'' ITP, with its
federally-mandated objectives of reducing dependence on foreign oil,
lessening environmental impact, and increasing job growth and
retention, seems to be the type of program that the President and his
administration is seeking. Therefore, as the ITP produces such an
outstanding return on the government's and industry's investment, it
seems appropriate to restore the program to optimal funding.
An example of one of the major breakthroughs developed through ITP-
Steel [which demonstrates the program's ability to satisfy both its
public and private objectives] is the advancement of advanced high
strength steels or AHSS. Ten ITP projects investing $6.3 million of
Federal and steel industry funding have been focused on AHSS, which
permit the design of automobiles that are lightweight [thus greatly
reducing fuel consumption and consequently emissions] but also retain
all the safety and affordability of basic carbon steel. AHSS are
rapidly being adopted by automakers. The following benefits are
calculated using a market penetration of only 7 percent of AHSS-type
vehicles, a low hurdle given the rapid adoption already evidenced in
the new Ford 500 and Chrysler Pacifica:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$ Savings Per
Year at $60/
Item Savings Per Savings Per Year/Per Federal $ Barrel (In
Year Spent millions of
dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barrels of oil................................ 4,071,429 0.84 barrel..................... $244.4
CO2 emissions reduction (tons)................ 2,100,000 0.50............................ ( \1\ )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ N.A.
The benefits of ITP-Steel--in terms of savings [large quantities of
oil per Federal dollar spent along with large amounts of CO<INF>2</INF>
and other emissions for that same Federal dollar]--are evidence that
funding cuts to the program were ill-advised and should be reversed.
SUMMARY
The Industrial Technology Program selects projects that have both
public and private benefits, justifying the investment of both DOE and
industry, and it conducts research at the most qualified facilities in
North America with over 80 percent of funding supporting tasks at
universities, national labs and technology developers, many of which
are small businesses. The ITP Program is a unique and successful
program that is not only beneficial to the domestic steel industry; it
is beneficial to the Nation as we attempt to curtail our dependence on
foreign sources of energy. Please consider restoring ITP-Steel funding
to the original level so that its public and private benefits can reach
even further into our economy.
______
Prepared Statement of the US Fuel Cell Council
Chairman Domenici, Ranking Member Reid and honorable members of the
committee, on behalf of the 120 organizations of the US Fuel Cell
Council (USFCC), I want to thank this subcommittee and its predecessors
for supporting fuel cell funding over the years. We respectfully ask
the subcommittee to continue its leadership in this area by funding the
fuel cell and hydrogen programs at the U.S. Department of Energy at
$555 million--the level established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005--
for research and development, technology validation, and market
transition programs at DoE, through the Offices of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy (EERE), Fossil Energy (FE), Nuclear Energy (NE),
and the Science (SC).
This figure represents a $204 million increase over the
administration request. The urgency of our energy challenge, the
promise of fuel cells, and the gains achieved to date by our public-
private partnership all justify funding these programs at the level
authorized by Congress in 2005. The increase we propose represents less
than 2 days' worth of imported oil, which costs the Nation more than $1
billion every week.
Fuel cells are perhaps the ultimate energy generation device. Fuel
cells rely on chemistry and not combustion; no fuel is burned. As a
result, fuel cells are efficient, exceptionally clean, quiet, scalable
and adaptable to virtually every energy need. The fuel for fuel cells
can come from an amazing range of sources. Thus, fuel cells offer
energy diversity in the short term and ultimately, true energy
independence. Congress's support for fuel cell and hydrogen research
has brought significant gains in fuel cell cost, performance, and
durability. Fuel cells are a family of technologies; members of the
family have reached the point of commercialization in some high value
markets. By one count, more than 14,000 fuel cells are in operation
worldwide. The pace of development suggests that with additional
funding, fuel cells can deliver on their extraordinary promise across a
wide spectrum of applications.
Congress acknowledged this in 2005 with passage of the Energy
Policy Act. The legislation prescribed additional investment, and a
long-term strategy, that include continued research, learning
demonstrations and technology validation, and market transition to
support early purchases.
Congress approved just such a comprehensive program in EPACT05,
because it recognized that accelerating the commercialization of this
technology carries extraordinary benefits:
--Reducing our reliance on Middle East oil while moving towards
energy independence;
--Improving air quality and combating greenhouse gas emissions; and
--Providing a reliable, efficient, high-quality source of power that
decreases dependence on a vulnerable energy infrastructure.
In the first year of EPACT, Congress authorized $555 million.
President Bush's request for fuel cell and hydrogen programs falls far
short by about $204 million.
The President's budget request for low temperature fuel cell and
hydrogen programs is in line with his original 5-year, $1.2 billion
commitment, while the request for high temperature fuel cell programs
(SECA) is in line with the fiscal year 2006 appropriation. These levels
do not fully reflect the will of the Congress in research and
development. Worse, from the perspective of an emerging industry, the
President and his Department of Energy have chosen not to propose full
funding of the programs Congress authorized last year in technology
validation and proposed no funding at all for system purchases. We
request that Congress correct this error and appropriate funds to the
level authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Over the past 3 years, shortfalls in fuel cell and hydrogen core
program funds have slowed and in some cases stopped high-priority
research and development. Full funding can restore program momentum,
and give the country some hope that we can break the cycle of energy
dependence. Competition for energy supply and security of supply are
both urgent concerns, and the Nation's investment, we believe, ought to
match that urgency.
By and large, the programs that have been most deeply affected by
funding re-allocations are non-automotive fuel cell programs. We
believe this approach is short-sighted. The path to commercialization
is a continuum across all applications. Many fuel cell systems share
similar components; as fuel cells move to the marketplace in
stationary, portable and micro-applications, they will stimulate cost
reduction, energize the supply chain, facilitate infrastructure
development and make consumers aware of the technology, its operation
and its benefits. All these accomplishments will help us achieve our
automotive goals on an accelerated timetable.
Arguably the best way to bring down fuel cell costs is to allow
State and Federal agencies to join the ranks of other satisfied early
adopters. The Market Transition program is limited in size and scope;
but it is a critical path to commercialization. What's more, the Market
Transition provision by no means forces Federal and State agencies to
make fuel cell purchases; instead, it simply provides a financial
mechanism for acquisition where fuel cells fill an agency's need. The
legislation establishes the market transition program with a first year
authorization of $20 million.
Finally, we recognize that this subcommittee has a Constitutional
obligation to review and modify the budget as you understand the
Nation's energy development priorities. The fuel cell and hydrogen
programs are programs of national purpose. They benefit from a
centrally coordinated effort, openly conducted and competitively bid.
Indeed, this committee has instructed that it be so. This approach
assures accountability and reduces duplication and waste.
Congressionally-directed programs have become an important part of the
overall investment in fuel cells and hydrogen. Ideally, these
congressionally-directed projects would be additive to the core DoE
program, or in a fiscally constrained environment, closely track
program priorities and development timetables.
There is growing support for ethanol and other biofuels, and for
hybrid vehicles as responses to our energy challenge. These programs
would not, by themselves, solve our problem. They would, however buy us
time to make the transition to hydrogen. The best news is that they are
also fully consistent with a hydrogen future and would facilitate the
transition. But it would be short-sighted to reduce our investment in
the long-term solution. The public/private partnership in fuel cells is
working; full funding will continue this progress, and bring closer the
transition to a secure, environmentally clean, low-carbon energy
future.
Thank you for considering our requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the Geothermal Energy Association
On behalf of the members of the Geothermal Energy Association, we
urge the subcommittee on Energy and Water Appropriations to support
restoration of funding in fiscal year 2007 for the U.S. Department of
Energy's (DOE) Geothermal Energy Research Program. Continued geothermal
research by the Department of Energy is urgently needed and clearly
justified.
The National Research Council's review of the DOE renewable energy
programs found that the geothermal research program was undervalued
(Renewable Power Pathways, 2000). According to that report, the
resource has significant potential to contribute to our Nation's energy
needs. It states, ``Many analysts believe that a substantial fraction
of U.S. baseload power could potentially be supplied by a variety of
geothermal resources.''
The Geothermal Task Force Report prepared for the Western
Governors' Association's Clean and Diversified Energy Advisory
Committee (CEAC) has recently made similar recommendations. The Task
Force's January, 2006 Report recommends that ``geothermal research by
the U.S. Department of Energy should be increased, particularly into
technologies that can reduce risk, reduce costs, or expand the
accessible resource base.''
Today, some 25 States use geothermal resources for power or direct
use purposes, but they are tapping only a small fraction of the
potential. For example, there is 2,800 MW of geothermal power in use in
the United States today, but the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in its
Circular 790, estimated a hydrothermal resource base of between 95,000
and 150,000 MW! Further, this estimate does not include the full range
of geothermal resources, nor does it assess what could be possible with
advances in engineered geothermal systems or other technological
breakthroughs.
GEA projects that with continued Federal and State support
geothermal power could expand beyond providing 5 percent of
California's electric power to providing 6 percent of the entire
Nation's electric power by 2025. (See Chart 1). We estimate that over
30,000 MW of geothermal power could be developed in the next 20 years,
representing an investment in new domestic energy supplies of over $70
billion. This level of production and new investment in geothermal
energy would mean 130,000 new full-time jobs and 500,000 person-years
of construction and manufacturing employment. Yet, at this level of
geothermal production, we would only be utilizing a small fraction of
the ultimate geothermal potential.
CHART 1.--PROJECTED GEOTHERMAL POWER PRODUCTION BY 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Resource Power Capacity Resource
(MW) Potential
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrothermal............................ 16,825 10-15
Oil Well co-prod........................ 6,000 <5
Geopressured............................ 1,000 <1
Distributed Gen......................... 500 <1
EGS..................................... 4,000 <1
---------------
Power Subtotal.................... 28,325 <1
Direct Use.............................. \1\ 2,400 <5
---------------
Total Geothermal.................. 30,725 <1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Equivalent.
The benefits of achieving this would be substantial. This power
capacity would produce 240,976 GWhrs of electricity annually \1\ and
add important reliability to the system. This generation is roughly
equal to 100 percent of the electricity generated in California, Nevada
and Idaho combined in 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Power production assumes 95 percent availability, direct use
equivalent at 50 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Achieving this potential would provide millions of consumers
reliable, cost-effective power at stable prices. Also, this amount of
electricity could displace as much as one-third of the natural gas
currently used in power production, benefiting consumers by relieving
pressure on spiraling natural gas prices.
However, while State renewable laws and Federal tax incentives will
propel the expanded use of geothermal energy, this level of production
in 2025 will not be achieved without DOE program support. We estimate
that of the projected 30,000 MW one-half is highly dependent upon
continued research and technological development supported through
DOE's program. The loss of DOE's program would be a major setback to
both the pace and extent to which we can expand our use of this
important renewable energy resource.
The Federal Government has made a significant investment in
developing a laboratory and university research community that is
leading the world in developing the technologies needed to utilize this
vast resource. This is not the time to abandon this effort. The
budget's short-sighted proposal to close out the geothermal research
program would significantly set-back progress towards national energy
goals and jeopardize new technology development for decades.
Therefore, we urge the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee
to continue supporting DOE's Geothermal Research Program in fiscal year
2007 and, specifically, to appropriate $32.5 million for the programs
defined in more detail in this statement.
BACKGROUND ON GEOTHERMAL ENERGY
While only a small fraction of the geothermal resource base is
utilized today, it already provides significant energy for our Nation.
The United States, as the world's largest producer of geothermal
electricity, generates an average of 16 billion kilowatt hours of
energy per year--more than wind and solar combined. Geothermal power
provides more than half of all renewable electricity used in
California, about 9 percent of northern Nevada's electricity, and about
25 percent of the island of Hawaii's electricity. Farms, spas,
businesses and schools in over 24 States utilize geothermal resources
as an energy source.
The energy, environmental, and economic benefits of geothermal are
substantial. Geothermal electricity produces 11,500 full-time jobs
annually, not including the hundreds of jobs created by direct use
applications. The United States' current geothermal generation is
equivalent to burning close to 25 million barrels of oil or 6 million
short tons of coal per year. Geothermal electricity displaces the
emissions of 16 million tons of carbon dioxide, 78 thousand tons of
sulfur dioxide, 32 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides, and 17 thousand
tons of particulate matter every year, compared with production of the
same amount of electricity from a state-of-the-art coal-fired plants.
With continued Federal and State support, much more geothermal
generation is possible. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in its
Circular 790, reported that the geothermal resource base was vast,
involving hundreds of thousands of megawatts. But, much of this
resource is hidden, and we do not have commercially available
exploration technologies that can effectively identify geothermal
reservoirs without drilling. But, drilling is expansive and risky, and
often involves permitting and other obstacles.
Continued improvements and the development of new technologies to
identify, develop and produce energy from geothermal resources is
critical if most of the very large resource base is ever to become
economically feasible to use. This includes developing the techniques
necessary for engineering geothermal systems that could some day allow
so-called hot dry rock power production. Beyond hydrothermal resources,
there is significant new geothermal production potential from co-
production in oil and gas fields, geopressured gas resources in Texas
and Louisiana, and distributed power generation. Notably, both oil
field and geopressured production have significant potential to expand
U.S. oil and natural gas production. All of these efforts need support
through DOE's program and are at a critical point in their development.
Beyond electric power generation, expanding the direct use of
geothermal resources by businesses, farms, and communities needs to be
addressed more vigorously in DOE's programmatic efforts. Expanded
direct use geothermal has widespread application across the Nation, and
would largely displace fuels used for heating and industrial and
commercial processes. By displacing fossil fuels, developing the
technologies and techniques to expand direct use would have a direct,
positive impact on national security.
Utility scale power production under the 2025 projection above
would expand geothermal generation beyond four States today
(California, Nevada, Utah and Hawaii) to also include Alaska, Wyoming,
Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas
and Louisiana. In addition, distributed generation and expanded direct
use of geothermal resources could provide new energy in a larger number
of States including: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South
Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
FISCAL YEAR 2007 RECOMMENDATION
We agree with the January 2006 WGA Geothermal Task Force Report. It
recommends: ``a strong, continuing geothermal research effort at the
Department of Energy that addresses the full range of technical
problems encountered in achieving full production from the identified
and undiscovered resources in the West.'' The report also supports ``.
. . continuation of advanced technology programs and outreach through
GeoPowering the West.'' In addition, the report urges DOE to expand its
program in critical areas ``particularly the identification and
development of new resources'' and ``support for exploration and
exploratory drilling.'' Finally, it asks DOE to ``examine whether
existing Federal loan guarantee authority in law can be used to
supplement these activities to reduce risk and encourage development of
new resource areas.'' (http://www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/cdeac/
geothermal.htm.)
Consistent with the Energy Policy Act of 2005's recommendation that
``The Secretary shall conduct a program of research, development,
demonstration, and commercial application for geothermal energy . . .
'' for fiscal year 2007 we recommend that Congress appropriate $32.5
million for DOE's geothermal program. Of this amount:
--$8.5 million should support work by the Intermountain West
Geothermal Consortium (IWGC), which was authorized by the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 to support national energy security
through research into and development of under-utilized
geothermal resources in cooperation with industry. Partner
institutions include Boise State University, University of
Idaho, Idaho National Laboratories, GeoHeat Center at Oregon
Institute of Technology, Desert Research Institute with the
Nevada System of Higher Education, and the Energy and
Geosciences Institute at the University of Utah.
--$2 million should support the continuing work of the University of
Nevada's Great Basin Center for Geothermal Energy, which is
critical to developing the very substantial and untapped
resources of the Great Basin. UNR has been doing pioneering
work in expanding our knowledge of the Great Basin resource
while advancing both science and near-term development
possibilities through its work and collaboration with industry.
--$4 million should support the work of Sandia National Laboratories
(SNL) to develop advanced technologies for drilling and related
research that will reduce the cost and risk of exploration and
new projects. Drilling cheaper, smarter, and with less impact
is a critical component of identifying and making expanded use
of the geothermal resource economically feasible.
--$4 million should support cost-shared, exploratory drilling
consistent with OMB's cost-sharing guidelines. This program
should be coordinated with the USGS to support their efforts to
produce a new national geothermal resource assessment. These
funds could alternatively be used to support a targeted loan
guarantee program as recommended to DOE by Sentech in its March
2005 report.
--$4 million should support local information, outreach, and project
development efforts through the State working groups of DOE's
GeoPowering the West (GPW) initiative. GPW has active State
working groups in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho,
Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, and Washington, and is
working in Colorado, Montana, South Dakota and Wyoming. This
award-winning program is recognized as essential to expanding
geothermal usage.
--$10 million should be designated for other activities administered
by the Department of Energy, including peer-reviewed,
partnered, and cost-shared industry-applied research; and,
longer-range research including DOE's Enhanced Geothermal
Systems (EGS) research effort designed to develop advanced
technology capable of tapping the virtually limitless heat
content of the Earth.
FUTURE BENEFITS
For the Nation, the return on the investment in new geothermal
technology would be substantial. As the WGA Geothermal Task Force
recently reported, ``With sustained support from the Department of
Energy, Geothermal power can be a major contributor to the power
infrastructure and economic well-being of the Western States.''
The U.S. Department of Energy's Geothermal R&D program benefits the
entire U.S. economy. Research shows that for every million dollars
invested in geothermal energy, $2.5 million will return to the United
States economy. The program's success can turn the thousands of
megawatts of untapped geothermal potential into a clean, reliable,
sustainable, indigenous, distributed electricity source; produce
thousands of new direct-use applications serving communities, farms and
businesses; and spur other beneficial uses of the natural heat of the
earth.
Finally, achieving the level of production possible by 2025 would
have substantial environmental benefits. Compared to state-of-the-art
coal plants, this would annually offset 266 million tons of carbon
dioxide emissions. This is equal to the annual CO<INF>2</INF> emissions
from 41 million automobiles--30 percent of all automobiles in use in
2003 according to the Department of Transportation. Or, in an
international perspective, emissions avoided by geothermal generation
in 2025 would represent more than the combined total CO<INF>2</INF>
emissions from Austria, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania, New
Zealand, Sweden, and Switzerland in 2002.
OMB'S JUSTIFICATION
With a highly selective reading of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPAct), the Office of Management and Budget appears to justify its
proposal to terminate the DOE Geothermal Research program on the fact
that Congress included important provisions in this legislation to
stimulate new geothermal development. EPAct included important tax
incentives for new geothermal plants, an extensive revision of the
Geothermal Steam Act, and directives for an expanded DOE renewable
research program that specifically includes geothermal energy. OMB
ignores the devastating impact that terminating the geothermal program
would have on the potential contribution of this industry to national
energy needs and its international competitiveness. Further, their
justifications do not appear to be based upon metrics that are applied
consistently across technologies, nor do they appear to be based upon
documented and objective analysis. Quite simply, it's difficult to
argue with their analysis, when there doesn't appear to be any. Both
the process and results of their decision making are a mystery.
Thank you for considering the views of the Geothermal Energy
Association. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions
or need additional information about recommendations made in this
statement.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Forest & Paper Association
The Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance, a Special Project of the
American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) welcomes this opportunity
to thank the committee for its fiscal year 2006 support in providing
sustained funding to our industry's key public-private partnerships
within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and
to urge increased funding to adequately address industry's challenges
in fiscal year 2007. The Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) and the
Office of Biomass Programs (OBP) provide vital funding for research,
development, and demonstration (RD&D) of technologies that dramatically
reduce the forest products industry's energy intensity and transforms
our industry into producers of carbon-neutral biofuels--thus addressing
strategic national needs associated with energy efficiency, energy
security, diversified energy supply, and environmental performance. We
strongly recommend funding of $6 million for forest products industry
in ITP. We support the President's request for $150 million for Biomass
and Biorefinery Systems R&D in OBP and ask that the committee work to
ensure eligibility of forest biorefineries in these programs and keep
the appropriations unencumbered to allow for full funding of
competitive biorefinery RD&D grants. Furthermore, we recommend that the
committee restore OBP funding of $10 million for competitive R&D for
black liquor gasification, a key enabling technology of the forest
biorefinery.
The Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance is an industry-led partnership
with government and academia that holds the promise of reinventing the
forest products industry through innovation in processes, materials and
markets. The collaborative, pre-competitive research, development, and
deployment supported through Agenda 2020 provide the foundation for new
technology-driven business models that will enable our industry to meet
competitive challenges, while also contributing solutions to strategic
national needs. The technology solutions developed through Agenda 2020
are aligned to provide solutions to the competitive challenges faced by
the U.S. forest products industry, which accounts for approximately 7
percent of total U.S. manufacturing output, employs 1.3 million people,
and ranks among the top 10 manufacturing employers in 42 States with an
estimated payroll of $60 billion.
As is the case with many U.S. manufacturing industries, we face
serious domestic and international challenges. Since 1997, 101 pulp and
paper mills have closed in the United States, resulting in a loss of
70,000 jobs, or 32 percent of our workforce. An additional 67,000 jobs
have been lost in the wood products industry since 1997. New capacity
growth is now taking place in other countries, where forestry, labor,
and environmental practices may not be as responsible as those in the
United States. In addition, globalization, aging process
infrastructure, few technology breakthroughs, as well as recent
financial performance and environmental concerns, hinder the ability of
U.S. companies to make new investments. The volatility of energy
markets, especially for natural gas, has made our competitive position
even more precarious and heightened the need to develop new energy
efficient technology. Each year without new investments, new
technologies and new revenue streams, we lose ground to our overseas
competitors.
Currently, energy is the third-largest manufacturing cost for the
forest and paper industry at 18 percent for pulp and paper mills--up
from 12 percent just 3 years ago. For some of our mills, the cost of
energy is about to eclipse employee compensation.
Since 1994, the forest products industry has been one of DOE's
``Industries of the Future,'' partnering with ITP through the Agenda
2020 Technology Alliance in RD&D that has yielded successful advances
towards out national energy and environmental goals. Agenda 2020 stands
as an example of successful industry-government collaboration to
develop technologies that hold the promise of reinventing industry,
while providing real solutions for strategic national energy needs.
Every Federal $1 spent on ITP saves $7.06 in annual energy costs and
1.3 million in annual source BTUs (2004 estimates). As recently as
2003, the ITP/Agenda 2020 portfolio included a total shared DOE and
industry investment of almost $48 million, with nearly 55 percent
coming from direct project cost shares by industry.
Today, after 5 years of continuous and substantial cuts, the ITP/
Agenda 2020 budget has been reduced by over 65 percent since fiscal
year 2002. This undermines our progress in achieving crucial energy
efficiencies at a time when energy is a major factor in the survival of
the U.S. forest products industry. Projects re-scoped or cut in fiscal
year 2005 due to budget shortfalls resulted in a lost energy savings
potential of 5 trillion BTUs/yr. With substantially less funding in
fiscal year 2006, we will be unable to pursue projects in key priority
areas such as advanced water removal and high efficiency pulping, which
represents a lost savings potential of 100-200 trillion BTUs/yr. A
further reduction is proposed in fiscal year 2007 ($2.878 million),
barely sufficient for only one collaborative project and 1 or 2 concept
studies. By comparison, in the early 2000's, the portfolio included
nearly 40 collaborative research projects across the country with
varying sizes and scopes, but with a common goal of developing
breakthrough technologies and processes that produce dramatic
improvements in energy efficiency in an environmentally-sound manner.
This comes at a crucial time when the forest products industry,
like many energy-intensive industries, is facing unprecedented
pressures due to the rising costs of energy and seeking solution as
diverse as fuel switching, finding new energy sources, and developing
options for reducing energy consumption. Although we are nearly 60
percent self-sufficient (using biomass), the volatility of natural gas
prices has translated into an additional cost to the industry of more
than $2 billion annually--and places us at a significant disadvantage
compared with our international competitors. Thus we are in greater
need than ever for the technology-based energy efficiency solutions
that could be provided through our Agenda 2020 partnership with ITP.
The AF&PA's recommended ITP funding for forest products research ($6
million) would help our industry partially recover its capacity to
develop and deploy vital energy efficiency technologies. Restoring
Agenda 2020 funding to pre-fiscal year 2005 levels will not only help
the competitive position of American industry, but will also serve
national strategic goals for reduced dependence on foreign oil.
The Integrated Forest Products Biorefinery (IFPB) is a key Agenda
2020 technology platform and a top technical and economic priority for
our industry. The objective is to develop and deploy core technologies
that can be integrated into existing processing infrastructure, which
would be transformed into geographically distributed production centers
of renewable ``green'' bioenergy and bioproducts. This can be done
while co-producing existing product lines, creating higher skilled and
better paying jobs, strengthening rural communities, and opening new
domestic and international markets for U.S. forest products companies.
