Segment 1 Of 2 Next Hearing Segment(2)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS Tables
Page 1 TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
72–106PS
2002
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FISCAL YEAR
2002 BUDGET REQUEST
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
APRIL 26, 2001
Serial No. 107–34
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
JOE BARTON, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California
NICK SMITH, Michigan
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DAVE WELDON, Florida
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., Washington
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GARY G. MILLER, California
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
FELIX J. GRUCCI, JR., New York
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
BART GORDON, Tennessee
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
MARK UDALL, Colorado
DAVID WU, Oregon
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
JOE BACA, California
JIM MATHESON, Utah
STEVE ISRAEL, New York
DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
Subcommittee on Energy
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland, Chairman
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
KEN CALVERT, California
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., Washington
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon
JIM MATHESON, Utah
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
HARLAN WATSON Subcommittee Staff Director
TOM VANEK, KAREN KIMBALL, JOHN DARNELL Republican Professional Staff Members
CHARLES COOKE Democratic Professional Staff Member
TOM HAMMOND Staff Assistant
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
C O N T E N T S
April 26, 2001
Witness List
Hearing Charter
Opening Statements
Statement of Chairman Roscoe G. Bartlett (MD–6), Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Written Statement
Statement of the Honorable Lynn C. Woolsey (CA–6), Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Panel I
Dr. James F. Decker, Acting Director of the Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement
Prepared Statement
Biography
John Sullivan, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Planning, Budget, and Management, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Prepared Statement of Dr. Abraham E. Haspel
Biography
Robert S. Kripowicz, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement
Prepared Statement
Biography
Gail H. Marcus, Principal Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement
Biography
Prepared Statement of William D. Magwood, IV
Biography
Steven V. Cary, Acting Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement
Prepared Statement
Biography
James M. Owendoff, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement
Prepared Statement
Biography
Discussion
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Panel II
George H. Trilling, President, American Physical Society
Oral Statement
Prepared Statement
Biography
Financial Disclosure
Scott W. Tinker, State Geologist of Texas; Director, Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin
Oral Statement
Prepared Statement
Biography
Financial Disclosure
James A. Lake, President, American Nuclear Society
Oral Statement
Prepared Statement
Biography
Financial Disclosure
Michael L. Marvin, President, Business Council for Sustainable Energy
Oral Statement
Prepared Statement
Biography
Financial Disclosure
Discussion
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions Submitted By The Majority
Dr. James F. Decker, Acting Director of the Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Science's Role in the Administration's Energy Task Force
Office of Science's Role in the Administration Climate Change Policy Review
Coordination of Research Programs Within DOE
Declining Pool of Physical Science Students
Office of Science Labs and Facilities Budget
Office of Science Energy Costs
Status of the Spallation Neutron Source
NIH Funding at DOE Laboratories
Office of Science Research at NNSA National Laboratories
Office of Safeguards and Security Budget
The Genomes to Life Program
Security at Office of Science Facilities
Status of Office of Fusion Energy Sciences Programs
Fusion Research Facilities Funding
Construction of New Fusion Energy Research Experiments
John Sullivan, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Planning, Budget, and Management, U.S. Department of Energy
EERE's Role in the Administration's Energy Task Force
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
EERE's Role in the Administration's Climate Change Policy Review
Coordination of Research Programs Within DOE
Declining Pool of Physical Science Students
Reduced PNGV Funding
Response to the National Academy of Public Administration Report
Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000
Reduced NREL Funding
Addressing Aging Electricity Distribution Infrastructure
Robert S. Kripowicz, Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Fossil Energy's Role in the Administration's Energy Task Force
Office of Fossil Energy's Role in the Administration's Climate Change Policy Review
Coordination of Research Programs Within DOE
Declining Pool of Physical Science Students
Methane Research and Development Act of 2000
Clean Coal Power Initiative
Carbon Sequestration Research
Role of Small Petroleum Producers
Technologies to Extend Oilfield Life
Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell Research
Gail H. Marcus, Principal Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Energy
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Office of Nuclear Energy's Role in the Administration's Energy Task Force
Office of Nuclear Energy's role in the Administration's Climate Change Policy Review
Coordination of Research Programs Within DOE
Declining Pool of Physical Science Students
Domestic Reserves of Uranium
Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor
Projections for Nuclear Power Generation
Generation IV Nuclear Energy System
NRC–Certified Advanced Reactors
Cooperation With South Africa on Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR)
Status of the Fast Flux Test Facility
Steven V. Cary, Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Environment, Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Environment, Safety and Health's Role in the Administration's Energy Task Force
Office of Environment, Safety and Health's Role in the Administration's Climate Change Policy Review
Coordination of Research Programs Within DOE
Declining Pool of Physical Science Students
External Regulation of DOE Facilities
National Nuclear Security Administration
Office of Environment, Safety and Health Budget
Wildland Fire Management Policies for DOE Facilities
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
James M. Owendoff, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Environmental Management's Role in the Administration's Energy Task Force
Office of Environmental Management's Role in the Administration's Climate Change Policy Review
Coordination of Research Programs Within DOE
Declining Pool of Physical Science Students
Status of the West Valley Negotiations
West Valley's Cleanup Costs
Metal Recycling at the K–25 Site
Status of DUF6 Cylinders
Conversion of DUF6
On-Site Waste Disposal at Paducah
George H. Trilling, President, American Physical Society
Imbalances in Federal R&D Funding
Contributions of R&D to Economic Growth
Stature of Office of Science Within DOE
U.S. and International Fusion Programs
Next Phase in Fusion Research
Fusion Research Funding
Scott W. Tinker, Director, Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Technologies for Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery
Unconventional Natural Gas Resources
Environmentally Sensitive Drilling Technologies
Value of Oil Research
Oil Company Profits
Prediction of Energy Reserves
James A. Lake, President, American Nuclear Society
Michael L. Marvin, President, Business Council for Sustainable Energy
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Prepared Statement by John E. Kane, Vice President, Governmental Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute
Funding Disclosure
Department of Energy FY 2002 Congressional Budget Request Budget Summary Charts
Letters from Scott W. Tinker to Chairman Sherwood Boehlert
Bureau of Economic Geology Annual Report 2000
Statement by Marvin S. Fertel, Senior Vice President, Business Operations, Nuclear Energy Institute
Department of Energy FY 2002 Research and Development Budget Request Overview
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
DOE Science for the Future, A Discussion Paper
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET REQUEST
THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2001
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Roscoe G. Bartlett [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
72196a.eps
HEARING CHARTER
Department of Energy Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Request
April 26, 2001
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
10:00 p.m.–2:00 p.m.
2318 Rayburn House Office Building
The Subcommittee on Energy will consider the Administration's Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 request for the Department of Energy. DOE witnesses will address the FY 2002 budget request for each of the six DOE Offices with programs under the Science Committee's jurisdiction: (1) Office of Science; (2) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; (3) Office of Fossil Energy; (4) Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology; (5) Office of Environment, Safety and Health; and (6) Office of Environmental Management. Outside witnesses will also address the FY 2002 request for the DOE Offices of Science, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, and Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.
A description of DOE's FY 2002 budget request follows.
1.0 OVERVIEW
DOE's FY 2002 budget authorization request for its programs are included in the Science, Energy Supply, and Non-Defense Environmental appropriation accounts of the Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill; and in the Fossil Energy R&D, Energy Conservation R&D, and Clean Coal Technology appropriation accounts of the Interior and' Related Agencies Appropriation Bill.
As shown in Table 1 below, DOE's total FY 2002 budget authorization request is $4,813,193,000. This is an increase of $148.511 million—or 3.2 percent—above the FY 2000 appropriation of $4,664,682,000, and a decrease of $423.44 million—or 8.1 percent—below the FY 2001 appropriation of $5,236,633,000. DOE's total FY 2002 request for budget authority (which includes an advance appropriation of $82.0 million for Clean Coal Technology) is $4,895,193,000. This is an increase of $376.549 million—or 8.3 percent—above the FY 2000 budget authority of $4,518,644,000, and a decrease of $350.42 million—or 6.7 percent—below the FY 2001 budget authority of $5,245,613,000. Tables 2 and 3 also show the DOE FY 2002 budget request in terms of an estimate of sole and shared (with the Committee on Energy and Commerce) jurisdiction, respectively.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
72196b.eps
72196c.eps
72196d.eps
2.0 Office of Science
DOE's FY 2002 Science appropriation request funds DOE's Office of Science (SC) programs, which include High Energy Physics, Nuclear Energy Physics, Biological and Environmental Research (BER), Basic Energy Sciences (BES), Advanced Scientific Computing Research, Energy Research Analysis, Multiprogram Energy Laboratories (MEL)-Facilities Support, Fusion Energy Sciences, and Program Direction. In addition, SC manages the Technical Information Management Program, which is contained in the Energy Supply appropriation account. The Science Committee has sole jurisdiction over the Science appropriation account programs, and shares jurisdiction over the Technical Information Management program with the Energy and Commerce Committee.
SC is the largest Federal funder of scientific facilities and the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, etc,) and plays a major role supporting other scientific fields, including life sciences, mathematics, computation, engineering, and environmental sciences. It provides the largest share of funding for 10 DOE Laboratories: (1) Ames Laboratory at Ames, IA; (2) Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) at Argonne, IL; (3) Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) at Upton, NY; (4) Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) at Batavia, IL; (5) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) at Berkeley, CA; (6) Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) at Oak Ridge, TN; (7) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) at Richland, WA; (8) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) at Princeton, NJ; (9) Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) at Stanford, CA; and (10) Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF) at Newport News, VA. SC also funds programs at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) at Idaho Falls, ID; at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NRL) at Golden, CO; at the three DOE weapons laboratories—Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) at Livermore, CA; Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) at Los Alamos, NM; and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) at Albuquerque, NM and at Livermore, CA—as well as a number of research facilities located at universities. In addition, two DOE Operations Offices report to SC—Chicago and Oak Ridge.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
As shown in Table 4 below, the FY 2002 request for the Office of Science under the Science Committee's jurisdiction is $3.160 billion. This is an increase of $335.0 million—or 11.9 percent—above the FY 2000 appropriation of $2.825 billion, and an increase of $4.4 million—or 0.1 percent—above the FY 2001 appropriation of $3.155 billion. Table 5 below also shows the SC funding by DOE Laboratory and by universities and other performers.
The FY 2002 request for most SC accounts show minor increases above the FY 2001 level. There are two exceptions: (1) Biological and Environmental Research (BER), whose FY 2002 request of $443.0 million is a reduction of $39.6 million or 8.2 percent—due to the zeroing out of $43.0 million in FY 2001 Congressional earmarks; and (2) Fusion Energy Sciences, whose FY 2002 request of $238.5 million is a reduction of $10.0 million or 4.0 percent. The DOE plans to submit a budget amendment to increase the Fusion account by $10.0 million offset by decreases to High Energy Physics (–$5.0 million), Advanced Scientific Computing Research (–$2.7 million), Energy Research Analysis (–$0.3 million), and Program Direction (–$2.0 million).
72196e.eps
72196f.eps
2.1 High Energy Physics (FY 2001 = $712.001 million; FY 2002 = $721.1 million)
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
DOE's High Energy Physics (HEP) Program funds about 90 percent of all U.S. high energy physics research and supports laboratory- and university-based high energy physics research at the B-Factory(see footnote 1) at SLAC, at the Main Injector for the Tevatron(see footnote 2) at Fennilab, and at the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS) at BNL on an incremental cost basis. In addition, HEP, along with NSF, also participates in the European Laboratory for Particle Physics (CERN) Large Hadron Collider (LHC)(see footnote 3) project.
The FY 2002 HEP budget request is $721.1 million, as shown in Table 6.(see footnote 4) This is an increase of $38.05 million—or 5.6 percent—over the FY 2000 appropriation of $683.05 million, and an increase of $9.099 million—or 1.3 percent—above the FY 2001 appropriation of $712.001 million. Funding by DOE Laboratory and by universities and other performers is shown in Table 7.
72196g.eps
In FY 2002, the program will focus on ''windows of opportunity'' related to finding the Higgs Boson (Fermilab) and on CP violation (SLAC) to explore the preponderance of matter over antimatter. HEP will continue its participation in the Large Hadron Collider project, but at a reduced level as agreed to by CERN. Construction funding is reduced with completion of two projects in FY 2001 and another nearing completion in FY 2002.
Funding for Research and Technology (FY 2001 = $242.836 million; FY 2002 = $247.87 million) increases by $5.034 million primarily to support research and future facility upgrades at Fermilab (related to the search for the Higgs Boson) (FY 2001 = $33.4 million; FY 2002 = $35.1 million), and at SLAC (for CP violation investigations) (FY 2001 = $34.4 million; FY 2002 = $36.6 million). University R&D declines by $5.6 million (FY 2001 = $110.9 million; FY 2002 = $105.3 million).
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
72196h.eps
High Energy Physics Facility Operations (FY 2001 = $436.836 million; FY 2002 = $456.83 million) focuses on enhanced operations of Fermilab and SLAC. Fermilab (FY 2001 = $211.406 million; FY 2002 = $244.739 million) will operate for 22 weeks in FY 2001 and 39 weeks in FY 2002 as it increases its search for the Higgs Boson. Fermilab funding includes continued fabrication of the MINOS Detector (FY 2001 = $15.0 million; FY 2002 = $18.0 million) for the Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI) project, and other facility improvement projects. SLAC (FY 2001 = $116.449 million; FY 2002 = $125.078 million) will operate for 34 weeks in FY 2001 and 35 weeks in FY 2002, concentrating on CP violation investigations. SLAC funding includes a $2.5 increase for GLAST, a joint DOE/NASA effort to study cosmic radiation from a satellite. Funding for the Large Hadron Collider declines to a level agreed upon by CERN (FY 2001 = $58.9 million; FY 2002 = $49.0 million).
Construction funding (FY 2001 = $32.329 million; FY 2002 = $11.4 million) decreases at Fermilab with completion of the Wilson Hall Safety Improvements project in FY 2001 (–$4.191 million) and completion of funding for the NuMI project in FY 2002 (FY 2001 = $22.949 million; FY 2002 = $11.4 million). At SLAC, the SLAC Research Office Building is completed in FY 2001 (–$5.189 million).
2.2 Nuclear Physics (FY 2001 = $360.508 million; FY 2002 = $360.51 million)
The DOE Nuclear Physics (NP) program funds about 85 percent of all U.S. nuclear physics research and conducts research activities needed to understand the structure of atomic nuclei and the fundamental forces required to hold nuclei together. This experimental research program supports a number of research facilities located at National Laboratories and universities, including the following:
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Argonne Tandem-Linac Accelerator System (ATLAS) at ANL—Provides variable energy, precision beams of stable ions from protons through uranium, at energies up to 10 million electron volts (MeV) per nucleon) using a superconducting linear accelerator for Heavy Ion Nuclear Physics research.
MIT Bates Linear Accelerator Center in Massachusetts—Carries out Medium Energy Nuclear Physics research with electron beams up to 1 billion electron volts (GeV) in energy.
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at BNL—Provides colliding-beam collisions of 100 GeV per atomic mass unit per beam for heavy ions as massive as gold for the study of nuclear matter as it undergoes a phase transition to a plasma of gluons and quarks.
88-inch Cyclotron at LBNL—Provides high intensity stable beams from protons to bismuth at energies up to 15 MeV per nucleon.
Holifield Radioactive Ion Beam Facility (HRIBF) at ORNL—Only radioactive nuclear beam facility in the U.S. to use the isotope separator on-line (ISOL) method and provides a wide range of both proton-rich and neutron-rich nuclei to a suite of instruments designed for studies in nuclear structure, dynamics and astrophysics using radioactive beams; accelerates secondary radioactive beams to higher energies (up to 10 MeV per nucleon) than any other facility in the world with such a broad selection of ions.
Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) at the TJNAF—Capable of providing polarized and unpolarized electron beams of up to 5.7 GeV to three experimental halls for Medium Energy Nuclear Physics research.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Facilities at four universities—Texas A&M Cyclotron Institute (TAMU), Triangle Universities Nuclear Laboratory (TUNL) at Duke University, Yale University A.W. Wright Nuclear Structure Laboratory tandem Van de Graaff accelerator, and the University of Washington Nuclear Physics Laboratory tandem Van de Graaff and superconducting linac accelerators.
The FY 2002 NP budget request is $360.51 million, as shown in Table 8. This is an increase of $19.641 million—or 5.8 percent—over the FY 2000 appropriation of $340.869 million, and an increase of $2,000—or 0.0 percent—above the FY 2001 appropriation of $360.508 million. Funding by DOE Laboratory and by universities and other performers is shown in Table 9.
72196i.eps
72196j.eps
The FY 2002 request for Medium Energy Nuclear Physics (FY 2001 = $118.621 million; FY 2002 $118.02 million) reflects a reduction for completion of the MIT BLAST detector (FY 2001 = $1.2 million; FY 2002 = $0.0); this and other small savings are used to maintain operation of the MIT Bates accelerator (13 weeks in FY 2001 and 14 weeks in FY 2002) and the TJNAF (27 weeks in FY 2001 and 26 weeks in FY 2002) at near FY 2001 levels.
Heavy Ion Nuclear Physics (FY 2001 = $155.817 million; FY 2002 = $156.295 million) primarily funds research and operations of RHIC. Total BNL funding for RHIC, which will operate 27 weeks in FY 2001 and 20 weeks in FY 2002, increases by $1.0 million (FY 2001 = $113.6 million; FY 2002 = $114.6 million) while university research declines from FY 2001 (FY 2001 = $12.0 million; FY 2002 = $11.5 million).
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Low Energy Nuclear Physics (FY 2001 = $62.693 million; FY 2002 = $62.69 million) has little change in funding but has minor reallocations between research and facility operations. The facilities funded by this subprogram will have relatively stable budgets but reduced operating times (HRIBF—14 weeks in FY 2001 and 13 weeks in FY 2002; ATLAS—34 weeks in FY 2001 and 23 weeks in FY 2002; 88-inch Cyclotron—33 weeks in FY 2001 and 27 weeks in FY 2002). R&D and preconceptual design for the Rare Isotope Accelerator (RIA) continues (FY 2001 = $2.8 million; FY 2002 = $3.0 million).
Nuclear Theory (FY 2001 = $23.377 million; FY 2002 = $23.505 million) will continue theoretical research and the Nuclear Data program at essentially the FY 2001 funding level.
2.3 Biological and Environmental Research (FY 2001 = $482.52 million; FY 2002 = $442.97 million)
The Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program aims to develop the knowledge needed to identify, understand and mitigate the adverse health and environmental consequences of energy production, development, and use. The program is structured along the following four subprograms:
Life Sciences focuses on understanding and mitigating the potential effects of energy production, use, and waste cleanup. Structural Biology analyzes and predicts gene function and is concerned with recognition and repair of DNA damage. Molecular and Cellular Biology has several elements: The completed sequencing of over 50 microbes for possible use in solving DOE problems in energy, waste, cleanup, and carbon management; microbes will be used for methane and hydrogen production from carbon sources and for carbon sequestration; the microbial cell project, which sought a complete understanding of a single cell, has evolved into the Genomes to Life project which will look at multi-cellular systems to predict their behavior and response to environmental cues; and, research on biological effects of low dose radiation will determine safe radiation exposure levels for clean-up workers and the general public. The Human Genome program had a major milestone in June 2000 when the President announced completion of a working draft of human DNA sequence, and in February 2001, the draft sequence was published. Much work remains, including understanding biological systems, gene function and variation and how they affect human disease, comparative sequencing, and understanding the role of the ''junk'' DNA. The Health Effects subprogram seeks an understanding of normal human development and disease processes. Construction continues on the Laboratory for Comparative and Functional Genomics at ORNL.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Environmental Processes represents DOE's contribution to the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). Working with other federal agencies, the program will continue to develop highly parallel climate models with improved abilities to predict climate on regional scales. Program elements include: climate modeling; the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement program to understand the role of clouds and solar radiation in climate prediction; atmospheric chemistry and the carbon cycle; and, studying the effects of elevated C0 levels on terrestrial ecosystems. Partnerships on terrestrial and ocean carbon cycles are also supported.
Environmental Remediation performs research related to remediation and restoration of the nation's nuclear weapons production sites. The Natural and Accelerated Bioremediation Research (NABIR) program focuses on determining the use of bioremediation in subsurface environments. Funding is provided for operation of the William R. Wiley Environmental and Molecular Sciences Laboratory at PNNL.
Medical Applications and Measurement Science develops new medical diagnostic and therapeutic tools. Research activities include: continuation of Boron Neutron Capture Therapy and radionuclide therapies for cancer treatment, radiopharmaceutical design for disease diagnosis and treatment, non-invasive imaging techniques, and biomedical engineering.
The FY 2002 BER budget request is $442.97 million, as shown in Table 10. This is an increase of $26.933 million—or 6.5 percent—over the FY 2000 appropriation of $416.037 million, and a decrease of $39.55 million—or 8.2 percent—below the FY 2001 appropriation of $482.52 million. The majority of the reduction reflects completion of 24 Congressionally directed projects (–$43.042 million). Funding by DOE Laboratory and by universities and other performers is shown in Table 11.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
72196k.eps
72196l.eps
Life Sciences (FY 2001 = $192.472 million; FY 2002 = $186.205 million) continues funding for the biology, human genome and health effects programs at $6.267 million below the FY 2001 level. The majority of the decrease reflects FY 2001 completion of the DNA Repair Protein Complex Beamline at LBNL (–$4.5 million). The Microbial Genomics program (FY 2001 = $14.909 million; FY 2002 = $10.928 million) is reduced with funds redirected mainly to Genomes to Life. The Microbial Cell project (FY 2001 = $9.591 million; FY 2002 = $19.47 million), which began in FY 2001, is incorporated into the new and more comprehensive Genomes to Life program. Low Dose research (FY 2001 = $18.458 million; FY 2002 $12.655 million) is held to near the FY 2001 request level that was lower than the appropriation level. The Human Genome program (FY 2001 = $86.438 million; FY 2002 = $88.238 million) has an increase for DNA sequencing technologies and sequencing analysis (FY 2001 = $23.95 million; FY 2002 = $28.547 million). The Health Effects subprogram (FY 2001 = $12.21 million; FY 2002 = $14.251 million) terminates its Technology Development Research activity (–$3.199 million) and increases funding for functional genomics (use of model organisms to understand function of human genes).
Environmental Processes (FY 2001 = $129.704 million; FY 2002 = $129.469 million) continues DOE support of the USGCRP. A reduction in the Atmospheric Chemistry and Carbon Cycle subprogram of $1.725 million for completion of two Congressionally directed projects in FY 2001 is offset by increased funding for terrestrial and ocean carbon cycle research (FY 2001 = $12.731 million; FY 2002 = $13.716 million). There are only minor adjustments in the Climate and Hydrology subprogram (FY 2001 = $70.326 million; FY 2002 = $70.775 million) which includes all Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Activity.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Environmental Remediation program (FY 2001 = $61.461 million; FY 2002 = $66.137 million) provides funding for operations of the Environmental and Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL) at PNNL. EMSL funding (FY 2001 = $31.054 million; FY 2002 = $34.054 million) increases to lease a 2–3 teraflop computer for molecular modeling and structural genomics. Funding for Bioremediation (Natural and Accelerated Bioremediation Research) and Clean-up Research is increased by $1.467 million.
Medical Applications and Measurement Science (FY 2001 = $96.388 million; FY 2002 = $51.159 million) funding drops significantly due to completion of 21 Congressionally directed projects (FY 2001 = $41.125 million; FY 2002 = $0.0). Funding for radiopharmeceutical design and synthesis also declines (FY 2001 = $26.637 million; FY 2002 = $24.445 million) as infrastructure support is completed.
Construction (FY 2002 = $2.5 million; FY 2002 = $10.0 million) funding for the Laboratory for Comparative and Functional Genomics at ORNL increases as planned in FY 2002.
2.4 Basic Energy Sciences (FY 2001 = $991.679 million; FY 2002 = $1,004.705 million)
The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program supports fundamental research to provide the foundations for new and improved energy technologies and for understanding and mitigating the environmental impacts of energy use. The BES mission includes planning, construction, and operation of major scientific user facilities serving researchers at universities, national laboratories and industrial laboratories. Research is conducted in four areas:
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Materials Sciences performs research to make materials perform better at acceptable cost through new methods of synthesis and processing. Research in nanoscale science has become a major focus.
Chemical Sciences seeks to understand fundamental interactions of atoms, molecules, and ions with photons and electrons, and is crucial to improving combustion systems and solar photoconversion processes. It also underpins improvements in energy systems, catalytic systems, catalysis for fuels and chemical production, waste management and environmental remediation. The program also supports nanoscale science.
The Materials and Chemical Sciences subprograms also plan, construct, and operate major scientific user facilities that include: four synchrotron light sources (Advanced Photon Source at ANL, Advanced Light Source at LBNL, the National Synchrotron Light Source at BNL, the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory at SLAC). Also included are: three neutron sources (Intense Pulsed Neutron Source at ANL; the High Flux Isotope Reactor at ORNL, Tennessee, and the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center at LANL). BES manages four electron beam micro-characterization facilities and five other specialized facilities, such as the Combustion Research Center at SNL-Livermore, that are located throughout the U.S. BES is currently constructing a major new scientific user facility, the $1.4117 billion Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) at ORNL, which when completed, will be the world's most powerful spallation neutron source.
Within Engineering and Geosciences, Engineering research supports DOE's mission needs of the Department including: robotics and intelligent machines, nano-engineering, and data and engineering analysis. Geosciences research seeks to improve the fundamental understanding of earth processes that affect energy production and environmental quality.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Energy Biosciences supports research in the formation, storage, and interconversion of energy by plants and microorganisms. This includes renewable fuel resources, agents to restore disrupted environmental sites, and photosynthesis.
The FY 2002 BES budget request is $1,004.705 million, as shown in Table 12. This is an increase of $239.648 million—or 31.9 percent—over the FY 2000 appropriation of $752.031 million, and an increase of $13.026 million—or 1.3 percent—above the FY 2001 appropriation of $991.679 million. Funding by DOE Laboratory and by universities and other performers is shown in Table 13, and major user facility funding is shown in Table 14.
Most of the increase in BES is related to construction—funding for the SNS increases from $258.929 million in FY 2001 to $276.3 million in FY 2002; and new funding of $4.0 million is requested for plant engineering and design for six Nanoscale Science Research Centers. Research and facility operations are funded at or slightly below FY 2001 levels, and small increases are offset by a transfer of funding for the High Flux Beam Reactor (–$15.341 million) to the Office of Environmental Management.
72196m.eps
72196n.eps
72196o.eps
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Materials Sciences (FY 2001 = $443.242 million; FY 2002 = $434.353) transfers responsibility for the High Flux Beam Reactor (HFBR) at BNL to the Office of Environmental Management in FY 2002 for surveillance and decommissioning (–$15.341 million). Some of the HFBR funds made available will support increases for neutron and x-ray scattering at three existing facilities and the new SNS (FY 2001 = $31.211 million; FY 2002 = $36.293 million). The High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) Beam Tube project at ORNL was completed in FY 2001 (FY 2001 = $1.2 million, FY 2002 = $0.0) and provides access for six additional experiments at higher flux; acquisition of new and upgraded neutron scattering instruments for HFIR are initiated (FY 2001 = $0.0; FY 2002 = $2.0 million). SNS project related costs for the Spallation Neutron Source are reduced according to schedule (FY 2001 = $19.059 million; FY 2002 = $15.1 million).
Chemical Sciences (FY 2001 = $216.526 million; FY 2002 = $218.714 million) maintains research and facility operations funding at near FY 2001 levels. There is a small increase in operations of the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory (FY 2001 = $16.838 million; FY 2002 = $17.838 million) and the High Flux Isotope Reactor at ORNL (FY 2001 = $28.769 million; FY 2002 = $30.085 million).
Construction (FY 2001 = $258.929 million; FY 2002 = $280.3 million) funding for the SNS (FY 2001 = $258.9 million; FY 2002 = $276.3 million) increases by $17.4 million as planned. Also, new plant engineering and design funds of $4.0 million are requested for six Nanoscale Science Research Centers.
2.5 Advanced Scientific Computing Research (FY 2001 = $165.75 million; FY 2002 = $165.75 million)
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program supports world leadership in areas of scientific computing research relevant to the DOE missions, and supports the goal of providing extraordinary tools for extraordinary science. Research in Mathematical, Information, and Computational Sciences concentrates on advanced computing applications and techniques that enable researchers to analyze, model, simulate, and predict complex physical, chemical, and biological phenomena relevant to DOE. Mathematical methods are developed to model these complex systems, and software is developed to support these large applications on high performance, terascale computers. This program also provides the resources for these applications. The National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab supports over 2,000 users, and is in the process of being upgraded to a five teraflop computer. The Energy Sciences Network (ESNET) links the Office of Science researchers and facilities, and by the year 2005 plans to have network speeds 500 times faster than today's highest speeds. The program also provides software tools for collaboratory projects that link geographically distributed research teams with experimental and computational facilities.
The Laboratory Technology Research subprogram supports cost-shared partnerships with the private sector to transfer high-risk, long-term basic research to applied energy efficiency and utilization technologies.
The FY 2002 ASCR budget request is $165.75 million, as shown in Table 15.(see footnote 5) This is an increase of $43.412 million—or 35.5 percent—over the FY 2000 appropriation of $122.338 million, and equal to the FY 2001 appropriation. Funding by DOE Laboratory and by universities and other performers is shown in Table 16.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mathematical, Computational and Computer Sciences (FY 2001 = $70.654 million; FY 2002 = $70.681 million) will continue development of the mathematics required for effective description and prediction of physical systems ($32.339 million), development of software to effectively utilize high-end performance computers ($21.051 million), software tools for high performance applications ($8.473 million), and pilot projects to apply these tools to DOE applications ($8.791 million).
Advanced Computation, Communications Research, and Associated Activities (FY 2001 = $81.543 million; FY 2002 = $81.543 million) will continue to conduct research on advanced networking needed to support distributed large scale scientific collaborations ($7.066 million), develop and test the software tools to support these collaborations ($16.384 million), support hardware testbeds for testing advanced hardware and software ($13.061 million), and support users with the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) at LBNL ($28.244 million) and the Energy Sciences Network (Esnet) ($16.788 million).
Laboratory Technology Research (FY 2001 = $9.58 million; FY 2002 = $6.88) reduces support for CRADA projects by about 30 percent.
72196p.eps
72196q.eps
72196r.eps
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
2.6 Energy Research Analyses (FY 2001 = $0.776 million; FY 2002 = $1.3 million)
The Energy Research Analyses program evaluates the scientific excellence, relevance, and international leadership of DOE basic science program and projects.
The FY 2002 Energy Research Analyses budget request is $1.3 million.(see footnote 6) This is an increase of $0.35 million—or 36.8 percent—over the FY 2000 appropriation of $0.95 million, and an increase of $0.324 million—or 33.2 percent—above the FY 2001 appropriation of $0.976 million.
2.7 Multiprogram Energy Laboratories-Facilities Support (FY 2001 = $30.174 million; FY 2002 = $30.175 million)
The mission of the Multiprogram Energy Laboratories-Facilities Support (MEL-FS) program is to support the infrastructure of the five Office of Science multi-program national laboratories—ANL–East, BNL, LBNL, ORNL, and PNNL—by funding line item construction funding (i.e., projects with a total estimated cost of $5.0 million or above) for general purpose facilities. The program also provides Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) through the DOE Chicago Operations Office as authorized by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, which are made to State or local governments where the DOE or its predecessor agencies have acquired property previously subject to State or local taxation (local communities around ANL–East, BNL, and ORNL qualify for PILT). Finally, the program also supports costs incurred for centralized Oak Ridge Operations Office (ORO) infrastructure requirements and general operating costs essential to maintaining a viable, functioning operations office; activities include roads and grounds maintenance, infrastructure maintenance, physical security, emergency management, support of the Oak Ridge Financial Service Center and other technical needs related to landlord responsibilities of the ORO.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The FY 2002 request, shown in Table 17, for the MEL-Facilities Support program is $30.175 million, an increase of $0.618 million—or 2.1 percent—above the FY 2000 appropriation of $29.557 million, and an increase of $1,000—or 0.0 percent—below the FY 2001 appropriation of $30.175 million. Within this funding level, there is a shift of $3.4 million from General Purpose Projects to Environment, Safety and Health projects. Funding by DOE Laboratory/Operations Office is shown in Table 18 for the Multiprogram Energy Laboratories-Facility Support.
93
72196s.eps
72196t.eps
2.8 Fusion Energy Sciences (FY 2001 = $248.493 million; FY 2002 = $238.495 million)
The Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program seeks to understand and control the process of fusion of deuterium and tritium that can produce an enormous release of energy. The program mission is to advance plasma science, fusion science, and fusion technology. In recent years the program has refocused its emphasis from development of a new energy source to a strong science-based program in fusion (magnetic and inertial confinement) and plasma physics.
FES has three subprograms:
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
(1) Science, which supports tokamak research, investigation of alternative concepts, plasma science, theory and inertial confinement fusion;
(2) Facilities Operations, which funds operation and maintenance of the DIII–D tokamak at General Atomics (GA) in San Diego, the Alcator C-Mod tokamak at MIT, and the National Spherical Tokamak Experiment (NSTA) in Princeton, and also funds decontamination and decommissioning of the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) at Princeton; and
(3) Enabling R&D, which provides engineering and materials research support.
The FY 2002 budget request for Fusion Energy Sciences (FES), contained in Table 19, is $238.495 million.(see footnote 7) This is an increase of $0.235 million—or 0.1 percent—above the FY 2000 appropriation of $238.26 million, and a decrease of $9.998 million—or 4.0 percent—below the FY 2001 appropriation of $238.495 million. FES funding by DOE Laboratory and by universities and other performers are shown in Table 20.
72196u.eps
72196v.eps
72196w.eps
Science (FY 2001 = $136.312 million; FY 2002 = $133.44) will continue research at DIII–D, National Spherical Tokamak Experiment (NSTX), and the Alcator C–Mod and through international collaboration. To absorb part of the FES reduction, experimental plasma research in tokamaks and alternative concepts is reduced by $1.508 million (FY 2001 = $31.508; FY 2002 = $30.0 million). Inertial Fusion Energy research (FY 2001 = $13.792 million; FY 2002 = $13.152 million) and Theory (FY 2001 = $27.275 million; FY 2002 = $25.975 million) also decline.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Facility Operations (FY 2001 = $77.896 million; FY 2002 = $71.994 million) will allow: (1) the DIII–D at GA to operate 17 weeks in FY 2001 and 14 weeks in FY 2002 (FY 2001 = $29.249 million; FY 2002 = $26.706 million); (2) the Alcator C–Mod at MIT to operate 12 weeks in FY 2001 and 8 weeks in FY 2002 (FY 2001 = $10.636 million; FY 2002 = $9.6 million); and (3) the NSTX at Princeton to operate 15 weeks in FY 2001 and 11 weeks in FY 2002 (FY 2001 = $14.366 million; FY 2002 = $13.2 million). Funding for the TFTR decontamination and decommissioning (FY 2001 = $19.031 million; FY 2002 = $18.0 million) should bring the project to completion.
Enabling R&D (FY 2001 = $34.285 million; FY 2002 = $33.061 million) will fund Tritium Systems Test Assembly (TSTA) (FY 2001 = $2.163 million; FY 2002 = $3.3 million) increases to reduce the tritium inventory in preparation for transfer of this excess facility to Environmental Management (+$1.137 million). Minor reductions and transfer of SBIR/STTR offset this to the Science subprogram (–$0.898 million).
2.9 Safeguards and Security (FY 2001 = $36.447 million; FY 2002 = $50.5 million)
The mission of the Office of Science Safeguards and Security program is to ensure 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. Each site has a tailored protection program as analyzed and defined in each site's Security Plan or other appropriate plan.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Activities performed include the following:
Physical Protection Protective Forces—provides for security guards, management, and or supervision, training and equipment needed for effective performance of protection tasks during normal and emergency conditions.
Physical Security Protective Systems—provides for equipment to protect vital security interests and government property per the local threat. Equipment and hardware includes fences, barriers, lighting, sensors, entry control devices, etc. This hardware and equipment is generally operated and used to support the protective guard mission as well.
Information Security—ensures that materials and documents, that may contain sensitive or classified information, are accurately and consistently identified, properly reviewed for content, appropriately marked and protected from unauthorized disclosure, and ultimately destroyed in an appropriate manner.
Cyber Security—ensures that sensitive and classified information that is electronically processed or transmitted is properly identified, protected, and tested and that all electronic systems have an appropriate level of infrastructure reliability and integrity.
Personnel Security—includes clearance program, security education and awareness for employees, and visitor control. This is accomplished through initial and termination briefings, re-orientations, computer based training, special workshops, publications, signs, and posters.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Material Control and Accountability—provides for the control and accountability of special nuclear materials, including training and development for assessing the amounts of material involved in packaged items, process systems and wastes. Additionally, this activity documents that a theft, diversion or operational loss of special nuclear material has not occurred. Also included is on-site and off-site transport of special nuclear materials in accordance with mission, environmental and safety requirements.
The FY 2002 budget request for Safeguards and Security, contained in Table 21, is $50.5 million. This is an increase of $13.197 million—or 35.4 percent—above the FY 2000 appropriation of $37.303 million, and an increase of $14.053 million—or 38.6 percent—above the FY 2001 appropriation of $36.447 million. Safeguards and Security funding by site is shown in Table 22.
72196x.eps
72196y.eps
Safeguards and Security increases $14.053 million over the FY 2001 level to fully fund all activities at the Office of Science laboratories and field sites. The largest part of the increase is for protective forces (salaries, etc.) (+$4.389 million), security systems (+$2.183 million), cyber security (+$3.93 million), and program management (+$1.984 million).
2.10 Program Direction (FY 2001 = $126.906 million; FY 2002 = $144.385 million)
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Science Program Direction consists of three subprograms: Program Direction, Science Education, and Field Operations.
Program Direction is the funding source for the Office of Science (SC) Federal staff that directs and administers a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines and provides technical and administrative support directly related to Science in Headquarters, the Chicago and Oak Ridge Operations Offices, and the Berkeley and Stanford Site Offices. It provides funding for salaries and benefits, travel, support services, and other related expenses, including the Working Capital Fund.
Science Education sponsors programs that enable college and university students and faculty to take advantage of fellowship and research opportunities at the National Laboratories and user facilities, all designed to promote interest in science, math, engineering, and technology fields. These include: (1) the Energy Research Undergraduate Laboratory Fellowship Program (ERULF), which is designed to provide educational training and research experiences at DOE laboratories for highly motivated undergraduate students; (2) the National Science Bowl Program, a highly-publicized academic competition among high school students who answer questions on scientific topics in astronomy, biology, chemistry, mathematics, physics, earth, computer and general science; (3) the Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship Program, which supports outstanding science and mathematics teachers, who provide insight, extensive knowledge, and practical experience to the Legislative and Executive branches; and (4) the DOE Community College Institute (CCI) of Biotechnology, Environmental Science, and Computing, collaboration among DOE National Laboratories and the American Association of Community College that provides 10-week educational human resource development experiences at several DOE National Laboratories for highly motivated community college students.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The FY 2002 budget request for Program Direction, contained in Table 23, is $144.385 million.(see footnote 8) This is an increase of $23.894 million—or 19.8 percent—above the FY 2000 appropriation of $120.491 million, and an increase of $17.479 million—or 13.8 percent—above the FY 2001 appropriation of $126.906 million.
72196z.eps
2.11 Technical Information Management
The Technical Information Management (TIM) program collects, preserves, organizes, and disseminates scientific and technical information resulting from DOE R&D and environmental programs. The program provides worldwide energy scientific and technical information to DOE, U.S. industry, academia, and the public through a set of Internet based information products for technical reports, scientific journals and preprints—the three main sources in which scientific and technical information is recorded. The TIM program also coordinates technical information activities throughout the DOE complex, maintains a classified information program, and serves as DOE's leader in the international exchange of scientific and technical information. The Science and Energy and Commerce Committees share TIM program jurisdiction.
Report literature is disseminated via the Information Bridge (http://www.osti.gov/bridge/), which provides free, full-text access to over 70,000 technical reports. For journal literature, TIM has developed PubScience (http://pubsci.osti.gov/), which provides searchable bibliographic records with links to full-text journal articles in over 1,400 journals at publishers' web sites. The PrePrint Network (http://www.osti.gov/preprint/) provides searchable access to over 2,400 preprint sites worldwide. The TIM program also represents DOE and the U.S. in the International Energy Agency's Energy Technology Data Exchange (EDTE), which includes 18 industrialized nations. TIM has also established electronic subscription arrangements with publishers.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The FY 2002 budget request for TIM, contained in Table 24, is $8.97 million. This is an increase of $0.219 million—or 2.5 percent—above the FY 2000 appropriation of $8.751 million, and an increase of $0.238 million—or 2.7 percent—above the FY 2001 appropriation of $8.732 million.
96
72196aa.eps
In FY 2002, an increase of $0.234 million is requested to support the 83 FTEs. All other program activities are essentially unchanged.
3.0 Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) is funded through two separate appropriations accounts in two separate appropriations bills: (1) the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill funds Renewable Energy Resources in the Energy Supply appropriation; and (2) the Interior and Related Agencies Bill funds the Energy Conservation appropriation. The Science Committee has sole jurisdiction over Renewable Energy Resources Technologies programs—with the exception of the shared jurisdiction with the Commerce Committee over Renewable Indian Energy Resources; and for the Energy Conservation R&D programs within the Energy Conservation appropriation—with the exceptions of the Transportation Energy Conservation Clean Cities and Codes and Standards programs (shared jurisdiction with the Energy and Commerce Committee), and the Federal Energy Management Program (Energy and Commerce Committee jurisdiction).
