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 properties contaminated by uranium and thorium processing operations supporting nuclear weapons production in the 1950's and 1960's. Our efforts entailed the placement of 1.5 million cubic yard of waste and contaminated soil and debris in an on-site disposal facility, the demolition of old plant buildings, and remediation of waste pits. We will transition to a long-term stewardship role at the site, with much of the land planned to be released for unrestricted use.
D. MEETING NEW RESPONSIBILITIES
The budget request for FY 2002 reflects an increased scope of responsibilities assigned to EM as a consequence of Congressional action in last year's legislation or internal initiatives. We have incorporated these new requirements into our request and prioritized the necessary activities in consideration of existing requirements of the Environmental Management program.
Turnover of the Portsmouth Plant: In June 2000, the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) announced its intention to cease uranium enrichment operations at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Ohio and to return the plant to DOE. The EM program is responsible for placing and maintaining the plant in cold standby condition and for other critical transition-related activities, as well as eventual decontamination and decommissioning of the plant.
Page 246 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
A total of $125 million requested in FY 2002 supports activities to winterize the facilities, place the facilities in cold standby, and mitigate the impacts on the workforce. Some of these funds will be used to replace some of the funding sources for an FY 2001 reprogramming for transition activities now pending before Congress. In FY 2002, this will allow us to complete the winterization of the plant, an activity we must begin this year. It will fund actions needed to place those portions of the plant needed for production of enriched uranium in a condition that would allow f6r restart of the operations within 18 to 24 months, should that become necessary in the future. And it allows us to selectively begin deactivating other parts of the plant and structures at the site that are no longer needed in order to reduce the surveillance and maintenance costs.
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 (NE) to the Environmental Management program. With this transfer, EM became responsible for a number of additional activities, including safely managing 680,000 metric tons of depleted uranium hexafloride (DUF) now stored at three gaseous diffusion plant sites and the design, construction and operation of DUF conversion facilities at Portsmouth and Paducah. We also are responsible for maintenance and cleanup of facilities not leased to USEC, management of DOE Material Storage Areas in and around USEC buildings, and for pre-existing liabilities arising from law or agreement after the transfer of the uranium enrichment operations to USEC.
The FY 2002 request places priority on actions needed to ensure safety, including maintenance of the DUF cylinders. We also will continue to work with the Commonwealth of Kentucky regulators to undertake actions needed to resolve the notice of violation issued by Kentucky concerning hazardous waste identified in the DOE Material Storage Areas at Paducah. The request also keeps the development of the DUF conversion facilities on track to begin construction in January 2004, consistent with the schedule provided in Public Law 105–204.
Page 247 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Transfer of Excess Facilities: The Department has a number of aging facilities that are no longer needed to support mission work. The costs to maintain these facilities so that they do not become a safety or contamination hazard can be significant, costs which can increase as facilities degrade over time. EM currently manages the majority of the Department's excess contaminated facilities. Since 1996, due to concerns about funding and increasing the scope of EM responsibilities, facilities that became excess to the needs of other programs have been managed by those programs. However, consistent with a new DOE order, beginning in FY 2002, EM will, on a limited basis, begin accepting excess contaminated facilities from other DOE program offices for eventual deactivation and decommissioning.
In FY 2002, ten facilities or facility complexes, located at Brookhaven, Oak Ridge, Pantex Plant in Texas, and the Savannah River Site, will transfer to EM from the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Office of Science, and the Office of Nuclear Energy. We are requesting funds for surveillance and maintenance to enable EM to manage these newly transferred facilities safely, based on a budget transfer from the DOE program that currently ''owns'' the facility. Since these excess facilities constitute new work scope for the EM program, we are requesting the funding in a separate program account to give visibility within DOE and to the Congress on the cost and progress associated with the excess facilities transferring in FY 2002. We also plan to include facility transfers in future years in this account.
E. CONTINUING THE INVESTMENT IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Developing and using more effective technologies in our cleanup continues to be a critical element of our strategy to reduce the cost and the pace of cleanup. Since its inception, EM's Science and Technology program has made approximately 280 innovative technologies available for use. Yet we have seen an increase in the needs for technological solutions reported by the sites. This is due to a large degree to better problem definition and a better understanding of project requirements, uncertainties, and costs. More than two-thirds of the EM life-cycle cost estimate occur after 2006, so the need for Science and Technology investments has not disappeared.
Page 248 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The FY 2002 request of $196 million for the Science and Technology program activities will support the Department's near-term needs for technical solutions while allowing us to work toward solutions for the more intractable environmental problems.
Over the past several years, Environmental Management's Science and Technology program has concentrated not only on technical achievements, but also on ensuring its activities are directly linked to solving specific problems identified by project managers in the field and enhancing the program's management practices. I am pleased to report today that both technical advances and management processes for the Science and Technology program are solidly on track:
On-the-ground Successes: In FY 2000 alone, there were more than 200 innovative technologies used for the first-time in a project or site across the complex, demonstrating that EM's Science and technology program is successfully meeting real cleanup needs. For example, an innovative phytoremediation process was activated at the Mixed Waste Management Facility at the Savannah River Site. Tritium-contaminated water is pumped above ground and sprayed onto the roots of selected trees where it is evapo-transpired into the atmosphere at safe concentrations. This process, which is already making improvements in downstream water quality, will prevent contaminants from flowing into Fourmile Creek and the Savannah River Site.
At Hanford, the In Situ Redox Manipulation process, a 1998 R&D Magazine R&D 100 Award recipient, is being used on the highest-concentrated portion of a chromium VI groundwater plume. This process replaces expensive pump-and-treat with a permeable treatment zone that immobilizes chromium traveling through it.
Page 249 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
And over 30 technologies were used as an integrated system to remediate the Oak Ridge Gunite and Associated Tanks, some of DOE's oldest tanks. Retrieval operations were completed in FY 2000, ten years ahead of schedule and at a savings of $350 million.
Technical and Deployment Assistance: While furnishing innovative technologies is the cornerstone of our activities, the program also provides scientific and technical support to EM cleanup decisionmaking. In response to public concern about incinerator emissions, last year a Secretarial ''blue ribbon panel'' studied emerging alternatives to incineration, which resulted in recommendations on emerging technologies that hold greatest promise for further development. EM's Science and Technology program led the effort to provide technical data for this effort.
The Science and Technology program is also supporting the development of an alternative technology to in-tank processing for cesium removal from high level waste. The Tanks Focus Area, one of five teams that address DOE's major environmental problem areas, is performing much of the testing and will continue to work with the site to develop and pilot the selected technology. It will also continue development of an alternative until the primary technology has successfully completed pilot-scale tests on actual waste.
Deployment assistance teams were sent to the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant and the Pantex Plant last year to perform technical reviews of their groundwater, soils and surface water contamination. Based on the teams' recommendations, innovative technologies are being deployed at both sites.
Page 250 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Also, a first-ever textbook of reference material related to contamination of the vadose zone, a major problem for DOE sites, was compiled and published. This is an exhaustive compendium of information from multiple agencies and the private sector.
Basic Research: Research sponsored by the Environmental Management Science Program (EMSP) is yielding beneficial results. To date, this work has been documented in 576 publications and has resulted in 28 patent disclosures and applications. Promising EMSP work is using tobacco and rice plants by a University of Georgia team to detoxify ionic mercury. This method could be applicable to mercury-contaminated soils at shallow depths, such as at Oak Ridge. Also a new technology being pursued at Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico acts as a molecular ''sponge'' by capturing and storing radioactive strontium from liquid hazardous waste. Heat turns the sponge into a stable material that shows promise of being suitable for disposal.
With the requested $32 million, EMSP will complete research begun in FY 1999 on scientific problems associated with the vadose zone, subsurface contamination, and groundwater issues to support initiatives at sites such as Hanford. Also, the first full year of research will be completed on projects awarded in FY 2001 to improve the effectiveness of tank cleanup and decontamination and decommissioning processes.
F. MEETING LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP RESPONSIBILITIES
As the Department completes stabilization, cleanup and disposal of waste, we must consider the next and final stage in the cleanup process: meeting our enduring environmental protection obligations through long-term stewardship at sites that are unable to be cleaned up sufficiently to allow for unrestricted use. DOE's cleanup efforts have resulted in substantial risk and maintenance cost reductions across the complex. However, at most sites, cleanup will make the land available for other industrial uses, but not necessarily unrestricted use. Like private sites or other federal facilities, cleanup to levels allowing for unrestricted use often cannot be achieved for economic or technical reasons, including the presence of residual contaminants or deliberate entombment of waste or facilities.
Page 251 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Department has a legal and moral responsibility to ensure the protection of human health and the environment after cleanup is complete. The goal of long-term stewardship is the sustainable protection of human health and the environment after cleanup, disposal or stabilization is complete. The long-term stewardship program allows the Department to provide safe and effective long-term stewardship while optimizing future land and resource use. Good project management, applying the best science and technology to manage residual hazards, and increasing public confidence through effective involvement of state and local governments, Tribal Nations, and stakeholders is essential to a successful long-term stewardship program. A reliable long-term stewardship program can also provide confidence to regulators and the public that non-removal remedies are acceptable because the Department can be trusted to care for the sites after the waste is contained in place. These needs are not unique to the Department of Energy—while EM's Office of Long-term Stewardship may be the first office addressing these issues in the federal government, I would suggest to you that it will not be the last.
In January 2001, DOE reported to Congress on the Department's long-term stewardship responsibilities, in response to the FY 2000 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The report provides the best available information on the cost, scope, and schedule of DOE's current and future long-term stewardship. It concludes that DOE currently carries out such activities at about 30 sites and may eventually be responsible for stewardship at 129 sites.
Recently, we designated the Idaho Operations Office as the lead field office for our long-term stewardship program. The Grand Junction Office, which is currently conducting stewardship at sites that have completed cleanup, has been transferred from the Albuquerque Operations Office to the Idaho Operations Office to provide for continuity of critical operations and to coordinate policy and guidance development.
Page 252 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The FY 2002 request maintains funding for long-tern stewardship activities at $8 million. In addition, $5.4 million in funding for Grand Junction also supports its stewardship activities. The number of sites moving from active cleanup to stewardship is expected to grow from 30 sites in FY 2001 to 35 sites in FY 2002, with an additional 33 sites transitioning into long-term stewardship in the next five years.
The request also supports INEEL and Headquarters activities to address complex-wide long-term stewardship challenges. Our emphasis in FY 2002 will be on resolving issues that interfere with, or potentially delay, the transition of sites through closure and into long-term stewardship. We also continue investments in science and technology to help ensure that the protections provided by our remedies can be maintained as cost-effectively as possible for the necessary duration.
ENSURING WE USE RESOURCES EFFECTIVELY
The cleanup facing DOE is perhaps the most complex and challenging environmental challenge in the world. And it is one of the most costly, currently estimated to cost about $200 billion to complete. It is critical that we manage the program well and employ strategies that will help us continue progress and meet our commitments more efficiently and at a lower cost. The comprehensive, top-to-bottom assessment of the Environmental Management mission that the Secretary has directed be conducted will help identify opportunities to optimize the use of cleanup funds. Strategies to achieve this include:
implementing sound project management practices;
Page 253 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
achieving efficiencies through innovative performance-based contracting approaches that provide financial incentives for performance;
working closely with state and federal regulators, tribal nations, and other stakeholders at our sites; and
linking sites through integration.
A. IMPROVING PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Sound project management is fundamental to cost effective and timely completion of EM's massive clean-up effort. EM has accomplished significant improvements in the past several years in planning and execution of project baselines, but certainly more work remains. In particular, we need to improve our up-front planning and our project risk management practices. The latter is particularly important given the high degree of uncertainty associated with many of our first-of-a kind projects.
EM's Office of Project Management, created in August 1999, is charged with bringing state-of-the-art project management tools and training into the EM program to enable us to better manage our projects. We work closely with the Office of Engineering and Construction Management (OECM) in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the unifying organization for project management for DOE. We learn from and compare our performance with the standards and practices of external organizations such as the Construction Industry Institute, the Project Management Institute, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Page 254 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Over the past year, EM has significantly improved project management practices by taking an aggressive approach to implementing the new DOE project management order, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, which mandates that industry standard processes and reporting be incorporated into DOE project management. We have recently identified over 70 discrete, well-defined projects (referred to as Capital Asset Projects) that will be subject to the comprehensive project management requirements laid out in the new DOE order.
A sample of the other changes made to promote better project planning and reduce overall program costs include:
We are increasingly using a comprehensive project planning tool similar to that used by the Construction Industry Institute across the complex. We expect its use to result in near term project cost and schedule improvements.
We have instituted quarterly performance reviews for key projects and formalized a ''critical decision'' approval process using the expertise of DOE's Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board (ESAAB). These internal and external independent project reviews are the independent ''eyes and ears'' assist us in making sound decisions.
We have begun to make use of ''state-of-the-art'' cost estimating models for environmental remediation and decontamination and decommissioning projects. We plan to extend these models to all types of EM projects.
Page 255 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We are putting together Integrated Project Teams to provide more effective intra-site communication. These teams are charged with expanding technology transfer and reducing project risk associated with cross site waste transfers.
We are developing the project management career ladder to ensure that future project managers have the right training and experience to mange the large complex environmental management projects to come.
EM is taking project management ''off the drawing board'' and putting it into practice. Both headquarters and field offices are making changes needed to promote effective project management. While we will certainly face challenges ahead, we also anticipate substantial project management improvement, and more success stories in the coming years.
B. IMPROVING CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
The EM program accomplishes its work largely through facility management contracts that provide for management and operations at each site. EM site managers have oversight responsibility for eleven facility management contracts. Managing performance under these contracts is key to successfully carrying out the EM mission and to reducing costs.
To ensure we get what we pay for and that we get what we need, we have moved away from traditional cost-plus-award-fee contracts and are applying performance-based contracting and management principles to all our facility management contracts, as well as to our support service contracts. This contracting approach uses objective performance metrics to define and measure contract performance, tying the contractor's fee to achievement of these specific performance measures. Innovative performance metrics developed and used by EM sites include multi-year performance incentives, ''gateway'' provisions requiring the contractor to complete previous performance requirements before earning fee in a performance area, and ''stretch'' and ''super-stretch'' goals in which the contractor uses cost savings to fund unfunded work.
Page 256 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In the past few years, we awarded new cost-plus-incentive-fee ''closure'' contracts for the Rocky Flats and Fernald sites tied to completing the closure of the site. The contracts identify a target closure and include incentives for accelerated completions and reductions in fee for any delay beyond this targeted date. The contracts also include cost and schedule incentives focused on ensuring the cleanup is conducted safely and compliantly. We also negotiated new or extended contracts for operation of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, the Richland Operations Office and the Office of River Protection at Hanford, and the Savannah River Site that tie fees to performance.
To further enhance contract reform objectives, EM is taking an increasingly active role in defining performance expectations, ensuring that these expectations are consistent with the Department's strategic plan, reviewing results, and holding both site managers and contractors accountable for producing results. In fact, site managers now have very specific elements in their annual performance plans concerning contract management.
C. WORKING WITH OUR REGULATORS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS
We have found that performing good technical work is not enough. Getting the job done requires coordination with regulators and others outside of DOE that have a stake in our actions. By working cooperatively with regulators, stakeholders, local communities and the Tribal Nations, we have improved the efficiency of the EM program and have made progress in meeting our regulatory commitments in a more efficient and cost-effective way.
Critical to the success of our efforts to improve the efficiency of this program and the cleanup results is the involvement and support of our state and federal partners. We believe this is an opportune time to examine the compliance framework that guides cleanup at all our major sites to ensure it reflects the experience gained over the past decade when many agreements were put in place. 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 review our cleanup work to make sure it promotes on-the-ground results, and reflects the lessons and technical understanding that have developed. I am confident that, working cooperatively, we can find ways to achieve our shared environmental goals more efficiently.
Page 257 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Our request supports public participation through continued relationships with states, site-specific and national advisory boards, and Indian tribes potentially affected by our activities. We will encourage an open and frank dialogue with our regulators to ensure that we are pursuing the most efficient and most cost effective solutions to cleanup and compliance needs, as well as the most appropriate sequencing of work.
D. LINKING SITES THROUGH INTEGRATION
While each DOE site has its own objectives and milestones for cleanup and closure, no site can complete its mission without help from other parts of the EM program. Making use of the unique capabilities for managing and treating nuclear wastes and materials at our sites and sharing information and expertise is critical to our success. Through integration, we seek to use available capacity rather than construct new facilities; apply innovative technologies at multiple sites; and apply lessons learned and site successes complex-wide. We work to address common problems and challenges across the DOE complex through a corporate approach.
The contribution of other sites to the closure of Rocky Flats continues to illustrate the importance of integration. Our ability to close Rocky Flats depends on the acceptance of waste and materials by other DOE sites, including the Savannah River Site, Los Alamos, Pantex Plant, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the Nevada Test Site. Rocky Flats is in the process of formulating an Integrated Closure Project Baseline that integrates the Department's contractual commitments to provide items and services with activities to be carried out by the site contractor. The Integrated Closure Project Baseline highlights that the closure of Rocky Flats is truly a complex-wide project, requiring the support and careful coordination of a number of Departmental sites and programs. It has improved our ability to integrate complex-wide activities, schedules and resources.
Page 258 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We are working to develop disposition pathways for surplus nuclear materials throughout the DOE complex, including orphan materials (i.e., those with unclear programmatic ownership), and wastes that cannot be disposed of in their current forms. This requires that the Department has a full understanding of the surplus materials inventories and corresponding disposition plans prior to termination of facility capabilities. For example, EM recently completed the ''Savannah River Site Canyons Nuclear Material Identification Study'' (February 2001) to determine which materials would potentially require the use of the Savannah River canyons. Such disposition studies often identify the need to transfer materials and wastes between DOE sites in preparation for ultimate disposition. To support one particular transfer, EM recently revised DOE's 3013 Storage Standard for surplus plutonium, accelerating Rocky Flats closure by allowing metals and oxides stored there to be packaged for shipment off-site. We are also working to develop a cost-effective disposal approach for the classified waste currently stored at Rocky Flats.
Finally, the transport of radioactive waste and material between sites is critical to the success of our integration priorities. Our national transportation program, which has successfully moved spent nuclear fuel containing U.S. enriched uranium from research reactors around the world to the U.S. for safe storage, is applying its success to other DOE shipments. For example, EM is working with other DOE program offices and with the sites to develop a national packaging strategy that will improve the availability of certified casks for unique types of DOE shipments, is working with NNSA to ensure the availability of Transportation Safeguards System for shipping special nuclear materials from Rocky Flats, and is developing the option of shipping waste to WIPP via rail. Our efforts will enable us to identify future packaging and transportation needs, to support aggressive shipping schedules, and to utilize our transportation assets more efficiently.
Page 259 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
PROVIDING EFFECTIVE FEDERAL OVERSIGHT
Critical to successfully managing the cleanup program and to identifying and implementing more efficient ways of doing business is having the Federal workforce in place to provide effective oversight of the contractors that compete for and carry out the actual cleanup work. Federal employees establish the program and project goals; they provide the direction to the contractors; and they monitor contractor performance to ensure we are getting the results we need, at the quality and cost promised, and that work is done in a safe and compliant manner. Our initiatives to reduce the costs and schedules of the cleanup depends on having an effective Federal workforce to keep the pressure on the contractor to bring find more innovative and efficient ways of doing business.
The Federal workforce performs essential tasks that it would be inappropriate to have contractors perform. These include formulating the annual budget and outyear projections; managing contractors, including contract negotiations, oversight, and accountability; representing the Department in its dealing with regulators; analyzing and formulating program policy and planning; and integrating activities and information across sites.
Our request for Program Direction, which funds Federal salaries as well as travel and administrative and technical support services, is $355 million. However, our request reduces support services and travel funds by almost half, while essentially maintaining the funds for Federal salaries. The request supports 2,708 Full-time Equivalents (FTEs)—about 84 percent of which are in the twelve DOE field and operations offices—and includes increases in the Carlsbad Field Office and the Office of River Protection to reflect increased requirements. Overall, the Program Direction account has been significantly reduced from earlier years. The number of Headquarters FTEs, for example, is 45 percent less than when at its highest point in 1995. The request for Program Direction in FY 2002 is about 15 percent less than in FY 1997, the year these activities were consolidated into a single account.
Page 260 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Department continues to place a high priority on workforce management to provide a stable workforce with the right skill mix and technical capabilities to accomplish our mission, now and into the future.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Department is making progress in cleaning up the legacy of contamination left from the nuclear weapons production process. We are giving priority to reducing our most serious risks, accelerating cleanup at our major sites across the country, safely storing and safeguarding weapons-usable nuclear materials, and reducing the long-term costs of the program. We will continue to use science and technology to reduce costs and schedules, improve our project management, make the most effective use of our unique resources across the DOE complex, and maintain our focus on worker safety. We pledge to continue to work closely and cooperatively with the Congress to ensure that this progress continues and that we can meet the challenges ahead in the most effective way.
SUMMARY OF THE FY 2002 BUDGET
The total FY 2002 budget request for the Department of Energy's Environmental Management Program is $5.913 billion, including $142 million of privatization funding. The FY 2002 appropriation will fund cleanup at sites across the Nation. Five sites receive almost three-fourths of Environmental Management funding—the Hanford site in Washington (including Richland Operations Office and Office of River Protection), the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, the Rocky Flats site in Colorado, the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Idaho, and the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee.
Page 261 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Our request for Non-Defense Environmental Management is $228.5 million. Our FY 2002 budget proposal provides details on each project, including performance measures, which we use to hold managers accountable, and expect to be held accountable by Congress. Summaries of budget accounts and the FY 2002 request by State and Operations Office are attached. We would also like to summarize the major activities for some of our non-defense sites, including sites funded in the Uranium Facilities Management and Remediation account.
1. Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio
2. East Tennessee Technology Park, Tennessee
3. West Valley Demonstration Plant, New York
4. Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Kentucky
5. Weldon Spring Remedial Action Project, Missouri
6. Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York
7. California Sites
Information on each of these sites can be found immediately following the budget summaries.
Page 262 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
72196tt.eps
72196uu.eps
72196vv.eps
Initially constructed to support the Federal government's uranium enrichment program for defense purposes, the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant has been leased to the U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC), a private corporation, to provide uranium enrichment services to commercial nuclear power plants.
In June 2000, USEC announced that it would cease operations of the Portsmouth enrichment facilities and turn over the facilities to DOE. We are working closely within the Department to support a smooth transition from USEC operations to DOE stewardship. The Department intends to place the facilities in a safe and operable condition, or ''cold standby'' status, in the event of a significant supply disruption that threatens the ability of the U.S. producer to meet its contractual commitments to utilities in both the U.S. and U.S. strategic allies. An immediate need is ''winterization'' of the facilities, which requires development of a new source of heat for the facilities, currently heated as a byproduct of the enrichment process operations. A total of $125 million requested in FY 2002 supports activities in FY 2001 and FY 2002 to winterize the facilities, place the facilities in cold standby, and mitigate the impacts on the workforce. Some of these funds will be used to replace funding for some of the sources for a FY 2001 reprogramming for transition activities now pending before Congress.
Page 263 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
EM has historically been responsible for the cleanup of existing environmental contamination at the site and management of legacy waste. Primary environmental problems include cleanup of contaminated areas around the site, remediation of several old landfills, disposition of legacy waste, and containment and remediation of groundwater contaminated with both radioactive and chemical contaminants. There is no off-site contamination, and ground-water contamination is contained within the shallow aquifer bedrock. With the requested funding in FY 2002, EM plans to complete active remediation by FY 2003 and all legacy waste disposition by FY 2006.
In addition, 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 DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology to the Office of Environmental Management to carry out the associated responsibilities. With this transfer, EM gained additional responsibilities, addressed in the FY 2002 request, including management and disposition of the depleted uranium hexafloride (DUF) inventory.
In FY 2000, we completed the multimedia capping corrective measure of the last former landfill and transitioned from investigation and interim actions to implementing groundwater contamination technologies.
During FY 2001, we are focusing on closure of the remaining hazardous waste units; containment and contaminant removal of on-site groundwater plumes; disposal of legacy waste, and surveillance and maintenance of shutdown facilities. Several alternatives for remediation of both soil and groundwater contamination are being evaluated in FY 2001. These alternatives include use of innovative technologies such as oxidant injection and vacuum enhanced recovery with phytoremediation, steam stripping, oxidant recirculation, and groundwater extraction and bioremediation. The Record of Decision (ROD) will be issued in the Fall of 2001. We will initiate construction of the final remediation technology, i.e., implement ROD, for groundwater plumes and construction of caps on several landfills located in the southern portion of the site. We will initiate final remedial action for the X–701B groundwater plume and continue removing contaminated soils from areas associated with this plume and in other areas. We will also initiate final remedial action for the groundwater plume located in the vicinity of the main process buildings for completion in FY 2002. We will characterize approximately 12,500 containers of low-level waste, mixed hazardous and low-level waste, and PCB-containing low-level waste for disposal.
Page 264 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In FY 2002, the Department will continue off-site disposal of low-level and mixed low-level wastes. We will operate and maintain the ongoing ground-water treatment facility and conduct long-term surveillance and maintenance of remedial action units and decontamination and decommissioning facilities. We will complete disposal of the remaining 2,600 tons of scrap metal on the X–747 scrap metal project, continue final remediation in Quadrant I for building X–749–120 ground-water plume, and initiate the final remedial action in Quadrant II for the X–701B soil and ground water.
Our FY 2002 request also supports maintenance of facilities and surplus uranium, and surveillance and maintenance of the inventory of approximately 16,000 DUF cylinders and 2,000 cylinders containing other surplus uranium at Portsmouth. We are managing the cylinders at Portsmouth and the other gaseous diffusion plants in Kentucky and Tennessee consistent with the consent agreements with the affected states and with Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's Recommendation 95–1, which was closed in December 1999 when the Board determined the Department had met all of the relevant commitments.
The FY 2002 request includes $10 million in the Oak Ridge Reservation account to proceed with the project to chemically convert the Department's inventory of DUF at Portsmouth and elsewhere into a more stable form that would make it acceptable for reuse if applications for the material are found, or for disposal. Early in FY 2001, the Department issued the final Request for Proposals to design, construct and, for the first five years, operate conversion facilities at Paducah and Portsmouth. The Department is committed to keeping this project on track to begin construction in January 2004, consistent with the schedule provided in Public Law 105–204.
Page 265 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The President's FY 2002 budget request also includes $7.2 million for pre-existing liabilities at the Portsmouth Plant, which are those liabilities that by law or agreement the Department retained after the transfer of the uranium enrichment activities to USEC. Pre-existing liabilities consist of post-retirement life and medical benefits for retirees and employees that existed prior to the time of transfer to the USEC (for that portion attributed to service prior to privatization for these retirees).