The IFBP technology has the potential to integrate agricultural
wastes, agricultural producers, forest landowners, agricultural
landowners, forest product producers, and the petrochemical industry to
produce clean renewable bio-fuels to support our local economies and
the Nation. Widespread application of this technology would not only
reduce environmental impact of burning fossil fuels, it would also
increase the viability of agricultural, forest products, and other
industries that use waste heat. It will create new high paying jobs,
both direct and indirect, increasing tax revenue. From an energy
perspective, the IFPB has the benefit of making the forest products
industry even more energy self-sufficient, serving the DOE strategic
goal of reduced energy intensity in industry by reducing fossil energy
consumption. In addition, the IFPB would permit the industry to become
a producer of renewable, carbon-positive bioenergy and biofuels,
contributing to DOE strategic goals to dramatically reduce dependence
on foreign oil and to create new domestic bioindustry.
AF&PA supports the President's announced $150 million budget
initiative in fiscal year 2007 for biorefinery research and
demonstration. This initiative provides much needed funding to advance
core enabling IFPB technologies, as well as providing major capital
cost-share for commercial scale biorefinery demonstration. The forest
products industry is an ideal partner to develop and commercialize
integrated biorefineries. We have much of the infrastructure and
expertise--wood harvesting, transportation and storage, manufacturing
and conversion infrastructure, waste handling and recovery--needed to
achieve the goals of integrated biorefineries. By and large, they are
located in rural communities where they can help realize important
synergies between agricultural and forest-based feedstocks.
Our industry currently is poised to field several projects to
advance key IFPB technologies for biofuel production, and even
demonstrate biorefineries at the commercial scale. In order to achieve
the promise of IFPB technologies for the industry and for the Nation,
we need greater stability and availability of funds provided through
the OBP budget. The trend of increasing OBP earmarks, over 50 percent
of the fiscal year 2006 appropriation, has contributed to a marked
reduction in real availability of funds for biorefinery RD&D. We urge
the committee to preserve and leave unencumbered the proposed $150
million funding of Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D, so that there
will be sufficient appropriations to fund FOA No. DE-PS36-06GO96016,
the recently released solicitation for biorefinery demonstration and
commercialization. We also urge the committee to ensure that forest-
based materials are eligible for this and future biorefinery research
and demonstration funding. Forest-based materials can sustainably
produce enough biofuels to displace up to 10 percent of the country's
petroleum production. They are a vital feedstock for achieving reduced
dependence on foreign oil and facilitating bioindustries domestically
and should be included in programs for biomass and biorefinery RD&D.
A core enabling technology for part of the IFPB is black liquor
gasification (BLG), which converts the by-product of the chemical
pulping process into a synthetic gas. The synthetic gas can
subsequently be burned to directly produce clean, efficient energy, or
converted to other fuels such as hydrogen, renewable transportation
fuels, and/or other high value chemicals. If fully developed and
commercialized, BLG has the potential to produce a net 22 gigawatts of
power, displacing as much as 100 million barrels of oil per year. This
translates into displacement of 900 BCF of natural gas consumption for
power generation by the year 2020, assuming that BLG is placed in
service by 2010.
In fiscal year 2006, DOE eliminated funding for BLG and related
research, despite recent technical progress to bring the technology to
pre-commercial demonstration. BLG is a core enabling technology for the
IFPB, and is identified as a priority technology area for biorefineries
in technology roadmaps created by industry, as well as in research
plans developed by OBP to accelerate biorefineries and development of
national bioindustry. Critical research areas identified by OBP
include: integrated biorefinery support for thermochemical
biorefineries, products core R&D in chemicals and fuels from syngas;
thermochemical platform core R&D in BLG and syngas cleanup. AF&PA is
recommending that $10 million be restored in the OBP budget for
competitive research in these critical areas and to complete BLG core
research and projects that were eliminated in recent cuts. This funding
will provide the groundwork needed for next vital steps leading to
large-scale demonstration of biofuels and biochemicals production in
association with the industry's dominant Kraft pulping process.
We appreciate the committee's interest in ensuring sustained and
adequate funding for RD&D partnerships and look forward to working with
you to advance industry and national interests.
______
Prepared Statement of Geo-Energy Partners
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Eliminating the DOE geothermal budget will have a serious, negative
effect on developing America's premier renewable energy resource. The
DOE/GRED cost-sharing program, in particular, has provided a great
incentive for small independents to undertake exploration activities
that otherwise would be beyond their financial reach. If development of
geothermal resources is to be significantly expanded in the future,
exploration for yet unproven resources will be required. The DOE/GRED
cost-sharing program is essential if these exploration activities are
to continue.
BACKGROUND
During the 1960's and continuing into the early 1980's the U.S.
geothermal industry flourished, with major petroleum and mining firms
in addition to numerous independent geothermal companies scouring the
western United States for geothermal resources. During that period,
nearly all of the currently existing geothermal electrical production
was constructed.
Since then, geothermal exploration has essentially been non-
existent and the geothermal industry is currently dominated by four
large corporations (Calpine, Ormat, Caithness and CalEnergy). Except
for CalEnergy's discovery and development of the Coso, California
geothermal resource in the 1980's, these companies have only purchased
already-explored/discovered operating facilities, focused on increasing
the efficiency of their own operating plants or expanded already-proven
fields. These four companies no longer conduct grass roots exploration.
However, without exploration, always largely by independents (and
solely by independents now), not a single one of the currently
producing geothermal fields in the western United States would have
come into existence. Exploration and discovery of new geothermal
resources is solely in the hands of small independent geothermal
enterprises. Fortunately the ``independents'' are primarily comprised
of experienced geothermal professionals who have been in the industry
since the boom days of the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's.
The U.S. geothermal industry is in desperate need of a new wave of
exploration and discovery to respond to the current burgeoning demand
and growing need for secure, domestic renewable energy resources. It is
a sad fact that not since 1992 has a new geothermal field been brought
on-line for power production in the United States: Brady's Hot Springs
in Nevada. Since then all additions to U.S. geothermal capacity has
been accomplished through incremental expansions in already-developed
fields. The last new field brought on line in California was Honey Lake
in 1989; in Utah the last was the Cove Fort geothermal plant in 1985;
and in Hawaii it was Puna in 1984.
Geothermal energy is the only true base-load renewable energy
source and has a decades-long track record of being on-line over 95
percent of the time using proven, dependable technology. Wind and solar
are wonderful technologies, however, they only produce power when the
wind blows or the sun shines. Electrical generation from a geothermal
plant is 24/7/365.
The DOE Geothermal Resource Exploration and Definition program
(``GRED'') has provided funding to encourage exactly the type of
exploration necessary to promote the discovery of new geothermal
resources for the next wave of geothermal development. GRED I in 2000,
GRED II in 2002 and the ongoing GRED III programs have encouraged
exploration in previously unexplored areas and has already resulted in
the identification of over 80 MW of new geothermal resources. More GRED
III drilling will take place this summer at our Emigrant leasehold. The
Emigrant Slimhole Drilling Project is an 80 percent DOE/20 percent
Esmeralda Energy Company (``EEC'') cost-shared exploration slimhole.
EEC is negotiating for a power purchase agreement (``PPA'') for
Emigrant and recently signed such a PPA with San Diego Gas & Electric
for our Truckhaven lease applications in Imperial County, California.
The experienced independents are the only ones in the geothermal
industry willing and capable of making the next wave of geothermal
development a reality. However, initial exploration efforts are costly
and have a high degree of risk. DOE geothermal funding has historically
been minimal but it remains a critical element in developing untapped
geothermal resources. Eliminating the DOE geothermal budget, in
particular the DOE GRED program, will have a serious, negative effect
on developing America's premier renewable energy resource.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Gas Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the American Gas
Association (AGA) represents 197 natural gas distribution utilities
that serve more than 56 million homes and businesses in all 50 States.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with consideration of the
U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) fiscal year 2007 budget request.
Natural gas meets one-fourth of U.S. energy needs. Almost all of
this natural gas is produced in the United States or Canada, making
natural gas a vital, clean, and domestic form of energy. Local natural
gas utilities deliver natural gas through more than 1 million miles of
underground pipelines. The terrorist acts of September 11, 2001 and the
war with Iraq have made clear the need for continued investment in U.S.
energy infrastructure, both to facilitate greater reliance on domestic
energy resources and to ensure reliable delivery. Energy is the
lifeblood of the U.S. economy, and innovative technologies such as
distributed energy will help ensure a reliable and efficient supply of
electricity--even if a central power station or the electric grid were
to be compromised.
AGA continues to support DOE research programs such as natural gas
vehicles and industrial research and development (R&D). AGA wishes,
however, to outline three top priorities of particular benefit to
natural gas consumers and the utilities that serve them:
--The Office of Fossil Energy's Natural Gas Infrastructure Technology
research program for which AGA urges Congress to appropriate
$15 million.
--The Office of Fossil Energy's Gas Storage Technology Consortium
(GSTC) for which AGA urges Congress to appropriate $2.0
million.
--The Office of Fossil Energy's Natural Gas Exploration, Production
and Hydrates research programs.
OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY: NATURAL GAS INFRASTRUCTURE
At present the natural gas industry operates more than 1 million
miles of underground pipe of varying sizes. The industry and DOE
estimate that $19 billion of investment will be needed over time to
replace this infrastructure in the ordinary course. Additionally, due
to projected new natural gas demand (increasing by 40 percent by 2025),
another $42 billion will be needed in the coming years for expansion of
the natural gas delivery system.
AGA strongly supports DOE's natural gas industry Infrastructure and
Operations program, which was established in fiscal year 2001 with an
initial appropriation of $4.9 million. The goal of the program goal is
to make mid- to long-term investments in improving the reliability and
efficiency of the Nation's natural gas infrastructure. Projects funded
by DOE include development of more corrosion-resistant material that
can transport gas at higher pressure, fuel-efficient compressors
capable of flexible operation, technologies to detect and assess
corrosion and mechanical damage, improved automated data acquisition,
system monitoring and control techniques, no-dig technologies,
innovative excavation and restoration systems, and plastic pipe
technology. This research has played a critical role in assuring that
the Nation's energy supply reaches consumers.
Natural gas industry response to this program has been
enthusiastic, as evidenced by the submission of more than 100 cost-
sharing proposals by industry partners in the first year alone. These
early proposals, totaling more than $75 million, exceeded the available
dollars by a 9-to-1 factor.
In fiscal year 2005, Congress appropriated $8.47 million for this
program but eliminated this funding in fiscal year 2006. DOE's natural
gas infrastructure and operations program is the only Federal program
focused on mid- to long-term natural gas pipeline research. Without
this vital research, many technologies needed to increase the
deliverability and reliability of the existing pipeline network will
not come to fruition.
Given the importance of expanding the Nation's natural gas
infrastructure in anticipation of significantly growing demand for
natural gas, the American Gas Association requests that Congress
appropriate $15 million for the DOE's Fossil Energy natural gas
infrastructure research program in fiscal year 2006.
The natural gas industry provides substantial cost sharing in
developing the technologies necessary for this new infrastructure.
Major and novel system improvements are needed for natural gas to be
delivered in the volumes that DOE believes will be required in the
future. These improvements depend on new, highly efficient
technologies.
DOE'S GAS STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM (GSTC)
The mission of the DOE Gas Storage Technology Consortium is to
assist in the development, demonstration and commercialization of
technologies to improve the integrity, flexibility, deliverability, and
cost-effectiveness of the Nation's underground natural gas/hydrocarbon
storage facilities. The Consortium is on target to deliver technology
advancements to industry and has co-funded 18 projects totaling $2.567
million Federal dollars. Projects can be categorized under two major
headings: (1) Integrity--which function to improve safety and
reliability of the underground storage operations; (2) Deliverability
Enhancement--which focus on identifying ways to increase existing
storage capacity and deliverability.
The American Gas Association actively supports the DOE Gas Storage
Technology Consortium and requests Congress to provide $2.0 million for
natural gas storage in fiscal year 2007.
THE OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY'S NATURAL GAS EXPLORATION, PRODUCTION AND
HYDRATES RESEARCH
Research investment is a key tool for producing more gas from
marginal wells that would otherwise be shut-in prematurely now and for
producing more gas in the future from very long-term, high-risk, but
potentially promising frontier areas such as methane hydrates.
The DOE Exploration and Production research program is aimed
directly at small producers working on high-risk deep drilling
operations and stripper wells and marginal wells in Appalachia.
Technological advances in these areas are conveyed to small gas
producers through the Multi-Lab/Industry Partnership and the technology
transfer program.
AGA supports continued funding for the DOE Exploration and
Production research program.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, AGA is giving great emphasis to developing
comprehensive programs that enhance economic and national security,
provide cheaper energy to the end-user, reduce emissions, and improve
energy efficiency. AGA greatly appreciates your past support and
consideration of these proposals.
______
Prepared Statement of Austin Energy
This testimony supports funding for development and deployment of
plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) within the Department of Energy's
fiscal year 2007 budget request. Specifically, Austin Energy supports:
(1) $10 million for Section 706 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(``EPACT'')--Joint Flexible Fuel/Hybrid Commercialization Initiative;
(2) $15 million for Sections 711/911 of EPACT--Hybrid Vehicles for
system and component development for plug-in hybrid vehicles; and (3)
$2.5 million for Title 8 of EPACT--Advanced Vehicles for a fuel cell
vehicle developed with a plug-in hybrid drive platform. Funding of
$27.5 million within these three areas should be included within the
Hybrid and Electric Propulsion section of the Vehicle Technologies
Program of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy budget.
Austin Energy, the Nation's 10th largest community-owned electric
utility, serves 360,000 customers within the City of Austin, Travis and
Williamson Counties, Texas. Austin provides electricity to the capital
city of Texas through a diverse generation mix of nuclear, coal,
natural gas and renewable resources. Austin Energy has been nationally
recognized for its Green Choice renewable electricity program. Austin
sells more renewable electricity, primarily wind, than any other
utility in the country.
Austin Energy has also been a national leader in energy efficiency.
Austin's Green Building program for both commercial and residential
buildings has been a national model for use of sustainable building
technologies.
As the President remarked in his State of the Union Address, and
repeated again this week, the United States needs to break its
addiction to imported supplies of petroleum. The principle use of
imported petroleum is to produce gasoline to power the transportation
sector, particularly automobiles. With $3.00 gasoline the American
public is ready to embrace new technology. Congress and the DOE can
move forward to help right now. Already popular hybrid vehicles
demonstrate that there is now a technologically feasible way to power
automobiles with both an internal combustion and an electric engine.
The plug-in hybrid vehicle is a modification of current hybrids. Plug-
in hybrids can be charged from the existing electrical grid by plugging
the car into an ordinary wall socket while the internal combustion
engine can be a flexible fuel engine that will run on domestically
produced biofuels.
PHEVs will run on a dedicated electric charge for a number of miles
(20-60 depending on the size of the battery pack) then shift to liquid
fuel.
PHEVs have the ability to significantly increase mileage over both
conventional cars and existing hybrids. Instead of the constant
switching between gasoline and electric power as is done in a hybrid
today, the PHEV runs on electric power until the batteries are drained,
only then does the fuel engine engage to power the car. If the driver's
daily commute is within the electric range (20-60 miles), or if driving
is within a small geographical area (city delivery trucks), then
gasoline consumption is minimized thus starting us down the road to
reduced imports.
Austin Energy is convinced that PHEVs will be a significant
contributor to reducing our Nation's reliance on imported oil. Unlike
other transportation alternatives, PHEVs require neither new fueling
infrastructure nor driver behavioral changes. The infrastructure for
PHEVs, standard electric sockets, already exists and Americans have
already become accustomed to plugging-in Blackberries, cell-phones and
lap-top computers. In the instance that one forgets or is unable to
plug-in the car, it will run as usual on gasoline or flexible fuel.
The funding initiatives recommended by the President in the DOE
fiscal year 2007 budget submission will speed the day when PHEVs are
widely available to American citizens. Other DOE programs support plug-
in hybrid technology developed as part of flexible fueling operations
for cars as well as integrated within the advanced fuel cell vehicle.
PHEV technology will complement any existing automobile fueling system
or one envisioned for the future. The DOE budget submission will
provide for deployment of PHEVs in demonstration activities to allow
for different commercial applications of the vehicles. PHEV technology
is adaptable to all vehicle platforms--from large trucks to commuter
cars.
Austin Energy supports Congressional appropriations to increase the
availability of PHEVs and demonstrate its capacity as a solution to our
``oil addiction.'' Austin Energy is also willing to support the Federal
effort by overseeing a national grass-roots campaign to demonstrate the
consumer market for PHEVs.
Austin Energy's ``Plug-In Partners'' is an initiative to
demonstrate to the automobile manufacturers that a consumer market
already exists for PHEVs. Utility rebates and incentives, State, county
and municipal government endorsements, and citizen petitions are
evidence of an expanding interest in PHEVs. A key aspect of the Plug-In
Partners campaign is the ``soft'' fleet orders. Fleet owners, both
private and governmental, sign a pledge to strongly consider purchasing
a certain number of PHEVs when available from an original equipment
manufacturer. While the fleet owner understands that the cars are not
presently on line, the belief in the concept of a PHEV is sufficient
for them to make the soft fleet order. This helps demonstrate a market
to automakers. A number of such orders have been obtained.
Austin Energy's Plug-In Partners campaign was announced nationally
on January 24, 2006 at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.
Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah spoke of the importance of PHEVs to ending
our reliance on foreign oil. On behalf of Governor Pataki of New York,
Charles Fox, Deputy Secretary for Energy & Environment offered support
for the campaign. The Plug-In Partners campaign has been joined by the
cities of Austin, Baltimore, Boston, Dallas, Denver, Kansas City, Los
Angeles, Oakland, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Salt Lake, San Francisco and
Seattle. The New York State Energy & Research Development Authority
(NYSERDA), American Corn Growers Association, Soybean Producers of
America, Alliance To Save Energy, American Council on Renewable Energy,
Energy Future Coalition, Environmental and Energy Study Institute,
Center for American Progress and Set America Free are among the many
public interest groups that are members of the coalition. Finally,
Plug-In Partners have been endorsed by the American Public Power
Association and many of its members around the country as well as the
Edison Electric Institute.
Austin Energy has also committed $1 million for rebates to Austin
Energy customers who purchase plug-in hybrids when they become
available.
The Congress, by funding DOE initiatives to develop and deploy
PHEVs, will help ensure the success of the Austin Energy Plug-In
Partner campaign and will be a significant step in lessening American
dependence on imported oil.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coal Utilization Research Council
CURC submits this testimony in support of increasing the DOE's
fossil energy budget by the following: coal R&D $31.8 million; CCPI
$145.0 million; FutureGen $54.0 million, in new appropriations.
Technology has facilitated a successful environmental
transformation of the coal-based power industry, and all of this has
been accomplished while maintaining the benefits of reliability and
affordability. Improvements in technology have allowed dramatic
reductions in emissions while providing consumers with some of the
lowest cost electricity in the world. Many of these technology
solutions emerged through an unprecedented collaboration between the
public and private sectors, commonly cited as the ``Clean Coal
Technology Program.'' For the past 20 years, this program has included
two fundamental components:
--A basic research and development activity that was primarily
government funded, and that took new ideas in the use of coal
to a ``proof of concept'' level, and
--A program which has been approximately two-thirds private sector
funded, that took these concepts and demonstrated their
viability in first-of-a-kind commercial scale facilities,
through a program currently labeled the ``Clean Coal Power
Initiative'' and formerly referred to as the Clean Coal
Technology demonstration program.
These two programs have created new generations of technologies
that are cheaper and more effective in addressing the environmental
concerns that pose barriers to continued or expanded use of coal in the
United States. The benefits of these programs have been large. For
example, just one technology--low NO<INF>X</INF> burners--went from a
concept in the 1980's to commercial demonstration in the 1990's and is
now installed on almost all coal-fired power plants in the United
States. The National Academy of Sciences concluded that nitrogen oxide
and sulfur dioxide control technology programs had achieved significant
success: ``The resulting environmental savings translated to more than
$60 billion in damage and mitigation costs that were avoided''.\1\ The
General Accounting Office concluded that: ``This [Clean Coal
Technology] program serves as an example to other cost-share programs
in demonstrating how the government and private sector can work
effectively together to develop and demonstrate new technologies.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ News Release by the National Academies, accompanying
publication of NAS report reviewing the DOE research program, July 17,
2001.
\2\ Statement of Jim Wells, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, GAO, before the Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on
Science, House of Representatives, June 12, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The technology development program at the Office of Fossil Energy
has received broad recognition for its contributions to the Nation,
including numerous ``Power Plant of the Year'' awards from Power
magazine, ``Top 100'' awards from R&D magazine, and citations from the
National Society of Professional Engineers. Power magazine called the
development of fluidized bed coal combustors ``the commercial success
story of the last decade in the power generation business.''
The benefits that will flow to the Nation from the use of coal for
power production have been projected at over $400 billion in gross
output in 2010.\3\ Other benefits are less easily quantified but are no
less real, and include energy security, national security, and a degree
of freedom for the U.S. Government to make geopolitical policy
decisions not based, in part, upon the political preferences of oil
exporting nations. Two hundred years' supply of currently recoverable
coal (at current rates of consumption) gives the United States a high
degree of security if we choose to fully exploit this advantage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``The Economic Impact of Coal Utilization in the Continental
United States'', A. Rose, PhD, Pennsylvania State University, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The potential for coal to help in meeting the Nation's future
energy needs is almost unlimited. Coal can continue to provide clean,
low-cost electricity. Coal can also provide a feedstock for production
of chemicals and transportation fuels, and helps provide a low cost
bridge to a hydrogen-based future economy. However, coal faces new
environmental challenges: mercury control and carbon control. The
formula that worked for previous environmental challenges--developing
cost-effective technologies to address emissions control--will work in
overcoming these new challenges as well. But it will be difficult for
coal's benefits to reach their potential without a continuing
partnership between the government and the private sector.
As discussed below, CURC believes that the administration's fiscal
year 2007 budget request for research, development and demonstration of
needed coal technologies is insufficient to allow the Nation to reap
the benefits that can flow from expanded use of coal to meet our energy
needs.
THE CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP
The CURC and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in
consultation with the DOE, have developed a clean coal technology
roadmap (see CURC website at www.coal.org). The roadmap identifies a
variety of research, development and demonstration priorities that, if
pursued, could lead to the successful development of a set of coal-
based technologies that will be cost-effective, highly efficient and
achieve greater control of air and water emissions compared to
currently available technology. The roadmap outlines the technology
steps necessary in order to achieve these goals. In addition,
recognizing the ongoing concerns regarding global climate change, the
roadmap includes a technology development program for carbon
management, defined as the capture and sequestration (long-term
storage) of carbon dioxide. In the event public policy requires
CO<INF>2</INF> management at some future time, pursuit of the RD&D
program outlined in the Roadmap will best ensure that cost-effective
technologies will be under development or already developed. CURC is
not alone in the belief that these carbon management technologies merit
continued Federal support. In a report concluded in 2005, the National
Research Council of the National Academies concluded that prospective
benefits of the DOE carbon sequestration research program would likely
total $35 billion, if the Nation decided that carbon mitigation
measures were necessary.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Prospective Evaluation of Applied Research and Development at
DOE'', NRC, p. 43, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importantly, CURC and EPRI use a ``portfolio'' approach and
advocate several technology development ``pathways'' that should be
pursued concurrently to achieve the roadmap goals. As an example, the
Nation should pursue both gasification and combustion-based technology
paths.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Using the roadmap as a tool to guide our Nation's coal research and
development (R&D) efforts, CURC has examined the fiscal year 2007
budget request for coal and submits the following recommendations.
--The funding proposed for the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI), $5
million in fiscal year 2007, is wholly inadequate to meet the
needs that this program was created to address. The most
critical challenges facing coal use today are near- and longer-
term environmental constraints, particularly mercury control
and the possible requirements to capture and store
CO<INF>2</INF>. The CCPI is needed to ensure the demonstration
of advanced mercury control technologies, the demonstration of
advanced power cycles that provide significantly greater
efficiency in the conversion of coal to useful energy or
products (thereby preventing CO<INF>2</INF> emissions) and the
demonstration of first generation CO<INF>2</INF> capture and
storage technologies, both for conventional coal systems and
advanced combustion and gasification based systems.