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
As shown in Table 25, the FY 2002 request for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy under the Science Committee's jurisdiction is $708.158 million. This is a decrease of $155.679 million—or 18.0 percent-below the FY 2000 appropriation of $863.837 million, and a decrease of $264.223 million—or 27.2 percent-below the FY 2001 appropriation of $972.381 million.
98
72196bb.eps
3.1 Renewable Energy Resources
As shown in Table 26, the FY 2002 request for Renewable Energy Resources under the Science Committee's jurisdiction is $237.477 million.(see footnote 9) This is a decrease of $68.577 million—or 22.4 percent—below the FY 2000 appropriation of $306.054 million, and a decrease of $135.702 million—or 36.4 percent—below the FY 2001 appropriation of $373.179 million. This request funds the Biomass/Biofuels Energy Systems, Geothermal Technology Development, Hydrogen Research, Hydropower, Concentrating Solar Power, Photovoltaic Energy Systems, Solar Building Technology Research, Wind Energy Systems, Electric Energy Systems and Storage, Renewable Support and Implementation, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and Program Direction accounts. The Science Committee shares jurisdiction with the Energy and Commerce Committee over the Renewable Indian Energy Resources account.
72196cc.eps
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
3.1.1 Biomass/Biofuels Energy Systems (FY 2001 = $86.268 million; FY 2002 = $80.5 million)
The Biomass/Biofuels Energy Systems programs aim to develop technologies to enable integrated feedstock and conversion systems that will make biomass competitive with conventional fossil-based energy options. The Biopower program conducts R&D to increase the viability of biomass—estimated to add about 3,000 MW of new U.S. power capacity by 2010. The Biopower program is focused on three major areas of R&D: (1) co-firing biomass with fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas; (2) small modular biomass systems; and (3) advanced biomass gasification. The Biofuels program funds research, development, and demonstration of transportation fuel technologies to: (1) expand a domestic biomass-based industry; (2) reduce reliance on imported fuels and chemical feedstocks; promote rural economic development; and use agricultural residues and municipal solid wastes.
FY 2002 increases to specific programs include: Thermochemical Conversion (FY 2001 = $3.4 million; FY 2002 = $4.0 million); Biomass Power for Rural Development (FY 2001 = $4.35 million; FY 2002 = $5.8 million); Small Modular BioPower (FY 2001 = $3.95 million; FY 2002 = $5.0 million); Advanced Fermentation Organisms R&D (FY 2001 = $3.0 million; FY 2002 = $5.0 million); Advanced Cellulase R&D (FY 2001 = $7.014 million; FY 2002 = $12.0 million); and Pretreatment R&D (FY 2001 = $2.1 million; FY 2002 = $4.5 million). Decreases include: (1) Bioenergy (FY 2001 = $6.0 million; FY 2002 = $2.5 million); (2) Cellulose to Ethanol Production Facilities (FY 2001 = $11.5 million; FY 2002 = $3.166 million); and (3) Integrated Bioenergy R&D (FY 2001 = $6.35 million; FY 2002 = $2.5 million).
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
3.1.2 Geothermal Technology Development (FY 2001 = $26.911 million; FY 2002 = $13.9 million)
The Geothermal Technology Development program works in partnership with U.S. industry to establish geothermal energy as a major, competitive contributor to the U.S. energy supply for both electricity and heat. The program sponsors exploration, drilling, and energy conversion R&D. Technology improvements may reduce the cost of generating geothermal power to 3–5 cents/kilowatt-hour by 2010. Geothermal energy would then be positioned to supply the electrical power or heat energy needs of 5 million homes and businesses in the United States by 2015, compared with about 1.5 million homes in 2000.
The Geothermal program will maintain its core research and development capabilities in FY 2002 while closing out systems field verification projects, the Enhanced Geothermal Systems activity, and GeoPowering the West.
3.1.3 Hydrogen Research (FY 2001 = $26.881 million; FY 2002 = $13.9 million)
The Hydrogen Research program supports R&D to use hydrogen—the most plentiful element in the universe—as a fuel. The program focuses on developing safe, cost-effective storage, production, and fuel cell technologies to enable the use of hydrogen energy systems in the future.
In FY 2002, the Hydrogen program will primarily focus on hydrogen production, high-density storage technologies, and small-scale reformer development for distributed power applications and fuel cell vehicles.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
3.1.4 Hydropower (FY 2001 = $4.989 million; FY 2002 = $2.5 million)
The Hydropower program conducts research to improve the technical, economic, and environmental performance of the Nation's in-place hydropower resources through collaborative R&D with industry and other Federal agencies. The program focuses on the development of a new generation of environmentally-friendly turbines to address fish injury and mortality, and to minimize detrimental changes in the quality of dissolved gases in downstream water.
The focus of the Hydropower program in FY 2002 will be micro-hydro R&D. FY 2002 activities will include proof-of-concept testing for an Advanced Turbine design (FY 2001 = $0.7 million; FY 2002 = $0.8 million) and Mini-Hydro Research and Development (FY 2001 = $0.08 million; FY 2002 = $0.7 million). In addition, Biologically-Based Criteria Development (FY 2001 = $1.409 million; FY 2002 = $1.0 million) to help reduce the rate of fish mortality, will continue at a reduced level.
3.1.5 Concentrating Solar Power (FY 2001 = $13.71 million; FY 2002 = $1.932 million)
The Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) Program supports technologies that use various mirror configurations to concentrate the heat of the sun to produce electric power. The FY 2002 funding provides for completion of testing of the 25-kilowatt dish system at the University of Nevada and close-out of all other activities.
3.1.6 Photovoltaic Energy Systems (FY 2001 = $75.06 million; FY 2002 = $39.0 million)
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Most of the Photovoltaic Energy Systems Program's resources fund fundamental and applied research and the remaining resources fund technology development. In FY 2002, the program will focus more on R&D in core materials and devices.
3.1.7 Solar Building Technology Research (FY 2001 = $3.911 million; FY 2002 = $2.0 million)
The primary goal of the Solar Building Technology Research program is to reduce the system cost and improve the reliability of solar water heating. FY 2002 funds will be used to build and test prototypes of a low-cost solar water heater using newly developed polymers, and finalize design concepts for ''zero energy'' buildings.
3.1.8 Wind Energy Systems (FY 2001 = $39.553 million; FY 2002 = $20.5 million)
The Wind Energy Systems program conducts research, testing, and field verification needed by U.S. industry to fully develop advanced wind energy technologies; and coordinates with partners to overcome barriers to wind energy use.
In FY 2002, the Wind Energy Systems program will concentrate funding on low wind speed turbine technology. Funding for Applied Research (FY 2001 = $15.0 million; FY 2002 = $8.4 million) and Cooperative Research and Testing (FY 2001 = $12.125 million; FY 2002 = $4.6 million) is refocused on these priorities. DOE proposes to eliminate funding for Wind Powering America and Wind Hybrid Systems and provides modest funding for the National Wind Technology Center (FY 2001 = $1.17 million; FY 2002 = $0.8 million). Overall funding will decrease for Turbine Research (FY 2001 = $12.428 million; FY 2002 = $7.5 million) while funding for Low Wind Speed Turbine (FY 2001 = $0.2 million; FY 2002 = $1.1 million) research increases.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
3.1.9 Electric Energy Systems and Storage (FY 2001 = $51.746 million; FY 2002 = $33.927 million)
Electric Energy Systems and Storage supports R&D in: (1) high temperature superconductivity; (2) energy storage; (3) transmission reliability; and (4) distributed power activities. The FY 2002 budget is directed towards systems reliability. In FY 2002, Energy Storage Systems (FY 2001 = $5.987 million; FY 2002 = $5.987 million) and Transmission Reliability (FY 2001 = $8.94 million; FY 2002 = $8.94 million) activities that support the Department's Distributed Energy Resources Program will receive level funding. Funding for High Temperature Superconducting R&D (FY 2001 = $36.819 million; FY 2002 = $19.0 million) will meet outstanding commitments, maintain core capabilities, continue strategic research, and allow for no new activities.
3.1.10 Renewable Support and Implementation (FY 2001 = $21.5 million; FY 2002 = $5.118 million)
Renewable Support and Implementation includes: (1) the Departmental Energy Management Program (DEMP); (2) the Renewable Energy Production Incentive; and (3) Renewable Program Support activities. The purpose of these programs collectively encourage the use of renewable energy technologies by Federal, State and local governmental entities, non-profit electric cooperatives, and residents in remote areas of the U.S. under-served by the electric grid. DEMP aims to improve energy and water efficiency, promote renewable energy use, and manage utility costs at DOE's own facilities and operations. The Renewable Energy Production Incentive encourages State and local governmental entities (usually public power electric utilities) and non-profit electric cooperatives to acquire renewable energy generation resources by providing financial incentives equivalent to that offered private sector generators through tax credits.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The FY 2002 request maintains core renewable support and implementation programs at a reduced level of effort. Funding supports the Departmental Energy Management Program (FY 2001 = $1.984 million; FY 2002 = $1.0 million) to provide funding at various DOE facilities for energy projects to increase energy efficiency and reduce future utility and maintenance costs. The Renewable Energy Production Incentive program (FY 2001 = $3.991 million; FY 2002 = $2.059 million) will provide funding for Tier 1 (wind and solar) projects and some Tier 2 (open-looped biomass, mostly landfill gas) projects. Renewable Program Support (FY 2001 = $3.991 million; FY 2002 = $2.059 million) will competitively select 2–4 projects (including those on Native American lands and with Tribal Colleges and Universities). A total decrease of $11.534 million reflects the completion of Congressionally-directed projects within the Renewable Indian Energy Resources Program (–$6.585 million), and the elimination of the International Renewable Energy Program (–$4.949 million).
3.1.11 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (FY 2001 = $3.991 million; FY 2002 = $5.0 million)
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) line item provides support for NREL's infrastructure needs including necessary repairs, maintenance, equipment replacement, new construction and facility modifications.
3.1.12 Program Direction (FY 2001 = $18.659 million; FY 2002 = $19.2 million)
FY 2002 funding provides for: (1) Federal employee salary, benefits, and travel; (2) landlord activities such as rent at Headquarters and the Golden Field Office; and (3) an increase for support services and other related expenses, such as computer workstations and network infrastructure technology upgrades.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
3.2 Energy Conservation R&D
As shown in Table 27, the FY 2002 request for Energy Conservation under the Science Committee's jurisdiction is $470.681 million. This is a decrease of $87.102 million—or 15.6 percent—below the FY 2000 appropriation of $557.783 million, and a decrease of $128.521 million—or 21.4 percent—below the FY 2001 appropriation of $599.202 million. This request funds the Building Technology, State & Community Sector—Non-Grants, Industry Sector; Power Technologies, Transportation Sector, and Policy and Management accounts. The Science Committee shares jurisdiction with the Energy and Commerce Committee over the Transportation Energy Conservation Clean Cities and Codes and Standards programs (shared jurisdiction with the Energy and Commerce Committee).
72196dd.eps
72196ee.eps
3.2.1 Building Technology, State & Community Sector—Non-Grants (FY 2001 = $104.562 million; FY 2002 = $56.141 million)
DOE's Office of Building Technology, State & Community Sector Programs develops, promotes, and integrates energy technologies and practices that make buildings more efficient, productive, and affordable.
In FY 2002, The Building Technology, State & Community Sector—Non-Grants program will: (1) maintain existing government-industry roadmaps; (2) conduct targeted R&D in energy efficient building design and engineering, lighting, windows and envelope materials, design tools, and emerging technologies; (3) perform statutorily required support for building codes, lighting and appliances standards; and (4) provide community technical assistance, information and outreach. Proposed funding for specific activities include Energy Star (FY 2001 = $2.204 million; FY 2002 = $2.0 million) that will recruit 400 new retail partners and Rebuild America (FY 2001 = $10.9 million; FY 2002 = $5.9 million) that will assist over 300 partnerships to incorporate high performance energy-efficient technologies and practices in projects to renovate 60 million square feet of floor space. The FY 2002 request does not provide funding for the Cooperative Programs with States (FY 2001 = $1.996 million) and the Energy Efficiency Science Initiative (FY 2001 = $3.891 million).
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
3.2.2 Industry Sector (FY 2001 = $148.622 million; FY 2002 = $87.724 million)
DOE's Office of Industrial Technologies partners with key, energy-intensive industries to develop and apply advanced technologies and practices that reduce energy consumption, maintain and create jobs, boost productivity, and improve U.S. competitiveness.
The FY 2002 request allows for conclusion of R&D projects where investment installments are nearly complete, and seeks to focus funding on core R&D and to maximize industry participation. Within the Industries for the Future-Specific (FY 2001 = $72.390 million; FY 2002 = $46.424 million) program that targets the most energy intensive industries (agriculture, aluminum, chemicals, forest products, glass, metal casting, mining, petroleum, and steel), Forest Products and Agriculture programs are kept level with FY 2001. These two programs develop and deliver advanced technologies to improve energy and process efficiency, environmental performance, sensors and controls, sustainable forestry, and agricultural R&D. The proposed reduction in funding for Industries of the Future (Crosscutting) (FY 2001 = $61.719 million; FY 2002 = $31.9 million) will fund current commitments and generally eliminates new starts. The request does not provide funding for the Cooperative Programs with States (FY 2001 = $1.996 million), the Energy Efficiency Science Initiative (FY 2001 = $3.891 million), and the Petroleum Vision (FY 2001 = $2.768 million) and Supporting Industries (FY 2001 = $1.571 million) under the Industries of the Future (Specific) program.
3.2.3 Power Technologies (FY 2001 = $47.346 million; FY 2002 = $47.346 million)
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In Power Technologies, DOE is leading research efforts to significantly improve energy reliability and power quality through the use of on-site distributed energy resources that reduce energy losses and increase stability of the national grid. The program focuses on developing advanced, ultra-clean options for electric power generation and waste heat utilization. Specific research focuses on the development of: (1) advanced distributed generation—industrial gas turbines, reciprocating engines, and proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells; and (2) thermally-activated technologies—integrated cooling, heating and power (CHP) systems that capture waste heat for cooling, dehumidification, humidification, water heating, and steam heating and drying purposes.
The Distributed Energy Resources program aims to develop technologies and systems that will move energy supplies closer to the point of use. This provides the opportunity for more efficient use of waste heat to boost efficiency and lower emissions, and reduces the strain on congested transmission systems. The FY 2002 budget focuses on the development of advanced distributed generation and thermally activated technology R&D programs to raise efficiency and performance while lowering costs and emissions.
3.2.4 Transportation Sector (FY 2001 = $255.398 million; FY 2002 = $239.370 million)
DOE's Office of Transportation Technologies partners with industry, research organizations, State governments, and other Federal agencies to support development and use of advanced vehicle technologies and fuels which reduce demand for petroleum, decrease emissions of criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gases, and enable the U.S. transportation industry to sustain a strong, competitive position in domestic and world markets. DOE Transportation programs provide support for research, development, and deployment programs, which will reduce oil consumption by achieving significant improvements in vehicle fuel economy, as well as the displacement of oil by other domestic fuels, which are clean and cost-competitive. These R&D programs make significant contributions to research partnerships with the automotive industry (the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV)) and the truck manufacturing industry. The program also manages the Clean Cities program, a voluntary initiative, which includes 4,400 organizations working to increase the use of alternative fuels in cities and urban corridors.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The FY 2002 request funds PNGV (FY 2001 = $141.7 million; FY 2002 = $141.7 million) at FY 2001 levels. Within the overall transportation programs, the largest reductions occur in electric vehicle battery research (FY 2001 = $5.683 million; FY 2002 = $1.079 million), technology deployment (FY 2001 = $15.017 million; FY 2002 = $10.2 million) and the High Temperature Materials Laboratory at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (FY 2001 = $5.588 million; FY 2002 = $4.6 million). The FY 2002 request does not provide funding for the Cooperative Programs with States (FY 2001 = $1.996 million) and the Energy Efficiency Science Initiative (FY 2001 = $3.891 million).
3.2.5 Policy and Management (FY 2001 = $43.274 million; FY 2002 = $40.100 million)
Policy and Management provides the executive management, information, analysis, and oversight required for the implementation of the Energy Efficiency program. In addition, Policy and Management supports the six Regional Offices (Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Philadelphia, and Seattle), and the Golden Field Office in Colorado, which implement EERE activities regionally and help deliver applied R&D and grant programs to Federal, regional, State, and local customers.
The decreased funding request for FY 2002 reflects: (1) a reduction of four FTEs (decrease of seven at Regional Offices, one at Headquarters offset by an increase of four FTEs at Golden Field Office); (2) a slight increase for contractual services at Headquarters offset by a corresponding decrease at the Regional Offices and the Golden Field Office; and (3) zero funding for the International Market Development Program (FY 2001 = $2.6 million).
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
4.0 Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
As shown in Table 28, the FY 2002 budget request for the Nuclear Energy under the Science Committee's jurisdiction is $223.122 million. This is a decrease of $2.495 million—or 1.1 percent—below the FY 2000 appropriation of $225.617 million, and a decrease of $20.463 million—or 8.4 percent—below the FY 2001 appropriation of $243.585 million. This request funds the Advanced Radioisotope Power System, Isotope Support and Production, University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support, Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization, Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, Nuclear Energy Technologies, Argonne National Laboratory-West (ANL–W) Operations, Fast Flux Test Facility, Test Reactor Area Landlord, Nuclear Facilities Management, and Program Direction accounts. The Science Committee shares jurisdiction with the Energy and Commerce Committee over the Isotope Support and Production, ANL–W Operations, Fast Flux Test Facility, and Nuclear Facilities Management accounts.
72196ff.eps
4.1 Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems (FY 2001 = $31.794 million; FY 2002 = $29.094 million)
The Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems program develops and delivers power systems to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and other federal agencies. The program continues to develop an advanced radioisotope power system for anticipated use on NASA missions and new technologies that could be used to reduce weight and cover a range of power levels to meet the more stringent performance requirements of future space and national security missions. The program also continues to assess special purpose fission technology for potential use in future space systems.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The FY 2002 request supports: (1) radioisotope power system assembly and testing at the Mound, OH site; continued development of the Stirling Radioisotope Power System for potential use on future space exploration missions; (2) continued development of Special Purpose Fission Technology; and (3) full operation of full-scale Plutonium-238 (Pu-238)(see footnote 10) scrap recovery line. The request also accelerates replacement of glove boxes and consolidation of Pu-238 chemical and isotopic analysis in building TA–55 at Los Alamos National Laboratory (FY 2001 = $6.3 million; FY 2002 = $6.8 million). Decreases reflect: (1) reduced efforts in radioisotope power system activities (FY 2001 = $16.4 million; FY 2002 = $15.0 million) primarily due to termination of Alkali-Metal Thermal to Electric Conversion (AMTEC) technology development because its planned development did not coincide with NASA's launch schedule; (2) completion of several consolidation activities at Mound, Ohio; (3) reduced Pu-238 acquisition and processing activities (FY 2001 = $4.9 million; FY 2002 = $4.1 million) due primarily to completion of installation of the full-scale Pu-238 scrap recovery line, and deferral of post irradiation examination of targets that were irradiated in the Advanced Test Reactor and the High Flux Isotope Reactor.
4.1.1 Isotope Support and Production (FY 2001 = $18.677 million; FY 2002 = $18.177 million)
The Isotope Support and Production Program provides a reliable supply of stable and radioactive isotopes used in medicine, industry, and research, and also supports development of new or improved isotope applications, products and services used in diagnosing illnesses, medical therapies such as cancer treatment, and other applications.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The FY 2002 request for Isotope Support and Production supports production, packaging, and distribution of radioactive and stable isotopes for approximately 250, the continuation of the Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative (FY 2001 = $2.5 million; FY 2002 = $2.5 million), and completion of eighty percent of the Isotope Production Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory (FY 2001 = $2.5 million; FY 2002 = $2.494 million). In addition, the request supports acquisition of additional alpha-emitting isotopes necessary for medical research and human clinical trials (FY 2001 = $0.9 million; FY 2002 = $1.0 million), and investment in new products and process improvements (FY 2001 = $0.05 million; FY 2002 = $0.25 million). Decreases reflect placing the Annular Core Research Reactor at Sandia National Laboratories (in standby mode) (FY 2001 = $11.533 million; FY 2002 = $11.033 million), and completion of the stable isotope enrichment unit (FY 2001 = $0.3 million; FY 2002 = $0.0).
4.1.2 University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support (FY 2001 = $11.974 million; FY 2002 = $11.974 million)
The University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support program supports the operation and upgrade of university research reactors, provides fellowships and scholarships to outstanding students, and provides nuclear engineering research grants. The program helps maintain domestic capabilities to conduct research and the critical infrastructure necessary to attract, educate, and train the next generation of scientists and engineers with expertise in nuclear energy technologies. The Nuclear Engineering Education Research program supports innovative research at U.S. universities. DOE also supports the supply of fresh fuel to and transport of spent fuel from university research reactors, and enables reactor equipment upgrades at universities.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The FY 2002 request maintains the supply of fresh fuel to all university reactors requiring these services, and continues the DOE/Industry Matching Grants Program that support education, training and innovative research at participating U.S. universities. The request will also provide for 20–24 fellowships and 50 scholarships to students enrolled in nuclear science programs at U.S. universities. The request continues the Reactor Sharing Program that allows students and faculty at institutions without reactors to have access to reactors at other universities. The request also continues the Reactor Upgrade Program that assists in the replacement of outdated equipment, maintenance of reactor systems, and upgrading of experimental capabilities for at least 23 university reactors.
4.1.3 Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (FY 2001 = $4.989 million; FY 2002 = $4.5 million)
The Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) program aims to develop key technologies to ensure that the Nation's existing nuclear power plants can continue to deliver reliable and affordable energy supplies up to and beyond their initial 40-year license period. NEPO—conducted in cost-shared cooperation with the nuclear industry—works to resolve open issues related to plant aging, and applies new technologies to improve plant reliability, availability, and productivity. This research addresses the long-term effects of component aging; improved nuclear power plant capacity factors; optimization through efficiency and productivity improvements; and increased power output while maintaining high levels of safety.
The FY 2002 NEPO request maintains support for projects initiated in FY 2000 and FY 2001 on the long-term reliability of irradiated structural materials, long-term fatigue, and assessment of aging effects on critical components and structures associated with nuclear energy plants. This request reflects a slight decrease in the number of R&D projects that will be conducted in FY 2002.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
4.1.4 Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (FY 2001 = $34.826 million; FY 2002 = $18.079 million)
The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) funds investigator-initiated, peer-reviewed R&D at universities, National Laboratories, and industry to advance nuclear power technology. NERI R&D focuses on proliferation-resistant reactor and fuel technologies, high performance/efficient reactor technology, advanced nuclear fuels, and new technologies for the minimization and management of nuclear waste.
The FY 2002 request would provide funding to continue multi-year activities, including issuing approximately 15 new awards (+$5.462 million). The request also includes funding to initiate an International Clean Energy Initiative (+$6.814 million) the International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (I-NERI)—to promote foreign collaborative research on advanced technologies. DOE also plans to initiate 12 to 13 new cooperative projects with foreign research institutions to leverage research funds with other nations involved in nuclear research, development, and deployment of new technologies.
4.1.5 Nuclear Energy Technologies (FY 2001 = $7.483 million; FY 2002 = $4.5 million)
The Nuclear Energy Technologies program is working to identify, assess, and develop cost-efficient technologies that further enhance nuclear safety, minimize the generation of nuclear waste, and further reduce the risk of proliferation. A major part of the program is development of a Generation IV Technology Roadmap to identify and assess concept designs, and preparing an implementation plan for the roadmap that focuses on cooperative international R&D for reactor and fuel cycle concepts. The program will also continue activities related to potential deployment of advanced gas reactor technologies.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The FY 2002 request supports the completion of the draft Generation IV Technology Roadmap (FY 2001 = $4.483 million; FY 2002 = $4.0 million). This request reflects completion of the Advanced Light Water Reactor design assessment in FY 2001 (–$1.0 million) and the small reactor deployment feasibility study in FY 2001 (–$1.0 million); and reduced workscope for the advanced gas reactor development activities pending endorsement from the Vice President's energy review (–$0.5 million) within Advanced Reactor Development activities (FY 2001 = $3.0 million; FY 2002 = $0.5 million).
4.1.6 Argonne National Laboratory-West (ANL–W) Operations (FY 2001 = $31.207 million; FY 2002 = $34.107 million)
Argonne National Laboratory-West (ANL–W) Operations activities provide engineering, maintenance, and operational support to safely and effectively maintain the site's infrastructure. This includes meeting the Department's waste management and environmental commitments for ANL–West and ensuring the physical security of stored nuclear materials.
The FY 2002 request supports the maintenance and operation of essential facilities at ANL–W to safely and securely manage all special nuclear materials and deactivate unnecessary facilities. This request reflects an increased effort in safety and quality oversight as required to correct deficiencies and comply with revised DOE requirements associated with Nuclear Facility Support activities (FY 2001 = $16.826 million; FY 2002 = $17.657 million). Other increases include: (1) Radiological Facility and Balance-of-Plant Support activities (FY 2001 = $7.96 million; FY 2002 = $8.35 million) for costs of resources, including materials and supplies; (2) increases in Materials and Services activities (FY 2001 = $6.421 million; FY 2002 = $6.9 million) for costs of electricity, power management, fuel oil, and diesel fuel for transportation; (3) increases for General Plant Projects to begin repair and replacement of aging facility and utility systems to correct identified regulatory deficiencies and to improve system performance (FY 2001 = $0.0; FY 2002 = $0.45 million); and (4) conceptual design activities needed to support the design and construction of a Remote Treatment Facility to treat mixed transuranic waste for disposal in accordance with the Court Ordered Settlement Agreement between DOE and the State of Idaho (FY 2001 = $0.0; FY 2002 = $0.75 million).
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
4.1.7 Fast Flux Test Facility (FY 2001 = $38.439 million; FY 2002 = $38.439 million)
The Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF), located at the Hanford Site in Washington, is a Government-owned, 400-megawatt, sodium-cooled reactor that operated from 1982 to 1992, providing a materials testing facility for nuclear fusion and fission programs. In April 1992, the FFTF was placed on hot-standby because the Department anticipated that it had enough research reactors in operation or planned to meet its needs. However, the Department later terminated one new reactor project and shutdown two existing research reactors. The FFTF reactor remains on standby pending a mid-FY 2002 decision while surveillance and maintenance continue.
The substantial increased request reflects a funding shortfall for FFTF maintenance and surveillance in FY 2001 ($7.088 million) and additional funding to support the activities needed to implement the decision to either restart or permanently deactivate the FFTF (+$8.922 million). The Department has pending a FY 2001 reprogramming request of $11.7 million for the FFTF to maintain full compliance with applicable regulations, retain the facility's preventive maintenance program, and conduct a National Environmental Policy Act review to evaluate the Department's nuclear infrastructure, including the issue of FFTF restart or deactivation.
4.1.8 Test Reactor Area Landlord (FY 2001 = $8.733 million; FY 2002 = $8.733 million)
Test Reactor Area (TRA) Landlord funds the operations, maintenance, and upgrade activities for site common facilities and utilities at the TRA in Idaho. Activities conducted at TRA include naval reactor fuel and core component testing, and production of isotopes for medicine and industry. The program also ensures environmental compliance at TRA, including the identification of legacy waste and mitigation in accordance with State regulations and DOE agreements with the State of Idaho.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The FY 2002 request supports maintenance activities associated with site common facilities and utility infrastructure, construction upgrades to the site buildings, and utility infrastructure and environmental compliance for the site including identification of legacy waste and mitigation.
4.1.9 Nuclear Facilities Management (FY 2001 = $34.773 million; FY 2002 = $30.457 million)
The Nuclear Facilities Management program manages the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR–II) shutdown and deactivation at ANL–W in Idaho; treatment and disposition of sodium coolant from the EBR–II and the Fermi reactors; long-term treatment of DOE's sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuels, and further development of innovative spent fuel treatment and disposal. A project to demonstrate electrometallurgical technology by treating up to 125 EBR–II spent fuel and blanket assemblies has been completed.
The FY 2002 request supports Experimental Breeder Reactor-II shutdown activities; the disposition of spent fuel and legacy materials; and research on, and development of, various waste disposition technologies. This request reflects increases due to rising costs of resources, including materials and supplies associated with the Disposition of Spent Fuel effort (FY 2001 = $14.964 million; FY 2002 = $15.767 million), and key program areas associated with Disposition Technology activities (FY 2001 = $9.828 million; FY 2002 = $9.99 million). These increases are offset by reductions in scope to cover materials storage costs at the commercial facility and minimal planning efforts for permanent disposal associated with Disposition of Legacy Materials activities (FY 2001 = $1.2 million; FY 2002 = $0.5 million); completion of all sodium processing activities in FY 2001 (FY 2001 = $2.981 million; FY 2002 = $0.0) and all EBR–II shutdown activities in mid-FY 2002 (FY 2001 = $5.8 million; FY 2002 = $4.2 million).
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
4.1.10 Program Direction (FY 2001 = $23.042 million; FY 2002 = $25.062 million)
The FY 2002 request includes salaries, travel, support services and other expenses for headquarters and field personnel providing technical direction to NE programs, as well as funding to support Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) activities. The request includes: (1) an increase for salaries and benefits to support additional FTEs (FY 2001 = $15.413 million; FY 2002 = $17.283 million); (2) an increase related to travel within the International NERI program (FY 2001 = $0.755 million; FY 2002 = $0.855 million); and (3) an increase in other related services related to support activities for the new hires (FY 2001 = $2.851 million; FY 2002 = $2.901 million).
5.0 Office of Fossil Energy
DOE's Office of Fossil Energy is responsible for the Fossil Energy R&D and Clean Coal Technology Programs. The Science Committee has sole jurisdiction over all Fossil Energy R&D programs with the exception of Fossil Energy Environmental Restoration (jurisdiction shared with the Energy and Commerce Committee), and shares jurisdiction over the Clean Coal Technology Program with the Energy and Commerce Committee.
5.1 Fossil Energy R&D
As shown in Table 29, the FY 2002 request for Fossil Energy R&D is $449.0 million, an increase of $52.341 million—or 13.2 percent—above the FY 2000 appropriation of $396.659 million, and a decrease of $92.463 million—or 17.1 percent—from the FY 2001 appropriation of $541.463 million.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
72196gg.eps
72196hh.eps
72196ii.eps
5.1.1 Clean Coal Power Initiative (FY 2001 = $0.0; FY 2002 = $150.0 million)
The new Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) is intended to increase involvement of the private sector and academia to help conduct and direct research toward the most critical barriers to expansion of coal use for U.S. power generation in the United States. This cooperative effort will require industry to share in the cost of research work, with the industry share increasing as technologies approach commercial stages. The CCPI FY 2002 budget request is $150 million—part of 10-year, $2.0 billion commitment to clean coal R&D. Technologies will be selected with the goal of accelerating development and deployment of coal technologies that will economically meet environmental standards, while increasing the efficiency and reliability of coal power plants.
5.1.2 Fuels and Power Systems (FY 2001 = $324.025 million; FY 2002 = $159.801 million)
The Fuels and Power Systems program is developing new technologies that aim to: (1) achieve operating efficiencies of over 60 percent; (2) reduce emissions of air toxics and particulate matter in existing and future plants; (3) lead to economically viable ways to capture and store greenhouse gases; and, (4) produce alternative transportation fuels and chemicals.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The FY 2002 request for Fuels and Power Systems is $159.801 million, a decrease of $47.856 million—or 23.0 percent—below the FY 2000 appropriation of $207.657 million, and a decrease of $164.224 million—or 50.7 percent—from the FY 2001 appropriation of $324.025 million for five program areas: Central Systems, Distributed Generation Systems-Fuel Cells; Sequestration R&D; Fuels; and Advanced Research.
The Central Systems program (FY 2001 = $199.135 million; FY 2002 = $61.0 million) encompasses Innovations for Existing Plants, Advanced Systems, and the Power Plant Improvement Initiative. Innovations for Existing Plants (FY 2001 = $20.102 million; FY 2002 = $18.0 million) funding will support development of ultra clean combustors under the Vision 21 program and eliminates a program aimed at optimizing the performance of coal-fired power plants in China and Turkey. Advanced Systems (FY 2001 = $84.242 million; FY 2002 = $43.0 million) Low Emission Boiler Systems will continue by using prior year funding; the applicable combustion technology under the Indirect Fired Cycle program is being folded into other areas of Advance Systems; Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle program continues at the FY 2001 level; the Pressurized Fluidized Bed program is transitioning to focus on combustion hybrid technology, gas stream cleanup, and gas conditioning in support of Vision 21 activities; and work on utility-scale Turbines draws to a close. The Power Plant Improvement Initiative (FY 2001 = $94.791 million; FY 2002 = $0.0) which focused on demonstrating advanced coal-based power technologies to address electricity reliability issues has been refocused, and these activities will continue, with additional funding, under the Clean Coal Power Initiative.
Distributed Generation-Fuel Cells (FY 2001 = $52.584 million; FY 2002 = $45.124 million) funding will be used to complete efforts to demonstrate a commercial-scale molten carbonate fuel cell power plant system, and a solid-oxide fuel cell/turbine hybrid prototype. The Department plans to narrow its focus in FY 2002, shifting from generic research to the development of a low cost five-kilowatt solid state fuel cell.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Sequestration R&D (FY 2001 = $18.746 million; FY 2002 = $20.677 million) allows the program to continue emphasizing promising research to store and capture carbon gases. In FY 2002 the program will complete proof-of-concept scale research on a number of applied R&D options being investigated as part of prior solicitations.
Fuels (FY 2001 = $23.423 million; FY 2002 = $7.0 million) program continues development of ceramic membranes for synthesis gas production. No funding is requested for the steelmaking process as the program will be completed in FY 2001.
Advanced Research (FY 2001 = $30.137 million; FY 2002 = $26.0 million) continues to pursue research in support of the Vision 21 concept of a power and fuels complex. The decrease in funding reflects the use of prior year funds in FY 2001 to install a high-speed computer data line to expand the computational capability at the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL).
Innovations for Existing Plants (FY 2001 = $20.102 million; FY 2002 = $18.0 million) funding will support development of ultra clean combustors under the Vision 21 program and eliminates a program aimed at optimizing the performance of coal-fired power plants in China and Turkey. Advanced Systems (FY 2001 = $84.242 million; FY 2002 = $43.0 million) Low Emission Boiler Systems will continue by using prior year funding; the applicable combustion technology under the Indirect Fired Cycle program is being folded into other areas of Advance Systems; Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle program continues at the FY 2001 level; the Pressurized Fluidized Bed program is transitioning to focus on combustion hybrid technology, gas stream cleanup, and gas conditioning in support of Vision 21 activities; work on utility-scale Turbines draws to a close; and activity under the $95 million Power Plant Improvement Initiative is funded under the new Clean Coal Power Initiative. The Power Plant Improvement Initiative (FY 2001 = $94.791 million; FY 2002 = $0.0) which focused on demonstrating advanced coal-based power technologies to address electricity reliability issues has been refocused, and these activities will continue, with additional funding, under the Clean Coal Power Initiative.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Distributed Generation-Fuel Cells (FY 2001 = $52.584 million; FY 2002 = $45.124 million) funding will be used to complete efforts to demonstrate a commercial-scale molten carbonate fuel cell power plant system, and a solid-oxide fuel cell/turbine hybrid prototype. The Department plans to narrow its focus in FY 2002, shifting from generic research to the development of a low cost five-kilowatt solid state fuel cell.
Sequestration R&D (FY 2001 = $18.746 million; FY 2002 = $20.677 million) allows the program to continue emphasizing promising research to store and capture carbon gases. In FY 2002 the program will complete proof-of-concept scale research on a number of applied R&D options being investigated as part of prior solicitations.
Fuels (FY 2001 = $23.423 million; FY 2002 = $7.0 million) program continues development of ceramic membranes for synthesis gas production. No funding is requested for the steelmaking process as the program will be completed in FY 2001.
Advanced Research (FY 2001 = $30.137 million; FY 2002 = $26.0 million) continues to pursue research in support of the Vision 21 concept of a power and fuels complex. The decrease in funding reflects the use of prior year funds in FY 2001 to install a high-speed computer data line to expand the computational capability at the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL).
5.1.3 Petroleum (FY 2001 = $66.874 million; FY 2002 = $30.499 million)
In FY 2002, DOE's Petroleum technology research will focus on new tools and technologies that oil producers can use in the next decade to explore for and produce oil from more difficult formations or from resources that are in environmentally sensitive regions. DOE will also fund a strong technology transfer program to provide smaller, independent oil producers with better tools and knowledge to improve production from marginal U.S. fields.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The FY 2002 request for Petroleum is $30.499 million. This is a decrease of $25.249 million—or 45.3 percent—below the FY 2000 appropriation of $55.748 million, and a decrease of $36.375 million—or 54.4 percent—from the FY 2001 appropriation of $66.874 million.
Exploration & Production (FY 2001 = $28.844 million; FY 2002 = $20.35 million) activities include demonstration of safe, economic slimhole drilling technology in Arctic conditions and methods for locating and producing oil from highly fractured reservoirs or ultra-deep deposits. The program plans to reduce research on oil basin analysis, smart well technology, advanced recovery methods, and fundamental technologies for frontier oil production. In FY 2002, the program plans to reduce research on oil basin analysis, smart well technology, advanced recovery methods, and fundamental technologies for frontier oil production. In addition, the Multi-National Lab/Industry partnership effort and research benefiting the recovery of petroleum through the use of sonication will be eliminated.
Reservoir Life Extension/Management (FY 2001 = $14.662 million; FY 2002 = $4.849 million) will focus on near-term technology development and assistance to small, independent operators. No new large-scale government-industry field demonstrations are planned; however, evaluation of past field trials will be completed and the results shared with private operators. The decrease reflects completion of work to improve oil recovery and resource management capabilities with Native American tribes.
Effective Environmental Protection (FY 2001 = $10.796 million; FY 2002 = $5.3 million) continues to develop technologies and practices that reduce the cost of effective environmental protection and compliance, focusing especially on areas that will improve responsible development of gas resources on public lands. The program will reduce work with the states and other federal agencies to streamline regulations.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Emerging Processing Technology Applications (FY 2001 = $2.594 million; FY 2002 = $0.0). The diesel biodesulfurization project for producing low sulfur diesel fuel will be completed in FY 2001.
Ultra Clean Fuels (FY 2001 = $9.978 million; FY 2002 = $0.0) focused research and development related to coal-based transportation fuels will be funded within the Fuels & Power Systems—Fuels program.
5.1.4 Gas (FY 2001 = $45.029 million; FY 2002 = $21.0 million)
Gas program funding supports new technologies that can tap non-conventional gas resources and help the Nation meet its long-term gas supply needs at reasonable prices. Also included in this portion of the budget are activities that address the growing concern over the nation's aging gas infrastructure and provide the advanced tools, materials, and mechanical technologies that can improve the maintenance of existing gas pipelines and storage facilities and position the gas industry to make needed expansions in the future.
The FY 2002 request for Gas is $21.0 million. This is a decrease of $9.809 million—or 31.8 percent—below the FY 2000 appropriation of $30.809 million, and a decrease of $24.029 million—or 53.4 percent—from the FY 2001 appropriation of $45.029 million.
Exploration & Production (FY 2001 = $14.221 million; FY 2002 = $9.35 million) activities focus on development and demonstration of new technologies for reservoir imaging systems, drilling, and production that increase production while reducing costs, including the development of the world's first microwave-processed drill bit and composite drill pipe. Efforts will also include locating zones that provide economic rates of flow of gas trapped in low-permeability and naturally fractured reservoirs to reduce the cost of production in these non-conventional reservoirs. Arctic research will be coordinated under the new Arctic Research Program. The budget request does not include funding for field demonstrations of integrated deep drilling systems. In addition, the Multi-National Lab/Industry partnership effort will be eliminated, and no new work in Secondary Gas Recovery will be pursued. Technology transfer work with Petroleum Technology Transfer Council will continue at a reduced level.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Gas Hydrates (FY 2001 = $9.938 million; FY 2002 = $4.75 million) funding allows the program to continue the characterization of Arctic and offshore hydrate resources with the U.S. Geological Survey, Naval Research Laboratory, and academic institutions. Funding to support the FY 2001 solicitation for joint industry projects in seafloor stability, resource characterization and feasibility has been reduced and no new projects will be initiated in FY 2002.
Infrastructure (FY 2001 = $8.11 million; FY 2002 = $5.05 million) continues activities to ensure the reliability of the domestic natural gas pipelines and gas storage facilities. FY 2002 activities include the development of advanced storage technologies for high deliverability facilities and smart systems that will enhance pipeline inspections and repairs.
Emerging Processing Technology (FY 2001 = $10.146 million; FY 2002 = $0.25 million) provides continued support for the international center for information on natural gas technologies. Ongoing work related to synthetic gas is funded within the Coal and Power Systems—Fuels program. No funding is requested to continue the coalmine methane or lowquality gas upgrading activities in order to direct funding towards higher priority activities within the Fossil Energy.