The East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) (formerly the Oak Ridge K–25 gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment facility) is one of three facilities at the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR), which also includes the Y–12 Plant and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The current work at Y–12 and ORNL is funded from Defense appropriations. The majority of the work at ETTP is primarily funded from the Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation account, but there are projects at ETTP that were not related to sales of enriched uranium. Those projects are funded from defense appropriations.
In FY 2002, the Department will continue its effort to reindustrialize facilities in Oak Ridge, particularly at ETTP. The goal is to clean up ETTP as quickly and as safely as possible so that the site can be reused as an industrial park. As of December 2000, about 6,300,000 square feet of space have been leased to 35 private companies in a total of 71 separate leases. In some cases, the Department has conducted cleanup of the building and, in other cases, the private company is undertaking the cleanup. Overall, we estimate that this strategy will save $182 million in life-cycle costs.
Page 266 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We are making good progress on the Department's largest ever decommissioning project at ETTP. Cleanup of K–33, the first DOE uranium enrichment facility to be decommissioned, is already 60 percent complete as of March 2001. This first building will be finished in FY 2002 and will then be readied for private sector reuse. The K–33 building and two other buildings are being decommissioned under a fixed price contract with BNFL, Inc. The project has turned the corner, and is currently making up for previous schedule delays. The largest supercompactor in the United States is now operating and is helping to minimize waste disposal volumes.
The Department's moratorium on releasing into commerce recycled metals from radiological areas remains in effect, continuing to impact the BNFL project cost. Impacts to the contract have been minimized in that metals destined for recycling are being purchased by the Department and stored for possible future release. For much of the metals, these restrictions are expected to remain pending decisions made after completion of an Environmental Impact Statement.
Our FY 2002 request for Uranium Programs at ETTP supports surveillance and maintenance of the inventory of 4,700 cylinders of depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF and 2,500 other surplus uranium cylinders at ETTP. We are managing the cylinders at ETTP and the other gaseous diffusion plants in Ohio and Tennessee consistent with the consent agreements with the affected states and with Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's Recommendation 95–1, which was closed in December 1999 when the Board determined the Department had met all of the relevant commitments.
The FY 2002 request includes $10 million in the Oak Ridge Account to proceed with the project to chemically convert the Department's inventory of DUF into a more stable form that would make it acceptable for reuse, if applications for the material are found, or for disposal. Early in FY 2001, the Department issued the final Request for Proposals to design, construct and, for the first five years, operate conversion facilities at Paducah and Portsmouth, and initially planned to award the contract in FY 2001. The contract is scheduled to be awarded at the end of FY 2001, but due to the number of proposals received and the complexity of the technical and business evaluations, the award of the contract may be delayed until early FY 2002. In FY 2002, the Department is requesting $10 million for the conversion project and plans to allocate an additional $12 million to this amount from funds obtained under Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) with USEC to support this project. The Department is committed to keeping this project on track to begin construction by January 2004, consistent with the schedule provided in Public Law 105–204.
Page 267 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The President's FY 2002 budget request also includes $890,000 for pre-existing liabilities at ETTP, which are those liabilities that by law or agreement the Department retained after the transfer of the uranium enrichment activities to USEC. Pre-existing liabilities consist of post-retirement life and medical benefits for retirees and employees that existed prior to the time of transfer to the USEC (for that portion attributed to service prior to privatization for these retirees).
The West Valley Demonstration Project, located in western New York, is being conducted at the site of the only commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing facility to operate in the United States. Pursuant to an agreement with the State of New York, a private company processed spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium and uranium from 1966 to 1972, generating 2,200 cubic meters of liquid high-level radioactive waste. New York alone became responsible for the site after operations ceased, and the 1980 West Valley Demonstration Project Act directed the Secretary of Energy to carry out a high-level radioactive waste demonstration project to assist the State with cleanup of the site. The site will be returned to the State after DOE completes its responsibilities under the Act.
The principal operation at West Valley is the solidification of the liquid high-level waste into borosilicate glass using a process called vitrification. The primary vitrification campaign began in June 1996 and was completed ahead of schedule in June 1998. Vitrification of the high-level waste tank heels is currently underway. Ten canisters of solidified high-level waste were produced in FY 2000, exceeding the goal of five canisters, and five to eight canisters of solidified high-level waste will be produced in FY 2001. Due to recent characterization data which indicates that the high level waste tanks contain higher than expected levels of radionuclides, vitrification operations will continue into FY 2002 to support additional tank cleaning efforts, to be then followed by systematic shutdown of the melter and other vitrification processing systems.
Page 268 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The EM program is also responsible for the safe management of 125 spent nuclear fuel elements stored at the site. The spent fuel is scheduled to be shipped to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in the summer of 2001.
The West Valley site exemplifies the Department's continued commitment to the safety of its workers. In FY 2000, the West Valley site received the Department's top safety and health award, referred to as ''Voluntary Protection Program Star Status.''
Now that vitrification of the high-level waste is nearly complete, our focus shifts to waste management and decontamination of project equipment and facilities. Off-site shipments of low-level waste for disposal are underway and will continue. We are developing the Remote Handled Waste Facility to prepare high activity waste for off-site shipment for disposal; we completed final design and started construction in FY 2001, and construction will continue in FY 2002. Deactivation and decontamination activities on project facilities will be carried out, such as clean-out of waste from the head-end cells and deactivation of the spent fuel storage pool.
In addition, work is progressing toward development of a Waste Management and Decontamination Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision (EIS ROD) scheduled for FY 2002, to be followed in several years by a Decommissioning or Long-Term Stewardship EIS ROD, which will determine final closure of the site. New York State and DOE have been working together and with stakeholders to formulate a preferred alternative for the Decommissioning or Long-Term Stewardship EIS. Although negotiations between New York and DOE concluded in January 2001 without an agreement, we continue to work successfully with the State on day-to-day activities at the site. Should DOE and the State ultimately be unable to reach consensus on a preferred alternative, DOE will proceed with the Decommissioning EIS on its own.
Page 269 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
This uranium enrichment facility occupies a 3,500 acre site in Paducah—including 750 acres within the fenced security area and 2,000 acres leased to the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife. Initially constructed to support the Federal government's uranium enrichment program for defense purposes, the facility now produces enriched uranium for commercial nuclear reactors under the auspices of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC). USEC is responsible for all primary process facilities and auxiliary facilities associated with the enrichment services and for waste generated by current operations. The Department has responsibility for facilities, materials, and equipment not needed by USEC for their operations.
The Environmental Management program has historically been responsible for remediation of contaminated soils and groundwater, and management of legacy wastes and materials at Paducah generated before the plant was leased to USEC. The cleanup problems and contaminants include both on-site and off-site contamination from radioactive and hazardous materials, including off-site groundwater contamination which has contaminated private residential wells. There are also numerous contaminated areas around the site requiring cleanup, about 55,000 tons of scrap metal that must be dispositioned; 6,000 cubic meters of low-level waste in drums; and several radioactively-contaminated surplus facilities that must be decontaminated.
In addition, 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 the Office of Environmental Management to carry out the associated responsibilities. With this transfer, EM gained additional responsibilities, addressed in the FY 2002 request, including management and disposition of the depleted uranium hexafloride (DUF) inventory and the cleanup of 160 DOE Material Storage Areas (DMSAs) containing more than 800,000 cubic feet of materials and equipment.
Page 270 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Department continues to monitor residential wells and to pay municipal water bills for residents whose drinking-water wells were affected by the ground-water contamination. We will continue to operate ''pump-and-treat'' systems installed at the northeast and northwest plumes during the early 1990's; approximately 12,000 pounds of contaminants have been extracted from ground water since these systems began operation.
In December 2000, we completed the disposition of 6,250 tons of radioactively-contaminated drums removed from ''Drum Mountain,'' a suspected source of contamination of the Big and Little Bayou Creeks. Current plans for FY 2001 call for beginning the removal of the remaining scrap yards, which is critical to access and characterize the underlying burial grounds, for completion at the end of 2003; beginning construction in FY 2001 to remediate the North-South Diversion Ditch; issuing a Record of Decision for final remedy for groundwater sources contributing to the northeast and northwest plumes; and continuing decontamination of the shutdown radioactively contaminated buildings, completing the removal of stored equipment and materials and accessible loose contamination from the C–410 Feed Plant facility. In FY 2002, our plans include completing remediation of the North-South Diversion Ditch; continuing removal of the remaining scrap metal piles; and removing the building infrastructure of the C–410 Feed Plant.
However, it will be necessary to re-prioritize cleanup activities in FY 2001 and FY 2002 in order to resolve a Notice of Violation (NOV) issued by the Commonwealth of Kentucky in September 2000. The NOV concerned the possible presence of hazardous waste and other regulated substances in the 160 DOE Material Storage Areas (DMSAs), which EM became responsible for with the transfer of Uranium Programs in FY 2001. Some planned cleanup activities may need to be deferred to accelerate characterization and disposition of materials and equipment in the DMSAs in response to the NOV. Discussions with State and EPA regulators are underway.
Page 271 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Department is currently evaluating alternatives for disposal of waste generated by site-wide remediation activities at Paducah. One alternative being considered is the construction and operation of an on-site disposal facility, a cost-effective approach to dispose of remediation waste. Environmental planning activities currently in progress, such as siting, seismic, and feasibility studies, will lead to a Record of Decision early in 2003 (Initially scheduled for FY 2002, additional field studies requested by the regulators have delayed the schedule for issuing the ROD by several months.) If on-site disposal is selected, we would develop the 600,000 cubic yard facility through a privatization approach, in which the Department would purchase waste disposal services from the private vendor for low-level, hazardous, Toxic Substances Control Act defined, and mixed wastes generated at Paducah. Our request for $13.3 million in the privatization account supports this project and would allow us to carry out the procurement planning activities needed to award a contract soon after the Record of Decision is issued.
Our FY 2002 request for Uranium Programs at Paducah supports the maintenance of facilities not leased to USEC and of surplus uranium inventories. It also supports surveillance and maintenance of the inventory of approximately 40,200 mainly DUF cylinders at Paducah. We are managing the cylinders at Paducah and the other gaseous diffusion plants in Ohio and Tennessee consistent with the consent agreements with the affected states and with Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's Recommendation 95–1, which was closed in December 1999 when the Board determined the Department had met all of the relevant commitments.
The FY 2002 request includes $10 million in the Oak Ridge Reservation account to proceed with the project to chemically convert the Department's inventory of DUF at Paducah and elsewhere into a more stable form that would make it acceptable for reuse if applications for the material are found, or for disposal. Early in FY 2001, the Department issued the final Request for Proposals to design, construct and, for the first five years, operate conversion facilities at Paducah and Portsmouth. The Department is committed to keeping this project on track to begin construction in January 2004, consistent with the schedule provided in Public Law 105–204.
Page 272 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The President's FY 2002 budget request also includes $3.8 million for pre-existing liabilities at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, which are those liabilities that by law or agreement the Department retained after the transfer of the uranium enrichment activities to USEC. Pre-existing liabilities consist of post-retirement life and medical benefits for retirees and employees that existed prior to the time of transfer to the USEC (for that portion attributed to service prior to privatization for these future retirees).
The Weldon Spring Site Remedial Action Project in Missouri covers the cleanup of an abandoned decommissioned uranium processing plant, an abandoned quarry used as a dump site, as well as numerous vicinity properties that were contaminated by uranium and thorium processing operations conducted for nuclear weapons support in the 1950's and 1960's. It consists of two separate facilities, the Weldon Spring Quarry and the Chemical Plant Site, which includes the raffinate disposal areas.
Our request supports completion of the cleanup of surface contamination at the Weldon Spring Site and permanent disposal of all contaminated material in an on-site, above-grade cell by the end of FY 2002. Groundwater activities, as well as long-term surveillance and monitoring for the disposal facility will be conducted after surface cleanup is complete. Much of the remaining land is planned to be released for unrestricted use.
In FY 2000, we completed placement of 1.5 million cubic yard of waste in the on-site disposal facility, with only minimal miscellaneous waste expected to be placed to achieve site closure. The last of the legacy plant buildings was demolished, and cleanup of the vicinity properties was completed. We also completed the remediation of the waste pits and began restoration of the site.
Page 273 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In FY 2001, most of the disposal facility cover will be in place, and we will complete the backfill of the Quarry and the demolition of the Quarry water treatment plant. Work on the Quarry groundwater interceptor trench operation will continue. Efforts will continue on the study of the site groundwater, which will evaluate whether a pump-and-treat remediation operation will be needed and will support the Record of Decision on site groundwater.
FY 2002 will be a transition year for the project as it moves from active remediation and restoration to preparation for long-term stewardship. In FY 2002, we will complete the construction of the disposal facility cover, cap and the restoration of the Quarry, soil borrow area, and main site. The Quarry ground-water interceptor trench operations and the treatment of trichloroethylene contaminants in the site ground water will also be completed. The groundwater Record of Decision that will establish whether groundwater remediation is required will also be completed in FY 2002.
The Brookhaven National Laboratory is a Department of Energy research and development facility on Long Island, New York, which is managed by the Office of Science. The site is located at the headwaters of the Peconic River, a New York State-designated Wild and Scenic River and included in the federal Estuary Program. The Laboratory has extensive groundwater and soil contamination, and overlies a shallow sole-source aquifer. EM is responsible for cleanup of on-site radionuclide and chemical contamination of groundwater and soils, heavy metal contamination in river sediments, and tritium and volatile organic compound contamination of off-site groundwater. EM is also carrying out the deactivation and decommissioning of two shut-down research reactors and for management of legacy waste. Listed on Superfund's National Priorities List, the cleanup is being conducted under an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and New York State.
Page 274 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We are continuing to treat contaminated groundwater with the operation of five on-site and one off-site groundwater treatment systems. This off-site treatment system, installed under EM's Accelerated Site Technology Deployment program in 1999, uses innovative technology (in-well air stripping) to extract contaminants within the well. The Record of Decision to finalize groundwater remedies was signed in June 2000. Over the remainder of FY 2001 and in 2002, we will design and install additional groundwater treatment systems. The cleanup of the Ethylene Dibromide Plume is scheduled to begin in FY 2002. The cleanup remedy will involve installation of a groundwater treatment unit as called for in a March 2001 Record of Decision.
In September 1999, DOE and State and Federal regulators finalized the remedy for contaminated soil, which involves excavation and off-site disposal. Remedy design was finalized, and soil excavation began in FY 2000. Soil excavation will continue over the next several years.
The proposed remedy for cleaning up contaminated sediments in the Peconic River is currently being finalized. We anticipate finalizing the Record of Decision for this project in FY 2001, with remedial design activities beginning in FY 2002. A draft Record of Decision for the Sewage Treatment Plant was submitted to the regulators in FY 2001.
In February 1999, EM assumed responsibility for characterizing, stabilizing, and decommissioning the Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor. This project is being executed as a series of removal actions, allowing an early start to decommissioning. We plan to accomplish substantial field work by the end of FY 2001, including removal of above-ground ductwork and below-ground piping. In addition, EM assumed responsibility for deactivation and decommissioning of the High Flux Beam Reactor at Brookhaven in April 2000. Stabilization activities funded by the Office of Science and managed by EM were performed in FY 2000 and are continuing in FY 2001, which will reduce the cost of safely maintaining the facility. We will carry out surveillance and maintenance activities for the Brookhaven Graphite Research and High Flux Beam reactors in FY 2002.
Page 275 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The EM program continued to dispose of legacy wastes and to store, treat and dispose of wastes generated by on-going Brookhaven operations in FY 2000. In FY 2001, management of newly-generated waste was transferred to the Office of Science. EM will continue management of legacy waste; we expect to complete most legacy waste disposal in FY 2001.
The General Atomics facility is a privately-owned and operated site, located near San Diego. General Atomics maintained and operated a Hot Cell Facility for years to conduct both government and commercially funded nuclear research and development. EM is responsible for the cleanup of the Hot Cell Facility and surrounding contaminated soils. In FY 2000, after an independent verification certification was conducted, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and State of California amended their respective licenses to release the Hot Cell Facility and associated yard for unrestricted use. However, soil from the Hot Cell yard, thought to be clean, was found to have particle contamination. In FY 2001 we are disposing of that soil at the Nevada Test Site. Once the soil is dispositioned, all activities at the Hot Cell Facility will be complete except for surveillance and maintenance of spent nuclear fuel. The spent nuclear fuel will remain on site until 2003, at which time it will be shipped to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory for interim storage.
The Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research is located at the University of California, Davis. Research at the laboratory originally was directed toward the health effects from chronic exposure to radionuclides using animals to simulate radiation effects on humans. The Department terminated the research program and closed the laboratory in 1988. EM activities are directed toward cleaning up the DOE areas of contamination for eventual release back to the University without radiological restrictions. The site was put on the Superfund National Priorities List in 1994, and a Federal Facility Agreement between DOE, EPA and the State was signed in FY 1999.
Page 276 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We have made significant cleanup progress at this site. In FY 2000, we completed the closure of the mixed waste storage facility; and removed three dry wells, a distribution box and piping, and Domestic Tank 2. In FY 2001, we will complete removal of the Colbalt-60 source, Domestic Tank 3, the radium tank, Imhoff Facility tanks and associated leachfield, and begin removal of the Western Dog Pen and additional Domestic Tanks. In FY 2002, we will complete removal of the domestic tanks, continue work on the Western Dog Pens, perform assessments on remaining domestic septic tanks, and perform off-site disposal of low-level wastes. However, due to additional contamination found and an increased volume of waste removed during soil excavation of the southwest trenches, the completion of cleanup at the site will extend beyond the original projected completion date of FY 2002.
The Energy Technology Engineering Center is a DOE facility located on 90 acres of land leased from Boeing North American Corporation in Simi Valley, California. EM activities at this site involve remediation of contaminated groundwater; decontamination and decommissioning of the remaining radiological facilities; deactivation and cleanup of existing sodium facilities; landlord functions; and characterization and off-site disposal of waste.
In FY 2000, we began the development of an Environmental Assessment to evaluate the impacts of the remaining cleanup work at the site, completed cleanup of three facilities, and shipped mixed low-level and low-level waste off-site for disposal. We began assessment for deactivation and decommissioning of the Radioactive Materials Handling Facility.
We also completed the excavation of soil contaminated with hazardous constituents from the Former Sodium Disposal Facility (FSDF) in FY 2000. However, in response to stakeholder concerns raised about the disposal of this material at a hazardous waste facility, the soil was temporarily stored on-site pending a re-evaluation by the State as to whether the soil could appropriately be disposed at a permitted hazardous waste disposal facility as planned, or whether it should instead be disposed of at a radioactive disposal site. The State has completed its evaluation and approved disposal of the soil at the hazardous waste disposal facility. In FY 2001, we will dispose of the excavated soil as approved by the State.
Page 277 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Also in FY 2001, we will complete below-grade work at the Reactor Test Facility, continue off-site shipments of mixed low-level and low-level waste, complete backfill operations at the FSDF, dismantle the Hockey Stick Steam Generator at the Sodium Component Test Installation, continue the assessment of the Radioactive Materials Handling Facility, and complete the site-wide Environmental Assessment.
Dismantlement of the Sodium Component Test Installation and deactivation of Building 4059 will continue in FY 2002. Work will continue in developing the plans for D&D of the Radioactive Materials Handling Facility and off-site disposal of mixed low-level and low-level waste.
The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center is a 426-acre site located at Stanford University, which conducts theoretical research in high-energy particle physics for DOE. Remediation activities at the site involve the cleanup of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)-contaminated soil areas and several solvent-contaminated groundwater and soil areas. In FY 2000, we excavated contaminated soils in the Research and the Lower Salvage Yards, and completed the characterization the IR–6 Drainage Channel. We will complete the pilot testing of the soil vapor extraction system at the Former Hazardous Waste Storage yard in FY 2001 and begin remediation of soils at the Research Yard. In FY 2002, final assessment reports for the former Hazardous Waste Storage Area and plating shop will be submitted to the regulators. In addition, soil remediation will continue at several locations, the IR–6 Drainage Channel, and a power supply station.
The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is a site leased by DOE at the University of California-Berkeley. EM responsibilities at the site include storage, treatment and off site disposal of both legacy waste and hazardous and radioactive waste generated by current operations, and remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater created from past Departmental operations. The Office of Science assumed responsibility for newly generated waste in FY 2001, but EM continues to manage legacy waste. In addition, the RCRA Facility Investigation Report was submitted to the regulatory agencies in FY 2001. In FY 2002, we will continue to excavate contaminated soils at on-site locations, operate groundwater treatment systems to contain off-site plume migration, and continue off-site disposal of hazardous and radioactive waste.
Page 278 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
BIOGRAPHY FOR JAMES M. OWENDOFF
James M. Owendoff assumed the position of Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Environmental Management (EM) program at the U.S. Department of Energy on July 13, 1999. He supports the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management in the overall management, technology development, environmental restoration, waste management, and facility stabilization. The EM program employs 3,000 Federal employees nationwide and has a budget of approximately $6 billion. The Environmental Management activities are accomplished at over 130 sites in 33 States and one U.S. Territory. These sites and the associated cleanup challenges result from more than five decades of nuclear weapons design, development and testing dating back to the original Manhattan Project.
Jim formerly served as the Acting Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management from January 1, 1998 and as the Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management from January 2, 1997. His initial appointment at the U.S. Department of Energy was on April 3, 1995 as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration. He was appointed to this position by the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, Thomas P. Grumbly.
Prior to this appointment, Jim served in the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security and Chief of the Air Force Environmental Restoration Division. These assignments follow a series of successively responsible leadership positions during his career in the U.S. Air Force, which included assignments throughout the continental United States and several foreign countries.
Page 279 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
He was commissioned in the U.S. Air Force as a 2nd Lieutenant in June 1968, immediately following his graduation from Virginia Polytechnic Institute where he earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering. He also holds a Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell University and is a graduate of the U.S. Army War College.
Jim is married to the former Marilyn Miller of Phoenix, Arizona. They have two sons (Nate and John) and currently reside in Fairfax, Virginia.
Discussion
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you all very much for your testimony, and let me now recognize our Ranking Member for any questions and comments she has. Thank you.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sullivan, I know you are here as backup but I feel sure that you can answer this or if you can't do it today, you will send me the answers or the Committee the answers. Because you spoke about the need for sustained funding in order to meet your program goals for hydrogen particularly and this need for at a minimum a sustained or ideally increasing funding level is a theme I have heard, you know, throughout this entire hearing so what I would like you to talk to me about is the renewable efficiency part of energy and what a budget that acts like a roller coaster will do to you, what do we need to do. Comment, if you would, what does your office do? How do you decide what programs to invest in when you can't count on a budget that keeps up with inflation and in fact has ups and downs. So if you could talk to me about that, I would appreciate it.
Page 280 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. SULLIVAN. I will give it a shot, Congresswoman Woolsey. I would like to refer back to I think something that the Secretary said. One, the Department of Energy, as you know, was in a constrained budget environment. Tough choices had to be made. But if you go back to when he rolled out the fiscal year 2002 budget there was a very important comment that was made. If you don't mind, I can just quote this for you.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Fine.
Mr. SULLIVAN. In speaking, by the way, of the renewable and energy efficiency programs he said, ''There were programs that we believe should be modified and while still protecting core competencies so that later budgets could take advantage of the results of the Cheney Task Force. For example, our hydrogen high temperature super conducting geothermal and wind energy resource programs were maintained at levels that provide a launching point for new initiatives following the recommendations of the Energy Task Force.''
So the decision-making process was in fact to maintain a core comp C level in all our efficiency and renewable programs. Once we have the direction that comes from Vice President Cheney's Task Force, we are well positioned to adjust to whatever that direction takes us. In the meantime, we have made those tough decisions to keep our programs stabilized to respond to that effort.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, down that aisle, I mean if any of you and all of you would comment on where you think additional funding would give us the most positive impact or get the most bang for our buck on efficiency, conservation and renewables. And with fossil fuels, how clean, efficient.
Page 281 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. In the fossil energy area I think we are supporting what we think is the very highest priority, which is the power industry where we are looking at the clean coal technology program. We think this is very important to the country and we heartily endorse that. I would agree with John that we have stepped back to re-evaluate both internally and as part of the Vice President's Task Force in several areas. One of those areas is turbine research and another area is fuel research and a third is oil and gas.
In those areas we are doing things that we know are specifically government roles and are addressing whether we still believe there is a continued government role in some of these areas that are operating in industries that are having very high profit margins and very robust markets. We are re-evaluating how much support we should put in those areas compared to what we did in the past.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, let me interrupt you just a minute. If we invested $100 million, what we invested in clean coal in renewables energies, wouldn't they be more robust and able to compete better?
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. That is a trade-off that we make in the budget process all the time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Yeah. Mr. Sullivan.
Mr. SULLIVAN. If I might, maintaining a robust portfolio of responses is really what this budget was about and what we are trying to maintain. That includes both the programs and fossil energy as well as renewable energy, any energy efficiency, as well as nuclear. That is the whole point, I believe, of having a national energy policy that is able to respond across a variety of areas.
Page 282 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. WOOLSEY. I don't want to be naive but do you believe that an oil man can actually run an energy summit and come up with balance the recommendations?
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. This is a coordinated effort if not only in oil men but all of the cabinet officers that are involved here and it requires a lot of input from the agencies, from the people in the agencies, and from outside groups as well so it is not just one man's opinion here.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, let us hope. Okay. Thank you.
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much. It may be significant that we have a meaningful representation from California among our panel members. I would now like to recognize Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yeah. I wonder if who knows if an oil man can come up with a balanced program, I wonder if politicians can come up with a balanced program. Well, I guess the first question should be coming from California, you know, we know that California is going through a crisis. Which one of you folks failed in your job and put us in this crisis? Oops, nobody is volunteering.
Well, maybe we could have some ideas of how California could have averted the crisis. Anybody got any ideas on that one? Come on now. Here we are. We are submitting all this money on these thinkers here and new ideas.
Page 283 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. I think the main problem, Congressman, is that there is not enough power to meet the demand so. . .
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think that is true.
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. The question has been building power plants and it is true in California but it has been true in other parts of the country. It has been very difficult to do that.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I noted in your testimony you stated that 65 new generating power plants are needed in the United States per year. That was your testimony.
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. That is correct.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. How many are being built each year?
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. There have been considerably less than that in the past. I think you know that there has been a tremendous amount of plants announced in the past couple of years, both for natural gas and now for coal so that we will probably see something approaching that 65 plants if things continue the way they are now.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. But we in the past, we just have not been meeting that commitment.
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. That is correct.