Oxycombustion, advanced scrubbers and chemical looping are
examples of some of the important combustion-related carbon
management systems under development.
With respect to mercury control technologies, thanks to an
extremely successful program to develop and field test a number
of improved mercury control technologies, we are now in a
position to conduct commercial-scale, multi-year demonstrations
of those technologies. Time for this activity is critical, as
technologies will be needed to comply with the second phase of
EPA's mercury emission limits in 2018, and will probably be
needed on some new coal-based power plants prior to that date.
It should be noted that the administration's budget documents
justified cuts in the CCPI program by alleging mismanagement by
the Department. Frankly, we do not understand this opposition
by OMB, particularly when the accomplishments of the
demonstration program have been so substantial, and when global
accolades for DOE's program successes have been so prevalent.
Funds appropriated for the CCPI program have been committed,
perhaps not all under contract or spent, but committed to clean
coal projects. Complex projects with estimated costs exceeding
tens of millions of dollars will require significant periods of
time to negotiate; none of this should be surprising. Indeed,
one of the largest CCPI awarded projects, the Southern Company
Transport Gasifier (IGCC) project with a total estimated cost
of more than $550 million and a DOE cost share of $235 million
was negotiated in 16 months and the project is underway.
CURC recommends that the funding for CCPI in fiscal year 2007 be
increased to $150 million. Combined with other resources
available to the program, this could be sufficient to allow a
solicitation for technology proposals in late 2006 or early
2007.
--The roadmap recognizes the benefits to technology development that
the FutureGen project can provide and the CURC supports this
important R&D program that can serve as a test bed for
demonstrating technologies developed out of the DOE's R&D
projects. To succeed as originally envisioned, basic R&D
activities must continue to provide the technology components
needed in FutureGen, like lower cost oxygen production systems,
cheaper synthesis gas cleanup, and hydrogen-capable combustion
turbines. This world class project will require a long term and
substantial financial commitment from the Federal Government.
The administration seeks to use ``old'' and previously
appropriated funds to support FutureGen in fiscal year 2007.
These previously appropriated funds ($54.0 million) along with
$203 million in other appropriations also previously
appropriated should be set aside for use in later years when
the critical and expensive construction stage of the project is
undertaken. The $54.0 million requested in fiscal year 2007
should be provided as new appropriations.
--Recognizing that the current fiscal situation is extremely
difficult and that many worthy government programs have been
reduced, some dramatically, the basic R&D funding levels
identified within the CURC/EPRI Roadmap can generally be met
within the totals that the Congress enacted and the President
signed into law as part of the fiscal year 2006 appropriations
bill for energy and water. The Congressional amounts (minus
appropriations for ``program direction'') enacted in fiscal
year 2006 for the DOE's coal R&D program was $297.1 million.
CURC is recommending a total increase of $31.8 million to the
amounts requested in the fiscal year 2007 budget. Adoption of
these recommended increases would result in a total fiscal year
2007 budget of $302.8 million which is slightly above amounts
enacted in fiscal year 2006. In those coal R&D programs not
recommended for additional funding in fiscal year 2007, CURC
emphasizes that funding is adequate and that no funds should be
taken from these programs. The specific recommendations are:
--Advanced Turbines.--This program, funded at $12.8 million in the
DOE's fiscal year 2007 request, should be funded at $25.0
million. The additional resources are needed to ensure that
the development of the hydrogen turbine remains on schedule
as well as development of other advanced turbines. In both
instances, such turbines are essential if carbon
constraints are imposed. It should also be noted that
hydrogen turbines are an important component of FutureGen.
--Innovations for Existing Plants.--Much progress has been made in
developing and deploying technologies to reduce emissions
from existing coal-fired power plants. However, we need to
focus additional attention on mercury emissions control,
fresh water consumption, solid waste generation, and
overall efficiency improvements at these plants. Efficiency
improvements achieved through application of advanced
technologies will reduce carbon dioxide emissions as well
as other emissions. An additional $6.4 million is
recommended for the Innovations for Existing Plants budget
line. The additional funds would allow continued and
accelerated progress particularly on mercury control
technologies.
--Advanced Research.--This program should receive an additional
$8.4 million to support the on-going ultra-supercritical
materials consortium as well as DOE support to university
coal research programs.
--Coal-derived Fuels and Liquids.--CURC supports the DOE hydrogen
program as coal will be a major fuel source if we
transform, in part, to a hydrogen-based economy. However,
we believe that the fossil energy fuels and liquids program
should also focus on methods to reduce the cost of
facilities to manufacture coal to fuels or liquids. A total
of $5.0 million in additional funding for this area is
recommended. These additional funds should be made
available for development of advanced catalysts and
processes, reactor design, fuel property modification as
well as system and design studies focused upon coal-to-
liquids plant economics, operability and size of facilities
to achieve widespread application of coal-to-liquids
conversion technology in all regions of the United States.
In addition, we are very concerned that on-going hydrogen
studies at DOE are not being fully coordinated with the
fossil energy office. Congress should insist that fossil
energy be fully consulted and that any outside peer review
of hydrogen R&D programs include reviewers designated by
the fossil energy office.
In summary, CURC believes that coal can play a vital role in
helping America meet its needs for reliable and affordable energy, but
only if a continuing commitment to technology development allows coal
to overcome remaining environmental challenges. The fiscal year 2007
budget request does not reflect such a commitment. Congress must
restore funding to the CCPI technology demonstration program and also
ensure that the FutureGen program is adequately and fully funded. In
addition, modest adjustments to the basic R&D program are appropriate.
A table summarizing these recommendations by CURC is attached to this
statement.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nuclear Energy Institute
On behalf of the nuclear energy industry, thank you for your
oversight of the Federal Government's used nuclear fuel management
program and funding for the Department of Energy's (DOE) nuclear
technology-related programs. My statement for the record addresses
three key points:
--Congress should fully fund the Yucca Mountain program to provide
secure, environmentally responsible management of used nuclear
fuel.--NEI recommends that the program be funded at the
President's request of $544.5 million to enable DOE to submit a
license application for Yucca Mountain to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) next year.
--The industry urges continued support for DOE's nuclear energy
programs at $560 million.--NEI supports higher funding for
DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology to
support the new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and sustain
existing programs. To achieve its objectives, DOE must have
additional funding for Nuclear Power 2010, Generation IV
reactor programs and the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative. We
strongly recommend full restoration of the University
Infrastructure and Assistance Program along with continued
funding for the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative and
initiating the Nuclear Energy Systems Support Program.
--The NRC's budget request of $777 million should be reviewed for
efficiencies.--NEI urges Congress to thoroughly examine the
NRC's budget increased budget request to ensure proper resource
allocation and to recognize reduced demands due to delays in
Yucca Mountain licensing.
The Nuclear Energy Institute is responsible for developing policy
for the U.S. nuclear energy industry. NEI's 250 corporate and other
members represent a broad spectrum of interests, including every U.S.
utility that operates a nuclear power plant. NEI's membership also
includes nuclear fuel cycle companies, suppliers, engineering and
consulting firms, national research laboratories, manufacturers of
radiopharmaceuticals, universities, labor unions and law firms.
The nuclear industry generates electricity for one of every five
U.S. homes and businesses, and is taking steps to develop affordable,
reliable and clean electricity for the future. Nuclear energy is a
vital component of a diverse energy portfolio that enhances America's
energy security and fuels economic growth. We applaud the efforts and
actions of this committee in recognizing nuclear energy as an important
part of a diverse, competitive and secure energy policy for generations
to come.
INDUSTRY SUPPORTS BUDGET REQUEST OF $544.5 MILLION FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN
The nuclear industry appreciates the strong support and leadership
that the Congress has provided on the Yucca Mountain repository
program. The Federal Government is already 8 years behind on its
commitment to start moving used nuclear fuel from temporary storage at
nuclear power plants across the Nation to a Federal repository. Under
the most optimistic scenario, it will be several more years before the
repository is licensed and operating. Since 1983, consumers of
electricity from nuclear power plants have committed nearly $23 billion
in fees and interest to cover the costs of this program, and the
Nuclear Waste Fund balance is more than $20 billion.
The Federal Government taking title to and moving used fuel away
from reactor sites, along with quantifiable progress on Yucca Mountain,
are top priorities for the nuclear industry. Continued progress toward
a used fuel management solution is important for building new nuclear
plants that will maintain nuclear energy as a key component of our
Nation's energy production mix throughout the 21st century.
DOE recently completed a thorough review of the Yucca Mountain
program and has outlined needed improvements in the program. The
agency's recent re-organization and lead laboratory designation are
steps in that direction. We are encouraged that the department's
leadership now has the necessary focus to move the program forward. The
program shift toward a new fuel handling approach has promise to better
facilitate licensing and operation of the facility.
The Secretary of Energy recently testified before Congress that the
agency this summer will provide a schedule for submitting a license
application for Yucca Mountain to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
and for repository construction and operation. The industry strongly
believes that it is critical that DOE meet this commitment. In
particular, it is imperative that a high-quality license application be
submitted as soon as practicable to demonstrate measurable progress on
this critical program. There will be ample opportunity going forward
for additional detail to be provided by DOE.
In order for this progress to be accomplished, we fully support the
administration's $544.5 million request for the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management. This funding level is necessary for DOE
to complete a high quality license application and prepare to defend it
in the NRC licensing process, to improve existing Yucca Mountain site
infrastructure and develop new infrastructure, and for repository
facilities design. We also welcome Secretary Bodman's statement that he
reserves the right to adjust the funding request in light of the
program schedule plan that will be completed over the next few months.
The industry also supports legislative action by Congress to
address regulatory, long-term funding and other issues to allow the
department to move forward with this project. We look forward to
working with the committee now that the administration has forwarded
its legislative recommendations to Congress.
The nuclear industry has consistently supported, including in
testimony before this committee, research and development of advanced
fuel cycle technologies incorporated in the Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative (AFCI). In anticipation of a major expansion of nuclear
power in the United States and globally, it is appropriate to
accelerate activities in this program. The renaissance in development
of nuclear energy requires advanced fuel cycles in the future.
President Bush has presented a compelling vision for a global
nuclear renaissance through the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP). This initiative provides an important framework to address
challenges for nuclear power development related to fuel supply, long-
term radioactive waste management and proliferation concerns.
We recognize that the Congress has important questions regarding
this program. The industry believes that the near term focus for GNEP
is for DOE to determine, by 2008, how to proceed with demonstration of
advanced recycling technologies and other technological challenges.
Consequently, the industry fully supports increased funding for the
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative in fiscal year 2007. However, neither
AFCI, nor GNEP reduces the immediate near-term imperative for progress
on Yucca Mountain.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT NECESSARY FOR NEW NUCLEAR ENERGY
The Nation needs new electricity capacity. The Energy Information
Agency forecasts that demand for electricity will grow by more than 40
percent over the next 25 years. Simple maintaining nuclear energy as 20
percent of U.S. electricity supply (its current share) will require
construction of 50,000 megawatts (40-50 large plants) of new nuclear
plants by 2030. DOE and the industry are working on cost-shared
programs that will ready new nuclear energy technology for the
marketplace midway through the next decade. Within the Nuclear Power
2010 program, funding should be allocated for demonstrating NRC
licensing processes for new nuclear plants, including those for early
site permits and the combined construction and operating license. The
industry remains fully committed to this initiative and strongly
recommends increasing funding to $110 million \1\ to meet the schedule
for completion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The $110 million is necessary to sustain progress with the NP
2010 program, and is exclusive of any projected carry-over of the DOE
fiscal year 2006 budget that may or may not be available for fiscal
year 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The industry believes that the government has a limited, early role
in bringing advanced reactor concepts--Generation IV reactors--to the
marketplace. NEI urges the committee's support for the development of a
next-generation nuclear plant at the Idaho National Laboratory, funded
through the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative program at
$100 million. The industry also supports the Nuclear Hydrogen
Initiative at $30 million.
Although DOE continues to fund the International Nuclear Energy
Research Initiative (I-NERI), the domestic version of this program
(NERI) has been superseded by a new initiative that continues the basic
science of NERI under other DOE nuclear energy programs. The industry
believes a collaborative basic science program between national
laboratories, industry and universities like NERI should be continued
in fiscal year 2007.
Congress authorized the Nuclear Energy Systems Support program as
part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, but DOE proposed no funding for
the program in fiscal year 2007. The industry supports this new program
and suggests $15 million to fund an analysis of high performance fuel
at the Idaho National Laboratory. Future budgets for this program could
focus on developing technology to predict and measure the effect of
aging on plant systems and components; and introducing new metals and
other materials to assure the safety of key systems and components.
The industry also strongly recommends restoration of DOE's
University Infrastructure and Assistance Program, which provides for
vital research and educational programs in nuclear science at the
Nation's colleges and universities. The global nuclear renaissance will
demand highly educated and trained professionals in the engineering
sciences. NEI also encourages the committee to consider supporting a
new program within the Office of Science that encourages support for
undergraduate and graduate programs in health physics, radiochemistry
and other disciplines important to medical, energy and other
applications of commercial nuclear technology.
NRC BUDGET AND STAFFING SHOULD BE REVIEWED
The NRC's proposed fiscal year 2007 budget totals $777 million, an
increase of $35 million from the fiscal year 2006 budget, and the
highest ever for this agency. Six years ago, the NRC's budget was $488
million. This is an appropriate time for Congress to review the budget
request and resource allocations in light of current demands and the
other resources available.
The NRC's fiscal year 2006 budget request of $702 million was
increased by $41 million by Congress for two purposes. The commission
was allocated an additional $20 million to fund an investment ``over 2
years'' to support the preparatory activities and pre-application
consultations for the expected combined construction and operating
license applications beginning in fiscal year 2008. The NRC also was
provided $21 million to be used to conduct ``site specific assessments
of spent fuel pools at each of the nuclear reactor sites.'' Although
Congress clearly established a limited period for funding in these two
categories, the NRC has incorporated these amounts into its budget
baseline.
As a result of the significant increases in the NRC's budget,
licensee fees have increased dramatically. Generic licensee fees for
each reactor will increase from $3.1 million to more than $3.6 million.
When other NRC fee increases specific to each reactor are included for
licensees, NRC fees for power reactors will increase by over 20 percent
in 1 year.
The NRC's fiscal year 2007 budget request includes $35.3 million
for generic homeland security costs. Section 637 of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 modified the NRC's user fee to exclude the costs of generic
homeland security from fees recovered from licensees, except
reimbursable costs of fingerprinting and background checks and the
costs of conducting security inspections. The NRC's budget proposal
includes more than $70 million for homeland security functions. Section
637 requires that only a portion of the NRC's budget for this function
be supported by general funds. The industry agrees that certain NRC
security functions are for the common defense of the Nation and should
be funded from general funds.
America's nuclear power plants were the most secure U.S. industrial
facilities before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and are even
more secure today. Over the past 5 years, the nuclear industry has made
significant improvements in security at nuclear power plants. The NRC
substantially upgraded its security requirements in 2002 and again in
2004. The industry has invested more than $1.2 billion in security-
related improvements and has increased its security guard forces from
around 5,000 to more than 7,000. Security at commercial nuclear
facilities is unmatched by any other private sector or area of the
critical infrastructure, and the nuclear industry has been a leader in
working with the Department of Homeland Security and other Federal and
State resources on security issues.
INDUSTRY SUPPORT FOR ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES
Nuclear Nonproliferation.--The industry urges the committee to
support the President's request for the MOX project, which is a vital
element of U.S. nonproliferation activities. This year is particularly
crucial to the project because construction is scheduled to begin.
Low-Dose Radiation Health Effects Research.--The industry supports
continued funding for the DOE's low-dose radiation research program.
Nuclear Research Facilities.--The industry is concerned about the
declining number of nuclear research facilities, and urges the
committee to fully fund DOE's lead laboratory in Idaho for nuclear
energy research and development.
Uranium Facility Decontamination and Decommissioning.--The industry
fully supports cleanup of the gaseous diffusion plants at Paducah, KY;
Portsmouth, OH; and Oak Ridge, TN. Commercial nuclear power plants
contribute more than $150 million each year to the Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund for government-managed uranium enrichment plants.
Other important environmental, safety and/or health activities at these
facilities should be funded from general revenues.
International Nuclear Safety Program and Nuclear Energy Agency.--
NEI supports the funding requested for the DOE and NRC international
nuclear safety programs. They are programs aimed at improving the safe
commercial use of nuclear energy worldwide.
Medical Isotopes Infrastructure.--The nuclear industry supports the
administration's program for the production of medical and research
isotopes.
______
Prepared Statement of the External Advisory Committee to the Department
of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering, University of Texas at Austin
The External Advisory Committee to the University of Texas at
Austin Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering is gravely
concerned that the administration's fiscal year 2007 budget request
eliminates funding for the Department of Energy's oil and natural gas
technologies budget. We respectfully urge you to restore funding to at
least the fiscal year 2006 appropriated level of $64 million.
Many have tried to label this appropriation as corporate welfare
for ``big oil.'' Nothing could be further from the truth. DOE's oil and
natural gas technologies budget ensures that all Americans benefit from
the technological advances necessary to produce America's ever more
marginal oil and natural gas reserves.
This Draconian cut has a severe negative effect on the University
of Texas' ability to produce quality petroleum engineers that this
Nation so desperately needs. Department Chairman Bill Rossen informs me
that more than half of the university's petroleum engineering research
dollars would be eliminated if the program's budget were to be zeroed
out. I can attest that the cut's effect on the Nation's other 15
petroleum engineering schools would be similar.
The External Advisory Committee that I chair is made up of oil and
gas leaders throughout the country. We already provide significant
support to the University of Texas at Austin and other similar research
institutions. But more help is needed.
We are advised that the Department of Energy office of fossil
energy already has in place safeguards to ensure that its research
dollars are not giveaways or welfare checks to oil and gas companies,
but rather support critical research and development efforts that are
not otherwise taking place. We respectfully suggest that Congress could
mandate the development of similar safeguards as a condition of this
appropriation.
Public domain oil and natural gas technology research is a vital
public policy interest of the United States that merits a Federal
appropriation. Such research ensures the continued vitality of our
academic institutions. It provides the technology development needed to
supply America's energy into the future. It strengthens the American
economy and our way of life, and it upholds America's energy security.
Thank you for your support of this critical appropriation request.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Mining Association
NMA RECOMMENDATIONS
Department of Energy
Office of Fossil Energy.--$54 million in new funds for the
FutureGen Initiative; $257 million in previously appropriated funds
should be designated for the FutureGen Initiative; $303 million for
base coal research and development programs; and, $150 million for the
Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Civil Works Program.--See table below for NMA's list of priority
projects and recommendations.
BACKGROUND
Office of Fossil Energy.--The NMA strongly supports the $54 million
in new funds for the FutureGen Initiative; recommends the rescission
and advance appropriation of the entire $257 million in prior year
Clean Coal Technology Program funds for FutureGen's use in the out
years; and recommends at least $303 million be appropriated for base
coal research and development programs. In addition, the Clean Coal
Power Initiative (CCPI) should be funded at a level of $150 million;
the Advanced Turbine program should be funded at $25 million; and the
Advanced Separation Technologies should receive $3 million.
The FutureGen Initiative will design and build, in the United
States, a first-of-a-kind commercial-scale power plant that will
provide the technological capability to: (1) capture and permanently
store 90 percent or more of the plant's CO<INF>2</INF> emissions; (2)
power about 150,000 American homes with the clean electricity it
generates from coal; and, (3) co-produce hydrogen and potentially other
useful by-products from coal.
Technological advancements achieved in the base coal research and
demonstration programs such as gasification, advanced turbines, and
carbon sequestration, provide the component technologies that will
ultimately be integrated into the FutureGen project. NMA believes these
programs should be funded at a level of at least $303 million. Within
this amount, the advanced turbine program should be funded at $25
million instead of the requested level of $13 million. The increase in
funding will ensure the FutureGen project meets intended goals.
In addition, NMA recommends a $3 million level of funding for the
Center for Advanced Separation Technology (CAST), which is led by a
consortium of seven universities with mining research programs. The
advanced separations program conducts high-risk fundamental research
which will lead to revolutionary advances in separation processes for
the coal industry and develop technologies which crosscut the full
spectrum of mining and minerals industries.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Civil Works Program.--NMA reviewed the proposed fiscal year 2007
request for the USACE's Civil Works Program and supports the request
for additional expenditures from the Inland Waterway Users Fund and the
strategy to accelerate high-priority projects that provide benefits to
the Nation. However, NMA is very concerned that the proposed fiscal
year 2007 budget does not provide sufficient funding to keep critical
navigation projects on schedule, allow for the start of new projects,
and address the maintenance backlog for existing navigation projects.
Therefore, NMA provides the following recommendations:
--A minimum of $5.5 billion should be appropriated in fiscal year
2007 for the Civil Works Program. This level balances the need
to address the significant project backlog and the capability
of the Corps with our Nation's needs for jobs, economic growth,
homeland security and national defense.
--The effort to develop criteria for budgeting purposes is long
overdue. However, NMA is very concerned that the use of
performance-based budgeting, and specifically the performance
budgeting tool Remaining Benefit/Remaining Cost (RB/RC) ratio,
will have significant impacts on project appropriations. The
navigation projects span many years and the benefits for many
of the projects are not realized until completion. In addition,
the lack of sufficient funding levels needed to keep projects
on schedule compounds the impact. NMA does not support the
administration's proposals for zero funding for the Kentucky
River Lock and J.T. Myers Lock and Dam projects that are
currently under construction. In the case of the Kentucky lock,
more than 25 percent of the total project cost has been spent.
The fiscal year 2007 appropriations for the Corps' General
Investigations account should be increased from $95 to $200 million.
These studies are critical to ascertaining and developing future
projects.
The fiscal year 2007 proposed funding in the amount of $2.258
billion for the Corps' Operations and Maintenance (O&M) functions
should be increased. More than half of the locks are more than 50 years
old and in need of significant maintenance. Delaying necessary
maintenance impacts the ability to move commerce efficiently,
exacerbates further deterioration and accelerates the need for major
rehabilitation and possibly at higher costs than necessary. The current
backlog of critical maintenance for navigation is estimated to be more
than $600 million. The replacement value of the lock and dam facilities
in the United States are estimated to be $125 billion. As a Nation, we
cannot abandon our inland waterway system and we must increase the
monies spent on O&M.
Below is a table indicating NMA's Fiscal Year 2007 Priority
Projects.
NMA FISCAL YEAR 2007 PRIORITY PROJECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2007 Efficient
2006 Enacted 2007 Requested Funding Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction:
Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dams Ohio River, OH/WV............. $914,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000
Kentucky River Lock Addition, Tennessee River, KY........... 23,000,000 .............. 55,000,000
Marmet Locks and Dams, Kanawha River, WV.................... 73,500,000 50,800,000 50,800,000
McAlpine Locks and Dams, Ohio River, IN/KY.................. 70,000,000 70,000,000 70,000,000
Locks and Dams 2, 3, 4, Monongahela River, PA............... 50,800,000 62,772,000 62,800,000
J.T. Myers Locks and Dams, Ohio River, IN/KY................ 700,000 .............. 9,000,000
Olmsted Locks and Dams, Ohio River, IL/KY................... 90,000,000 110,000,000 110,000,000
Winfield Locks and Dams, Kanawha River, WV.................. 2,400,000 4,300,000 4,300,000
Emsworth Dam, Ohio River, PA................................ 15,000,000 17,000,000 17,000,000
Investigations:
Greenup Locks and Dam, KY and OH............................ 225,000 .............. 4,000,000
Emsworth, Dashields & Montgomery (Upper Ohio River)......... 1,275,000 .............. 4,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Program.--NMA supports the administration's request of
$173 million for administering the Corps' Clean Water Act (CWA),
Section 404 permit program and for implementing the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU).
The Regulatory Branch plays a key role in the U.S. economy since
the Corps currently authorizes approximately $200 billion of economic
activity through its regulatory program annually. The ability to plan
and finance mining operations depends on the ability to obtain Clean
Water Act Section 404 permits issued by the USACE within a predictable
timeframe. In addition, NMA recommends that a portion of such
regulatory program funding be used for implementing the MOU issued on
February 10, 2005 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Office
of Surface Mining, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This MOU encourages a coordinated
review and processing of surface coal mining applications requiring CWA
Section 404 permits.