Effective Environmental Protection (FY 2001 = $2.614 million; FY 2002 = $1.6 million) continues development and demonstration of technologies and methods that will improve the economics and environmental performance of all facets of gas supply. In FY 2002, the program will sustain its emphasis on technologies that improve responsible development of gas resources on public lands.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
5.1.5 Cooperative Research and Development (FY 2001 = $8.071 million; FY 2002 = $0.0)
Cooperative Research and Development provides the Federal funding share for Jointly Sponsored Research Programs (JSRP) at the Western Research Institute (Laramie, WY) and the University of North Dakota Energy and Environmental Research Center (Grand Forks, ND). Research projects under JSRP must receive at least 50-percent cost sharing from non-Federal partners. No funding is requested for FY 2002.
5.1.6 Environmental Restoration (FY 2001 = $9.978 million; FY 2002 = $9.5 million)
Environmental Restoration supports environmental protection activities at FE R&D facilities, as well as off-site locations where R&D projects are sponsored. In addition, FE is responsible for correcting environmental, safety and health (ES&H) problems at the Albany Research Center, a former Bureau of Mines facility that was transferred to FE in 1997. In FY 2002, work will continue on ongoing projects.
5.1.7 Import/Export Authorization (FY 2001 = $2.295 million; FY 2002 = $1.0 million)
Import/Export Authorization supports regulatory functions still required of DOE to review natural gas imports and exports under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuels Use Act of 1978, exports of electricity and the construction and operations of electric transmission lines which cross U.S. international borders, along with other regulatory responsibilities. The FY 2002 request provides for the salaries and benefits of 7 FTEs.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
5.1.8 Program Direction and Management Support (FY 2001 = $80.086 million; FY 2002 = $70.0 million)
Program Direction and Management Support provides funding for salaries, benefits and overhead expenses for management of the Fossil Energy program at DOE Headquarters (110 FTEs in FY 2001; 80 FTEs in FY 2002), the National Energy Technology Laboratory (339 FTEs in FY 2001; 281 FTEs in FY 2002) at Pittsburgh, PA, Morgantown, WV, and Tulsa, OK.
5.1.9 Plant and Capital Equipment (FY 2001 = $3.891 million; FY 2002 = $2.0 million)
This activity funds general plant projects and capital equipment at the National Energy Technology Laboratory sites and at Albany Research Center in Oregon. The FY 2002 request only includes funding for general plant projects, such as repairs, alterations, etc.
5.1.10 Advanced Metallurgical Processes (FY 2001 = $5.214 million; FY 2002 = $5.2 million)
In FY 2002, DOE is requesting $5.2 million for Advanced Metallurgical Processes conducted at the Albany Research Center to continue research in advanced materials and on metallurgical techniques to extend the life of materials and/or find substitute materials and processing paths for materials that are environmentally hazardous.
5.2 Clean Coal Technology Program (FY 2001 = $8.98 million; FY 2002 = $82.0 million)
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Clean Coal Technology Program is a technology development effort jointly funded by the U.S. Government and industry to demonstrate the most promising advanced coal-based technologies for using coal cleanly, efficiently, and cheaply; and to generate the data needed for the marketplace to judge their commercial potential. The Program began in 1985; is of limited duration entailing five rounds of competition; and industry, by law, must fund at least 50 percent of each project. To date, the five rounds have been awarded and the average industry cost share is 66 percent of the program's $5.203 billion in funding for 38 active projects, of which DOE has committed $1.756 billion. Most of the projects from the early rounds have been completed and several are being used to meet Clean Air Act requirements. The technologies being demonstrated in the Program are grouped into four primary market applications: Advanced Electric Power Generation Systems; Environmental Control Devices; Coal Processing for Clean Fuels; and Industrial Applications.
The FY 2002 request proposes that $82.0 million of previously deferred funds be made available.
In FY 2002, the Clean Coal Technology program will: (1) continue the operating phase of the Liquid Phase Methanol project demonstrating the production of clean-burning methanol from coal-derived synthesis gas; (2) initiate operation of the JEA atmospheric circulating fluidized-bed combustor and the Clean Coal Diesel project; and (3) continue construction on the Kentucky Pioneer project, a demonstration of the integrated gasification combined cycle which utilizes a gasifier coupled with a molten carbonate fuel cell.
At the close of FY 2002, it is expected that: 31 projects will be completed; three projects will be in operation; three projects in construction; and one project in design. Only one project is expected to have outstanding obligation commitments.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
6.0 OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH (NON-DEFENSE)
The Office of Environment, Safety and Health (EH) is the DOE's technical resource to promote the protection of the health and safety of its workers, the public, and the environment near its facilities.
In FY 2001, DOE's EH program is funded in two appropriations: (1) Energy Supply; and (2) Other Defense Activities. The Science Committee shares jurisdiction with the Energy and Commerce Committee over the Non-Defense EH program, which is funded within the Energy Supply appropriation and which consists of: (1) Policy, Standards and Guidance; (2) DOE-Wide ES&H Programs; and (3) a portion of the total Program Direction request. The Defense EH program, funded within the Other Defense Activities appropriation, includes: (1) Oversight; (2) Health Studies; (3) the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF)—jointly funded by DOE and the Government of Japan to study the effects of radiation exposure on survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; (4) Gaseous Diffusion Plants—focusing on the health concerns and issues of current and former contract workers; (5) the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation program to compensate eligible workers for occupational illnesses associated with work at DOE nuclear production facilities; and (6) a portion of the total Program Direction request.
As shown in Table 30, the FY 2002 Non-Defense EH request is $35.5 million, a decrease of $2.34 million—or 6.2 percent—below the FY 2000 appropriation of $37.84 million, and a decrease of $0.323 million—or 0.9 percent—below the FY 2001 appropriation of $35.823 million.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
72196jj.eps
Policy, Standards and Guidance (FY 2001 = $3.549 million; FY 2002 = $4.43 million) develops and promulgates state-of-the-art directives for the protection of workers, facilities, the public and environment from the unique hazards presented by DOE operations. National consensus standards are used to the maximum extent possible in DOE directives to optimize resources and cost savings in contracting. EH works to foster effective relations with regulatory Federal agencies (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Environmental Protection Agency, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission) to review and harmonize new directives to new regulations. In FY 2002, Policy, Standards and Guidance activities will continue to develop and update current DOE environment, safety and health policies, standards and guidance by adopting non-government consensus standards that are appropriate for DOE work. Regulatory liaison activities with other government agencies to support DOE's interest will also continue.
DOE–Wide ES&H Programs (FY 2001 = $11.322 million; FY 2002 = $9.543 million) provide products and services to the DOE complex that are more cost-effectively implemented by central management in EH. Such programs include: (1) the DOE Laboratory Accreditation Program (DOELAP), which accredits personnel radiation dosimetry programs to ensure the accuracy of worker radiation monitoring devices; (2) the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP), which promotes and recognizes excellence in contractor environment, safety, and health programs; (3) the Federal Employees Occupational Safety and Health (FEOSH) program, which assures the safety and health of Federal workers exposed to hazards across DOE; and (4) the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) program which provides procedural and technical compliance assurance to line management actions thus averting legal challenge and supporting mission-essential projects. The FY 2002 decrease reflects the transfer of information technology support to Other Defense Activities account in support of Oversight, Health Studies, and the new Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation program to more accurately reflect actual usage.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Program Direction (FY 2001 = $19.954 million; FY 2002 = $20.527 million) provides funding for the current level of Federal staff of 122 FTEs and includes pay, benefits, travel, and training. This program also provides support for the Department's Working Capital Fund, which recovers the cost of administrative services such as building occupancy. The FY 2002 funding increase is for cost-of-living adjustments.
6.1 Office of Environmental Management (EM)
DOE's Office of Environmental Management (EM) has responsibility for the Non-Defense Environmental Management appropriation, which addresses the environmental legacy resulting from nuclear energy and research activities. The Science Committee shares Non-Defense EM jurisdiction with the Energy and Commerce Committee.
As shown in Table 31, the FY 2002 Non-Defense EM request is $228.553 million. This is a decrease of $73.026 million—or 24.2 percent—below the FY 2000 appropriation of $301.579 million, and a decrease of $50.642 million—or 18.1 percent—below the FY 2001 appropriation of $279.195 million.
72196kk.eps
72196ll.eps
6.2 Site Closure (FY 2001 = $52.997 million; FY 2002 = $43.0 million)
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The goal of the Site Closure program is to clean up and close the sites within this account by the end of 2006. This account includes funding for the Oak Ridge Operations Office to direct and manage about 1.5 million cubic meters at the 226-acre Weldon Spring Site Remedial Action Project in Missouri, which includes an abandoned decommissioned uranium processing plant, a contaminated quarry used for waste disposal, as well as numerous properties in the vicinity that were contaminated during processing operations.
The FY 2002 Site Closure request is $43.0 million, a decrease of $20.56 million—or 32.3 percent—below the FY 2000 comparable appropriation of $63.56 million, and a decrease of $9.997 million—or 18.9 percent—below the FY 2001 comparable authorization of $52.997 million. The FY 2002 request will complete the Weldon Spring Site Remedial Action Project and final site restoration. The post-remediation activities will require long-term surveillance and monitoring.
6.3 Site/Project Completion (FY 2001 = $90.631 million; FY 2002 = $64.119 million)
The Site/Project Completion account provides funding for projects that are expected to be completed by FY 2006 at sites or facilities where a DOE mission will continue (e.g., environmental management or scientific research) beyond FY 2006. This account includes projects and sites under the Albuquerque, Chicago, Idaho, Oakland, and Richland Operations Offices.
The FY 2002 Site/Project Completion request is $64.119 million, a decrease of $52.209 million—or 44.9 percent—below the FY 2000 appropriation of $116.328 million, and a decrease of $26.512 million—or 29.3 percent—below the FY 2001 appropriation of $90.631 million.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Albuquerque (FY 2001 = $0.561 million; FY 2002 = $1.398 million) supports continued waste management activities for the cleanup of the Lovelace Inhalation Toxicology Laboratory at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico. The FY 2002 request continues groundwater monitoring of former environmental restoration sites. The increase also supports on-site disposal of hazardous and mixed low-level waste.
Chicago (FY 2001 = $44.377 million; FY 2002 = $32.471 million) manages cleanup efforts at four sites: (1) the Argonne National Laboratory-East (ANL–E) in Illinois; (2) the Argonne National Laboratory-West (ANL–W) in Idaho; and (3) the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) in New York. The FY 2002 request supports: (1) remediation and groundwater activities, surveillance and maintenance and characterization for the Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor at BNL; (2) facility decommissioning and remediation at ANL–East; and (3) operation and maintenance activities for soil remediation and monitoring at ANL–West. In addition, Potentially Responsible Party payments will be made against DOE's portion of Princeton University Site A/B remediation costs as a Potentially Responsible Party. The net decrease reflects completion of activities and support of higher priority activities.
Idaho (FY 2001 = $29.512 million; FY 2002 = $14.915 million) manages non-defense cleanup activities at: (1) the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) in Idaho; (2) the Grand Junction Office in Colorado; (3) the Monticello Mill site in Utah; and (4) the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Groundwater project. The FY 2002 request supports interim remedial action and groundwater monitoring for the Monticello mill site, the inactive uranium mill sites, and activities conducted by the Grand Junction Office. At INEEL, activities include initiation and transfer of Power Burst Facility and Materials Test Reactor spent nuclear fuel to the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center, and continued surveillance and maintenance of the Power Burst Facility and the Materials Test Reactor Canal. The decrease reflects completion of activities at Monticello Projects and support of higher priority activities.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Oakland (FY 2001 = $14.696 million; FY 2002 = $13.85 million) manages cleanup activities at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), the General Atomics Facility, the Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research (LEHR), and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC). The FY 2002 request: (1) continues monitoring, maintenance, and operation of groundwater treatments systems at LBNL and SLAC; (2) completes remedial and decontamination and decommissioning activities at the LEHR and LBNL; and (3) supports surveillance and maintenance of the irradiated fuel materials at General Atomics.
Richland (FY 2000 = $1.485 million; FY 2001 = $1.485 million) manages the cleanup and surveillance and maintenance activities for buildings formerly used by DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy. The FY 2002 request supports stabilization and deactivation of Building 309 and the Plutonium Recycle Test Reactor.
6.4 Post 2006 Completion (FY 2001 = $135.603 million; FY 2002 = $120.053 million)
The Post 2006 Completion account includes projects currently planned to require funding beyond 2006 and includes projects at the Grand Junction Site in Colorado, the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the Energy Technology Engineering Center and General Electric sites in California, the West Valley Demonstration Project in New York, and the packaging certification program at Headquarters.
Albuquerque (FY 2001 = $3.850 million; FY 2002 = $2.5 million) supports the recovery of public and private-sector sealed radioactive sources to the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The FY 2002 request also supports preparation of DOE performance objectives for Greater-than-Class-C Low-Level Waste for review by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and recovery and storage off-site of 1,000 sealed sources.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Idaho (FY 2000 = $5.052 million; FY 2002 = $5.415 million) supports the Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance Program at the Grand Junction Office. The FY 2002 request provides for continued surveillance and maintenance activities including the Atlas Site in Moab, Utah.
Oakland (FY 2001 = $17.571 million; FY 2002 = $13.479 million) manages remediation and waste treatment, storage, and disposal activities at the Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC), and the General Electric Vallecitos Nuclear Center (GE) in California. The FY 2002 request supports: (1) facility deactivation, cleanup and landlord activities for ETEC; and (2) surveillance, maintenance and negotiation of a cost-shared arrangement with GE.
Ohio (FY 2001 = $105.586 million; FY 2002 = $95.115 million) supports cleanup activities at the West Valley Demonstration Project in New York. The FY 2002 request will: (1) complete deactivation of the Vitrification Facility; (2) continue construction for the Remote Handled Waste Facility; (3) continue waste retrieval from the head-end cells and other decontamination efforts; (4) initiate deactivation of a spent fuel pool; and (5) continue low-level waste shipments. The net decrease reflects the completion of high-level vitrification and the Spent Nuclear Fuel storage and shipment program.
Multi-Site Activities (FY 2001 = $3.544 million; FY 2002 = $3.544 million) supports the Packaging Certification and Transportation Safety program to better coordinate DOE-wide nondefense program efforts.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
6.5 Excess Facilities (FY 2001 = $0.0; FY 2002 = $1.381 million)
The Excess Facilities Transfer Program is initiated to manage the final disposition of excess contaminated physical facilities to generate significant risk and cost reductions. This program is intended to facilitate the cross-program transfer of excess contaminated facilities from the Office of Science and the associated deactivation and decommissioning activities. The FY 2002 request supports surveillance and maintenance activities for the High Flux Beam Reactor at Brookhaven National Laboratory, and the Research Services (Building 9735) and the Hot Storage Garden (Building 3597) at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The increase reflects the comparable transfer of funding from the former ''owner'' of the facility.
Chairman BARTLETT. Good morning. We will now convene—our Subcommittee hearing will come to order. Today we will begin our consideration of the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2002 budget request for programs under the Science Committee's jurisdiction. We have a panel of witnesses representing each of the six DOE line offices with us today. We will also hear from a distinguished panel of outside witnesses after the DOE panel has concluded.
I understand that Dr. Haspel of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and Mr. Magwood of the Office of Nuclear Energy, are both ill this morning and unable to present testimony. Therefore, Mr. Sullivan and Dr. Marcus will deliver the testimony on their behalf. Thank you very much for pinch hitting. I do extend my sincerest regards for improved health to Dr. Haspel and Mr. Magwood.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Thank you, Mr. Sullivan and Dr. Marcus, for stepping in this morning to deliver your testimony. I look forward to an interesting and informative session, panel. Panel one includes the following witnesses representing DOE, Dr. James Decker, Acting Director of the Office of Science; Mr. John Sullivan, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning, Budget and Management, on behalf of Dr. Abraham Haspel, Acting Director of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Mr. Bob Kripowicz, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, Dr. Gail Marcus, Principal Deputy Director, on behalf of Mr. Bill Magwood, Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology; Mr. Steven Cary, Acting Assistant Secretary for the Office of Environment, Safety and Health; and Mr. James Owendoff, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Environmental Management.
In the second panel we will hear from the following witnesses. Dr. Trilling, President of the American Physical Society; Dr. Tinker, Director of the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin; Dr. Lake, President of the American Nuclear Society; and Mr. Marvin, President of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy.
The Department of Energy's total fiscal year 2002 request for new budget authority for its civilian energy R&D and science programs is $4.9 billion, a decrease of $350.4 million or 6.7 percent below the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level. I would note, however, that this request is 376.5 million or 8.3 percent above the fiscal year 2000 level. The DOE Office of Science's fiscal year 2002 budget request of $3.16 billion is an increase of $4.4 million or .1 percent over this year's appropriation and 335 million or 12 percent above the 2000 level.
This is the largest single DOE program under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. We are pleased that the Department has continued to meet the committee's criteria contained in H.R. 1655 for the Spallation Neutron Source project which included reforms that got this important science project back on track. We will continue to monitor the status of this important project in the future.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's O–2 budget request includes 237.5 million for the renewable energy resources program, which represents a decrease of 135.7 million below the 01 level. The energy conservation R&D request for 02 is 470.7 million, a decrease of 128.5 million or 21.4 percent below the 01 level. While these numbers at first blush are alarming I would like to make two points.
First, DOE's Weatherization Program, which is not within this subcommittee's jurisdiction, a program that doesn't fall within this jurisdiction, gets an increase of over 120 million in O–2 and it is just the first installment of a 10-year commitment by the Administration to provide 1.4 billion for the program that will result in additional hundreds of thousands of low income homes being weatherized.
Second, the Administration has proposed a 2.7 billion, 10-year package of energy tax incentives that will spur the use of renewable and alternative energy sources. When these are taken into consideration the overall Federal resources that will be devoted to energy efficiency and renewable energy in O–2 is about the same as for the current year 01 and greater than the 00 fiscal year.
I would just like to note that philosophically if we have adequate amounts of money for basic research, and I think we do not, and if we provide an adequate market incentive with tax credits, and I think that we are doing something there but probably not enough that we then could presume that there would be more R&D investment on the part of industry and that might indeed be a better way to invest taxpayer dollars in more basic research and in opening up markets with the presumption that if there is a market that the industry will recognize that and commit the necessary R&D to that.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The DOE Of Fossil Energy's budget request of $449 million for fossil energy R&D is a decrease of $92.5 million or nearly 17 percent below what was appropriated for 01 but an increase over 53 million or 13 percent above 00. In addition, the Administration has proposed a first installment of a plan 10-year 2 billion commitment to clean coal research and development. The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology's request at $223.1 million is a decrease of about $20.5 million or 8.4 percent below 01 appropriations and about the same as for 00 so really no decrease here compared to the 00 budget.
Nuclear funding is critical because nuclear energy is the best option for reducing this country's greenhouse gas emissions. I believe we will see this country's attitude toward nuclear energy fundamentally change as the American public recognizes this fact. The DOE's Office of Environment Safety and Health 02 budget request for non-defense activities is $35.5 million, nearly equal to the current level.
This office, while small in budget terms, is of premier importance in assuring the health and safety of DOE's workers. Its role is particularly important given DOE's unique status in the Federal Government as a self-regulator. In '96 former Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary endorsed the concept of external regulation phased in over 10 years. In fact, DOE, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration had conducted several pilot projects in preparation to implement this plan.
The Science Committee on a bipartisan basis has strongly supported the movement to external regulation. I would encourage the new Secretary to endorse external regulation and move forward in an expeditious manner to implement this proposal. The Non-defense Environmental Management Program request for 02 is $228.6 million, a decrease of $50.6 million or 18.1 percent below the current level. I look forward to hearing today's testimony and pursuing the subjects in greater detail.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Before we get started, however, I would like to remind members of the subcommittee and our witnesses that this hearing is being broadcast live on the Internet so please keep that in mind during today's proceedings. I would also like to ask for unanimous consent that all members who wish may have their opening statements entered into the record. Without objection, so ordered.
I now turn to the distinguished Ranking Member, Ms. Woolsey, for any opening remarks she would care to make.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Roscoe Bartlett follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ROSCOE BARTLETT
We will now convene the hearing. The hearing will come to order.
Today will begin our consideration of the Department of Energy's (DOE) Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 budget request for programs under the Science Committee's jurisdiction. We have a panel of witnesses representing each of the 6 DOE line offices with us today. We will also hear from a distinguished panel of outside witnesses after the DOE panel has concluded. I understand that Dr. Haspel of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and Mr. Magwood of the Office of Nuclear Energy are both ill this morning and unable to present testimony. Therefore, Mr. Sullivan and Dr. Marcus will deliver the testimony on their behalf. I do extend my sincerest regards for improved health to Dr. Haspel and Mr. Magwood. Thank you Mr. Sullivan and Dr. Marcus for stepping in this morning to deliver their testimony. I look forward to an interesting and informative session. Panel one includes the following witnesses representing DOE:
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Dr. James F. Decker, Acting Director of the Office of Science;
Mr. John Sullivan, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning, Budget and Management on behalf of Dr. Abraham E. Haspel, Acting Director of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy;
Mr. Bob Kripowicz, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy;
Dr. Gail Marcus, Principal Deputy Director on behalf of Mr. Bill Magwood, Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology;
Mr. Steven V. Cary, Acting Assistant Secretary for the Office of Environment, Safety and Health; and,
Mr. James M. Owendoff, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Environmental Management.
In the second panel, we will hear from the following witnesses:
Dr. George H. Trilling, President of the American Physical Society;
Dr. Scott W. Tinker, Director of the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin;
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Dr. James A. Lake, President of the American Nuclear Society; and,
Mr. Michael L. Marvin, President of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy.
The Department of Energy's total FY 2002 request for new budget authority for its civilian energy R&D and science programs is $4.9 billion dollars, a decrease of $350.4 million dollars—or 6.7 percent—below the FY 2001 appropriated level. I would note, however, that this request is $376.5 million, or 8.3 percent above the FY 2000 level.
Office of Science
The DOE Office of Science's FY 2002 budget request of $3.16 billion dollars is an increase of $4.4 million dollars—or 0.1 percent over last year's appropriation. This is the largest single DOE program under the Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
We are pleased that the Department has continued to meet the Committee's criteria contained in H.R. 1655 for the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) project, which included reforms that got this important science project back on track. We will continue to monitor the status of this important project in the future.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
The DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's FY 2002 budget request includes $237.5 million for the Renewable Energy Resources program, which represents a decrease of $135.7 million—or 36.4 percent—below FY 2001. The Energy Conservation R&D request for FY 2002 is $470.7 million, a decrease of $128.5 million—or 21.4 percent below FY 2001. While these numbers at first blush are alarming, I would like to make two points. First, DOE's weatherization program, which is not within this Subcommittee's jurisdiction—a program that doesn't fall within this Subcommittee's jurisdiction gets an increase of over $120 million in FY 2002, and is just the first installment of a ten-year commitment by Administration to provide $1.413 for the program that will result in an additional hundreds of thousands of low-income homes weatherized. Second, the Administration has proposed a $2.7 billion, ten-year package of energy tax incentives that will spur the use of renewable and alternative energy sources. When these are taken into consideration, the overall Federal resources that will be devoted to energy efficiency and renewable energy in FY 2002 is about the same as for the current year, FY 2001.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Office of Fossil Energy
The DOE Office of Fossil Energy's budget request of $449.0 million dollars for Fossil Energy R&D is a decrease of $92.5 million dollars—or nearly 17.1 percent below what was appropriated for FY 2001, but an increase of over $53 million, or 13 percent above FY 2000. In addition, the Administration has proposed the first installment of a planned 10-year, $2 billion commitment to clean coal research and development.
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology's request of $223.1 million dollars is a decrease of about $20.5 million dollars—or 8.4 percent—below FY 2001 appropriations, and about the same as for FY 2000. Nuclear funding is critical because nuclear energy is the best option for reducing this country's greenhouse gas emissions. I believe we will see this country's attitude towards nuclear energy fundamentally change as the American public recognizes this fact.
Office of Environment, Safety and Health
The DOE's Office of Environment, Safety and Health FY 2002 budget request for non-defense activities is $35.5 million dollars, nearly equal to the current level.
This Office—while small in budget terms—is of premier importance in assuring the health and safety of DOE's workers. Its role is particularly important given DOE's unique status in the Federal Government as a self-regulator. In 1996, former Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary endorsed the concept of external regulation phased in over 10 years. In fact, the DOE, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration had conducted several pilot projects in preparation to implement this plan. The Science Committee—on a bipartisan basis—has strongly supported the movement to external regulation. I would encourage the new Secretary to endorse external regulation, and move forward in an expeditious manner to implement this proposal.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Non-Defense Environmental Management Programs
The Non-Defense Environmental Management Program request for FY 2002 is $228.6 million dollars—a decrease of $50.6 million dollars, or 18.1 percent below the current level.
I look forward to hearing today's testimony and pursuing these subjects in greater detail.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I, too, am pleased to be here and I thank you for convening this hearing today because it is important that we hear the testimony from representatives of the six Department of Energy organizations under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. I am certain that the second panel of public witnesses will have some very interesting insights into how these programs are working at current budget levels and how the new proposed budget levels, mostly proposed cuts, will affect their programs. And thank you all for being here with us today.
We have an unusual situation with our first panel. While all the panels are extremely capable and accomplished people, I am aware that you are either career employees or holdovers from the Clinton Administration and I would imagine that you may be a bit handicapped on providing us with policy rationale behind some of the changes in the budget levels that many of us have found to be extremely shocking.
Hopefully, though, you will be able to give us some idea of the impact on your program. It is important for the subcommittee to know how many employees will be lost, how many contracts will be have to be terminated, if any, and the impacts that the reduction in these programs will cause. For example, I understand that the overall 22 percent cut in the energy conservation R&D account will result in the lowest funding for energy conservation since 1996.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Further, I am told that the energy supply account, which includes R&D on production and use of renewables including super conductivity, distributed energy, wind, hydrogen, solar, geothermal, biopower, hydropower will be cut 36 percent. If enacted, this budget request would reduce spending in this area to its lowest levels in 10 years. As a representative of a district and a state that is committed to green energy, I have great concern that if we enact these numbers and these cuts, we will put—we will be putting these very important programs in imminent peril by reducing them below sustainable levels.
While I am limited on time, I am going to be listening to you but I want to say that I hope all witnesses will comment on the impact of other cuts as well, including biological and environmental research, nuclear energy, R&D, non-defense environmental management accounts. Your information and your input on these other programs is essential to us.
We need to have this information now so that we can in turn put pressure in the right places so that we don't make cuts that are going to affect us drastically because of this budget. So, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time if I have any.
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much. Without objection, the full written testimony of all of the witnesses will be entered into the record. We would encourage you, if you can, to summarize your testimony in 5 minutes with assurance that there will be more than adequate time to expand on any points you wish to expand on during the question and answer period which follows.
I hope that during your testimony and maybe more intensively during the question and answer period we can explore the philosophical argument that has resulted in this year's Administration budget. When I first saw the budget figures I was in some shock and I was very hesitant to sign off on the budget resolution and indicated that until I had a better understanding of why I couldn't vote for the budget resolution and so they arranged a meeting for me with the Vice President.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
And my message to him was that this is my President and I don't want him to look dumb and help me to explain to my people why cut the energy budget this much when we face a potential energy crisis is not dumb. And so he referred me to Office of Management and Budget and so I met with them. And after my discussion with them, I understood the philosophical argument and I would like your comment on whether or not the funding that they have recommended is adequate to support that philosophy.
Their philosophy basically is that if there is a market out there that the R&D can perhaps be better done and the money more wisely spent by the private sector than it can by Congressmen or government bureaucrats deciding which R&D projects ought to be funded. Philosophically I don't have a real argument with that. My only question is are the tax credits that they are proposing adequate to provide that market potential so that the industry will be incented to invest the R&D dollars that are necessary to mature those markets and is there enough money in basic research.
Generally speaking, our country spends a smaller percentage of its GDP on basic research than any other major power in the world. That is a program that if followed through the years will ultimately lead us to not be the major industrial power in the world and perhaps not even the world's dominant military power because unless we are producing the best scientists, mathematicians and engineers and have the best basic research, we will not have the best R&D no matter who funds it and we will not have the best economy, we will not have the best military.
So this philosophy is very important and I would like your comments on whether or not you think that the funding that is proposed is adequate to implement the philosophy of this new budget recommendation to the Congress. We will now proceed with our witnesses. And, Dr. Decker, you have the floor.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Panel I
STATEMENT OF JAMES F. DECKER, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Dr. DECKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify before you today on the fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Office of Science. Before I begin, let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee for the subcommittee's strong support for our research program in past years. I have submitted written testimony describing our $3.16 billion request for fiscal year 2002 supporting the basic research that underpins the science, energy, environment, and national security missions of the Department of Energy.
The Office of Science is a primary source of Federal support for fundamental research in the physical sciences which includes physics, chemistry, and material sciences. In addition, my office plays a key role in the life sciences, environmental research, and advance computation and mathematics. This research is conducted by scientists at the DOE laboratories and at more than 250 universities located in virtually every state.
In funding this research we developed the new scientific knowledge that help support both the DOE emissions and the Nation's economy for the future as well as helping to train the next generation of researchers. The Office of Science also plays an essential role in the Nation's scientific infrastructure by constructing and operating major scientific facilities such as accelerators, synchrotron light sources and neutron sources.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
This year these facilities will serve more than 16,000 scientific researchers from all sectors, academia, industry, and Federal laboratories. These facilities are essential to progress and virtually every scientific discipline has seen a steady growth in users over the years. Last year has been a very productive one for the Office of Science, a working draft of the Human Genome almost completed, a major milestone in the Human Genome Project, which the Office of Science initiated in 1986.
We developed many of the underlying technologies that were used by all the institutions involved in the sequencing process as well as the sequencing of three of the human chromosomes. Excuse me. In high energy and nuclear physics experiments during the last year have both supported and challenged established theory. Fermilab observed the Tau neutrino, the last of the leptons predicted by the standard model while the so-called G–2 experiment at Brookhaven generated a new challenge to the standard model as strong evidence for Neutrinos having mass.
At the same time the B Factory at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center has been gathering evidence of so-called charge parity violation with implications for understanding why matter dominated over anti-matter in the universe. And early results from the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider indicate the presence of a predicted state of matter the quark-gluon plasma that existed shortly after the Big Bang.
Construction of the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory is approximately 20 percent complete and projected to remain within budget and on schedule for completion in 2006. Spallation Neutron Source will be the world's most powerful pulse neutron source producing six to ten times greater neutron flux than any existing source today. It will provide a critical research capability in a wide range of areas including materials research, structural biology, and advanced drug design.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Our researchers have also made substantial progress in many other areas as well, understanding and controlling energy losses due to turbulence in magnetically confined plasmas, developing techniques for bonding wear resistance surfaces to metals which will have many applications, investigating the effects of Ritalin on the brain through some of the positron emission tomography studies that we do.
The President's budget request for 2002 will fully fund the Spallation Neutron Source construction, continue operations of our existing large user facilities, continue basic research in support of emissions and support of our stewardship of those areas of science for which we are the predominant supporter. In my remaining time, I would like to briefly focus on three important areas in our budget request, Genomes to Life, physics of the Standard Model and beyond, and nanoscale science. Each area we are building on knowledge and capabilities that have been created through sustained investments in the Office of Science programs.
The proposed Genomes to Life program is aimed at determining how a single cell and consortia of cells function. A single cell is amazingly complex in a chemical factory. With our ability to sequence the genome of any living thing today, we can determine the instruction set for making the parts of the cell. However, we don't know what the parts are and exactly how they function together.
We also don't have a understanding how consortia of cells such as microbes work together. We do know that these systems are so complex that the only way we will obtain a predictive capability is through computational modeling. This Genomes to Life activity will also require interdisciplinary teams to be formed. We will need to use many of the tools that have been developed over the years including our teroscale computers, synchrotron light sources and our neutron sources, as well as our DNA sequencing capabilities.
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Our initial focus is on microbes relative to the DOE emissions in energy production, carbon sequestration, and environmental cleanup. The Department of Energy laboratories are now the site for the most advanced experimental facilities in high energy and nuclear physics in the world. The 2002 budget proposes a program of limited upgrades to the Tevatron and Fermilab that will enable us to explore the energy range for a physicist to now expect to observe the Higgs boson. These bosons are believed to be the source of mass for the fundamental constituents of matter.
We are also proposing small upgrades to the B factory at Slack to dramatically speed up its program of research into the asymmetry that led to the dominance of matter over anti-matter. In the Brookhaven the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider will examine the qualities of man-made quark-gluon plasmas addressing the question of why quarks are so strongly confined inside protons and neutrons and shedding light on the evolution of the early universe.
Another scientific frontier that we are exploring is science at the nanoscale where the physics of materials is given by—is governed by the interactions of individual atoms and molecules and is qualitatively different than at larger scales. Promise for the future is immense. We are not entering a stage of research where structures can be designed atom by atom so that the desired characteristics and chemical reactivity can be controlled.
In the future we should be able to design and synthesize new alloys, ceramics, chemical catalysts, and other materials tailored for specific tasks leading to significant improvements, solar energy conversion, more energy efficient lighting, stronger and lighter materials to improve efficiency in transportation. In our budget request we have tried to balance the support for existing programs and facilities with new investments such as Genomes to Life and new tools such as the Spallation Neutron Source.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I think this provides a strong basis for science to progress in all the disciplines that we support. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my oral remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Decker follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES F. DECKER
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 budget request for the Office of Science (SC). This budget request, part of the Science appropriation, supports: Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR), Basic Energy Sciences (BES), Biological and Environmental Research (BER), Fusion Energy Sciences (FES), High Energy Physics (HEP), Nuclear Physics (NP), Energy Research Analyses, Multiprogram Energy Laboratories-Facilities Support, Safeguards and Security, and Science Program Direction. The Technical Information Management budget request is located within the Energy Supply appropriation.
The Department of Energy (DOE) budget for FY 2002 requests $3,159,890,000 in the Science Appropriation. This budget will support SC's unique scientific user facilities and continue our remarkable scientific achievements in the physical and life sciences, mathematics, computation, and environmental research. It will also permit continued investments in thousands of individual research projects at our national laboratories and at research universities across the Nation.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
SC's diverse basic research portfolio, with its emphasis on sustained investments in knowledge creation that results in scientific discoveries that enable tomorrow's technologies, is a cornerstone of our Nation's efforts to maintain lasting economic prosperity. In a recent major economic address, the President emphasized the need for long-term planning when he said: ''. . .lasting prosperity requires long-term thinking.''
Our FY 2002 basic research portfolio supports the President's goal of strengthening the U.S. scientific enterprise to ensure continued international leadership in scientific and technological innovation, and will advance the DOE missions in energy, environment, and national security.
In FY 2002, SC will pursue new and challenging scientific opportunities in a wide range of areas of great importance to our Nation's future. It will:
Continue operations and some enhanced capabilities for the large scientific user facilities that SC operates on behalf of the Nation's scientific and industrial research community, serving over 16,000 researchers annually.
Support the ''Genomes to Life'' program, the next step in our Nation's effort to build on the extraordinary success of the Human Genome Project, begun by SC in 1986. ''Genomes to Life'' will combine biological research and the development of computational tools for a greater understanding of complex biological systems with promise of innovative solutions to some of the many complex challenges inherent in DOE's missions for energy, environment and science.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Exploit a window of opportunity during which the U.S. will be the undisputed research center of the world's high energy physics community to continue the search for the elusive Higgs boson (believed key to understanding the origin of mass) and exploit the improved capabilities of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) B Factory to determine the nature of the asymmetry between matter and anti-matter.
Continue research programs in nanoscience to explore the potential for the development of nanoscale technologies that will revolutionize many areas of industry and medicine.
Open enormous research opportunities in neutron sciences through construction of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) for basic research, applied research and technology development in the fields of condensed matter physics, materials sciences, magnetic materials, polymers and complex fluids, chemistry, and biology. SNS is on time and on budget.
Continue development of the scientific understanding necessary to effectively harness fusion energy as an environmentally benign, economically viable, and abundant energy source for future generations.
Revolutionize the way science is conducted by building on dramatic advances in supercomputing power to develop large-scale scientific simulation as a tool for the solution of complex scientific problems of vital importance to DOE's missions and the Nation's scientific community.
OUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND RECENT SUCCESSES
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
As the Nation's primary supporter of fundamental research in the physical sciences (materials research, chemical sciences, physics, etc.), and one of the largest supporters of basic research in mathematics, computing and environmental sciences, SC is uniquely poised to make important contributions to our general scientific knowledge and to the U.S. industrial base. SC programs fund researchers at more than 250 colleges and universities located in 48 states, as well as thousands of world-class researchers at DOE's national laboratories.
SC provides the largest share of Federal support for major scientific user facilities, which together host more than 16,000 users annually from all research sectors. University-based scientists are among the principal users of these facilities, which provide powerful probes of matter at a range of scales from viral proteins to sub-atomic quarks—realms inaccessible by any other means.
Each year, hundreds of principal investigators funded by SC win dozens of major prizes and awards sponsored by the President, the Department, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the major professional scientific societies. Recent awards have included: the 1999 Nobel Prize for Physics, shared by SC researcher Martinus Veltman, for theoretical work that helped establish the Standard Model; Supercomputing (SC 2000) Awards for High-Bandwidth Applications and Infrastructure advances supported by SC; one of top 10 ''Algorithms of the Century'' announced by Computing in Science and Engineering magazine was developed by SC research; three of the 2000 ''R&D 100 Awards'' and two of the 2000 Discover magazine awards went to SC researchers in the national laboratories.
The following selected program highlights are illustrative of the broad range of research activities supported by SC. These highlights testify to the depth, diversity and importance of the research portfolio managed by SC, and the great impact that scientific discoveries can have on energy production and use, environmental sciences, the life sciences, and national defense, as well as the general creation of new knowledge that helps sustain other scientific disciplines.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Solving optimization problems easily and inexpensively. Optimization applications range from designing circuits, to estimating the value of risk in environmental cleanup, to determining routing patterns on the Internet, to finding energy functions for molecular structures. Researchers at Argonne National Laboratory and Northwestern University completed a project to attack such problems successfully. The project involves development of a novel environment, called the Network-Enabled Optimization System (NEOS). NEOS allows users to solve optimization problems over the Internet with state-of-the-art software. The NEOS project recently gained considerable visibility with the release of a new portable version that can be run on various computers, Web servers, and e-mail servers. Over the past year, the number of users has risen to an average of 2,600 problem submissions per month. NEOS is now used as an educational tool at universities worldwide.
Ion-implantation for strong metal-ceramic bonds. Ceramics are hard and corrosion resistant, but fracture easily. Metals resist fracture, but are not as wear or corrosion resistant as ceramics. Coating a metal with a ceramic is a way to improve both. However, current coating technologies can degrade the performance of metals. A new approach has been successfully developed that employs ion-beam intermixing of the coating with the metal from collision cascades, which are microscopic (nanometer-sized) ''hot-zones'' formed along the ion track. Since the heating in collision cascades is very short and localized, macroscopic heating of the metal does not occur. A patent has been filed using this new approach to improve hip, knee, and dental prosthetic devices. This approach of bonding of ceramics to metals also has applications for energy technology metal surfaces that require resistance to high temperature, corrosive, and erosive environments.
Genome sequencing named scientific advance of 2000. In December 2000, Science magazine named genome sequencing, enabled by seminal SC contributions, as the top scientific advance of 2000. In addition to its contributions to current sequencing technology, SC supports a wide variety of sequencing projects including its ongoing sequencing of the mouse and puffer fish (also acknowledged by Science magazine) to help understand human gene function, microbial genomes (more than 50 to date) and, previously, the fruit fly. SC also contributed to the sequencing of the human genome, fully sequencing 3 human chromosomes, that culminated in the publication of the draft human DNA sequence in Nature on February 15, 2001. The three human chromosomes sequenced by SC contain genes that contribute to a number of human diseases including, leukemia, colon, breast and prostate cancer, as well as kidney disease, Crohn's disease (an inflammatory bowel disease), asthma, deafness, diabetes, obesity, atherosclerosis (disease of the arteries in which fatty material is deposited in the vessel wall constricting blood flow), attention deficit disorder, schizophrenia, and mental retardation.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Making drugs safe for children and treating obesity. Positron Emission Tomography (PET)/radiotracer studies sponsored by BER have demonstrated that Ritalin, a drug commonly used in the treatment of attention deficit disorder, when given orally will effectively block the dopamine transmitter system without putting the child at risk or causing a ''high'' as observed with addictive drugs. In addition, BNL scientists have used PET and specific radiotracers to demonstrate that the brain dopaminergic pathways are poorly developed in obese individuals. These data may enable alternative methods for treatment of obesity.
Tools created for controlling plasma turbulence. The performance of tokamaks and other magnetic confinement systems are limited by turbulence. Researchers at MIT have discovered that radio waves are a powerful tool for creating and manipulating desired ''internal transport barriers,'' which prevent unwanted turbulent heat leakage from magnetically confined fusion plasmas and dramatically increased plasma density. Scientists have discovered that, depending on the location of the resonant radio wave heating, the overall rotation of the plasma can be significantly slowed, or even reversed. Simultaneously with this change, a clear internal transport barrier developed, resulting in an extraordinary peaking of the plasma density, one that was at least two times greater than before. Similarly, experiments in Germany and at General Atomics in the United States have shown that fusion energy content and other properties in magnetically confined plasmas can be significantly improved by a relatively small amount of even higher frequency microwave power applied at precisely the right location, in the plasma.