Page 284 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. ROHRABACHER. And had we not—we have changed that course. You are satisfied that the whole country is not going to end up like California then.
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. We certainly hope not.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well me too. What about clean coal? Who is talking about clean coal here?
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. I was.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Clean coal. And you mentioned that we can now burn coal and there are some technologies that are available to burn coal that is almost as clean as natural gas.
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Are there extra costs to that that would make that not doable for economic reasons or——
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. At this point the technology is somewhat more expensive than what natural gas technology has been. However, with natural gas prices around $5.00 a million BTUs on average if those kind of prices continue this technology would be economic. We also have research and development programs underway to reduce the cost of that technology. The technology I am predominantly speaking about is integrated combined cycle gasification where you gasify the coal and burn it like you would in a natural gas combined cycle plant.
Page 285 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, my understanding is that we have these mammoth coal reserves in the United States so you are saying that we have come to the technological stage now where those reserves can be thought of as a safety net for this country and we won't be polluting the air so much that we will all get sick?
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. Absolutely, sir. That is the thrust of our program. You know, we have doubled the use of coal in the past 30 years and reduced the amount of sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions tremendously.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. So your program has been successful?
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Oh, my gosh. When do we get to decrease your budget then and go on to something else? Oops, wrong question. All right. I want one last question and that is we are facing this problem in California and I was wondering if more attention shouldn't be placed on developing alternatives for people within the public like hospitals or even homes but maybe hotels which would permit them to generate their own electricity or at least contribute to putting energy into the grid through either solar or fuel cells or things such as that. Do you think we need more attention on that?
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. Yes, sir. We have a very healthy program both in fossil energy and fuel cell and also in energy efficiency which all that Mr. Sullivan addressed. Both of those were treated fairly well in the budget this year and we would agree that distributor generation, which is the term that is used for the kind of things that you describe, is something that will help to reduce the strain on the grid.
Page 286 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. ROHRABACHER. For example, what I am thinking about is if there is an energy shortage elsewhere in the country, well, even in California which is important, if a hospital needs electricity and we are going through a blackout, well, that is not a good thing. Well, there are other businesses that are as important to the people who work in those businesses as the hospitals and we don't want people to go out of business because there is a rolling blackout. Couldn't we have these fuel cells or something that would be available in that case for those people?
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir, Congressman Rohrabacher, let me give you a couple examples of programs that are in fact protected in this budget that would address this problem directly. Our distributor management resources program, which is a program that in part is to bring to the grid small modular generation of energy storage and load control can have a direct bearing on some of the problems you are addressing. Likewise, we are developing technologies on time monitoring and control technologies that can bring the solutions closer to the problem and those are precisely the kinds of activities that this budget is protecting.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would you—my time is up. I wonder, Mr. Sullivan, if you could give a call to my office and maybe we could sit down and talk about that in greater depth next week some time.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, Congressman. I would be happy to do that.
Page 287 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much.
Chairman BARTLETT. We recognize members in order of seniority before gavel fall. After gavel fall, we recognize them in order of their appearance on the panel so we now recognize Mr. Matheson.
Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the panel being here today. During Easter recess, I met with a lot of my constituents and one of constituents happens to be Dr. Ray Jeslan, who is the Vice President of Research at the University of Utah. We talked about a lot of different research efforts and science programs that were going on and one of the programs he mentioned to me that I thought was really interesting was this program of bringing the Genomes to Life that Dr. Decker mentioned briefly in his testimony.
And I was wondering if you could shed a little more light on the potential implications of that program and what we may get out of that program and in addition that I would like you to tell me how budget cuts may affect the ability to reach those goals we have talked about in that program.
Dr. DECKER. Mr. Matheson, the Genomes to Life program is a program that we started last year on microbial cell. Last year we had I think it was about $10 million total, maybe a little bit more than that in the microbial cell program. This year we have 19.5 million in the total Genomes to Life program. Our focus really is to try to understand how a microbe, which is important to many Department missions, how they actually function, how all the parts inside the microbe are produced and how they work together to—the way I describe it to make little sort of chemical factories that are very—have a very important role that they can play in areas such as carbon sequestration, in environmental cleanup or microbes can certainly degrade hazardous wastes, and production of energy from biomass where microbes also play an important role.
Page 288 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I think there are a lot of potential benefits from this Genomes to Life program that we can see in the future. And of course another piece of it is understanding how consortia of microbes and cells in general work together in a symbiotic way which they do in nature. And of course what we have learned through our work which is mostly focused on microbes, as I said, will also have implications in terms of cells in human beings.
Mr. MATHESON. And are you—in terms of this budget we are talking about today, are there implications for this program relative to the budget that has been proposed?
Dr. DECKER. Yeah. We have redirected some of our research funds into this effort to make it I think a good robust start on this activity. We have 19.5 million in our biological and environmental research program in our request for this.
Mr. MATHESON. How does this program relate to what is going on at NIH in terms of genome activities?
Dr. DECKER. The NIH programs focus primarily on human diseases and development of medicines. Our focus, as I mentioned earlier, is mostly on microbes. That is an area where there are many benefits to departmental missions. But we work very closely with NIH and other agencies on programs like this. We are very well coordinated with them.
Mr. MATHESON. I would like to change to one other topic and that is the issue of energy efficiency and I have heard a discussion here today where we have talked about a reduction in energy efficiency R&D but there has been an increase in the Weatherization Program. And I just want to confirm that those are two different things and that I think you are doing a bit of an orange and grapefruit—I think they are oranges and grapefruits. I don't think they are the same thing in terms of where we are putting our resources.
Page 289 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
And while I think that energy weatherization is a good thing to do, if we want to take the longer view in terms of our overall energy supply and demand portfolio, I am concerned about cuts in R&D and energy conservation and energy efficiency programs. And I know, Mr. Sullivan, you mentioned the idea of maintaining core competencies but clearly that means there is—you know, we are looking at a significant cut.
Are you suggesting that we can maintain core competencies that the additional funds spent in the past were not appropriate to be spent, that we shouldn't been doing what we had been doing in the past at DOE in terms of energy efficiency R&D?
Mr. SULLIVAN. No, sir. Congressman, I didn't mean to imply that. However, when I mentioned that we—the purpose of this budget is to in fact maintain those core competencies both in renewable energy and energy efficiency R&D that is precisely what this budget does. And I hate to sound like a broken record but I would like to refer you back to the Secretary's comment.
I think when we see Vice President Cheney's energy policy evolve we are prepared to respond in any way or direction which that takes us. And you are quite right, by the way, that weatherization of course energy efficiency are indeed two different things. However, our Weatherization Program in fact is there to bring efficiency to homes of low income folks.
Mr. MATHESON. I see my time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BARTLETT. Mr. Nethercutt.
Page 290 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to the panel. Dr. Marcus, I understand that the Secretary of Energy just yesterday agreed to suspend the record of decision on the fast flux test facility in my state, not my district but nearby and looking at apparently a 90-day review on the merits to determine what should be done, operate or shut down the facility.
I think this is wise on the part of the Secretary and the Department. I have been to the fast flux test facility FFTF and see that it has great potential in my judgment. I understand Mr. Magwood and perhaps you as well will be part of this review process. Am I correct in that and if so what are your early thoughts about it?
Dr. MARCUS. As you indicate, this decision was just made yesterday. I do not know if the review team has been fully identified. My understanding is it was going to be an independent review team.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I see.
Dr. MARCUS. So while I am sure we will be providing them some information, I believe another organization of the Department may take the lead in assuring an independent review of all the past facts.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Okay. And we will be watching that as well and with great interest and support. Mr. Owendoff, I want to talk with you a little bit about the fiscal year 02 budget from the Administration as it relates to Hanford cleanup. Congressman Hastings has been very prominently involved in this issue. There is an agreement to proceed, I think it is $690 million for fiscal year 02 on cleanup and I think the Administration has come out with about 500 million, if I am not mistaken. That is inadequate in my judgment and I think in the judgment of Congressman Hastings and those who are in the Hanford cleanup area.
Page 291 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We think it is critically important and there may be some lawsuit complications as well if it is not funded, if the tri-party agreement is not adequately met, the terms of it. I am just wondering what your judgment is as to how in the world the Department can stay on schedule with regard to the cleanup if there is this substantial reduction.
Mr. OWENDOFF. Congressman Nethercutt, the project you speak of is for vitrifying high level waste into glass. We just recently let the contract in January to Bechtol National for the completion of the design, the construction of that particular facility and getting it up and running. So as you can appreciate with that particular effort that is—in completing the design and starting of the construction you don't need all the money at once and so there is a ramp and an increase for the dollar amount.
When we set aside or put that contract into place we had put out that we were going to seek level funding, $690 million a year for that, and the reason for that is that we didn't want to have to have a large spike in that particular effort. But in looking at the 02 request, we believe that whereas the 690 million would preclude a large increase in the 03 in order to keep progress going we believe that the $500 million gives sufficient funds for the design and for the construction.
Flattening out that peak perhaps would have been a way to go but we don't believe—we believe we can still meet the tri-party agreements for that particular project, Congressman.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Well, I hope so. I think I know Congressman Hastings and I have been some somewhat outspoken with respect to the overall effort at Hanford, not just the truncation but we think it has got good potential and hope that it will continue. I want to ask also about the advance hydropower turbine system. As you all know or may know, we have four lower Snake River dams in the 5th Congressional District. There is some challenge to their existence, continued existence as it relates to fish and fish recovery in our state.
Page 292 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I just happen to think we may be shortchanging the hydro research and the fish friendly turbine concept and getting more energy out of our turbines and our hydro systems not only in my state but across the country. Does anybody on the panel care to address this? I think it ought to be increased in funding rather than decreased like it is.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Congressman, I will be happy to take a shot at it. As you know, I am the pinch hitter in this group. Let me start out by saying that you will be pleased to know that in the budget amendment in fact the original reductions that were slated for hydropower were restored and particularly with respect to the research you speak of so that program has been retained at the existing levels and in terms of the details of how that program is doing, I would have to defer and I would be happy to provide for you what this recent progress the program has been making.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. That would be helpful, sir. Thank you very much.
Mr. SULLIVAN. I will be happy to do so.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BARTLETT. Mr. Costello.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that my opening statement be put into the record.
Page 293 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Chairman BARTLETT. Without objection.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you and I welcome our panel this morning. I apologize for coming in late. We had a delegation meeting and I just left there. Mr. Kripowicz, I have a couple of questions. I came in on the tail end of your answer to Congressman Rohrabacher concerning the 65 new power plants needed annually for the next 10 to 15 years to meet the demand. I wonder if you would clarify that. Was that your testimony?
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. Yes, sir, it was.
Mr. COSTELLO. 65 new power plants per year for how many years to meet demand?
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. Probably the next 20 years.
Mr. COSTELLO. What is the Department doing to help industry meet the goal or the demand?
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. Well, our fossil energy program in particular for fossil energy based power is entering into, as you know, a new clean coal technology initiative, which will develop new technologies, cleaner technologies for the use of coal. I would point out that from 1989 to the year 2000 there was only about 10,000 megawatts of coal plants constructed in the United States, which is possibly 20 plants.
Page 294 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Within the past year and a half there have been 20,000 megawatts of coal-fired electricity announced, many of which are using technologies that have been furthered in our program. We also have developed very high efficient turbines, gas-fired turbines for use in gas-fired facilities which as you know will be the majority of the plants at least in the short term that will be sold to the utility industry.
Mr. COSTELLO. What is the Department doing to assist industry in the area of retrofitting these plants?
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. We have a substantial program in the R&D looking at low NOX combustion and improvements in the removal of particulates and sulfur dioxide but the clean coal technology program also will look at technologies that are retrofittable so we will be looking at new technologies as we did in the original clean coal program that would be applicable not only to new plants but to plants that are in the existing fleet.
Mr. COSTELLO. I understand in your testimony that you have indicated that the 150 million appropriation for the clean coal program that the program will be established and funds will be available on a competitive basis.
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. COSTELLO. Can you tell me what that means? Have you defined—has the Department established guidelines as to what these guidelines will be in order to be competitive, how you will distinguish and select one applicant over another?
Page 295 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. They would be run pretty much like we did the previous clean coal program and also the current power plant improvement initiative which Congress provided $95 million for in fiscal year 2001. It is broad open competition with technical criteria and with a minimum of 50 percent cost-sharing from the industry. And the major criteria in addition to that is that it not be technology that has already been commercially demonstrated that it be new technology.
And these proposals will only be for the power sector and in the previous clean coal program it addressed a broader range of uses of coal. In this case it will only be for power.
Mr. COSTELLO. Are areas of the country such as Southwestern Illinois with as you are very familiar the high sulfur coal and abundance of high sulfur coal, will those areas be an advantage or a disadvantage under this program?
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. I would think if technologies—it depends on what kind of technologies are proposed but most of the technologies are aimed at being able to use higher sulfur coals with less environmental impacts so my assumption would be is that the coals in Illinois and Ohio and those things would become more competitive based on the development of this technology.
Mr. COSTELLO. A final question. I wonder if you might give us the status of clean coal technology. We have of course—there is technology on the market today. We have studies that have been going on for a number of years trying to come up with additional technology. Give us a status report.
Page 296 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. Our original program, and I mentioned it briefly in my opening statement, has been very successful in producing low cost technology for reduction of nitrogen oxides as 75 percent of the coal-fired power plants in the country use this technology now. We reduced the cost for selective catalytic reduction which is another nitrogen oxide reducer by at least 50 percent or more from where it was whenever we started the program.
We have developed, and it is now fully commercial, fluidized bed combustion which removes almost all of the sulfur from coal whenever it is burned and for sulfur scrubbers we have reduced the cost and increased the reliability of those scrubbers considerably over the course of the program. A utility company, southern company, has estimated that the consumer benefit of the things that I just mentioned is approximately $100 billion.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I see I am out of time. Thank you, Mr. Kripowicz.
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. Thank you.
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much. I have some concluding questions and remarks but I would first like to ask my colleagues if they have additional questions or remarks. Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, when I was quoting Mr. Kripowicz in the investment in clean coal I said 100 million. It is 100 billion. And so I would like, I would really like the next panel coming up thinking about what they would do if we had another $100 billion for their programs. I would like to ask Mr. Owendoff that but I think I will let that go for now because we are going to run out of time.
Page 297 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you. Dr. Decker, you mentioned that there was funding for basic research from your organization and also from the private sector. I was distressed a few years back when I learned that more than 90 percent of all medical research is funded by the Federal Government.
Now we may be very generous and we are with National Institute of Health but we can be very arbitrary and capricious as evidenced by what we are doing this year to the energy budget. What percent of the basic research is funded by government and what percent is funded by private sector in this area?
Dr. DECKER. Mr. Chairman, I don't know the answer to that. I will——
Chairman BARTLETT. But it is not 90/10 or 95/5, is it?
Dr. DECKER. No. No. In fact, in basic research I think the capability in industry has decreased substantially over the last 20 or 30 years. The big corporate research laboratories that used to do basic research in materials and many of the physical sciences, they don't really exist anymore and industry has gone much more to short-term reapplied research or technology development.
Chairman BARTLETT. Why is that?
Dr. DECKER. It is I am sure the pressure to have very good in the bottom line profits and——
Page 298 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Chairman BARTLETT. Which means if we hadn't taken so much of their money in taxes they might still be doing it?
Dr. DECKER. I don't know the answer to that.
Chairman BARTLETT. I know that we feel we are so much wiser and we will spend the money better but I totally disagree with that. The more money we leave in the private sector the better off everybody will be, I think. Mr. Sullivan, you mentioned that we have cut the solar, wind, and geothermal budget by 50 percent and that what we have done is to leave enough money there to maintain our core capacity efficiency, whatever you want to call it, and that we are doing is essentially placeholding and waiting on the Vice President's commission for recommendations what to do and then we are anticipating a ramp up, is that correct?.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Let me try that a slightly different way, Chairman Bartlett. We are not—the programs that you mentioned that have been reduced to actually maintain our ability in other areas within this constrictive budget environment are not just in a holding place. There are real activities under way that continue to push the ball forward in each of those areas you mentioned.
Chairman BARTLETT. But at half the funding of last year.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. That is correct. Now in terms of what will come of the Vice President's Energy Task Force, we are all at this dais here all—we have all been involved in a very coordinated effort with the Department playing a critical role advising and inputting to the Vice President's Energy Task Force so that we expect when that emerges I think a lot of the answers to the questions that you are providing will be more evident.
Page 299 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Chairman BARTLETT. I am perhaps a politically incorrect conservative because I drive a hybrid electric car. I have solar electric system on a home that we have in West Virginia. I am a big, big supporter of renewables and I am just distressed that there may be an inadequate appreciation of how much we need these renewables.
Mr. Kripowicz, I noted that you noted that we have one-fourth of the world's coal. We have about 2 percent of the world's oil. And I noticed that at least a part of the policy, energy policy, as I understand it is that we would like to go out and find that 2 percent real quick and use it. Now if we in fact were able to find that 2 percent tomorrow and use it then what will you do the day after tomorrow?
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. I think our program, when we talk about finding and using, we are talking really about trying to sustain the production in the industry that we have now. I would not——
Chairman BARTLETT. But since 1970, essentially ever year since 1970 we have found and used less of our domestic oil than the year before. As a matter of fact, in 1981 we spent more energy drilling for oil than we would get from the oil that we found in 1981. It is my understanding that there is nothing that we can do for the future that will increase oil production in this country. It may go down faster or less fast but it is going to go down. Doesn't this beg for an increased attention to some under source of energy?
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. Well, I think we are providing increased attention to——
Page 300 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Chairman BARTLETT. But we have cut the budget for renewables by 50 percent. I just—I have a hard time understanding how that is responsible when we have only 2 percent of the world's oil and use 25 percent of the world's oil.
Mr. KRIPOWICZ. I would argue that we need to try to use all of our resources and use them wisely including—and use them efficiently. And how that——
Chairman BARTLETT. Who could argue with that. I just wonder if it is wise to immediately go out and find the little bit of oil that we have remaining and use it. Dr. Marcus, I get very conflicting inputs as to how much fissionable uranium remains in the world. What is your understanding of that in terms of year at present use rates?
Dr. MARCUS. At present use rates, I don't have the exact number but we have——
Chairman BARTLETT. If you could provide that for us for the record because I am——
Dr. MARCUS. I can provide the exact number.
Chairman BARTLETT [continuing]. Getting inputs all the way between 30 years and 500 years and that is a pretty big spread.
Page 301 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Dr. MARCUS. It may depend—those numbers depend on whether you assume some use of advanced technology but I will get you numbers and tell you what they reflect.
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you. Why are we pursuing the development of a breeder reactor, the Klinch River project?
Dr. MARCUS. At the time the projections were that we would need more resources, uranium resources, than were available. Since that time, of course, it has turned out that that technology did not prove to be economical in terms of the demand that did exist for nuclear power. There is a continuing interest in the world in breeder technology as you know and it is going forward elsewhere as a sort of a long-term option. I don't know that it is economical right now anywhere. It may become more economical in the future.
Chairman BARTLETT. But it is your understanding that we are pursuing that because there was not an infinite amount of fissionable uranium in the world?
Dr. MARCUS. That was certainly one justification for pursuing it, yeah.
Chairman BARTLETT. And has that justification disappeared?
Dr. MARCUS. At the moment there are adequate supplies I would say for a number of decades. I don't want to give you a number and have it—and have to correct it until I check it out but at the moment there is not a near term resource problem for uranium. We would be looking farther out into the future.
Page 302 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Chairman BARTLETT. By the rate we are expanding our industry obviously not—oh, let me turn to my colleague who has been able to return, Dr. Ehlers, and then I will continue my final questions after he has finished.
Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much and if you wish to finish first.
Chairman BARTLETT. Go ahead.
Mr. EHLERS. All right. Thank you. I apologize for being in and out. I have three meetings going on, committee meetings, going on simultaneously, including one markup and that has made it tough this morning. I just wanted to register my agreement with a number of the Chairman's statements and comments. First of all, I think we should expend much more effort as a nation and therefore much more resources within the DOE on renewable energy but especially on energy efficiency.
Much of the problem we have could have been addressed. What we have now currently should never have occurred had we followed up with the initial efforts after the 1973 shortage and really pursued energy efficiency. Right now in fact in California the quickest, cheapest solution to their problem has vastly increased energy efficiency. It would be probably a factor of 5, perhaps even 10 faster than trying to increase supply and certainly far less costly.
And the Chairman is as far as I am concerned right on in his comments about the need for improved energy efficiency and conservation of our resources. Also, on the energy supply issue, particularly fossil fuels. Petroleum I do not think is the answer, certainly not in the long term. What bothers me also is natural gas. Although there is considerably greater supply of that it is in many senses too good to burn. It is an incredibly good feed stock for the petro chemical industry. There is nothing else that serves as well and yet we continue to increase faster and faster our consumption of natural gas.
Page 303 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Looking in that direction for the solution to energy shortages I think is simply a wrong heading and we have to come to terms with that. On the issue of the length of time that fossil—that fissionable materials will be used particularly uranium. At the rate that we have been using it in the United States and particularly projecting into the future it is going to last forever as far as we are concerned.
That is not true worldwide of course and I think we are likely to go much more strongly in that direction in the future. We also have to I think get rid of our paranoia about the use of plutonium for electrical energy production. And I know it is an emotional issue in this country but if the sources and supplies are well guarded it is certainly an option that has to be considered long term provided, and that is a big proviso, provided we learn to deal with the dangers and the storage problems and whether we can adequately do that both to satisfy our citizens and satisfy ourselves is still up to debate.
But certainly it offers many advantages over greenhouse gas emissions. So I just wanted to offer those comments. I know the Chairman feels the same way but I want the panel and the world to know that he has support on his approach to that. Thank you.
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much. Mr. Cary, I have a new device that I want to introduce to the market. It will really revolutionize the way we do things. It really will. But it is projected to cause perhaps tens of thousands of deaths and maybe hundreds of thousands of life altering injuries, and there is also a real potential that it is going to be a meaningful polluter for our environment.
Page 304 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
What kind of chances do you think I have to introduce this new product through our regulatory agencies and what kind of a market potential do you think I have for that product?
Mr. CARY. I would say it would be slim, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BARTLETT. I am talking of course about the automobile. It kills about 45,000 people a year. It provides life altering injuries to hundreds of thousands of people and is a major polluter of our environment. Now as a society we have collectively decided that those 45,000 deaths, the hundreds of thousands of life altering injuries, that the major environmental pollution is an okay price to pay for the convenience that we get from the automobile.
Now my question is how do we reach this kind of a rational consensus for new things that are going to be introduced to the market, and by the way we don't have to have hardly any deaths or injuries from automobiles. If you watch a race, a professional race, with cars and note that car runs into the wall at 150 miles an hour, it goes end over end, the wheels fly off, it bursts into flames. They put the fire out and the guy crawls out okay.
Now if we equipped each one of our cars with a steel crash cage, if you put on a flame suit and a crash helmet and strapped yourself in there is almost no accident on our roads. They are the equivalent to running into a wall at 150 miles an hour. Why don't we do that? The reason we don't do that is because we have judged as a society that the present death rate and injury rate and pollution and so—by the way, you don't have to pollute anywhere near as much as we pollute. We really can cut that way down. The hybrid car I drive does it. It pollutes one-tenth as much as many of the cars that it competes with.
Page 305 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We don't do that because we have reached a judgment that the penalty we pay for that, the price we pay for that is okay. But we cannot make that kind of a judgment for new products entering the market. How do we get around that because it may be new things that are providing enormous benefit like the car provides that they will never get to market.
And then some of these things may be in the energy area, that is why I am introducing it, how do we get around that as a society?
Mr. CARY. That is a thorny question, sir. One thing I wanted to mention in this regard that may be germane is we have worked with folks in industries and we have looked at industry surveys and from our perspective there is a special concern about radiation, the perception the public has about illness and death from radiation is much greater than many scientists agree.
And one of our ongoing debates is dealing with scientific surveys, historical scientific information, and public perception, and that continues to be an ongoing problem that we grappled with, sir.
Chairman BARTLETT. This is a very good illustration you have given. Even if there were some effects on the population from radiation and there are none that I know of the way we currently use nuclear power and if that really solved many environmental problems and we were home free for the future with energy, likening that to the automobile a few injuries from this I would think society would decide was a reasonable price to pay.
Page 306 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We certainly are not there yet and my question is how do we get there. Ms. Biggert has joined us and let me now recognize her.
Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I couldn't be here earlier. I do have a couple questions of Mr. Sullivan, if I might. I understand and you reiterated in your testimony that the Department and the Administration are going to modify the budget released on April 9 to reduce the funding for the transportation sector program, specifically the PNGV program.
And I was wondering what action will your office be forced to take if the PNGV program is underfunded by $40 million I think as you said, and what kind of impact will that have on places like Argot National Laboratory, which is in my district and has been involved in that program. Will the program's research be slowed or will portions of it be canceled and so will layoffs occur in the national labs and what kind of additional costs will this create?
Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question. Chairman Bartlett, I wanted to add while I had the opportunity when I heard it, you own a hybrid car. The director of the transportation technology will be delighted, Tom Gross. He will be using you probably in a lot of his speeches coming up. He does that with everyone. But directly related to your question, Congresswoman Biggert, we are in fact have in cooperation, by the way, with the industry are redirecting some of the efforts in that program, we think for the better.
We are taking two fundamental different looks at it. One, we are expanding—the traditional programs have been focused on a six-passenger sedan. In discussions with industries the world has changed since we started that program to expand the kinds of vehicles that we are looking to bring this technology two, number one. And then, number two, also expand the kinds of technologies that we would use in those vehicles. That is the fundamental redirection of that program.
Page 307 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Those activities that were closer to the market that were in fact being introduced in the market is where those reductions came from. The long-term investments that we are talking about to fundamentally change, by the way, the automobile and its usage in this country is what we are trying to achieve through this redirected program with industry.
As to your question what are the impacts in fact on our laboratories, on our researchers. Frankly, we are just starting that process of looking exactly at that with an eye toward mitigating certainly any forms of losses as much as we can to our national laboratories as I am sure all of you and hold in high esteem. And so I can't comment exactly what that impact would be but as that information comes forth we certainly would be happy to share that with you.
Ms. BIGGERT. I would appreciate that. I think that my concern is that with reducing that that there would be a resulting loss of the specialized scientists that have been working on such and engineers and then decommissioning part of the PNGV it is really very difficult to refocus the program really. I thought that the PNG program was originally conceived to be kind of the mid-size sedan so that they could go up or down depending on how times have changed but what really such a cut. I don't know that that is going to be possible so I hope you would keep me informed of what is going on.
Mr. SULLIVAN. We certainly will.
Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much. Ms. Woolsey has a request to make.