The National Mining Association (NMA) represents producers of over
80 percent of the coal mined in the United States. Coal continues to be
the most reliable and affordable domestic fuel used to generate over 50
percent of the Nation's electricity. NMA members also include producers
of uranium--the basis for 20 percent of U.S. electricity supply. NMA
represents producers of metals and minerals that are critical to a
modern economy and our national security. Finally, NMA includes
manufacturers of processing equipment, mining machinery and supplies,
transporters, and engineering, consulting, and financial institutions
serving the mining industry.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Community Action Foundation
Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, the National
Community Action Foundation represents the 760 local Community Action
Agencies (CAAs) that deliver most of the Weatherization Assistance
Program investments.
We are requesting that the subcommittee reject the President's
request that slashes the program by 33 percent in fiscal year 2007 and
shuts it down over the next 3 years. We urge you, at the very least, to
maintain the program at its fiscal year 2006 level. (The program could
quickly ramp up its work if the subcommittee decides to provide a
substantial and sustained increase, but we certainly recognize the
budgetary realities Congress faces for fiscal year 2007.)
We were astonished that the administration retreated from 5 years
of advocating for increased Weatherization funding just when oil and
natural gas prices reached record highs. The 2007 budget request
reduces Weatherization and other programs but increases subsidies to
long-term technology development by corporate-academic-government
research partnerships. We cannot dispute the need for engineering and
basic research, but we seriously question whether it can only proceed
if funding can be taken from low-income homes.
The cut will deny about 26,000 households the lasting and immediate
bill reductions they expected to receive next year, after being wait-
listed for ``their turn'' for several years. The planned termination of
the program by 2010 will mean the difference between sickness and
health and between stability and homelessness for millions of consumers
now eligible for this important assistance. These sad effects will be
realized decades before the new energy economy provides any relief. It
is an unnecessary sacrifice.
The planned termination of the program means a cadre of thousands
of skilled workers which is ready now to put the best available tools,
new techniques and state-of-the art insulating materials and equipment
in hundreds of thousands of buildings, will be diverted to the
conventional construction work they perform when not delivering
Weatherization today. Two decades of Federal investment in training and
new materials may be lost.
As you are aware, even the administration has not retreated from
its conviction that Weatherization operates efficiently and produces
solid results in energy savings, safer homes and lower bills. In fact,
the Secretary issued the following statement on April 3, 2006:
``Washington, DC.--U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel
W. Bodman today announced $140.3 million in weatherization program
grants to 31 States and the Navajo Nation to make energy efficiency
improvements in homes of low-income families; weatherization can reduce
an average home's energy costs by $358 annually. Total fiscal year 2006
funding is $243 million and will provide weatherization to
approximately 96,560 homes. `Weatherizing your home is a valuable way
to save energy and money,' Secretary Bodman said. `The Department of
Energy's weatherization program will help nearly 97,000 families make
their homes more energy efficient.'
``For every dollar spent, weatherization returns $1.53 in energy
savings over the life of the measures. DOE's weatherization program
performs energy audits to identify the most cost-effective measures for
each home, which typically includes adding insulation, reducing air
infiltration, servicing heating and cooling systems, and providing
health and safety diagnostic services. Other benefits of weatherization
include increased housing affordability, increased property values, job
creation, lower owner and renter turnover, and reduced fire risks.''
There was strong Senate support for the Energy Policy Act when it
passed not even 1 year ago; it not only preserved, it more than
doubled, the authorized size of the Weatherization program by 2008.
That Act signaled to the hundreds of thousands of low-income Americans
on waiting lists for our energy services that the Congress is not only
committed to incentives for long-term technological advances that
transform our infrastructure; it sent the message that Congress intends
to offer them effective permanent relief by reducing improving their
dilapidated, wasteful housing as soon as possible.
Those weatherized in the past can expect their fiscal year 2006
household energy bills will be $400 to $462 lowers than they would have
been without the DOE program's investment. These average savings alone
represent nearly a month's income to many of the elderly participants
who rely solely on Supplemental Social Security, and are about one-
quarter of the energy bills that will drain the resources of the
average un-weatherized low-income consumer over the course of this
fiscal year. The Department of Energy figure of $358 is the multi-year
average expected based on long-term price forecasts. In years like this
one, extreme prices mean better protection for that Weatherized.
Community Action Agencies are fully aware that the $600 million fiscal
year 2008 authorization is really an indicator of the direction the
Congress is committed to follow, not a funding level. We urge the
subcommittee to stay the policy course laid out last summer by, at the
very least, sustaining the Weatherization program.
When our Nation first took controls off oil prices, and again when
Americans were promised that electricity competition would drive the
price of residential power down, an accompanying policy promise was
that the poor would be protected from the risk of un-affordable energy.
The promises have not been honored fully, but the Weatherization
program, expanded as part of the original ``social bargain'' on energy
in 1979, has evolved as a small but steady source of investment in
lasting relief. The poor need Weatherization program investments for
their houses because they lack the credit card, the savings, or the
income to buy the home improvements that pay off steadily, year after
year.
This year, nearly all American consumers have needed relief from
energy prices, and millions of homeowners installed more insulation,
repaired air leakage, and upgraded to more efficient equipment to stay
warm and to keep their electrical devices running at lower cost. We all
know conservation is the best and quickest bill reduction strategy, and
most of us can use our energy more carefully. However, the low-income
consumers already use less than 80 percent of the home energy that the
average American uses even though their homes burn about one-third more
gas or heating oil per sq. ft. because of their age and poor quality.
There is not as much margin for the poor to cut back before indoor
temperatures become dangerously low or high in summer.
Community Action's mission is to change the causes of poverty;
wasteful and unhealthy housing can indeed be transformed by
Weatherization, and CAAs consider it one of our most effective
programs; it makes a lasting change for the family; it produces
immediate reduction in energy bills, upgrades the building stock, and
broadens the technical competence of the local building trades.
We also request that the subcommittee take two further initiatives
that impose no cost. They are to:
--Request reporting from DOE that indicates how the Department is
fulfilling the many responsibilities it is assigned under the
statute following dramatic staffing reductions of the past 3
years and the reorganization expected on July 1, 2006, and
--Consider proposing a role for the skilled Weatherization workforce,
when and if you review budgets for other Federal or State
programs that bring energy efficient materials and technology
to the residential market as a whole or to the task of building
affordable housing in the Gulf Coast communities. Weatherizers
are ready respond to energy-related consumer needs using other
funds, and they can do more. For example, tens of millions of
LIHEAP funds are spent to replace broken, dangerous and
wasteful furnaces and other equipment. A program to subsidize
more Energy Star equipment for low-income housing would soon
result in many safer, warmer homes and transform the market for
Energy Star equipment.
Many Weatherization providers are already partners in community
development projects that are using renewable funds and new efficient
green construction techniques. Funding comes from private partners,
State and Federal housing programs and State utility system benefit
funds. In fact, Weatherization programs are able to win non-Federal
funds and partners because of their capacity and their strict
accountability, both products of the DOE program. We estimate our
network of Weatherizers will have delivered $700 million in energy and
housing services to the poor by the end of program year 2006, of which
just over one-third comes from the core DOE program. This means
Weatherization has the capacity to grow in response to the urgent
national need to use energy more responsibly. The subcommittee's past
support has already allowed the program to get more done in this
program year and Weatherization providers look forward to as much
responsibility as you can possible assign in the coming fiscal year.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Hydrogen Association
Chairman Domenici, Ranking Member Reid and honorable members of the
committee, on behalf of the 100 members of the National Hydrogen
Association (NHA), I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
enter into the record testimony on the funding for hydrogen programs in
the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2007 congressional budget
request. For over 17 years, we have been an association dedicated to
pursuing the research, development and demonstration of hydrogen and
fuel cell technologies, leading to a firm basis for establishing and
growing a commercial Hydrogen Economy.
SUMMARY
My testimony will make the following points that reflect the NHA's
policy priorities:
--Full funding of the Technology Validation Program;
--Full funding of the hydrogen provisions in the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (EPAct 05--Public Law 109-58);
--Support for other enabling legislation and appropriations.
TECHNOLOGY VALIDATION PROGRAM
The validation program has ambitious and critical goals concerning
durability, vehicle range, storage, attainable hydrogen fuel cost, data
reporting, technology evolution, renewable hydrogen feedstock
generation, codes and standards coordination and public outreach. Teams
combine the efforts of both vehicle manufacturers and energy companies
in 5-year partnerships, along with several other research firms,
universities and National Laboratories. Here is why DoE's validation
program is so important:
--The team projects involved in these ``Learning Demonstrations''
include detailed concepts for diverse and flexible approaches
to vehicles, supply and infrastructure.
--Unique, historic partnerships have been formed between fuel, auto,
and research firms--critical to reinventing new corporate
relationships and making new markets succeed.
--The operational relationship between system components (hydrogen
supply, on-board storage, vehicle, fuel cell, drive train) has
to be learned in practice--it cannot be fully evaluated by
simulations or bench testing. Successful integration of new
components is difficult, and real problems must be solved in a
commercial operating environment.
--Evolution of new technology is greatly assisted by bringing systems
out of the lab, punishing them under real conditions, remedying
the failures, and sending intractable problems back to the
lab--while redesigning new demos. The quest toward
commercialization will occur in many iterative steps.
--If funding were to lag, the Federal Government might become a less
reliable partner, key parts of the partnerships could soften,
and the scale of U.S. activity could shrink toward marginal
ideas. The centroid of hydrogen development may move away from
the United States.
ENERGY POLICY ACT PROVISIONS
Although the fiscal year 2007 budget request continues to build on
the strong foundation of the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative--a 5-
year commitment expiring in 2008--EPAct 05 gave the entire hydrogen
program permanent authority. As a consequence, DoE has much work to do
to implement the Act.
We certainly concur with the letters sent to Secretary Bodman and
President Bush by the House and Senate (respectively) in late 2005 that
asked for full funding of the hydrogen provisions in EPAct 05, without
adverse impacts on the other energy efficiency and renewable energy
programs in DoE. Specifically, the Dec. 21, 2005, bipartisan Senate
letter highlights how the EPAct 05 makes the Federal Government a more
reliable partner in building the Hydrogen Economy:
``The Secretary's scope of action has been expanded in key areas,
and the hydrogen and fuel cell program has acquired considerable
stability by its permanent authorization. Renewed focus on research,
development, demonstration and state and Federal purchase for early
market transition will give the Secretary and industry higher quality
technical options sooner.''
Further,
``Technology validations, the heart of the learning demonstration
partnerships with industry, need to grow to include fleets of advanced
vehicles, particularly light duty vehicles, transit buses, agricultural
industrial and heavy duty vehicles.''
And,
``To achieve the acceleration of our efforts to build a hydrogen
economy, we specifically recommend that the fiscal year 2007 budget
request reflect the authorized levels of spending that have been
approved by Congress in Titles VII and VIII of the Energy Policy Act of
2005.''
DOE HYDROGEN PROGRAMS
The President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative continues its strong run,
with increased funding over fiscal year 2006. The hydrogen programs in
EPAct 05 built on the success of that initiative, which began in 2004
and might have ended in fiscal year 2008, but it has some ambitious
2015 goals that were being actualized by appropriations only 1 year at
a time. This annual approach would have had a slim chance of realizing
such long range goals and designs into the program an inherent lack of
stability, particularly for the critical learning demonstrations.
As a baseline, the actual Title VII and Title VIIII request for
hydrogen is $246 million (EERE + Science), or only 47.5 percent of
EPAct 05's $517.5 million. Additional hydrogen funding is included for
the nuclear and fossil energy programs. Plus, the authorized activities
under Title VII Vehicles and Fuels, have not been addressed in program
planning, let alone in the funding request. Although the Senate Energy
Committee agreed in October 2005 to forego activities for fiscal year
2006 under Title VII at DoE's request, DoE agreed that this did not
apply to fiscal year 2007. Nevertheless, there is much to do under
sections 782 and 783 that does not require funding, but DoE's
dedication to the principles contained in the law. These shortfalls
need explanation.
Additionally, there are three important studies in Sections 1819,
1820 and 1825 that deserve to be completed soon by DoE and would help
inform industry and the Congress--that deal respectively with resolving
international participation in the hydrogen program, economic
development and employment aspects of a hydrogen economy, and a long-
term Federal funding roadmap plus the carbon effects from a fully-
realized hydrogen economy. These sections originated with Senators
Alexander, Dorgan and Levin respectively, had strong industry and
bipartisan support and were adopted by unanimous consent in the
Senate's Energy Bill, S. 10, and in the Conference Report for Public
Law 109-58. We applaud DoE's foresight in issuing a solicitation for
the Section 1820 study, which is to be completed in late October.
On a positive note, DoE budget displays show that Technology
Validation does receive about an 18 percent increase in fiscal year
2007 over fiscal year 2006 appropriations ($33.6 million vs. $39.6
million). The favorable increases in the Fossil Energy budget request
for hydrogen activities are worth noting--but we would especially like
to see more emphasis on hydrogen production from advanced, safe nuclear
power. And given the magnitude of our national coal resources,
FutureGen will simply need more stable funding over a longer time span.
CONCLUSION
We urge the committee to preserve these gains in the appropriations
process, and add to them to be more consistent with EPAct 05. Continued
funding growth is designed into EPAct 05 that is intended to accelerate
the programs' achievements, and create a far larger benefit pool than
could be realized by R&D alone. After all, the job is to commercialize
the results of R&D, along with that careful technical exploration.
We would like to see member requests moderate somewhat, and
especially be tied more closely to DoE's planning goals for technology
development. DoE's administration of these member requests also needs
improvement, so that accommodating them does not mistakenly worsen the
adverse impact to existing and mortgaged multiyear projects.
We thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. We look
forward to continuing a fruitful working relationship with the
committee, its staff, and all our stakeholders in building a successful
Hydrogen Economy.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Chemical Society
The American Chemical Society (ACS) would like to thank Chairman
Peter Domenici and Ranking Member Harry Reid for the opportunity to
submit testimony for the record on the Energy and Water Appropriations
bill for fiscal year 2007. For fiscal year 2007, ACS requests the
Department of Energy Office of Science be fully funded at President
Bush's request of $4.102 billion.
ACS is a non-profit scientific and educational organization,
chartered by Congress, representing more than 159,000 individual
chemical scientists and engineers. The world's largest scientific
society, ACS advances the chemical enterprise, increases public
understanding of chemistry, and brings its expertise to bear on State
and national matters.
As Congress and the administration seek to bolster the economy,
economists agree that investments in basic research boost long-term
economic growth more than other areas of Federal spending. Numerous
recent reports cite the growing challenges American faces from global
competitors, including the National Academies of Science report
``Rising Above the Gathering Storm''.
Basic physical science investments foster the new technologies and
train the scientific workforce which drive the Nation's public health,
defense, energy security, and environmental progress. Although industry
funds the bulk of national R&D, the Federal Government provides 60
percent of basic research funding and, remarkably, 40 percent of
patents cite Federal research as their source. Yet Federal research in
the physical sciences and engineering has been cut in half since 1970
as a percentage of GDP. Fortunately, the President, top Congressional
leaders, and members of science and industry have all recognized the
need to boost investment in physical sciences and engineering research.
This investment has never been more important given its central role in
advancing the Nation's economic, energy, and homeland security.
ACS BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS
Current Federal efforts to advance energy efficiency, production,
and new energy sources while reducing air pollution and other
environmental impacts will demand increased investment in long-term
energy research. By supporting people, research, and world-class
science and engineering facilities, the Department of Energy's Office
of Science expands the frontiers of science in areas critical to DOE's
energy, environment, and national security missions.
The President's budget request represents visionary leadership to
ensure American competitiveness and innovation by providing the largest
investment in DOE Office of Science in over two decades. Many in
Congress have joined with the President in calling for expanded
investment in basic physical science research. The President's request
for $4.102 billion is consistent with authorized spending levels in
Public Law 109-57 and is essential to ensuring the strength of our
innovation economy.
Increases in the Office of Science will help reverse the declining
Federal support for physical science and encourage more students to
pursue degrees in these fields. The Office of Science is the largest
Federal supporter of research in the physical sciences, funding almost
40 percent of research in these fields. The Office of Science fosters
the new discoveries and technical talent that will continue to be
essential to advances in coal, hydrogen, biomass, genomics, and many
other technology areas. Additional funds should be directed to increase
the number of grants, especially in core energy programs, and to
improve research facilities. The Office is the primary source of
Federal support in many research areas essential to our energy security
and economy, such as catalysis, carbon cycle research, photovoltaics,
combustion, and advanced computing. Increased investment is also
important given the declining private support for long-term energy
research.
INCREASE GRANTS IN CORE PROGRAMS
ACS recommends that increases for the Office of Science be directed
to advancing core energy research across disciplines, which enables DOE
to respond rapidly to new challenges. For example, DOE capitalized on
long-term atmospheric chemistry research, particularly in aerosols, and
quickly developed a single anthrax-bacterium detector. DOE must
strengthen its ability to attract scientists and train the next
generation of scientists and engineers by increasing the number of
grants in its core programs without reducing their size and duration.
Current appropriations allow the DOE Office of Science to fund one-
third the proposals as the National Institutes of Health and the
National Science Foundation. This rate is considerably lower than those
of other agencies and amounts to lost opportunities for both
significant discoveries and the education of the next generation of
scientists and engineers.
Within the Office of Science, ACS particularly supports the Basic
Energy Sciences and Biological and Environmental Research programs. As
the cornerstone of the Office, the Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program
supports an array of long-term basic research to improve energy
production and use and reduce the environmental impact of those
activities. The BES program manages almost all of DOE's scientific
user-facilities, and provides leading support for nanotechnology and
advanced computing research--two priority research areas that will have
important implications for energy efficiency and security. The
Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program advances
fundamental understanding in fields such as waste processing,
bioremediation, and atmospheric chemistry to better understand
potential long-term health and environmental effects of energy
production and use and identify opportunities to prevent pollution.
Progress in these fields is also needed to develop and advance new,
effective, and efficient processes for the remediation and restoration
of DOE weapons production sites. ACS supports a strong role for DOE in
Federal efforts to advance pollution prevention and climate change
research.
DOE AND THE SCIENTIFIC WORKFORCE
As the largest supporter of research in the physical sciences, DOE
can greatly affect the training and number of scientists in industry,
government and academia. Inadequate investment in any research field
constricts the supply of trained scientists and engineers who apply
research and develop new technology. For instance, declining support
for nuclear science and engineering will greatly affect the nuclear
sector as a majority of today's nuclear scientists and engineers near
retirement. Another example is the synergistic relationship between the
need for radiochemists and NIH's ability to conduct clinical trials.
Advances in diagnosis and treatment in nuclear medicine are dependent
on the synthesis of highly specific radiopharmaceuticals that target
biological processes in normal and diseased tissues. The Office of
Science, through BER supported research, occupies a critical place in
the field of radiopharmaceutical research. The NIH relies on the Office
of Science's basic research to enable clinical trials.
Another way for DOE to help attract students and retain talented
scientists and engineers is to renew investments in scientific
infrastructure. The Office of Science operates one of the most
extensive and remarkable collection of scientific user facilities in
the world, providing tools for research for more than 18,000 scientists
funded by DOE, other Federal agencies, and industry. Many facilities
are in poor condition or have outmoded instrumentation. Additional
funding would allow for increased operating time, upgrades,
instrumentation, and technical support. The proposed cuts could result
in established facilities lying idle, allowing taxpayer investments to
go unused.
National laboratories also play an important role in providing
research and training opportunities to enhance the university
curriculum. ACS supports the initial plan by DOE to utilize its
national laboratories to help mentor and train science teachers.
Students at all levels clearly learn better when their teachers have a
deep understanding of the subject, and the first-rate multidisciplinary
research and scientific professionals at the national laboratories
certainly could be a rich resource for science and math teachers. ACS
urges stronger coordination among agencies with significant K-12 math
and science programs in order to maximize the Federal investment in
this area.
ACS praises the work of Department of Energy leadership, and
particularly Office of Science Director Ray Orbach, to establish a
vision of America's scientific future with the 20-year facilities plan
and a forward-thinking departmental strategic plan. ACS views these
documents, along with the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board report
``Critical Choices: Science, Energy, and Security'' as key elements of
America's research and development portfolio. Growth in DOE Science
funding is essential to realizing the goals in these documents, and ACS
urges Congress to act to ensure this vision of a technologically
advanced and safe America comes to fruition.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Research Center for Coal and Energy,
West Virginia University
Chairman Domenici, Ranking Member Reid, and members of the
subcommittee, coal supplies over half of our Nation's electricity and
provides a viable alternative to produce transportation fuels,
chemicals, and gaseous fuels. Previous coal research programs supported
by Congress resulted in reduced emissions of criteria pollutants and
increased efficiency in electricity generation at coal-fired central
stations. Congressional support for energy efficiency programs has led
to increased efficiency in our energy-intensive industries and in our
transportation sector. This statement is offered to urge continued
strong investments in the Nation's fossil fuel and key energy
efficiency programs. My testimony consists of general recommendations
to maintain critical levels of funding in major energy programs and
specific requests for support of projects in selected energy sectors. I
have also included recommendations regarding the benefits of supporting
academic research as a part of our national energy programs.
FOSSIL ENERGY PROGRAMS
We require continued investments in finding ways to use our
indigenous fossil energy resources in an economical and environmentally
friendly manner. While the administration speaks supportively for
increased research for fossil fuel programs, I believe critical energy
programs are under-funded in the fiscal year 2007 budget request.
Coal Programs
Clean Coal Power Initiative.--The administration has proposed only
$5 million for the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) for fiscal year
2007. Many owner-operators are hesitant to install new clean coal
technologies unless they have been successfully demonstrated at
commercial scale. The CCPI program is designed to conduct
demonstrations in technology areas such as mercury control and advanced
power cycles, both of which are of great national interest. We must
also demonstrate coal-to-liquids technologies as part of the Clean Coal
Power Initiative. Funding should be provided to the CCPI program at
levels which would allow a solicitation for new proposals in early 2007
so that we can continue needed work to deploy advanced technologies for
power generation and alternative fuels production.
Innovations for Existing Plants.--A robust research program is also
needed for existing plants. The national installed coal power
generation capacity of over 300 gigawatts will be in service far into
the future since their premature replacement cost is expensive.
Environmental concerns dictate that we make improvements in the
existing fleet while we await the opportunity to install newer
technologies when the existing plants are retired. The funding
recommended by the administration in the budget line for Innovations
for Existing Plants has been severely reduced for the fiscal year 2007.
We recommend that an additional $8 million be added to the Innovations
for Existing Plants line, including full restoration ($2.5 million) of
the By-Products and Water Management sub-element. This sub-element
funds critical programs for reducing mercury emissions and finds new
ways to use the byproducts generated by combustion, both key elements
in reaching the goal of a zero-emissions coal plant. Water shortages in
some parts of the Nation are beginning to limit the installation of new
power plants. We also recommend funding for programs to minimize the
use of water in power generation and coal conversion applications.
Coal-to-liquids Research/Fuels Program.--Transforming coal into
liquids would enable our Nation to reduce our dependence on imported
petroleum. Polygeneration plants--those plants which produce a suite of
products beside electricity--will hasten the deployment of advanced
gasification technologies since co-producing value-added products such
as hydrogen, liquid transportation fuels, synthetic natural gas, and/or
chemicals improves the economics of the overall system. We recommend
the addition of $10 million to the Fuels Program for coal-to-liquids
research to improve current conversion technologies and to develop new
conversion processes, for computer-based design studies, and for
systems modeling. A national program to reinstate our earlier coal-to-
liquids programs is urgently needed to enable our country to maintain
stable transportation fuel costs. We request that the work initiated in
fiscal year 2006 to study the development of coal liquefaction
facilities in China be continued at the level of $0.7 million. This
program is a minimal investment compared to the $1.4 billion cost of
the Chinese facility and will provide valuable information relevant to
the deployment of advanced fuel production technologies in the United
States.
Solid Fuels and Feedstocks Research/Fuels Program.--Successful
deployment of coal conversion technologies depends in part on the
quality of the feedstock in the input coal stream. Advanced research is
needed to reduce levels of mercury emitted from pulverized coal
combustion systems and to remove other pollutants upstream of the
combustor. Often the preparation process results in discarding a large
percentage of the coal mined because of the difficulty of dewatering
and separating the coal fines from refuse material. These discards
result in environmental pollution, the possibility of a catastrophe due
to failures of water impoundments that retain the coal fines for
settling, and increased costs for electricity. We request that the
current funding for advanced separations research be increased to $3
million for fiscal year 2007. Another important aspect of the solid
fuels research program relates to producing value-added products such
as carbon materials from coal. Lightweight carbon materials produced
from coal, if used in applications such as the transportation sector to
reduce vehicle weight, also serve to reduce our dependence on imported
petroleum. We request that the lightweight composite materials program
initiated in fiscal year 2006 be continued.