Extraordinary tools for extraordinary physics. This has been a period of great excitement in the Office of Science High Energy and Nuclear Physics program. Completion of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and the upgrade of the Tevatron at Fermilab have made the U.S. the world leader in experimental facilities for high energy and nuclear physics. At the same time, while some experimental results have confirmed the predictions of the Standard Model, others have suggested new physics beyond the Standard Model. First measurements from RHIC indicate that its energy density—a measure of the energy deposited in the collision region by the colliding nuclei—is the highest ever achieved in a laboratory and is sufficient to create the long sought quark-gluon plasma, believed to be the state of matter of the universe shortly after the ''Big Bang.'' Fermilab produced the elusive Tau neutrino (the last of the leptons predicted by the Standard Model) and capped a major American achievement: the discovery of all but one of the quarks and leptons in the Standard Model of elementary particles. (The first of the 12, the electron, had been discovered in England in 1897.) Another Fermilab team observed a B meson containing a charmed quark and measured its properties, completing the observations of the predicted family of B mesons, required by the Standard Model. Also at Fermilab, a team of university and laboratory scientists working on the KTeV experiment found the first convincing observation of direct Charge-Parity (CP) violation (manifestation of a subtle lack of perfect symmetry between particles and antiparticles believed responsible for the domination of matter over anti-matter in the modern universe). Physicists using HEP's new BaBar detector at SLAC's B Factory announced their first measurement of CP violation in the B-meson system in FY 2000 and work is continuing to resolve the question of whether CP violation can be fit within the Standard Model. The g-2 experiment at Brookhaven National Laboratory, designed to study magnetic properties of the muon, has obtained the most precise measurement of the muon anomalous magnetic moment that does not appear to agree with the Standard Model, suggesting the possibility of new physics beyond the Standard Model.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE—FY 2002
The Office of Science's FY 2002 budget request provides sustained support to U.S. university and national laboratory researchers working on enormously complex scientific problems that will help to ensure our economic prosperity by advancing the mission of the DOE. The diversity of SC's basic research portfolio, combined with our traditional strengths in the operation of national scientific user facilities and support for multidisciplinary research, will prove vital to our national pursuit of the scientific challenges of FY 2002.
''Genomes to Life'' has the goal of using SC's 15-year investment in research on human and microbial genomes, it's expertise in computational modeling of complex systems, and it's unique suite of scientific facilities, to address DOE missions through a deeper understanding of the structure and function of microbes and microbial communities, and of the impact environmental toxins and radiation on human beings. The Genomes to Life program builds on the Microbial Cell Project, expanding it to (1) include characterization of life's multiprotein molecular machines and the genes' regulatory networks and processes that control those molecular machines; and (2) to include characterization of the overall functional capabilities of microbial communities—groupings of microbes that can work together to perform DOE missions—by understanding the ''community genome'' and how it influences performance.
Microbes have evolved for 3.8 billion years and have colonized almost every environment on Earth. In the process, they have developed an astonishingly diverse collection of capabilities that will help DOE meet its challenges in toxic waste cleanup, energy production, global climate change, and biotechnology. To use these capabilities to address our missions, however, will require the development of new technologies, analytical tools, and modeling capabilities. It will require the talents of academic, nonprofit, and industrial partners, as well as the scientific capabilities of our national laboratories. These capabilities include high-throughput genomic DNA sequencing, microbial biochemistry and physiology, imaging, and structural biology. National user facilities such as synchrotrons will play important roles, as will capabilities in high-performance computing. Interdisciplinary collaborations among biologists, chemists, physicists, engineers, and computer experts will also be critical to this effort.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The ''Genomes to Life'' program has four goals leading to its final objective:
Identifying life's molecular machines, the multiprotein complexes that carry out the functions of living systems;
Characterizing the genes' regulatory networks and processes that control life's molecular machines;
Characterizing the functional repertoire of complex microbial communities in their natural environments; and
Developing computers and other computational capabilities needed to model the complexity of biological systems.
This program has great promise, but faces great challenges. Biological systems, through evolution, have achieved levels of intricacy and subtlety that dwarf the complexity of the 20th Century's most sophisticated engineering feats. The eventual objective of the Genomes to Life program is to use the greatly increased computational capabilities of modern supercomputers to model and understand many of these systems. This promises solutions to many as yet intractable problems in DOE mission areas. For example, M. jannaschii's ability to produce methane may have implications for new fuel generation strategies. Deinococcus radiodurans has potential for cleanup of toxic mixed-waste sites containing radioactive waste, in addition to heavy metals and organic solvents, because it can survive extremely high levels of radiation and repair its own radiation-damaged DNA.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In addition, DOE has a need to protect its workers and the public from the health effects of energy production and use and from the low levels of radiation generated by weapon-related materials at DOE waste sites and those still in use at its laboratories. Because of their genetic makeup, some individuals may have a much greater health risk from exposures to these materials. A detailed understanding of how basic metabolic and regulatory pathways in microbial cells respond to environmental changes may offer insights into similar pathways in human cells. This knowledge can be used to help clarify the biological mechanisms responsible for adverse human responses and to develop the tools needed to identify individuals at greatest risk, information that is a key component of the Low Dose Radiation Research Program.
The search for the Higgs boson and the possibility of physics beyond the Standard Model presents an extraordinary opportunity for the U.S. high energy physics community, which receives 90% of its Federal support from the Office of Science, to demonstrate its continuing leadership in international physics research.
An excellent opportunity exists for U.S. researchers to identify the Higgs boson and measure its properties, which are believed key to understanding the source of mass for quarks and leptons, the fundamental constituents of matter. The Large Electron-Positron Collider (LEP) experimental program at CERN (located in Switzerland) was terminated in November 2000, leaving behind a tantalizing hint of a Higgs boson with a mass of about 115 GeV, within reach of Fermilab's Tevatron accelerator, recently upgraded with the new Main Injector.
With protons and antiprotons colliding head-on at an energy of nearly one trillion electron volts (1 TeV), the Tevatron will be at the world's energy frontier for particle physics during the next five years. In order to find the Higgs, the Tevatron will need to run extensively and to increase its luminosity (and thus its data collection rate) as much as possible. Doing this will require progressive fine-tuning of collider operations and further equipment upgrades to increase luminosity by a factor of ten to be carried out from 2002 to 2004, interwoven with intensive data runs. The data taken in 2005–2007 should then be enough to find the Higgs if its mass is less than 165 GeV. Tevatron data will also give more information about the surprisingly heavy (170 times the mass of the proton) top quark discovered at Fermilab in 1995, and could reveal other important new particles that have been predicted by current theories (for example, supersymmetric particles).
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Why is the universe made of matter instead of a balance of matter and antimatter or nothing at all? This question is being addressed intensively at the new B Factory facility at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory, which is now operating above its design luminosity (or collision rate). The study of CP violation at the B Factory during the next few years will shed light on the mysterious preponderance of matter over antimatter in the universe. However, the B Factory will need a progressive series of small upgrades in order to maximize its productivity.
Discovery and characterization of the quark-gluon plasma is about to be undertaken as the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) begins its first run at full energy and approaches its design luminosity (or collision rate). Over 1,000 scientists, of which about one-half are from 18 foreign countries, participate in research with four detectors at RHIC, a $616.5 million facility (completed within budget and on schedule) located at Brookhaven National Laboratory. They are searching for a new state of nuclear matter, deconfined quarks and gluons, thought to have existed for a few microseconds after the ''Big Bang.'' Discovery of the quark-gluon plasma is eagerly awaited by the physics community, in the hope that it will provide insights into the origin of confinement—why free quarks cannot be observed. The properties of this new state of matter will have far-reaching implications for cosmological theories of the expansion of the early universe.
The collider and detectors were commissioned last year. The subsequent brief run at a reduced energy from its design energy yielded tantalizing results of possible plasma formation, and several papers have already been published reporting on these early results. The discovery and characterization of the quark-gluon plasma is a key element in our understanding of the origin of the universe; a campaign to understand the detailed properties of the plasma is expected to take at least five years. We look forward to the upcoming run this year that will give us the first detailed information in this exciting quest.
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Science at the nanoscale, creating materials and machines one atom at a time, is today's frontier in materials and the life sciences. The triumphs of science in the 20th Century, which benefit all Americans, included the discovery and characterization of the atomic building blocks of matter, of the elementary excitations in materials, and of the fundamentals of chemical reactivity.
We use this knowledge to design, synthesize, and characterize simple molecules and to combine them in a variety of ways to make alloys, ceramics, catalysts and other materials. We are now entering a more complex stage of research where structures can be designed atom-by-atom so that the desired characteristics and chemical reactivity can be predicted and controlled.
The Office of Science is forging a path into the world that Richard Feynman described in his now-famous 1959 lecture, There is Plenty of Room at the Bottom—An Invitation to Enter a New Field of Physics. In it, he challenged his audience to envision a time when materials could be manipulated and controlled on the smallest of scales, when new materials could be fabricated and devices could be designed atom-by-atom. ''In the year 2000,'' he said, ''when they look back at this age, they will wonder why it was not until the year 1960 that anybody began seriously to move in this direction.'' In FY 2001, SC began seriously to move in this direction. In FY 2002, SC will continue to forge ahead—supporting innovative research and the design of centers for nanoscale science.
DOE's missions in science, energy, defense, and environment will benefit greatly from nanoscale research. Nanoscale synthesis and assembly methods, for example, are expected to result in significant improvements in solar energy conversion; more energy-efficient lighting; stronger, lighter materials that will improve efficiency in transportation; greatly improved chemical and biological sensing; use of low-energy chemical pathways to break down toxic substances for environmental remediation and restoration; and better sensors and controls to increase efficiency in manufacturing.
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
But before we can reach the stage where nanoscale science begins producing these kinds of products, the basic researchers supported by the Office of Science must address some of the most formidable scientific questions of our age:
Can we design materials having predictable and, yet, often unusual properties? This will require ''bottoms-up'' atomic and molecular design, the use of nanostructured materials having special properties, novel routes for materials synthesis and processing, and parallel fabrication approaches.
Can we design and construct multicomponent molecular devices and machines having desired properties—optical, mechanical, catalytic, electrical, tribological? We have begun to use molecular building blocks to create self-organized structures. These might form the basis of systems such as nanometer-scale chemical factories, molecular pumps, sensors, and self-assembling electronic/photonic devices.
Can we harness, control, or mimic the exquisite complexity of natural processes? Living organisms represent the most sophisticated use of the chemical processing of basic elements to create materials and functional complexes. Nature's achievements allow us to set goals for the development of materials and systems with incredibly enhanced properties, including the ability to self-assemble, self-repair, sense, respond, and evolve.
Can we develop the tools to visualize and predict phenomena spanning the length scales and time scales of natural phenomena? Spatial scaling involves lengths ranging from that of the atom, to thousands of atoms (molecules), to the bulk phase (organisms) and, finally, to the macroscale (ecosystems). Temporal scaling involves times ranging from those of chemical reactions (femtoseconds) to geologic times (millennia).
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Opening a new frontier in neutron science will be made possible by the commissioning of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), now scheduled for completion in 2006. When completed, SNS will be the world's most powerful accelerator-based, pulsed neutron source, producing 6–10 times more neutrons than any other such source. SNS will be used annually by 1,000–2,000 researchers from academia, national laboratories, and industry.
DOE and its predecessor agencies have been the major supporters of neutron science in the United States since the late 1940s. DOE has served as the prime steward of this field throughout the entire course of its development—from the earliest work of Clifford Shull and E.O. Wollan at ORNL's Graphite Reactor in the 1940s to the Nobel Prize in physics shared by Clifford Shull and Bertram Brockhouse in 1994 for their work on neutron scattering.
The importance of neutron science for fundamental discoveries and strategic research is universally acknowledged, and led France, Germany, Great Britain, Japan and other countries to aggressively pursue neutron science. By the early 1970s, new and upgraded European neutron machines were beginning to appear. This trend continued through the 1980s and 1990s without construction of U.S. counterparts—thus shifting the focus of neutron research away from the U.S. The SNS will reverse this trend and will open new opportunities and capabilities for neutron research to U.S. researchers.
The information that neutrons provide about the hundreds of materials that we use every day has wide ranging impacts on our everyday lives. For example, neutrons can ''see'' light atoms, which are far more difficult or impossible to see with x-ray or electron probes. As a result, chemical companies use neutrons to make better fibers, plastics, and catalysts, and drug companies use neutrons to design drugs with higher potency and fewer side effects.
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Neutrons also possess a tiny magnetic moment, making them one of the best probes for the study of magnetism. Research on magnetism using neutrons has led to higher strength magnets for more efficient electric generators and motors, and to better magnetic materials for magnetic recording tapes and computer hard drives.
Fusion energy research in the United States is managed by SC's Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (FES), which funds virtually all basic research conducted by U.S. scientists in the area of high energy density plasma physics. In addition, FES, in partnership with DOE's Scientific Stockpile Stewardship Program and the National Science Foundation, plays a role in all aspects of basic research in fusion and plasma science.
The major challenge today is to make fusion energy practical by further advancing our scientific understanding of high-temperature plasmas. The current U.S. fusion research effort integrates core capabilities in the national laboratories, universities, and industry and has been restructured to focus on science objectives. A 1999 review by the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board concluded that the fusion challenge will be solved, and they endorsed the restructured fusion energy sciences program.
This science-based approach focuses on achieving a predictive capability based on detailed experimental campaigns, sophisticated modeling, and terascale computing. Dramatic advances in the scientific understanding of fusion plasmas led the National Research Council in 2000 to conclude: ''. . .the quality of the science funded by the U.S. fusion research program in pursuit of a practical power source (the fusion energy goal) is easily on a par with other areas of contemporary physical science.''
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
There are two distinct approaches to producing fusion energy: magnetic fusion energy (MFE) and inertial fusion energy (IFE). In MFE, plasma is confined by a magnetic field and held at the needed density and temperature. The fusion energy produced in a single magnetic confinement fusion experiment has risen by a factor of more than one trillion during the time period when computer speed has risen by a factor of one-hundred thousand. Along with this progress in fusion energy has come a much deeper understanding of the underlying plasma science.
To date, MFE has been the primary subject of research worldwide for fusion energy applications. Consequently, the U.S. program is highly leveraged against the more than $1 billion in magnetic fusion research performed by other nations. MFE research is an international effort in which experimental results are openly shared and in which collaboration on experiments is extensive.
With IFE, powerful lasers of particle beams are focused on a small pellet of fuel for a few billionths of a second. IFE research has been pursued primarily as a key component of the DOE's Scientific Stockpile Stewardship Program. Leveraging off of this large investment is an excellent opportunity for FES because IFE may also present a promising path to practical fusion power.
The science-based approach to fusion offers the U.S. an affordable path to practical fusion energy and is advancing our knowledge of plasma physics and associated technologies, yielding near-term benefits in a broad range of disciplines. Examples include plasma processing of semiconductor chips for computers and other electronic devices, advanced video displays and innovative materials coatings.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Scientific discovery through advanced computing brings together the Office of Science's 50-year investment in mathematics, computation, software development and multidisciplinary research in the quest to develop new tools that can be used by the U.S. research community to solve some of the most complex scientific questions of the 21st Century.
Scientific computing programs and facilities are already essential to progress in many areas of research critical to the nation. Major scientific challenges exist in all SC research programs that only can be addressed through advances in scientific supercomputing—designing materials atom-by-atom, revealing the functions of proteins, understanding and controlling plasma turbulence, designing new particle accelerators, and modeling global climate change, to name just a few.
Extraordinary advances in computing technology in the past decade have set the stage for major advances in scientific computing. Within the next five to ten years, computers 1,000 times faster than today's computers will become available. These advances herald a new era in scientific computing. Using such computers, it will be possible to dramatically extend our exploration of the fundamental processes of nature as well as advance our ability to predict the behavior of a broad range of complex natural and engineered systems.
To exploit this opportunity, these computing advances must be translated into corresponding increases in the performance of the scientific codes used to model physical, chemical, and biological systems. This is a daunting problem. Current advances in computing technology are being driven by market forces in the commercial sector, not by scientific computing. Harnessing commercial computing technology for scientific research poses problems never before encountered in supercomputing, in magnitude as well as in kind. This problem will only be solved by increasing investments in computer software—in research and development on scientific modeling codes, as well as on the mathematical and computing systems software that underlie these codes.
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
During FY 2002, SC will continue a set of coordinated investments that focused on creating a Scientific Computing Software Infrastructure that bridges the gap between advanced computing technologies and its scientific research programs. The SC effort will:
Create the Mathematical and Computing Systems Software to enable the Scientific Challenge Codes to take full advantage of the extraordinary capabilities of terascale computers.
Create the Collaboratory Software Infrastructure to enable geographically-separated scientists to effectively work together as a team, as well as provide electronic access to both facilities and data.
Create a new generation of Scientific Challenge Codes for terascale computers that can address the most critical scientific problems in SC's research programs.
The Scientific Computing Software Infrastructure, along with the upgrades to the hardware infrastructure, will enable laboratory and university researchers supported by the Office of Science to solve the most challenging scientific problems at a level of accuracy and detail never before achieved. These developments will have significant benefit to all of the government agencies that rely on high-performance scientific computing to achieve their mission goals, as well as to the U.S. high-performance computing industry.
Creating the 21st Century scientific and engineering workforce requires educational and training activities that are designed to ensure an adequate supply of talented American scientific, engineering and technical personnel. The Office of Science is uniquely positioned to assist in the creation of this workforce through the offering of research training opportunities at our scientific user facilities and world class national laboratories. During the past five decades, SC and its predecessor organizations have helped train tens of thousands of the best and brightest young students our Nation has produced.
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
An expanded effort in FY 2002 will carry on that legacy of achievement. SC will support undergraduate research internships for undergraduate students from four-year institutions, community college students and pre-service teachers preparing to teach math, science or technology at the K–12 level. In addition, SC will support the work of thousands of graduate students and post-docs who are working side-by-side with DOE researchers on key research projects.
To attract a wider cross section of students, the Department of Energy has entered into a collaboration with the National Science Foundation (NSF). Students participating in NSF undergraduate programs will be encouraged to apply for SC undergraduate research internship opportunities. The partnership with NSF will be expanded in FY 2002.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requires accountability from all Federal programs. SC has always relied upon external peer review, independent construction management review, and regular program reviews to ensure the excellence and relevance of our research portfolio. These effective evaluation tools will continue.
In addition, SC has embraced the recommendations of the National Academy's Committee on Science and Engineering in Public Policy (COSEPUP) report ''Science, Technology and the Federal Government: National Goals for a New Era,'' which calls for the U.S. to maintain a leadership position in key areas of science and to be ''among the world leaders'' in all areas of research. This enables the U.S. to quickly capitalize on breakthroughs in science worldwide. Therefore, the SC will evaluate its programs for scientific excellence, relevance to DOE mission areas, scientific leadership and management excellence. This will be accomplished through a variety of mechanisms, that may include: external review by peers, review of prizes and awards to SC's researchers, citation analysis, and a characterization of the significance and impact of the research as recognized at international conferences and Advisory Committee evaluations.
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
SC is widely recognized for its world-class research and for the construction and operation of major scientific facilities. Demand for these facilities has steadily increased and calls for new or improved facilities greatly exceed budgetary resources. To ensure that the proper balance is maintained between laboratory research and facility operations, and between new and existing facilities, SC relies upon the advice of external Advisory Committees, feedback from facility User Groups, and the results of the merit review process.
Critical to ensuring the excellence, relevance and leadership of SC's research is the human and physical infrastructure that enables world class science. SC will continue to evaluate the health and utility of its laboratory infrastructure through on-site institutional reviews, program reviews, and through merit evaluation. A continuing supply of talented researchers in critical subfields will be ensured through fellowships, support of graduate students Within research grants, and through student use of research facilities.
All four of SC's global scientific performance measures were fully met in FY 2000.
At least 80% of all new research projects supported by SC will be peer reviewed and competitively selected, and will undergo regular peer review merit evaluation. In FY 2000, 96% of new research projects supported by SC were peer reviewed and competitively selected.
Upgrades and construction of scientific user facilities will stay within 10%, on average, of cost and schedule milestones. In FY 2000, construction of scientific facilities were kept within 10%, on average, of cost and schedule milestones.
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The SC scientific user facilities will be operated and maintained so that unscheduled operational downtime will be kept to less than 10%, on average, of total scheduled operating time. In FY 2000, SC scientific user facilities operated, on average, 96% of the scheduled time.
The Office of Science will ensure the safety and health of the workforce and members of the public and the protection of the environment in all SC program activities.
SCIENCE PROGRAMS
ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH
FY 2001 Appropriation—$165.7M; FY 2002 Request—$165.7M(see footnote 11)
The Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program's mission, which is primarily carried out by the Mathematical, Information, and Computational Sciences (MICS) subprogram, is to discover, develop, and deploy the computational and networking tools that enable scientific researchers to analyze, model, simulate, and predict complex physical, chemical, and biological phenomena important to the Department of Energy.
In FY 2002, ASCR will continue to invest in research that advances the next generation of high performance computing and communications tools that are critical to the Department's scientific missions.
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The MICS subprogram will support research in applied mathematics, computer science, electronic collaboratory tools and network research. Competitively selected partnerships will continue to work toward discovering, developing, and deploying key enabling technologies for scientific research. These partnerships, called Integrated Software Infrastructure Centers, play a critical role in providing the software infrastructure that will be used by the Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) applications teams. Other MICS investments include fundamental research in networking and collaboratory tools, partnerships with key scientific disciplines, and advanced network testbeds for electronic collaboration tools.
In FY 2002 the Laboratory Technology Research subprogram will continue to support basic research at SC labs that will advance innovative energy applications.
In FY 2000, a Federally-chartered advisory committee was established for the ASCR program that is charged with providing advice on: promising future directions for advanced scientific computing research; strategies to couple advanced scientific computing research to other disciplines; and the relationship of the DOE program to other Federal investments in information technology research. This advisory committee will play a key role in evaluating future planning efforts.
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES
FY 2001 Appropriation—$991.7M; FY 2002 Request—$1,004.7M
The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program is a principal sponsor of fundamental research for the Nation in the areas of materials sciences and engineering, chemistry, geosciences, and bioscience as it relates to energy. This research underpins the DOE missions in energy, environment, and national security; advances energy related basic science on a broad front; and provides unique user facilities for the scientific community.
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
For FY 2002, a very high priority is the continuation of construction of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) to provide the next-generation, short-pulse spallation neutron source for neutron scattering. The project, which is to be completed in June 2006, is on schedule and within budget.
Enhancing U.S. research in neutron science, in preparation for the commissioning of the SNS, is also a program priority. A common finding among BES Advisory Committee studies has been the importance of establishing a large and well-trained user community by the time the SNS is fully operational in the 2008–2010 timeframe. To this end, funding will be provided for teams of scientists to participate in the development of neutron scattering instruments and for support for the neutron science/scattering programs at the host institutions of the BES facilities. Additional operations funds will be provided to High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) and the Intense Pulsed Neutron Source (IPNS) to ensure that these facilities are available to the scientific community.
In the areas of nanoscale science, engineering, and technology (NSET) research, BES will continue the new research directions initiated in FY 2001 and will explore concepts and designs for Nanoscale Science Research Centers (NSRCs). NSRCs will be user facilities similar in concept to the existing BES major scientific user facilities and collaborative research centers. They will provide unique, state-of-the-art nanofabrication and characterization tools to the scientific community. NSRCs will enable research programs of a scope, complexity, and disciplinary breadth not possible through the support of individual investigators or small groups. Significant partnerships with regional academic institutions and with state governments are anticipated.
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The response of the scientific community to the FY 2001 NSET initiative has been strong. University researchers submitted 745 pre-applications, 313 of which received encouragement letters from BES inviting the submission of fill proposals. The DOE labs were restricted to four field work proposals per laboratory and 46 proposals were received. Proposals were also received for pre-conceptual design of NSRCs from ANL, BNL, LBNL, ORNL, and Sandia/LANL. All proposals will undergo peer review to determine which will be funded in FY 2001.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
FY 2001 Appropriation—$482.5M; FY 2002 Request—$443.0M
The Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program develops the knowledge needed to identify, understand, anticipate, and mitigate the long-term health and environmental consequences of energy production, development, and use.
As the founder of the Human Genome Project, BER will maintain a critical role in the International Human Genome Consortium that includes the National Institutes of Health.
A redirected effort entitled ''Genomes to Life'' will support research and computational tools that will lead to an understanding of complex biological systems. It will incorporate research to develop a comprehensive understanding of the Microbial Cell that will be used to engineer microbes for DOE mission applications such as environmental cleanup. Understanding how complex biological systems respond to their environments also promises the ability to accurately predict the impact of low doses of radiation and environmental toxins on living organisms, including people. In FY 2002, BER microbial research will provide DNA sequences for four additional microbes important in bioremediation, clean energy, global carbon cycling, and human health/low dose radiation research.
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) program will improve the models that track the radiation balance through the atmosphere, including cloud and water vapor effects, to reduce uncertainty in predicting the effect of greenhouse gases on future climates. Carbon cycle and sequestration research will help to assess current carbon sinks and to develop methods of enhancing natural processes for terrestrial and ocean sequestration of carbon. Ecological research will provide data to develop and test robust models to predict the effects of changes in climate and atmospheric composition on important ecological systems and resources.
BER will continue research in environmental bioremediation focusing on research at the Field Research Center in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL), a national scientific user facility provides analytical and experimental capabilities to address the complex scientific barriers to restoring our environment. The EMSL computational facility will upgrade its computing capability by leasing a high performance computer in FY 2002. This will enable the simulation of key environmental and molecular processes.
Medical sciences research will develop advanced technology and instrumentation to image single molecules, genes, cells, organs, and whole organisms in real time with a high degree of precision. These achievements will have a broad impact on biomedicine, in particular the fields of cell and developmental biology and on more accurate medical diagnoses and effective treatments.
The resources of the DOE national labs enable rapid advances in our programs in biophotonics (harnessing light and other forms of radiant energy for new biomedical research tools such as noninvasive diagnostic tools for the early detection of breast cancer), lasers in medicine, biological and chemical sensors, and advanced imaging instrumentation. BER and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have developed a partnership in which the advanced technologies, instrumentation, and computational modeling capabilities developed in the DOE national labs will be applied to specific biomedical problems of high importance in the NIH intramural program. This partnership will benefit both agencies since complex biosensors capable of detecting and discriminating among large classes of biomolecules could be important not only to biology and medicine but also to environmental sensing. Cooperation will facilitate rapid application of advances in the biophysical sciences to solve clinical problems of national importance.
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES
FY 2001 Appropriation—$248.5M; FY 2002 Request—$238.5M(see footnote 12)
The Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program's mission is to advance plasma science, fusion science and technology. The program emphasizes the underlying basic research in plasma and fusion sciences, with the long-term goal of harnessing fusion as a viable energy source. The program centers on the following goals: understanding the physics of plasmas; identification and exploration of innovative and cost effective development paths to fusion energy; and exploration of the science and technology of energy producing plasmas, as a partner in international efforts.
In FY 2002, the program will incorporate the recommendations of reports by the National Research Council, the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board and recommendations of the Fusion Energy Science Advisory Committee.
The FY 2002 FES program includes basic research in plasma science in partnership with NSF, plasma containment research, and investigation of tokamak alternatives along with continued operation of DIII–D, Alcator C–Mod, and the National Spherical Torus Experiment. Research on alternate concepts is pursued to develop a fuller understanding of the physics of magnetically confined plasma and to identify approaches that may improve the economical and environmental attractiveness of fusion.
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The inertial fusion energy activity will continue exploring an alternative path for fusion energy that would capitalize on the major R&D effort in inertial confinement fusion that is carried out by NNSA for stockpile stewardship purposes. Ongoing theory and modeling efforts, aimed at developing a predictive capability for the operation of fusion experiments, will continue as will enabling technology development.
HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
FY 2001 Appropriation—$712.0M; FY 2002 Request—$721.1M(see footnote 13)
The High Energy Physics (HEP) program's mission is to understand energy and matter at a fundamental level by investigating the elementary particles and forces between them. Until the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN is completed in 2006, the U.S. will be the primary center of activity for experimental research in the field of high energy physics. There is the potential for exciting new discoveries, and the program needs to position itself to take advantage of these opportunities.
The HEP program will concentrate on utilizing and upgrading its facilities, including direct support for research scientists. In FY 2002, Fermilab will begin a five-year campaign to discover the Higgs particle (believed key to understanding mass) and other new particles predicted by current theories. The B Factory at SLAC will begin a three-year campaign to make important contributions toward understanding the preponderance of matter over antimatter in the universe.
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
A small HEP program continues at the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS). The muon g-2 experiment recently announced results that showed a higher magnetic strength for the muon than that predicted by the Standard Model. If confirmed, these findings could lead science into exciting new territory beyond the Standard Model.
Appropriately focused support for university and laboratory based physics theory and experimental research will be emphasized in FY 2002. The experimental programs are performed by university (primarily) and laboratory based scientists. These scientists construct, operate, and maintain the detectors and analyze the resulting data as well as train the next generations of scientists.
An important element of the program is successful completion of construction and major capital equipment projects. Continued participation in the LHC is a high priority as is construction of the Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuM1) project at Fermilab and its detector, MINOS. When NuMI/MINOS is completed in FY 2003, it will provide a world-class facility to study neutrino properties and make definitive measurements of masses.
In partnership with NASA, the HEP program will continue two particle astrophysics projects—the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) and the Gamma-Ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST). The experiments are expected to lead to a better understanding of dark matter, high energy gamma ray sources, and the origin of the universe.
Accelerator R&D is essential to the development of the next generation facility as well as to the future of the HEP program. Research continues on accelerator-related technologies aimed at reducing costs and improving performance.
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
NUCLEAR PHYSICS
FY 2001 Appropriation—$360.5M; FY 2002 Request—$360.5M
The mission of the Nuclear Physics (NP) program is to advance our knowledge of the properties and interactions of atomic nuclei and nuclear matter in terms of the fundamental forces and particles of nature.
The NP program is the major sponsor of nuclear physics research in the U.S., providing about 85% of federal support. The program educates and enlarges the Nation's pool of technically trained workers and facilitates the transfer of knowledge and technology.
With the new Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory researchers have a unique opportunity to create and characterize the quark-gluon plasma, a phase of matter thought to have existed in the very early stage of the universe. Initial data from gold-gold collisions have yielded results that show aspects of possible plasma formation; the FY 2001–FY 2002 run will provide the first opportunity to explore this exciting new physics in depth.
New knowledge and insights on how quarks and gluons bind together to make protons and neutrons are being gained using high intensity electron beams from the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. In FY 2002, the G0 Detector, a joint DOE–NSF project, will be completed and will provide an opportunity to map quark contributions to the structure of the nucleon.
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Measurements of the solar neutrino flux by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO), constructed by a collaboration of Canadian, British and U.S. supported scientists in a deep underground nickel mine in Ontario, Canada, will provide first results shortly on the ''appearance'' of oscillations of electron neutrinos into other neutrino flavors. Such evidence would confirm indications that neutrinos have mass, an observation that would force a re-evaluation of the existing Standard Model of particle physics.
The search for new super-heavy elements will continue in FY 2002, focusing on the techniques developed in the recent discovery of elements 116 and 118 at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Future studies will focus on the search for neighboring elements and will work to understand the surprising observation of enhanced stability for these very heavy elements.
In FY 2002, R&D activities will be supported for a proposed Rare Isotope Accelerator (RIA) facility. This facility would produce beams of highly unstable nuclei that can explore the limits of nuclear existence and measure reaction rates. These data are critical to computer modeling of the dynamics of supernovae explosions and other aspects of stellar evolution and to understanding the origins of elements.
MULTIPROGRAM ENERGY LABORATORIES-FACILITIES SUPPORT
FY 2001 Appropriation—$30.2M; FY 2002 Request—$30.2M
The Multiprogram Energy Laboratories-Facilities Support (MEL–FS) program's mission is to support the general purpose infrastructure of the five Office of Science multiprogram national laboratories by finding line item construction to rehabilitate, renovate and replace laboratory and office buildings, utility systems, and other structures. This support helps enable high technology scientific research that is conducted in a reliable, cost effective; and safe manner. Together, these laboratories have over 1,600 buildings (including 500 trailers) with 15.5 million gross square feet of space and an estimated replacement value of over $10 billion. The total DOE and non-DOE research program finding for these laboratories is over $3 billion a year.
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In FY 2002, MEL–FS will support Project Engineering and Design finding for the initiation of three new line item construction projects and construction finding for six ongoing line item construction projects.
The request also supports SC's landlord responsibility at the Oak Ridge Reservation and DOE facilities in the town of Oak Ridge, including Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) at this and two other sites.
ENERGY RESEARCH ANALYSES
FY 2001 Appropriation—$1.0M; FY 2002 Request—$1.3M(see footnote 14)
The mission of the Energy Research Analyses (ERA) program is to evaluate the excellence, relevance and international leadership of DOE research programs and projects. FY 2002 finding will support the development of performance measurement and evaluation tools that are utilized by SC programs and meet the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act.
In addition, the overall value of SC's research efforts will be communicated to the public and other stakeholders, and original research will be conducted into the best management practices of publicly funded science organizations. This research will result in the identification of best practices in the management of science organizations that could be adopted by SC to improve overall management efforts.
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY PROGRAM SUPPORT
FY 2001 Appropriation—$36.4M; FY 2002 Request—$50.5M
The Safeguards and Security (S&S) program mission is to provide an appropriate level of protection of personnel, property, information, and nuclear materials in a technically sound and cost-effective manner. This program ensures that essential S&S services are provided at all SC facilities through a tailored approach according to risk.
The S&S program is concentrating on countering the vulnerabilities of the 21st Century. These vulnerabilities have been identified through program reviews as well as Inspector General (IG) and General Accounting Office (GAO) audits. In FY 2002, S&S funding includes countermeasures for the ever increasing advances in and reliance on computer technologies. This request also supports the upgrading of aging physical security systems. Where applicable, these systems further advance our control of our small but vital national security interests.
The S&S program must maintain a sustained vigilance so that science and technology operations are not adversely effected. The benefits of an effective S&S program include: providing the public with confidence that the taxpayer assets are appropriately protected; a safe work place for employees; adequate protection of user facilities, operations and scientific research data; and an attractive security climate supportive of international collaborations and leading edge scientific projects. The protection of these research programs and projects helps maintain science's critical contribution to American competitiveness and lasting prosperity around the world.
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION
FY 2001 Appropriation—$126.9M; FY 2002 Request—$144.4M(see footnote 15)
The Science Program Direction (SCPD) budget supports three subprograms: Program Direction, Field Operations, and Science Education. Program Direction is the funding source for SC's Federal staff responsible for managing and supporting the scientific disciplines. Field Operations provides funding for the daily operations and administrative functions performed at the Chicago and Oak Ridge Operations Offices that support the departmental programs, projects, laboratories, facilities, and grants under their purview. Science Education sponsors programs designed to promote interest in science, math, engineering and technology fields for college and university students and faculty.
In FY 2002, SC will continue to focus on strategic human capital management and planning with the goal of building and sustaining a talented and diverse workforce. SC needs to attract, recruit and retain highly skilled employees to offset the existing and projected shortfall in the scientific and technical workforce, and to continue to manage its programs in a safe, efficient, and effective manner.
SC will also support the DOE Corporate R&D Portfolio Management Environment (PME) project, that will modernize and streamline the Department's R&D management processes. Process improvements and automation will enable electronic ''cradle-to-grave'' tracking of research projects that are critical to DOE corporate sharing and reporting of energy-related research across programs. In addition, SC will continue to standardize, integrate, and invest in information technology that will improve management processes and promote efficient use of resources among SC Headquarters and Field counterparts, e.g., increase remote accessibility to corporate systems, and enhance cyber security.
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Beginning in FY 2002, funding for safeguards and security functions at the Oak Ridge Operations Office is included in SCPD as part of congressional direction to align such functions with line management.
In FY 2002, the Science Education subprogram will support research experiences at our national labs for a diverse group of competitively selected undergraduate students. In collaboration with the National Science Foundation, an effort is underway to attract a wider cross section of students to this program and a system is being created to document student career paths. In FY 2002, this partnership will be expanded.
The Office of Science also manages and supports the National Science Bowl for high school students from across the country and provides the students and teachers a forum to receive national recognition for their talent and hard work. In FY 2000, Saturday seminars on scientific topics were added to the National Science Bowl weekend. In FY 2002, students participating in the National Science Bowl will be tracked to document the long-term impact on their academic and career choices.
ENERGY SUPPLY R&D PROGRAMS
TECHNICAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
FY 2001 Appropriation—$8.7M; FY 2002 Request—$9.0M
The Technical Information Management (TIM) program leads DOE's e-government initiatives for disseminating information resulting from the Department's R&D programs. The Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) manages the TIM program, providing electronic access to worldwide energy science and technical information to DOE researchers, industry, academia, and the public. The TIM program also coordinates technical information-related activities at sites throughout the DOE complex, which includes developing and implementing information exchange policies and standards; managing a 50-year archive of 1.1 million unclassified and 100,000 classified documents; maintaining a classified information program that collects, preserves and exchanges, in a secure environment, classified, sensitive and limited circulation documents; and serves as DOE's leader in the international exchange of scientific and technical information.
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In FY 2002, the TIM program will make DOE's scientific and technical journal citations, technical reports, and preprints searchable and retrievable through e-government systems.
CLOSING
The FY 2002 budget request for the Office of Science illustrates how long-term research is vitally connected to our Nation's lasting prosperity. Advances in life science, materials science, computation, fusion research, and other scientific disciplines supported by SC have made significant contributions to our economy and our national standard of living during the past 50 years. Future investments in SC-sponsored research at our Nation's universities and national laboratories will provide similar returns during the coming decades.
On behalf of the Administration and the Department, I am pleased to present this budget for the Office of Science and welcome the challenge to deliver results.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer your questions.
BIOGRAPHY FOR JAMES F. DECKER
James F. Decker was appointed the Acting Director of the Office of Science (SC) by the Secretary of Energy on January 3, 2000. He previously served as Acting Director for approximately four years on three separate occasions between April 1987 and November 1993. Since 1985, Dr. Decker has concurrently held the position of Principal Deputy Director of SC.
Page 125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
As Acting Director, Dr. Decker manages an organization that is the third largest Federal sponsor of basic research in the United States and is viewed as one of the premier science organizations in the world. The SC fiscal year 2000 budget of $2.8 billion funds programs in high energy and nuclear physics, basic energy sciences, magnetic fusion energy, biological and environmental research, and computational science. SC, formerly the Office of Energy Research, also provides management oversight of the ten DOE nonweapons laboratories and the Chicago, Oak Ridge, and Oakland Operations Offices.
Dr. Decker has held several other positions within the DOE. In 1973 he joined the Office of Fusion Energy, Office of Energy Research, as a plasma physicist. He subsequently became the Director of the Division of Applied Physics, where he was responsible for all theoretical fusion and basic experimental plasma physics research, the magnetic fusion energy computer network, and evaluation of novel fusion concepts. Dr. Decker later served as a Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of Energy Research, and as the Director of the Scientific Computing staff.
Before joining DOE, Dr. Decker was a physicist at Bell Telephone Laboratories where he conducted research in plasma physics and worked on ion implantation for integrated circuit development.
He received a B.S. degree from Union College in 1962, a M.S. degree from Yale University in 1963, and a Ph.D. in physics, also from Yale University, in 1967.
Dr. Decker has received several awards from DOE as well as two Presidential Meritorious Rank Awards. He also is a member of several high-level domestic and international science policy advisory committees.
Page 126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Dr. Decker was born near Albany, New York. He is married and has two children.
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much. Mr. Sullivan.
STATEMENT OF JOHN SULLIVAN, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, OFFICE OF PLANNING, BUDGET, AND MANAGEMENT
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, Representative Woolsey, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is John Sullivan. I am the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office of Planning, Budget, and Management. Dr. Abraham Haspel, the Acting Director of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, who was scheduled to appear today, is recovering from surgery and was not able to attend.
It is my pleasure to be here today to discuss the Administration's fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy portfolio. 2002 is a transition year for our programs. Our budget supports the Administration's commitment to moderate discretionary spending while meeting critical national needs in energy security and environmental quality. Furthermore, our budget adjusts program requests to refine the department's emissions and to allow the implementation of management strategies to meet future challenges.
Our budget also reflects three Administration themes. First, enhancing energy security, decreasing U.S. reliance on oil imports by increasing technology efficiencies and by increasing domestic renewable energy supplies. Second, enhancing electricity reliability, insuring grid reliability and advancing small scale, on-site power generation, and, third, mitigating energy impacts on low income citizens.
Page 127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In fiscal year 2002 we are requesting $1.32 billion, a decrease of 156 million from fiscal year 2001 funding levels, which if enacted would be the fourth largest budget enacted for EERE in the last 20 years. As Chairman Bartlett stated, we are requesting a $120 million increase for the Weatherization Assistance Program with which we expect to weatherize an additional 48,000 homes.
While we have adjusted the request for some of our R&D programs, we are still maintaining our core competencies and presenting a strong portfolio of R&D activities in fiscal year 2002. Many of our programs such as distributive energy resources, bio-energy, hydrogen, hydropower, electric energy systems, and the renewable energy projection incentive are held at or near fiscal year 2001 levels.
In the interest of time let me highlight a few of the initiatives in our budget that would be of particular interest to the committee. Let me begin with the partnership for a new generation of vehicles. The Administration plans on sending to Congress an amendment to the fiscal year 2002 budget that reduces funding for the PNGV program by $39.176 million. Furthermore, the Administration requests that this amount be redirected primarily through increases in several renewable activities.
This redirection is because during the preparation of the budget it became clear that some of the technologies developed are enhanced by PNGV are already appearing in production of improving the fuel efficiency of selected models of today's cars. In agreement with our industry partners, we will shift emphasis to a more long-term component-oriented research portfolio that is aimed at overcoming fundamental obstacles to delivering technologies that offers the greatest benefits.