Page 308 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes. First of all, I want to thank the panel. You really are great. Thank you so much. But to save us time here would you submit for our records in writing an answer to my question of describing—would you describe the impacts of the proposed cuts in the Administration's budget on your programs as it relates to how many employees would you have to lay off, how many contracts will have to be terminated, and what opportunities you will see go by the way side that will be foregone in your programs if these reductions are allowed to stand. Okay. Thank you very much.
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you for that request and I would endorse this request also. This would be useful for us. Mr. Owendoff, if a glutant is not migrating and if it is an isotope where tomorrow it will be nothing but less aggressive than it is today why are we spending any money on cleanup. This is a big country, sir. I fly over it and we don't have to clean up every site so that you can have a nursery school there and the kids can eat the dirt.
My question is if these pollutants are not migrating, the wind is not blowing them, they are not moving into an aquifer, why are we spending any money cleaning them up? Why don't we just plant trees there and go away and come back in 50 years and harvest the trees?
Mr. OWENDOFF. You certainly bring up a good point and one that is being debated and we view that this year will be more debated. I think the challenges we have seen, and you can look at the Hanford site as a perfect example, is where we saw 30 or 40 years ago and we felt that those radionucleides did not migrate. We see that they have migrated so we thought they would be bound in the soil and in the pits that we had we thought that the, as I say, the radionucleides would stay.
Page 309 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
But we have seen through our science programs and our research programs as well as our monitoring programs that indeed they have moved. Now some have not moved very far. Others have moved farther because there have been hazardous materials such as solvents that have served as transporters of those particular materials.
So part of our challenge is about understanding the fate and transport of the materials, what happens to the soils, what happens over a long period of time and our ability to stabilize those materials and in some cases today we are—the solution is to stabilize the material to put the material into disposal cells and also to balance what is the risk of the material that we leave in place and should it be child care centers, should we have it as open space or should we have it as commercial areas.
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you. Yeah, I would like to see more of that and less than 70 percent of the money go to lawyers, which is where it has gone in our Superfund cleanup. I want to thank the witnesses and my Subcommittee members for a very good hearing. Thank you very much and we excuse this panel now and convene our second panel.
Panel II
Chairman BARTLETT. Our second panel, Dr. George Trilling, President of the American Physical Society; Dr. Scott Tinker, Director of the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin; Dr. James Lake, President of the American Nuclear Society; and Mr. Michael Marvin, President of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy. Dr. Trilling, we will begin with your testimony.
Page 310 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Oh, excuse me. I have forgotten that one of our panel members is a close friend and in the district of Dr. Ehlers and let me recognize him so that he may introduce this panel member.
Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief but I did want the pleasure of introducing Dr. Trilling. He is not a constituent of my Congressional district but he is a constituent of my physical district. By physical I mean American Physical Society. He is a former professor and still lives and works at the University of California Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory where I received my Ph.D. and where I taught and did research for several years afterwards.
I first met him at Berkeley and so we have known each other for long years. Our paths separated. I don't think when we were both at Berkeley that either of us dreamed that we would be in this room facing each other but I am certainly pleased to welcome you here, George, and we look forward to your testimony. He received a—we have several ties. First of all, he was born in Poland and a good share of my Congressional district consists of immigrants from Poland.
Our second connection is having been at Berkeley together. The third connection is that I am from Michigan now and he spent several years at the University of Michigan. Unfortunately for Michigan Berkeley has a habit of stealing good faculty members which has disseminated UM's program from time to time but certainly has enhanced Berkeley's. He is also a Fellow of the American Physical Society, as I am, a marvelous society that we have.
Page 311 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
He is also a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, neither of which I am a member of. But it is a pleasure to welcome you, George, and thank you for all the good work you have done over the years and congratulations on your election to the presidency of the American Physical Society. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE H. TRILLING, PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY
Dr. TRILLING. Thank you very much, Congressman Ehlers. I went to first of all reassure you that even with my departure the University of Michigan is one of the outstanding physics departments in the United States. I also want to express the Physical Society's appreciation for your continuing support for having an outstanding basic science program in the United States.
Mr. Chairman, Ms. Woolsey, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am George Trilling, President of the American Physical Society. Our professional organization represents more than 40,00 physicists in academia, industry and national laboratories. Let me begin by expressing my thanks to this Subcommittee, and to the Health Science Committee for leadership in promulgating science and technology policy. The work that you and your colleagues have done has served our Nation and its scientific enterprise extraordinarily well.
For much of the last decade, our Nation has experienced unprecedented economic growth. We have made extraordinary advances in medicine, cleaned up the environment, kept unemployment and inflation down, and maintained the strongest military in the world. This is a remarkable record but none of this would have occurred without the scientific discovery and technological innovation that have been the hallmarks of America during the last half century.
Page 312 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Prominent economists have noted that more than 50 percent of our Nation's economic growth since the end of World War II has stemmed from technology driven by science. The Department of Energy plays a central role in this endeavor. It ranks fourth among Federal agencies in supporting total R&D and first in research and the physical sciences. The presidential budget for fiscal 2002 tends to exacerbate the trend that has seen NIH, the National Institute of Health, come to dominate the Federal civilian research portfolio, an unbalanced condition that policy makers in both political parties have noted in recent years. The growth of the NIH budget and the relative stagnation of the other R&D agency budgets are illustrated in the chart.
If I can have the chart, please. It is visible. Each time the graph, the line that is going up of course very steeply is the NIH line and the line that is at the very bottom is the DOE line. It shows the budget in constant dollars as a function of fiscal year. Last year the Senate unanimously passed the Federal Research Investment Act that calls for a doubling of civilian research over the next decade and tacitly recognizes that the Federal research portfolio must maintain a balance among scientific disciplines.
The bill notes that advances in biomedical research depend heavily upon discoveries and technologies in the physical sciences, mathematics, computer science and engineering. Last year appropriators heeded this and allocated substantial funding increases to both DOE and NSF. Recently, the Senate, again by unanimous consent, adopted an amendment to the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution that would augment the science budgets for DOE, NASA and NSF by 15 percent.
By contract, the budget proposed by the President turned the clock back for these various agencies. Before I address the specific deficiencies in the budget recommendations, I would like to mention two significant ways in which our science and technology enterprise has evolved in the last two decades. First, the scientific disciplines have become intertwined and interdependent, all fields joined intellectually and technologically in advance in one area having impact on other areas.
Page 313 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Second, industry driven by need to meet the short-term bottom line has closed the central laboratories that were incubators of high risk long-term research. Fortunately, the government university partnership has met the challenge but without adequate Federal funding for university-based research or rapidly lose our competitive edge.
I turn now to some problems with the President's budget recommendations for the Office of Science. This budget will provide a scant .1 percent increase but after accounting for administrative cost increases there would be in fact be an actual decline of .08 percent plus inflation. I should emphasize that the DOE Office of Science oversees outstanding national laboratories whose capabilities for solving complex interdisciplinary problems are not easily matched elsewhere.
It builds and operates large scale user facilities of importance to all areas of science including biomedicine. It has been enormously successful in these efforts and the vitality of the United States scientific enterprise is strongly dependent on DOE support. To give some examples, while the proposed budget would fully fund the program costs of the Spallation Neutron Source and provide substantial running time for the new Fermilab and SLAC collider facilities, it would scale back university research support by 5 percent plus inflation.
This makes no sense since university researchers are the prime users of these facilities. Furthermore, such reductions would inevitably reduce significantly the number of students whom we are training for the technology jobs of the future. The budget would also reduce, for example, the operating time of the Brookhaven, the new Brookhaven Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider by 25 percent, and reducing by an even larger fraction the useful data-taking time.
Page 314 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. Chairman, this is not a forward-looking budget. It is one that would reduce the education and training programs of future scientists at a time when industry tells us that they are in short supply. It would make it more difficult for DOE to operate effectively many of its major facilities such as synchrotron light sources in heavy demand by industrial users and biomedical researchers.
The Senate budget resolution, which incorporates a 15 percent increase for the Office of Science does provide the resources necessary for DOE to carry out its mission appropriately. I urge this Subcommittee to authorize such an increase. I conclude with a comment about the administrative structure of the Department of Energy. In December of last year, a small group of physicists with extensive DOE experience, research scientists or administrators, issued a short report entitled, ''DOE Science for the Future.'' We were prompted to do so because we believe that the Office of Science and the critical role it plays in the physical science arena receive far too little attention from policy makers.
The report recommends two alternative forms of restructuring, either to elevate the Director of the Office of Science to the level of Under Secretary for Science and Energy or to remove the Office of Science from DOE and combine it with the National Institutes of Standards and Technology and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit that report for the record. I would be pleased to answer questions on my testimony. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Trilling follows:]
Page 315 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE H. TRILLING
Mr. Chairman, Ms. Woolsey and members of the Subcommittee, I am George Trilling, President of the American Physical Society, a professional organization that represents more than 40,000 physicists in academia, industry and national laboratories. Let me begin by expressing my thanks to this Subcommittee, specifically, and to the House Science Committee, generally, for leadership in formulating and promulgating science and technology policy. The work that you and your colleagues have done has served our nation and its scientific enterprise extraordinarily well.
For much of the last decade, our nation has been fortunate to experience a period of unprecedented economic growth and improvement in quality of life. We have made extraordinary advances in medicine, cleaned up the environment, kept unemployment and inflation down as real income has risen and, in support of peace, maintained the strongest military in the world. This is a remarkable record. But none of it would have occurred without the scientific discovery and technological innovation that have been the hallmarks of America during the last half-century. Prominent economists, among them Nobel Laureate Robert Solow, Michael Boskin, Paul Romer and Alan Greenspan, have noted that more than 50 percent of our nation's economic growth since the end of World War II has stemmed from technology driven by science. In recent years that number has climbed to almost 70 percent.
The Department of Energy (DOE) plays a central role in this endeavor. It ranks fourth among federal agencies in supporting total R&D, fourth in basic research, third in applied research and, most significantly, first in research in the physical sciences.
Page 316 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The presidential request for DOE R&D for FY 2002 is causing considerable concern among many members of the science community and among many science policy makers. It would exacerbate the trend that has seen NIH come to dominate the federal civilian research portfolio, an unbalanced condition that policy makers in both political parties have noted in recent years. The growth of the NIH budget and the relative stagnation of other R&D agency budgets are illustrated in the chart.
Last year, the Senate unanimously passed the Federal Research Investment Act that calls for a doubling of civilian research over the next decade and tacitly recognizes that the federal research portfolio must maintain a balance among scientific disciplines. The bill explicitly notes that advances in biomedical research depend heavily upon the discoveries and technologies in the physical sciences, mathematics, computer science and engineering. Dr. Harold Varmus, former director of NIH, in an October 4, 2000 Washington Post Op-Ed Made a similar observation. ''Congress,'' he noted, ''is not addressing with sufficient vigor the compelling needs of other science agencies, especially the National Science Foundation and the Office of Science at the Department of Energy. This disparity in treatment undermines the balance of the sciences that is essential to progress in all spheres, including medicine.''
Last year, appropriators heeded this advice, for the most part, and allocated substantial funding increases to both DOE and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Recently, the Senate, again by unanimous consent, adopted an amendment to the FY 2002 Budget Resolution that would augment the science budgets for DOE, NASA and NSF by 15 percent. By contrast, the budget proposed by President Bush would turn the clock back for all three of these agencies.
Page 317 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Before I address some of the specific deficiencies in the President's budget recommendations for DOE's Office of Science, I would like to mention two significant ways in which our science and technology enterprise has evolved in the last two decades. I believe that they provide the essential basis for the arguments made by Dr. Varmus and the United States Senate.
First, the scientific disciplines have become inextricably intertwined and fundamentally interdependent. In other words, all fields are joined intellectually and technologically, and advances in one scientific area have extraordinary impact, often unanticipated, on other areas. Second, in an era of global competition, industry, increasingly driven by the need to meet the short-term bottom line, has closed the central laboratories that were once celebrated incubators of high-risk, long-term research. Fortunately, the government-university partnership has been able to meet the challenge. But without adequate federal funding for university-based research, we will rapidly lose our competitive edge.
Let me turn now to some of the problems with the President's budget recommendations for the DOE Office of Science. This budget would provide a scant 0.1% increase, but after accounting for administrative costs, there would be an actual decline of 0.8% exclusive of inflation.
Let me emphasize that the DOE Office of Science oversees outstanding national laboratories whose capabilities for solving complex interdisciplinary problems are not easily matched elsewhere. It also builds and operates large-scale user facilities of importance to all areas of science, including biomedicine. It has been enormously successful in these efforts, and the vitality of the U.S. scientific enterprise is strongly dependent on DOE support.
Page 318 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
While the proposed budget would fully fund the previously programmed costs of the Spallation Neutron Source and provide substantial running time for the new Fermilab and Stanford Linear Accelerator Center collider facilities, it would scale back university research support by 5% plus inflation. This makes no sense, since university researchers are the prime users of the new facilities. Furthermore, such reductions would inevitably reduce very significantly the number of students whom we are training for the technology jobs of the future. The budget would also reduce the operating time of the new Brookhaven Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider by 25%, reducing by an even larger fraction the useful data-taking time.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a forward-looking budget. It is one that would reduce the education and training programs of future scientists at a time when industry tells us they are in short supply. It would make us even more dependent on supplies of foreign scientists and make the H1B visa issue a permanent specter on the horizon. The budget would also make it more difficult for DOE to operate effectively many of its major facilities, such as synchrotron light sources, that are in heavy demand by industrial users and researchers from the biomedical community. These facilities are considered jewels in the federal R&D enterprise. President Bush's proposal does not treat them as such. The Senate Budget Resolution, which incorporates a 15 percent increase for the Office of Science, provides the resources necessary for DOE to carry out its mission appropriately. I urge this Subcommittee to authorize such an increase.
Since the mid 1960s, during an era when our economy has become increasingly dependent on technology, our federal R&D investment has slowly dropped as a fraction of the Gross Domestic Product, so that today it is only half of what it was in 1965. I believe that we are rapidly exhausting the seed corn of scientific discovery from which technology innovation flows. We must reverse this course.
Page 319 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Let me conclude with a comment about the administrative structure of the Department of Energy. In December of last year, a small group of physicists with extensive DOE experience, either as research scientists or administrators, issued a short report entitled, ''DOE Science for the Future.'' We were prompted to do so, because we believe that the Office of Science and the critical role it plays in the physical science arena receive far too little attention from policy makers. The report recommends two alternative forms of restructuring: either to elevate the Director of the Office of Science to the level of Under Secretary for Science and Energy or to remove the Office of Science from DOE and combine with the National Institutes of Standards and Technology and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit that report for the record.
I would be pleased to answer questions on any of my testimony.
72196ww.eps
BIOGRAPHY FOR GEORGE H. TRILLING
Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of California, Berkeley
Senior Faculty Physicist, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
George Trilling was born in Poland in 1930. He came to the U.S. in 1941, and was naturalized in 1947. He received his B.S. in 1951 and Ph.D. in 1955 from the California Institute of Technology. After postdoctoral appointments at Caltech, and at the École Polytechnique in Paris, he joined the University of Michigan faculty in 1957 as Assistant Professor of Physics. Moving to the University of California at Berkeley in 1960, he became Professor in 1964. He served as Department Chair in 1968–72, and Director of the Physics Division of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in 1984–87. His research is in experimental particle physics, and has included studies of hadron interactions and resonances, electron-positron annihilation at high energy, and colliding beam experiments and detectors.
Page 320 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Trilling is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He has served on numerous advisory committees including the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel, the 1981–82 Subpanel on Long-Range Planning for the U.S. High Energy Physics Program, the SLAC Scientific Policy Committee, visiting committees for Argonne National Laboratory, MIT Laboratory for Nuclear Science, Brookhaven National Laboratory, and California Institute of Technology, and program advisory committees for SLAC and Fermilab. For the APS, he served as Chair of the Division of Particles and Fields, member of the Physics Planning Committee, and is presently Divisional Councillor and member of the Executive Board.
BIRTHDATE: September 18, 1930
BIRTHPLACE: Bialystok, Poland
CITIZENSHIP: U.S.A. (naturalized 1947)
EDUCATION: B.S. 1951, Ph.D. 1955, California Institute of Technology
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY:
Assistant and Associate Professor, University of Michigan, 1957–60
Associate Professor and Professor, University of California, Berkeley, 1960–1994
Professor Emeritus, 1994–Present
Page 321 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
FELLOWSHIPS:
Fulbright Fellowship, École Polytechnique, Paris, 1956–57
NSF Senior Postdoctoral Fellowship, CERN, 1966–67
John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship, CERN, 1973–74
Miller Research Professorship, University of California, 1980–81
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (partial list):
Member, High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP), 1974–78
Member, HEPAP Subpanel on Future of High Energy Physics Program at Argonne National Laboratory, 1978
Member, HEPAP Subpanel on New Facilities, 1977
Member, HEPAP Subpanel on Review and Planning for the U.S. High Energy Physics Program, 1980
Chair, HEPAP Subpanel on Long Range Planning for the U.S. High Energy Physics Program, 1981–82
Member, Fermilab Program Advisory Committee, 1974–76 (Chair, 1975–76)
Chair, Division of Particles and Fields, American Physical Society, 1976–77
Visiting Committee memberships:
ZGS Complex, Argonne National Laboratory, 1975–77
Laboratory for Nuclear Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1979–84
Accelerator and Physics Departments and Instrumentation Division, Brookhaven National Laboratory, 1979–83
Page 322 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Physics, AGS, NSLS, RHIC, and Instrumentation Visiting Committee, Brookhaven National Laboratory, 1996–97
Chair, Scientific Policy Committee, SLAC, 1984–88
Board of Overseers, Superconducting Supercollider, 1984–91
Committee to Review the Division of Physics, Mathematics, and Astronomy, California Institute of Technology, 1995
Scientific Council, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia, 1993-present
Committees to review Physics Departments at University of Colorado, U.C.L.A., University of New Mexico, and U.C.S.B.
U.S. member of International Committee for Future Accelerators, 1988–93
Member, Physics Planning Committee of American Physical Society, 1991–94
Divisional Councillor (Division of Particles and Fields), American Physical Society, 1996–1998
Member, NRC Committee for the Review of the DOE Inertial Confinement Fusion Program, 1996–97
Chair, Universities Research Association Search Committee for the Director of Fermilab, 1998
Member, Governing Board, American Institute of Physics, 1999-present
Vice-President, American Physical Society, 1999
President-Elect, American Physical Society, 2000
President, American Physical Society, 2001
ADMINISTRATIVE POSTS:
Chair, Physics Department, University of California, Berkeley, 1968–72
Head, Physics Division, and Associate Director, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1984–87
Page 323 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
HONORS:
Fellow, American Physical Society
Member, National Academy of Sciences (since 1983)
Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences (since 1993)
RESEARCH INTERESTS:
Hadron interactions, resonances, electron-positron annihilation at high energy, colliding beam experiments.
72196z3.eps
72196a4.eps
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you. Without objection, it will be a part of the record, and thank you for your testimony. Dr. Tinker.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT W. TINKER, STATE GEOLOGIST OF TEXAS; DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
Dr. TINKER. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Woolsey, thank you for the opportunity to present today. I am Scott Tinker, State Geologist of Texas and Director of the Bureau of Economic Geology. I have four points to make in a summary. Point number one, for the next 25 years BTU equal oil, gas, coal. Let us look at the data in energy production today. 79 percent in the United States is oil, gas coal. 84 percent of our consumption is oil, gas, coal.
Page 324 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The trends have not changed for the last 50 years. The percentages have been similar. The EIA forecast for the next 20 years projects similar trends. I would like to remind you that imports in oil and natural gas represent about 20 percent of our BTU consumption today. I certainly am a strong proponent of conservation and believe that has to be part of any future program. If we look at the area beneath the conservation curve the budget before you today splits research dollars between coal, nuclear and renewables, and the piece that is very thin there is oil and gas.
The risk of something like that in the short term is that we could see shortfalls in oil and gas production. Conservation would help but supply problem is real there. I would like to remind everyone what happens in a supply problem in oil and gas. We see dramatic price spikes. This is the price of oil over the last 30 years. If I plot on that GDP growth for the United States, you can see there major recessions that we have been through in this country in the last 30 years.
Each one of them was immediately preceded by a price spike in oil and I would like to show you where we are today to remind everyone what is going on with the price of oil. I believe in a balanced long-term approach. Let us look at 75 years. If I divide that into thirds and look at the first 25 years, the first third of that, its BTU equals OGC. Certainly the renewables, the conservation and others need to come in as a balanced piece of that long-term program.
Point number two, the game has changed. John Rockefeller certainly must be smiling. His standard oil companies that were broken into the seven sisters have begun a family reunion, Exxon, Mobile, BP, Amoco, ARCO, Chevron and Texaco. What is the result of that in the United States? These jumbo oil companies drill offshore. They drill in Alaska. They mainly drill on Wall Street as they acquire other companies.
Page 325 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The United States now is dominated by independents who produce the majority of United States oil and gas. Let us look at another real result. Five major technology centers R&D privately have completely gone away. Four others have significantly reduced. There is one major private R&D center in the United States today and that is Exxon in Houston. The game truly has changed. If we look at production and consumption private oil and gas investment and R&D has gone from 5 billion a year, the scale is in billions, to about 2 to 2b billion today.
I plot on the same scale GRI R&D which has gone away. You can see it near the bottom there. And DOE R&D and oil and gas between $50 and $100 million a year on the same scale which has a 50 percent proposed cut before you today. Decreased private investment in R&D, significant decrease proposed DOE cuts. Production forecasts are unrealistic and they are highly unlikely.
Oil and gas R&D works. This is the gas production curve which I will focus on for the United States for the last 50 years. The future of natural gas production in our country to the right of the blue line is unconventional sources in deep water and subsalt. Let us look at what built the unconventional gas curve. There are three major components, tight gas, which is very tight rocks that yield natural gas. That curve has risen over the last 30 years.
Why is that? It is not related to the price of natural gas which I have plotted for you here. It is related to some incentive programs federally and in the state and it also related to an investment and research by the Department of Energy and GRI over $165 million. It helped build that price curve, that production curve. The same story for shale gas. The curve did not exist pre-'85. The price of gas is shown again unrelated. A large investment in research. Both GRI and DOE helped to build that gas production curve.
Page 326 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
And finally coal bed methane, very similar. The last 10 years, unrelated to price, incentives have helped. Investments, 5 to 10 year lag as with happens with research and we build that production curve. It is a wise Federal investment. Why is that? Unconventional gas which is produced about 18 tcf through 1996 and is increasing was a $241 million DOE investment. The private sector invested $23 billion to produce that gas. You can't see the red under 241 on this scale.
What did we return? The private sector returned 10 percent on their investment, not stellar, but about $2.5 billion. The economic value of the Federal investment is $62 billion, 257 times what the Federal Government put into that program. An investment, 1 percent of private, economic value 257 times, 18 tcf to the people of the United States is not corporate welfare, it is sound policy.
BTU equals OGC. The game has changed. Oil and gas R&D works, a wise Federal investment. The total DOE budget before you is over $19 billion. Four percent of that is dedicated to energy research, oil renewables and nuclear. Natural gas and oil are 7 percent of that 4 percent. I remind you of the consumption patterns. Let us look at a possible alternative. I have reduced renewables, nuclear coal. I haven't touched those but I have increased natural gas and oil to balance across all energy the funding necessary in R&D.
The data are clear the Federal Government must increase significantly the investment in oil and natural gas R&D as the United States transitions away from a carbon-based economy. The United States is at a crossroads. Your decisions are critical. And thank you for the opportunity to show these data.
Page 327 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[The prepared statement of Dr. Tinker follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT W. TINKER
For well over a century, the United States has enjoyed inexpensive and abundant supplies of energy. Access to energy has made us the most advanced nation on Earth and the only current superpower. Energy impacts every facet of the U.S. economy and daily life.
For well over a century, the United States has also enjoyed the luxury of having the private sector fund research, technology, exploration, production, transportation, and marketing of the energy that we all consume. In addition, the people of the United States have benefited greatly from the tremendous, and often industry-specific, taxes (e.g., excess profits tax, severance tax) that the U.S. petroleum industry has paid to State and Federal governments, and employment opportunities in the energy sector.
As the U.S. petroleum resource base has matured, the major industrial players have moved operations offshore, and independent operators now provide the majority of exploration and production activities in the United States. The independents cannot fund the research that will be required to produce the remaining resources, and in many cases, they do not have the in-house expertise required. Without the application of advanced technology, many of the remaining reserves will not be produced.
The United States of America is at a crossroads. The 107th Congress and the Bush Administration are faced with the potential of a major energy crisis. In fact, in California, the crisis is already here. Decisions made by this Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Congress, and the Administration will have a lasting impact on the U.S. economy, the U.S. and world markets, and every citizen of the United States. Energy ''drives'' this nation.
Page 328 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
History shows that a spike in energy prices has preceded every U.S. recession in the past 25 years. An energy crisis negatively impacts every citizen, business, and government entity in the country, as well as world markets and the global environment. The cost of an energy crisis is similar to the worst form of a regressive ''tax,'' because energy costs are applied across the board to every citizen, regardless of income.
Demand for every major source of energy, except nuclear, is increasing in the United States, which underscores the importance of a balanced, environmentally sound energy policy. I believe it is possible to transition smoothly from a carbon-based economy to other sources over the next 50 or more years. But this transition must be made with all of the facts in hand, so that the situation in California, which was predictable and in fact predicted, does not happen across the United States.
I am not here today to discuss the details of a balanced energy policy. However, I do believe that conservation is a critical piece of that policy, as is access to certain, but certainly not all, off-limits lands, and limited well-defined incentives for exploration and development. What is commonly left out, perhaps because it is assumed, in the discussion regarding energy policy is the significant role that research and technology have played, and must continue to play, in the energy landscape of the future. We can no longer assume that the private sector will provide the necessary research.
I am here to discuss the importance of oil and gas research, and the critical need for the Federal Government to step to the plate and fund that research. To illustrate the importance of oil and gas research, I will discuss four major points.
Page 329 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Point 1: Btu = OGC (oil, gas, coal).
For the next 20 years or more in the United States, Btu = OGC (oil, gas, coal). In 1999, 79% of U.S. Btu production and 84% of U.S. Btu consumption (Figure 1) were in the form of oil (39%), natural gas (23%), or coal (22%). These OGC percentages have remained relatively constant for the past 50 years and are predicted to remain similar for the next 20 years (Figure 2).
Point 2: The game has changed.