Focus Area for Computational Energy Science.--The President has
identified supercomputing as critical to America's national security
and essential to U.S. competitiveness, both technologically and
scientifically. The President has called for increased funding to
enhance this important tool and expand its use across a broad range of
applications that enhance the U.S. position in the world's scientific
community. Through modeling, various designs can be evaluated on
computers at a much lower cost than for actual experimental research.
The Computational Energy Sciences (CES) program in Fossil Energy
supports supercomputing research both within the National Energy
Technology Laboratory and for external researchers who receive grants
for blocks of time on high-speed resources such as the Pittsburgh
Supercomputing Center. However, the administration has recommended
drastic cuts in the CES program for fiscal year 2007. We recommend that
funding for Computational Energy Sciences be restored to its historic
level of $5 million, of which $2 million should be allocated to
continue the program of the SuperComputing Science Consortium (SC
Squared) which supports high speed computer access for the fossil
energy research community in academic institutions nationwide.
Oil and Natural Gas Programs
We are disappointed that the administration has chosen to recommend
closing out the programs for oil and natural gas research in
exploration and production. These programs provide important
contributions to small producers, who can not afford the major expense
of developing new technologies to recover a dwindling supply of these
precious reserves. We recommend that Congress restore the oil and
natural gas programs to at least the fiscal year 2006 levels. We
request that funding be provided to continue important programs like
the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council (PTTC), a nationwide program
implemented through ten regional centers which reach user communities
in our major oil and gas basins. The PTTC identifies and provides
upstream technologies and technical assistance to small domestic
producers. Without the resources available through the PTTC program,
many small producers would become uncompetitive, further decreasing
domestic oil and natural gas production.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS
The United States is increasingly becoming dependent on imported
energy. Significant amounts of natural gas and electricity are
delivered from Canada. Oil is supplied from Canada, Mexico, and other
regions world-wide, some of which have unstable governments or
philosophies which differ from our national best interests. The
following comments are offered regarding programs considered key to
maintaining our energy security and energy independence.
Industries of the Future
High energy prices have been a major reason for the loss of
competitiveness of many of our energy-intensive industries over the
past several years. Glass, aluminum, steel, chemical, coal and metals
industries face stiff competition on the global market and are
increasingly losing ground to international competition. Much of our
chemical industry has already moved offshore.
The Industries of the Future (IOF) program provides one avenue for
increasing the efficiency of production and reducing costs in energy-
intensive industries. However, the administration has reduced its
recommendations for funding the IOF (specific) program from the enacted
level of $37 million in fiscal year 2005 to a request of only $17
million for fiscal year 2007. These reductions severely impact our
ability to assist energy-intensive industries. We recommend that
funding be restored to the fiscal year 2005 level. In particular,
funding for the Mining sector program should be restored to $4 million
to enable completion of previously-awarded projects and the initiation
of new research. With our Nation poised to be ever more reliant on coal
for our energy needs, newer technologies must be developed to mine the
harder-to-get coal as our resource base is depleted.
Electricity Distribution
Despite the unpleasant experience of the mid-summer East Coast
energy blackout several years ago, the electric grid remains fragile
and in danger of overloading in times of high demand. Improvements to
the electric grid would ensure operational reliability, reduce costs to
the general public, and make our industries more competitive.
Congressional support for continued investments in improving the
reliability of the electric grid is recommended. Particular emphasis
should be placed on maintaining and expanding the electricity
transmission, distribution, and energy assurance R&D at the National
Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). We request that the Gridwise
project on Integrated Control of Next Generation Power Systems
initiated in fiscal year 2006 be continued at the level of $1 million.
Transportation Research/Office of Vehicle Technologies
The research conducted under the Vehicle Technologies program will
lead to the development of more energy-efficient and environmentally-
friendly highway transportation technologies that will reduce the use
of petroleum. The ability to test the performance of cars and trucks
under field operating conditions is an essential part of this program.
West Virginia University's Transportable Emissions Testing Laboratory
has partnered with the Office of Vehicle Technologies for many years to
conduct emissions measurement testing programs at locations nationwide.
We recommend continued congressional support for this partnership and
request that $2 million of the Vehicle Technologies budget be directed
to continue the transportable emissions testing laboratory program in
fiscal year 2007.
CLOSING COMMENTS ON NEED FOR ACADEMIC RESEARCH PROGRAMS
Budget constraints for fiscal year 2007 will give rise to difficult
decisions regarding which programs to fund. Fossil Energy and Energy
Efficiency programs merit high consideration from the subcommittee
because of their importance to our national security and our economic
interests.
In your deliberations, I urge the subcommittee to give
consideration to supporting or creating programs directed to academic
research institutions. During the debate leading to the passage of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, several initiatives were introduced to
support centers of excellence in coal technology, mining technology,
and power systems technology. Energy research is high on the agenda for
most, if not all, academic institutions. Current opportunities for
academic researchers to compete for funding in fossil energy and energy
efficiency areas are limited in the budget requests. For example, the
Fossil Energy advanced research program has a budget of only $3 million
to support coal research nationwide and no comparable programs in oil
and natural gas. Mining research opportunities will be eliminated if
the administration budget request for the Industries of the Future
program is supported by Congress. With the elimination of the U.S.
Bureau of Mines, there is no standing program for advanced mining
research.
Funding to support academic research has many benefits. Advanced
research ideas are generated from such studies. Of almost equal
importance is the aspect of maintaining the human capital to conduct
advanced research in key areas. The dearth of support for mining
technology research is responsible in part for the smaller number of
mining engineering departments nationwide. We face a critical shortage
of mining engineering graduates, an aging cadre of professors, and a
smaller number of institutions which offer mining programs. Researchers
skilled in coal geology/petrology and in coal conversion technologies
such as direct and indirect liquefaction are becoming older and we face
a potential shortage of such expertise once these individuals retire.
Once this expertise of human capital is lost, we will be in danger of
having to import our technologists or possibly redoing older research
since the corporate body of expertise is lost. Supporting academic
research also leads to spin-off technologies which support economic
development and, in the case of energy, can assist the United States in
staying the leader in promoting advanced technologies to address the
challenges we face in meeting a global demand for energy.
I urge Congress to consider the benefits of supporting fundamental
research at academic institutions as part of our national plan for
energy and economic security.
Thank you for considering the recommendations offered in this
testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of IBACOS, Inc.
IBACOS (Integrated Building And Construction Solutions) urges the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water to provide $23 million for the
Department of Energy's (DOE) fiscal year 2007 Residential Buildings
Integration Program (formally Building America). We further urge that
the following language is included to ensure that the competitively
selected Building America teams are funded at a percentage comparable
to their historic funding: ``Of these funds, $15 million shall be
provided for the research activities of the competitively selected
Building America research teams and the Building America lead research
laboratory''.
IBACOS, through DOE, performs significant research into achieving
new levels of energy efficiency in our Nation's housing stock.--IBACOS
began working with the DOE's Building America Program as the founding
team in 1993. The work of IBACOS and the other Building America teams
has allowed industry leadership to drive cost-effective solutions that
increase the baseline energy efficiency of the Nation's housing stock,
and most recently, to begin to move us towards Zero Energy Homes (homes
that produce as much energy as they use). Building America partners
have shown that homes with significantly improved efficiency levels can
be built at equal or lower purchase prices than conventional homes,
with much lower energy bills and operating costs. These homes also
exhibit increased building durability as well as improved occupant
safety, health, and comfort. The research needed to develop systems and
strategies to achieve the long-term goal of Zero Energy Homes is not
simply applying lessons learned; rather, fundamental research is still
required. This R&D, performed by the Building America teams is truly
high-risk, high-payoff research. The research required to meet the goal
of Zero Energy Homes is high-risk for the following reasons:
--Significant basic research is required to develop and integrate new
technologies and systems into homes before they are proven
effective enough to be applied in the field.
--This research is costly and risky and will obsolete several current
products, systems and processes, and therefore will not be
undertaken by the industry alone.
--The life cycle of this research is significantly longer than that
of comparable industries.
--The homebuilding industry is extremely fragmented, with
homebuilders having little ability to drive research, and a
lower-than-average financial commitment to investment.
--Mechanisms do not currently exist within the homebuilding industry
to integrate new technologies and strategies effectively.
However, the research required to meet the goal of Zero Energy
Homes is also high-payoff for the following reasons:
--Once constructed, homes have the longest lifespan of any consumer
product, providing the opportunity for a durable long-term
reduction in energy use.
--Effective strategies to reduce energy use will positively impact
consumers, as well as the Nation's energy demand.
--Successful research into integration strategies will allow new,
high-risk, market-leading technologies and systems to be
adopted more quickly and effectively.
IBACOS, through DOE, supports the improvement of the residential
construction industry and provides support and recommendations to
critical Federal programs.--The Building America Program consists of
five industry consortia (teams). Along with the four other teams, we
partner with more than 300 residential builders, developers, designers,
equipment suppliers, and community planners throughout the United
States. All Building America partners have a common interest in
improving the energy efficiency and livability of America's housing
stock, while minimizing any increase in overall homeownership costs.
Many of the systems used actually result in a lower cost, while others
create only marginal increases in first cost and absolute overall
reductions in annual homeowner cash flow. The five Building America
teams pursue a collaborative agenda that will ultimately assist all
homebuilders and benefit the Nations' homebuyers. In addition to
performing the fundamental research needed to advance the energy
efficiency of our Nation's housing stock, IBACOS and the Building
America teams provide recommendations to a broad range of residential
deployment partners including the EPA's ENERGY STAR Homes Program,
HUD's Partnership for Advancing Technologies in Housing Program, and
many industry associations and universities. Furthermore, the Teams are
perhaps the best resource for DOE to educate the builder community on
technology and integration breakthroughs. This education has been, in
part, demonstrated through successful projects, where high-efficiency
housing is being built and bought, such as Summerset at Frick Park
(Pittsburgh, PA); Noisette (North Charleston, SC); Civano (Tucson, AZ);
Pulte Home Sciences in VA; Forest Glen (Carol Stream, IL); Hunters
Point Shipyard (San Francisco, CA); Stapleton (Denver, CO); Habitat for
Humanity (GA, CO, TN, FL, MI, TX and throughout the United States);
Summerfield (San Antonio, TX); Sun City (Las Vegas, NV); Premier
Gardens (Rancho Cordova, CA) and others throughout the Nation as
documented on www.buildingamerica.gov. The more than 300 private sector
partners who work with the teams are experts in home construction,
building products and supply, architecture, engineering, community
planning, and mortgage lending. All construction material and labor
costs for homes and communities constructed by Building America Teams
are provided by DOE's private sector partners.
The IBACOS Building America Team is made up of more than 30 leading
companies from the home building industry, including equipment
manufacturers, builders, design firms, and other parties interested in
improving the overall quality, affordability, and efficiency of our
Nation's homes and communities. Although we are located in Pittsburgh,
PA, our team members come from across the country. Our building product
manufacturer, trade association, and non-profit partners include: North
American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA) of Washington,
DC; Dupont of Wilmington, DE; Carrier Corporation of Indianapolis, IN;
Whirlpool of Benton Harbor, MI; USG Corporation of Chicago, IL;
Lithonia of Conyers, GA; Georgia Pacific of Atlanta, GA; The Portland
Cement Association of Skokie, IL; Whirlpool Corporation of Benton
Harbor, MI; Cardinal Glass Industries of Eden Prarie, MN; Florida Heat
Pump of Fort Lauderdale, FL; Owens Corning of Toledo, OH; E-Star
Colorado of Denver, CO; and e-colab of Urbana, IL. Our range of builder
and developer partners includes Pulte Homes of Bloomfield Hills, MI;
Tindall Homes of Trenton, NJ; Aspen Homes of Loveland, CO; Hedgewood
Homes of Atlanta, GA; Pine Mountain Builders of Pine Mountain, GA;
Summerset Development Partners of Pittsburgh, PA; Noisette Development
Partners of North Charleston, SC; Forest City Stapleton of Denver, CO;
Solar Strategies of Philadelphia, PA; Civano Development Partners of
Tucson, AZ; Washington Homes (a division of K. Hovnanian) of VA;
Landmark Building and Renovation of Apex, NC; and Bozzuto Homes of
Greenbelt, MD. Other builder and developer partners are located in CA,
CO, FL, GA, IN, MA, ME, MN, NC, NJ, NY, NV, PA, and UT. Through these
and other partners, the Building America Program has had direct
influence in increasing the efficiency of nearly 30,000 homes to date.
All of these homes use at least 30 percent less energy than a code-
compliant home, and many exceed 50 percent in savings. All work done in
these projects is part of the critical path toward achieving Zero
Energy Homes.
Through DOE, significant energy-saving results have been achieved
in residential construction, and encouraging research results on
systems integration have helped to increase overall energy
efficiency.--Results of the experience gained by the Building America
teams have been reflected in both DOE and HUD roadmapping sessions,
development of research priorities for National Labs, and cooperation
on programs within DOE. One example is Building America's cooperative
work with DOE's Windows research program to field test advanced window
products with builders. Additionally, collaborative research activities
with the National Labs, including NREL, ORNL, and LBNL results in the
sharing of knowledge and resources to bridge the gap between Federal
research programs and the industry. The Building America Program
improves the affordability of homes by reducing energy use, and
increasing the useful life of the homes, resulting in better use of
capital and natural resources. The energy saved by a new home built to
be 50 percent more efficient than average new construction is the
equivalent of the energy used by a sports utility vehicle for 1 year.
Investing in residential construction technology makes economic and
market sense. By using improved materials and techniques, the Building
America partners promote wiser use of resources and reduce the amount
of waste produced in the construction process. Because of the homes'
improved efficiency, emissions from electrical power will be reduced,
potentially eliminating 1.4 million tons of carbon from the atmosphere
over the next 10 years. DOE's residential programs will also save
consumers more than $500 million each year through reduced energy
bills. These savings are permanent and significant.
Building America teams, such as IBACOS, help develop and implement
widespread innovation in the fragmented residential construction
industry.--Residential Buildings currently account for over 20 percent
of the primary energy consumed by the United States. Each year, more
than 1.5 million new homes are constructed (over $70 million in
revenue) and over a million are remodeled. Despite its size and impact,
the industry is exceptionally fragmented. It comprises over 100,000
builders, many building only a few homes per year, others as many as
35,000. A multitude of residential product manufacturers, architects,
trades, and developers further compound the problem of an industry in
which it is very difficult to implement widespread technological
innovation. Building America acts as an aggregator for identifying and
pursuing research needs and consolidating relationships between the
industry and National Labs.
There has also been little incentive for builders to improve on
energy efficiency for a number of reasons. Energy and resource
efficiency does not necessarily contribute to the bottom line of the
builder; instead, it benefits the homeowner and the Nation, and because
builders do not pay the annual energy bills, they have little incentive
to add to the first cost of their product. Adopting new technologies
and training staff and trades to properly install new systems and
products is costly and challenging for builders. Finally, since
builders are not good at sharing knowledge among competitors, DOE's
role is critical to expanding the practices beyond the first builders
in. For these reasons, we are working to create higher performance,
quality homes at low or no incremental costs, along with associated
training, management, and technology transfer methodologies. We believe
that because of this work, energy and resource efficiency, durability,
and affordability will eventually be commonplace in the home building
industry. A long-term and consistent commitment must be made to work in
partnership with the housing industry. DOE's Building America Program
is a proven industry-driven research approach that can reduce the
average energy use in new housing by 50 percent by 2015, providing
significant benefits to homeowners while benefiting the U.S. economy by
maintaining housing as a major source of jobs and economic growth.
Without building in significant energy savings now, the Nation risks
using an extravagant amount of energy in the future. We must invest
appropriately in technology, systems integration research, and builder
operational processes needed to upgrade the performance of our housing
stock, otherwise, we are mortgaging our future.
Building America is the key element in the DOE's strategy to reduce
residential energy consumption.--Research, development, and outreach
activities performed by the competitively-selected industry Teams in
the Building America Program are the key element in the Department of
Energy's strategy to reduce energy consumption in residential
buildings. The Teams' activities focus on increasing the performance of
new and existing homes that can be implemented on a production basis,
while meeting consumer and building performance requirements. The Teams
have been working on improving efficiency in housing since 1992, with
successes being embodied in ENERGY STAR Home program and adoption by
many production builders. We are now focused on the more difficult goal
of creating strategies to achieve Zero Energy Homes. Current DOE-led
research activities include:
--Systems integration, technology, and process research to ensure
quality and performance;
--Indoor air quality, safety, health, and durability of housing;
--Thermal distribution efficiency, mechanical systems efficiencies
and appropriate sizing;
--Incorporation of passive and active solar techniques;
--Techniques that increase productivity and product quality and
reduce material waste;
--Use of recycled and recyclable materials; and,
--Building materials improvements and envelope load reduction and
durability.
RECOMMENDATION
IBACOS (Integrated Building And Construction Solutions) urges the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water to provide $23 million for the
Department of Energy's fiscal year 2006 Residential Buildings
Integration Program (formally Building America.) We further urge that
at least 60 percent or $15 million of the appropriated funding be
directed towards the industry-led core Building America Teams and the
Building America lead research laboratory to develop cost effective,
production ready systems in five major climate zones that result in
houses that produce as much energy as they use on an annual basis.
Along with the industry cost-share in the program of at least 100
percent, this program has and will continue to significantly catalyze
improvements in what has traditionally been a very fragmented industry.
______
Prepared Statement of Sage Electrochromics, Inc.
SAGE Electrochromics, Inc., located in Faribault, Minnesota, is a
developer of energy saving electrochromic (EC) window products and is
working in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to
develop advanced tintable window systems. The National energy savings
potential of high performance electrochromic windows is approximately
0.9 Quad--equivalent to the energy use of 10,000,000 homes per year.
We at SAGE urge you to increase the current DOE annual investment
in the total windows program from $4,900,000 per year to $15,000,000--
Energy and Water appropriations bill for Department of Energy, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program,
Windows. Within this program the specific budget for dynamic and super
insulated windows should be expanded to $4,000,000, up from the
$500,000 currently being pursued by DOE. This funding will allow the
Department to reach the goal of zero energy buildings. Activity will
take place at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and SAGE
Electrochromics, Inc.
DESCRIPTION OF ELECTROCHROMICS
An electrochromic window (door or skylight) is a solar control
device that regulates the flow of light and heat with the push of a
button. The window tint can be varied from fully colored to completely
clear or anywhere in between. The EC properties are achieved through
thin metal oxide layers on one of the glass surfaces, otherwise the
construction is similar to the standard insulating glass unit (IGU)
used in millions of homes and office buildings.
THE UNIQUE BENEFITS OF ELECTROCHROMICS
Industrial and government partners in the DOE EC program are
performing cost-shared research and development that will lead to
significant energy and cost savings by fundamentally changing the
nature and function of window products for tomorrow's buildings.
Significant savings in the cooling and lighting loads can be achieved
while reducing peak electricity demand. Just as important is the
ability of EC technologies to improve visual and thermal comfort and
thereby increase worker productivity and the aesthetics of the home or
office space.
Traditionally, adding windows to a building envelope has meant
reducing energy efficiency because the other materials in the structure
are much more energy efficient. However, with EC technology, windows
will become multifunctional energy-saving appliances in the home or
office space and thereby will allow increased use of windows for
aesthetic reasons.
ACHIEVING ZERO ENERGY HOMES AND BUILDINGS (ZEB)
Zero Energy Buildings, a goal set forth by DOE, takes the whole
building concept to the next level by integrating advanced building
technologies. ZEB will result in self-sufficient buildings that produce
as much energy as they use.
Achieving DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's (EERE) goals
of Zero Energy Homes and Buildings by 2030 will require a new
generation of high performance windows. An aggressive, expanded RD&D
program with private and public partnerships has a high probability of
successfully developing and deploying the technologies, systems, and
tools needed to achieve ZEB levels of energy performance. Increasing
the current DOE annual investment from $5,000,000 per year to
$15,000,000 per year for a 5-year period would kick-start this effort
and stimulate the much larger private sector investment needed to
achieve these goals. High performance windows incorporating highly
insulating properties, switchable glazings, and/or other energy
efficiency features could save 0.9 Quads/year as part of the ZEB effort
if the technologies can be fully developed and achieve widespread
market penetration by 2030. This information is based in part on
information from DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The
energy savings potential is equivalent to the energy use of 10,000,000
homes per year.
CREATING A DYNAMIC AND SUPER INSULATED WINDOWS R&D PROGRAM
Window systems cost American homeowners and building operators
about $40 billion per year due to the heating and cooling loads they
impose on our buildings. But windows can become net energy gainers
rather than losers if buildings are well designed and their energy
flows can be dynamically controlled.
The fundamental science and engineering supporting such goals is
understood. An aggressive 5-year RD&D effort is needed to solve the
critical technical market barriers, thereby reducing risks, clarifying
benefits and stimulating enhanced private investment in manufacturing
and marketing.
The groundwork for such a program has already been laid. In the
1980's DOE and the window and glass industry worked together to bring
low-E to the market, an innovation that according to the NAS study has
generated $8 billion in benefits for a modest DOE R&D investment
followed by much larger private investment. In the 1990's DOE and the
industry successfully promoted the development and widespread use of
spectrally selective glazings and window rating systems, each
leveraging large private investments and contributing to additional
savings. The challenge now for the next decade is to develop the cost-
effective superinsulating and switchable technologies needed to achieve
ZEB performance targets.
POTENTIAL SAVINGS
As an example of the potential impacts of an enhanced RD&D program
we consider the energy savings impacts of a highly insulating,
switchable window in both residential and commercial buildings. These
are the windows that must be developed and deployed in order to meet
the EERE goal of creating practical Zero Energy Buildings. The highly
insulating window has a U value or heat loss rate of 0.1 BTU/hr-F-
sqft, about 65 percent lower than today's Energy Star window. The
tintable window has the ability to control solar heat gain over a
dynamic range of 5 to 1--from 0.5 in winter to allow sunlight to offset
heating, to 0.1 in summer to minimize cooling, or over an even larger
range of light transmission on cloudy and sunny days to control glare
and daylight.
The specific energy savings will depend on the final performance
values offered and on the market penetration, which in turn will depend
on cost. An aggressive RD&D program would optimize thermal properties
and support breakthroughs in materials science that would lower
production costs, thus expanding market impacts.
RESIDENTIAL SECTOR
In homes, switchable superwindows save energy three ways. In winter
at night the low heat loss reduces heating loads. During the day the
switchable coating allows solar heat to enter, reducing heating loads
further. In summer the switchable coating keeps the sun out on hot days
and modulates as needed for night view and cloudy days. The details of
heat transfer vary with the climate region but this versatile, high
technology package supports the EERE ZEB goal in all U.S. climates.
Large national energy savings could be obtained over the next 30
years. In northern climates like Boston and Chicago these window
technologies alone would virtually eliminate the energy loss from
windows and reduce overall home energy use by an additional 25 percent
compared to homes with Energy Star windows, which themselves would use
20-30 percent less energy than today's typical homes. In southern
climates such as Phoenix the largest savings come from reductions in
cooling loads due to the switchable glazings. In these climates the
improved glazings virtually eliminate the heating load and greatly
reduce the cooling impacts.
Widespread deployment after 30 years in homes in both northern and
southern climates would generate average annual savings of 0.55 Quads
compared to a building stock, which would otherwise have improved to
meet the performance levels of Energy Star windows today.
COMMERCIAL SECTOR
In the commercial sector the switchable superwindows provide three
benefits in virtually all climates: (1) they reduce the net heating
loads from the windows to very low values or convert the windows to net
gains; (2) they minimize the cooling loads due to the windows, and (3)
by carefully modulating daylight, they provide savings of about 50
percent of the lighting energy in zones with windows or skylights.
This technology package is versatile and adaptable to fenestration
designs in virtually all climates and commercial building types. It
makes it easier for architects to design buildings that provide
daylight and view without imposing added thermal loads. By modulating
daylighting and controlling glare, it helps create productive work
environments that are thermally comfortable and energy efficient,
lowering electric lighting use in the process by 30-60 percent.