Page 128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Second, we are requesting $81.9 million for biomass biofuels which supports collaborative research and development to improve our Nation's ability to reduce its dependency on foreign petroleum imports while improving our rural economy through the greater use of biomass material. Biomass activities focuses primarily on three distinct elements, biopower, biofuels, and bio-based products.
Third, Mr. Chairman, we are requesting funding for hydrogen research at the fiscal year 2000 level of $26.8 million. As you know, the hydrogen program authorized by the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996 and it directs the Secretary to conduct a program in research, development, and demonstration of non-hydrogen as an energy cure and fuel and accelerate its commercialization. I am pleased to report we are making progress in our hydrogen research.
Key milestones for the engineering validation of several renewable fuel systems are expected to be reached by 2005. By 2010 with sustained funding we expect to validate distributed hydrogen refueling stations. Fourth, Mr. Chairman, our high temperature super conductivity program is bringing scientific breakthroughs through practical use in electrical power equipment.
This is advancing the first major innovations in the electric power field in over a century and offers important energy, environmental, and economic benefits. We are requesting that our high temperature super conducting program be funded at the fiscal year 2001 level of $36 million. In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me turn to my comment concerning our core competencies. The funds requested for the solar, wind, geothermal buildings and industrial research programs are approximately half of last year's request.
Page 129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I want to assure you that the Administration continues to support the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's mission of advancing clean energy technologies including energy efficiency, renewable energy, and natural gas, and believes these technologies will play an increasingly critical role in securing our energy future, improving our environment, and maintaining our economic growth.
The request maintains our core competency so that later budgets can respond to the recommendations from Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I will be happy to respond to any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Haspel follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ABRAHAM E. HASPEL
Chairman Bartlett, Ms. Woolsey and members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure to be here today to discuss the Administration's FY 2002 budget request for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. FY 2002 is a transition year for our programs. Our budget supports the Administration's commitment to moderate discretionary spending while meeting critical national needs in energy security and environmental quality. Furthermore, our budget adjusts program requests to refine the Department's missions, and to allow the implementation of management strategies that will meet future challenges.
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's budget also reflects three Administration themes: first, enhancing energy security—decreasing U.S. reliance on oil imports by increasing technology efficiencies and by increasing domestic renewable energy supplies; second, enhancing electricity reliability—ensuring grid reliability and advancing small-scale, on-site power generation; and third, mitigating impacts on our low-income citizens. While we have adjusted the requests for some of our programs, we are still presenting a strong portfolio of R&D activities in FY 2002. Many of our programs such as Distributed Energy Resources, bioenergy, hydrogen, hydropower, electric energy systems, the Renewable Energy Production Incentive are held at or near FY 2001 levels.
Page 130 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The beginning of this decade has already borne witness to the impending energy problems that face our nation and this planet. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's mission of advancing clean energy technologies, including energy efficiency and renewable energy, will play an increasingly critical role in securing our energy future, improving our environment and maintaining our economic growth. EERE leads the nation in the research, development and demonstration of affordable, advanced energy efficiency and renewable energy technology and practices.
Mr. Chairman, in my testimony today, I plan to cover the following areas. First, I will discuss energy trends that have emerged over the last decade and how they will drive great change into the next decade. Second, I will speak about specific recent events that highlight the energy problems facing our nation. Finally, I will highlight the FY 2002 budget request (as amended), $1.032B, specifically as it outlines the EERE programs within the jurisdiction of this subcommittee.
The Administration plans to send an FY 2002 budget amendment to the Congress that reduces funding of $39.176M from the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program and increases several renewable activities. More detailed information is included in the following budget tables and in the text of my statement.
Recently, the electricity situation in California and other western states have highlighted the effects of low capacity margins for electricity generation. Additionally, the National Electricity Reliability Council predicts that over 35 states will be operating with capacity margins under 10 percent by the year 2009. Another data point in the emerging energy crisis comes from the petroleum product price spikes in the Midwest and northeast last summer. I would offer that the results of our program like: superconducting wires, distributed power generation, and biofuels for cars and trucks, represent government programs that might make a difference. The federal government remains committed to helping develop renewable energy technologies to help relieve these problems.
Page 131 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Our energy efficiency programs also have a substantial impact on our Nation's Energy Security, our Aging Energy Infrastructure, the Economy, and our Environmental Quality. For example, buildings account for more than one-third of energy consumption in the U.S., including two-thirds of all electricity generated. DOE aims to accelerate the introduction of highly-efficient technologies and practices through R&D. Our building sector programs improve building quality, reduce construction wastes, help revitalize the communities they serve, and save the taxpayers money. For example, while DOE programs fostered hundreds of innovations, five technologies alone—electronic ballasts, flame retention oil head burners, supermarket refrigerator compressors, low-e windows and building design software—saved four times as much money as DOE invested in all its energy efficiency programs over the past 20 years.
The Industry sector is the nation's largest energy consumer, accounting for 38 percent of all U.S. energy use. By developing and adopting more energy-efficient technologies, industry can boost productivity and competitiveness and improve the environment. Through our Industries of the Future program, DOE helps industry develop and apply advanced, energy-efficient technologies and processes.
DOE Transportation programs provide support for research, development, and deployment programs, which will reduce oil consumption by achieving significant improvements in vehicle fuel economy, as well as the displacement of oil by other clean and cost-competitive domestic fuels.
Furthermore, our Office of Power Technologies is leading research efforts to significantly improve energy reliability and power quality through the use of on-site distributed energy resources that reduce energy losses and increase stability of the national grid. Moving energy supplies closer to the point of end-use provides advantages in: load management, power quality, high efficiency and reliability. This can be important in regions where the national grid is under stress.
Page 132 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Finally, Mr. Chairman, my statement does not include a discussion of the Federal Energy Management Program ($13.3M), the Weatherization Assistance program ($273.0M) or the State Energy Program ($38.0M) as it is my understanding that those programs are not within the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee. Nevertheless, I would point out that the increase in our weatherization program is just the first installment of a ten-year commitment by Administration to provide $1.4B for the program that will result in an additional hundreds of thousands of low-income homes weatherized. However, I have included these programs in the budget tables to reflect the totality of our FY 2002 budget request to the Congress.
FY 2002 BUDGET REQUEST
EERE is divided into five programs that focus efforts on specific sectors of the energy economy: buildings, transportation, industry, power and the federal government as an energy user. The field operations for EERE programs are carried out by the Golden Field Office in Colorado, and in six Regional Offices.
The FY 2002 budget request for EERE programs within the Subcommittee's jurisdiction is $708,158,000, a decrease of $264,223,000 from FY 2001 enacted levels.
The following tables provide details of our FY 2002 budget request. The sections following the tables describe ongoing programs and our FY 2002 budget request in the areas of building technologies, industrial technologies, transportation technologies, power technologies and management.
Page 133 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
72196r3.eps
72196s3.eps
RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES
Biomass/Biofuels and the Bioenergy Research and Development Initiative ($81.9M)
The Bioenergy Initiative provides an integrated framework for collaborative research and development to improve our Nation's ability to not only convert biomass into electric power, heat, and clean liquid transportation fuels, but also extract high-value biobased industrial materials such as chemicals, plastics, and building materials.
Developing this ''home-grown'' resource with multiple applications can provide significant near term benefits to many sectors of our economy, contributing to a healthier, more robust rural economy; improved environmental quality; and reduced oil imports. Our biomass activities in the Energy and Water Development account focus on two distinct elements: Biopower, which co-fires biomass with coal or gasifies biomass material that is combusted to generate power; and Biofuels, which converts agricultural products to ethanol. Combined, these core activities provide the underpinnings of our national effort to more effectively utilize a vast domestic resource. With the strong support from industry, government, academia, and the national laboratories, we believe that biomass holds great promise to help meet our future energy needs.
Biopower Systems ($37.8M)
Page 134 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Biomass Power Systems Program works towards making biopower systems a significant contributor to the U.S. energy market by 2010, through collaboration with the private-sector and other Federal agencies, and by providing power in a variety of settings, including utility and distributed applications. Biomass systems promise to help meet our national energy needs, while simultaneously strengthening conventional energy security, protecting our environment, and improving our rural economy. To meet these objectives, biopower R&D involves a combination of near-term, mid-term, and long-term activities. Biopower activities fall within five categories: Thermochemical Conversion ($4.0M); Systems Development ($26.6M); Feedstock Production ($3.5M); Regional Energy Biomass program ($1.2M); and Bioenergy ($2.5M).
Thermochemical Conversion. This effort conducts basic and applied research, testing, and feasibility studies in the areas of biomass combustion and biomass gasification to provide the foundation for advanced and improved technology. Experimental research is conducted in the areas of biomass combustion and co-firing as well as on the coupling of biomass conversion devices to power generation equipment, including engines, gas turbines and fuel cells. Analytical studies are also conducted on the cost, performance, economic potential, and life-cycle emissions of existing, novel, and competing power generation technologies. In FY 2002, the program will add research efforts that support systems integrated research and modeling efforts of gasification, including gas cleanup and conditioning.
Systems Development. Within Systems Development the programs focuses on Co-firing with Coal, Biomass Power for Rural development, Small Modular Biopower and Gasification R&D.
Page 135 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Our co-firing activities will continue developing co-firing coal and biomass by exploring advanced technologies that enhance system reliability, performance, and efficiencies including work with municipalities and rural electric cooperatives. Performance is monitored and verified by analyzing initial co-firing and feedstock production trials and establishing operation and maintenance protocols.
Biomass Power for Rural Development activities include the New York Salix Willow project that will produce 30–40 MW of generating capacity through co-fired applications, and the Iowa Chariton Valley Switchgrass project that will utilize up to 50,000 acres of switchgrass dedicated to co-firing operations. Performance will be measured by completing two Biomass Power for Rural Development projects with more than 50 MW of new biomass power generating capacity.
The Small Modular biopower program continues its efforts to research and develop systems that integrate small scale gasifiers with advanced power generating components such as internal combustion (IC) engines, microturbines and fuel cells. Performance will be measured through field verification R&D of systems that are being developed under current contracts. This effort will be expanded to include other feedstocks, to increase the flexibility, applicability and reliability of these systems.
The Vermont Gasifier R&D project has been completed and the technology is being commercialized by the contractor (FERCO). Efforts will now focus R&D on technologies that produce product gas from a broad range of biomass feedstocks. These efforts will focus on gas production, hot gas cleanup, gas preparation, and innovative and productive uses of gasifier waste streams. This R&D will form the basis for future bio-refinery development.
Page 136 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Feedstock Production. This program focuses on research to improve yields and reduce handling costs of herbaceous and woody crops produced on farms. We will continue efforts to create tools for evaluating viability of multiple bioenergy technologies, with an emphasis on Biopower, and their impact on feedstock demand. Performance will be measured by developing 3 high-yield willow clones which increase yields by at least 20 percent. A slight increase in FY 2002 will be used to fund an assessment of the effects of variability in soil type and climate on feedstock characteristics relevant to combustion and gasification systems and on soil carbon sequestration processes, as well as yield variability.
Regional Energy Biomass Program. The activity sponsors grants to State Energy Offices that enable technology transfer and industry support of activities to expand the near-term use of biomass conversion technologies and provide reliable information to potential biomass users. This funding continuation will sponsor grants to State Energy Offices and local industries for biomass power projects as well as to complete the integration of biomass resource assessments.
Biofuels Systems ($44.8M)
This is discussed under the Transportation Technologies portion of my statement.
Geothermal Energy Technology Development ($13.9M)
The Geothermal Technology Development Program works in partnership with U.S. industry to establish geothermal energy as an economically competitive contributor to the U.S. energy supply. The Program sponsors research and development that will help the United States realize substantial economic, environmental, and energy security benefits. Technology improvements will reduce the levelized cost of generating geothermal power to 3 to 5 cents/kWh by 2010, as compared to 5 to 8 cents/kWh in 2000.
Page 137 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In helping to meet the priority needs of industry, the Program will focus primarily on exploration and drilling research. Better understanding of geothermal processes and improved analytical methods of exploration will enable industry to locate and characterize new geothermal fields. Advanced technology for drilling wells will provide access to deeper resources while lowering costs, thereby expanding the economic resource base. Program goals will be achieved with a balanced strategy of technology improvements in partnership with industry on cost-shared, competitively-selected projects.
The Geothermal program is divided into three activities: Geoscience and Supporting Technologies ($3.5M), Exploration and Drilling Research ($6.9M), and Energy Systems Research and Testing ($3.5M).
Geoscience and Supporting Research. Two activities are funded within this category: Core Research and University Research. Within the Core Research program, the Department will continue to investigate complex natural geothermal processes and develop technology to facilitate producing geothermal resources in an economical manner. Research activities include improving reservoir models, studying fracture dynamics, developing tracers, and conducting geochemical research. The funding provides for a continuation of projects in reservoir management that promise to give industry reliable tools for reservoir analysis and production. Our University Research efforts will focus on earth science at studies universities to expand the geothermal knowledge base. Knowledge gained from this work will result in new and improved technology that will help meet cost goals. The decrease in funding reflects the completion, or termination, of multi-year grant awards and a realignment of project activities to complement core research. No funding is requested in FY 2002 for Enhanced Geothermal Systems.
Page 138 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Exploration and Drilling Research. We will continue cost-shared exploration projects initiated with industry in FY 2000 to find and confirm new geothermal resources within the United States. We will also continue to conduct geophysical, geological, and geochemical exploration research. Work will continue on developing new drilling components, such as the Diagnostics-While-Drilling subsystem, for integration into an Advanced Drilling System that will reduce the cost of drilling geothermal wells by up to 50 percent, from $300 per foot in 2000 to $150 per foot by 2008.
Energy Systems Research and Testing. Advanced heat and power systems activities seek to improve technology in heat conversion and power systems for application to a broad range of geothermal resources and environmental conditions. The subactivity involves laboratory research on innovative systems, including heat exchangers, air-cooled condensers, and other components, for both low and high temperature applications. The reduction in funding stems from the completion of work on advanced heat cycles and some condenser studies. Finally, no funding has been requested for the Geopowering the West initiative. FY 2001 efforts will be completed and information accumulated will be shared with the public.
Hydrogen Research ($26.9M)
The Hydrogen Program includes research and validation projects for the development of safe, cost-effective hydrogen energy technologies that support and foster hydrogen energy as an integral part of the energy economy. To enable a future that includes hydrogen energy, four strategies are pursued that will provide benefits in efficiency, environment and economy. (1) Expand the use of hydrogen by working with industry, including hydrogen producers, to improve efficiency, lower emissions, and lower the cost of technologies that produce hydrogen from natural gas. (2) Work with fuel cell manufacturers to develop hydrogen-based electricity storage and generation systems that will enhance the introduction and penetration of distributed, renewables-based utility systems. (3) Continue to coordinate with the Department of Transportation and EERE's Office of Transportation Technologies to demonstrate safe and cost-effective fueling systems for hydrogen vehicles in urban non-attainment areas and to provide on-board hydrogen storage systems. (4) Work with the National Laboratories to lower the cost of technologies that produce hydrogen directly from sunlight and water. The Hydrogen program is divided into three activities: Core Research and Development ($14.8M); Technology Validation ($9.0M); and Analysis and Outreach ($3.1M).
Page 139 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In FY 2002 our emphasis in the Core Research and Development Program will be on thermal processes that improve the efficiency and lower the cost of fossil-based and biomass-based hydrogen production processes to achieve $12–15 per million Btu for (5000 psi) pressurized hydrogen when reformers are mass produced; on photolytic processes that support research into biological systems and advanced semi-conductors which will directly split water to hydrogen and oxygen; on storage activities to develop and demonstrate safe and cost-effective storage systems for use in stationary distributed electricity generation and for stationary and vehicle applications in urban non-attainment areas; and utilization which is developing a technology blue print for new building codes and equipment standards for hydrogen technologies. By 2005, we expect to meet key milestones for engineering validation of several reversible fuel cell systems.
We will perform Technology Validation activities that include installing and operating a biomass to hydrogen conversion system as well as installing and testing an integrated wind/reversible hydrogen fuel cell system incorporating hydrogen storage. An important outcome of these activities is to confirm their economic viability in remote and distributed applications. In order to understand the requirements and operation, by 2010, we expect to validate distributed hydrogen refueling systems for hydrogen electric vehicles in collaboration with state and local governments. The fueling system will show the use of high pressure storage systems. We will also explore hydrogen use in distributed energy systems.
Hydropower ($5.0M)
Working with industry and other Federal agencies, the Hydropower Program's R&D activities support the development of a new generation of more environmentally-friendly hydropower turbines. Current hydropower technology, while essentially emission-free, can have undesirable environmental effects, such as fish injury and mortality from passage through turbines, as well as detrimental changes in the quality of dissolved gases in downstream water. Advanced hydropower turbine technology could minimize these adverse effects and help preserve the Nation's ability to generate electricity from an important renewable resource. FY 2002 activities will focus on Biologically-Based Criteria Development, Advanced Turbine Pilot-Scale Testing, Low-Head/Law Power Testing and Mini-Hydro Research and Development.
Page 140 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Solar Energy Programs ($42.9M)
The FY 2002 funding request for the Solar Energy Programs (Concentrating Solar Power, Photovoltaics, and Solar Buildings) is $42.9M. The program supports R&D that improves the performance and reliability while reducing the cost of solar technologies that can harness the sun's energy. With their inherent flexibility and scalability, the solar programs support a tremendous range of applications including large-scale power production, on-site electricity generation, and thermal energy for space heating and hot water.
Concentrating Solar Power ($1.9M)
This funding request provides for program close-out costs. After the installation and checkout of the 25 kW dish system at the University of Nevada has been completed, all program activities will be terminated.
Photovoltaics ($39.0M)
The Photovoltaics program is divided into three activities: Fundamental Research($9.4M); Advanced Materials ($20.1M); and Technology Development ($9.5M).
Fundamental Research. Within this account we will continue research to identify efficiency-limiting defects and advance the fundamental understanding of both PV materials and devices using state-of-the-art characterization techniques. We will continue university and industrial research in response to competitive solicitation issued in FY 2000 for basic R&D on breakthrough, non-conventional PV technologies (Beyond the Horizon) and conduct research and analysis that improves the understanding of fundamental properties and performance of crystalline silicon, thin film materials and novel materials and cell devices. We will reduce High Performance Initiative to focus only on contracts that can lead to higher efficiency thin film technologies and will postpone contracts and research on 33 percent concentrator systems.
Page 141 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Advanced Materials. We will re-compete the Thin Film Partnership Program in FY 2002 and fund industry cost shared contracts that address near term advancements. Support will continue on high efficiency devices and silicon crystal growth methods but with a reduced emphasis. We will fully fund the 3-year cost shared contracts for a new competitive solicitation to develop in-situ process diagnostics and intelligent processing needed for integrated module manufacturing scale-up. All contracts will have 50 percent cost sharing. The Advanced Manufacturing R&D activity will focus on high throughput large area thin films and next generation high efficiency thin wafer silicon technologies.
Technology Development. All manufacturing R&D and PVMT activities under Technology Development will be completed in FY 2001. These cost-shared contracts achieved manufacturing cost reductions of 50 percent from 1996 levels. More advanced R&D activities are being funded in Advanced Materials and Devices. The systems and reliability activity will refocus its efforts on the critical need to improve reliability of the entire PV system, including balance-of-system components such as inverters. This effort also supports development of standards and codes, and procedures for certifying performance of commercial systems. No funding is requested for the Million Solar Roofs program in FY 2002. Commitments for installation of nearly a million ''roofs'' have already been received. This activity will be privatized in FY 2002.
Solar Building Technology Research ($2.0M)
In our Space Conditioning and Water Heating activity, we will build and field test prototypes of a low-cost solar water heater, utilizing newly-developed polymers, in collaboration with industrial partners.
Page 142 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Wind Energy Systems ($20.5M)
The FY 2002 funding request for the Wind Energy Systems Program is $20.5M. The program helps the United States attain the substantial economic, environmental, and energy security benefits of expanding the domestic and worldwide use of wind energy, and of fostering a world-class, domestic wind energy industry. The Program focuses on completing the research, testing, and field verification needed by U.S. industry to fully develop advanced wind energy technologies, and on coordinating with partners and stakeholders to overcome barriers to wind energy use. Over the last decade, wind has shown high promise for becoming a major supply of low cost, clean energy in the United States. However, wind is still contributing only a small fraction of its potential and faces many challenges to becoming a substantial contributor to U.S. energy supply, particularly in dynamic restructured markets for electric power. As a result of increased U.S. wind energy development, industry, states, and stakeholder partners are becoming more active in supporting activities to facilitate further introduction of wind energy. The Wind Energy program has three components: Applied Research ($8.4M); Turbine Research ($7.5M) and Cooperative Research and Testing ($4.6M).
Applied Research. Continue research efforts in wind turbine aerodynamics, structures, materials, advanced components, and wind characteristics to support development of new or improved tools for advanced wind energy system design and applications, with a focus on enabling low wind speed turbine technology. Performance measures in FY 2002 will include completion of one year of data collection under the Long-Term Inflow and Structures Test and completion of design code validation using wired tunnel test data obtained in FY 2000. Reduced funding for FY 2002 follows from completion of advanced control systems field testing and several activities for refinement and validation of design codes in FY 2001.
Page 143 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Wind Partnerships for Advanced Component Technologies (WindPACT). Conclude wind turbine system scaling analyses and prepare final reports. As a result of expanded industry interest and research capabilities, transition advanced drive train and rotor blade projects to industry partners. Prototype testing for a sub-scale advanced drive train system and proof of concept blade fabrication processes will commence at the end of FY 2002.
Turbine Research. Our activities in the Next Generation Turbine research will focus on completing design and begin fabrication of final prototype turbines. Funding is decreased as industry partners begin assuming higher share of project costs. The Low Wind Speed Turbine activity is the follow on from the FY 2001 Advanced Turbine Concepts activity. In coordination with the outcome of the WindPACT project, we will complete Advanced Turbine Concepts studies initiated in FY 2001 to identify promising technology path(s) leading to cost-effective wind turbines for sites with annual average wind speeds of 13 miles per hour. Two industry partners will be competitively selected to continue WindPACT component technology research efforts and to commence a multi-year effort to develop cost-effective low wind speed turbines.
Cooperative Research and Testing. FY 2002 funding will support laboratory testing and design review services in support of the U.S. wind turbine certification agent. We will continue to operate the National Wind Technology Center facilities at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and provide testing support to industry. In our Regional Field Verification activities we will complete development activities and commence field operation of projects selected in FY 2001, and provide technical, data collection, analysis, and reporting support to cost-sharing project hosts. Project development reports will be completed by the end of FY 2002.
Page 144 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Electric Energy Systems and Storage ($51.7M)
The request is $51.7M, level with FY 2001 appropriations. The program is divided into three activities: High Temperature Superconducting R&D ($36.8M); Energy Storage Systems ($6.0M); and Transmission Reliability ($8.9M). The Electric Energy Systems and Storage programs conduct research and development of advanced technologies to enhance the reliability of electric power transmission and distribution and to significantly improve efficiency, reliability, capacity, and power quality of electric generation, delivery, and end-use in the United States. Energy Storage and Transmission Reliability program goals are to develop energy storage facilities with an energy density greater than 5kWh per square foot at a cost below $700/kWh; and improving the reliability of electric power generation and distribution system through the integration and interconnection of distributed energy resources (at least 20 percent of new installed capacity by 2012) and integrating real time measurement and control networks throughout the grid. The FY 2002 request is $513M, level with FY 2001 appropriations.
The successful, industry-led, Superconductivity Partnership Initiative supports aggressive projects to design advanced electrical applications such as generators, transformers, motors, transmission cables, current controllers, flywheel energy systems, and magnetic separation systems. The industry-led Second Generation Wire Development exploits breakthroughs at national laboratories that promise unprecedented current-carrying capacity in high-temperature superconducting wires. Several industry teams are now working with the national laboratories to scale-up the new discoveries. The strategic research component, led by the national laboratories, provides the underlying knowledge base needed for the success of these superconductivity projects. The goal of high-temperature superconductivity is to reduce energy losses by half and provide equipment half the size of current systems by 2010 through the use of high temperature superconducting wires to create super efficient generators, transformers, and transmission cables.
Page 145 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
DOE's Energy Storage and Transmission Reliability are part of a portfolio of Distributed Energy Resources activities that work together to implement DER technology deployment strategies that address standards making, infrastructure, energy delivery, technical, institutional, and regulatory needs. Transmission Reliability research develops real-time measurement and control networks, and electric system models and tools. This research ensures reliable and efficient grid operations and markets while integrating distributed energy in the competitive marketplace. It also removes technical, regulatory and institutional barriers and develops interconnection standards for deployment of DER near the potential users. Energy Storage Systems funds the design of integrated systems, research on advanced storage components, and development of economic and performance models. The Department partners with EPRI, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), the American Public Power Association (APPA), the electricity industry, National Laboratories and universities to implement research and development activities.
High Temperature Superconducting R&D. The High Temperature Superconductivity (HTS) R&D program investigates the properties of crystalline materials that become free of electrical resistance at the temperature of liquid nitrogen. The lack of electrical resistance makes possible electrical power systems, super-efficient generators, transformers, and transmission cables, that reduce energy losses by half and allow equipment to be half the size of present electrical systems. Electrical wires from high temperature superconductivity ceramic materials will carry 100 times the amount of electricity compared to the same diameter conventional copper wires. Three activities comprise the High Temperature Superconducting R&D program: Superconductivity Partnership Initiative; the Second Generation Wire Initiative; and Strategic Research.
Page 146 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Superconductivity Partnership Initiative funding provides for field testing and evaluation of cost-shared, competitively selected, major projects with industry to develop electrical systems demonstrating advances in efficiency and reliability from use of the latest high temperature superconducting wire.
Energy Storage, together with other distributed energy resources, provides the high nines of reliability required by the digital economy, telecommunication, and high tech manufacturing. While today's grid can at best give 3 nines of reliability, energy storage provides seamless power during micro outages, voltage sags, and frequency disturbances. Such disturbances are estimated to cost U.S. industry up to $150 billion per year. Energy storage systems, backed up by distributed generation, are the cost effective way to provide required reliability for the consumer. FY 2002 funding of $5.9M is at last year's levels.
Transmission Reliability. Transmission Reliability will be implemented through National laboratory/electricity industry/university partnerships to conduct research on the reliability of the Nation's electricity infrastructure. Power System Reliability will develop advanced transmission technologies that promote competitive markets, ensure system reliability, increase network capacity for large scale, long distance power transfers, and promote the large scale integration of distributed energy resources into power system operations and competitive electricity markets. FY 2002 funding of $8.9M is at last year's levels.
Renewable Support and Implementation ($9.5M)
Page 147 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Renewable Support and Implementation line item is comprised of several programs submitted in prior year budgets as separate line items: Departmental Energy Management; International Renewable Energy Program; Renewable Energy Production Incentive Program; Renewable Indian Energy Resources; and Renewable Program Support. These programs collectively encourage the use of renewable energy technologies by state and local governmental entities, internationally in developing countries worldwide, non-profit electric cooperatives, residents in remote areas of the U.S. not served or under-served by the electric grid, and Native Americans both on Tribal lands and at Tribal colleges and universities. Renewable Support also includes activities which promote the use of renewable technologies, improved energy efficiency measures, and better management of utility costs at Department of Energy facilities throughout the country.
Departmental Energy Management Program (DEMP). The FY 2002 request is $1.0M. The Departmental Energy Management Program is administered by the Federal Energy Management Program's (FEMP) Departmental Utility and Energy Team (DUET). DUET targets FEMP services at DOE facilities to improve energy and water efficiency, promote renewable energy use, and manage utility costs in DOE's facilities and operations.
International Renewable Energy Program. Our FY 2002 request for the International Renewable Energy Program (IREP) is $2.5M. The program supports diplomatic and technical assistance efforts to encourage the use of renewable energy technologies in economies in transition and developing countries worldwide.
Renewable Energy Production Incentive. Our FY 2002 request for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive is $4.0M, equal to current levels. This program encourages state and local governmental entities (usually public power electric utilities) and non-profit electric cooperatives to acquire renewable energy generation resources by providing financial incentives comparable to production tax incentives or investment tax credits that are available to private sector power generators.
Page 148 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Renewable Indian Energy Resources. No funding is being requested for the Indian Renewable Energy Resources Program.
Renewable Program Support. The FY 2002 request is $2.0M. The Competitive Solicitation Program obtains, analyzes, and disseminates essential cost and operational information needed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of renewable energy projects, as well as to remove the perceptions of risk in selecting renewable energy and hybrid renewable energy generation systems for use in the competitive power market. The Electricity Restructuring activity provides Federal and State officials unbiased technical assessments of utility restructuring issues relating to energy efficiency and renewable energy. As the only national effort, the mission of the restructuring program is to work with states and the electric power industry to either maintain or expand energy efficiency and renewable energy, whether in states that have chosen to restructure their electric markets, or those that have not.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) ($5.0M)
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) leads the nation toward a sustainable energy future by developing renewable energy technologies, improving energy efficiency, advancing related science, and engineering, and facilitating technology commercialization. NREL's research efforts cover nearly 50 areas of scientific investigation including photovoltaics, wind energy, biomass-derived fuels and chemicals, energy-efficient buildings, advanced vehicles, solar manufacturing, industrial processes, solar thermal systems, hydrogen fuel cells, superconductivity, geothermal, and waste-to-energy technologies. Many of NREL's research achievements have been ranked among the Nation's most significant technical innovations by R&D Magazine, Discover, and Popular Science.
Page 149 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The funds requested support NREL's infrastructure needs including necessary repairs, maintenance, calibration, equipment replacement, new construction, and facility modifications. These expenditures protect the Federal Government's investment and support of the domestic renewable energy industry. In addition, the FY 2002 budget request includes for the first time, facility project engineering design (PED) funding as directed in the FY 2001 Energy and Water Development conference report. The envisioned Science and Technology Facility in Golden, CO is intended to relieve overcrowding at NREL's current Solar Energy Research Facility (SERF). That structure was designed for 160 persons, but now is accommodating over 200 researchers. A lack of space is limiting participation by visiting professionals, industrial partners, and students at SERF. This overcrowding is also damaging worker productivity and discouraging the retention of high quality staff.
BUILDING TECHNOLOGY, STATE AND COMMUNITY PROGRAMS
As living standards continue to increase, Americans demand more energy to power an ever increasing array of products and labor saving devices in our homes, schools, and workplaces.
In the U.S., buildings account for more than one-third of the annual energy consumption, including two-thirds of all electricity consumed.
Americans spend approximately $240 billion per year to heat, cool, light, and run equipment and appliances in residential and commercial buildings. Adoption of energy-efficient buildings technologies and practices resulting from EERE's buildings programs could save approximately 1 quadrillion Btus annually by 2010. The investment in these energy efficiency improvements are estimated to save approximately $6 billion annually by 2010.
Page 150 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Building energy efficiency programs address our Nation's escalating building energy consumption, while improving the office building environment and worker productivity, as well as the affordability of homes.
Building Research and Standards ($32.3M)
Building Research and Standards develops, implements, and coordinates R&D that improves the energy efficiency of building components and then uses system design and regulatory activities to integrate these components into building energy systems.
Buildings Research and Standards is comprised of three EERE programs: the Residential Buildings Integration Program, the Commercial Buildings Integration Program, and Equipment, Materials, and Tools Program. In addition, Technology Road Maps & Competitive R&D activities are used to inform and guide the three referenced programs.
The request for the Technology Road Maps and. Competitive R&D program is $857,000. The implementation phase of existing road maps will continue to be coordinated with industry partners, and completed road maps for all areas will continue to be disseminated to participants, stakeholders, and the public.
In partnership with homebuilders, industry, States, and communities, the Residential Buildings Integration Program improves the energy efficiency in new and existing homes through R&D, demonstrations, and regulatory strategies. A significant element of the R&D program is making homes more energy efficient and environmentally sound at little or no additional cost. The request for the Residential Buildings Integration program is $7.5M. This program works with industry to jointly fund, develop, demonstrate, and deploy housing that integrates energy-efficient technologies. Building America will reduce the number of homes directly associated with the program from 1,500 to 850. The program will continue to support residential integration activities at a reduced level.
Page 151 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The request for the Commercial Buildings Integration program is $2.5M. This program works to realize energy-saving opportunities during the construction and major renovation of commercial buildings. Late in FY 2002, Commercial Buildings Integration will begin emulation of the public/private partnership successes of the residential buildings-oriented Building America Program. Accordingly, the Commercial Buildings Integration Program will work with competitively solicited industry groups on cost-shared projects that accelerate the development and adoption of new building technologies and practices. Regulatory activity will focus on the FY 2003 update of the International Energy Code Council's commercial building code. Research at National Laboratories and a number of demonstrations with the private sector will be reduced.
In collaboration with industry and other stakeholders, the Equipment, Materials, and Tools Program promotes the widespread adoption of energy-efficient products and technologies in both residential and commercial buildings through a balanced program of R&D and regulatory activities. The program also develops, promulgates, and enforces test procedures and energy conservation standards for residential appliances and certain commercial equipment, under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended.
The request for the Equipment, Materials, and Tools program is $19.7M. The program may delay some research efforts and can either delay rulemaking activities on certain products or develop standards on four products on a longer schedule.
Building Technology Assistance ($321.4M)
The Office of Building Technology Assistance includes the Weatherization Assistance Program, a Presidential Initiative, the State Energy Program, the Community Energy Program, and the Energy Star program. The FY 2002 request for the Weatherization Assistance Program is $273.0M—an increase of $120M over the FY 2001 enacted levels. The request for the State Energy Program is $38M.
Page 152 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The request for the Community Energy Program is $8.5M. The Community Energy Program helps communities, towns, and cities improve energy efficiency and sustainable building design and operations through three community-related activities: Rebuild America/Community Partnerships, Information Outreach, and Training Assistance State Building Code Professionals. The Community Energy Program results in energy savings, economic growth, more jobs and a better environment. At its reduced level, the program will continue to provide core service to existing community partnerships.
The request for the Energy Star Program is $2.0M. This program educates the public on the energy use of equipment, appliances, and buildings. The funds support the cooperative efforts with EPA to increase consumer awareness of benefits and cost savings of energy-efficient appliances and products and encourages consumers to retire inefficient appliances. We will continue to work toward our program goals of achieving 20 percent market share for Energy Star appliances and 65 percent market share for Energy Star windows.
Management and Planning ($15.1M)
The Office of Management and Planning provides the information, analyses, and personnel necessary to skillfully conduct the Building Sector program.
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES
By developing and adopting more energy-efficient technologies, industry can boost productivity and competitiveness, strengthen national energy partnership between industry and government provides the best strategy to align national energy objectives with the commercial interests of industry for mutual benefit. Through an innovative strategy known as ''Industries of the Future'', the Department helps industry develop and apply advanced, energy-efficient technologies and processes. The Department invests in pre-competitive and high-risk R&D that individual companies are unable to undertake without government support. By working with entire industries rather than individual companies, we maximize the energy benefits of technology investments and fosters the formation of public-private partnerships.
Page 153 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Industries of the Future strategy is predicated on the assumption that industry is best qualified to identify its technology priorities. The strategy features three core components:
1) Industry leaders collaboratively define a vision, develop industry-wide long-term goals, and create technology road maps that articulate specific technology and research strategies to achieve the vision.
2) OIT issues competitive R&D solicitations in support of the road maps, requiring a 50 percent cost share from industry over the life of each project. OIT selects projects that address top industry needs, require government support, and help meet national energy goals.
3) OIT supports related programs that focus on crosscutting technologies, financial assistance, and technical system assessments that serve multiple energy-intensive industries.
Industries of the Future (Specific) ($46.4M)
The Industries of the Future (IOF) Specific Program develops and delivers advanced technologies to improve the energy efficiency and environmental performance of America's most energy-and waste-intensive industries. To provide the best value and optimum use of public investments, the IOF Specific Program focuses on nine major U.S. industries (aluminum, agriculture, chemicals, forest products, glass; metal casting, mining, steel, and petroleum) that account for roughly 75 percent of industrial energy use and over 75 percent of manufacturing wastes.
Page 154 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Funding for the Forest and Paper Products and Agricultural activities will be funded at FY 2001 levels. Reductions will be taken in aluminum, chemicals, glass, metalcasting, mining, and steel industries of the future. These programs will focus solely on developing next generation technologies. Promising R&D programs near completion will be completed and moved to industry. Longer term programs will be continued with a somewhat longer timeframe. Activities in the petroleum industry and supporting activities will be terminated.
Industries of the Future (Crosscutting) ($31.9M)
Industries of the Futures (Crosscutting) is comprised of three program areas: the Enabling Technologies Program, the Financial Assistance Program, and the Industrial Technology Assistance Program.
Enabling Technologies Program
The Enabling Technologies Program within the Industries of the Future initiative conducts cost-shared R&D on technologies with potential application across several OIT vision industries. The R&D areas are chosen through a strategic review process which identifies the technologies, practices, and needs that exist throughout industry that can be most cost-effectively leveraged. The program focuses on three areas that offer major improvements in energy efficiency and emissions reduction across all industries.
For our Enabling Technologies activities, we are requesting $14.8M. The advanced process heater will complete preliminary testing; the development of gasification technologies activities will be delayed.
Page 155 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Financial Assistance Program
The Financial Assistance Program helps independent inventors, small businesses, and industry who lack the funds and/or know-how to move promising energy-saving and energy production technologies from the research bench to the marketplace. Technologies face a tremendous barrier to acceptance unless this important and unique assistance is provided at the make-or-break intersection on the road to technology commercialization. The Financial Assistance Program provides critical financial assistance in the form of competitive grants to develop and deliver clean, energy-saving technologies; and leverage financial and non-financial resources in cooperation with industry. Our FY 2002 request is $5.1M. We do not expect to fund new I&I projects.
Technical Assistance
We are requesting $8.9M. Technical assistance will focus on plant-wide assessments, training, and recognition programs while continuing to provide at least half the number of industrial assessments for small and medium size companies.
And, for Technical/Program Management Support we are requesting $3.0M.
TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES
Transportation today accounts for 67 percent of the Nation's oil use, and our vehicles remain 95 percent dependent on a single fuel—petroleum. Transportation's need for oil has brought our country to the point that it uses 4.7M more barrels of oil per day—just for cars and trucks—than it produces. Imports, currently 54 percent of our consumption, are at an all time-high and currently add an estimated $100M per year to our balance of payments deficit. Working with partners in industry, research organizations, State governments, and other Federal agencies, the Department's Office of Transportation Technologies programs support research, development, and deployment programs which will reduce oil consumption by achieving: 1) significant improvements in vehicle fuel economy; and 2) displacement of oil by other fuels which are domestic, clean, and cost-competitive. For its transportation programs, the Department is requesting $197.7M: Programs include: Vehicle Technologies R&D, funded at $126.4M, Fuels Utilization R&D at $20.9M, Materials Technologies at $30.3M, and Technology Deployment at $9.8M.
Page 156 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Office of Transportation Technologies' investment focuses on areas that would not be pursued by industry alone due to high risk and uncertain outcomes. OTT's work is primarily focused on research and development of advanced technologies, with priorities established in conjunction with cost-sharing partners, primarily industry. The work is accomplished by numerous organizations, including industry, government and university laboratories, it supports such initiatives as the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) and the 21st Century Truck Program.
Amendment to the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV). The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles has established a highly effective model for the way in which government, industry and academia can work together to address challenges of national importance. Some of the technologies developed or enhanced by the partnership are already appearing in production, improving the fuel efficiency of selected models of today's cars. In addition, Hybrid-electric drive options have been announced by each of the three automakers for production in the 2003–2004 timeframe: Dodge Durango in 2003, Ford Escape in 2003, Chevrolet Silverado in 2004, and Ford Explorer in late 2004. In general, these configurations will deliver equal or better performance while also improving fuel economy by between 15 to 40 percent. What this means to the individual consumer is an average of 25 percent reduction in fuel use, allowing one-quarter fewer trips to the gas station and reduced fuel costs.
In making these production announcements, industry has exceeded expectations at the inception of the Partnership. For that reason, and the realization that there have been fundamental changes in the passenger vehicle market over the past 7 years, we believe it is time to streamline and refocus this program to give greater flexibility to the automakers and even greater benefits to the taxpayer. The current program attempts to balance a portfolio of near-, mid-, and long-term technologies. In agreement with our industry partners, we will shift emphasis to a more long-term research portfolio that is aimed at overcoming fundamental obstacles to the vehicle technologies that offer the highest potential for significant benefits to this country. These technologies, for example, include fuel cells, advanced power electronics, batteries for power storage and lightweight carbon fiber materials. Considering these changes, the Administration is expected to submit a budget amendment that will reduce DOE's portion of the federal investment in the PNGV program by $39.165M.
Page 157 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
21st Century Truck Program. The 21st Century Truck Program is a relatively new multi-agency partnership with sixteen companies from the truck manufacturing and supplier industries aimed at developing technologies needed to produce trucks and buses with higher fuel economy, reduced emissions, and improved safety. The Department of Energy has been a leader in planning and research related to this effort. The partnership is proceeding well, with over 65 scientists and engineers from industry and government having completed an extensive technical plan that will guide the development and implementation of this program. The Administration proposes $70.6M to continue the Department's truck-related R&D.
Vehicle Technologies R&D ($126.4M)
The Vehicle Technologies research and development (R&D) program supports work on advanced vehicle technologies that will produce dramatic improvements in fuel economy for automobiles, and light trucks and heavy trucks, without sacrificing safety, environmental performance, and affordability.