John Rockefeller must be smiling. Standard Oil Company, separated into seven Standard Oil Company ''sisters'' in 1911 by the Supreme Court of the United States, has begun a family reunion. Recent mergers include Exxon and Mobil, BP, Amoco, and ARCO, and Chevron and Texaco (not an original sister). This creation of ''jumbo'' oil companies has resulted in a change in market and industry structure realities. There has been a significant reduction in earth scientists and petroleum engineers over the past decade, resulting in very ''lean'' technical staff within each company. Graduate students in universities have recognized this shrinking job market and lack of research funding and are now choosing other disciplines. There has been an extreme divergence in ''economic class'' between the jumbos, who drill for oil and natural gas in the United States mainly in the deep offshore, Alaska, and on Wall Street through acquisitions of smaller companies, and the independents, who drill for oil and natural gas in the shallow offshore and onshore. With the exception of Exxon, the private sector has eliminated or diminished the once-great research and development laboratories (Figure 3), and R&D expenditures are half of what they were a decade ago (Figure 4).
Page 330 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
No longer will the private sector fund the research that has built the oil business to where it is today. There are many reasons for this exodus from research, but the main one is that average payout time for research (10+ years) now significantly exceeds the length of oil and natural gas price cycles (3 years) (Figure 5). The cost simply cannot be justified on a quarterly basis to stockholders. Is this a shortsighted approach by the private sector? Not when the option is survival in an ever-competitive equity marketplace. It is today's reality. What is also a reality is that the supply forecasts (Figure 2) are unlikely to be achieved with this dramatic decrease in private sector research and development funding, and the proposed 50% reduction in DOE oil and gas research funding. The game has changed (Figure 4), and the stakes of significantly decreased supply are very high.
Point 3: O&G research works.
My testimony will focus on an analysis of Federal investment in natural gas research, although a similar proven track record and future potential for oil research and technology application can be made.
Natural gas production in the United States was able to keep pace with consumption until the mid-1980's (Figure 5). Today, natural gas imports have risen from around 4% in the mid-1980's to more than 15%. We now import more than 3 Tcf of natural gas annually, and that number is increasing. A large percentage of the U.S. imported pipeline natural gas comes from Canada. Liquefied natural gas (LNG), largely from Algeria and Trinidad, accounts for most of the remaining natural gas imports.
Page 331 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Forecasts for annual U.S. natural gas production indicate natural gas supply will grow from 21 Tcf in 2001 to around 27 Tcf by 2015. Demand is projected to exceed 30 Tcf by 2015 (Figure 5). Whereas most of the historical U.S. natural gas has come from associated, high-permeability, and shallow offshore sources, around 50% of the produced natural gas in 2015 is forecast to come from deepwater, subsalt, and unconventional (tight gas, shale gas, and coalbed methane) sources.
Historical analysis indicates that the unconventional gas supply curves benefited greatly from natural gas research, the successful application of technology, Federal incentives, and a significant private sector investment in exploration and development.
Tight Gas
The tight gas production curve shows a large positive increase in slope (Figure 6) in 1985 following $165 million of combined investment in research by the DOE and the Gas Research Institute (GRI). Combined with Federal and State tight gas production incentives and investments in exploration and production by private sector operators, the DOE and GRI investments in research produced 11 Tcf of incremental natural gas through 1996 (Figure 6).
Strong drilling activity and heightened producer interest in the potential of the Greater Green River Basin of Wyoming made it an ideal location for testing the application of new technologies for tight gas reservoir exploitation. The Emerging Resources research in the Greater Green River Basin Project was initiated in 1994, with goals of defining the technical and economic barriers to efficient gas production in the basin, and developing the technologies to overcome them. The data, information, and analysis that result from each of the demonstration activities will be made available to producers in the basin and other basins through topical reports, Internet access, a CD-ROM, focused workshops, and technical presentations. By providing timely information relevant to the application of new technologies, GRI and DOE can help producers quickly climb the learning curve for implementing these new strategies. Included in the project is a gas atlas on CD-ROM, an accessibility atlas, techniques for slim-hole drilling and sweet-spot identification, numerous publications, and a workshop.
Page 332 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The new ''Portfolio of Emerging Natural Gas Resources—Rocky Mountain Basins,'' produced with the help of Advanced Resources International, Inc., and Barlow & Haun, Inc., continues that trend. This three-part portfolio addresses underdeveloped natural gas basins in a comprehensive manner but goes beyond the perspective of ''this is what the plays are'' to ''this is what they could be,'' helping to define the resource potential for the explorationist.
Shale Gas
The shale gas production curve shows a large positive increase in 1985 following more than $90 million of investment in research by the DOE in the prior decade (Figure 7). Another surge in production from shale gas followed $6 million of additional investment by GRI beginning in 1990. Combined with investments in exploration and production by private sector operators, these investments in research produced more than 2 Tcf of incremental natural gas through 1996.
From 1993 to 1995, GRI's Michigan Antrim program focused primarily on advancing technology development in the areas of restimulations, recompletions, and hydraulic fracture design. Other studies focused on advancing reservoir engineering methods and identifying production trends through gas and water compositional analysis.
DOE and GRI research investments resulted in the following new methods to drill and complete Antrim shale wells:
cased-hole completions
Page 333 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
two-staged stimulations
dual-zone completions
use of proppant consolidation material in fracturing
beam pumps/cavity pumps/modified plunger lifts to pump off the wells more efficiently
Combined, these methods resulted in more economic drilling and completion of Antrim shale wells. Fewer wells are drilled to maintain the same production levels. The same techniques are currently being transferred and used to drill Devonian-age shales in the Illinois basin.
Coalbed Methane (CBM)
The coalbed methane production curve shows a large positive increase in slope in the late 1980's following $82 million of combined investment in research by the DOE and GRI in the preceding decade (Figure 8). Combined with Federal and State production incentives, and investments in exploration and production by private sector operators, these investments in research have produced nearly 5 Tcf of incremental natural gas, and production continues to rise.
During the late 1970's (DOE) and early 1980's (GRI) the Federal Government invested in CBM research as an important near- and mid-term supply resource. In 1983, in an effort to develop new and improved methods to increase coalbed methane production and reduce production costs, private sector partners in Alabama and Colorado established field laboratories to evaluate stimulation (fracturing), completion, and production processes. Over the next decade, research played a major role in transforming CBM production from a high-cost operation to a competitive, main-line gas resource.
Page 334 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
A key driver in the research program was to develop methods to stimulate multiple coal seams in a single wellbore to maximize production and recovery. Advances in CBM stimulation have helped industry to be more aware of stimulation issues. A key goal is to ensure that CBM wells are producing at the potential of the reservoir and if not, to determine how production can be increased through low-cost remediation. The observations related to fluid damage have increased the awareness of the entire natural gas industry regarding the importance of stimulation treatments for all types of gas reservoirs.
In addition, DOE and GRI research partnerships with the private sector resulted in an improved analysis protocol for determining the reservoir parameters used for calculating the gas-in-place volume of coalbed reservoirs. There are additional research opportunities to develop new or improved completion fluids and recompletion approaches for a variety of different reservoir settings and for tapping additional reserves behind pipe that can be connected to the existing infrastructure.
Advanced Stimulation
In the early 1980's, GRI began a comprehensive research effort to evaluate and enhance technologies associated with hydraulic fracturing. Through a series of cooperative research and Staged Field Experiment (SFE) wells, GRI collected evidence that challenged traditional hydraulic fracturing methodologies and theories. By analyzing detailed reservoir data and real-time fracture treatment data, new insights into the fracturing process were gained, and critical factors associated with successful fracture treatments were identified. These insights formed the core of GRI's Advanced Stimulation Technology (AST) deployment program.
Page 335 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
AST is a methodology that centers on the analysis of actual, or ''real,'' treatment data using advanced 3–D hydraulic fracture models in real time. Several of the critical concepts involved in Advanced Stimulation Technology include (1) real-time data analysis, (2) quality control, (3) stress profiling, and (4) rock mechanics (nonlinear rock response). Together, these technologies represent a new hydraulic fracture process and improved understanding of hydraulic fracturing.
The main objective of GRI's AST deployment project was to disseminate information on methodologies for improving hydraulic fracturing results throughout the gas-producing industry. GRI transferred the technology in several ways, including the development and distribution of educational material, industry workshops and users' groups, and hands-on, field application programs with natural gas producers and service companies.
Point 4: Oil and gas research is a wise Federal investment.
The term ''corporate welfare'' makes for a good media sound bite. Unfortunately, the use of the term propagates a myth that is farcical. The danger of the myth is that because it is spoken by our Federal and State legislators, and published in our national and local press, it is believed by most U.S. citizens.
Let us examine the facts, and then put the corporate welfare myth to rest.
Again, I will use unconventional natural gas. Federal investment (DOE) in unconventional natural gas research has been approximately $241 million since 1970, and GRI invested an additional $140 million in the last 20 years (Figures 6, 7, 8). As we have seen, that investment, combined with Federal and State production incentives, and an estimated $23 billion in private sector investment, resulted in nearly 18 Tcf of incremental unconventional natural gas production through 1996 (Figure 9), a number that has grown since that time. Incremental production is natural gas that is unlikely to have been produced otherwise.
Page 336 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Was the $241 million Federal investment corporate welfare? It represents only 1% of the private sector investment required to explore for and produce the gas. But this alone does not exclude the welfare label. Welfare implies a gift or investment with no expectation of financial return on the investment. The Federal Government of the United States has received approximately $62 billion return on its $241 million investment (257×!). Average return on investment in the FRS oil companies for the past 25 years has been 10%, with a decreasing trend (Figure 10). The private sector received approximately $2.5 billion on an investment of $23 billion (0.1×). In other words, for a Federal investment 1% of the size of the private investment, the Government received a return 30× larger (Figure 9).
The simple fact is that Federal funding of oil and gas research is a wise investment for the citizens of the United States. Of equal importance to the remarkable financial return on investment is the natural gas energy return. For a $241 million Federal investment, the people of this country received nearly 18 Tcf of incremental natural gas through 1996, energy that we would not otherwise have had.
Affordable, available energy is what helped the U.S. economy enjoy a decade of prosperity in the 1990's unlike any that preceded it. The Federal investment in research is hardly welfare! To the contrary, it is a Federal duty to make wise investments in energy that will ensure the prosperity and security of every U.S. citizen.
Summary
The proposed 2002 DOE Total Budget is more than $19 billion (Figure 11). Of this total budget, only $744 million (4%) is dedicated to actual energy research, of which only $51 million (0.3%) is dedicated to oil and gas research. In 1999, 62% of U.S. energy demand was satisfied by oil and gas (Figure 2). The proposed DOE funding of 0.3% for oil and gas research is dramatically out of proportion with regards to current near-term demand, and unrealistic with regards to what is necessary to maintain a balanced energy program, especially in a time when private sector oil and gas research and development have diminished greatly.
Page 337 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In the short term (25 years), oil, gas, and coal will be the major sources of U.S. energy. If the proposed DOE 2002 budget is approved, it will force a decline in oil and gas research, and most likely a near-term decline in U.S. oil and gas production that could be devastating to U.S. energy supply (Figure 12). Part of the difference could and should be made up in conservation. However, there are few, if any, current sources of energy other than oil and gas that could fill the energy demand gap in the short run. It will be difficult to create the infrastructure to increase gas imports (as LNG) in that time frame, which leaves limited alternatives: import huge volumes of oil, accelerate the construction of nuclear power plants, or brace for significant energy shortages and associated brownouts, blackouts, and a likely recession. None of these alternatives are attractive, and none are necessary.
I advocate leaving the support for coal, nuclear, and renewables unchanged but increasing the level of funding for oil and gas by $400 million, which would increase the total level of energy research funding to approximately $1.1 billion (Figure 13). A funding level of $400 million per year for oil and gas research represents only approximately 20% of the $2.5 billion private sector annual reduction in R&D annual expenditures over the past decade (Figure 5).
On the basis of the four major points I have presented—(1) Btu = OGC, (2) the game has changed, (3) O&G research works, and (4) oil and gas research is a wise Federal investment—the path is clear. The Federal Government must invest on the order of $400-$500 million annually in oil and gas research over the next 25 to 75 years. This investment will support a realistic transition from a carbon-based energy society to a hydrogen and renewable energy society (Figure 14) and will also signal a commitment to a balanced approach to energy policy.
Page 338 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Thank you.
72196xx.eps
72196yy.eps
72196zz.eps
72196a3.eps
72196b3.eps
72196c3.eps
72196d3.eps
72196e3.eps
72196f3.eps
72196g3.eps
72196h3.eps
Page 339 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
72196i3.eps
72196j3.eps
72196k3.eps
BIOGRAPHY FOR SCOTT W. TINKER
Personal
Business address: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, University Station, Box X, Austin, Texas 78713–8924; 512–471–0209 phone; 512–471–0140 fax; scott.tinker@beg.utexas.edu
Academic Background
B.S. Geology and Business Administration, Trinity University, San Antonio,
Texas, 1982
M.S. Geological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1985
M.B.A. Business Administration, University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado, 18
hours completed 1989
Ph.D. Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 1996
Page 340 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Areas of Expertise
A. Managing the broad aspects of basic and applied energy and environmental research in a nonprofit organization.
B. Extensive experience conceiving, designing, implementing, and managing multidisciplinary reservoir characterization studies of large hydrocarbon fields.
C. Expertise in carbonate sedimentology, sequence stratigraphy, 3–D reservoir modeling, and digital integration, analysis, and interpretation of diverse data types, including outcrop, core, wireline log, seismic, and engineering data.
Professional Work Experience
A. Present Position: Director, Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin (January 2000-present).
Management and direction of Texas State Geological Survey; assessment, inventory, and evaluation of Texas energy, mineral, land, and water resources; research and technical advisor to Governor's Office, Texas Legislature, and State regulatory agencies; basic and applied geologic research, mineral resource evaluation, and mapping. Leadership of 130 professional and support staff.
B. Advanced Senior Geologist, Marathon Oil—Petroleum Technology Center, Littleton, Colorado (1998–2000).
Page 341 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Proposed and designed a 2-year, $1.2 million project to characterize Seminole field for Amerada Hess Corporation, which was approved by working interest owners in Seminole. Served as project manager and technical mentor for a seven-member integrated team. Described core in a manner suitable for sequence-stratigraphic interpretation and quantified 3–D modeling; interpreted the stratigraphy using 650 wells, 14,000 ft of core, and a 3–D seismic inversion; and built a 3–D geologic model that integrates log, core, seismic and production data. This type of technical service for another oil company was new territory for Marathon and unique within the industry.
Three-dimensional characterization of Marathon's largest carbonate reservoirs worldwide. Ongoing responsibilities included project design and management, core description, core/log integration and analysis, data-base construction, 3–D seismic interpretation, sequence-stratigraphic interpretation, 3–D model building, and implementation and training within regional offices. Results from these various studies helped to reduce costs by improved field management and to increase revenues by arresting field decline.
In-house consultant for exploration and reservoir-scale technical problems in carbonate settings worldwide, including North America, West Africa, and the Middle East. Met with and presented to senior management and senior technical professionals from PEMEX, Saudi ARAMCO, ADNOC, ONGC (India), and the Russian National Oil Company regarding new business development and cooperative opportunities.
Responsible for Marathon's in-house technical training in carbonates including Sequence Stratigraphy and Characterization of Carbonate Reservoirs; Ancient Carbonate Field Seminar; 3–D Characterization Using SAS, Stratamodel, and VoxelGeo software; New Hires Seminar; and Engineering Integration.
Page 342 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Designed, implemented, and served as mentor in a 3-year, new-hire training program.
C. Senior Geologist, Marathon Oil—Petroleum Technology Center, Littleton, Colorado (1995–1998).
3–D model construction in the offshore Gulf of Mexico Ewing Bank turbidite complex.
3–D reservoir characterization, including core description and quantification, log analysis and correlation, seismic interpretation where data available, data integration and analysis of Indian Basin field (Pennsylvanian), Howard Glasscock field (Permian), and Olson field (Permian).
Description and characterization of Cretaceous carbonates in a new discovery, offshore Gabon.
D. Advanced Geologist, Marathon Oil—Petroleum Technology Center, Littleton, Colorado (1991–1995).
3–D model construction of giant West Texas Yates field, including core description and quantification (23,000 ft.), log analysis and correlation (1,500 wells), data integration and analysis (100,000,000-cell data base), 3–D model construction, and reservoir management. Yates is a stratigraphically complex, fractured Permian reservoir with meteoric and hydrothermal karst.
Page 343 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
3–D modeling of Smackover Shongaloo field (Jurassic ooid shoal complex).
3–D modeling of early Permian Vacuum (Abo) reservoir.
E. Geologist II, Marathon Oil—Petroleum Technology Center, Littleton, Colorado (1988–1991).
Data acquisition, core description and integration for Yates field reservoir characterization project.
Development of a Geologic Core Description Worksheet.
F. Geologist, Union Pacific Resources, Englewood, Colorado (1985–1988)
Hand-selected as part of a two-man technical team for regional exploration integrating log, core, petrographic, seismic, and geochemical data in Devonian carbonates of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin and the Williston Basin. David Eby served as project mentor for the team, and this was invaluable experience in terms of regional and reservoir-scale carbonate understanding.
Prospect generation in the Big Horn Basin, Wyoming.
G. Geologist, Robert M. Sneider Exploration, Houston, Texas (1982–1983; Summer-1984).
Page 344 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Rock-log calibration and reservoir description of a proposed San Andres waterflood, New Mexico; regional interpretation and prospect generation in East Texas basin Jurassic and Cretaceous carbonates and sands; attended several high-level strategy sessions with major partners.
H. Teaching Assistant, Introductory Geology; Research Assistant, Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (1983–1985).
I. Resident Advisor, Murchison co-ed dormitory; Teaching Assistant, Structural Geology and Introductory Geology, Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas (1980–1982).
Professional Societies
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 1982-present; Certified Petroleum Geologist #5403
Field Seminar Sub-Committee Chairman on Education Committee, 1999-present
Associate Editor for AAPG Bulletin, 1997–1999
Technical Session Judge at AAPG Annual meetings: 1993, 1996, 1999
Distinguished Lecturer, 1997–1998
Field Seminar Leader, 1998, 1999
Page 345 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Session Chair at Annual Meeting in Denver, Colorado, 1994
Association of American State Geologists, 1999-present
Coastal Processes Committee, 1999-present
Continental Margins Committee, 1999-present
Energy and Mineral Policy Committee, 1999-present
Executive Committee, 1999-present
Liaison Committee, 1999-present
U.S. Potential Gas Committee, 1999-present
Austin Geological Society, 2000-present
Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, 1999-present
Steering Committee, 2000-present
Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, 1997-present
SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology), 1984-present
Page 346 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Short Course Instructor 1997, 1999
Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 2000-present
Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1982-present
Development Geology and Geophysics Committee: 1992–1994
Session Chair at Annual Meeting in Washington D.C., 1993
West Texas Geological Society, 1993-present
WTGS/AAPG Southwest Section Field Trip Leader, Carlsbad, New Mexico, February-March 2000
Board and Council Activities
University
Trinity University
Board of Visitors, 2000-present
The University of Texas at Austin
Department of Geological Sciences, Faculty Review Committee
Page 347 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
State Government
Texas Energy Coordination Council
Hearings, April 13, 2000
Councils
Petroleum Technology Transfer Council—Director, Regional Lead Organization
PAG Committee
Honors and Awards
Marathon Achievement of Company Excellence Award, for significant contributions to reservoir characterization and understanding leading to improved development of Indian Basin field, 1999.
Best paper published in Journal of Sedimentary Research in 1998, ''Shelf-to-basin facies distribution and sequence stratigraphy of a steep-rimmed carbonate margin: Capitan depositional system, McKittrick Canyon, New Mexico and Texas.''
Marathon Achievement of Company Excellence Award, for significant contributions to reservoir characterization and understanding leading to improved development of Travis field, 1998.
J.C. ''Cam'' Sproule Memorial Award for Best Paper published in AAPG by an author 35 years or younger at submittal, for ''Building the 3–D Jigsaw Puzzle: Applications of Sequence Stratigraphy to 3–D Reservoir Modeling, Permian Basin'': AAPG Bulletin (April 1996), 1998.
Page 348 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
AAPG Distinguished Lecturer, 1997–1998.
Client Advisory Board: Schlumberger Doll Research (3 years), 1996.
The University of Michigan: Marathon Scholar, 1985.
The University of Michigan: AAPG and Sigma Xi Grants-in-Aid of Research, 1984.
Trinity University: Phi Beta Kappa; Who's Who in American Colleges and Universities; Outstanding Young Men of America; Top Geology Graduate; Wall Street Journal Award for Top Business Administration Graduate, 1982.
Trinity University: Mortar Board; Blue Key; Sigma Gamma Epsilon (President); Sigma Iota Epsilon; Alpha Lambda Delta; Alpha Chi; Sigma Mu Epsilon, 1981.
Trinity University: South Texas Geologic Society Scholarship and San Antonio Gem and Mineral Society Scholarship, 1980.
Trinity University: Charter Member and Second President of Omega Phi Fraternity, 1979.
Trinity University: President's Scholarship (4-year); Jesse Jones Scholarship (4-year), 1978.
Cypress Fairbanks Senior High School: Summa Cum Laude (7th of 700), Class President Junior and Senior Years, 4-Year Tennis and Band Letters, Bobcat Brass Jazz Band, National Honor Society, Student Intern for Bill Archer in Washington D.C., 1978.
Page 349 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Publications
Books
Kerans, C., and Tinker, S.W., 1997, Sequence stratigraphy and characterization of carbonate reservoirs: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Short Course Notes No. 40, 165 p.
Articles
Kerans, Charles, and Tinker, S.W., 1999, Extrinsic stratigraphic controls on development of the Capitan Reef Complex, in Geologic framework of the Capitan Reef: SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) Special Publication No. 65, p. 15–36.
Osleger, D.A., and Tinker, S.W., 1999, Three-dimensional architecture of Upper Permian high-frequency sequences, Yates-Capitan shelf margin, Permian Basin, U.S.A., in Advances in carbonate sequence stratigraphy: application to reservoirs, outcrops and models: SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) Special Publication No. 63, p. 169–185.
Tinker, S.W., Caldwell, D.H., Brinton, L., Brondos, M.D., Cox, D.M., DeMis, W.D., Hamman, J.G., Laskowski, L.C., Miller, K.A., and Zahm, L.C., 1999, Sequence stratigraphy and 3–D modeling of a Pennsylvanian ramp-crest reservoir: Canyon and Cisco Formations, North Indian Basin field, New Mexico, USA: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions Special Publication, p. 213–232.
Page 350 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Tinker, S.W., 1998, Shelf-to-basin facies distribution and sequence stratigraphy of a steep-rimmed carbonate margin: Capitan depositional system, McKittrick Canyon, New Mexico and Texas: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 68, no. 6, p. 1146–1174.
Uland, M.J., Tinker, S.W., and Caldwell, D.H., 1997, 3–D reservoir characterization for improved reservoir management: Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Paper No. 37699, 14 p.
Tinker, S.W., 1996, Building the 3–D jigsaw puzzle: applications of sequence stratigraphy to 3–D reservoir characterization, Permian Basin, USA: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 80, no. 4, p. 460–485.
Tinker, S.W., Caldwell, D.H., and Uland, M.J., 1995, Three-dimensional reservoir characterization: worldwide examples and economics, in Slatt, R., Thomasson, R., Romig, P., Pasternack, E., and Heggelund, D., conveners, Visualization technology to find and develop more oil and gas: Proceeding of the Fifth Annual Archie Conference, p. 110–118.
Tinker, S.W., Ehrets, J.R., and Brondos, M.D., 1995, Multiple karst events related to stratigraphic cyclicity: San Andres Formation, Yates field, west Texas, in Budd, D.A., Saller, A., and Harris, P.M., eds., Unconformities and porosity in carbonate strata: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 63, p. 213–237.
Tinker, S.W., and Mruk, D.H., 1995, Reservoir characterization of a Permian giant: Yates field, west Texas, in Stoudt, E., and Harris, P.M., eds., Hydrocarbon reservoir characterization, geologic framework and flow-unit modeling: SEPM Short Course No. 34, p. 51–128.
Page 351 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Kerans, C., Fitchen, W.M., Gardner, M.H., Sonnenfeld, M.D., Tinker, S.W., and Wardlaw, B.R., 1992, Styles of sequence development within uppermost Leonardian through Guadalupian strata of the Guadalupe Mountains, Texas and New Mexico, in Mruk, D.H., and Curran, B.C., eds., Permian basin exploration and production strategies: applications of sequence stratigraphic and reservoir characterization concepts: West Texas Geological Society Symposium No. 92–91, p. 1–7.
Guidebooks
Kerans, Charles, Kempter, Kirt, Rush, Jason, and Tinker, S.W., 1999, Pennsylvanian stratigraphic framework and distribution of reservoir facies, Big Hatchet Mountains, southwestern New Mexico: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, RCRL Annual Field Trip Guidebook, 44 p.
Abstracts
Tinker, S.W., 2001, Interpreting 3–D carbonate stratigraphy using 1–D data (abs.): to be presented at Permian Basin Graduate Center, August 2001.
Tinker, S.W., and D.H. Caldwell, 2001, 3–D reservoir modeling: hydrocarbons and aquifers (abs.): to be presented at the American Association of Petroleum Geologists/SEPM Annual Convention, Denver, Colorado, June 2001.
Tinker, S.W., 2001, Current and future opportunities in the State geologic surveys (abs.): presented at American Geological Institute-National Science Foundation Workshop, Identifying Geoscience HumanResources Data Needs—A Workshop for Educators and Employers, University of Maryland University College, Adelphi, Maryland, April 2001.
Page 352 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Tinker, S.W., 2001, Natural gas supply: how the U.S. natural gas production curve was built and how it will be sustained in the future (abs.): presented to Austin Geological Society monthly meeting, Austin, Texas, April 2001.
Tinker, S.W., and Kim, E.M., 2001, Value of applied research and future of natural gas supply: how the U.S. natural gas production curve was built and how it will be sustained in the future (abs.): presented to Second International Petroleum Technology Exhibition, Mexico City, Mexico, February 2001.
Tinker, S.W., 2000, Can we believe what we see: seismic signatures in prograding systems? (abs.), in The impact of integrated sedimentology and stratigraphy on reservoir characterization and field management strategies: Permian Basin Section—SEPM workshop, Midland, Texas, unpaginated.
Tinker, S.W., 2000, Historical and future impact of BEG reservoir characterization and implementation programs in West Texas (abs.), in The impact of integrated sedimentology and stratigraphy on reservoir characterization and field management strategies: Permian Basin Section—SEPM workshop, Midland, Texas, unpaginated.
Tinker, S.W., 2000, Reservoir-scale seismic stratigraphy in prograding systems: time or rock? (abs.): American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention Official Program, p. A148.