Widespread deployment after 30 years would generate average annual
savings of 0.35 Quads compared to buildings with more conventional
fenestration solutions.
ADDITIONAL WORK TO BE DONE REQUIRES FURTHER INVESTMENT
Materials and Processing Research and Development.--Activities must
focus on continued optimization of the device and the individual thin
film layers. Improved optical performance is needed to insure user
satisfaction and broad adoption of this energy-saving technology.
Advanced materials for better dynamic range will result in maximum
daylighting for building occupants yet still eliminate glare from
computer display terminals when direct sunlight impinges on the
workspace. Nanocomposite materials must be incorporated to achieve a
more neutral color with enhanced fracture toughness of critical films.
Low cost materials will be introduced along with rapid processing
technologies (e.g. total in-line, high throughput vacuum deposition of
all coatings). Additionally, solar powered EC windows with wireless
control systems will be developed for ease of installation--especially
in retrofit applications.
Large Area Manufacturing Technology/Engineering.--Activities should
include development of rapid, large area inspection tools to reduce
defects for higher yields. Also, advanced manufacturing technologies
such as laser patterning and bar coding will be implemented for
flexible manufacturing with reduced costs for tooling and product
changeovers. High volume production of large area EC glazings will
require the implementation of in-situ diagnostics for real-time
automatic control of thin film uniformity. Additionally, consensus
electrochromic window performance requirements must be developed
together with standards-setting organizations and will entail
significant testing in the initial stage to establish the technical
basis for performance requirements.
Systems Engineering and Application.--The DOE program must include
extensive field trials of electrochromic windows in buildings. Occupant
feedback on performance, comfort level and other parameters will be
solicited and utilized to design ergonomic control algorithms and
hardware. Multiple window control should also be demonstrated to
ascertain how to tie the adjacent windows together for solar management
of the overall space. Long-term testing of switchable window systems
over the full range of outdoor climatic conditions is required to
assess product reliability.
Advanced Window Development.--As we move to Zero Energy Buildings,
increasing levels of window performance will be required. Work must be
initiated to produce highly insulated windows in which heat loss is
reduced by at least a factor of 2 over currently available products.
These windows will be integrated with EC glazings to produce the high
R-value dynamic windows needed for ZEB. R&D activities include the
investigation of gas filled and evacuated window cavities as well as
improved edge and frame materials. Work will also be carried out to
support design tools and rating systems to evaluate window efficiency.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Coalition for Food and Agricultural
Research
Dear Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Reid and members of the
subcommittee, on behalf of the National Coalition for Food and
Agricultural Research (National C-FAR), we are pleased to submit
comments in strong support of enhanced public investment energy
biosciences research as a critical component of Federal appropriations
for fiscal year 2006 and beyond.
National C-FAR urges the subcommittee and committee to approve the
President's proposal in the American Competitiveness Initiative,
Advanced Energy Initiative and fiscal year 2007 budget request for an
increase of 14 percent to $4.1 billion for the DOE Office of Science.
Included with the President's budget request is $255 million for the
Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Energy Biosciences Division. A total
of $35.8 million within the division is requested by the President for
the Energy Biosciences program. We urge you to support the President's
request for Basic Energy Sciences, the Chemical Sciences, Geosciences
and Energy Bioscience Division and the Energy Biosciences program
within the division.
At a time when our Nation's energy security is being seriously
challenged, this modest increase in a small, but highly effective
program is a wise investment with potentially momentous benefits to the
Nation. The Department of Energy's biosciences program is an excellent
example of where a modest Federal investment can yield tremendous
societal benefits. Energy costs are escalating, dependence on petroleum
imports is growing and concerns about greenhouse gases are rising.
Research, extension and education can enhance agriculture's ability to
provide new, renewable sources of energy and cleaner burning fuels,
sequester carbon, and provide other environmental benefits to help
address these challenges, and indeed generate value-added income for
agricultural producers and stimulate rural economic development.
National C-FAR endorses the President's call in his State of the
Union Address for the Nation to conduct energy research for bio-fuels
to help break the Nation's addiction to foreign oil. Research on plant
cellulose to produce biofuels from on crop residues, switch grass, wood
chips and other sources could build on current production of ethanol
and biodiesel from crops help transition a significant portion of the
Nation's economy away from imported petroleum products to domestically
produced bio-fuels.
The Energy Biosciences program supports world-leading research on
plants and microbes conducted primarily by university-based scientists
throughout the country. Competitive grants are awarded through a peer
review process based on the highest standards of scientific merit.
National C-FAR applauds the Energy Biosciences program's active
involvement in inter-agency cooperation and collaboration. By working
closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, programs in both
agencies benefit by leveraging funds where missions converge to advance
vitally important research.
Basic energy research on plants and microbes supported by the
Energy Biosciences program contributes to advances in renewable
resources for fuel and other fossil resource substitutes from American
agriculture, clean-up and restoration of contaminated environmental
sites, and discovering new knowledge leading to home-grown products and
chemicals now derived from petroleum.
The DOE Office of Science's Office of Biological and Environmental
Research, through its Genomics GTL Roadmap, is undertaking an
aggressive systems biology plan to accelerate the scientific discovery
needed to support the development of practical applications to fulfill
DOE energy and environmental missions.
The DOE-BER Plant Feedstock Genomics for Bioenergy program
conducted jointly with USDA-Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service-National Research Initiative supports genomics-based
research that will lead to the improved use of biomass and plant
feedstocks for the production of fuels such as ethanol and renewable
chemical feedstocks.
National C-FAR commends the committee for its ongoing support of
basic research on plants and microbes within the Energy Biosciences
program and within the Office of Biological and Environmental Research.
Past research sponsored by the Energy Biosciences program led to the
landmark discovery of how to break down plant cellulose into ethanol.
Other research sponsored by the Biosciences program led to new findings
on the capture of energy from photosynthesis. Increased knowledge in
this area could lead to a better understanding of how to manage carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere. Further research in this area could also
contribute to development of alternative energy sources.
INTEREST OF NATIONAL C-FAR
National C-FAR serves as a forum and a unified voice in support of
sustaining and increasing public investment at the national level in
food and agricultural research, extension and education. National C-FAR
is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, consensus-based and customer-led coalition
established in 2001 that brings food, agriculture, nutrition,
conservation and natural resource organizations together with the food
and agriculture research and extension community.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As part of its mission, National C-FAR seeks to increase
awareness about the value of food and agricultural research, extension
and education. For example, National C-FAR is hosting an educational
series of ``LunchNLearn'' seminars on the hill, featuring leading-
edge researchers on timely topics to help demonstrate the value of
public investment in food and agricultural research, extension and
education. More information about National C-FAR and its programs is
available at http://www.ncfar.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National C-FAR is deeply concerned that shortfalls in funding in
recent years for food and agricultural research, extension and
education--both through the U.S. Department of Agriculture and through
relevant programs in other agencies--jeopardize the food and
agricultural community's continued ability to maintain its leadership
role and respond to the multiple, demanding challenges that lie ahead.
Federal funding for food and agricultural research, extension and
education has been flat for over 20 years, while support for other
Federal research has increased substantially. Public funding of
agricultural research in the rest of the world during the same time
period has reportedly increased at a nearly 30 percent faster pace.
National C-FAR believes it is imperative to lay the groundwork now
to respond to the many challenges and promising opportunities ahead
through Federal policies and programs needed to promote the long-term
health and vitality of food and agriculture for the benefit of both
consumers and producers. Stronger public investment in food and
agricultural research, extension and education is essential in
producing research outcomes needed to help bring about beneficial and
timely solutions to multiple challenges.
As a coalition representing stakeholders in both the research,
extension and education community and the ``customers'' who need and
depend upon their outcomes, National C-FAR urges expanded public
participation in the administration's research, extension and education
priority setting and funding decision process and stands ready to work
with the administration and other interested stakeholders in such a
process.
National C-FAR appreciates the opportunity to share its views and
stands ready to work with the chair and members of the subcommittee and
committee in support of these important funding objectives.
______
Prepared Statement of the Department of Petroleum and Geosystems
Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin
Committee members, your committee is considering the budget for the
Department of Energy, including the appropriation for the Oil and Gas
technology program, which has been eliminated in the administration's
proposed budget. I am writing to describe the impact the loss of this
program would have on the teaching of Petroleum Engineering in the
United States.
My department receives 40 percent of its funding for graduate
research from this one program. I believe the figure is similar at
other Departments of Petroleum Engineering in the United States.
Research funding is critical to graduate education in Petroleum
Engineering, of course. In the short term it is the means by which
graduate students attain the level of expertise necessary to advance
the technology for efficient production of oil and gas. The research
sponsored by this program is also crucial to undergraduate education.
Over the long term it provides the means by which junior faculty attain
tenure and all faculty maintain and sharpen their skills. At a modern
research university it is simply impossible to maintain an
undergraduate educational program without a vital graduate research
program.
No other Federal program funds research in the broad field of oil
and gas production. No other branch of science or engineering,
including those that have substantial private funding (microelectronics
or pharmaceuticals, for instance), is expected to fund university
research entirely from private sources.
The loss of the lead the United States now enjoys in oil and gas
technology would be a tragedy for the country. U.S. production would
decrease, U.S. fields would increasingly be exploited by foreign
companies, and producers in unstable parts of the world would turn to
other countries for the expertise they need to exploit their own
resources.
______
Prepared Statement of National Wind Watch, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
National Wind Watch<SUP>TM</SUP>, Inc. is a non-profit organization
dedicated to raising awareness of the risks and related impacts of
industrial wind energy development on the environment, economy, and
quality of life. The organization represents local citizen groups and
individuals seeking to protect their property rights and community
values, maintain nationally significant scenic resources and protect
America's wildlife. The organization advocates an intellectually honest
and scientifically sound assessment of the benefits and costs of
industrial wind development with the objective of becoming a resource
of information and assistance for individuals, local groups, and
decision-makers seeking the facts about industrial wind power. Far too
often, debates about wind power have over-stated its potential benefits
and ignored its tremendous costs.
SUMMARY OF POSITION
National Wind Watch does not oppose funding of research and
development for wind energy, but stresses that any increases in monies
allocated be correctly focused. Most of any future research and
development should now be focused on the detrimental impacts and
mitigation techniques of wind development including, but not limited
to: actual impacts on property values in areas where wind development
occurs; actual net impacts on employment; life cycle analysis of
environmental impacts (positive and negative); grid system stability
and reliability under increasing penetration of wind, and within lower-
quality wind sites. Given the inherent and perceived conflict of
interest, National Wind Watch recommends that the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory NOT hold responsibility for such analysis but only be
permitted to participate.
SUPPORTING COMMENTS
During the debate leading up to passage of the Energy Bill in 2005
there was discussion as to whether the United States should adopt a
Renewable Portfolio Standard or RPS. The Senate passed the RPS as an
amendment, but the House voted it down. Senator Lamar Alexander
correctly noted at the time that the RPS was ``all about wind'' citing
factors that would limit implementation of other renewable sources
including solar, hydro, and geo-thermal.
Senator Alexander also noted that, according to testimony before
the Energy Committee and other sources, in order for the United States
to achieve the standards in the RPS, it could ``require building more
than 100,000 of [the] new, massive wind turbines''. Today, there are
less than 7,000 such wind turbines in the United States. The U.S.
Treasury Department is on record stating the wind subsidy, if renewed
each year for the next 5 years, would reimburse wind investors for 25
percent of the cost of wind production and cost taxpayers $3.7 billion
over those 5 years.\1\ General Electric Wind, one of the largest
manufacturers of wind turbines, experienced a 500 percent growth in its
wind business in 2005 due to the renewal of the wind production tax
credit in 2004. On a unit production basis, wind is subsidized more
than 10 times any other energy source, yet contributes least to our
energy security. Further, as the amount of wind generation increases,
negative grid stability impacts grow exponentially.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.windwatch.org/documents/126, Remarks Of Senator
Alexander--Windmill Legislation Introduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Wind Watch has watched the recent surge in wind
development throughout New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and elsewhere
in the United States and the impacts of this development on rural
communities. Town boards and local officials are ill-equipped to
evaluate the true impacts of these facilities. At the State level, some
form of RPS has already been put in place in 23 States. This translates
into additional State pressure on the community to embrace the wind
plant, quiet opposition, and degenerate the permit process.
In the face of this development, the September 2005 GAO Report
titled ``Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for
Regulating Developing and Protecting Wildlife'' stated ``. . . that the
impact of wind power facilities on wildlife is more studied that other
comparable infrastructure, such as communication towers, important gaps
in the research remain. First, relatively few pre-construction
monitoring studies have been conducted and made publicly available. It
appears that many wind power facilities and geographic areas in the
United States have not been studied at all.'' Where they have been
studied (e.g. Altamont Pass in California) the studies find significant
work to do to reduce continued and on-going decimation of wildlife,
including endangered and protected species.
While requests for additional pre-construction studies may be made,
the local communities often do not have the money to pay for original
research at a site. In many cases, the research should not be confined
to the limited hundreds of yards area where the turbines are located,
but would involve a regional review to cover secondary impacts related
to erosion, impacts to water quality, tourism and the economy, and bird
migration patterns. In the absence of local funding, National Wind
Watch has found multiple cases where wind companies have agreed to
conduct such studies, but also assume authority over the parameters of
the studies and, in so doing, predetermine the outcome.
Continued installation of wind turbines throughout our rural and
mountainous landscapes without scientific, impartial review of the
impacts of this industrialization would have devastating effects of
some of the most precious ecosystems in the world. After decades of
government-subsidized research and implementation, it is time for the
wind industry to no longer be treated as an ``infant industry''.
Rather, it is time for the industry to start paying for much of its
way, consistent with the maturation of the technology. Any money now
should go to research, once and for all, the impacts of these massive
turbines on our wildlife, open spaces, property values, health and
safety of residents living in the vicinity of turbines, and the quality
of rural life.
National Wind Watch respectfully requests that you deny further
funding for wind energy research and development, and direct this
funding to the detrimental impacts and mitigation techniques of wind
turbines. We also recommend the National Renewable Energy Lab NOT be in
charge of such analysis but only allowed to participate.
______
Prepared Statement of Southeastern Federal Power Customers, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the
Southeastern Federal Power Customers (``SeFPC'' or ``Customers''), I am
pleased to provide testimony in reference to the administration's
fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Southeastern Power
Administration (``SEPA'') and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(``Corps''). SEPA and the Corps operate the Federal Power Program in
the Southeast which benefits millions of electric ratepayers throughout
the States in the South that are served by SEPA Power. I will elaborate
in my testimony on each of the following items of interest to the
SeFPC: supporting the administration's request for $34.4 million for
Purchased Power and Wheeling activities and $5.7 million in program
direction for SEPA; funding of construction and operations and
maintenance needs related to Corps projects that provide power marketed
by SEPA; and lastly our grave concerns regarding the administration's
proposed Agency Rate Change provision.
SEPA purchases, transmits, and markets the power generated at
Federal reservoirs to municipal systems, rural electric cooperatives,
and other wholesale customers throughout the Southeast. The SeFPC has
enjoyed a long and successful relationship with SEPA that has greatly
benefited over 6 million ultimate retail customers that are SeFPC
members. As the subcommittee is aware SEPA markets the energy and
capacity that is generated from the Federal reservoir projects in the
Southeast. The SeFPC represents some 238 rural cooperatives and
municipally-owned electric systems in the States of Alabama, Georgia,
Mississippi, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and
Virginia, which purchase power from SEPA.
In some cases, SEPA supplies as much as 25 percent of the power and
10 percent of the energy needs of SeFPC customers.
SUPPORTING THE ADMINISTRATION'S REQUEST FOR THE SEPA PROGRAM
The administration's fiscal year 2007 budget proposes to
appropriate $34.4 million for Purchased Power and Wheeling (``PPW'')
activities and $5.7 million for program direction. Because the funds
appropriated for these programs are returned to the Treasury through
rate payments made by SeFPC members in the same year in which the
appropriations are spent, these programs have a neutral impact on the
U.S. Treasury. All of these funds will be returned to the Treasury in
2007. We thank the subcommittee for following the administration's
recommended funding levels last year and once again, encourage the
subcommittee to follow the administration's proposal for SEPA's program
direction and PPW funding levels this year.
CORPS PROJECTS PROVIDE THE POWER MARKETED BY SEPA
The SeFPC membership is dedicated to providing reliable and
economic power for its consumers. We therefore are concerned with the
lack of specific information in Operations and Maintenance (``O&M'')
funding proposed in the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request.
This year the Corps' fiscal year 2007 Civil Works budget included a
new layout for Operations and Maintenance funding. Historically,
project funding was divided by State with specific funding amounts
given to each project listed; however, this year O&M projects are
categorized by Water Resource Regions and there are no specific funds
cited for those projects mentioned. We are deeply concerned with the
lack of specific information available on the requested O&M funds. As
it stands now, over half of the hydroelectric generating facilities
operated and maintained by the SAD in the SEPA Georgia-Alabama-South
Carolina (``GA-AL-SC'') System are slated to receive ``minimal
operations and maintenance'' funding within the President's fiscal year
2007 budget request.
The Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam project within the Jim Woodruff
System and the Cordell Hull Dam & Reservoir in the Cumberland System
are both mentioned as projects needing minimal O&M funding, as well. We
urge Congress to seek more specific information from the Corps on how
much they propose to spend on O&M activities at each site. Until we
know what the specific dollar amounts are and can define the actual
amount referred to as ``minimal'' by the Corps, we, and members of
Congress, can not be confident that significant infrastructure failures
may occur due to insufficient O&M funding.
The age of many of the hydroelectric generating facilities operated
and maintained by the Corps in SEPA's service area are nearly 50 years
old. Major rehabilitations of generating units are critical if projects
of this age are to continue in service. It is important to note that
when a generating unit becomes inoperable, SEPA may be forced to pursue
the purchase of expensive replacement power. This could result in a
reduction of energy provided to customers, forcing the SeFPC members to
purchase expensive energy elsewhere. Thus, we are pleased to see the
Wolf Creek, KY project in the Cumberland System scheduled to receive
$31 million in construction funds for dam safety purposes within the
President's fiscal year 2007 budget; however the GA-AL-SC System, as a
whole, will suffer due to significant decreases in requested
construction dollars. Within the Kerr-Philpott System of projects, we
also understand that rehabilitation work on the turbines and generators
at the Kerr project has been threatened due to a lack of funding.
However, this has not been a result of SEPA failing to collect
sufficient funds in the rates. In fact, SEPA has collected over $240
million in rates for Corps repairs that has not been provided to the
Corps.
AGENCY RATE CHANGE PROVISION
The SeFPC is concerned about a proposal within the President's
fiscal year 2007 budget that, if not stopped, would impose
administratively a higher level interest rate on new investment
allocated to hydropower production. This proposal would raise rates
with no apparent benefit to the hydropower customer; it is simply a
back-door tax on the ultimate consumers of power marketed by SEPA. This
proposal to increase interest rates to the ``agency rate'' level has
emerged with virtually no public discussion. Congress should provide
much more active oversight over the Corps' activities due to the
magnitude of the proposed change and the precedent that could result
from it.
The PMAs are the rate-making agencies charged with marketing
electricity from Federal hydroelectric facilities operated by the Corps
and the Bureau of Reclamation (``Bureau''). In the Southeast, when the
Corps makes an investment in a hydro-electric facility, SEPA must
recover the cost of that investment in the rates charged to its
customers. For a half century, the PMAs have set interest rates either
following explicit instructions from Congress or by charging a rate
that collects the Federal Government's cost of appropriated dollars.
Now, the administration's budget seeks to increase the interest
rate charged on all new investments at projects whose interest rate is
not set by law. This ``agency rate'' is higher than the current
interest rate paid by SEPA. This ``agency rate'' reflects the interest
cost to loan needed funds to government corporations. However, SEPA,
the Southwestern Power Administration (``SWPA'') and Western Area Power
Administration (``WAPA'') are not government corporations and do not
borrow funds from the U.S. Treasury. As I have stated before, their
rates are set to recover the appropriations established by Congress for
the investment in the hydro-electric facilities and for costs to
operate these projects.
We understand that the administration has suggested that the
government corporation rate is more appropriate for the PMAs because of
the risk of default. This argument simply ignores the statutory
authority under which the PMAs operate and long-standing history of
repaying the Federal investment in these projects. SEPA must collect
all of the costs of generating hydropower at Federal facilities in the
Southeast.
By law (the Flood Control Act of 1944), SEPA must recover all of
the costs of producing power. Rate schedules are developed by SEPA
after a notice and comment period and submitted to the Secretary of the
Department of Energy for further review and implementation on an
interim basis. Once the Secretary approves the rates on an interim
basis, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (``FERC'') has the
responsibility to confirm on a final basis the rate schedule developed
by SEPA. SEPA, the Secretary of the Department of Energy, and FERC must
set a rate that by law recovers the Federal taxpayer's investment in
the Federal Power Program. If an existing rate is insufficient to meet
repayment obligations, SEPA must file a new rate and include
appropriate increases to ensure all repayment obligations are met. In
other words, there is a multi-layered review process and legal
obligation that ensures that the PMAs will not default on outstanding
obligations.
With no real threat to PMA defaults on outstanding debt, the
subcommittee is left with little substantive reason why the interest
rate on new investment should be increased. As the proposed change will
only serve as a revenue enhancement measure and provide no additional
benefits for PMA customers, the members of the SeFPC wholeheartedly
encourage members of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee and
full Appropriations Committee to stop the administration from
implementing this budget proposal.
We appreciate the opportunity to present our views and will gladly
respond to any inquiries that the subcommittee may have.
______
Prepared Statement of the Cascade Community Partnership
Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit written testimony regarding the U.S. Department
of Energy's fiscal year 2007 budget as it pertains to geothermal
research funding.
I represent a group of citizens in Cascade, Idaho--the Cascade
Community Partnership, supported by the Valley County Board of County
Commissioners, the City of Cascade, the Cascade School District and the
Cascade Medical Center Hospital District--who are working toward a
fairly lofty goal, but given the current state of petroleum supply,
demand and cost in the world today, a fairly sensible one, that of
achieving some level of energy self-sufficiency here in Valley County.
We, as a group, are somewhat chagrined that, given the current
world situation regarding oil and energy in general, research funding
for what is a viable form of alternative energy in the West--
geothermal--would be zeroed out in the U.S. Department of Energy's
budget for the coming fiscal year. I should add here, that the proposal
outlined below has very strong support from all of the principals
involved, and strong bi-partisan support at that.
We are in the midst of several studies involving Chevron Energy
Solutions and IdaTherm LLC, an Idaho geothermal energy development
company, and expect final reports within the next couple of months. We
will then have additional seismic surveying and geochemical testing to
conduct in order to further refine the information in those reports.
However, preliminary indications are that we may have the potential for
a geothermal resource in Valley County, Idaho, that could generate up
to 100 megawatts of electricity. While that is a small amount of energy
in the global picture, it is a project that could inspire other
communities with similar resources to pursue the same type of
development. Enough of those pieces could add up to something very,
very significant, something that could help this Nation wean itself
from the oil spigot. Beyond energy production, the partnership is also
finalizing a strategic plan that includes use of geothermal water for a
heating district, to heat greenhouses and conduct aquaculture, among
other uses, all of which should benefit our rural economy.
We have uncovered a number of potential sources of funding for
capital construction, and for further research to narrow down our
potential drilling site. But, the big gap in getting any such project
off the ground is the risky business of drilling an exploratory
geothermal well. The DOE funding for such activities in the past has
been a great contributor to geothermal exploration.
We would urge that you, members of the Senate Subcommittee on
Energy and Water, find a way to restore some of that funding,
specifically that relating to the drilling of geothermal exploratory
wells, which in recent years has amounted to about $4 million every
budget cycle. But, we would also urge that the funding be restored with
a new innovative approach.
Another member of the partnership's steering committee and I
recently met in Boise, Idaho, with representatives of
IcelandAmericaEnergy, a Reykavik-based firm that is interested in
exporting its vast geothermal expertise to other parts of the world. We
had a very fruitful discussion, perhaps the most important aspect of
which was the exchange concerning the geothermal exploration fund that
was established in Iceland in the early 1970's to encourage geothermal
exploration. It is essentially a revolving loan fund that is tapped to
provide matching funds for other private/public sources of money for
exploratory drilling. Comparing the geothermal picture in Iceland with
that in the Western United States is, to a great extent, a case of
apples and oranges, but the basic concept of a self-sustaining
revolving loan fund, with incentives to encourage continued
exploration, seems valid.