Vehicle Technologies R&D includes five vehicle technology development topics: Hybrid Systems R&D, Fuel Cell R&D, Advanced Combustion Engine R&D, Electric Vehicle R&D, and Heavy Vehicle Systems R&D. In addition, the Cooperative Automotive Research for Advanced Technology (CARAT) and the Graduate Automotive Technology Education (GATE) programs support these topics.
Hybrid Systems R&D ($37.8M)
Page 158 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The program develops advanced propulsion and ancillary system components and tests and validates them in a vehicle context. It includes development of advanced power electronics, high power energy storage devices, and hybrid propulsion system components for light duty as well as heavy duty vehicles. Through a combination of component and vehicle testing and computer simulation, the program also sets performance targets for component development programs and validates the achievement of the vehicle-level OTT objectives. All activities are system driven and barrier focused to ensure maximum benefit from the R&D investment and development of hybrid systems technologies that are practical for automobile and heavy vehicle applications.
Fuel Cells R&D ($41.9M)
The program develops highly-efficient, low- or zero-emission, cost-competitive automotive fuel cell power system technologies that operate on conventional and alternative fuels. The program integrates efforts of the automotive industry, fuel cell and fuel processor developers, national laboratories, universities, and fuel suppliers in a customer-focused national program to develop more fuel-efficient, cleaner, and cost-effective vehicle power systems that meet the most stringent emission standards while retaining the same performance as today's vehicles.
Advanced Combustion Engine R&D ($37.6M)
The program develops technologies that will significantly improve the fuel efficiency of conventional piston engines while cost-effectively meeting projected emissions regulations. The primary focus is on developing and validating compression-ignition, direct-injection (CIDI) engine technologies that will produce significant improvements in fuel economy for automobiles and SUVs, as well as light and heavy trucks, without sacrificing safety, environmental performance, or affordability. Because of the stringent emissions regulations proposed for particulates and nitrogen oxides, a secondary focus will be to enhance the performance of spark-ignition, direct-injection (SIDI) technology as a power system alternative that will contribute to achievement of the aggressive fuel economy goals. The program collaborates with industry to develop technical road maps and establish research priorities. Projects aimed at overcoming the technical barriers to the commercialization of high-payoff technologies are then initiated. Most R&D is performed through co-funded government/industry partnerships that ensure that results are practical for vehicle applications and that a maximum benefit is achieved from the R&D investment.
Page 159 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Electric Vehicles R&D ($3.5M)
The program develops and validates advanced electric vehicle battery technologies that will enable full-range electric vehicles and facilitate their commercial viability. Advanced lithium batteries are being developed under a cooperative agreement with United States Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC). This work is supported by national laboratories and universities funded directly by DOE. Exploratory work on new electrode and electrolyte materials is conducted by the national laboratories and selected university researchers under Exploratory Technology Research.
Heavy Vehicle Systems R&D ($5.9M)
The program sets performance targets for components and subsystems in the context of the heavy vehicle as an integrated system, and validates achievements associated with vehicle-level OUT objectives. The program focuses on reducing parasitic energy losses, such as aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, friction/wear and lubrication, and undercook thermal management, that are common in heavy vehicles. By collaborating with industry to develop technical road map and set research priorities, the program identifies R&D which will overcome barriers to the commercialization of high-payoff technologies.
Biofuels ($44.8M)
The Ethanol Program funds research, development, and demonstration of technology to enable and support the expansion of an indigenous, integrated biomass-based industry that will reduce reliance on imported fuels; promote rural .economic development; and provide for productive utilization of agricultural residues and municipal solid wastes. Ethanol activities are divided into five activities: Ethanol Production ($34.6M); Renewable Diesel Alternatives ($750,000); Feedstock Production ($3.5M); Regional Biomass Energy Program ($2.0M) and Integrated Bioenergy Research ($2.5M).
Page 160 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ethanol Production. The Ethanol Program has identified ethanol as the most promising near-term/mid-term liquid transportation fuels option. In the next several years, we expect industry to deploy ethanol by using underutilized agricultural components (e.g., corn fiber and stover), because they are readily available as low-cost feedstock materials. Energy crops are being developed for the long-term, as demand increases and as scientific and engineering advances make the growing, collection, and conversion of these feedstocks more affordable. We believe that many of the advances in reducing ethanol production costs depend on the development of cost-effective enzyme technology to break down cellulose to simple sugars. These sugars can be converted to ethanol and/or to other chemicals (lactic acid and levulinic acid, among others), which can be used in an integrated biorefinery of the future. Ethanol production activities are divided into Advanced Fermenation; Advanced Cellulase R&D; Pretreatment R&D; and Cellulose to Ethanol production facilities.
Our Advanced Fermenation activities collaborate with industry and academia to develop organism platforms with increased stability, robustness, and ability to ferment mixed sugars from cellulosic wastes, agricultural residues, and energy crops such as switchgrass, and to lower the cost of ethanol production from biomass. Increased funding of $2,000,000 will initiate yeast platform work by developing advanced genetic engineering tools and begin nine genetic manipulation of promising yeast strains. Performance will be measured by developing a yeast that can ferment the biomass-derived sugars, glucose, arabinose and xylose to meet cost goals for ethanol low blend markets. This yeast can also be the basis for the production of other high-value chemicals.
Our Cellulose to Ethanol production facilities effort will continue to support partnerships to demonstrate cost-effective conversion of corn stalks to ethanol. The use of corn fiber for ethanol production offers an opportunity for integrating cellulosic ethanol into existing commercial corn-derived facilities. Competitive solicitations will be conducted to support the integration of cellulosic conversion processes with existing commercial facilities. Performance will be measured by demonstrating feasibility of commercially producing ethanol and co-products from corn fiber stream, in partnership with a major ethanol producer. Decreased funding will reduce the number and require higher cost share by industry partners, in order to focus on core R&D (Advanced Organism R&D, Advanced Cellulase R&D, Pretreatment R&D) and integrated process testing.
Page 161 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Pretreatment R&D: Increased funding of $2,400,000 in FY 2002 will focus on developing and understanding fundamental principles of biomass depolymerizations, in collaboration with academia and industry, to aid in developing novel pretreatment systems to improve process efficiency and reduce costs.
The Feedstock Development Centers program conducts research and development of model energy crops and residues at integrated biomass feedstock development centers in the Southeast and Midwest/Plains States. Projects include residue management, breeding, physiology, advanced biotechnology, carbon sequestration and storage. The funding decrease eliminates research and development of model tree crops such as hybrid poplar and willow at the integrated biomass feedstock development centers, consistent with analyses indicating that agricultural residues and perennial grasses have better potential as feedstocks for ethanol and biobased chemicals production in the near and mid-term.
Fuels Utilization R&D ($20.9M)
The program identifies and develops new fuel options that will enable conventional and advanced propulsion vehicles to meet increasingly challenging performance, fuel-efficiency, and emissions targets. The EPA Tier 2 emissions standards for light-duty vehicles, the Consent Decree to be implemented in 2002, and the EPA heavy-duty engine emission standards affecting heavy-duty trucks require advanced fuel formulations to enable these systems to meet emission levels while maintaining fuel efficiency. Activities within the Fuels Utilization R&D program are divided into Advanced Petroleum Based Fuels, for which we are requesting $11.5M, level funding from FY 2001; and Alternative Fuels, for which we are requesting $11.9M, also level funding.
Page 162 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Materials Technologies ($30.3M)
The Materials Technologies Program supports the development of the cost-effective materials and materials manufacturing processes necessary to successfully commercialize the next generation of fuel-efficient, low-emission transportation vehicles.
The Materials Technologies Program partners with industry, with a high percentage of cost sharing, to identify, prioritize, and remove technical barriers to the commercialization of high-performance materials and to increase the viability of new materials and materials manufacturing processes. The program also supports the High Temperature Materials Laboratory at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Technology Deployment ($9.8M)
Transportation Technologies deployment programs accelerate the adoption and use of alternative-fuel and advanced-technology vehicles to help meet national energy and environmental goals.
The Department's deployment efforts logically follow and complement successful technology development by industry and government. For the period FY 2002 through FY 2006, the program will promote both alternative-fuel vehicles (AFVs) and advanced-technology vehicles (ATVs). To help build consumer confidence in these technologies and encourage private sector investment in supporting infrastructure; the program will: forge new partnerships and nurture existing partnerships with fleet owners, fuel providers, vehicle manufacturers, and State and local governments; provide current, accurate, reliable information on all types of alternative fuels and vehicles; pursue rigorous, structured programs to test and evaluate cars and trucks that use alternative fuels and advanced technologies; implement the alternative fuel requirements of the Energy Policy Act; promote consumer acceptance of advanced technology cars and trucks with significantly improved fuel economy; and work with industry and universities to sponsor advanced vehicle competitions that push the technology envelope and expose numerous people, particularly future vehicle engineers, to these technologies. These deployment programs will help ensure that advanced transportation technologies developed by OUT will achieve sufficient market share to provide significant energy and environmental benefits.
Page 163 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Management and Planning ($10.2M)
For Management and Planning, we are requesting $10.2M, an increase of $1.0M above FY 2001 levels.
POLICY AND MANAGEMENT
Support for EERE Policy and Management comes from two budget accounts: Policy and Management in the Interior appropriations and Program Direction in Energy and Water Development. Program Direction provides the Federal staffing resources and associated funding to support the management and oversight of the Solar and Renewable Energy Programs. This activity includes all funding for support service contractors, equipment, travel, crosscutting activities, and Assistant Secretary initiatives. Program Direction encompasses two principal activities: 1) Headquarters executive and program management; and 2) program operations at the Golden Field Office. We have requested $19.2M for this activity.
Our FY 2002 request for Energy Conservation Policy and Management is $40.1M. The Policy and Management activity supports of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy through analysis, information, executive management, planning and budget activities. The Office also provides support for the Golden Field Office and six Regional Offices throughout the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to respond to any questions you may have.
Page 164 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
BIOGRAPHY FOR ABRAHAM E. HASPEL
Dr. Abraham E. Haspel is currently serving as the Acting Director of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). He is also the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning, Budget and Management in EERE being appointed to this position in September, 1999. In this capacity, he serves as the Chief Operating Officer of EERE, an organization of more than 500 employees and a budget exceeding $1 billion that is dedicated to enhancing the use of energy efficiency technologies and renewable energy sources, and is responsible for ensuring the efficient and effective implementation of overall EERE policies and programs.
Dr. Haspel is a member of the U.S. delegation to the negotiations under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), has been directly involved in the development of Administration positions on climate change since 1991, and served as the chair of the Climate Technology Initiative (CTI) from 1998 through 2000. The CTI is an international initiative of 23 developed country parties to the UNFCCC whose mission is to promote the objectives of the UNFCCC by fostering international cooperation for accelerated development and diffusion of climate-friendly technologies and practices for all activities and greenhouse gases.
For the six years prior to this appointment in EERE, Dr. Haspel served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy, Environment and Economic Policy Analysis in the Office of Policy and International Affairs of DOE. In this position, he was responsible for directing and coordinating the development and analysis of policy options, legislation and regulatory actions relating to domestic and international energy markets and their effects on the economy and the environment, including issues involving global change, electricity restructuring, oil security and clean air/water.
Page 165 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In January 1997, Dr. Haspel was recognized for his significant contributions to the development and implementation of U.S. domestic and international environmental policy objectives by being awarded the DOE's highest recognition, the gold Secretary's Award by Secretary O'Leary. In 1994, he was awarded the Rank of Distinguished Executive in the Senior Executive Service by President Clinton, the highest award given career civil servants. In both 1998 and in 1993, he received the Rank of Meritorious Executive in the Senior Executive Service, the second highest award given career civil servants.
Dr. Haspel has also held at the DOE the positions of: Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs; Director, Office of Economic Analysis and Competition; and, Chief Economist. Before joining the Department of Energy in 1990, he spent 12 years at the U.S. Department of the Interior where he was: the Assistant Director for Program Review of the Minerals Management Service; a Senior Economic/Staff Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management; and, a Senior Economist in the Office of Policy Analysis.
Prior to joining the U.S. Department of Interior, Dr. Haspel was an Economic Policy Fellow of the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., and an Assistant Professor of Economics at the State University of New York at Buffalo. He received his doctorate in economics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1974, and a baccalaureate degree (magna cum laude) in mathematics and economics from Brandeis University (Waltham, MA) in 1971.
Dr. Haspel resides in Annandale, Virginia, with his wife and three sons.
Page 166 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much. Mr. Kripowicz.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. KRIPOWICZ, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FOSSIL ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the Administration believes very strongly that our traditional energy resources, coal and natural gas and petroleum remain essential to our Nation's energy and economic security. The United States holds one-quarter of the world's coal supplies. The abundance and low cost of this fuel are major reasons why consumers continue to benefit from some of the lowest cost electricity of any free market economy.
With electricity a major concern it is important to keep in mind that coal supplies more than half of the electric power the Nation consumes. We also have vast reserves of natural gas which can meet many of our energy and environmental objectives. We even have considerable amounts of remaining crude oil located within existing fields and in unexplored areas. In fact, for every barrel of oil we have produced in this country two barrels remain in the ground awaiting new technology.
The budget invests in new ways to produce and use these traditional energy resources much more efficiently and with much less environmental impact. Where there is the most pressing national need, for example, in electric power generation, our budget proposes to increase funding in clinical technology. In other areas such as oil and gas research our budget focuses on clear industry needs, the short-term, for example, where aggressive technology transfer can get improved technologies into the hands of smaller independent producers and keep oil flowing from some of our most endangered fields.
Page 167 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In the longer term where government can help develop new exploration and production tools that are well beyond the scope of today's industry's efforts. The key presidential initiative is included in the energy portion of the budget. The President has been clear about his support for clean coal technology. Coal is the dominant fuel for fire generation in this country and it will likely remain so for several decades into the future.
The demand for power in this country is growing so fast that an average of 65 new power plants will have to be built every year for the next 10 to 15 years. If existing coal-fired power plants are forced to shut down prematurely or if new plants cannot be built today's power problems will get considerably worse. Quite simply, we need coal to maintain—to remain in this country's power mix. We have made great advances in clean coal technology. Many on this committee supported the clean coal investment we made in the 1980's and early 1990's and that investment has paid off.
Today we have plants such as the Miliken Station in New York, the Tampa electric plant in Florida, and the Wabash River plant in Western Indiana that are among the cleanest, coal-fired power plants in the world, in some cases rivaling natural gas plants. More than three-quarters of the Nation's coal-fired power plants now use or are installing low polluting burners that came out of the initial clean coal technology program.
Emission controls are not one-half to one-third their original cost because of improvements made in the clean coal program. One major coal burning utility is conservatively estimated at the national benefits to consumers of our clean coal investment as being over $100 billion. Our budget builds on this success. Much has changed since the last clean coal projects were selected 8 years ago. Environmental standards have tightened and new requirements are being imposed for pollutants such as mercury that were not regulated during the initial program.
Page 168 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The digital economy has created new power demands that no one predicted 8 years ago. But perhaps most importantly new and even more advanced technologies have emerged from public and private research laboratories, most of which were connected with our program since the last clean coal projects were selected. The Administration budget includes $150 million as a down payment on a 10-year commitment to these new cleaner cool technologies.
We propose to run a nationwide competition, the scope and ground rules to be set in close coordination with industry, with industry again required to at least match the government's funding. Supporting that program is a strong research effort. The budget continues funding innovative ways to make tomorrow's coal plants even cleaner and more fuel efficient. We are well on our way toward our Vision 21 concept of virtually pollution-free energy plant that could eliminate environmental concerns over the use of coal within the next 10 to 15 years.
We are also increasing funding for carbon sequestration research as a way to remove greenhouse gases from the exhausts of power plants or from the atmosphere itself. Industry's response and cost-sharing for this research continues to be very strong. In summary, though, Mr. Chairman, we made trade-offs in this budget but there is also a clear signal that the Administration believe the public-private partnerships can continue to produce energy, economic and environmental benefits by supporting initiatives such as the clean coal effort.
There is clear support for technological innovation that is beyond industry's commercial horizon yet could help this country meet its energy demands for well into the future. That completes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I will pleased to answer questions.
Page 169 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kripowicz follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. KRIPOWICZ
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
The FY 2002 proposed budget for the Department of Energy's fossil energy programs, like the budgets for many other parts of the department, is meant to serve as a transition between the energy programs of the past Administration and the new directions and priorities that will be reflected in the coming months and years by the Bush Administration.
There is little doubt that energy once again is on the minds of most Americans. The United States has dealt with energy problems in the past but never have we confronted the multiplicity of issues that confront us today—from the threat of increasing power outages to concerns over rising gasoline prices, especially if unforeseen supply or delivery problems occur this summer.
America's energy problems are not confined to one region, they are not temporary, and they will not fix themselves. But America's energy problems are fixable. We remain an energy-rich nation. Our energy strength lies in the diversity of our energy resources. We have rich deposits of coal, natural gas, and uranium. We have the capability to capture the energy of sunlight, to harness the power of wind, and to tap the earth's natural heat. Even crude oil, despite a 30-year downward trend in domestic production, remains in relatively large quantities in the United States with only a third of our resource base having been recovered to date.
Page 170 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
President Bush has promised the American people a comprehensive, balanced energy strategy that builds on America's true energy strengths. He has created an Energy Task Force headed by Vice President Cheney. Within the next few weeks, the task force will produce a strategic framework for environmentally responsible production of our domestic resources, for increased energy efficiency, and for new investments in the energy technologies of tomorrow.
The challenge is to encourage our energy industry to maintain and enhance the diversity of its energy supplies, assuring that America realize the full potential of all its domestic energy wealth without compromising the quality of its environment or the vitality of its economy. The budgets and programs described in this testimony are part of the Administration's efforts to meet this challenge.
72196mm.eps
Fossil Energy Research, Development & Demonstration
The FY 2002 budget includes $150 million for the Clean Coal Power Initiative, a high priority effort that reflects the President's commitment to clean coal technology. This is in addition to $95 million provided by Congress this year for a precursor program called the Power Plant Improvement Initiative (see chart on next page).
Coal supplies 54% of the nation's current power demands. Virtually every credible energy forecast shows that coal will continue to supply around half of the nation's power through at least 2020 and probably beyond.
Page 171 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Building on the Benefits to Date
From 1986 to 1993, DOE's Clean Coal Technology Program resulted in 38 first-of-a-kind projects in 18 States that pioneered new types of pollution control, power generation, and industrial coal-based processes.
A recent analysis by a major U.S. utility estimated that this program and the research efforts supporting it will return more than $100 billion in direct benefits to American consumers.
Because of the investments made:
75% of U.S. coal-fired capacity now uses ''low-NOX'' burners.
Scrubber costs have been cut by h since the 1970s and by nearly g since the early 1990s.
Systems for cleaning nitrogen oxide pollutants from flue gas are now half the cost they were prior to the Clean Coal Technology Program.
New coal-based power technologies are now available that rival natural gas in environmental performance.
Page 172 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Bush Administration is proposing a new vision for research into clean coal technology. In setting the direction for new, competitively awarded clean coal research, development and demonstration efforts, greater emphasis will be placed on seeking the advice of industry in shaping the program. We intend to investigate the use of consortia of companies, an industry board, or other mechanisms that can enhance the private sector's participation in planning this initiative.
New clean coal technology efforts will target the power industry's top priorities in solving problems generic to the way coal is used to generate the electric power. Industry will be required to share the costs of projects, with the level of private sector financing ranging from 20% for the earliest stages of research to at least 50% for larger scale demonstrations.
The program will also solicit participation by universities as well as government laboratories in a broad-based effort to apply the best minds and institutions to eliminate barriers to enhanced coal use. Successfully implemented elsewhere in DOE, industry-guided research will choose the most important projects based on industry-defined merit.
72196nn.eps
Within the $159.8 million budget request, we have concentrated our efforts on research that will:
Page 173 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
(1) directly support the Clean Coal Power Initiative, both immediately and over the 10-year life of the President's clean coal commitment,
(2) provide new, more reliable power systems for the joint Fossil Energy/Energy Efficiency effort to develop distributed energy resource technologies (for the localized generation and use of power), and
(3) expand the menu of options for managing carbon gases by developing affordable carbon sequestration technologies.
Innovative Emission Controls for Existing Plants: America has made remarkable progress in cleaning its air due largely to new technology. Coal use, for example, has doubled since the early 1970s but emissions of sulfur and nitrogen pollutants are down 70% and 45%, respectively. Yet, further challenges remain, especially in addressing such concerns as emissions of mercury, microscopic airborne particles, and further reductions in nitrogen oxide emissions. For mercury, no practical control technology now exists to significantly mitigate emissions from a broad range of power plant configurations. In addition, there may be opportunity for innovative, low cost technologies that address two or more pollutants simultaneously.
The Fossil Energy program is developing technologies that are intended to achieve future emission limits at costs far below what industry would pass on to consumers using today's technology. This is particularly important as support grows for an integrated emission reduction strategy that would sharply reduce key pollutants in exchange for long-term regulatory certainty.
Page 174 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Our FY 2002 budget contains $18 million for these efforts.
Low Emission Boiler System: The federal portion of this program is drawing to a close as Cornbelt Energy Cooperative incorporates the technology into a coal-fired generating plant sited in Illinois. The 91-megawatt generating plant is proposed to built on land owned by Turris Coal company and is projected to use approximately 370,000 tons of coal per year from the company's Elkhart mine in Logan County.
The federal cost-sharing commitment to this project has been fully funded in prior year budgets, and no new funding is needed.
Vision 21: Vision 21 is the core of our long-range power research program. It draws from several budget areas, including gasification combined cycle, pressurized fluidized bed combustion, fuel cells, and advanced research (the latter involving new materials research and advancements in supercomputing modeling and simulation).
Through this program, we believe it is possible to develop a new type of power facility that will virtually eliminate environmental concerns over the future use of fossil fuels.
A Vision 21 plant would be fueled by coal, or natural gas, or perhaps biomass or municipal waste. It would emit virtually none of today's air pollutants and produce no harmful solid or liquid wastes. This extraordinary achievement could ensure that America—and other countries—benefit from the full potential of their available energy resources without compromising environmental goals. A complete Vision 21 prototype is 10 to 15 years into the future, but many of the critical technology modules are already taking shape, and some are likely to be adopted by industry in the next few years.
Page 175 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In FY 2002, we propose to fund Vision 21-related efforts at $37.5 million. The request is about $14 million below the FY 2001 budget due primarily to completion of advanced turbine systems research and the redirection of funds from the indirectly-fired cycle program (this combustion technology is being refocused toward developing combustion/gasification hybrid systems under the Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle budget).
Advanced Gas Turbines: After successfully completing a joint government-industry program to develop a ''breakthrough'' utility-scale (400 megawatts) gas turbine, the Department is proposing no new funding for advanced turbine research. With gas turbines expected to dominate demand for new power generators throughout this decade, there is significant incentive for industry to advance turbine technology and new turbines that meet emerging market needs.
Fuel Cells: Our research into fuel cells focuses on lower-cost, high performance units that can provide localized power supplies for factories, hospitals, military installations, and other distributed power applications. (The complementary program underway in the Office of Energy Efficiency is developing fuel cells for vehicular and home use.) At modular scales of 5-kilowatts to 1-megawatt or more, the advanced fuel cells we are developing could be in growing demand as businesses and factories look for more reliable ways to generate premium-quality electric power on-site.
A high priority in this program will be to begin completing efforts that represent more than 20 years of development and are within 1 to 2 years of achieving their objectives. We will also allocate a smaller portion of the budget to the much longer-range future of fuel cells. The focus will be to co-fund competitively selected industrial teams that will develop new types of all-solid-state fuel cells that can break through the cost barrier currently limiting widespread market acceptance.
Page 176 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The FY 2002 budget request for fuel cells is $45.0 million.
Carbon Sequestration: The Administration recognizes the importance of continuing to develop lower cost options for reducing the buildup of greenhouse gases. Voluntary emission reductions, for example, could become much more attractive if low-cost carbon management options result in commercial benefits—for example, injecting carbon dioxide from power plants into oil fields or coal seams to produce marketable crude oil or natural gas. If more emission reductions are needed in the future, research must be conducted now so that lower cost sequestration options are available.
In FY 2002, we propose to increase funding for carbon sequestration research to $20.7 million, a 10% increase that will enable the first limited field tests for the most promising approaches.
Fuels R&D: In FY 2002, the $7 million budget request will support research to reduce the cost and broaden the range of feedstocks that can processed into clean transportation fuels suitable for tomorrow's high-fuel-efficiency vehicles. Funding is requested for the continued development of improved ceramic membranes for producing synthesis gas that can be chemically recombined into a variety of clean liquid fuels. A small portion of this budget will also be used to support a university-industry consortium that is developing ways to use coal to produce high-value carbon products.
The Department does not propose to continue funding for developing new fuel processing approaches for producing ultra low-sulfur diesel and gasoline. The President has decided not to relax the requirements for cleaner automotive fuels. Industry now understands the need to meet the new standards, and this will create an incentive for private sector research into cleaner fuels.
Page 177 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Advanced Research: The FY 2002 request for Advanced Research is $26.0 million, which funds two types of activities. The first is a set of crosscutting studies and assessment activities in environmental, technical and economic analyses, coal technology export and international program support.
The second includes crosscutting fundamental and applied research programs that focus upon developing the technology base in the enabling science and technology areas that are critical to the successful development of both super-clean, very high efficiency coal-based power systems and coal-based fuel systems, with greatly reduced or no net emissions of CO. These systems are encompassed in the Vision 21 energy plant of the future. Advanced Research projects seek a greater understanding of the physical, chemical, biological and thermodynamic barriers that limit the current use of coal and other fossil fuels.
72196oo.eps
The United States has experienced a decline in its domestic oil production for most of the past 30 years, yet huge quantities of crude oil remain. In fact, nearly two-thirds of all the oil found in the history of the U.S. oil industry remains unproduced, and much of it is beyond the capabilities of today's petroleum industry.
Greater access to oil-bearing resources will help slow the decline in domestic production, but for a growing percentage of the nation's oil producers, access to federal property will not be enough. For these producers—typically, the smaller companies—there is also the need for access to better technology and for validating that improved technologies will perform as expected.
Page 178 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
These smaller companies now account for 40% of the oil produced in the United States and almost two-thirds of the natural gas. They account for 85% of new domestic drilling. The Department will continue to fund efforts that will encourage these smaller domestic producers to adopt optimum technologies that can find and produce oil and natural gas that might otherwise be left in the ground.
The program also supports wise stewardship of Federal lands; 50% of remaining, untapped technically and economically recoverable crude oil and gas resources are on federal lands. New technology can increase production from these properties, adding both new energy supplies and federal revenues.
The overall funding for Petroleum & Natural Gas R&D reflects a significant decline compared to the current level of effort. This will require the program to be reoriented toward three primary objectives:
1) A concentrated effort to transfer improved technologies and ''best practices'' to the nation's smaller independent firms in the very near-term—the next 1 to 5 years—and to lower the cost of environmental protection through a combination of risk assessments, technology development, regulatory streamlining, impact analysis, and improved federal-state-local coordination;
2) Much longer-term research—10 or 15 years into the future—to develop technologies that could locate and produce oil and gas that are beyond the reach of current technologies or those that industry is developing; and
Page 179 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
3) Efforts to enhance the reliability and deliverability of the Nation's natural gas pipelines and gas storage facilities (reduced level of effort).
Oil Technology
Exploration & Production: In FY 2002, the focus will be on the new tools and techniques that oil producers in the next decade can use to explore for and produce hydrocarbons that are too difficult to extract today or are in environmentally sensitive regions that require ''lower-impact'' technologies (i.e., smaller surface ''footprints'' and reduced drilling wastes). For example, one of the FY 2002 activities will demonstrate slimhole drilling technology under Arctic conditions (which will be coordinated by a newly created Arctic Research program). Another activity will study ways to locate and produce oil from highly fractured reservoirs or from ultra-deep deposits.
The FY 2002 request for this effort is $20.4 million.
Reservoir Life Extension/Management: Much of the focus in this program will be on the much nearer term, with technology development and assistance targeted specifically for smaller, independent operators. Evaluation of past field trials in the nation's most endangered reservoirs will be completed and results transferred to private operators.
The FY 2002 request for this effort is $4.8 million.
Effective Environmental Protection: The budget request of $5.3 million will fund technologies and practices that reduce the threat to the environment and decrease the cost of effective environmental protection in oil exploration, production, and oil processing. The program will collect data and analyze the effects of emissions and wastes from gas and oil operations and facilities. It will also support efforts to streamline and simplify environmental regulatory processes and provide data and analyses for environmental initiatives.
Page 180 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Emerging Processing Technology and Ultra Clean Fuels: These efforts, both of which in prior budgets focused on new technologies for low-sulfur transportation fuels, are not proposed for continuation in FY 2002. A smaller fuels-related effort, concentrating on membrane technology development for synthesis gas, is included in the Fuels and Power Systems R&D Program.
Natural Gas Technologies
In FY 2002, $21.0 million is requested for Natural Gas Technologies. The Energy Information Administration, in its 2001 Annual Energy Outlook, projects over a 60% increase in domestic natural gas consumption between 2000 and 2020, with nearly two-thirds to be used for electric power generation. This requires increasing gas production from parts of the vast domestic resource base that are not currently economical to recover because of the geological setting, quality of the gas, or location relative to infrastructure.
With such a large growth anticipated in market demand, industry has a significant incentive to develop new technologies that can tap increasingly difficult gas resources. The federal program will be oriented toward activities that are well beyond the scope of the private sector, such as gas hydrates, or that address critical national priorities, such as our aging gas delivery infrastructure.
Exploration and Production: In this effort, new drilling and production technologies, along with advanced diagnostics and imaging systems, are being developed. A particular emphasis is on new technologies that can reduce costs, minimize environmental impacts, and limit damage to the gas-bearing formation (formation damage can prevent full recovery of the gas resource). For example, in FY 2002, the world's first microwave-hardened drill bit will be developed, along with a new generation of lighter-weight, high-strength composite drill pipes that might one day replace the traditional steel piping. Efforts will also focus on locating natural gas trapped in dense (low-permeability) and naturally fractured reservoirs. Being able to pinpoint these gas-bearing ''payzones'' more accurately can reduce the number of dry holes and lower the costs of operations in geologically difficult terrains.
Page 181 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The FY 2002 request for this area is $9.3 million.
Gas Hydrates: This vast source of ice-encased natural gas on the ocean floor and beneath the Arctic tundra is probably the best example of a gas resource that holds tremendous promise but is well beyond the scope of today's commercial activities. The $4.8 million request will permit limited experiments that can improve today's understanding of the resource and potentially lead to safe petroleum operations in hydrate areas.
Infrastructure: The Department remains concerned about the aging nature of the nation's natural gas delivery system. Therefore, $5.1 million in the FY 2002 budget will be used to develop new sensor and repair technologies that can prevent dangerous leaks in natural gas pipelines and to develop advanced boring systems that will permit new pipelines to extend into areas previously inaccessible, for example beneath urban areas. Also included in this effort is the continued development of advanced gas storage technologies.
Emerging Processing Technology: Limited work on gas separation membranes has been transferred to the Fuels portion of the Fuels and Power Systems R&D Program, and no new research is proposed for gas-to-liquids, low-quality gas upgrading or coal mine methane production. The $250,000 included in this budget item will meet the U.S. funding commitment to the International Center for Gas Technologies, a technology transfer organization.
Effective Environmental Protection: The program request is $1.6 million. The program works to lower the cost of environmental protection through a combination of risk assessment technology development, regulatory streamlining, impact analysis, and facilitating dialogue that attempts to achieve consensus among affected parties on ways to balance the need to develop the Nation's energy resources with the maintenance of our environmental values.
Page 182 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
94
72196pp.eps
Among the other Fossil Energy research and development efforts in the FY 2002 budget are (1) $5.2 million to continue advanced metallurgical activities at the Albany (OR) Research Center, including efforts that are helping to develop better materials for the Vision 21 concept, and to study new carbon sequestration approaches; (2) $9.5 million for corrective actions at Fossil Energy R&D facilities to meet environmental, health and safety requirements and for other locations where environmental remediation is necessary; and (3) $1.0 million for regulatory activities involving natural gas imports and exports, exports of electricity, and authorizing Presidential permit applications from the private sector for constructing and operating electric transmission lines that cross U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada.
No funding is requested to continue the cooperative research and development efforts. DOE policy is to have funding allocated on a competitive basis. Since this portion of the budget provides earmarked funding to two institutions—the Western Research Institute in Laramie, WY, and the University of North Dakota Energy and Environmental Research Center in Grand Forks, ND—without competition, funding could not be supported in a limited budget.
92
72196qq.eps
Page 183 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
This budget category provides for salaries, benefits and overhead expenses at the Fossil Energy program headquarters and the National Energy Technology Laboratory (with sites in Morgantown, WV, Pittsburgh, PA, and Tulsa, OK). In FY 2001, the budget provides for 110 federal headquarters employees and 330 management and administrative full-time equivalent employees at the National Energy Technology Laboratory. The FY 2002 budget request provides for 80 positions at headquarters and 272 management and administrative employees in Fossil Energy field offices (the field personnel numbers do not include 9 full-time equivalent positions which are paid through reimbursable agreements with other DOE organizations).
[NOTE: We recognize that the following programs are not within the jurisdiction of the Science Committee; however, to provide Members with a complete picture of the Fossil Energy program and to place the preceding budget request within the context of the overall program, we are including descriptions of the Petroleum Reserves budget requests in this testimony.]
72196rr.eps
Strategic Petroleum Reserve: The Strategic Petroleum Reserve provides the United States with strategic and economic protection against disruptions in oil supplies. The FY 2002 budget request will maintain the Reserve's readiness to respond to a Presidential directive in the event of an energy emergency. During FY 2001, the inventory of 561 million barrels will provide 53 days of net import protection. By FY 2002, with the receipt of crude oil returned in the 2000 exchange initiative and all royalty-in-kind oil, the Reserve inventory is projected to grow to more than 591 million, its historical highest level. Even with the increase in inventory, the days of import protection are projected to increase only slightly, to 55 days, because of the continuing rise in oil imports.
Page 184 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Recently, the Energy Department renegotiated the delivery dates for 23.8 million of the 30 million barrels of crude oil released in last year's exchange initiative. Under the original agreements, companies would return 31.35 million barrels later this year—the additional 1.35 million representing a premium in returning for obtaining crude oil when inventories were tight last year. Now, under the renegotiated contracts, which defer deliveries until December 2001 through January 2003, the Strategic Reserve will be replenished with 33.54 million barrels—2.4 million more than originally anticipated. It may also be possible that delivery dates will be renegotiated for at least some of the oil currently scheduled to be returned this year, further adding to the emergency crude oil inventory at no additional cost to the taxpayer.
In FY 2002, $3 million is included in the budget request to begin dealing with a recurrence of gas buildup in the Reserve's crude oil.
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve: A second Presidential initiative (along with the Clean Coal Power Initiative described on page 3) is to fully fund the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.
The Reserve provides an important 2-million-barrel ''safety cushion'' for the millions of families in the Northeast that depend on affordable heating oil to stay warm in the winter. Currently, one million barrels are stored in New York Harbor and one million barrels are stored in New Haven, Connecticut. Three companies—Amerada Hess Corp., Morgan Stanley Capital Group, and Equiva Trading Company—store the oil at their terminals, rotate the oil to maintain DOE specifications, and manage the delivery of the heating oil in the event of an approved use of the reserve.
Page 185 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
On March 6, 2001, Energy Secretary Abraham signed letters notifying Congress of the Administration's intent to establish the heating oil reserve on a permanent basis. DOE intends to exercise the optional 1-year extension clause in its current contracts for storage of the emergency heating oil.
The FY 2002 budget continues operation of the Reserve with support for leasing commercial storage space, quality assurance, auditing, oil sampling and inspections.
72196ss.eps
DOE manages and operates two oil field properties: NPR–2, near Bakersfield, CA, and NPR–3, near Casper, WY. These are the last remaining Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves properties still under DOE stewardship. Originally established in the early 1900s as a source of fuel for U.S. naval vessels, most of the properties have been operated by the government or leased (in the case of NPR–2) as commercial ventures since 1976. In FY 2000, NPR–2 and NPR–3 produced $9.5 million in revenues and are expected to maintain revenues between $6.9 and $9.0 million through FY 2001 and 2002. At the NPR–3 site, DOE also operates a public/private oil and gas field testing station, the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center (RMOTC).
The FY 2002 budget includes: (1) $8.8 million for equity redetermination, environmental remediation and contract closeout of the Elk Hills property; (2) $3.5 million for operating the Naval Petroleum Reserve-2 and -3, (3) $3 million for operating RMOTC, (4) $1.2 million for plugging and abandoning wells and environmental remediation at NPR–3; and (5) $5.8 million for federal staffing salaries and benefits. The program's budget requirements will be offset by the remaining unobligated balances of $5.0 million.
Page 186 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Conclusion
The budget we have presented meets the most critical needs in sustaining the important role of fossil fuels in our economy. At the same time, it reflects the President's commitment to moderate discretionary spending.
Many of the efforts described in this testimony will likely be reevaluated and refined as the Administration's national energy strategy takes shape. As we move forward from this budget request, we will continue to:
Review all private sector subsidies and maximize cost-sharing opportunities;
Eliminate programs that have completed their mission, are redundant, ineffective, or obsolete;
Finish promising R&D projects where investment installments are nearly complete;
Establish baselines and improve accountability for the projects in our portfolio, emphasizing continued progress and measurable results; and
Eliminate unnecessary layers of management, utilize computer information systems to improve management, and promote the best possible and efficient use of our human and financial resources.
This completes my prepared statement.
Page 187 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
BIOGRAPHY FOR ROBERT S. KRIPOWICZ
72196u3.eps
Robert Kripowicz is the Acting Assistant Secretary for the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy. He was named to the acting position on September 10, 2000, following the departure of Robert Gee. Mr. Kripowicz also was Acting Assistant Secretary in 1998 prior to Mr. Gee's appointment. He most recently served as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, a career civil service position. He was sworn in to that position on March 4, 1996.
Prior to joining the Fossil Energy program, Mr. Kripowicz was Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for House Liaison in the Office of Congressional, Public, and Intergovernmental Affairs at the Department of Energy (DOE). He came to the agency in January 1995 as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Building Technologies in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Previously, Mr. Kripowicz was on the staff of the Interior and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations. He was responsible for appropriations for DOE programs in energy efficiency and fossil energy, as well as energy, scientific, and land management programs at the Department of Interior. He also served as Staff Director of the Energy Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science and Technology, responsible for energy efficiency, renewables, fossil energy, high energy and nuclear physics, and basic science programs at DOE.
Page 188 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In the private sector, Mr. Kripowicz managed research and development programs at Mechanical Technology Inc.; construction contracts for Consolidated Edison of New York; and financial planning and budgeting at NUMEC, a nuclear subsidiary of ARCO; and was a chemist for Dupont.
Mr. Kripowicz also served as an officer in the United States Army. He received his B.S. in chemistry (cum laude) from Lafayette College in 1963 and his MBA from the University of Pittsburgh in 1970.
A native of Pennsylvania, Mr. Kripowicz currently resides with his wife Gloria in Maryland.
March 1996, rev. November 2000
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much. Dr. Marcus.
STATEMENT OF GAIL H. MARCUS, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Dr. MARCUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Woolsey, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Gail Marcus, the Principal Deputy Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. I am very pleased to be here today before you to discuss our 2002 budget request. We have submitted a written statement for the record but I would like to take this opportunity to make a few summary points.
Page 189 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In the last couple of years the Department had led an international resurgence in investigation of nuclear technologies and in fact we feel we have energized the research community in the country. We have seen literally hundreds of researchers submit new and very creative ideas for our awards for nuclear energy research initiatives, the NERI program. We have seen the downward slide in the number of engineering students halt and we have seen the international community enthusiastically embrace our effort to begin to explore Generation IV, the next generation of nuclear reactors.
This re-energized research agenda is very important for the future of the country. As you indicated, Mr. Chairman, nuclear power offers some very real benefits in terms of global warming and environmental impacts. However, to realize these benefits, we do need to deal with important issues about the cost of new plants, concerns about proliferation, and the issue of nuclear waste generation. At the core of our activities is our NERI program, our Nuclear Energy Research Initiative.
This is an investigator-initiated peer reviewed research program to advance highly innovative nuclear power technologies for the next generation for the future. It has been extremely successful. Currently there are over 50 projects underway. By year's end there should be about 70 projects underway at over 2 dozen universities, 8 national labs, quite a number of private companies and in addition institutions from about 9 other countries participating.
Our 2002 budget request level funds are existing efforts and will enable us to complete ongoing activities and begin the assessment of the results of the first NERI projects, which will be reaching completion. This year we initiated a Generation IV technology roadmap. This roadmap is going to set some ambitious goals for this next generation of nuclear power plants. It is going to identify all the potential technologies that might be able to meet these goals and evaluate them and select the most promising ones and develop some research plans in order to realize the potential of the most promising technologies.
Page 190 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
This is scheduled to be completed in September, 2002. In March we met with senior policy representatives from 8 other countries to develop a charter for a Generation IV international forum that will work together with us on the Generation IV roadmap and to plan collaborative research. There are over 100 people now who have signed up to work and to help us with the evaluation of the various technologies and these are people both in the United States and worldwide.