Tinker, S.W., 2000, The value of upstream technology in the petroleum industry (abs.): Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, 50th Annual Convention, Houston, Texas.
Page 353 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Tinker, S.W., Caldwell, D.H., Brondos, M.D., Carlson, J.L., Cox, D.M., Demis, W.D., Hamman, J.G., Laskowski, L.C., Miller, K.A., Zahm, L.C., and Brinton, Lise, 2000, Sequence stratigraphy and 3–D modeling of a Pennsylvanian distally steepened ramp reservoir: Canyon and Cisco Formations, South Dagger Draw field, New Mexico, USA (abs): Houston Geological Society Bulletin, September, p. 17.
Tinker, S.W., Zahm, L.C., and Kerans, Charles, 2000, Structural controls on shelf margin evolution and reservoir distribution in Pennsylvanian Icehouse conditions: South Dagger Draw Field, New Mexico and Big Hatchet Mountains, New Mexico (abs.): American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention Official Program, p. A148.
Zahm, L.C., and Tinker, S.W., 2000, 3–D reservoir characterization in the absence of seismic; Olson Field, San Andres/Grayburg, West Texas (abs.): American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention Official Program, p. A165.
Tinker, S.W., Caldwell, D.H. Brinton, Lise, Brondos, M.D., Carlson, J.L., Cox, D.M., DeMis, W.D., Hamman, J.G., Laskowski, L.C., Miller, K.A., and Zahm, L.C., 1999, Sequence stratigraphy and 3–D modeling of a Pennsylvanian, distally steepened ramp reservoir: Canyon and Cisco Formations, South Dagger Draw field, New Mexico, USA (abs.), in Hentz, T. F., ed., Advanced reservoir characterization for the 21st century: Gulf Coast Section—Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Foundation 19th Annual Bob F. Perkins Research Conference, Program and Abstracts, p. 27.
Tinker, S.W., 1998, The importance of core data in 3–D reservoir characterization (abs.): Sixth Archie Conference Abstracts.
Page 354 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Tinker, S.W., and Cafdwell, D.H., 1998, Enhancement of reservoir models with 3–D seismic data (abs.): Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists/Denver Geophysical Society 3–D Seismic Symposium.
Tinker, S.W., and Cox, D.H., 1998, Sequence stratigraphy and 3–D geologic models of a complex clinoform ramp-crest reservoir (abs.): American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention Abstracts, 2 p.
Tinker, S.W., 1997, From rocks to models: 3–D visualization as a tool to integrate sedimentology and sequence stratigraphy in reservoir models (abs.): Saudi ARAMCO Super K Forum Program and Abstracts.
Tinker, S.W., 1997, Stratigraphic framework and ''well-spacing'' controls on reservoir heterogeneity, volumetric calculations, and synthetic-seismic response in a 3–D ''reservoir'' model: McKittrick Canyon, West Texas and New Mexico (abs.): American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention Abstracts, v. 6.
Tinker, S.W., 1996, Building the 3–D jigsaw puzzle: applications of carbonate sequence stratigraphy to 3–D reservoir characterization (abs.): Permian Basin SEPM Symposium on Carbonate Facies and Sequence Stratigraphy: practical applications of carbonate models abstracts.
Tinker, S.W., 1996, Reservoir scale carbonate sequence stratigraphy: McKittrick Canyon and 3–D subsurface examples (abs.): in AAPG/EAGE Research Symposium on Compartmentalized Reservoirs: their detection, characterization, and management abstracts.
Page 355 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Tinker, S.W., 1996, 3–D reservoir characterization: worldwide examples and economics (abs.): Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists/Denver Geophysical Society 3–D Seismic Symposium.
Tinker, S.W., Brondos, M.D., and Brinton, L., 1996, The role of sequence stratigraphy in 3–D characterization of carbonate reservoirs (abs.): American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention Abstracts, v. 5.
Tinker, S.W., Caldwell, D.H., and Uland, M.J., 1996, Three-dimensional reservoir characterization: worldwide examples and economics (abs.): American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention Abstracts, v. 5.
Tinker, S.W., 1994, Building the 3–D jigsaw puzzle: applications of carbonate sequence stratigraphy to 3–D reservoir characterization (abs.): Stratamodel Symposium on 3–D Reservoir Characterization.
Tinker, S.W., 1994, Multiple karst events related to stratigraphic cyclicity: San Andres Formation, Yates field, West Texas (abs.): Stratamodel Symposium on 3–D Reservoir Characterization.
Tinker, S.W., and Brinton, L., 1994, Shelf-to-basin sequence stratigraphic framework and early diagenesis of late Guadalupian strata, McKittrick Canyon, New Mexico and Texas: preliminary findings (abs.): American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention Abstracts, v. 3, p. 272.
Page 356 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Tinker, S.W., Brondos, M.D., Parsley, M.J., and Ehrets, J.R., 1994, Permian karst and caves in Yates field (abs.): American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention Abstracts, v. 3, p. 271.
Tinker, C., and Tinker, S.W., 1994, Use of quantitatively calibrated depositional models in constructing high-resolution sequence stratigraphic frameworks for reservoir characterization (abs.): American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention Abstracts, v. 3, p. 186.
Tinker, S.W., Brondos, M.D., and Ehrets, J.R., 1993, Permian karst and caves in Yates field (abs.): American Association of Petroleum Geologists Hedberg Conference on Unconformities and Porosity in Carbonate Strata.
Fitchen, W.M., Gardner, M.H., Kerans, C., Little, L., Sonnenfeld, M.D., Tinker S.W., and Wardlaw, B.R., 1992, Evolution of platform and basin architecture in mixed carbonate-siliciclastic sequences: Latest Leonardian through Guadalupian, Delaware Basin (abs.): American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention Abstracts, v. 1, p. 41.
Kerans, C., Fitchen, W.M., Gardner, M.H., Sonnenfeld, M.D., Tinker, S.W., and Wardlaw, B.R., 1992, Styles of sequence development within Latest Leonardian through Guadalupian strata of the Guadalupe Mountains (abs.): American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention Abstracts, v. 1, p. 65.
Kirkby, K.C., and Tinker, S.W., 1992, The Keg River/Winnipegosis petroleum system in Northeast Alberta (abs.): American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention Abstracts, v. 1, p. 66.
Page 357 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Kirkby, K.C., and Tinker, S.W., 1991, The Keg River/Winnipegosis petroleum system—source to trap: pt. 2: (abs.): American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 75, no. 3, p. 610.
Tinker, S.W., and Kirkby, K.C., 1991, The Keg River/Winnipegosis petroleum system—source to trap: pt. 1: (abs.): American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 75, no. 3, p. 682.
Tinker, S.W., and Romero, R., 1990, A computer-assisted geologic worksheet: input, comparison, analysis, and presentation of rock, log, engineering, and geochemical data (abs.): American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 74, no. 5, p. 779.
Contract Reports
Kim, E.M., Tinker, S.W., Fisher, W.L., and Ruppel, S.C., 2000, Benefit/cost analysis of GRI's gas supply research initiative: economics of a gas supply research trust fund to increase gas production of Federal lands: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, final report prepared for Gas Research Institute, 70 p.
Thesis
Lithostratigraphy and biostratigraphy of the James Limestone, Texas and Mexico, 1985.
Dissertation
Reservoir-scale sequence stratigraphy: McKittrick Canyon and 3–D subsurface examples, West Texas and New Mexico, 1996.
Page 358 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Recent Public Lectures and Addresses
Current and Future Opportunities in the State Geologic Surveys: presented at American Geological InstituteNational Science Foundation Workshop, Identifying Geoscience Human-Resources Data Needs—A Workshop for Educators and Employers, University of Maryland University College, Adelphi, Maryland, April 2001.
Value of Applied Research and the Natural Gas Supply: How the U.S. Natural Gas Production Curve Was Built and How It Will Be Sustained in the Future: presented to West Texas Geological Society, Midland, Texas, April 2001.
Does Technology Really Matter?: The Value and Future of Upstream Technology in the Petroleum Industry: presented at The University of Texas at Austin, Department of Petroleum Engineering Graduate Seminar Series, Austin, Texas, April 2001.
Natural Gas Supply: How the U.S. Natural Gas Production Curve Was Built and How It Will Be Sustained in the Future: presented to Austin Geological Society monthly meeting, Austin, Texas, April 2001.
Value of Applied Research and the Natural Gas Supply: How the U.S. Natural Gas Production Curve Was Built and How It Will Be Sustained in the Future: presented at the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 20th Annual Leadership Conference, Tulsa, Oklahoma, February 2001.
Value of Applied Research and Future of Natural Gas Supply: How the U.S. Natural Gas Production Curve Was Built and How It Will Be Sustained in the Future: presented to Second International Petroleum Technology Exhibition, Mexico City, Mexico, February 2001.
Page 359 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Value of Upstream Technology and the Future of Energy Research: presented at The Victoria College, Victoria, Texas, February 2001.
Value of Technology: invited by U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and Office of Natural Gas and Petroleum Technology to participate in strategic initiatives workshop, Washington, D.C., December 2000.
No Ground Truth: presented as invited keynote speaker to Hedberg Conference on Geostatistics, The Woodlands, Texas, December 2000.
The Value of Upstream Technology in the Petroleum Industry: presented at Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, 50th Annual Convention, Houston, Texas, October 2000.
Overview of Current and Future R&D Activities at the Bureau of Economic Geology: presented at The University of Texas at Austin, Department of Geological Sciences, technical session, Austin, Texas, September 2000.
Overview of Current and Future R&D Activities at the Bureau of Economic Geology: presented at the University of Houston, Allied Geophysics Laboratories, Houston, Texas, September 2000.
Sequence Stratigraphy and 3–D Modeling of a Pennsylvanian Distally Steepened Ramp Reservoir: Canyon and Cisco Formations, South Dagger Draw Field, New Mexico, USA: presented at Houston Geological Society, Houston, Texas, September 2000.
Page 360 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Historical and Future Impact of BEG Reservoir Characterization and Implementation Programs in West Texas: presented at Permian Basin Section—SEPM workshop, The Impact of Integrated Sedimentology and Stratigraphy on Reservoir Characterization and Field Management Strategies, Midland, Texas, August 2000.
Can We Believe What We See: Seismic Signatures in Prograding Systems?: presented at Permian Basin Section—SEPM workshop, The Impact of Integrated Sedimentology and Stratigraphy on Reservoir Characterization and Field Management Strategies, Midland, Texas, August 2000.
Reservoir-Scale Seismic Stratigraphy in Prograding Systems: Time or Rock?: presented at American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 2000.
Structural Controls on Shelf Margin Evolution and Reservoir Distribution in Pennsylvanian Icehouse Conditions: South Dagger Draw Field, New Mexico and Big Hatchet Mountains, New Mexico: presented at American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention Official Program, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 2000.
3–D Reservoir Characterization in the Absence of Seismic; Olson Field, San Andres/Grayburg, West Texas: presented at American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention Official Program, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 2000.
Sequence Stratigraphy and 3–D Modeling of a Pennsylvanian, Distally Steepened Ramp Reservoir: Canyon and Cisco Formations, South Dagger Draw field, New Mexico, USA: presented at Gulf Coast Section-Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Foundation 19th Annual Bob F. Perkins Research Conference, Advanced Reservoir Characterization for the 21st Century, Houston, Texas, December 1999.
Page 361 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Sequence Stratigraphy and 3–D Modeling of a Pennsylvanian Ramp-Crest Reservoir: Canyon and Cisco Formations, North Indian Basin Field, New Mexico, USA and Developing Sequence Stratigraphic Frameworks for Reservoir Modeling: Extracting a Method from the Madness: presented at GCS–SEPM Conference on Advanced Characterization for the 21st Century, December 1999.
From Rocks to Models: Rock-Based Sequence Stratigraphy and 3–D Modeling of Carbonates: presented at University of Michigan Scott Turner Lecture, October 1999.
From Rocks to Models: 3–D Visualization as a Tool to Integrate Sedimentology and Sequence Stratigraphy in Reservoir Models: presented at Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists Brown Bag, October 1998.
Integration—More than Just Swinging a Bat: presented at Society of Exploration Geophysics and Society of Petroleum Engineers Forum on Reservoir Characterization, Keynote Speaker, July 1998.
Predictive Quality of Reservoir Characterization and Simulation: Global Case Studies: presented at AAPG Annual Meeting; Sequence Stratigraphy and 3–D Geologic Models of a Complex Clinoform Ramp-Crest Reservoir; Session Chairman, April 1997.
From Rocks to Models: 3–D Visualization as a Tool to Integrate Sedimentology and Sequence Stratigraphy in Reservoir Models: presented at AAPG Distinguished Lecture: University of Alabama, April 1998; Southwest Louisiana Geophysical Society, April 1998; Illinois Geologic Society, April 1998; University of Missouri-Rolla, April 1998; Ohio Geologic Society, April 1998; University of Iowa, April 1998; Pittsburgh Geologic Society, April 1998; University of Memphis, April 1998; Fort Smith Geologic Society, April 1998; Fort Worth Geologic Society, April 1998; San Joaquin Geologic Society, Bakersfield, California, March 1998; Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, Denver, Colorado, February 1998; Four-Corners Geologic Society, Farmington, New Mexico, January 1998; Colorado School of Mines-Van Tuyl Lecture: Golden, Colorado, January 1998; Montana Geologic Society, Billings, Montana, December 1997; University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, December 1997; Northern California Geologic Society, San Ramon, California, November 1997; University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, November 1997; Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, November 1997; Abilene Geologic Society, Abilene, Texas, November 1997; Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, November 1997; Wyoming Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute Symposium (Keynote, Casper, Wyoming), October 1997; Saudi ARAMCO Super K Conference, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, May 1997.
Page 362 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Enhancement of Reservoir Models with 3–D Seismic Data: Real-Time Workstation Presentation: presented at Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists/Denver Geophysical Society 3–D Seismic Symposium; Keynote Speaker; February 1998.
The Importance of Core Data in 3–D Reservoir Characterization: Core/Poster Presentation: presented at Sixth Archie Conference, February 1998.
Three-Dimensional Reservoir Characterization for Improved Reservoir Management: presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference, October 1997.
A Vision for the Future; Carbonate Reservoir Modeling: presented at SPE Forum on 3–D Reservoir Characterization Technology, June 1997.
Stratigraphic Framework and ''Well-Spacing'' Controls on Reservoir Heterogeneity, Volumetric Calculations, and Synthetic-Seismic Response in a 3–D ''Reservoir'' Model: McKittrick Canyon, West Texas and New Mexico: presented at AAPG Annual Meeting, April 1997.
Reservoir Scale Carbonate Sequence Stratigraphy: McKittrick Canyon and 3–D Subsurface Examples: presented at AAPG/BAGE Research Symposium on ''Compartmentalized Reservoirs: Their Detection, Characterization, and Management,'' October 1996.
Reservoir Scale Carbonate Sequence Stratigraphy: McKittrick Canyon and 3–D Subsurface Examples: presented at The University of Texas at Austin, October 1996.
Page 363 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Reservoir Scale Carbonate Sequence Stratigraphy: McKittrick Canyon and 3–D Subsurface Examples: presented at Houston Geologic Society, September 1996.
Reservoir Scale Carbonate Sequence Stratigraphy: McKittrick Canyon and 3–D Subsurface Examples: presented at Amoco Oil Company, August 1996.
The Role of Sequence Stratigraphy in 3–D Characterization of Carbonate Reservoirs: Poster Presentation: presented at AAPG Annual Meeting, May 1996.
3–D Reservoir Characterization: Worldwide Examples and Economics: presented at AAPG Annual Meeting, May 1996.
3–D Reservoir Characterization: Worldwide Examples and Economics: presented at Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists/Denver Geophysical Society 3–D Seismic Symposium, February 1996.
Building the 3–D Jigsaw Puzzle: Applications of Carbonate Sequence Stratigraphy to 3–D Reservoir Characterization: presented at Colorado School of Mines-Van Tuyl Lecture, February 1996.
3–D Reservoir Characterization: Worldwide Examples and Economics: presented at Fifth Archie Conference, May 1995.
Practical Applications of Carbonate Models; Building the 3–D Jigsaw Puzzle: Applications of Carbonate Sequence Stratigraphy to 3–D Reservoir Characterization: presented at Permian Basin SEPM Symposium on Carbonate Facies and Sequence Stratigraphy, April 1995.
Page 364 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Building the 3–D Jigsaw Puzzle: Applications of Carbonate Sequence Stratigraphy to 3–D Reservoir Characterization: presented at Stratamodel Symposium on '' 3–D Reservoir Characterization,'' July 1994.
Multiple Karst Events Related to Stratigraphic Cyclicity: San Andres Formation, Yates Field, West Texas: presented at Stratamodel Symposium on ''3–D Reservoir Characterization,'' July 1994:
Permian Karst and Caves in Yates Field: Poster and Video Presentation: presented at AAPG Annual Meeting, June 1994.
Shelf-to-Basin Sequence Stratigraphic Framework and Early Diagenesis of Late Guadalupian Strata, McKittrick Canyon, New Mexico and Texas: Preliminary Findings: Poster Presentation: presented at AAPG Annual Meeting, June 1994.
Permian Karst and Caves in Yates Field: Poster Presentation: AAPG Hedberg Conference on ''Unconformities and Porosity in Carbonate Strata,'' July 1993.
The Keg River/Winnipegosis Petroleum System in Northeast Alberta: Poster Presentation: presented at AAPG Annual Meeting, June 1992.
The Keg River/Winnipegosis Petroleum System-Source to Trap: Poster Presentation, presented at AAPG Annual Meeting; April 1991.
A Computer-Assisted Geologic Worksheet: Input, Comparison, Analysis, and Presentation of Rock, Log, Engineering and Geochemical Data: Poster Presentation: presented at AAPG Annual Meeting, June 1990.
Page 365 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Short Courses Taught
Basic Petroleum Geology: presented at a special institute on basic petroleum geology, ''Basic Oil and Gas Geology arid Technology for Lawyers and Other Non-Technical Personnel,'' co-sponsored by the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation and the Oil, Gas & Mineral Law Section of the State Bar of Texas, Houston, Texas, March 2001.
Carbonate Sequence Stratigraphy and 3–D Modeling: presented at Colorado School of Mines Seminar and Computer Demonstration, September 1999.
Carbonate Sequence Stratigraphy and 3–D Modeling: presented at University of Colorado Seminar, May 1999.
VoxeIGeo and TDROVQC: presented at Marathon Oil 2–Day Seminar, April 1999.
Sequence Stratigraphy and Characterization of Carbonate Reservoirs: SEPM Short Course No. 40 (3–Day), April 1999.
3–D Reservoir Modeling: presented at Marathon Oil 5–Day Seminar, February 1999.
Reservoir Characterization: presented at University of Colorado 1–Day Seminar, November 1998.
Process Approach to Sequence Stratigraphic Reservoir Construction: presented at AAPG 6–Day Field Seminar, October 1998.
Page 366 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
3–D Modeling: presented at Marathon Oil 2–Day Workshop, October 1998.
Carbonate Sequence Stratigraphy: presented at Colorado School of Mines Evening Seminar, March 1998.
New Techniques and Concepts: presented at Marathon Oil 5–Day School, January 1998.
Carbonate Sequence Stratigraphy: presented at University of Colorado 1–Day Seminar, November 1997.
3–D Modeling: presented at Marathon Oil 3–Day Workshop, July 1997.
3–D Modeling: presented at Marathon Oil 3–Day Workshop, May 1997.
Sequence Stratigraphy and Characterization of Carbonate Reservoirs: SEPM Short Course No. 40, April 1997.
Current Technology and Processes: AAPG 3–Day Short Course, April 1997.
Sequence Stratigraphy and Characterization of Carbonate Reservoirs: Marathon Oil 3–Day Short Course, March 1997.
Reservoir Characterization of a Permian Giant: Yates Field, West Texas: SEPM Short Course No. 34 on Hydrocarbon Reservoir Characterization, Geologic Framework, and Flow Unit Modeling, March 1995.
Page 367 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Carbonate Reservoir Characterization, Guadalupe and Sacramento Mountains: presented at Joint Marathon Oil/UPRC 6–Day Field Seminar, October 1994.
Applied Reservoir Characterization: Marathon Oil 5–Day Short Course, October 1993.
Sequence Stratigraphy: presented at Marathon Oil 10–Day Field and Lecture Seminar, September 1993.
Junior Achievement: presented Economics to sophomore students at George Washington High School, Fall 1987.
Continuing Education
Reservoir geology and advanced recovery (Geology 383R): The University of Texas at Austin, Department of Geological Sciences (with William L. Fisher), Austin, Texas, Fall 2000.
72196b4.eps
72196c4.eps
72196d4.eps
Chairman BARLETT. Thank you very much for a good presentation. Dr. Lake.
Page 368 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
STATEMENT OF JAMES A. LAKE, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY
Dr. LAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is James Lake. I am the President of the American Nuclear Society. It is an honor for me to provide your Committee with the views of our society on the nuclear energy, fiscal year 2002 research budget. The American Nuclear Society is a not-for-profit, international, scientific and technical organization with more than 11,000 members representing scientists, engineers, educators and students, plant operators, managers and regulators in the broad field of nuclear science and technology.
Sharply rising electricity and natural gas prices and the energy crisis in California have awakened Americans to the harsh realities of limited supplies of energy and the volatility of energy prices. At the same time that the Congress and the Administration are grappling with the elements of a new national energy strategy nuclear power is performing at record levels.
The 103 U.S. nuclear power reactors generated over 750 billion kilowatt hours of electricity in the year 2000 at generation costs that were lower than coal and substantially lower than gas and oil. Nuclear energy therefore has great potential for future application. The American Nuclear Society's members are concerned about the continuing lack of an adequate level of investment by the U.S. government in the critical nuclear energy research and development programs that are required to improve the technology and to assure the continued benefits of clean affordable nuclear power for American taxpayers.
Page 369 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The R&D component of the proposed fiscal year 2002 nuclear energy budget request is less than $40 million, a g reduction from the 2001 budget. This is almost an order of magnitude lower than the investment in other energy technologies and from ANS's viewpoint this budget request is inadequate to support the mission needs. In the interest of time, I will focus my remarks on three critical parts of the nuclear energy R&D program that should be of primary interest to this Committee.
These three items are the nuclear energy research initiative, the university research infrastructure support budget, and the development and deployment of the next generation of advanced nuclear energy systems. First the nuclear energy research initiative. ANS fully supports the continuation of the NERI program with adequate resources to fund the existing research commitments and to grow toward the PCAST goal of $75 million per year.
The fiscal year 2002 budget request proposes a reduction from 35 million in 2001 to only $18 million in 2002. This will only marginally support the existing NERI projects but will not allow for any new project startups in 2002. This situation is devastating especially to the incoming nuclear engineering students who will need support for their graduate work.
Given that less than 1 in 10 NERI proposals have been able to be funded under the previous budgets ANS recommends that the NERI budget should be increased substantially to $60 million in 2002. This increase is necessary to grow the scope of the critical R&D budget both from the standpoint of the needed technology and also to provide continuity of research opportunities for students and laboratory researchers.
Second, there is a growing concern for the health and vitality of the university and laboratory infrastructure in the United States. A 10-year decline in enrollments in university nuclear engineering programs is beginning to show some signs of returning vitality with a modest increase in 2001–2002 enrollments. However, it is essential that those specialists retiring from the field in the next 10 years be replaced with trained young people with renewed energy and new ideas to carry the technology forward.
Page 370 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Furthermore, the U.S. infrastructure has been losing key research facilities, notably university research reactors that are critical to our ability to carry out our future research and training missions. The university research infrastructure has been supported in the last 2 years with a modest $12 million a year budget. The American Nuclear Society recommends that this university infrastructure budget be substantially increased to $30 million in fiscal year 2002 to increase the level of support for graduate and undergraduate fellowships and scholarships, to recruit young faculty and support them with research initiation grants, to increase the funding available under the nuclear engineering education research program, and to support the Nation's university research reactors with major instrumentation upgrades, operation support and relicensing support.
Third, in order to accelerate the development of advanced nuclear energy systems that can fully address economic, safety, waste and proliferation resistance issues ANS urges you to increase substantially the support for the Generation IV development program. This is called nuclear energy technologies in the 2002 budget request. It is important that these Generation IV systems be developed and tested now in order to allow industry to deploy them in a timely manner where they will have a maximum benefit to domestic and rural electrical energy supplies in a way that is affordable and environmentally responsible.
The proposed fiscal year 2001 budget of $4.5 million would only allow for the completion of a technology roadmap and not for initiation of needed Generation IV research. The American Nuclear Society therefore recommends that substantially higher Generation IV budget of $50 million in fiscal year 2002 to initiate basic and systems research on promising Generation IV concepts.
Page 371 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In conclusion, nuclear energy stands at the threshold of making a substantial contribution to future United States and world needs for abundant, clean and affordable energy. Major R&D and university infrastructure support needs exist that are not adequately addressed in the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Congressional leadership will once again be required to adequately support the development of new nuclear energy technologies and the training of young engineers and scientists in order to realize the full potential of nuclear energy for future generations. Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the American Nuclear Society.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lake follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES A. LAKE
INTRODUCTION
My name is James Lake. I am the 2000–2001 President of the American Nuclear Society. It is an honor for me to provide your Committee with the views of our Society on the nuclear energy, science and technology fiscal year 2002 budget request.
The American Nuclear Society (ANS) is a not-for-profit, international, scientific and technical organization with more than 11,000 members representing scientists, engineers, educators, managers and regulators in the broad field of nuclear science and technology. Our membership includes more than 750 students from 32 universities, and approximately 1,000 international members from 40 countries. The Society's membership is geographically distributed in 52 domestic and 9 international local sections and 23 branches at nuclear power plants across the Nation.
Page 372 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Society's main objective is to promote the advancement of engineering and science related to the atomic nucleus, and of allied sciences and arts. We serve our member's professional needs in their efforts to develop and safely apply nuclear science and technology for the public benefit primarily through technical and knowledge exchange, professional development services, and enhanced public information and understanding of nuclear science and technology matters. We do this through a broad portfolio of technical divisions ranging from reactor physics and mathematics & computation, to nuclear and criticality safety, and operations & power, among others. The Society sponsors national and international technical meetings, publishes Journals, Standards, and the Nuclear News magazine, sponsors scholarships in nuclear science and engineering, and conducts teacher workshops and other public information activities.