With restoration of funds for geothermal research, we would
encourage you to direct that it be used as ``seed money'' to establish
a self-sustaining revolving loan fund for geothermal exploration. As
for the administration of the fund, we would suggest the DOE's
geothermal energy division, or perhaps the Intermountain West
Geothermal Consortium based at Boise State University, as two
possibilities. There is certainly the expertise in either program to
screen applications to make sure that applicants have done their ``due
diligence,'' the homework and preliminary work necessary to ensure that
the fund's resources are indeed going toward drilling an exploratory
hole that has at least a 50/50 chance of success. Should the fund work
as a number of us believe it can, there will be no need to approach
Congress in the future with requests for additional funding for
geothermal exploratory well drilling.
Attached to this testimony is more detail about the proposed loan
fund in the form of an ``explainer'' that includes some assumptions
concerning risk and probabilities-numbers that we're told are valid in
the geothermal industry in the United States--along with a sample
spreadsheet about how the fund might operate. A number of much better
financial minds than mine have examined this and agree that it's an
approach that has merit.
We, as a community, thank you for your time and serious
consideration of this matter. If you have further questions about my
written testimony or proposal, please don't hesitate to contact us.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
REVOLVING LOAN FUND PROPOSAL
Assumptions
That geothermal wells are drilled at a success rate of 50 percent--
some experts in the field believe 60 percent is achievable. In Iceland,
the rate is 90 percent, but that is in Iceland. It is expected that
success rate will increase as more is learned about subterranean
resource.
That private industry (partners) will be willing to participate in
the program as a matching partner. Discussions, and an already existing
track record pertaining to the grant program, indicate that willingness
may exist.
That a proven geothermal resource is worth more than just the cost
of drilling a well.
That projects proposed for funding under the program would be
heavily scrutinized--that the science and research leading up to site
selection has been done, been done well, and then reviewed by
knowledgeable experts.
Basic Proposal
Money presently granted by Congress for exploratory geothermal well
drilling through the United States. Department of Energy--money that
has, in the past, been granted to geothermal explorers--would be
converted to a revolving loan fund.
If successful, the borrower would repay the fund at twice the
amount that was borrowed.
If unsuccessful, the loan would be forgiven, and the private
partner would also be reimbursed out of the loan fund an amount equal
to 50 percent of that private match. This step is to encourage
continued geothermal exploration. Because of that feature, the fund
would actually be paying for 75 percent of the cost of drilling an
unsuccessful exploratory geothermal well.
At this point, there is nothing in the pro forma spreadsheet to
cover costs of administering the program, nor money included there to
cover the costs of reviewing the data developed by the loan applicant.
However, in reviewing the spreadsheet, it seems that there should
be money available for those purposes.
For the past few years, DOE has been budgeted $4 million each
funding cycle for exploratory drilling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If
Revolving loan fund Loans unsuccessful, If successful, Fund balance
cost \1\ repayment \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning fund balance.......................... .............. .............. .............. $4,000,000
First project................................... $400,000 $600,000 .............. 3,400,000
Second project.................................. 350,000 525,000 .............. 2,875,000
Third project................................... 400,000 .............. $800,000 3,675,000
Fourth project.................................. 300,000 450,000 .............. 3,225,000
Fifth project................................... 500,000 .............. 1,000,000 4,225,000
Sixth project................................... 400,000 600,000 .............. 3,625,000
Seventh project................................. 350,000 .............. 700,000 4,325,000
Eighth project.................................. 400,000 600,000 .............. 3,725,000
Ninth project................................... 500,000 .............. 1,000,000 4,725,000
Tenth project................................... 300,000 450,000 .............. 4,275,000
Eleventh project................................ 400,000 600,000 .............. 3,675,000
Twelfth project................................. 350,000 .............. 700,000 4,375,000
Thirteenth project.............................. 500,000 750,000 .............. 3,625,000
Fourteenth project.............................. 400,000 .............. 800,000 4,425,000
Fifthteenth project............................. 350,000 525,000 .............. 3,900,000
Sixteenth project............................... 400,000 .............. 800,000 4,700,000
Seventeenth project............................. 500,000 750,000 .............. 3,950,000
Eighteenth project.............................. 400,000 600,000 .............. 3,350,000
Nineteenth project.............................. 400,000 .............. 800,000 4,150,000
Twentieth project............................... 500,000 .............. 1,000,000 5,150,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In unsuccessful ventures, cost to fund is total of loaned amount plus 50 percent of the private sector/local
match is repaid that investor.
\2\ In successful ventures, the loan is repaid at 200 percent (can be repaid over time at additional interest).
And on and on . . .
--Of course, this simple spreadsheet doesn't factor in costs
associated with administration of the fund, nor costs for peer
review of data.
--The above spreadsheet also shows a less than 50 percent success
rate, with 9 successes to 11 failures.
--Depending on timing, it appears the fund could also absorb a few
more failures.
______
Prepared Statement of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
Chairman Domenici and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to submit testimony on the appropriation to the
Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy. My testimony represents
the views of the governors of 30 member States of the Interstate Oil
and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC). These States account for virtually
all of the onshore domestic production of crude oil and natural gas. As
stewards of these resources, the States strongly support restoring the
appropriation to, at the very least, the current budget level for
research and development (R&D) for oil and natural gas projects
administered by the Office of Fossil Energy. Taxpayers are very
supportive of Federal investments in energy security, and there is no
better investment than in R&D.
As I prepare this testimony we stand as a country very close to yet
another ``energy crisis.'' Crude oil prices reached more than $75 a
barrel--a price level not experienced in our country's history. In
addition, the prices of heating oil, natural gas and gasoline also
reached record highs. The U.S. domestic oil and natural gas industry
today supplies about 40 percent of our Nation's demand for oil. The
rest is imported--a number which is growing every year--making us more
and more vulnerable to international crises and foreign economic
manipulation. Our dependence on others for our energy security has
never been greater.
One thing we can count on, however, is that domestic supplies of
crude oil and natural gas are our best hedge against this vulnerability
and increasing import dependency. Besides energy security there are a
myriad of other reasons why domestic production is preferable to
imports:
--Our domestic resources are produced under the world's most
effective environmental protections, which were established and
enforced by the States.
--Domestic resources create high-quality jobs here at home and
provide the energy that powers our standard of living. Few
realize that stripper oil wells (wells producing less than 10
barrels per day) account for about one-quarter of the lower 48
States' onshore domestic oil production and stripper gas wells
(wells producing 60 Mcf per day or less) about 10 percent of
onshore domestic gas production. This is a critical natural
resource.
--Despite perceptions to the contrary, large qualities of oil and
natural gas remain onshore the United States. These resources
represent the most stable and secure energy available. These
resources may exist in fields that have already been discovered
and await a new technology that results in cost-effective
recovery. Or they may lie in reservoirs yet undiscovered due
only to a lack of technology appropriate for deeper horizons or
greater geologic complexity. The bottom line is vast reserves
remain untapped. While recovery rates have increased
dramatically in the past 50 years and exciting new tools have
been developed for exploration, still more can be done to reach
the full production potential for reservoirs.
Many experts believe R&D is the most important factor in maximizing
the availability and utilization of petroleum resources, especially
domestic reserves.
Several years ago, the Task Force on Strategic Energy Research and
Development noted that, ``There is growing evidence of a brewing `R&D
crisis' in the United States--the result of cutbacks and refocusing in
private-sector R&D and reductions in Federal R&D.''
A more recent report being compiled this month by the IOGCC
confirms the declining trend in R&D expenditures while the country is
experiencing a corresponding increase in reliance on imports. Major oil
companies once poured millions into research and development. Today,
however, their focus has largely moved overseas and offshore. Eighty-
five percent of the wells in the United States are drilled by
independent oil and natural gas producers (producing roughly 40 percent
of the domestic oil and 65 percent of the domestic natural gas). Such
smaller independents lack both the resources and infrastructure for
significant R&D.
The IOGCC report concluded that ``[w]hen private R&D is compared to
Federal expenditures, the outlook is more bleak. Private spending is
substantiated . . . but Federal spending remains disproportionately
small compared to the relative importance of oil and gas to U.S. energy
requirements.''
The decline of Federal and private support for oil and gas research
is well documented. The reasoning for cutting government support seems
steeped in politics and a failure to understand the importance of
Federal R&D to our domestic oil and gas industry and our energy
security. However, this is a new era of uncertainty in our energy
security that requires a fresh look at spending priorities.
At present, our own economic recovery continues to be questioned,
and an energy shortage would certainly slow the comeback. Middle East
energy supplies are at considerable risk with war and internal conflict
that remains a constant threat. The recent anti-U.S. rhetoric from
Venezuela has caused companies to back away from future oil and gas
investments in this country, creating yet more uncertainties in a major
country supplying petroleum to the United States.
If the United States is to maintain its ability to produce its
domestic supplies of oil and natural gas, Federal expenditures on R&D
must fill some of the void left by private industry. Federal funding on
oil and natural gas must increase if the United States is to maintain
its ability to produce the domestic oil and natural gas resources our
country so desperately needs. But instead of filling the void and
expanding Federal expenditure on R&D, the administration's budget for
fiscal year 2007 eliminates oil and gas research.
In fact, the proposed budget calls for cutting the petroleum
technology R&D program at the very moment that our country could
benefit the most from technology breakthroughs that can be applied to
our own resources.
This is still so much promising work the taxpayers of this country
support: new methods of drilling that reduce impacts to the
environment; new materials that allow better, faster drilling; new
chemicals and biological tools that increase production; better uses of
renewables in the production of fossil fuels; minimizing waste; and
creating high quality jobs.
There have been many success stories from the DOE oil and gas
research program. One recent, striking example of how DOE makes a real
contribution to advances in environmental protection, energy production
and innovation comes from a DOE-IOGCC project in California. Under
DOE's Preferred Upstream Management Practices (PUMP) program, the
project is proving that unmarketable gas can be used on site to provide
power to oil wells previously idle. At the same time, the project is
meeting the strict air quality standards in the Los Angeles area. DOE
funding for this project was matched 100 percent by other partners,
which enabled the government to double its R&D investment. Every
government program investment should be as effective.
This is but one example of DOE helping provide leadership in
demonstrating a technology that may have much broader implications for
operators in 30 other oil- and gas-producing States who now won't have
to reinvent the well in order to satisfy environmental restrictions and
the urgent need for domestic energy.
Through careful regulation, IOGCC member States have helped
maximize production and minimize wasteful practices that can lead to
the premature abandonment of reservoirs. States have also developed
innovative approaches to deal with temporarily idled wells, created
incentives that maximize production and supported R&D that improve
recovery rates and lower finding costs.
Going forward, the IOGCC believes that a balanced and effective
energy policy must encompass a number of fundamental principles, with
R&D serving as a centerpiece in each. Other guiding principles include
conservation of resources both in the producing and consuming sectors,
encouraging domestic production to create economic growth and
stability, increasing access to public lands for responsible
development and prolonging production from wells at economic risk.
We strongly encourage the subcommittee's support of increased
funding in oil and gas research as a first step in implementing an
energy plan that makes sense for our country's future.
______
Prepared Statement of the Solar Energy Industries Association
INTRODUCTION
The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) appreciates this
opportunity to offer written testimony regarding the solar energy
research and development programs of the Department of Energy. SEIA is
the national trade association of solar energy manufacturers, dealers,
distributors, contractors, installers, architects, consultants, and
marketers, working work to expand the use of solar technologies in the
global marketplace.
SECURITY, PROSPERITY, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
We anticipate that the annual global growth rate of the
photovoltaics market--30-50 percent--will continue to be the norm for
many years into the future (though near-term silicon supply shortages
will limit growth for the next year or two.) By 2015, PV will provide
5-10 GW of electric capacity (enough to power 1-2 million homes); avoid
10 million metric tons per year of CO<INF>2</INF> emissions; and employ
30,000 new workers. An additional 5-10 GW of concentrating solar power
has been forecast for the American Southwest by the Western Governor's
Association and several consultancy reports.
No other technology can match solar's environmental benefits,
ability to reduce natural gas demand, high employment intensity, and
high-tech manufacturing benefits. However, all of these aggressive
deployment forecasts assume continued progress on the industry's
technical challenges at a rate at least matching historical norms; and
the current soaring growth of the industry means the United States must
make substantial investments if it is to maintain this progress--and
stay ahead of other nations.
THE GOAL
It now appears possible to have all solar technologies broadly
competitive on a simple economic basis with their conventional fuel
competition in the United States before 2015--with steady progress in
certain high value markets leading up to that date. This target appears
achievable both for photovoltaic electricity and solar thermal
displacement of conventional energy (in the retail market) and
concentrating solar power (in the wholesale market.)
SURGING GLOBAL INDUSTRY, TENUOUS U.S. LEADERSHIP
The last few years have been a period of exceptional growth and
change for all sectors of the industry.
Since 2001, the global market for photovoltaics has quadrupled in
size--from just under 400 megawatts of new annual capacity to more than
1,600 last year--approximately 412 billion worth of new product.
Meanwhile the United States' global market share, formerly more than 50
percent, dipped below 10 percent.
2005 saw the first new construction of utility-scale Concentrating
Solar Power plants in more than a decade.
Solar water heating experienced surging growth in the presence of
unusually high prices for all conventional fuels.
Across all three technologies, surging demand and increasing
economies of scale have driven a continuous feedback loop--each solar
panel or power plant coming off of the line makes the next one cheaper.
In fact, solar electricity costs on average less than half as much as
it did in the 1990's--with the recent runup in natural gas prices, this
is for the first time within striking distance of many retail electric
rates.
Wall Street and Silicon Valley have taken notice, as well.
Investment capital is surging into the industry at an unprecedented
rate from publicly-traded stocks and venture capital funding; analysts
estimate more than $1.5 billion of capital went into photovoltaic
manufacturing expansion last year alone, and currently planned utility
investments in concentrating solar power run to over $150 million per
project.
CONTINUING INDUSTRY CHALLENGES
However, there are also severe challenges facing the industry as a
whole.
The unprecedented growth of the photovoltaic sector has placed a
severe strain on global supplies of silicon. (While as late as the
1990's, the global solar industry subsisted on waste and off-spec
silicon from the microprocessor industry, it now demands more than half
of global supply.) This has bottlenecked production and created a
supply/demand imbalance that threatens the steady progress of cost
reductions that have driven this industry within the realm of
conventional ``grid'' electricity pricing. There is a real sector-wide
need for improved manufacturing processes to relieve this bottleneck
and continue price stability.
Responding to soaring conventional energy prices and policies
enacted by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Concentrating Solar Power
manufacturers have effectively restarted this long-dormant industry
``from scratch.'' They face considerable hurdles in scaling up their
production by orders of magnitude and presenting investors with proven
technologies sufficiently advanced to enable rapid deployment.
Solar water heating continues its history of slow, steady growth in
the United States. However, the United States still employs this
technology at less than one-tenth the rate of major European nations,
and must move aggressively to develop novel lower-cost and more
integrated systems if this technology is to realize its potential for
near-term natural gas usage reduction.
In all cases, there is a continued need for Federal research--not
to supplant the increasing role of private investment in expansion and
research and development, but to provide a framework and pathway for
bringing solar truly into the mainstream of U.S. energy resources, and
provide broadly-used tools to continue rapid growth. Given the current
energy situation, and the escalating concern of most Americans
regarding energy issues, it is no longer acceptable merely to continue
solar R&D programs at the current level.
PHOTOVOLTAICS--THE SOLAR AMERICA INITIATIVE
Accordingly, we strongly support the Solar America Initiative (SAI)
as laid out in the administration's 2007 budget request. This budget
proposes a new $139.47 million photovoltaic research program--an
increase of more than 78 percent over fiscal year 2006. Additionally,
the SAI represents a substantial shift in how DOE's solar programs
administer and direct their research.
Where previous photovoltaics research focused on DOE laboratory
R&D, with an emphasis on incremental cost reductions and potential
future breakthroughs, we anticipate that the SAI will bring a more
rigorously selective and goal-centered philosophy more focused on the
near-term barriers to the real possibility of large scale solar
deployment. In keeping with this philosophy, an increased emphasis on
industry/university/DOE partnerships will leverage Federal funding
through the increasing availability of private sector capital to the
industry.
CONCENTRATING SOLAR POWER
The 2007 budget request also continues research into Concentrating
Solar Power (CSP) devices at $8.9 million, and we are pleased to see
the restoration of this Congressional priority in the initial request.
These utility scale, heat-driven solar generators currently provide
hundreds of megawatts of clean electricity to the southwest, and the
first new plants in more than a decade are now under construction,
promising to bring enough electricity on line in the next several years
for several thousand new homes--all without further straining our
stressed supplies of conventional fuels. Current contracts extend to
several hundreds of megawatts of installed capacity.
In large part, this is only possible due to continued improvements
in price and performance that have been developed under DOE guidance.
The initial large-scale commercial deployment of many technologies
refined in the laboratory will inevitably require initial support from
many of the researchers that made them possible, and we believe that
this budget should prove adequate to ensure that this process occurs,
smoothing the transition to multi-gigawatt commercial deployment over
the 2006-2015 timeframe.
SOLAR HEATING AND LIGHTING
Unfortunately, the administration request would zero out this
program item, an omission which we believe is not in line with the
stated goal of the Solar America Initiative: ``To accelerate widespread
market acceptance of clean solar energy technologies across all U.S.
market segments by 2015, reducing our dependence on natural gas and
increasing our energy resources.''
This resource is already cost-effective in many cases, and it could
have truly significant impact on U.S. energy consumption if a serious
deployment program were undertaken: Fewer than 123,000 residential
water heaters consume the capacity of one LNG tanker per year, and if
just 40,000 American households purchased solar water heating systems
in the next 5 years, it would displace 5 million cubic feet of natural
gas consumption.
In the past years, demand for solar thermal has grown
substantially. However, there remain two principal barriers to the
mass-market penetration:
--(1) Cost.--The DOE SH&L program, in partnership with industry,
recently achieved a significant breakthrough by developing a
new low-cost polymer-based solar water heater with a 50 percent
cost reduction. Unfortunately, this cutting-edge technology
will not be available for deployment in most areas of the
country until DOE and NREL's expertise can be harnessed to
resolve cold climate durability and system design issues.
--(2) Perceived Reliability.--The potential loss of SH&L program
funding for the non-profit Solar Rating and Certification
Corporation (SRCC), which has certified solar thermal
collectors and systems for performance and quality since 1980,
will severely diminish the impact of the new Federal tax credit
for solar water heaters. SRCC certification is required for
solar water heating systems to be eligible for the tax credit,
so the loss of funding creates a bottleneck for the industry
and consumers alike. It is also possible that de-funding SRCC
could open the door for un-rated and un-certified systems to
enter a tax credit-stimulated market--a repeat of the quality
issues that plagued the industry in the 1970's.
Accordingly, we request that this program be continued at the $5
million dollar annual level.
CONCLUSIONS
In an era of highly increased concern regarding the United States'
energy security, it is time to make a significant commitment to
research and development of renewable energy sources. The
administration's proposed budget is a first step in the right direction
of substantially increased funding, and a more rigorous and results-
driven approach to research, development, and deployment, for these
extremely promising resources.
______
Prepared Statement of Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, Inc.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
America faces several complex and interrelated energy challenges.
Three of the most pressing are: (1) excessive dependence on oil
imports; (2) escalating energy prices; and (3) increasing greenhouse
gas emissions. Advanced technologies will be required to solve these
problems.
Gasification can address all of these challenges. Gasification
converts coal, either by itself or blended with biomass and combustible
wastes, into syngas, a valuable mixture of hydrogen and carbon
monoxide. Syngas can be used to produce electricity, synthetic liquid
fuels (such as ultra-clean diesel fuel, gasoline, and ethanol),
hydrogen, synthetic natural gas, and chemicals.
These products can all be produced with near-zero emissions, as
gasification enables efficient sequestration of carbon dioxide.
Gasification can also increase domestic oil and natural gas production,
if byproduct carbon dioxide is used for enhanced recovery of oil and
coal bed methane (natural gas). Synthetic and alternative fuels
produced via gasification can be carbon-neutral when the feedstock is a
mixture of coal and biomass, and when the coal-derived carbon dioxide
is sequestered.
Recognizing the importance of gasification, the Department of
Energy (DOE) is working with industry partners to develop a portfolio
of advanced gasification technologies. Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne
(PWR), America's leading rocket engine company, is pleased to
participate in this cooperative program. We are adapting rocket engine
technologies to develop a compact gasification system that could
significantly reduce plant cost and downtime, improve efficiency, and
economically gasify all ranks of coal.
Advanced gasification technologies are strategically important to
America's economic competitiveness and national security. However,
projected DOE funding is inadequate for timely development of these
technologies. We therefore respectfully request that the Senate take
the following actions:
--Fully fund the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request of $54
million under the DOE ``Advanced Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle'' line item.
--Direct DOE to fund continued development of the PWR compact
gasification system with at least $7 million in fiscal year
2007. (This project is identified in the President's budget
request.)
--Request DOE to prepare a plan (with proposed budget) to expand
development of advanced gasification technologies in fiscal
year 2008 and future years.
BACKGROUND
There are currently 116 gasification plants in operation around the
world. These plants produce electricity, synthetic natural gas, ultra-
clean diesel fuel, hydrogen, fertilizer, chemicals, and many other
products from abundant, low cost feedstock such as coal, biomass, and
combustible wastes.
These plants are important--but they provide less than 1 percent of
the world's energy. Widespread commercial application of the technology
has been constrained by economic and technological factors. Existing
gasification plants suffer from high capital cost, excessive downtime,
and inability to economically gasify all ranks of coal and other
available feedstock.
Significant technological advances are required to realize the full
potential of gasification. With improved technologies, future
gasification plants could produce a substantial fraction of America's
electricity, gaseous fuels, and liquid transportation fuels from
domestic resources, with near-zero emissions.
DOE ADVANCED GASIFICATION PROGRAM
The Department of Energy and its industry partners are currently
developing new technologies that could dramatically reduce the cost of
gasification and improve plant reliability and performance. Congress
funds this work under the line item ``Advanced Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle.''
Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR), a world-leading rocket engine
company, is pleased to participate in this important work. We built the
rocket engines that took Americans to the Moon, and brought them safely
home. Today, PWR makes the liquid rocket engines that power the Space
Shuttle, Delta and Atlas launch vehicles.
With DOE support, PWR is developing a compact gasification system
using low-cost rocket engine technologies to reduce gasifier size,
capital cost, and downtime, while improving performance, efficiency and
feedstock flexibility. This is just one of several technologies
supported by DOE under this line item. The four key projects are:
--Southern Company and KBR (Kellogg, Brown, and Root) are developing
an advanced Transport Gasifier to reduce the cost of
gasification.
--Air Products is developing an ITM (Ion Transport Membrane) air
separation system to reduce the cost and improve the efficiency
of producing pure oxygen from air.
--Research Triangle Institute (RTI) is developing an advanced, low-
cost gas cleanup system, in collaboration with Eastman
Chemical.
--PWR is developing the compact gasification system described above,
in collaboration with GTI (Gas Technologies Institute) and EERC
(Energy and Environmental Research Institute).
These are all potential high-payoff technologies. They are also
complementary. For example, the PWR compact gasification system fully
utilizes the benefits of Air Product's ITM air separation system and
RTI's advanced gas cleanup system, while complementing Southern's
Transport Gasifier by gasifying all ranks of coal.
These advanced gasification technologies, in combination with
advanced gas turbines, could reduce the cost of Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plants from $1,600 per kilowatt today, to
less than $1,300 per kilowatt, and improve plant efficiency to near 50
percent. If these goals are achieved, IGCC power plants could save U.S.
electric power consumers up to $20 billion annually, reduce coal power
plant emissions over 90 percent, and facilitate efficient carbon
dioxide sequestration.
These technologies could also enable cost-competitive production of
liquid transportation fuels, hydrogen, synthetic natural gas, and
chemicals--all from abundant domestic fossil fuels (such as coal and
petroleum coke) which can be blended with renewable resources (such as
biomass wastes and purpose-grown biomass). Although it is difficult to
estimate the cost savings achievable from synthetic and alternative
fuels, the payoff could be huge: (1) reduced oil imports; (2) improved
national security; (3) reduced air pollution and carbon dioxide
emissions; (4) less volatile energy prices; and (5) sustainable
economic growth.