I would like to shift now to another major focus of my office and that is the area of medical isotopes. As you know, medical isotopes increasingly are a cure for many terrible illnesses and have the potential to be a cure in still more cases. They are already very useful in a lot of treatment of brain and prostate cancer, and we in our office are supporting the investigation of their use for a variety of other diseases.
In addition to our ongoing responsibility for producing radioisotopes, I just want to highlight our activities this year in our advanced nuclear medicine initiative, which is supporting both research on medical applications of radioisotopes with about 8 projects being started this year and training programs in nuclear medicine technologies at 5 universities.
Finally, as you know, we also support university nuclear engineering activities and infrastructure. University research reactors continue to be threatened with closure just at a time when they will be more and more needed to help produce the future scientists and engineers to support the growing effort in the nuclear area. We asked the subcommittee of our NERAC advisory committee, Nuclear Engineering Research Advisory Committee, this year to investigate the coming issues in the nuclear academic community and they will be reporting to—the subcommittee will be reporting to the committee next week on options to address these problems in the university community.
Page 191 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In closing, over the last couple of years we have made great strides in the nuclear energy program. We are quite proud of how much we have been able to accomplish with rather limited resources. Our program is focused very firmly and directly on the future and we look forward to continuing to work with the subcommittee to bring that future ever closer. And I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
BIOGRAPHY FOR DR. GAIL H. MARCUS
Dr. Gail H. Marcus, formerly of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) joined the Department of Energy as Principal Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology on December 6, 1999. In her new position, she will be assisting William D. Magwood, IV, Director, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, providing technical leadership for the nuclear energy programs and facilities with responsibility for development of next-generation nuclear power plants; advanced nuclear energy technologies; producing and distributing isotopes required for medical treatment, diagnosis arid research. In addition, assists with overseeing the Naval nuclear propulsion research and development program; the operation of DOE test and research reactors; and various research, environmental and facility management activities.
Dr. Marcus joined the NRC in 1985, serving in a variety of positions including Deputy Executive Director of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards/Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Director of Project Directorate III–3, providing regulatory oversight of seven nuclear power plants in the Midwest; and Director of the Advanced Reactors Project Directorate, where she was responsible for technical reviews of advanced reactor designs.
Page 192 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
She served as technical assistant to Commissioner Kenneth Rogers at the NRC over four years, providing advice and recommendations on a broad range of technical and policy issues of interest to the Commission. From this position she was detailed five months to Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry, where she was NRC's first assignee to Japan, studying Japan's licensing of the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor.
From 1998–1999, Dr. Marcus spent a year in Japan serving as Visiting Professor in the Research Laboratory for Nuclear Reactors, Tokyo Institute of Technology. She conducted research on comparative nuclear regulatory policy in Japan and the United States.
Dr. Marcus currently serves as Vice President/President Elect of the American Nuclear Society (ANS). She also serves on the Board of Directors of the Washington Internships for Students of Engineering (WISE), and on the American Management Association R&D Council. She is a Fellow of the ANS and of the American Association of the Advancement of Science.
Dr. Marcus is a former member of the National Research Council Committee on the Future Needs of Nuclear Engineering Education. She served three terms on the MIT Corporation Visiting Committee for the Nuclear Engineering Department. She has authored numerous technical papers and publications. Her research interests have included nuclear regulatory policy, energy technology and policy, international nuclear policy and advanced nuclear technologies.
Dr. Marcus has an S.B. and S.M. in Physics, and an Sc.D. in Nuclear Engineering from MIT. She is the first woman to earn a doctorate in nuclear engineering in the United States.
Page 193 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[The prepared statement of William D. Magwood follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to present the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE). We are proposing a $223 million investment during fiscal year 2002 to conduct vital nuclear research and development programs; to enhance the Nation's science, technology and education infrastructure; and to manage NE's Federal nuclear facilities and materials. We believe that, by supporting nuclear energy technology, the U.S. can achieve a balanced and sustainable energy supply, reestablish its international leadership in nuclear technology development, promote national security, and attain environmental goals.
The Administration is currently developing a new national energy strategy. Secretary of Energy Abraham, speaking in March to a National Energy Summit, stated the essence of the new review:
Our national energy policy will stress the need to diversify America's energy supply. It will be founded on the understanding that diversity of supply means security of supply. . .and that a broad mix of supply options—from coal to windmills, nuclear to natural gas—will help protect consumers against price spikes and supply disruptions.
The review will provide the guidelines of a new, comprehensive strategy to deal with our Nation's near-term energy challenges and put the technical ingenuity of our universities, laboratories, and industry to work to assure that we have long-term sources of energy to power the United States in the longer-term future.
Page 194 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
THE REVITALIZATION OF THE NUCLEAR POWER OPTION
The last few years have truly been an exceptional period for nuclear power in the United States. With demand for electricity at record highs, the Nation's nuclear power plants have been producing a record amount of power—up 3.7 percent to 755 billion kilowatt-hours last year. The nuclear share of electricity generation in 2000 (almost 23 percent of the total) also set a record. U.S. nuclear power plants exceeded peak operating performance records set over the last few years, increasing plant capacity to nearly 90 percent. Meanwhile, the costs of producing electricity from nuclear power hit a record low in 2000, leading nuclear power plants to surpass coal-fired plants—for the first time in more than a decade—as the leader in low-cost electricity production.
In addition, the industry is aggressively and successfully moving forward with plant relicensing to extend operation of the existing fleet of plants for another twenty years. Last spring, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved license extensions authorizing five nuclear units at two nuclear sites (Calvert Cliffs in Maryland and Oconee in South Carolina) to operate another 20 years. NRC is presently reviewing five other applications at three nuclear sites and the applications for thirty other units are pending. Today, industry and government alike expect that nearly all of the 103 U.S. nuclear plants will extend their licenses another 20 years.
Furthermore, the consolidation that has been taking place in the utility industry over the last several years has created a cadre of utilities with the experience and resources to operate nuclear units efficiently and effectively, and the ability of undertaking construction of new baseload electrical capacity in time to meet national needs.
Page 195 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
After decades without any orders for new nuclear power plants in the United States, U.S. utilities are demonstrating a renewed interest in this technology. The factors that came together in the 1970's to make nuclear power less attractive than other energy sources, such as an over-supply of electricity and high interest rates, are no longer applicable. Today, we are facing rapidly rising natural gas prices, increasing reliance on imported oil supplies, and growing concerns about air pollution.
As a result of this changing environment, in March, nuclear industry representatives indicated that one or more U.S. utilities were on the verge of filing applications for approval of sites for potential construction of nuclear power plants. Following NRC approval of these applications, the utilities could return to the NRC at a later date to ask for a combined construction and operating license (COL) for a pre-approved nuclear power plant design. We are pleased with these recent developments since the Department has worked long and hard as a partner with the industry to achieve these milestones and is continuing to support demonstration of the NRC early site permit and COL processes. In addition, utilities are beginning to look at new nuclear power plant designs that may be attractive in the current market. For example, Exelon Corporation has invested in the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) project currently under development in South Africa with the goal of exploring its feasibility for the U.S. market. The DOE Nuclear Energy office is leading discussions with the NRC on requirements for gas-cooled reactors such as the PBMR and the Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor (GT–MHR). Further, interest in advanced light water reactor technologies such as the AP–600/1000 and Advanced Boiling Water Reactor remains high among U.S. utility decision-makers.
With interest in building new nuclear power plants higher today than at any point in three decades, the Department is focusing its efforts to assure that Government is an appropriate partner to industry and not an obstacle. We are focusing on removing unnecessary barriers and leading the development of new technologies. In this way, the Department can best support the national need for clean and economic supplies of electric power for the near- and long-term.
Page 196 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Office of Nuclear Energy is also pursuing advances in nuclear medical technologies through our Medical Isotope Program. This program promotes vital U.S. research into the use of isotopes to treat and diagnose cancer and other illnesses. Radioisotope therapy has the potential to become standard medical treatment for a number of cancers that are major causes of death in the United States, including breast, prostate, and bone cancer. Our budget request for the Medical Isotope Program will support advanced research and assure that reliable supplies of these life-saving therapeutic and diagnostic isotopes will be available. Human trials of new isotope-based treatments often require the administration of multiple doses of radioisotopes over a period of time, and disruptions in supply may spell the difference between life and death for critically ill patients.
Many of the most important radioisotopes have short half lives and cannot be stockpiled against vagaries in facility operation. The importance of a reliable supply of radioisotopes was driven home for us last summer when the Cerro Grande fire temporarily shut down operations at Los Alamos and threatened the security of our facilities there. The need for reliability of supply requires that we maintain, and upgrade as necessary, the facilities at which radioisotopes are produced, and our efforts this year include upgrading a facility to help ensure that availability.
The Department also has an essential role in enabling the United States to explore space. Our Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems program provides critical support to our nation's efforts to better understand the universe in which we live. NASA's space exploration program requires reliable, long-term supplies of electricity and heat to power spacecraft and to maintain a suitable environment for people and equipment. For some missions, particularly long-term, deep space missions, radioisotope power systems are the only possible sources of power. Conventional sources of energy would require too much fuel, and solar power simply will not work for missions that extend to the outer portions of the solar system and beyond. The same types of systems that support space exploration are also used for national security missions of the Department of Defense (DOD). Our role, for both NASA and DOD, is to provide the radioisotope power systems that meet their mission needs. This requires that we maintain a sufficient supply of plutonium-238 to meet the schedules and energy demands of upcoming missions of both agencies, as well as the infrastructure to build and deliver the needed systems on time. We also support research and development on advanced systems to assure that we can meet future needs, which may call for longer operating times and higher powers. Our research is also driven by the current limitations in the supply of plutonium-238; we are simultaneously working on options for additional supplies. NASA and DOD provide funding for mission-related activities, while DOE is charged with maintaining the infrastructure to meet the NASA and DOD needs.
Page 197 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Finally, I want to bring to your attention another important function of the Office of Nuclear Energy: the support of the infrastructure that makes all these efforts—development of new reactors to meet future energy needs, production of life-saving isotopes, and support of space exploration—possible. By infrastructure, I mean not only the hardware, but also the people, and not only the government facilities, but also the other facilities that support critical training needs. To these ends, the Office of Nuclear Energy both supports operations at the remaining reactors and related facilities at our national laboratories and provides a variety of types of support to the academic infrastructure that supports the training of future scientists and engineers. Regarding the national laboratory facilities, one problem we are facing is that we are operating an aging infrastructure, and continued operation of these important facilities requires not only the normal operating expenses, but also significant expenditures to maintain aging structures and to bring facilities into compliance with modern standards of electrical and fire safety. The university reactor infrastructure, which is used for DOE and NRC sponsored research, is also at risk. With tightening university operating budgets, some universities are very near to shutting down some of the most important university reactor facilities. This will impact ongoing DOE and NRC research. We are working with the universities to identify ways to prevent such shutdowns, and have chartered a special subcommittee of our advisory committee, the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) that will be presenting its recommendations at the end of April.
In the meantime, we are trying to assure that the funding we provide for reactor upgrades and other reactor support is as effective as possible in meeting critical, near-term needs. We are also continuing to support students and faculty at the universities to the extent possible through scholarships, fellowships and research funding, and have been heartened this year to note an apparent reversal of the previous declining trend in enrollments in nuclear engineering departments. We believe this to be a result of both our sustained, though modest, support for the academic community, and of the new level of excitement about a future for nuclear power.
Page 198 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In accomplishing its program mission, the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology will engage research institutions in industry, U.S. universities, national laboratories, international organizations, and other countries in cooperative and collaborative efforts. The major program elements that contribute to the mission are: Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems, Medical Isotope Program, University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support, Research and Development (includes Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization, Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, Nuclear Energy Technologies), Infrastructure (includes Test Reactor Area Landlord, Fast Flux Test Facility, and Argonne National Laboratory-West), Nuclear Facilities Management, and Program Direction.
The following table summarizes the FY 2002 request for Nuclear Energy programs:
72196t3.eps
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Accelerating Technology Innovation
I would now like to discuss in more detail the drivers for nuclear energy research, how we have structured and improved our processes for conducting research, our major accomplishments, and how our fiscal year 2002 budget request helps position the Nation to take full advantage of exciting new developments in nuclear technology.
Over the past several years, we have reinvented the Federal role in nuclear energy research and development. Recognizing the realities of today's fiscally constrained environment, we have reorganized how we conduct research to focus on accelerating innovation and assuring the best return on the investment for the Nation. We have returned to a more focused Federal role in conducting R&D—that is, investing most of our research portfolio on long-term, higher risk basic research aimed at reducing or eliminating significant barriers to future use of nuclear energy. This is research that typically is not within the shorter-term planning horizon of industry. Our R&D programs are designed to promote innovation and breakthrough technologies while limiting both the rate and duration of Federal investment—making good decisions on when to expand research that is promising, when to hand off successful projects to the private sector, and when to terminate projects that fall short.
Page 199 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Department obtains advice on the direction of its nuclear energy R&D activities from the NERAC. NERAC, a formal Federal advisory committee, provides expert advice on long-range plans, priorities and strategies for the nuclear technology R&D and research infrastructure activities of our office. NERAC has several active subcommittees examining various aspects of nuclear technology R&D. Reports issued by these subcommittees that address the future of nuclear energy include the Long-Term Nuclear Technology Research and Development Plan, to guide nuclear energy research out to the year 2020, and the Nuclear Science and Technology Infrastructure Roadmap. NERAC is also providing expert advice to help guide development of the Generation IV Technology Roadmap. In addition, NERAC provides recommendations regarding government-industry cooperative research in support of the Nation's 103 operating nuclear power plants.
As I think most of us would agree, in order for nuclear energy to expand in the long-term, we must successfully deal with issues such as plant economics, waste, and proliferation. For example, in the longer term, by changing the way we design and manage commercial nuclear fuel, we may be able to address proliferation concerns, making it more difficult to use nuclear power systems to advance nuclear weapons programs. Technology may be able to reduce or even eliminate the production of plutonium in spent fuel. By exploring such advanced technologies as modular reactors with long-life cores and thorium-based fuel cycles, we may find technology-based solutions to one of nuclear power's most significant long-term challenges.
The Long-Term R&D Plan, developed by NERAC with significant input from the wider research community, recommends that R&D budget levels be increased in order to enable the Nation to realize further value from our currently operating nuclear plants; provide for economic technologies and approaches to build improved advanced reactors in the United States; complete a design for a Generation IV nuclear energy system; and support a range of enduring missions within the Department. NERAC has established a goal of conducting $240 million in nuclear energy research by 2005.
Page 200 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Department initiated the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Project in January 2000 by convening a meeting of senior policy officials from interested countries. Representatives of nine countries participated, in this initial discussion and considered the long-term interest of the countries in the application of nuclear energy, the international interest in advanced nuclear technologies, the barriers that might prevent the future expansion of nuclear energy, and the interest of the representatives in exploring potential multilateral research projects to explore and develop new technologies. These representatives agreed to a Joint Statement regarding the importance of the nuclear energy option to the future and informally committed to a process to explore further cooperative activities.
As a result of this meeting, and subsequent meetings, the nine nations that first came together in January 2000 are planning the formal creation of a Generation IV International Forum (GIF) to pursue multilateral coordination and cooperation with the goal of identifying and developing Generation IV technologies that could address the factors impacting the expansion of nuclear energy internationally: economic competitiveness of building and operating nuclear energy systems; remaining concerns regarding nuclear safety and proliferation; and the challenge of minimizing and dealing successfully with nuclear wastes.
Our research and development initiatives remain the cornerstone of the Department's nuclear energy, science and technology program. These initiatives are undertaken on the basis that nuclear science and technology will continue to provide important technological benefits and advancements for the Nation in the 21st Century.
The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI), a competitive, peer-reviewed research and development selection process to fund researcher-initiated R&D proposals from universities, national laboratories, and industry, has reinvigorated the Nation's nuclear energy R&D organizations. Focused on research to address the potential long-term barriers to expanded use of nuclear power—economics, safety, proliferation resistance, and waste minimization—the NERI program is yielding innovative scientific and engineering R&D in nuclear fission and reactor technology. Initiated in FY 1999, this program signaled the return of the United States to nuclear R&D, but a return that reflected important lessons learned and a new appreciation for harnessing outside expertise to focus the research. NERI has, despite its limited funding, gone a long way to reinvigorate nuclear R&D in this country.
Page 201 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The goals of NERI are to develop revolutionary advanced concepts and scientific breakthroughs in nuclear fission and reactor technology to: address scientific and technical barriers to the long-term use of nuclear energy; advance the state of nuclear technology to maintain a competitive position in overseas and future domestic markets; and promote and maintain the nuclear science and engineering infrastructure to meet future technical challenges. The program is managed to promote collaboration between U.S. research institutions and information exchange with international organizations.
In FY 2001, the Department launched an international version of NERI, the International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (I–NERI), to sponsor innovative scientific and engineering research and development conducted by joint teams of U.S. and foreign researchers. Established as a cost-shared R&D program, the program objectives of the I–NERI program are to: promote bilateral and multilateral collaboration with international agencies and research organizations to improve the development of nuclear energy; and promote and maintain the U.S. nuclear science and engineering infrastructure to meet future technical challenges.
We are in the final stages of signing I–NERI agreements with France and South Korea. We are negotiating agreements with Japan and South Africa, which we hope to conclude this year. We also expect to conclude I–NERI agreements with the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and with Euratom. When implemented, these agreements will magnify modest U.S. investments in R&D with great benefit to both the United States and our research partners. In addition to accelerating innovation and leveraging costs, I–NERI provides to the United States and the Department a key seat at the table in international policy discussions on the future direction of nuclear energy.
Page 202 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Our request of $18.1 million for NERI in FY 2002 will allow continuation of the NERI and I–NERI research projects currently underway. The FY 2002 request, however, reflects the Department's decision not to initiate new energy research activities until the Vice President's Task Force issues its national energy policy recommendations; therefore, no funding is being sought in FY 2002 budget request for new research projects. During FY 2002, the Department will complete 43 NERI research projects awarded in FY 1999, and continue the 10 NERI research projects awarded in FY 2000 and the 15 NERI projects expected to be awarded in FY 2001. In FY 2002, the Department will continue the bilateral international projects initiated in FY 2001.
The Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) program plays a vital role in ensuring that current nuclear plants can continue to deliver reliable and economic energy supplies up to and beyond their initial 40-year license period by resolving open issues related to plant aging, and by applying new technologies to improve plant economics, reliability, and availability. The NEPO program is cost-shared with industry through the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and is conducted in close cooperation with the NRC. The research conducted under the NEPO program is identified, prioritized, and selected with broad input from utilities, national laboratories, NERAC, and other stakeholders. With about a dozen projects underway, this program demonstrates the Department's ability to lead without massive funding: about 60 percent of NEPO funding is provided by industry and the suite of projects focuses on areas that industry would not have pursued on its own—projects that look at the long-term and focus on the need for a stable, reliable, non-polluting electricity source for the United States. We are requesting $4.5 million in FY 2002 for NEPO research to improve existing plant operations, safety and reliability.
In FY 2002, our NEPO program will sponsor several high-priority research projects, based on the critical R&D needs identified in the Joint DOE-Electric Power Research Institute Strategic R&D Plan to Optimize U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. This comprehensive strategic R&D plan, developed jointly by the Department, industry, and a subcommittee of NERAC, includes near-term R&D that industry is doing on its own; long-term R&D in which the Federal investment is leveraged with industry to apply the unique infrastructure or expertise of DOE; and R&D that is needed to accelerate solutions to generic technical problems affecting existing nuclear power plants. The research projects conducted in the NEPO program address technical issues associated with a range of topics, including materials fatigue, fuel performance, component inspections, in-service inspections and testing, stress corrosion, and digital instrumentation and control.
Page 203 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
New in FY 2001, the Nuclear Energy Technologies (NET) program is enabling the Department to begin to work on the development of the next generation of advanced reactor technologies. We are currently developing a Generation IV Technology Roadmap to evaluate a variety of advanced nuclear energy system concepts using rigorous technology goals developed by NERAC and the international community and to define the needed research activities for the most promising concepts. The Generation IV goals include the ability of the designs to successfully compete in all markets with the most cost-efficient electricity production technologies available while further enhancing nuclear safety, minimizing the nuclear waste burden, and further reducing risk of proliferation.
The Generation IV Technology Roadmap project is drawing on a wide array of researchers, designers, and operators from industry, academia, the national laboratories, and the international community. Together, approximately 150 senior, experienced engineers and scientists from at least 10 countries will work together to create the Generation IV Technology Roadmap. We have found that U.S. leadership has been essential to this process and that without the Department's initiative, this type of effort would not have been possible. Moreover, our leadership in this area has proven to be a very important element in achieving our overall foreign policy and national security objectives. The Generation IV Technology Roadmap will also provide additional detail and focus to the Department's long-term R&D plan for nuclear technology. The FY 2002 budget request of $4.5 million includes funding to complete the roadmap, which will be submitted to Congress by Fall 2002.
Finally, in FY 2001, the Department initiated the Advanced Accelerator Applications (AAA) program to pursue research and development on an accelerator technology with the potential to significantly reduce the radioactive toxicity and volume of civilian spent nuclear fuel, as well as to produce electricity to help offset the life cycle costs of the program. As part of this effort, the Department established a new ''AAA University Fellowship'' program and plans to award ten fellowships to support Masters Degree studies in areas related to the AAA program. Awards are planned to be given out within the next 60 days. As required by the FY 2001 Energy and Water Appropriations legislation, the Department has prepared a ten-year program plan for management and execution of the AAA program, exploring the potential of this new type of research facility to meet U.S. needs in the 21st Century. However, for FY 2002, the Department has requested no new funds for the AAA program. The Administration is reviewing U.S. energy policy and related research priorities. Until these priorities are clearly identified, the Department will not request funding for major new energy initiatives.
Page 204 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
UNIVERSITY REACTOR FUEL ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT
Investments in Education
Government, industry, and academia face similar challenges today as we seek to preserve the aging but highly developed science and technology infrastructure that the United States has developed over the last 50 years. This infrastructure is vital to delivering current and future mission-critical technologies and products to the nation. Similarly, preserving the human and research facility infrastructure at our universities and colleges remains key to preparing tomorrow's nuclear scientists and engineers. More trained personnel will be required to ensure an adequate knowledge base to support innovation and technological advancement.
The University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support program carries out the Department's commitment to maintain U.S. leadership in nuclear research and education. For FY 2002, we are requesting $12 million in total for this program, an amount equivalent to previous years. By supporting the operation and upgrade of university research reactors, providing fellowships and scholarships to outstanding students, and providing Nuclear Engineering Education Research Grants, the program helps maintain domestic capabilities to conduct research. The program also helps to maintain the critical infrastructure necessary to attract, educate and train the next generation of scientists and engineers with expertise in nuclear energy technologies.
Our efforts to attract students to nuclear engineering careers continue to be a major focus of our education support programs. NE's Nuclear Engineering Fellowship and Scholarship Program provides fellowships and scholarships to students enrolled in nuclear science and engineering programs at U.S. universities. This activity also pairs minority-serving institutions with nuclear engineering degree-granting institutions with the aim of increasing the number of minority students entering the field of nuclear engineering, while simultaneously strengthening the infrastructure of nuclear engineering education. In FY 2001, we expect to fund three minority/majority partnerships, and plan to increase the number to six partnerships in FY 2002.
Page 205 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In FY 2001, and proposed in FY 2002, the Department will provide 18 or more grants under the DOE-Utility Matching Grants Program to support education, training and innovative research at participating universities, in 50–50 cost-shared partnership with industry. We provide grants of up to $60,000 to each participating university. We also expect to award up to 50 scholarships and 24 fellowships this year and next. The FY 2002 request also supports the Nuclear Engineering Education Research (NEER) program to stimulate innovative research at U.S. universities, at a level of $5.0 million. This investigator-initiated, peer-reviewed research program is vital to attracting and retaining faculty and students in nuclear engineering programs. This year, with well over 100 proposals received from universities, we will award 19 NEER grants and, with continuation of existing grants, increase the total number of research projects underway to 50.
In FY 2002, Nuclear Energy will continue a program to support nuclear engineering education by teaming with a professional society with expertise in nuclear science and technology to provide information to high school teachers and students. This program will help ensure a highly informed group of students are available to enter university nuclear engineering programs and related scientific courses of study. We also will make new radiochemistry awards for the first time since FY 1999. The three-year awards provide faculty support and student fellowships to help educate a new generation of radiochemists to address the technical challenges associated with radioactive wastes and contaminated sites.
University research reactors in the U.S. form a vital component of the nuclear science and technology and education infrastructure in this country. These facilities are an important source of neutrons supporting research that is critical to national priorities such as health care, materials science, environmental protection, food irradiation, and energy technology. Currently, there are 29 operating research reactors at 27 campuses in 20 states. However, many U.S. universities are currently considering the future of their reactors and some are contemplating the closure of their research reactor facilities. The Department is concerned about these developments, as is the NRC.
Page 206 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In response to this situation, the Department has asked NERAC to establish a special task force to recommend the most appropriate action for assuring that university-based facilities vital to our national infrastructure remain in operation. The task force has been conducting an intensive review and will report its findings and recommendations later this month.
This year, and proposed in FY 2002, we will continue to supply fresh fuel to and transport spent fuel from university research reactors and to fund reactor equipment upgrades. Also, under the reactor sharing initiative, this year, and proposed in FY 2002, we will continue to pair 23 institutions with research reactors to those institutions without research reactors to increase their opportunities for training, education and research in nuclear science and technology.
ADVANCED RADIOISOTOPE POWER SYSTEMS
Enabling Space Exploration and Discovery
When the astronauts first walked on the moon over 30 years ago, they placed radioisotope power systems on the surface to power through the long lunar night the experiment packages they left on the surface. The images of the outer planets Neptune and Jupiter that have thrilled the general public were made possible by the radioisotope power systems that powered these scientific spacecraft. Future exploration of the outer planets and their moons will continue to require nuclear power systems as scientists search to find answers on the origins of our solar system and even of how life began. Long time robotic exploration of Mars to pursue the potential of finding water or past life forms and eventual human exploration will also be made possible by radioisotope power systems and eventually by space reactors.
Page 207 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems program is our Nation's only program for providing the capability to develop and build advanced nuclear power systems for deep space exploration and national security applications. The program supports and funds DOE activities related to sustaining the unique infrastructure that allows the Department to develop, demonstrate, test, and deliver power systems to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and other Federal agencies. In FY 2002, the Department is requesting $29.1 million for this program, which is the minimum amount required to sustain the basic capability.
Critical national security activities and NASA missions to explore deep space and the surfaces of planets could not occur without these systems. To date, DOE has provided over 40 radioisotope power systems and heater units for use on a total of 26 spacecraft. Previous NASA missions that have used DOE-built power systems include the Apollo lunar scientific packages, Pioneer, Viking, Voyager, Galileo, Ulysses, Mars Pathfinder, and Cassini. As we consider the American enterprise in space in the first decades of this new century, it is clear that DOE's advanced power technology will continue to be indispensable if we are to continue our exploration and advance human understanding of the universe. Clearly, there will be future missions and there will be a need for these systems.
In supporting these missions, consideration is being given during FY 2002 to both a Small Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator and a new, more efficient, Stirling engine conversion technology. The Stirling technology would require a lesser amount of plutonium-238, the heat-producing isotope that is used for all radioisotope power systems. Efforts will also proceed in support of providing Radioisotope Heater Units for two Mars Lander missions in 2003. This effort includes safety and environmental analyses to support both NASA's environmental documentation and the Department's preparation of Safety Analysis Reports, which are required to seek launch approval.
Page 208 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The expanding needs of our Nation's national security missions will require delivery of several radioisotope power systems over the next decade. We are currently developing a new, more efficient thermoelectric generator for these national security applications. In FY 2002, we will continue testing the thermoelectric element, proceed with design, and initiate fabrication of an engineering unit of this new generator.
For the Department to be able to continue to support these important uses of radioisotope power systems, there must be an adequate supply of the radioisotope plutonium-238 that is the heat producing isotope upon which these systems are based. There is a finite U.S. supply of this isotope and the existing U.S. capability to produce the isotope is being shut down. Because of the projected long term need for this isotope to support future space missions, the Department evaluated the option of reestablishing a domestic production capability as part of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) on the Department's nuclear Infrastructure. The Record of Decision on this PEIS included a decision by former Secretary Richardson to reestablish this domestic capability. Funding for the initial planning for this capability is included in the FY 2002 request.
The Department is also trying to position itself so that it can support future space exploration that will require higher power levels than can realistically be provided by radioisotope power systems—this requirement leads to the need for some type of space fission reactor. A space-based reactor will have to meet stringent requirements for reliability, size and weight. Therefore an assessment of potential space fission reactor technologies and concepts that could meet such requirements is a necessary first step in a space reactor program. Such an effort was begun in FY 2001 will continue in FY 2002 at a modest level. The assessment will focus on refining selected concepts and on evaluating programmatic factors such as cost, safety and schedule that would be associated with their potential development and delivery. NASA is an integral partner in this assessment and has provided the preliminary requirements upon which the assessments are based.
Page 209 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
MEDICAL ISOTOPE PROGRAM
Harnessing Nuclear Technology to Save Lives
Medical isotopes save lives and reduce health care costs. Furthermore, accurate nuclear medicine diagnoses can enable physicians and patients to precisely target therapies, thus, in many cases, avoiding surgery or other debilitating treatments. The vast majority of these procedures use technetium-99m, an isotope first developed for medical applications in the 1960s at the Department's Brookhaven National Laboratory. Today, ground-breaking human clinical trials at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center are demonstrating that alpha-particle-emitting isotopes being produced at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory may be extremely effective in treating Acute Myelogenous Leukemia. Alpha-emitting isotopes work well when targeted to cancers because they provide high-intensity radiation over an extremely short distance. Thus, the cancer cells are destroyed with very little damage to surrounding tissues.
The Medical Isotope Program takes advantage of the Department's unique infrastructure, including DOE's research reactors and particle accelerators, to provide a reliable supply of stable and radioactive isotopes used in medicine, industry and research. Support of research applications that use isotopes is the Medical Isotope Program's primary focus. The program achieves this by providing peer-reviewed grants for medical research and education through the Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative (ANMI), by producing the low-volume, high-cost ''boutique'' isotopes that are needed for research, and by maintaining the unique Department of Energy infrastructure that is needed to produce isotopes.
The Department's FY 2002 request for the Medical Isotope Program is $18.2 million. In FY 2002, the Department will continue its emphasis on isotope-based research by applying $2.5 million to the Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative, a program that applies the Department's unique expertise to advance the state of U.S. medical research, diagnosis and treatment. We believe that, as in the example of alpha isotopes, advanced isotope-based therapies may hold the key to creating safe and efficient treatments for many types of cancer. The isotope program provides isotopes to researchers across the country and remains indispensable to the conduct of advanced research in the United States where isotopes are needed. In addition, the ANMI supports the development of science and technology programs at U.S. universities and colleges to address the critical need to train experts in fields relevant to nuclear medicine such as radiochemistry and radiopharmaceuticals.
Page 210 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The ANMI uses a peer-review process in which members of the NERAC and other prominent experts judge the scientific merits of projects proposed by universities, hospitals, and the national laboratories for funding. I am pleased with the results to date. In September, 2000, nine research grants were made. Recipients of these grants include the Garden State Cancer Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Regents of the University of Michigan, University of Chicago, University of California Davis, University of Washington, Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, and two awards to the Curators of the University of Missouri. Five educational grants to support nuclear medicine disciplines at universities and colleges were made in March 2001 to Washington University, Purdue University, University of New Mexico Health Sciences, Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, and Washington State University. With the $2.5 million requested in FY 2002, we propose to continue the research projects and assistance to students provided this year.
A total of $11.0 million will go toward maintaining core personnel and operating capabilities at the four Isotope Production and Distribution sites, and $250,000 toward improving the quality of isotope products and production processes. The FY 2002 program will continue to serve its customers through the production and distribution of stable and radioactive isotopes necessary for medical, industrial, and research purposes. The Department is continuing its effort to exit commercial markets and to encourage new isotope production ventures by selling or leasing its facilities to the private sector, where possible.
However, we must reinvest in the production of isotopes to support the Nation's researchers. One of our most important projects in this area is the construction of an Isotope Production Facility (IPF) at Los Alamos National Laboratory which will maintain the Government's ability to produce short-lived isotopes required for some of the most important medical research underway in the United States.
Page 211 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
During the past year, we became aware of some issues arising in the project to construct the IPF. Changes in the operating schedule of the LANSCE accelerator at the laboratory, increased costs for design and construction, and other issues were uncovered during reviews last year. We convened a special expert review to assess the situation and make recommendations about the continuation of the program. The primary charge to the review committee was to evaluate the IPF project team's revised cost and schedule estimate for completeness and credibility by analyzing the following: technical progress relative to the scientific requirements for the instrument; completeness of the scope; proposed budget, cost and schedule profile, including the commitment of funds and personnel and its adequacy to complete the project on schedule and within budget; proposed budget, cost and schedule profile for the instrumentation and controls on the new accelerator beam line and target handling system; whether the contingency is adequate for the project at this stage of its development; adequacy of management structures, including the relationships to the LANSCE mission organization, to deliver the IPF within specifications and budget and on time; and proposed budget, cost and schedule profile for the development, review and approval of the safety basis documentation and performance of the required readiness review.
With the help of this review, we have established a new, high-confidence bottom-up cost estimate of the remaining work. Our request of $2.494 million for the IPF in FY 2002 is being submitted to enable the project to be completed in September 2003.
The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology is disappointed that these problems have occurred. In response to the problems that have developed in this project, oversight of the project will be strengthened by establishing an expert project review capability at the site which will report directly to the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. We also plan to issue a competitive procurement for a separate subcontract to complete portions of the work on the IPF instrumentation and control system, an area where the current contractor's initial estimate proved to be extremely problematic. The current project request incorporates corrections to reflect actual costs and revised estimates deemed necessary to complete the project successfully.
Page 212 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Another key initiative of the Medical Isotope Program is the processing and extraction of alpha-emitting isotopes from residual uranium materials stored at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Researchers throughout the United States are assessing alpha-emitting radioisotopes that can destroy cancer cells and reduce tumors. Alpha-emitters such as Bismuth-213 have been demonstrated to be successful for cancer therapy. In an effort to meet increased demand to support human clinical trials, the Department is expanding its processing to achieve a 30 percent increase in supply over the next year. For the long term, the Department plans to double the supply of Bismuth-213 by 2002. However, this will require installation of a new processing line at ORNL. As additional supply is made available, researchers will increase human clinical trials and develop treatments for other serious cancers including cancer of the pancreas, kidneys and other organs.
Finally, as you know, this program operates under a revolving fund as established by the FY 1990 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act (P.L. 101–101), maintaining its financial viability with Congressional appropriations and revenues from the sales of isotopes and services. The last few years' efforts to privatize production and distribution of commercially viable isotopes, though successful, have placed additional pressure on the program's working capital. Commercial revenues, which contribute to the infrastructure fixed costs, are no longer available and, as a result, we are unable to invest in maintenance and upgrades needed for our infrastructure—an infrastructure which is vital to providing isotopes to our research customers. To that end, the Department will have to make capital investments in new, replaced, or enhanced processing equipment and infrastructure to improve production and processing of isotopes to meet current and anticipated future increases in demand.
Page 213 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
INFRASTRUCTURE/NUCLEAR FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
Managing Federal Nuclear Facilities and Materials
The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology also is responsible for facilities and materials associated with current and past missions of the Office. In this capacity, NE serves as landlord at Argonne National Laboratory-West and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory's Test Reactor Area (TRA), both of which are in Idaho. Nuclear Energy is also responsible for the safe shutdown of the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) in Hanford, Washington. As part of our stewardship over these facilities, we are responsible for the management and disposition, where appropriate, of nuclear materials.
The FY 2002 budget request for Nuclear Facilities Management—$30.5 million—supports Experimental Breeder Reactor-II shutdown activities; the disposition of spent fuel and legacy materials; and research on, and development of, various waste disposition technologies. The activities of the Infrastructure program are focused on maintenance of the Argonne National Laboratory-West nuclear infrastructure, the TRA Landlord program, and the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) shutdown and deactivation. A funding level of $81.3 million is proposed for this program in FY 2002.
Under the Nuclear Facilities Management program, in March 2001, the Department completed the processing of the EBR–11 secondary and primary sodium and the Fermi reactor sodium, in compliance with the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Treatment Plan, two months ahead of schedule. In FY 2002, we will complete the engineering and technical efforts supporting the deactivation of the EBR–II and directly related facilities. The deactivation of EBR–11 is currently on schedule to be completed by March 2002. We are requesting $4.2 million to complete EBR–11 deactivation.
Page 214 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We will continue to carry out the disposition of spent fuel at ANL–West in accordance with the Record of Decision on the treatment and management of stored sodium-bonded fuel. Also, we intend to continue research that supports NRC approval of the disposal of metal and ceramic waste forms from the demonstration project in a geologic repository, and continue repackaging and removal activities for spent nuclear fuel that remains from an earlier fuel burn-up development program and is now stored by a commercial entity at ANL–West. These activities account for $16.3 million of the FY 2002 request.
Finally, we are requesting $10.0 million for waste disposition technology activities, including R&D of process refinements to ensure proper treatment of EBR–II fuel rods; a development and test effort on waste stream treatment process equipment of a scale suitable for inventory treatment; long-term waste characterization tests; improvements to existing process equipment; and development of zeolite columns and other equipment refinements to reduce waste volume and improve process efficiency.
Within the Infrastructure program, the TRA Landlord program ensures reliable support for TRA activities, such as naval reactor fuel and core component testing at the Advanced Test Reactor and privatization of production of isotopes for medicine and industry. The program also funds operations, maintenance and upgrade activities for common site facilities and utilities and ensures environmental compliance at the Test Reactor Area, including identification of legacy waste and mitigation in accordance with State regulations and DOE agreements with the State of Idaho. In FY 2002, we are requesting $8.7 million for these TRA-related activities.
The permanent deactivation of the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) was directed in a Record of Decision (ROD) issued by the Department in January 2001. The FY 2002 NE budget request reflects the investment required to continue FFTF deactivation, and to reach milestones crucial to an expeditious completion of deactivation activities in subsequent fiscal years. Experience gained from the deactivation of the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR–II) is being applied to the deactivation planning and execution for the FFTF. In FY 2002, Argonne National Laboratory engineers will continue to work closely with deactivation staff at FFTF to ensure that lessons learned are imparted to the extent practicable. This engineering and analytical support is anticipated to result in efficiencies, and, in some cases, such as sodium processing, direct application of state-of-the-art technology developed specifically for deactivation purposes.
Page 215 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The remainder of the Infrastructure budget request is for Argonne National Laboratory-West Operations, for which we are requesting $34.1 million in FY 2002. This funding will provide the engineering, technical, operator and technician support for maintaining the nuclear facilities at ANL–W in compliance with DOE Rules and Orders, environmental and industrial safety requirements, and good management practice. It will also support conceptual design activities for the Remote Treatment Facility project, which is needed for disposal of mixed transuranic waste stored at ANL–W. Construction on this facility is scheduled to begin in FY 2005, with operations commencing in FY 2009.
PROGRAM DIRECTION/ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES
Continuing to Refocus the U.S. Nuclear R&D Program
NE represents the Federal Government's core expertise and capability in a wide range of civilian nuclear technologies. NE is one of the most diverse organizations in the Department. It is a research and development program that crosses many fields of application, all unified by its expertise and experience in the application of nuclear science and technology. The previous sections illustrate the breadth of our efforts.
During the past year, two nuclear-related activities were moved to other offices. The FY 2001 appropriation language transferred Uranium Programs and related personnel funding from NE to the Office of Environmental Management (EM) in recognition of the fact that the bulk of activities in Uranium Programs fell closely under the areas of expertise and effort covered by EM. This change will assure that NE activities are strongly focused on research and development. Therefore, the FY 2002 budget request for NE does not seek funding for any Uranium Program activities or personnel expenses. In addition, the Department decided in FY 2001 that safeguards and security activities within the DOE complex are so important that they should be direct-funded programs rather than be funded as an indirect cost of doing business. Therefore, all of the funding included in the FY 2002 NE budget request for safeguards and security activities reflects the transfer of funds to other program offices for carrying out these activities.
Page 216 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In the Program Direction category for FY 2002, NE is requesting $25.1 million for salaries, travel, support services and other administrative expenses for headquarters and field personnel providing technical direction to NE programs. Our Program Direction funding also supports the many intensive activities of the NERAC.
As part of the Department's objective to maintain a highly skilled workforce, NE must hire additional staff to replenish critical technical expertise such as that required to assure the safe operation of the Department's various reactor facilities and to carry out new responsibilities such as the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) and the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) programs. In addition, NE is faced with another issue concerning the aging workforce. The average age of NE employees is 49, and there are many employees who will soon be eligible to retire (25 percent by December 31, 2001). Over 50 percent of the current organization could turn over within just a few years. Staffing levels have reached the point where some augmentation is necessary to be able to maintain a core staff of knowledgeable, competent, and experienced scientists and engineers to meet the growing responsibilities now being placed on the Office. NE is currently recruiting several entry-level engineering and scientific positions to replace senior, experienced technical staff expected to retire in the near future.
CONCLUSION
Over the last three years, the Nuclear Energy program has made great strides. We have launched three new research initiatives, and have successfully demonstrated a major technology for treatment of spent fuel. The budget we are proposing for FY 2002 would provide for more focused international collaboration and leveraging of the federal investment in nuclear energy R&D, and would sustain our enduring role in support of space exploration, would ensure the continuing supply of medical and research radioisotopes, and would provide for ongoing safe stewardship of our Federal nuclear facilities and materials.
Page 217 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
As I said at the beginning of my testimony, we have a historic window of opportunity today to begin planning the next several decades of innovation. The decisions we collectively make today can significantly influence energy supply options and the environmental outcomes over the next 50 years. I look forward to working with you and the Subcommittee as we embark on preparing the technologies needed for this new century.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would like to thank you and the Subcommittee members for your continuing support of the Nuclear Energy program. I will be happy to answer any questions.
BIOGRAPHY FOR WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD
William D. Magwood, IV, is the Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology in the U.S. Department of Energy. He was appointed to this position on November 8, 1998.
As the Director of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, Mr. Magwood is the senior nuclear technology official in the United States Government and the senior manager for all of the Office's programs. Under Mr. Magwood's leadership, the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology has led the Nation in a new consideration of nuclear technology as a means to address difficult problems facing the Nation in the 21st Century. The Office has also reasserted a leading role for the United States in the international discussion regarding the future use of nuclear power technology to generate secure supplies of energy without emitting air pollutants that can damage the environment, both regionally and globally.
Page 218 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Prior to assuming his current position, Mr. Magwood served as the Associate Director for Technology and Program Planning in the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology for four years. He also served as the Executive Secretary of the interagency Highly Enriched Uranium Oversight Committee.
From 1984–1994, Mr. Magwood held technology management positions with two energy-related organizations. He managed electric utility research and nuclear policy programs at the Edison Electric Institute, Washington, DC; and he was a scientist at Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where he analyzed radiological and hazardous waste disposal, treatment, and handling systems.
Mr. Magwood holds a B.S. degree in Physics, a B.A. degree in English from Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and an M.F.A.degree from the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much. Mr. Cary. You need to either pull the microphone closer or turn it on. That is better. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN V. CARY, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. CARY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2020 budget for the Department's Office of Environment, Safety and Health. My detailed statement, which I will summarize this morning, has been provided to the Committee for the record. The fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Office of Environment, Safety and Health is $140.1 million. This represents stable funding for the base environment, safety and health program at the Department of Energy.
Page 219 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The environment safety and health mission is to assess and advise the Secretary of Energy on the health and safety of DOE workers, the public, and the environment near its facilities. Our mission is governed by the imperative to prevent and investigate accidents, illnesses, and environmental damage that may result from current or past departmental activities. The Office of Environment, Safety and Health accomplishes this through a number of ways.
We establish and maintain safety and health policies, standards, and rules that govern DOE's activities. We perform independent environment safety and health oversight of DOE facilities and operations, test and analyze contractor safety performance, review safety issues, and monitor corrective actions. This provides critical information to the Secretary, Congress, and the public on the effectiveness of DOE in protecting worker health and safety, community health, and the environment.
My office also fulfills the Department of Energy's statutory obligation under the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988 to enforce nuclear safety rules and issue civil penalties for violations of the rules. In a new role, the Office of Environment Safety and Health is responsible for helping workers obtain information and medical records when applying for benefits under the Federal Energy Employees' Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 for workers made ill by workplace exposure.
In addition to these responsibilities, my office assists and supports the Secretary in overseeing compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which requires DOE to consider the environmental impacts of major activities. Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement. I would be pleased to answer questions from the members of the Subcommittee.
Page 220 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cary follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN V. CARY
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to describe the activities of the Office of Environment, Safety and Health.
The Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Request for the Office of Environment, Safety and Health (EH) is $140.1 million, $20.0 million less than current year spending. This reduction largely reflects the availability of prior year balances to fund the activities of the newly-created Office of Worker Advocacy and the final year of funding for the Gaseous Diffusion Plant initiative. Funding for the base Environment, Safety and Health program remains stable.
Overview
The EH mission is to assess and advise the Secretary of Energy of the health and safety of DOE workers, the public, and the environment near its facilities. As DOE's advocate for protection of workers, the public, and the environment, the EH mission is governed by the imperative to prevent and investigate accidents, illnesses, and environmental damage that may result from current or past Departmental activities.
The Office accomplishes this in a number of ways. It establishes and maintains the environment, safety, and health policies, standards, and rules that govern DOE's activities; performs independent environment, safety and health oversight of DOE facilities and operations, assesses and analyzes contractor safety performance, and monitors corrective actions. This provides critical information to the Secretary, Congress, and the public on the effectiveness of DOE in protecting workers, the public, and the environment. The Office also fulfills the DOE's statutory obligations under the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988 to enforce nuclear safety rules and issue civil penalties for violations of the rules. In a new role, EH is responsible for helping workers obtain information and medical records when applying for benefits under the Federal Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 and obtain benefits under various state workers' compensation programs.
Page 221 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In addition to these responsibilities, the Office assists and supports the Secretary in promoting national environmental goals and overseeing compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which requires DOE to consider the environmental impacts of major activities.
I will now turn in more detail to our specific programs.
Policy, Standards and Guidance. Because DOE regulates its own activities in the areas of nuclear safety and worker safety, the Department's activities are governed by internal safety, and health policies, standards, and rules. Principal among these are the Orders which, when incorporated into the Department's operating contracts, represent the basic set of requirements to which contractors must adhere. Environment, Safety and Health develops up-to-date policies and standards, and maintains them through the Directives System, which provides formal coordination and communication of the Department's expectations for performance of work. The Office also develops nuclear safety rules that are published in the Code of Federal Regulations. These rules form the basis for enforcement and levying civil penalties under the Price-Anderson Amendments Act. The office also develops federal wildland fire management policy and safety standards for new DOE nuclear facilities. Whenever possible, Environment, Safety and Health adopts industrial and consensus standards during formulation of policy, standards, and rules, and maintains relationships with other agencies and organizations to advance Departmental goals.
DOE-Wide ES&H Programs. The budget request for the Office of Environment, Safety and Health supports management of activities that either require unique expertise housed in EH, independence from line program involvement, or are crosscutting in nature and, as a result, are more cost-effectively managed in a single organization. Programs are diverse and include the radiation exposure accreditation program, criticality operations at nuclear facilities, support for the DOE complex in meeting environmental requirements, and OSHA-type safety programs such as the Voluntary Protection Program. A staff of experts in the National Environmental Policy Act—a prerequisite to implementing nearly all DOE programs and projects—provides assurance that DOE line management projects and activities meet the requirements of the law.
Page 222 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Oversight. The EH Office of Oversight is the DOE's only independent oversight function for environment, safety, and health. Its mission is to provide an accurate and comprehensive view of the effectiveness, vulnerabilities, and trends of the Department's programs in environment, safety, and health. This is accomplished through the use of analytical tools including comprehensive, site-specific assessments of environment, safety and health management called Safety Management Evaluations. These evaluations play critical roles in management decisions. Special studies and reviews of particular issues are also conducted, and have included radiation protection for nuclear transportation workers, tritium plume recovery at Brookhaven National Laboratory, and facility disposition at the East Tennessee Technology Park at the Oak Ridge site. The Office also completed a wide-ranging review of emergency management programs across the Department. Analytical studies on crosscutting topics such as subcontractor safety, electrical safety, and fire protection help identify vulnerabilities across the complex. The Office of Oversight is also responsible for independent investigations of major accidents or injuries.
The Office of Enforcement and Investigation, which reports to the Assistant Secretary, is responsible for enforcing nuclear safety rules (promulgated pursuant to the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988) on the Department's contractors. This office employs a graded approach that focuses enforcement actions on the most safety significant issues and encourages contractors to avoid penalties by taking action to identify, self-report and correct violations. A core headquarters staff works with enforcement staff in the Department's field offices to effectively implement this program.
Health Studies. The Office of Health Studies funds epidemiologic studies and public health activities relating to the community and occupational health impacts of DOE operations. The program goals are prevention of illness and injury, better worker protection standards, and effective response to the health concerns of workers and communities. Highlights of the major efforts follow.
Page 223 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Beryllium Health Screening Program. Beryllium and its compounds were used widely in the production of nuclear weapons and exposure to beryllium can cause respiratory disease. Recent advances in our understanding of the immune system, and the development of new laboratory tests, have shown that some workers become sensitized to beryllium and develop the disease despite adherence to standards. Consequently, the Department has tightened its restrictions on worker exposure to beryllium and recently issued a new rule to protect workers from beryllium exposures.
Since 1991, a screening program has examined over 15,000 workers for signs of sensitivity, identified more than 300 workers who have become sensitized to beryllium and 150 workers with chronic beryllium disease. The program was expanded to additional sites in FY 2000 including Ames Laboratory, Argonne National Lab, Lawrence Berkeley, Brookhaven, Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, Lawrence Livermore, Fermi, Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, Pantex, Kansas City, Sandia, East Tennessee Technology Park, Hanford, Idaho, and Savannah River. A complex-wide DOE Worker Beryllium Exposure Registry has been established to monitor current workers potentially exposed to Beryllium. The Registry will collect and analyze clinical and exposure information and track workers at risk for chronic beryllium disease throughout the DOE complex.
Epidemiologic Surveillance Program. This program monitors illness and injury in the current DOE workforce. There are ten sites that currently participate in the program and five additional sites in the start-up phase. Epidemiologic surveillance includes more than 75,000 current workers and identifies groups that may be at increased risk for occupational injury and illness. The program assesses the overall health of the DOE workforce. The program facilitates interventions that reduce or eliminate risk and provides a means by which the effectiveness of these corrections can be measured. Special analyses of at-risk populations in the workforce augment the program's core surveillance activities. Annual reports are published and provided to workers and management and are available on the Internet.
Page 224 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The U.S. Transuranium and Uranium Registries. The demands of the cold war required workers in the nuclear weapons industry to be exposed to plutonium, uranium and other heavy radioactive metals for which there was limited information on its biology and toxicity in man. The U.S. Transuranium and Uranium Registries study how these heavy metals distribute themselves within the human body. This knowledge is essential to determining doses from these materials and ensuring that workplace radiological standards are protecting workers.
Medical Surveillance Program for Former Workers. In response to Congressional direction, the Department conducts a program to identify and evaluate the health of former DOE employees who may have been subject to significant health risks resulting from exposure to hazardous substances during their DOE employment. Twelve cooperative agreements have been awarded to consortia of unions and universities. All projects are actively engaged in medical monitoring of former workers. A thirteenth project was initiated at Pantex Plant in Texas in FY 2001. The first phase of this program will be to conduct a needs assessment to provide information for the development of the medical monitoring program for former workers at Pantex. The budget request for 2002 will allow all ongoing projects to continue their medical monitoring of former workers and will allow the newly initiated program at Pantex Plant to begin their medical monitoring program.
Public Health Activities. DOE funds an independent, peer-reviewed program of epidemiologic studies and public health activities related to potential health effects of DOE operations. The program is managed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, National Center for Environmental Health, and the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry.
Page 225 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In Fiscal Year 2002, activities will include completion of the study of workers at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant; studies to assess the health impact of DOE operations on communities around Paducah and Fernald; and continued document retrieval for the Los Alamos National Laboratory off-site dose reconstruction project. Data collected during the course of these studies are submitted to DOE's Comprehensive Epidemiologic Data Resource. This public-use database ensures access to these valuable studies and provides unlimited opportunities for independent scientific inquiry.
The Department and the three HHS agencies have developed a five year coordinated agenda for studies and public health activities at DOE sites to ensure that the health needs of communities and workers are effectively and efficiently addressed. Studies supported by this program have been integrated into this agenda and a single Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DOE and HHS has been established. The MOU is a document that establishes clear priorities based on site-specific public health needs. It was established with significant input from the affected worker and community populations. In coordination with the 5-year plan, the agencies have developed a joint communication plan to ensure all stakeholders are kept informed of activities conducted under the MOU.
Japanese Atomic Bomb Survivors. The Department and the Japanese government co-fund the Radiation Effects Research Foundation's continuing studies of the A-bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This program is the longest and most important continuous study of radiation health effects in the world and forms the basis of what we know today regarding the incidence of cancer and non-cancer diseases associated with acute radiation exposure. A current focus, in coordination with the Office of Science, is completion of a review of the A-bomb dosimetry, requested by Congress in FY 2000. These studies continue to hold great promise for significant new scientific knowledge concerning the health effects of radiation exposure which can be used for improving the basis for radiation protection standards and practices both in the U.S. and worldwide.
Page 226 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Russian Studies. The joint DOE-Russian Health Studies Program, in place since 1994, is proving to be a productive, collaborative effort between Russian and American scientists. Joint U.S.-Russian dosimetric, epidemiologic and molecular studies are underway on nuclear workers and members of communities around Former Soviet Union (FSU) Nuclear Weapons facilities, are expected to lead to better understanding of the health-effects of radiation exposure, and will help in standard setting for radiation exposure in U.S. facilities. Data exists on more than 90,000 workers from the Mayak Nuclear Weapons Facility, 19,000 of whom were employed between 1948 and 1972, when exposures were the greatest. Exposures to the FSU workers were many hundred fold those of U.S. nuclear workers, thus the critical importance of studying health effects in these populations., The health-effects on community populations, totaling approximately 30,000 people along the Techa River, which is downstream from the Mayak Nuclear Facility, are being evaluated as well, using dosimetric and epidemiologic studies. Efforts have extended to projects that support preservation of the extensive records of exposure, and health records of the workers and community members. A major undertaking has been the establishment of a repository of autopsied tissues. This tissue repository contains the only human tissue in the world with high levels of plutonium and external radiation exposures, making the repository a unique resource for scientists worldwide. Presently the US and Russian Program managers are developing 5-year strategic plan of activities for the current work.
Marshall Islands. The DOE Marshall Islands Program provides medical surveillance and care for the peoples of the Republic of the Marshall Islands exposed to radioactive fallout from a 1954 U.S. thermonuclear weapon test, as well as environmental monitoring and characterization, and dose assessment in areas of the RMI most affected by radioactive fallout. Of the 253 individuals exposed in 1954, 126 survive today. This population is at a greater risk for developing certain endocrine problems, such as thyroid disease and therefore receives special medical care including an annual screening examination, a thyroid examination and blood tests to check thyroid function. The Department's radiological environmental monitoring program conducts environmental radiological surveys and plant uptake studies at four Marshallese atolls. Over the past 27 years, the Department, through Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, has conducted extensive radiological surveys to establish the levels of radioactive materials in the environment and in particular in food plants. Research has shown that application of potassium chloride fertilizer on the radioactively contaminated soils dramatically reduces the uptake of cesium in plants.
Page 227 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Department maintains an Internet site that serves as an easy and effective way to make historical documents relating to the 1946–58 nuclear weapons testing program in the Northern Marshall Islands accessible to the Marshallese and the public.
Employee Compensation. In October 2000, Congress enacted Public Law 106–398, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. The act establishes a program to provide benefits to workers made ill because of their work on DOE nuclear weapons production. DOE and contractor nuclear weapons workers with work-related beryllium disease, certain radiation-related cancers, and silicosis could be eligible to receive a lump sum payment of $150,000 and future medical expenses associated with that disease. While the program will be managed by another federal agency worker, the act gives DOE several key responsibilities, which will be overseen by the Office of Advocacy. These are DOE or DOE contractor to collect the records of workers who will need to establish their employment and radiation doses during employment; to continue to identify all eligible DOE and DOE contractor workers to conduct worker outreach and notification efforts, including management of atoll free hotline and a database of more than 10,000 workers; and to help workers with occupational illnesses not covered by this federal program who wish to pursue State workers compensation claims.
Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement. I would be pleased to answer questions from members of the Subcommittee.
BIOGRAPHY FOR STEVEN V. CARY
Steven V. Cary has served as Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety and Health since January 21, 2001. Mr. Cary most recently served as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety and Health as a career civil servant at the Department of Energy. Earlier, from 1994–1999, Mr. Cary held the position of Deputy Director of Program Integration for the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security, in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. There he directed cross cutting environmental, safety and health oversight, budget, legislative and policy issues for the Deputy Under Secretary.
Page 228 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. Cary is a civil engineer and a hydrogeologist, with more than 25 years experience in public health and environmental safety and health. Prior to coming to the federal government, he worked for the Suffolk County (NY) Department of Health Services where he was Director of Water Resources. During his tenure there he co-authored the New York State Groundwater Strategy and Management Plan for Long Island, and managed a state-of-the-art groundwater monitoring program that was featured in the August 1989, Groundwater Monitoring Review, the Journal of the National Groundwater Association.
Mr. Cary is known for his work promoting Modeling & Simulation for environmental applications, and for leadership in adopting new policies and guidance for the emerging issue of the safe and secure handling of hazardous biological materials.
Mr. Cary is a Registered Professional Engineer in the states of New York, New Mexico, Connecticut and the Commonwealth of Virginia. He is a Registered Professional Geologist in the state of North Carolina. Mr. Cary received a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology and Master of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Tufts University.
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much. Mr. Owendoff.
STATEMENT OF JAMES M. OWENDOFF, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. OWENDOFF. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Woolsey, Members of the Committee, as the Department's cleanup guy it is only appropriate that I appear as the cleanup batter this morning. The Department's request for non-defense environmental management is 228 million, about 4 percent of the total request of 5.9 billion. The budget continues to place the highest priority on protecting the health and safety of workers and the public at all DOE sites and continuing to work to mitigate our highest risks.
Page 229 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We will ensure that nuclear materials are properly managed and safeguarded. Maintaining compliance is a high priority but given the demands on this budget it will also be a challenge at a number of our sites. At some sites traditional environmental restoration work may be deferred in favor of reducing higher risk problems. The Secretary has challenged us to become 5 to 10 percent more efficient. In addition, he has challenged us to reduce the schedules and costs of completing cleanup.
The EM budget reflects this challenge. The Secretary had directed a top to bottom assessment of steps that can be taken in the environmental management program to strengthen project management, adopt contracting strategies, and help to reduce costs and schedules, employ new technologies and sequence work more effectively. The budget continues to fund science, development, and application of new environmental technologies that can reduce cleanup costs and schedules.
We have given priority to science and technology development efforts that directly support or highest priorities and compliance needs. We recognize that we will face challenges at many of our sites. There is no one solution to these challenges. We must work with our Federal partners and contractors to achieve our shared environmental goals more efficiently. Thank you for your continued support for this program. I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Owendoff follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES M. OWENDOFF
Page 230 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you to discuss the Department of Energy's Environmental Management (EM) program and its Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 budget request.
The Department of Energy's FY 2002 request of $19.2 billion fulfills President Bush's commitment to responsible discretionary spending while meeting critical requirements and priorities in the national security, energy, science and environmental quality programs the Department administers. We faced some tough choices for all of the Department's programs, but the end result is a balance among the critical national priorities in the programs administered by DOE.
The Environmental Management program constitutes nearly a third of the Department's budget, second only to our national security activities, illustrating the scope and complexity, as well as the challenge, of the cleanup we face. Our budget request of $5.913 billion for FY 2002 for the EM program will enable DOE to continue the cleanup of the contamination and wastes that resulted primarily from nuclear weapons research and production over the past 50 years. The request seeks $5.771 billion in traditional budget authority and $142 million in budget authority to support privatization projects. Our request for Non-Defense Environmental Management, of primary interest to this Committee, is $228.5 million. Detailed information on site activities covered under this account are attached to this testimony.
The level of funding in our request reflects the Department's priorities for the EM program: These priorities are, first and foremost, to ensure the safety of the workers and the public at all our sites. The request supports critical safety programs for the protection of workers who carry out cleanup activities across the DOE complex. Our request supports activities needed to address high risk wastes and nuclear materials to ensure they are safe and secure and that progress continues to reduce risks. It keeps us on track to meet accelerated closure schedules at Rocky Flats in Colorado and the Fernald site in Ohio. It supports many key projects, including the development of a waste treatment plant at Hanford to immobilize high-level waste, increased waste shipments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, and stabilization of spent nuclear fuel and plutonium materials at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. It supports the completion of cleanup at the Weldon Spring Site in FY 2002. Our budget request continues efforts to develop and deploy innovative technologies that can reduce the cost and schedule of cleanup. While the budget addresses the major cleanup problems covered by compliance agreements and other essential requirements across the complex, Energy Secretary Abraham also has directed a top-to-bottom management review of the EM program with the goal of identifying efficiencies and speeding up our cleanup efforts.
Page 231 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Secretary has challenged every program in the Department to become five to ten percent more efficient and the EM review will focus on meeting this challenge. Under this management review, the program will work to identify steps to strengthen project management, implement contracting strategies that help reduce costs and schedules, make greater use of new technologies, and sequence work more effectively. We must be sure that we are spending our cleanup dollars on the right problems and that we are addressing cleanup problems as effectively as possible.
Critical to the success of these efforts is the involvement and support of our state and federal partners. The Department is firmly committed to conducting the cleanup safely and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. It is critical, however, that we are conducting the cleanup in the best and most practical way possible. Accordingly, the Secretary has invited the governors of the States that host our sites and EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman to work with us to improve the compliance framework that governs much of the cleanup work at our sites. We need to review our cleanup work to ensure it promotes on-the-ground results, makes use of technologies that are efficient, and reflects the lessons and technical understanding developed over the past decade. I am confident that, working cooperatively, we can find ways to achieve our shared environmental goals more efficiently.
INTRODUCTION
Before discussing the specifics of our FY 2002 budget request, I would like to provide an overview of our program, as well as highlight some of our accomplishments in the past year and our planned achievements for the current fiscal year.
Page 232 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
A. MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL LEGACY
The Environmental Management program is responsible for managing and cleaning up the environmental legacy of the nation's nuclear weapons program and government-sponsored nuclear energy research. A common theme among the very diverse facilities across the country where the EM program is conducting cleanup is the challenge presented by the magnitude and complexity of the task we face in managing large volumes of nuclear wastes, safeguarding materials that could be used in nuclear weapons, and remediating extensive surface and groundwater contamination.
In total, we are responsible for addressing an estimated 1.7 trillion gallons of contaminated groundwater and 40 million cubic meters of contaminated soil and debris. EM is responsible for safely storing and guarding more than 18 metric tons of weapons-usable plutonium, enough for hundreds of nuclear weapons. Our inventory includes over two thousand tons of intensely radioactive spent nuclear fuel, some of which is corroding. EM is also responsible for storage, treatment, and disposal of radioactive and hazardous waste, including over 340,000 cubic meters of high-level waste stored at the Hanford, Idaho, New York and Savannah River sites; and for deactivation and decommissioning of about 4,000 facilities that will no longer be needed to support the Department's mission. The EM program also is responsible for critical nuclear non-proliferation programs to accept and safely manage spent nuclear fuel from foreign research reactors that contains weapons-usable highly enriched uranium.
Completing the cleanup of the legacy from nuclear weapons production will meet our obligations to those communities and states that supported our national defense effort and helped win both the Second World War and the Cold War. Completing this cleanup will allow us to turn lands and facilities to other public uses and allow the Department to focus on its science, security, and energy missions.
Page 233 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
B. ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND PROGRESS IN FY 2001
I am pleased to report that EM is making significant progress around the country. Our accomplishments reflect the program's continued commitment to performance-based management, establishing goals and performance measures that demonstrate our progress in on-the-ground environmental cleanup and meeting our goals. For example:
In FY 2000, EM completed its cleanup work at two more sites—the Battelle Columbus-King Avenue site in Ohio and the Monticello site in Utah. We plan to complete cleanup of the Grand Junction site in Colorado, General Atomics in California, and Argonne-West in Idaho by the end of FY 2001. This will bring the number of completed sites to 74, with 40 sites (including the Moab site in Utah) remaining that require active cleanup.
The rate of shipments of transuranic waste for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), the world's first deep geologic waste repository, continues to increase. WIPP received 58 shipments in FY 2000 and plans receipt of an additional 381 shipments by the end of FY 2001, which will bring the total number of shipments to 471 containing over 3,000 cubic meters of waste since WIPP began operations in March 1999. We are receiving waste from Rocky Flats, Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, Hanford, and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), and expect to begin shipments from the Savannah River Site later in FY 2001.
We continue progress toward the ambitious goal of closing Rocky Flats by 2006. In February 2000, we put in place a new ''closure'' contract that provides incentives to the contractor to meet the December 2006 target date for site closure. We completed the demolition of Building 779 in January 2000, eight months ahead of schedule. This is the first plutonium facility of its size and complexity in the nation to be decommissioned and demolished. Off-site shipments of waste continue, including 249 cubic meters of transuranic waste to WIPP in FY 2000 with another 1,000 cubic meters scheduled for FY 2001. And we are removing nuclear materials from the site—we completed shipments of plutonium scrub alloy to the Savannah River Site in FY 2000 and will complete shipments of classified metals to Los Alamos and the Savannah River Site in FY 2001.
Page 234 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In December 2000, we awarded a ''closure'' contract for the Fernald site in Ohio, which includes incentives to the contractor to accelerate closure ahead of the 2010 closure date in the site's current baseline. We continue to stay on track for closure by deactivating and decommissioning facilities, disposing of contaminated soils and waste, and shipping nuclear materials off-site.
We produced a total of 241 canisters of vitrified high-level waste in FY 2000 at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina and at West Valley in New York. In FY 2001, we expect to produce 220 more canisters at the Savannah River Site facility and to complete five or more canisters at West Valley.
At INEEL, we recently finished moving Three Mile Island spent nuclear fuel debris to a newly constructed dry storage facility, almost two months ahead of the milestone in the Idaho Settlement Agreement. Construction of the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project started in FY 2000 under a privatization contract. This facility will treat up to 65,000 cubic meters of stored waste. Transuranic waste shipments to WIPP continue in support of the agreement with the State.
At the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee, we completed the cleanup of all eight ''Gunite'' tanks containing highly radioactive sludge in FY 2000, eight months ahead of schedule and ten years ahead of the original baseline. We began shipments of low-level waste to the Nevada Test Site for disposal, which allowed the resumption of off-site shipments of waste to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Incinerator under an agreement with the State. In FY 2001, we will begin construction of a new on-site disposal facility for remediation wastes, as well as the construction of a transuranic/alpha waste treatment facility which will prepare Oak Ridge waste for shipment to WIPP.
Page 235 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
At the Hanford site in Washington State, we continue to make significant progress in reducing the urgent risks associated with the 177 underground high-level waste tanks, some of which have leaked to the surrounding soils threatening groundwater and the nearby Columbia River. We are successfully resolving tank safety issues—in FY 2001 we will resolve an issue related to flammable gas safety, the last of high priority safety issues, and remove all remaining tanks from the ''Watch List.'' We continue interim stabilization of single-shell tanks, transferring free liquids in the tanks to more secure double-shelled tanks. We began pumping free liquids from four single-shelled tanks in FY 2000 and will begin pumping another six tanks in FY 2001, meeting all milestones in the Consent Decree with the State of Washington. In December 2000, a new performance-based contract was awarded ahead of schedule for construction of the treatment facility that will immobilize a significant portion of the high-level tank waste.
Also at Hanford, in December 2000, we began moving spent nuclear fuel from the K–West basins to safer, dry storage away from the Columbia River. We plan to remove, dry, and transport 116 metric tons heavy metal of spent nuclear fuel in FY 2001. We are also continuing stabilization of plutonium-bearing liquids and materials in the Plutonium Finishing Plant, completing about 50 percent of solutions and nine percent of the containers by the end of FY 2001. In FY 2001, we will dispose of more than 490,000 tons of contaminated soil and debris in the on-site disposal facility.
In December 2000, we completed the removal and packaging of ''Drum Mountain,'' a pile of thousands of crushed contaminated drums, at the Paducah site in Kentucky.
In FY 2001, we will complete construction of the Decontamination Waste Treatment Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. This facility will provide new, state-of-the-art technology for treatment of Livermore waste.
Page 236 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
At the Los Alamos National Laboratory, we began full operation of our sealed source program in FY 2001 to recover sources that exceed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's upper limit for commercial disposal and therefore currently have no legal disposition pathway. This program removes unwanted radioactive sources from the private and public sector and places them in safe storage at Los Alamos. We have brought 1100 private sector sealed sources to Los Alamos for storage and expect to recover over 2000 sources by the end of FY 2001.
In support of non-proliferation goals, we have completed a total of 19 shipments to date of spent nuclear fuel from foreign research reactors in 25 countries since the start of the acceptance program, including three shipments in FY 2001 containing foreign research reactor fuel from Argentina, Chile, Germany, Italy and Japan. All told, these 19 shipments effectively removed from commerce an amount of uranium equivalent to over 20 crude nuclear weapons. This program is crucial in supporting U.S. policy to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of highly enriched (nuclear weapons-capable) uranium in civil commerce worldwide.
All EM sites achieved full implementation of Integrated Safety Management (ISM) by the end of FY 2000. ISM is a ''common sense'' approach to safety management that defines the necessary safety structure for any work activity that could affect the safety of the public, the workers, or the environment.
Our on-the-ground use of new innovative technologies continues to increase, many of which contributed to or resulted in the accomplishments described above. During FY 2000, DOE sites used EM-sponsored innovative technologies 210 times in cleanup activities. For example, a breakthrough technology (LASAGNATM) that uses buried electrodes to produce a flow of groundwater and dissolved contaminants toward ''in situ'' treatment zones was deployed at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant to treat trichloroethylene and technetium contamination in the ground. During the next two years, this technology is expected to reduce the level of contamination in the soil to a level that presents no threat to groundwater.
Page 237 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Also in FY 2000, 30 innovative technologies were made available for use for the first time. One such technology is the Vadose Zone Characterization System which measures contaminants that have leaked from high-level waste tanks into the groundwater. We also initiated 37 full-scale demonstrations of innovative technologies, including the Fiber Optic Tritium Detector and Quantifier, which enables tritium measurements to be made safer, faster (real time), better and cheaper than traditional liquid scintillation-based techniques.
During FY 2001, the sites expect to deploy new technology at least 60 times in cleanup activities. For example, we plan to deploy a new technology recommended by the FY 2001 ''blue ribbon panel'' on alternatives to incineration at Hanford to treat organic hazardous and radioactive mixed waste.
THE FY 2002 REQUEST
The FY 2002 budget request of $5.913 billion will enable EM to continue making progress in cleaning up its sites. The request supports the Department's key priorities needed to meet the environmental management mission. Our request:
protects the health and safety of the workers and the public at all our sites as our first priority;
ensures the safety and security of high risk wastes and nuclear materials and continues the progress in addressing our high-risk cleanup problems and addresses critical needs across the DOE complex;
Page 238 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
keeps the major sites on track for meeting accelerated closure goals;
continues investments in science and technology to find safer, less expensive and more efficient solutions for cleanup problems;
provides for long-term stewardship responsibilities after cleanup is done.
In addition, the budget request for FY 2002 reflects an increased scope of responsibility from previous requests, including:
Turnover of the Portsmouth Plant: In June 2000, the U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC) announced its intention to cease uranium enrichment operations at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Ohio. The Department must take steps to keep the facilities in a safe and operable standby condition to ensure, if necessary, that U.S. energy security and nuclear fuel commitments can be met; mitigate the impact of the cessation of enrichment activities on workers and the community; and transition the facility from USEC operation to DOE stewardship.
Uranium Programs: The Energy and Water Development Appropriation for FY 2001 consolidated funding for Uranium Programs and cleanup activities and authorized the transfer of federal personnel from the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology to EM to carry out the associated responsibilities. With this transfer, EM is now the landlord at the gaseous diffusion plant sites, responsible for the management and disposition of 680,000 metric tons of depleted uranium hexafluoride, among other activities associated with the gaseous diffusion plants now leased to USEC.
Page 239 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Remediation of the Moab Site: The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2001 directed the Department to undertake the remediation of the uranium mill tailings site in Moab, Utah, a site previously owned and operated by a now-bankrupt private company.
Transfer of Excess Facilities: Beginning in FY 2002, EM will resume for the first time since 1996 accepting excess contaminated facilities, on a limited basis, from other DOE program offices for eventual deactivation and decommissioning.
I would like to highlight some of the critical activities supported in the FY 2002 request and our plans for the Environmental Management program.
A. SAFETY FIRST
The safety of our workers is paramount in all we do. We expect outstanding safety performance as a matter of course, demand this from ourselves and our contractors, and accept nothing less. Full and continued implementation of Integrated Safety Management is our way of achieving and sustaining a safe and healthful cleanup. The fundamental principle of Integrated Safety Management is that all accidents are preventable and that safety requirements must be consistent and defined at all steps of planning and conducting work. We recognize that safety culture flows down from actions by the senior management of an organization. These actions enforce the belief at every level that constant attention to safety has an incremental beneficial effect. The Office of Safety, Health and Security was created to track safety and to assist our managers, programs and sites in meeting their safety responsibilities.
Page 240 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We influence workers' approach to doing a job by instilling a safety culture; ensuring that workers have the proper knowledge, qualifications, training and equipment; identifying areas for improvement and verifying that safety deficiencies are corrected, and measuring progress and disseminating lessons learned.
We also have a new initiative to more formally assure that new technologies are developed with the safety of the worker using them as a primary consideration. New technologies, however cost effective, will not be developed and deployed unless they can be used safely. Our goal is technologies that are safer to use, and that make cleanup safer by their use.
Our enhanced focus on safety has begun to pay off. Currently, the total recordable case rate (a measure of occupational injuries and illnesses, more serious than those requiring first aid) for EM contractors and federal employees was 1.7 compared to the overall DOE rate of 2.0 and the private industry average of 6.7, despite the fact that the construction type work employed in EM activities is considered to be among the most hazardous. We have, in fact, reduced the EM total recordable case rate by 25 percent since 1999. There has also been considerable progress in closing out corrective actions in response to independently-observed safety deficiencies. There is every indication that workers are committed to the principles of Integrated Safety Management and are taking an active role in making it a part of workplace culture. We are driving safety performance to new levels of excellence, and are developing new ways to safely manage the risks associated with cleanup. Our FY 2002 request fully funds the safety systems and processes that ensure our workers are protected.
B. GIVING PRIORITY TO THE HIGHEST RISK MATERIALS AND WASTES
Page 241 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Moving spent nuclear fuel to safe storage at Hanford—In December 2000, we began removing spent nuclear fuel from K–West, Basins at the Hanford Site in Washington as part of our ongoing effort to protect the Columbia River. This project is a first-of-a-kind technical solution to move 2,100 metric tons of corroding spent nuclear fuel from at-risk wet storage conditions in the K–East and K–West basins adjacent to the Columbia River into safe, dry storage in a new facility away from the river. Our FY 2002 request of $163 million for the Spent Nuclear Fuel Project at Hanford allows this critical project to continue on schedule, supporting the transport of 662 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from K–West Basin and the completion of modifications to K–East Basins.
Stabilize Plutonium at Hanford and the Savannah River Site—We are reducing risks by stabilizing plutonium-bearing materials at Hanford and the Savannah River Site, consistent with our commitments to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. At Hanford, our request provides $73.8 million to continue stabilization activities at the Plutonium Finishing Plant, where we will complete stabilization of the remaining 4,300 liters of plutonium-bearing solutions and polycubes and continue stabilization and packaging of plutonium oxides and residues. These stabilization activities are a critical step in the deactivation of Plutonium Finishing Plant, which will significantly reduce ''mortgage'' costs at Hanford.
At the Savannah River Site, our request of $357.6 million will continue operations in the two chemical processing canyons to stabilize nuclear materials, including plutonium residues and plutonium metals and oxides, as well as plutonium alloys from Rocky Flats. Stabilization of these ''at risk'' materials is critical in resolving health and safety concerns surrounding these liquid or unstable radioactive materials; in supporting closure goals at Rocky Flats; and in responding to Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board recommendations. By the end of FY 2002, with stabilization of sand, slag and crucible plutonium residues, we will complete processing of all nuclear materials currently planned to be stabilized using the PUREX process in F–Canyon.
Page 242 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Safely Manage and Treat High Level Waste in Underground Storage Tanks at Hanford—The River Protection Project at Hanford includes the safe storage, retrieval, and treatment of 53 million gallons of high-level waste now stored in 177 underground tanks near the Columbia River. In FY 2002, we will continue interim stabilization of the tanks, i.e., pumping liquid waste from single-shelled tanks, which are at or beyond their design life or do not conform to current design codes, into more reliable double-shelled tanks. We will initiate pumping of four additional single shell tanks, staying on track to meet our commitment to complete interim stabilization of all single-shell tanks in 2004.
FY 2002 is a critical year in developing the facility to vitrify the high-level tank waste, one of the most critical, complex and costly projects in the DOE complex. The FY 2002 request provides $500 million to develop treatment facilities to vitrify at least 10 percent by volume and 25 percent of the radioactivity of the 53 million gallons of high-level tank waste. Initially being developed under a privatization approach, the privatized contract was terminated in May 2000 because of price and management concerns, and a new contract using a cost-reimbursement approach was awarded in December 2000. The new contract contains incentives tied to performance, encouraging the contractor to meet or exceed cost and schedule goals. The request provides funds to initiate construction of high-level waste pre-treatment and low-activity vitrification facilities and continues the design and installation of waste retrieval systems that will provide waste feed to the treatment facility.
Treat High Level Waste and Begin Construction of Salt Processing Pilot Plant at Savannah River Site: The FY 2002 request includes $110.6 million to support continued vitrification of high-level waste at the Defense Waste Processing Facility that has produced more than 1,080 canisters of vitrified waste. By the end of FY 2002, we will complete about 22 percent of the expected lifetime total of 6,025 canisters. The request also supports development of a technology to separate the high-activity and low-activity fractions of the salt waste, in order to minimize the amount of waste that must be vitrified and disposed of in a deep geologic repository. The Department is scheduled to identify a preferred alternative technology or technologies in June 2001 to replace the In-Tank Precipitation technology, which was terminated in 1998 because of excessive benzene generation. Two of three technology options currently being considered are a result of the EM science program—without this work, Savannah River Site would have had to begin development of new alternatives, creating a further delay of at least six years. In FY 2002, we will begin construction of a pilot plant that will provide design and operational information for a full-scale salt processing plant.
Page 243 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Complete Construction of the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project at INEEL—The request includes $40 million in budget authority for the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project (AMWTP) at INEEL, a privatization project that will greatly increase the INEEL's capability to prepare 65,000 cubic meters of waste for disposal at WIPP. In FY 2002, we will complete construction of the facility, and we will be on track to begin operations in 2003 in accordance with the agreement with the State.
In response to a lawsuit and community concerns, the Department put the incineration component of the AMWTP on hold pending an expert review of alternative technologies to incineration that can meet legal standards. The ''blue ribbon panel'' of experts, in a December 2000 report, identified several promising technologies. The request provides $5 million to explore several of these technologies, which may eliminate the need for the incinerator that had been planned for AMWTP.
Increase Shipments to WIPP: The request of $164.6 million plus $2.6 million for safeguards and security for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant will allow us to almost double shipments of contact-handled transuranic waste to WIPP in FY 2002. We will continue critical shipments from Rocky Flats to support the closure schedule and from MEL to meet its agreement with the State, as well as limited shipments from other sites. The WIPP facility remains critical to meeting our closure and completion goals at other sites.
Begin Construction of a Pilot for ''Melt and Dilute'' Technology: The Savannah River Site has been developing a cost-effective path forward for spent nuclear fuel that does not require stabilization for health and safety reasons. This research and development effort is helping us identify technologies to manage spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear materials without chemical separation. Our efforts to develop the ''melt-and-dilute'' process have been so successful that we selected it as the preferred technology to prepare aluminum-based spent nuclear fuel for geologic disposal. Construction of a pilot plant that will test real spent fuel to demonstrate the viability of the melt and dilute process will be completed this fiscal year, and the $4 million requested in FY 2002 will support operations of the pilot plant. This will provide a firm basis for the design and construction of the full-scale facility to prepare and store this spent nuclear fuel prior to final disposition in a geologic repository.
Page 244 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
C. SUPPORTING SITE CLOSURES
Staying On Track to Close Rocky Flats: The FY 2002 budget request of $628.6 million plus $35.4 for safeguards and security, or a total of $664 million, supports the closure of Rocky Flats by December 15, 2006, the closure date targeted in the contract. The Rocky Flats site is the largest site challenged to accelerate site cleanup and achieve closure in 2006. To date, significant progress has been made toward making this goal a reality. A key ingredient for closing Rocky Flats is being able to ship nuclear materials and waste off-site, which requires that other sites—often DOE sites—are available and prepared to accept the materials. Our request also provides the necessary funds to other sites, such as Savannah River Site, Oak Ridge, Nevada Test Site, and WIPP, to support their part of the Rocky Flats closure effort. The coordination and support of these planned shipping campaigns to the receiver sites demonstrates the Department-wide commitment to the goal of achieving accelerated closure of Rocky Flats.
Accelerating the Closure of the Fernald Site: Our request of $285.3 plus $4.7 million for safeguards and security also funds efforts to complete cleanup and close the Fernald site in Ohio. The site is currently scheduled to close in 2010, but the new closure contract for Fernald awarded last November includes incentives to the contractor to accelerate the completion date to 2006. FY 2002 efforts build on past years' cleanup progress, including stabilization of liquid uranium solutions, off site shipment of low level radioactive wastes, disposition of excess nuclear materials, and decontamination and demolition of several large industrial buildings at Fernald. We will continue these activities in FY 2002, including completing shipments of uranium materials to the Portsmouth site in Ohio for disposition, and beginning the full-scale remediation project for Silos 1 and 2 that contain radium-bearing residues generated from the processing of high-grade uranium ore.
Page 245 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Completing Cleanup of the Weldon Spring Site: We will also make progress at other closure sites. For example, we will complete cleanup of Weldon Spring in Missouri, a decommissioned uranium processing plant with numerous associated facilities and vicinity pr