The advanced gasification technologies funded by DOE feed into
FutureGen and the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI), and are essential
to the success of these programs. As an example of this process, the
Southern Company is currently scaling up its Transport Gasifier from
pilot scale (at Wilsonville, Alabama) to commercial scale in a CCPI
project in Orlando, Florida.
PWR GASIFICATION SYSTEM
The PWR compact gasification system uses rapid-mix rocket engine
technology to achieve the following advantages over conventional
gasification systems:
--90 percent reduction in gasifier size;
--50 percent lower capital cost;
--3-10 percent higher cold gas efficiency;
--50-90 percent reduction in downtime;
--Feedstock flexibility (potential to gasify all ranks of coal,
either by themselves or blended with renewable biomass and
combustible wastes);
--Product flexibility (economical production of multiple products,
including electricity, hydrogen, liquid fuels, and chemicals);
--Low-cost hydrogen production and carbon dioxide sequestration.
With PWR gasification technology, Integrated Gasification Combined
Cycle (IGCC) power plants will be able to produce electricity for about
4 cents per kilowatt-hour. Capital costs will be reduced by as much as
$300 million for a 1,000 megawatt plant. This capital cost reduction,
combined with improved plant availability, can save $1 billion during
the first 15 years of operation of such a plant.
The PWR technology is also well-suited for production of hydrogen
and sequestration of carbon dioxide, with an expected plant efficiency
of about 70 percent and cost approximately $2.00 per thousand cubic
feet. (This is equal to 80 cents per gallon of gasoline equivalent.)
Low-cost hydrogen can replace natural gas as fuel for existing
combined-cycle power plants and refineries. The resulting decrease in
natural gas consumption and carbon dioxide emissions could be
substantial. This technology can also provide low-cost, near-zero
emission hydrogen for stationary fuel cells, and power the Hydrogen
Economy when (and if) practical fuel cell vehicles are developed.
If the price of oil remains high, and if oil imports and global
warming continue to be major issues, advanced technologies such as the
PWR gasifier will be needed to produce affordable carbon-neutral
synthetic fuels from non-petroleum resources. Combining the PWR
gasification system with existing Fischer-Tropsch technology enables
production of ultra-clean synthetic diesel fuel (and other alternative
fuels) for less than the current price of crude oil.
Many industries in the United States are struggling with high
natural gas cost, and are therefore interested in industrial
gasification to produce syngas and electricity for industrial purposes.
The compact, low-cost features of the PWR technology makes it well-
suited for industrial gasification, especially when combined with other
advanced gasification technologies under development on the DOE
program, such as Air Product's ITM air separation system.
PWR started development of the compact gasification system in late
2004, after a competitive procurement sponsored by the DOE. We are
currently testing components and materials, and constructing a cold
flow test facility at the Energy and Environmental Research Center
(EERC) at the University of North Dakota. Testing at this facility will
begin in late 2006. We have also defined a pilot plant, to be located
at the Gas Technology Institute (GTI) in Des Plaines, Illinois.
FUNDING STATUS
The President's 2007 budget request includes funds for this project
(as well as the 2006 budget). The steps necessary to complete
development of the technology include: (1) constructing and operating
the pilot plant at GTI; and (2) developing and testing the dry solids
pump at EERC. The total government cost share for this entire project
is about $30 million over 5 years, including sunk costs of $4 million.
This is a cost-shared program, and PWR funds a portion of technology
development, and all related commercialization activities.
In January 2006, the DOE conducted a peer review of our proposed
plan to complete this program. The peer reviewers recommended
continuation of the project. In parallel, DOE funded an independent
contractor to evaluate the potential economic advantages of our
gasification system, and their results confirmed the economic
advantages of the PWR compact gasification system.
Nevertheless, in April 2006, DOE informed us that they do not plan
to fund the pilot plant and dry solids pump, because DOE does not have
adequate funds to develop a new gasification system. We understand that
the administration and Congress are under immense pressure to reduce
the budget deficit, and to fund other important priorities. However, we
believe that this country can--and should--allocate the resources
needed to address America's energy problems.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We urge the Senate to provide DOE with adequate resources to
develop advanced gasification technologies. Specifically, we request
the Senate to take the following actions:
--Fully fund the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request of $54
million under the DOE ``Advanced Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle'' line item.
--Direct DOE to fund continued development of the PWR compact
gasification system with at least $7 million in fiscal year
2007. (This project is identified in the President's budget
request.)
--Request DOE to prepare a plan (with proposed budget) to expand
development of advanced gasification technologies in fiscal
year 2008 and future years.
This expanded DOE Gasification Plan should include sufficient
funding for: (1) timely completion of on-going advanced gasification
projects; and, (2) new initiatives to enable cost-competitive
production of synthetic and alternative transportation fuels, as well
as electricity, with near-zero emissions.
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
The benefits from widespread deployment of coal and biomass
gasification are substantial for a broad range of constituents:
--America will benefit from enhanced energy security.
--The U.S. economy will benefit from domestically-produced,
affordable energy supplies.
--Coal-producing regions, farm States, and forestry regions will
benefit from sustainable, environmentally sound utilization of
coal and biomass.
--Oil producing regions will benefit because carbon dioxide (produced
as a byproduct of gasification) can be used for enhanced oil
recovery.
--Refinery regions will benefit as gasification technology enables
cost-competitive utilization of refinery wastes and other low-
cost feedstock.
--Energy consumers will pay less for electricity, natural gas, and
transportation fuels.
--All people on the planet will benefit from a clean environment and
a stable climate.
These are clear and compelling reasons to develop and deploy
advanced gasification technologies.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to provide this testimony.
With your leadership, America will transform today's energy challenges
into tomorrow's opportunities.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Alaska Energy Authority, Prepared Statement of the............... 413
Allard, Senator Wayne, U.S. Senator From Colorado:
Prepared Statements of..............................4, 50, 105, 267
Questions Submitted by......................................80, 187
Statements of..................................4, 49, 104, 193, 267
Alliance to Save Energy, Prepared Statement of the............... 435
American:
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Prepared Statement of
the........................................................ 429
Chemical Society, Prepared Statement of the.................. 492
Forest & Paper Association, Prepared Statement of the........ 473
Gas Association, Prepared Statement of the................... 476
Geological Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............. 450
Iron & Steel Institute, Prepared Statement of the............ 467
Public Power Association, Prepared Statement of the.......... 432
Rivers, Prepared Statement of................................ 351
Society:
For Microbiology, Prepared Statement of the.............. 408
Of Plant Biologists, Prepared Statement of the........... 448
Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 300
Association of U.S. Petroleum Engineering Department Heads,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 425
Austin Energy, Prepared Statement of............................. 478
Bardin, David J., Prepared Statement of.......................... 459
Biomass Energy Research Association, Prepared Statement of the... 419
Board of Levee Commissioners for the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 317
Bond, Senator Christopher S., U.S. Senator From Missouri:
Question Submitted by........................................ 186
Statements of..............................................106, 191
Brooks, Hon. Linton F., Under Secretary for Nuclear Security, and
Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration,
Department of
Energy......................................................... 241
Prepared Statement of........................................ 246
Statement of................................................. 244
Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 394
Calaveras County Water District, Prepared Statement of the....... 331
California State Coastal Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the.. 334
Cascade Community Partnership, Prepared Statement of the......... 507
Center for Advanced Separation Technologies, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Prepared Statement of the...... 455
Central:
Arizona Water Conservation District, Prepared Statement of
the........................................................ 362
Utah Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of the... 365
City of:
Arlington, Texas, Prepared Statement of the.................. 340
Flagstaff, Arizona, Prepared Statement of the................ 308
Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners and Port of Los
Angeles, Prepared Statement of the......................... 349
San Marcos, Texas, Prepared Statement of the................. 321
Santa Barbara, California, Prepared Statement of the......... 314
St. Helena, California, Prepared Statement of the............ 332
Stillwater, Minnesota, Prepared Statement of the............. 355
Clark County Regional Flood Control District, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 297
Coal Utilization Research Council, Prepared Statement of the..... 479
Coalition of Northeastern Governors, Prepared Statement of the... 417
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi:
Prepared Statements of..................................6, 108, 198
Questions Submitted by......................................33, 182
Colorado:
River:
Basin Salinity Control Forum, Prepared Statement of the.. 368
Commission of Nevada, Prepared Statement of the.......... 376
Energy Distributors Association, Prepared Statement of
the.................................................... 380
Water Conservation District, Prepared Statement of the... 360
Springs Utilities, Prepared Statement of..................... 370
Water Congress, Prepared Statement of the.................... 361
Craig, Senator Larry, U.S. Senator From Idaho:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 195
Statements of................................................ 2, 46
Cummins Inc., Prepared Statement of.............................. 398
D'Agostino, Thomas, Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs,
National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy. 241
Dayton, Senator Mark, U.S. Senator From Minnesota, Question
Submitted by................................................... 238
Denver Water, Prepared Statement of.............................. 364
Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering, The
University of Texas at Austin, Prepared Statement of the....... 503
Detroit Diesel Corporation, Prepared Statement of the............ 462
Distributed Energy Coalition, Prepared Statement of the.......... 404
Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico:
Opening Statements of....................................1, 89, 191
Prepared Statement of........................................ 197
Questions Submitted by....................25, 75, 77, 152, 229, 275
Statements of..........................................45, 100, 241
Donald, Admiral Kirkland, Deputy Administrator for Naval
Reactors, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department
of Energy...................................................... 241
Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator From North Dakota,
Questions Submitted by.........................................76, 83
Duchesne County Water Conservancy District, Letter From the...... 372
Electric Drive Transportation Association, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 447
Energy Sciences Coalition, Prepared Statement of the............. 452
External Advisory Committee to the Department of Petroleum and
Geosystems Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 485
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 401
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 86
Florida State University, Prepared Statement of.................. 422
Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and Dry Prairie Rural
Water System, Prepared Statement of the........................ 382
Four Corners Power Plant, Prepared Statement of the.............. 361
FuelCell Energy, Inc., Prepared Statement of..................... 412
Fusion Power Associates, Prepared Statement of................... 458
GE Energy Advanced Technology Operation, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 444
Garman, David K., Under Secretary of Energy for Energy, Science
and Environment, Department of Energy.......................... 89
Prepared Statement of........................................ 110
Statement of................................................. 108
Gas Machinery Research Council, Prepared Statement of the........ 411
Geo-Energy Partners, Prepared Statement of....................... 475
Geothermal Energy Association, Prepared Statement of the......... 470
Grand Valley Water Users' Association, Prepared Statement of the. 367
Granite Falls, Minnesota, Prepared Statement of.................. 353
Great Basin Center for Geothermal Energy, University of Nevada,
Reno, Prepared Statement of the................................ 458
Hospital for Special Surgery, Prepared Statement of the.......... 442
IBACOS, Inc., Prepared Statement of.............................. 496
Independent Petroleum Association of America, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 453
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 509
Jarrett, Jeffrey, Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy,
Department of
Energy......................................................... 89
Johnson, Senator Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota, Statement
of............................................................. 48
Keys, John W., III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior..................................... 45
Prepared Statement of........................................ 60
Summary Statement of......................................... 58
Kovscek, Anthony R., Prepared Statement of....................... 397
Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana, Prepared
Statement of................................................... 194
Limbaugh, Mark, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science,
Department of the Interior..................................... 45
Prepared Statement of........................................ 52
Statement of................................................. 50
McConnell, Senator Mitch, U.S. Senator From Kentucky, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 188
Metropolitan Water:
District of Southern California, Prepared Statement of the... 372
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, Prepared Statement
of the..................................................... 336
Mid-West Electric Consumers Association, Inc., Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 441
Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington, Statements
of........................................................5, 103, 196
Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 339
National:
Association:
For State Community Services Programs, Prepared Statement
of
the.................................................... 414
Of State Energy Officials, Prepared Statement of the..... 438
Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research, Prepared
Statement of the........................................... 502
Community Action Foundation, Prepared Statement of the....... 488
Hydrogen Association, Prepared Statement of the.............. 490
Mining Association, Prepared Statement of the................ 486
Research Center for Coal and Energy, West Virginia
University, Prepared Statement of the...................... 493
Wind Watch, Inc., Prepared Statement of...................... 504
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 374
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Letter From the.... 364
Nuclear Energy Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............. 482
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System, Prepared Statement of the 387
Orbach, Raymond L., Ph.D., Director, Office of Science,
Department of Energy:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 119
Statement of................................................. 117
Ouachita River Valley Association, Prepared Statement of the..... 325
Paul, Jerry, Principal Deputy Administrator, Nuclear
Nonproliferation Activities, National Nuclear Security
Administration, Department of Energy........................... 241
Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc., Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 367
Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, Inc., Prepared Statement of.......... 513
Public Service Company of New Mexico, Prepared Statement of the.. 362
Pueblo Board of Water Works, Prepared Statement of the........... 365
Red River Valley Association, Prepared Statements of the.......327, 376
Reid, Senator Harry, U.S. Senator From Nevada:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 92
Questions Submitted by....................................... 34
Statement of................................................. 89
Supplemental Statement of.................................... 94
Rispoli, James, Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental
Management, Department of Energy............................... 89
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 315
Sage Electrochromics, Inc., Prepared Statement of................ 499
San Juan Water Commission, Prepared Statement of the............. 361
Santa Clara Valley Water District, Prepared Statements of the..342, 378
Sell, Hon. Clay, Deputy Secretary, Department of Energy.......... 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 11
Statement of................................................. 7
Society of Nuclear Medicine, Prepared Statement of the........... 431
Solar Energy Industries Association, Prepared Statement of the... 511
Southeastern Federal Power Customers, Inc., Prepared Statement of 505
Southern Company, Prepared Statement of the...................... 464
Southwestern Water Conservation District, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 366
Specter, Senator Arlen, U.S. Senator From Pennsylvania, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 237
State:
Engineer's Office, State of Wyoming, Letter From the......... 370
Of Wyoming, Prepared Statement of the........................ 366
Teachers' Retirement System, State of California, Prepared
Statement of the........................................... 406
Strock, Lieutenant General Carl A., Chief of Engineers, Corps of
Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army, Department of
Defense--Civil:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 210
Statement of................................................. 209
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development Authority, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 309
The Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statement of.................... 322
Three Affiliated Tribes, Prepared Statement of the............... 385
Tri-County Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of the. 365
UF-DOE High Temperature Electrochemistry Center, University of
Florida, Prepared Statement of the............................. 416
US Fuel Cell Council, Prepared Statement of the.................. 468
USA Rice Federation, Prepared Statement of the................... 320
United States Advanced Ceramics Association, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 427
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Prepared
Statement of
the............................................................ 423
Upper:
Gunnison River Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement
of
the........................................................ 361
Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA), Prepared
Statement of the........................................... 311
Ventura Port District, Prepared Statement of the................. 299
Western Coalition of Arid States, Prepared Statements of the...358, 392
Woodley, John Paul, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works), Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 191
Prepared Statement........................................... 200
Statement of................................................. 198
Wyoming Water Association, Letter From the....................... 359
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Additional Committee Questions................................... 229
Civil Works:
Backlog...................................................... 211
Program:
Areas.................................................... 203
Improvements............................................. 201
Construction..................................................... 203
Continuing Contracts............................................. 236
And Reprogramming............................................ 234
Drought.......................................................... 231
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations............................ 200
Hopper Dredge McFarland.......................................... 237
Katrina.......................................................... 231
Major Issues by Appropriation Account............................ 197
Overview of Fiscal Year 2007 Army Civil Works Budget............. 200
Performance-based Budgeting....................................197, 200
Powder River Basin Expansion Project............................. 238
President's Management Agenda.................................... 205
Project Suspensions.............................................. 197
Regulatory Issues in New Mexico.................................. 229
Reprogramming.................................................... 237
Studies and Design............................................... 202
Summary of Fiscal Year 2007 Program Budget....................... 210
Value of the Civil Works Program to the Nation's Economy and
Defense........................................................ 212
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Accelerated Cleanup--Change in Course..........................173, 178
Additional Committee Questions..................................24, 152
Advanced Burner Reactors......................................... 27
Advancing America's Economic and Energy Security................. 111
American Centrifuge:
Program--USEC................................................ 162
Project...................................................... 168
Barter of Uranium................................................ 162
Biomass.......................................................... 165
Clean Coal Power Initiative...................................... 159
Use of Carryover Balances.................................... 160
Cleanup Delays at K-25........................................... 178
Coal Research.................................................... 116
Consolidation of Nuclear Material in the Complex................. 176
Construction of New Nuclear Power Plants......................... 33
Contradictions to Other Studies And Assessments.................. 97
DOE--Collaborative R&D........................................... 32
Department's GNEP Technology Objectives.......................... 16
Economics........................................................ 34
Ensuring a Clean Environment..................................... 113
Environmental/NEPA............................................... 42
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research........... 157
Fast Reactor Record and Safety................................... 38
Fossil Energy Budget............................................. 160
GAO Report on Total Environmental Liabilities.................... 179
Genomes to Life Program.......................................... 152
Global:
Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)............................ 160
Budget Specifics......................................... 25
Engineering Demonstration................................ 31
Nonproliferation......................................... 27
Proliferation:
Controls............................................. 25
Risks................................................ 18
Regulation............................................... 29
Risk Liability Protection.................................... 28
Hanford Cleanup--Favorite Among Equals.........................169, 173
Hurricane Katrina Disaster Recovery.............................. 166
Hydrogen......................................................... 161
And Fuel Cell Program........................................ 165
Competitiveness.............................................. 164
Manufacturing................................................ 165
Implementation of the Energy Policy Act.......................... 158
Improving Management at the Department of Energy................. 115
Independently Financed Facilities................................ 156
India's inclusion in ITER........................................ 157
Integrated Interim Storage/Reprocessing.......................... 35
Interim Storage.................................................. 31
And Reprocessing............................................. 181
International:
Competitiveness.............................................. 100
Concerns..................................................... 39
Interest in Enrichment Services.............................. 19
Linear Collider.............................................. 155
Iran--Pursuit of a Complete Fuel Cycle........................... 27
Joint Dark Energy Mission........................................ 154
Katrina--EPAct................................................... 166
Legislative Reforms.............................................. 30
Linear-No-Threshold Standard..................................... 153
Loan:
Guarantee.................................................... 183
Guarantees................................................... 116
Los Alamos:
National Lab...............................................171, 175
Neutron Science Center....................................... 153
Mixed Oxide (MOX) Program........................................ 28
Cost Increase................................................ 21
National Nuclear Security Administration and State Department
Participation in GNEP.......................................... 21
Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP)............................40, 162
Nuclear Power:
R&D.......................................................... 158
For Transportation Fuels..................................... 29
2010......................................................... 33
OMB Rationale.................................................... 98
Off-Shore Wind Energy Development................................ 167
Office of Science--20-Year Plan.................................. 155
Past Reprocessing Record......................................... 37
Photovoltaic Energy Commercialization Program.................... 167
Proliferation Concerns........................................... 38
Providing Reliable, Clean Electric Power......................... 95
Public Disclosure................................................ 42
Rare Isotope Accelerator......................................... 157
Reclassifying Waste at Hanford, Washington.....................169, 176
Recycling Spent Fuel Technology.................................. 14
Regarding the Termination of the Geothermal Energy Program....... 94
Reliable Fuel Supply............................................. 32
Reprocessing in Europe (Traditional Purex Reprocessing).......... 40
Risk Insurance--EPAct 2005....................................... 28
Royalty Changes.................................................. 99
Savannah River Site--Seismic Regulations.......................173, 177
Science and Energy Research...................................... 153
Solar America Initiative......................................... 164
Spent Fuel Recycling Plan........................................ 36
Standby Support for Nuclear Power Plants......................... 157
Strategic Petroleum Reserves..................................... 166
Tax Incentives................................................... 99
Technology Transfer Coordinator.................................. 156
Timing........................................................... 40
Transportation Fuels.............................................23, 24
U.S. Mixed Oxide Facility Costs..................................22, 23
UREX Construction Options........................................ 26
UREX+ Recycling Process.......................................... 26
USGS Resource Assessment......................................... 99
University R&D Program........................................... 29
Uranium:
Inventory.................................................... 163
Mining....................................................... 163
Supply....................................................... 162
Vehicle Programs................................................. 184
WERC/DOE Cooperative Agreement................................... 178
Waste............................................................ 37
Conundrum.................................................... 30
Treatment Plan Seismic Regulation..........................172, 177
Weatherization Program........................................... 166
Wind Energy...................................................... 163
Yucca Mountain................................................... 33
Capacity..................................................... 182
Funding...................................................... 179
License Application.......................................... 181
Options...................................................... 30
Program Status............................................... 180
Repository Operations........................................ 182
Requirements................................................. 180
National Nuclear Security Administration
Additional Committee Questions................................... 274
Balanced National Program--NIF at All Cost....................... 282
Changes in the Nuclear Weapons Complex........................... 267
Complex of the Future............................................ 278
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.......................... 279
Active Confinement Ventilation............................... 286
Fiscal Year 2007 Budget:
Request by Program........................................... 250
Tables....................................................... 257
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).......................273, 280
Laboratory Directed Research and Development...................295, 296
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)............................ 273
New Contract Costs........................................... 289
Management Issues................................................ 257
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA):
Appropriation and Program Summary Tables, Out-year
Appropriation Summary Tables............................... 257
Management Oversight......................................... 280
Vacancies.................................................... 287
National Ignition Facility....................................... 266
Budget....................................................... 277
Costs and Funding............................................ 275
Plans........................................................ 285
Nuclear Materials................................................ 270
Plutonium Disposition............................................ 263
Radioactive Sources.............................................. 293
Reliable Replacement Warhead--Agent for Change................... 286
Russian Highly Enriched Uranium Deal............................. 291
Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Related Questions............. 284
Special Nuclear Material Security................................ 281
Status of MOX.................................................... 292
``Z'' 5-Year Plan................................................ 282
Office of Science
Alternate Sources of Energy...................................... 147
Carbon Sequestration............................................. 141
Coal Research and FutureGen...................................... 141
Fiscal Year 2007 Science Priorities.............................. 121
Gasifier Technology............................................145, 146
Hydrogen Powered Fuel Cells...................................... 150
International Linear Collider.................................... 148
Los Alamos Neutron Science Center................................ 147
National Renewable Energy Laboratory............................. 136
Organization..................................................... 124
PNNL 300 Area.................................................... 138
Program Objectives and Performance............................... 124
Rocky Flats:
Litigation................................................... 137
Claims................................................... 146
Mineral Rights.............................................137, 146
Science:
Accomplishments.............................................. 122
Programs..................................................... 125
Waste Treatment Plant............................................ 138
Yucca Mountain License Application............................... 151
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Additional Committee Questions................................... 75
Addressing Other Departmental Changes............................ 56
Animas-La Plata.................................................. 80
Budget:
And Performance Integration.................................. 64
Overview..................................................... 53
Bureau of Reclamation's Mission.................................. 82
California Bay-Delta (CALFED).................................... 63
Storage Studies.............................................. 86
Water Use Efficiency Projects................................ 87
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.......................... 63
Dam Safety and Aging Infrastructures............................. 68
Departmental Programmatic Highlights............................. 53
Desalination and:
Advanced Water Treatment Technologies........................ 78
Water Treatment Technologies................................. 71
Drought.......................................................... 75
Energy Development............................................... 56
Environmental Water Account...................................... 86
Everglades....................................................... 53
Fiscal Year 2007:
Budget Request for the Bureau of Reclamation................. 59
Planned Activities........................................... 64
Funding for Friant--NRDC Settlement.............................. 86
Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request................ 59
For the Bureau of Reclamation................................ 51
Jackson Gulch Reservoir.......................................... 81
Klamath River Basin.............................................. 55
Lower Tuscan Aquifer Water Supply Investigation.................. 87
National Academy of Sciences Study............................... 58
Operations and Maintenance....................................... 82
Overall BOR Funding.............................................. 83
Policy and Administration........................................ 62
President's Management Agenda.................................... 63
Rehabilitation................................................... 82
Repayment Contracts..............................................80, 83
Rural Water...................................................... 84
Safety of Dams................................................... 81
Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse............................ 79
Tularosa and Hurricane Relief Efforts............................ 72
2005 Hurricanes.................................................. 53
Water:...........................................................
And Related Resources........................................ 60
Recycling Projects and Title XVI............................. 88
Supply Crises in the West.................................... 51
2025......................................................... 76
Preventing Crises and Conflicts.......................... 54
-