NUCLEAR ENERGY IN THE U.S. ENERGY PICTURE
Sharply rising electricity and natural gas prices, and the energy crisis in California have awakened Americans to the harsh realities of limited supplies of energy and the volatility of energy prices. At the same time that the Congress and the Administration are grappling with the elements of a new National Energy Strategy that will propel the U.S. economy into the 21st century, nuclear power is performing at record levels. The one hundred and three U.S. nuclear power reactors generated over 750 billion kWhrs of electricity in 2000 (about 20% of the total U.S. electricity generation) at generation costs that were lower than coal, and substantially lower than gas and oil. Nuclear power is thriving in the newly deregulated marketplace, with a healthy business developing around the purchase of some of the existing nuclear plants by large nuclear generating companies who can operate them cheaper in future markets. The mistaken image of nuclear power as uneconomical is proven to be far from true, and the Government's investment in the development of nuclear power technology has produced an economical, safe and environmentally clean electricity generator that can play an increasingly important domestic and worldwide role in the future.
Page 373 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Safety performance of nuclear power has continued to improve coincident with the improved economic performance. Unusual Events reported to the NRC have declined in the last decade from nearly 200/year to less than 20 in 2000. Nearly two thirds of U.S. nuclear plants routinely experience no unplanned automatic shutdowns, and the industrial safety record in the U.S. nuclear industry is nearly 10 times better than that of the total U.S. industrial sector. In this context, we are finding strong public support for continued operations of U.S. nuclear power plants, and growing support for building new plants.
The clean air benefits of nuclear energy are beginning to be appreciated as we strive for a U.S. energy policy that is compatible with our environmental stewardship responsibilities. The continued operation of emissions-free nuclear power plants, and construction of new nuclear power plants in the future, can be a critical element in responding to our Nation's moral and ethical obligation to constrain and reduce global air emissions, without an accompanying negative impact on the U.S. economy.
Our Nation therefore has a very viable nuclear option for clean, economical electricity generation. However, for nuclear energy to achieve its full potential as a sustainable, long-term energy resource with large-scale domestic and global deployment, we must seek to improve the technology in the four following areas:
The economic performance of nuclear power must continue to improve in an increasingly deregulated electricity market. Whereas the current generating cost is relatively low for nuclear electricity from the existing plants whose investment costs have been paid off, substantial improvements are required in capital cost and construction time for new nuclear power plants to compete in future U.S. markets.
Page 374 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The safety performance of nuclear power plants must continue to improve in order to satisfy the very demanding expectations of the American public.
Nuclear wastes must be managed safely and cost effectively, and the back-end fuel cycle issues must be resolved. This goes well beyond resolution of the U.S. spent fuel repository issues, and includes the minimization of future wastes from the nuclear fuel cycle and the development of the fuel cycle of the future that will be sustainable from an economic and fuel supply standpoint, as well as from a social and environmental perspective.
Nuclear power technology, as it is deployed around the world, needs to evolve toward more and more proliferation-resistant systems that will assure that nuclear materials from the commercial fuel cycle are not usable for weapons purposes.
American Nuclear Society members are concerned about the continuing lack of an adequate level of investment by the U.S. Government in the critical nuclear energy, science and technology programs that are required to improve the technology and assure the continued benefits of clean, affordable nuclear power for American taxpayers.
THE ROLE OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IN NUCLEAR R&D
Whereas the U.S. nuclear industry is responsible for the cost-effective and safe operations of nuclear power plants, our Government plays an important role in supporting long-term, high-risk R&D to improve the technology. The Government is further responsible for supporting the broad educational enterprise and stimulating the flow of new scientists and engineers into the nuclear enterprise.
Page 375 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Government has three primary interests in nuclear energy, science and technology. First, trained manpower and state-of-the-art technology are vital to carrying out Government nuclear operations, including those related to national security and environmental cleanup. Second, the Government desires to exercise world leadership in nuclear matters through technical and other means that require involvement in international R&D programs. Third, the Government has a broad responsibility to assure adequate, affordable and clean energy supplies, and to assure that nuclear power remains a viable option for future deployment. In this regard, a balanced energy R&D portfolio is needed that should include investments in the development of future technology based upon merit and potential for contribution to America's future energy security and environmental quality needs. The R&D component of the proposed fiscal year 2002 nuclear energy budget is less than $40M, a one-third reduction from the 2001 budget, far less than the investment in other energy technologies, and, from ANS' viewpoint, inadequate to support these mission needs.
SPECIFIC AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY RECOMMENDATIONS
Whereas ANS could comment on many aspects of the proposed DOE fiscal year 2002 budget request, ranging from programs exploring the health effects of low level radiation, to the civilian radioactive waste management program, to Price-Anderson Act renewal and support for nuclear power plant improvements, in the interest of time, we would like to focus our remarks on three critical parts of the nuclear energy R&D program that should be of primary interest to the Committee on Science. These three items are:
the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative,
Page 376 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
University infrastructure support, and
development and deployment of the next generation (Generation IV) of advanced nuclear energy systems that will respond to the critical issues listed above.
ANS members work in all of the varied fields of nuclear science and engineering at laboratories, educational institutions, Government, and industry. ANS members have served on the Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), on technical planning and roadmaping groups for the Department of Energy, on the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee, and on a variety of taskforces dealing with a wide cross section of nuclear issues. Thus, the American Nuclear Society has a very informed opinion about the needs for the DOE nuclear energy R&D program.
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative
The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) was begun in fiscal year 1999 in response to the recommendations of PCAST, and subsequently an international component (I–NERI) was added in fiscal year 2001 to leverage the U.S. Government's R&D investment against international activities. The purpose of the NERI and I–NERI programs is to address critical technical barriers to the long-term use of nuclear energy, and to maintain U.S. leadership in the area of nuclear science and technology.
The NERI program solicits R&D proposals from the U.S. scientific and engineering community at universities, laboratories, and industrial research institutions in areas such as advanced reactor conceptual design and development, high burn-up nuclear fuels, innovative waste management strategies, improvements in resistance to proliferation of nuclear materials, and basic nuclear science and technology. Proposals are selected for funding by a peer-review process that results in projects of outstanding technical merit.
Page 377 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The NERI/I–NERI program was funded at $35M in fiscal year 2001 for continuation of projects initiated in fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and also to initiate several new projects that are yet to be announced. PCAST envisioned the program at the $75M/year level with a 3-year rotation of projects. This program is and continues to be vital to the future of nuclear energy. Valuable collaborations are established between the university community, national laboratories, and the nuclear industry. The NERI program has been a major contributor to the support for university nuclear engineering students, and is credited (by the students) with directly encouraging and supporting their entry into the field of nuclear engineering.
ANS fully supports the continuation of the NERI/I–NERI program with adequate resources to fund the existing research commitments and to grow toward the PCAST goal of $75M/year in order to support a larger portfolio of new projects. The fiscal year 2002 budget proposes a reduction from $35M in 2001 to only $18M in 2002 that will marginally support only the existing NERI/I–NERI projects, but will not allow for any new project startups in 2002. This situation is devastating, especially to incoming nuclear engineering students who will need support for their graduate work. Given that less than 1 in 10 NERI proposals have been able to be funded under the previous budgets, ANS recommends that the NERI/I–NERI budget should be increased substantially (to $60M) in 2002. This increase is necessary to grow the scope of this critical R&D, both from the standpoint of the needed technology and also to provide continuity of research opportunities for students and laboratory researchers who will form the core of the nuclear science and engineering manpower of the future.
University Infrastructure
Page 378 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
There is growing concern for the health and vitality of the university and laboratory infrastructure in the U.S. that trains and employs the technical specialists that keep the U.S. at the forefront of nuclear science and technology. A 10-year decline in enrollments in university nuclear engineering programs is beginning to show some signs of returning vitality with modest increases in 2001–2002 enrollments. The return of interest in nuclear engineering is based on several factors; the current attention paid to the energy needs of our Nation and the potential for nuclear energy to play a prominent role in supplying increasing amounts of clean affordable electricity, the return of Government support for research and development in nuclear science and technology that provides exciting research opportunities for students to invent the next generation of nuclear technology, and the availability of high-paying jobs as the demand for new graduates exceeds the supply by at least a factor of 2. America has limited time in which to address the issue of assuring a sustained manpower supply for the 21st century as a large fraction of the technical specialists who have brought nuclear science and technology to a point where it can make major contributions in the future to energy, public health, industrial processes, and food safety, are nearing retirement. It is a mission-critical issue that those specialists leaving the field in the next 10 years be replaced with trained young people with renewed energy and new ideas to carry the technology forward to even greater benefit to Americans and to the world.
The U.S. infrastructure has been losing key research facilities, notably university research reactors, that are critical to our ability to carry out future research and training missions. In the last decade, more than half of the university research reactors have been closed because of lack of support, and three others at major research institutions are currently contemplating closure. It is important that we take action now to assure adequate support for the remaining 28 U.S. university research reactors.
Page 379 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The university infrastructure has been supported in the past 2 years with a modest $12M budget that provides primarily university fellowships and scholarships in nuclear engineering, research reactor fuel and research instrumentation support, and a small number of university research grants. The American Nuclear Society recommends that this university infrastructure support program be substantially increased to $30M in fiscal year 2002 to increase the level of support for graduate and undergraduate fellowships and scholarships, to recruit young faculty into our university nuclear engineering programs and to support research-initiation grants during the first 5 years of their tenure, to increase the funding available under the Nuclear Engineering Education Research program, and to support the Nation's university research reactors with major instrumentation upgrades, operations support, and relicensing support. Legislation was recently introduced in the Senate to address these needs (S–242), and ANS encourages your support for this legislation.
Generation IV Advanced Reactor Development
Finally, in order to accelerate the development of advanced reactor systems that can fully address the economic, safety, waste, and proliferation-resistance issues discussed above, ANS urges you to increase substantially the support for the Generation IV development program (called Nuclear Energy Technologies in the 2002 budget request). It is important that these Generation IV systems be developed and tested in order to allow industry to deploy them in a timely manner where they will have the maximum benefit to domestic and world electrical energy supplies in a way that is affordable and environmentally responsible. This may be a key role for the U.S. to play in exercising world leadership to promulgate the next generation of emissions-free nuclear power technology that is cheaper, safer, minimizes wastes and removes the potential for proliferation of nuclear materials in a sustainable fuel cycle.
Page 380 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Efforts initiated by the Department of Energy to gather an international group of nine countries, called the Generation IV International Forum, to collaborate on the necessary R&D to produce one or more advanced Generation IV designs, shows great promise for U.S. leadership and for greatly leveraged investment leading to a global product for 21st century worldwide deployment. In fiscal year 2001, efforts were begun with a team of domestic and international experts, to develop a Generation IV technology roadmap to guide the necessary R&D in a cost-effective and technically optimum way. The R&D community will have done all of the right things to prepare for a major launch of the Generation IV R&D program in fiscal year 2002. The proposed fiscal year 2002 budget of $4.5M would only allow for the completion of the roadmap, and not for initiation of the focused Generation IV research that the international community is prepared to join. ANS therefore recommends a substantially higher Generation IV (Nuclear Energy Technologies) budget of $50M in fiscal year 2002 to initiate basic and systems research on promising Generation IV concepts.
91
72196l3.eps
CLOSING SUMMARY
This is a critical juncture for nuclear energy which stands on the threshold of making a substantial contribution to future U.S. and world needs for abundant, clean, and affordable energy. Major research and development and university infrastructure support needs exist that are not adequately addressed in the fiscal year 2002 budget request. Congressional leadership will once again be required to adequately support the development of new nuclear energy technologies and the training of young engineers and scientists in order to realize the full potential of nuclear energy for future generations.
Page 381 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views and those of members of the American Nuclear Society. I would be happy to respond to any questions that you may have.
BIOGRAPHY FOR JAMES A. LAKE
72196m3.eps
Dr. Lake is the Associate Laboratory Director for Nuclear and Energy Systems Engineering at the U.S. Department of Energy's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). The INEEL has major mission responsibilities in environmental and energy science and engineering, and is one of DOE's Lead Laboratories for nuclear reactor technology. Dr. Lake is responsible for nuclear energy, nuclear safety and risk management, basic nuclear science and technology, renewable and fossil energy generation, and industrial, transportation, and building energy efficiency and utilization research and development programs for Department of Energy, Department of Interior, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and other domestic and international customers.
Dr. Lake is a graduate and Distinguished Engineering Alumnus of the Georgia Institute of Technology with M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Nuclear Engineering. His personal technical work has been in the areas of reactor physics, advanced reactor design, and reactor safety. He holds 2 patents on advanced reactor technology, and is the author of more than 30 publications on reactor physics, nuclear engineering, and reactor design.
Dr. Lake is an elected Fellow and 2000–01 President of the American Nuclear Society.
Page 382 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
72196e4.eps
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you. And now Mr. Marvin.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. MARVIN, PRESIDENT, BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
Mr. MARVIN. Thank you, Chairman Bartlett, Ms. Woolsey, Members of the Subcommittee. Thanks again for the opportunity to testify this afternoon. As always, the council and its members are pleased to share our views with you. By way of background, the council was organized about a decade ago by energy executives who shared a common belief that we can strengthen our economy, we can bolster our national security, and we can reduce the environmental impact of energy production and use to an increased focus on domestic natural gas, renewable energy, and energy efficiency.
When President Bush created the Energy Task Force he asked the Vice President to identify a strategy to accomplish three things. First, allow environmentally responsible exploration and recovery of our domestic resources. Second, enhance our commitment to conservation and energy efficiency, and, third, encourage investment in new technology to further development of renewable energy resources.
I support these worthwhile objectives. In fact, they are exactly the same objectives upon which my organization was founded a decade ago. While we wait for the President and the Vice President's report it is unclear the value of making fundamental shifts in priorities and we hope that this Subcommittee will exercise appropriate caution before endorsing such a move.
Page 383 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We believe that the Federal Government has a legitimate and a beneficial role to play in helping develop technologies. One of the tests by which an R&D program could be judged, three that come to mind are cost reductions, market penetration, and technology efficiency. We believe, Mr. Chairman, that these—by these reasonable standards the programs within EERE are reasonable and prudent taxpayer investments.
Wind, solar, geothermal, biomass energies have increased market penetration, increased their efficiencies and reduced market prices some by over 80 percent. For energy efficiency just a few of the innovations that have come from DOE partnerships have helped save an estimated 27 quads that we otherwise would be consuming as a nation were not for energy efficiency products and initiatives.
Fuel cells and other alternative transportation technologies are on the cusp of fundamentally changing the transportation industry as we know it according not only to the CEO of the world's largest auto makers but to the esteemed Chairman himself. I have outlined some of the other successes in my written testimony. Serious examination of the value of the DOE R&D program would also do well to look beyond the immediate bottom line.
Some of the benefits of EERE programs that are more difficult to quantify should also be acknowledged, reduce pollution easing the need for expensive command and control regulation, increase energy security since virtually all renewable and efficiency technologies are home grown. Increased competitiveness in fierce energy export markets where market share now means billions of dollars.
Page 384 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Diversification that creates more competitors and a healthier marketplace and overwhelming public support, which although not a key criteria in judging the success of a program is indicate of the importance that consumers place on clean energy technologies. It is unclear when the right time would be to suggest significant cuts in these programs. It is clear, however, that 50 percent reductions across a range of clean energy technologies in the absence of a clear and compelling reason for such a shift would send us in the wrong direction at the wrong time.
Most of these programs suffer from at least one common ailment. By themselves they are too small to merit the kind of detailed scrutiny that would show their tremendous value to the American taxpayer and the American rate payer. Please don't take this as a plea for more and more Federal dollars ad infinitum, just as a recognition that these programs are simply lumped into broad categories of energy efficiency, renewable energy or natural gas, and that is more difficult to quantify and to judge on their particular merits.
Because of their modularity and their simplified citing regulations there are three technology bands that can provide short-term relief to many of our energy problems in this country, renewable energy, energy efficiency, and natural gas. Coincidentally we believe that greater reliance on this triad forms the core of a long-term energy strategy as well.
Let me conclude by saying, Mr. Chairman, the renewable energy is not the answer nor is natural gas nor is conservation or energy efficiency. None can meet all of our energy needs in either the short or the long term. It is only through a portfolio of energy choices that we can guard against over reliance of one technology or fuel, increase competition amongst the technologies, and promote the kinds of choices that are good for consumers and for our economy.
Page 385 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
These technologies represent America's first line of defense against over reliance on imported energy and energy shortfalls that are inflicting many regions in this country and continued R&D investments should form a cornerstone of our strategic energy policy. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marvin follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. MARVIN
Mr. Chairman and committee members: energy is commanding more and more attention from the public and federal government than in recent memory. Solving the challenges we face will require a long-term, comprehensive approach involving diversity of supply and prudence with regard to our demand. The participants in this challenge will be industry and government together working to create a serious, well thought out and executed plan. I thank you for calling upon the Council to provide input on crafting a plan that moves our nation forward.
By way of background, the Council was formed in 1992 by businesses and industry trade associations sharing a commitment to realize our nation's economic, environmental and national security goals through the rapid deployment of clean and efficient natural gas, energy efficiency, and renewable energy technologies. Our members range in size from Fortune 500 enterprises to small entrepreneurial companies, to national trade associations.
I believe our members are making a valuable contribution, both in the energy supply and demand marketplace as well as in sharing our experiences regarding the federal role in aiding in the research, development and deployment of leading-edge technologies. Our members have worked intimately with the Department of Energy over the years and have a depth of knowledge regarding DOE programs, their effectiveness at advancing the state of the art and ways in which programs help deliver more cost-effective technologies to the marketplace—in short, deliver the greatest value to the American taxpayer.
Page 386 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
There is a debate surrounding the energy efficiency and renewable energy or EERE budgets at the Department of Energy. We believe that may be the result of a lack of understanding of just how much these programs have done for our nation over the years to provide a diverse, environmentally and economically sound menu of energy options to the market and how much potential they can still deliver.
The Council recognizes that suppliers and users of energy—not the federal government—ultimately will decide which energy technologies will meet our needs. In fact, in the California wholesale electricity market, many renewable energy projects are the margin in keeping the lights on, and their contribution to grid reliability will be realized many more times in more areas of the nation as summer approaches.
The ability of these technologies to fulfill this role is due in large part to a sustained commitment by industry and the federal government to research and development. In addition, the private sector has and continues to be important in helping share the risk of investing in deployment of clean technologies that, while at or near economical viability, face obstacles to their wide market availability.
With the energy needs of the nation having never been more acute, the need for a continued federal commitment is likewise critical. We believe it vital that the EERE programs receive the full support of Congress in order to lead the nation through the challenges we face and will continue to face in the foreseeable future.
VALUING EERE PROGRAMS
Page 387 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
At the outset, it must be established how one measures the success of programs. We believe this can be analyzed in several ways. Generally, an R&D program is succeeding if it helps create new technologies, reduces costs for technologies and increases each technology's relevance to the market. With respect to EERE programs, each of these programs is achieving success by this measure. Furthermore, these programs have the realistic potential for further cost reductions, increased penetration of the marketplace and greater contribution to the energy and environmental picture for the U.S. and the world.
WIND
The wind program at DOE, together with industry efforts, have driven the installed costs for utility-scale wind facilities down an astonishing 80 percent since the early 1980's. The results are dramatic. Markets for utility-scale wind energy continue to accelerate their growth rate. Over the past year in the U.S. alone, nine separate hundred-plus megawatt projects were announced, including projects in Nevada, California and along the Washington-Oregon border, which will aid the heavily stressed West coast grid, plus three projects in Texas and smaller projects in Pennsylvania, upstate New York, Kansas, Wyoming and elsewhere. Collectively, they represent the output of several traditional central station power plants yet have a minimal impact upon the environment.
In terms of power output, today the U.S. receives 2,500 MW of energy from the wind with more capacity in the pipeline. The wind energy capacity of the United States is expected to nearly double by the middle of next year. That represents the electric needs of 600,000 average U.S. households.
Page 388 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The ability to reduce installed costs by 80 percent is the result of research and development efforts conducted in many cases through cost-shared DOE/industry research and development partnerships. With costs now down in the three to six cent per kilowatt-hour range, wind energy has become a viable national energy resource that provides clean energy at predictable prices.
SOLAR
Solar energy continues to provide an increasing amount of energy for the world due in part to the success of research and development programs at reducing the costs of these technologies. Within the solar energy universe, there are three primary technologies to be considered: photovoltaic, concentrated solar power and solar buildings.
Photovoltaic (PV) programs have brought down the cost of electricity by 50 percent over the last five years. For example, BCSE member United Solar has worked with DOE under the ''PV Bonus'' on metal roofs and flexible PV shingles to develop new manufacturing techniques and marketing programs. Their success has spurred confidence to enter into an $84 million joint venture, $50 million of which is being invested in a manufacturing facility in Michigan, to manufacture 25 MW of panels per year. All together, the photovoltaic solar industry has grown three-fold in less than a decade.
Concentrating solar power (CSP) is a technology using reflecting mirrors to focus the sun's rays and provide high temperatures at a specific point. That concentrated energy can be used for industrial processes or to drive electricity-generating engines. The heat may also be stored in order to produce energy when the sun is not shining.
Page 389 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Technological developments and a federal commitment to solar buildings have seen solar thermal water heating and other technologies penetrating the building market. This program has successfully established performance and certification criteria that can predict the performance of solar water heating systems and improve efficiencies at lower costs. Today, large-scale homebuilders are actively integrating a variety of solar, energy efficiency and other renewable energy technologies into their designs and marketing them to consumers.
GEOTHERMAL
Energy derived from heat within the earth is contributing a great deal to the electricity and thermal energy requirements of the U.S. and is now supplying the needs of 6 million Americans. DOE work with the industry has already improved reliability, reduced environmental impacts and lowered the costs of geothermal systems. These efforts have combined to make a difference.
A significant example of geothermal's contribution is that six percent of California's electricity comes from this resource. This is particularly significant when you recall that over the last several months there have been numerous occasions when the California Independent System Operator has announced stage two alerts, and the several times on top of that when stage three was reached and rolling blackouts began.
Bear in mind that the threshold for declaring a stage two alert is when electricity demand is forecast to come within five percent of available generating capacity. In essence, the capacity of this one renewable resource could have made the difference 54 times this year when stage two alerts were ordered; the difference between alerts and rolling blackouts. When 36 stage three emergencies were declared this year and power demand came within one and one half percent of available resources, without this resource the blackouts that could have resulted would have been even more extensive.
Page 390 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
NATURAL GAS END USE TECHNOLOGIES
DOE research and development programs have helped make traditional energy resources like natural gas burn more efficiently and cleanly. While more research is needed, these technologies hold the potential to shift summertime energy demand off of the over-stressed grid and onto either directly fired natural gas applications or to combined heat and power systems utilizing what is not wasted heat energy.
Because of DOE research, gas-fired air conditioning is available to the residential consumer for the first time in 25 years and at a 30 percent improvement in efficiency over products sold earlier. This allows the small consumer more choices for their air conditioning load. DOE development of a triple effect absorption cooling system (gas-fired) has improved efficiency by over 30 percent making gas fired equipment that meets or exceeds the most efficient electric alternatives. Also in the area of space conditioning, DOE research on gas-fired dehumidification technology has reduced costs by 35 percent and improved reliability by more than 50 percent.
In both the desiccant dehumidification and natural gas cooling areas, an industry/DOE roadmapping has identified combinations of distributed energy resources with these technologies, (Building Combined Cooling Heat and Power, or BCHP), to further reduce energy cost and use and improve grid reliability.
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES AND FUEL CELLS
Page 391 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Reliable power generated on-site has received increased attention since rolling blackouts struck California. Whether the energy is produced by microturbines, reciprocating engines, fuel cells or other gas-fueled systems or by renewable energy technologies, challenges to widespread deployment remain. In some instances it is the lack of real-world operating experience due to the newness of a technology; in other cases it may be problems associated with hooking up to the grid due to the lack of interconnect standards or emissions issues associated with siting new generating capacity. In all of these cases and despite demands of the marketplace, the federal role remains strong.
One example of a recent distributed energy resource success is BCSE-member Honeywell's introduction last year of the ParallonTM 75, a 75kW microturbine. These U.S.-assembled units are being marketed globally. During January in California, thirteen ParallonTM 75 microturbines were run at Honeywell's Torrance aerospace site and provided 18 percent of the power for the site, saving $6,000 per hour. These units are currently 30 percent efficient.
Honeywell is participating in the DOE cost-shared microturbine program with the goal of producing the next generation microturbine system by 2006, achieving fuel-to-electricity conversion efficiency of at least 40 percent (representing a one-third increase in efficiency), lower NOX emissions, longer operating hours between major overhauls and longer service life. This year a catalyzed recuperator used in automotive microturbines is being tested in the ParallonTM 75 and is included in the DOE trade study. It will allow single digit ppm emissions of NOX from microturbine operations.
Page 392 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Fuel cells continue to make advances. BCSE member Ballard Power Systems successfully field-tested natural gas PEM fuel cells in Chicago Transit Authority busses, with actual production units entering the market within the next few years. More fuel cell power plants of various power sizes will also be available to fill diverse power generation requirements. In fact, Ballard plans to introduce the first commercially available fuel cell generation system later this year. To achieve these environmental, grid reliability, efficiency and cost-reduction goals, the BCSE specifically seeks $50 million for research, development and verification activities in the distributed energy resources program.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
In 1996, the General Accounting Office studied a variety of success stories that DOE had published in 1994. The report validated billions of dollars in energy savings for just a few key technologies that far outstripped our entire national investment in energy efficiency over the past 20 years.
The study validated DOE's assertion that just five technologies developed or assisted by the DOE buildings program resulted in $28 billion in energy savings over the past 20 years for an approximate $8 billion in investment as of 1994. DOE has updated results for those programs and credits them with returning $50.9 billion to the U.S. economy through 1999. Add gains from the low-income Weatherization Assistance Program, state energy programs, and building and appliance standards work, and returns total $89.6 billion. Add gains from industrial programs at $6.5 billion and $3 billion from FEMP gains and it moves to $100 billion. Add the hundreds of other technologies to come out of the business, industrial, and transportation programs and the additional accrued energy savings of the past 5 years and you get a portrait of an overwhelmingly cost-effective effort that has contributed significantly and directly to the quality of life in the U.S.
Page 393 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
According to Council member the Alliance to Save Energy, energy efficiency improvements have had the impact of effectively providing nearly 27 quadrillion Btu's of energy to our nation in 1999. That represents nearly 25 percent of our total national energy consumption.
Energy Efficient Appliances
High efficiency appliances continue to have an important impact. The recent publication of rules related to high-efficiency washers that were put together in cooperation with industry leaders like Maytag will result in energy and monetary saving for consumers and make energy resources go further.
Energy Star, an EPA and DOE program, has qualified products in businesses and homes reduce annual peak power needs in the U.S. by 10 gigawatts per year, the amount used in 20 mid-sized cities. They deliver approximately $4 billion worth of net savings each year in energy costs.
ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES
Transportation remains the fastest growing energy consuming sector. Alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs)—including natural gas and electric vehicles—promise to reduce U.S. reliance on imported oil while virtually eliminating emissions of criteria air pollutants.
Natural Gas Vehicles
Page 394 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Natural gas vehicles hold the potential to move a significant demand for imported petroleum over to a far cleaner, more secure and abundant hemispheric resource.
The Clean Cities program is an important program that continues to develop. Increasing the use of gas-fueled vehicles in proven markets such as transit and school busses, delivery and other centrally fueled fleets is building experience as well as establishing critical infrastructure to foster further expansion. We request $30 million for this voluntary partnership.
Research and development also continues to be important and the Council requests an additional $8 million appropriation over the president's budget request.
Batteries
Advanced batteries are critical to the success of electric vehicles (EVs) and other alternative fueled vehicles. The technology continues to improve as the result of the industry-government cooperation through the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium. BCSE-member Ovonic has achieved ranges of 300 miles in over-the-road testing on a pure nickel metal-hydride battery vehicle and costs continue to be reduced. Economies of scale created through verification projects promise even more cost reductions and a growing level of field experience.
UTILITY PROGRAMS
DOE also works effectively with utilities and power authorities to promote energy efficiency. Through voluntary programs such as Climate Wise, DOE has obtained the commitment of utilities to reduce utility emissions of greenhouse gases. Generally, activities that reduce emissions also reduce energy use. Climate Wise participants—such as Council member Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)—have premised their programs on sound economic principles. California and soon other parts of the nation will recognize that efficiency is one critical tool for maintaining reliable electricity supplies.
Page 395 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
STANDARDS AND INSULATION
DOE also has provided valuable technical assistance to the polyurethane foam insulation industry, helping the industry to find substitutes for some blowing agents used in insulation installation. The new polyisocyanurate insulation performs as efficiently as the prior product.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS
The BCSE recognizes that demand growth has added new stresses to our energy delivery systems. This budget provides modest sums for modeling and research on the electric grid, to identify changes being caused by deregulation to flows of power. It also recognizes that the growing use of natural gas will require adjustments to that infrastructure. DOE predicts that domestic natural gas use will increase by 47 percent by the year 2020. Such increased natural gas use would provide myriad benefits, but will also strain the existing delivery infrastructure. We request $18 million for the well-subscribed, cost-shared program.
FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The BCSE is very supportive of the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). The federal government is the single greatest consumer of energy in the nation and FEMP's public/private partnership program is working to save both energy and taxpayer dollars. In these times of supply constraint and rising prices, this program should be made more aggressive to include improving significant facilities at all federal agencies.
Page 396 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Energy Savings Performance Contracts are one highly important initiative being pursued within FEMP. The very methodology by which they function, paying contractors such as Sempra, Honeywell, Johnson Controls, DukeSolutions or NORESCO to make energy-savings capital and operational improvements out of money they guarantee will be saved through lower energy bills, plus returning money to the treasury, represents a classic ''win-win'' scenario that has become even more relevant today. Funding for FEMP should at a minimum be held level with current year appropriations.
SUMMARY
All of these achievements owe a least part of their success to the programs at DOE. If the fullest potential of these resources are to be achieved, a consistent level of effort will be required and in this time of energy stress, couldn't be more necessary.
THE FUTURE
While these various technologies are today either poised to or are actively contributing to America's energy needs, as they continue to mature a great deal more will be necessary to drive costs lower, improve capabilities and multiply deployment. The issue now turns to why federal involvement is necessary.
One Council member, ABB, gave a concise example that paints a rather complete picture of the need for federal involvement. ABB recently participated in phase one of DOE's Superconductor Partnership Initiative to develop a superconducting transformer. The promise of both higher efficiency and a self-limiting current feature could well revolutionize electric power transmission. We understand that the project has yet been unable to produce superconducting wire in lengths sufficient to construct a transformer. With extensive research still necessary and the prospects for commercialization too far in the future, ABB ended its involvement in favor of working on technologies closer to marketability.
Page 397 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Los Alamos National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory meanwhile are continuing their research. Should this effort show promise for developing wire in useful lengths, companies would feel confident in joining and cost-sharing further development.
This illustration is but one example of the role of the federal government in aiding in research efforts that would otherwise not be borne by the private sector.
WIND
With wind-generated electricity costs today hovering down around three to six cents per kilowatt/hour, utility-scale wind projects are able to exploit about five percent of our nation's wind energy potential. In other words, up to twenty times as much electricity may potentially be harvested as refinements are made and costs driven lower. This may mean up to 50,000 MW of installed capacity generated in a domestically secure, fixed cost, environmentally benign way.
Not only is more wind energy being made available due to falling costs, but research is also making the technology more ''citizen friendly.'' Older wind turbines featured relatively small diameter, fast-moving, noisy turbine blades. Citizens rejected these near residential areas and the small size of the units required the installation of many turbines in order to generate appreciable quantities of power. Further development in blade profile, materials and other elements has resulted in larger, slower-moving and quieter installations that are more amenable to siting near residential areas. Also, as power output has grown, fewer turbines are required to generate the same amount of electricity.
Page 398 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Another aspect of wind power is also on the rise despite a historical lack of meaningful federal assistance. Small wind, equipment generating up to 75 kW per unit, continues to see sales and installation growth particularly in California, where inquiries and installations are up radically in response to the increased costs associated with traditional energy sources. This distributed generation technology also puts the power closer to where it is needed, greatly reducing the need for new or improved transmission lines.
The DOE Wind Program has taken last year's Congressional direction to heart and is working cooperatively with the small turbine industry. In short, the program, the first for small wind, has taken hold. What this means is that with well-targeted assistance through a Small Wind Turbine Initiative, costs could be halved for small wind systems serving homes, farms and small businesses by promoting deployment leading to higher production volumes, reducing market barriers and improving technology. Small wind has potential to be cost effective for an estimated six to ten million potential rural residential users over the next twenty years. This market represents the potential for tens of thousands of megawatts of small wind capacity installed in this country. In order to realize these potentials, we request an authorization in the amount of $55 million for DOE wind programs.
SOLAR
Solar energy technologies also promise to make advancements in the coming years that will improve efficiency, lower costs and increase deployment.
Concentrating solar power technology continues to advance due to research and technical assistance directed by industry but administered through the national laboratories and universities and cost-shared funding provided directly to U.S. industry for applied research, development and deployment. A proposed CSP Southwest Border Initiative would provide a blend of CSP technologies to help provide badly needed power to this region (Arizona, Nevada, California, and New Mexico). Together CSP is expected to contribute over 5,000 megawatts of electricity worldwide by 2010. An authorization in the amount of $25 million would contribute to developing this technology's potential.
Page 399 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Photovoltaic technology research has already succeeded in cutting the cost of producing electricity in this manner in half between 1995 and 2000. On the horizon over the next five years is the potential to halve cost again, making photovoltaic-produced electricity competitive with all other distributed electricity generation options in the U.S.
U.S. preeminence in this field can only be maintained with a committed federal effort. New materials development, integrating photovoltaic systems with structural building materials, increasing manufacturing efficiencies and technology validation partnerships that increase confidence in the technology are all efforts requiring federal assistance. Funding at a level of $100 million in FY 2002 would build upon past achievements and increase market penetration of this environmentally benign technology.
The Council supports $12 million in funding for the Solar Buildings program to develop integrated technology packages that can deliver competitive energy solutions in today's market. Its blending of technologies including energy efficiency, other renewable and natural gas technologies provides reliable, low cost and environmentally sound energy options to consumers.
RESIDENTIAL RENEWABLE ENERGY GRANT PROGRAM
Senator Murkowski has proposed this program to offset a portion of the cost of renewable energy systems that include solar, photovoltaic, wind, biomass, waste, hydroelectric or geothermal energy resources. We support the full authorization level of $30 million for FY 2002.
Page 400 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
GEOTHERMAL
Geothermal resources are capable of providing much more energy for our nation, between 5,000 and 20,000 additional megawatts over the next decade, although technological challenges need to be overcome. Only continued support of research and development will make this projection a reality.
Additionally, much of the risk and uncertainty in geothermal development is related to finding, defining and accessing this subsurface resource. Federal resources brought to bear on assessing the availability of this resource are the most efficient and effective method to explore and exploit the untapped potential. A total authorization of $60 million would continue geothermal energy's path forward.
BIOENERGY
Rep. Mark Udall was instrumental in legislative efforts last Congress to triple the use of biomass by 2010. To meet this target, however, a 20 percent increase in these programs would be required each year. This is an example of why clean energy funding trends should be going up rather than down. If we really want to change the market by creating opportunities for renewable energy development, we should be increasing our investment in these programs.
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES AND FUEL CELLS
We view the new National Energy Reliability Initiative as a serious effort to address many outstanding distributed power and reliability issues. Its integrated examination of the challenges, backed by meaningful resources, has the potential to make substantial inroads toward deploying distributed energy resources.
Page 401 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Now under development are high-temperature natural gas fuel cell systems that may ultimately achieve a 60 percent fuel-to-electricity conversion efficiency. This is extremely favorable compared with the average of 35 percent fuel-to-electric efficiency for the mix of generating equipment currently used to supply the Nation's electricity.
A key to the successful commercialization of the PEM fuel cell vehicle will be the availability of a safe on-board hydrogen storage device. BCSE member Energy Conversion Devices has been developing metal hydride alloys to provide a safe solid-state means of on-board storage of hydrogen in PEM fuel cell vehicles. Given the importance of this component of the fuel cell system, we would urge greater funding levels for metal hydride storage systems for PEM fuel cell vehicles. These devices would also be the safest means of storing hydrogen in hydrogen powered internal combustion engine or hybrid vehicles as well as for use in fuel cells for stationary applications and or portable power.
Funding of $30 million for the initiative and $9 million for traditional distributed energy resources programs would aid in the success of these promising programs and technologies.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
As some of the fastest energy solutions to reach the market, energy efficiency can make perhaps the greatest short-term impact on our energy challenges. The track record of success I alluded to earlier can continue to deliver value to the American public through the ongoing refinement of existing technologies, the combining of technologies such as in combined heat and power applications and the development of new innovative technological solutions.
Page 402 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Finally, the Council supports federal programs designed to help open important international markets for energy technologies. Competition in rapidly growing developing country markets is intense; U.S. renewables manufacturers face the dual obstacles of competition from conventional energy sources and foreign renewables manufacturers often buoyed by government assistance.
Our participation in international markets is more critical than ever. Growth in developing nations will take their energy use levels above that of the industrialized nations within two decades, with an anticipated expenditure of $4 trillion to $5 trillion. Traditionally, most ''new'' environmentally friendly and efficient technologies are not the first choice of decision-makers in these markets. With encouragement and bureaucratic streamlining, however, U.S. clean energy exports could easily double in less then five years, resulting in up to $5 billion in export revenues and 100,000 new American jobs. Global benefits include reducing greenhouse gas and sulfur particulate emissions, and providing for the energy needs of some of the 2 billion people in the world now without electricity.
The Council is extremely supportive of international energy programs and urges that funding not come at the expense of existing research, development and deployment programs. Beyond the benefit to U.S. exports, these technologies can help ensure international economic and political stability by meeting the profound infrastructure needs of these countries.
CONCLUSION
Page 403 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
A wide range of energy options is needed to create energy security and ensure our economic and environmental integrity. With a full slate of choices, choices in part aided by research and development supported by the Department of Energy, the marketplace will have options to select those most appropriate solutions to meet specific needs. These are options that are already having an impact in many states and countries.
In the near-term, these technologies provide the shortest lead-time to getting new generation capacity on the grid. Simultaneously, they provide American jobs, stronger economies here and abroad, enhanced export opportunities for domestic manufacturers and a cleaner environment. Continuing federal emphasis on developing low- and non-polluting energy technologies and services will help achieve these goals. Utilizing cost-shared collaboratives with industry to leverage limited federal funds in recognition that cooperation with industry is vital for addressing market imperfections impeding the widespread use of renewables.
The Council strongly urges Congress to continue its support of federal research, development and validation programs for renewable energy, energy efficiency and natural gas technologies. These programs have delivered a technological solutions to the marketplace, and by adopting a robust budget, Congress can help realize further improvements and demonstrate its genuine commitment to the U.S. economy throughout this time of critical energy constraint.
BIOGRAPHY FOR MICHAEL L. MARVIN
Mr. Marvin is the President and member of the Board of Directors for The Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE), a position he has held since 1996. The BCSE is a coalition comprised of companies and business trade associations in the energy efficiency, natural gas, renewable energy and electric utility industries that promotes economic growth and environmental security through technology and policy development on issues such as climate change and domestic energy policy.
Page 404 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Before moving to the Council, Mr. Marvin was Director of Governmental and Public Affairs for the American Wind Energy Association for nearly six years. Prior to that, he was Director of Legislative Affairs for the Washington law firm of White, Fine & Verville.
From 1987 to 1989, Mr. Marvin was Chief of Staff for former Congressman Silvio Conte of Massachusetts. He served as Legislative Director to former Congressman Frank Horton of New York and served on the staff of former Congressman Don Bonker of Washington State.
Prior to working on Capitol Hill, Mr. Marvin worked in various capacities, including a public relations officer for the Washington State Lottery, a reporter and columnist for The Morton (Wash.) Journal, and an on-air personality with KWIQ–AM & FM (Wash.) radio. He has testified before numerous committees in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, as well as state utility commissions, on energy-related issues.
Mr. Marvin serves as a member of the Department of Commerce's Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee, is on the steering committee of the Environmental Technologies Verification Center and is on the Board of Directors of the National Energy Resources Organization.
Mr. Marvin is married to Anne Uchitel Marvin and has twins boys. He received a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of Washington and a Masters of Science in Environmental Science from the Johns Hopkins University.
72196f4.eps
Page 405 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Discussion
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much. I would like to thank all the witnesses for their testimony. Let me turn now to our Ranking Member, Ms. Woolsey, for her questions and comments.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Marvin, I wish I could ask you what you thought of the overall hearing. I mean I am going to ask you that. Do you think we have heard a balanced perspective all the way around or have we left out some of the EERE parts of this?
Mr. MARVIN. I guess it depends upon how one defines balance. I think the first panel did what it was required to do. It shared with you what it would accomplish under the proposed, President's proposed budget. I think the gentleman who preceded me presented some excellent observations and again I agree. I do not purport, and I am confident that none of them purport, to be the panacea to our energy problems and our energy—the energy solution. So I believe that you got a balanced indication of the range of technologies that we can rely on, the range of technologies that we will likely be increasing our reliance on.
But again in referring to some of my oral comments, the programs—I consider some of these technologies within the renewable energy community, I think they are going to be successful when they are not considered renewable. They are just considered hydropower or they are just considered wind and so as long as they are lumped together you are probably not going to get the kind of information, the detailed information, that would allow you to make some of the informed decisions that this Subcommittee has traditionally made.
Page 406 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, then let me ask the panel what do you think would happen if we invested equal amounts in the EERE programs as we have in clean coal, $100 billion. I mean we are not close to that in the alternatives. Dr. Trilling.]
Dr. TRILLING. I am not very expert on that so I am going to have to refer to my colleagues. I have to say that—but let me just comment anyway, make one comment, which I can't speak about the amount, the 100 billion or what the appropriate amount is. I do believe that investing in these technologies that we have just heard about at an increased level, I find the arguments extremely convincing so I would strongly support it though I can't argue about the exact amount.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Dr. Tinker.
Dr. TINKER. I would have to say the same. I am not an expert in——
Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, would it make a difference? You are an expert in that.
Dr. TINKER. I think what I see is a desire for change and I think a lot of people share that. What I tried to present was sort of where we are today and I think we have to look at the reality of fossil fuels and the cost as we transition out of those though I think the investment and particularly natural gas, $21 million I think is what is proposed this year, that is about the cost to build an off-shore platform. For Federal budget on natural gas that is a——
Page 407 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. WOOLSEY. Dr. Lake.
Dr. LAKE. Let me just add a couple of ideas here. The first would be we certainly can't conserve our way to future prosperity. We need more energy supplies in addition to efficiencies in conservation and renewables. From the standpoint of nuclear power though, nuclear power is at 23,000 megawatts over the last decade by efficiency improvements within its own area and this is a very significant contribution——
Ms. WOOLSEY. But let me ask you, if you had—if we were able to invest the same amount in nuclear making sure that our waste was not destructive, I mean which is what our problem is, what do you do, not go dump it some place. Maybe we could—if we could invest in that could we not—could we come up with a solution where we could use nuclear energy and it would not be destructive to our environment?
Dr. LAKE. Yes. Thank you for the offer to spend $100 billion on nuclear energy. The answer to your question is——
Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, I—you know, what is it going to take?
Dr. LAKE. . . .yes. You discussed earlier with Dr. Marcus the issue of uranium availability. I think it is time we looked again at recycling our spent fuel from nuclear power which would have not only an effect on the availability of fuel for the future and extending that fuel resource making it sustainable but also would have a very positive impact on our waste management strategy.
Page 408 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Marvin.
Mr. MARVIN. Thank you. Well, I can say we wouldn't know what to do with $100 billion collectively amongst all of the technologies and so——
Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, you wouldn't get it all in 1 year.
Mr. MARVIN. Good. Thank you. We will agree on that. I think obviously we have seen the number of programs within the energy efficiency renewable energy family, if you will, that as the funding has increased, and it really has increased since really President Bush, Sr., and it has shown modest increases over the last decade. And I think we have seen advances, some of them not particularly sexy relating to the torsion and torque of blades of wind turbines and concentrated solar power in very modest increments.
So we would see an increase of 10 or 15 percent beyond existing levels as being I think something that could be responsibly and prudently invested into these technologies and I think as you look—one of the things we are looking for is some sort of a sense of a pattern. We talk in terms of our budget will be X in 2002 and we can't have it—we don't want it to be 2 X in 2003 and .4 X in 2004. You can't plan a responsible R&D program around that.
What we see is we have worked closer and closer with the Department of Energy with the National Renewable Energy Lab. We have made sure because there has been a modest amount of Federal dollars that the investments in short-term commercialization technologies have been cost shared between the industry and government and we have recognized that there are limits to given our current situation or current fiscal situation.
Page 409 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We see the government as being able to do—broadly speaking you can do two things to a technology. You can push the technology or you can pull the market. And it is a question of doing just those two things just right because the State of California, for example, in the 1990's—in the early 1980's it tried to pull the market and frankly it may have pulled it a little fast but what it did is it became the Nation's laboratory for wind, for solar, for geothermal, for biomass.
It made some mistakes that would necessarily have been made as you go from a 386 computer to a Pentium IV. Mistakes are made along the way and that is the whole process. That is research and development. Huge mistakes in the wind program. If you look at the beginning it was run by NASA. The first turbines were these gargantuan things that were built by Boeing and built by Westinghouse and they scared the hell out of people.
They were five megawatts. They kept falling over. They were too loud. They were inefficient. And frankly we look back at those as—I look back at it as part of the success of the program. We learned what not to do and we immediately shifted to a smaller turbine and eventually grown back to a larger turbine. It is the reasonable understanding of what the R&D looks like in the out years that helps to guide some of these programs.
Ms. WOOLSEY. I am out of time. Thank you.
Marvin. And I apologize for that.
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much. Dr. Ehlers.
Page 410 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just can't help commenting since I am of Dutch ancestry perhaps if you are going back a few hundred years California could have learned a lot about extracting energy from the wind. Just a few comments. First of all, frequently in government when we have a problem it just doesn't seem to get dealt with until you take a sledge hammer to it and then put the pieces back together.
And, Dr. Trilling, I have to say that your suggestion of moving DOE research over to the Commerce Department with NOAA and NIST is really hitting the problem with a sledge hammer but it is certainly an intriguing suggestion and I have thought of may other sledge hammer approaches to dealing with a problem at DOE and yours may be one of the better ones that I have heard. So I just wanted to thank you for that suggestion. I appreciate that.
Dr. TRILLING. It is not mine only. I point out there are quite a number of people who——
Mr. EHLERS. So it is really Mike's suggestion. We will blame Mike. If it works we will give you the credit. Dr. Tinker, I have to commend you. We have had many presentations here and I have seen many presentations in other cases where the computer is used basically as an advanced overheard projector. I commend you. You have given probably the best presentation I have seen at any House committee of the proper use of the computer in presenting information.
You got a lot of information across very shortly and I have asked the staff to try to get the disk from you so I can keep the material in my office. I did want to ask you, however, you stressed very strongly a survey you had that the role of the government and doing research in the fossil fuel area as well. I have always been somewhat hesitant on that. Why should we be doing research for an industry that is practically flowing in money.
Page 411 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
And I suspect your answer is probably that they can't get together and do it and they are not willing to devote their resources to the type of research that DOE does but in view of this, the strapped condition of DOE and the research effort that Dr. Trilling supports, which I think is important, the research effort on renewable energy which certainly cannot be supported by industry.
Isn't there some way the fossil fuel industry in general could get together and do this research or could we perhaps get an agreement from them that they would finance DOE to do the research through some very, very tiny, tiny tax on the huge amounts of oil and gas that flow through the industry? I would appreciate your response because it is very hard within the Congress to justify spending money on that.
A number of my colleagues are adamantly opposed to us doing research on that given the resources the industry has. I would appreciate your comments.
Dr. TINKER. Could I project one slide or two slides actually. I would like to show this figure. This is the FRS oil companies. At the blue lines are the ones that have gone away in the last 3 years by merger. This is FRS ROI in red against the SNP Industrials return on investment in blue. There are 8 years in the last 27 that the industry outperformed the SNP Industrials, 8 out of 27.
And those years were good. I mean if you look in '79, '80, '81 it was significantly above. There are other years where I have written layoffs where it was significantly below. The ROI though average for 27 years has been 10 percent. It under performs most industries in the country so I think the concept of the excess money, I thought about that and I wanted to find the data and these are the data.
Page 412 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
So that is a myth we sort of need to slay. In direct question though, if we look at this—because I worked for a research lab in the private sector in Littleton, Colorado for Marathon for 12 years. And I wondered why was that closing along with all the rest of them. This is the price of natural gas plotted against the gas production, the red squares there.
And up until 1973, which we all remember, it was easy to plan and oil looks the same. The price was the same year after year after year and research was done. If you see the first big price cycle in the early '80's which was broader and those price cycles have gotten ever compressed in their wave length and ever greater in their amplitude. And what happens there is the private sector has said we cannot predict and afford research doesn't pay for 10 years because we are going to go through three price cycles and layoffs across there and we are competing in an ever shorter term market for capital.
So they have closed the centers. I am not saying I support that but I am saying that is a reality. The private sector has been funding the lion's share of research. The United States has enjoyed that for a century of private sector funding of research in this business. They are not doing it as much anymore. They still do some but it is significantly reduced.
My concern is if we don't do it there and we don't do it federally with some support, not the 5 billion a year but some, the supply side could be dramatic.
Mr. EHLERS. Okay. Let me just clarify my suggestion. I am not suggesting that the industry is awash in profits but I am suggesting that if it is really that important to the industry, we could do as has been done before both at the Federal and the state levels, for example, the State of Michigan ran something called the Bean Commission of all things where they cooperatively agreed to a certain fee to provide money for something that benefited them all together. So I am talking something about maybe 3 cents per barrel——
Page 413 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Dr. TINKER. Yeah.
Mr. EHLERS. ...or less, maybe .05 percent or whatever is necessary.
Dr. TINKER. .05 is a good number.
Mr. EHLERS. Which would provide sufficient funding for research but would not have a market effect on either retail prices to consumers or to the industry.
Dr. TINKER. I have written a paper proposing that. I called it PIRF, Private Industry Research Foundation. Brazil does that. They tax 1 percent on production federally and an organization called the ANP, which is like our MMS, distributes that money. There is about $500 million in the pot now. It is a foundation so they spin off a percentage to Brazilian universities for research in oil and gas. I think it is a great model and I have been proposing that.
I do get smiled at by the industry. I am working my way into sort of the beer hall in Houston of the executive vice presidents of the companies that meet once a month, and I think they should. I think we could federally offer some matching there. That would be a good collaborative program. It is important to recognize now much leverage the Federal Government has gotten on their oil and gas R&D though. It has been tremendous.
Mr. EHLERS. Yeah. Well, it would be a similar amount to the partnership for a new generation vehicle.
Page 414 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Dr. TINKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EHLERS. Could you send me your article, please?
Dr. TINKER. Yes.
Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you. We are very pleased to be joined by the Ranking Member of our full committee, Mr. Hall. Let me recognize you for your questions and comments.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will make comments rather than questions because I don't know what questions have been asked and I don't want to waste these gentlemen's very valuable time. I want to thank Mr. Marvin for his participation in an energy summit we had in Tyler some year and a half ago, something like that. You were very helpful. You made a good summit out of it frankly.
I will—I would almost like to go in with Dr. Tinker on some of his ideas about a balanced energy policy. I just really need to do more work on it before I would ask any question but if I might, Mr. Chairman, to send questions and I might ask them to individually answer them. You start out talking about BTU tax and it well reminds me of when we had the vote on the BTU tax.
Page 415 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
One of the new members said what does BTU mean and the guy said British thermal unit. He said, well, it is high time those damn British started paying their part. That is about how little understood it was. But you, Dr. Tinker, thought it was important enough to set it up as your very first point and I think that is well placed. I will propose some questions with the help of Charlie Cook here and I will get some information from you.
But the fact that you have given us your detailed presentation for us to read, that is airplane reading for me and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you for having this hearing.
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you. Let me note that we will hold the record open for others of our members whose busy schedule did not permit them to be here. They have your testimony and they may very well have questions and we would pleased if you could commit to provide answers to those questions for the record.
Dr. Trilling, you mentioned the unbalanced funding of NIH as compared to other basic research funding in the government. It is a little better now than it used to be. I worked at NIH a number of years ago and then every institute at NIH was named for diseases that old Congressmen have. And we now do recognize that there are women and we recognize that there are children so we have some institutes who are more appropriately named.
You also mentioned the importance of basic research. I share with Dr. Ehlers, there is a growing concern that we are grossly underfunding basic research in this country. In the short term we will pay a heavy price for that in our economy. We will not have the world's foremost economy. We do not have the world's best scientists, mathematicians and engineers in adequate numbers and we are rapidly coming to that point.
Page 416 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I just noted everyone of you noted too little Federal funding. I put that down with a circle around it and that was repeated in each of your testimony. Dr. Tinker, I was going to ask if somehow we could have the very excellent presentation that you made available to us. Is there something on your computer that you can copy and give to us so that we can have that?
Dr. TINKER. Yes, I could write a CD for you right after——
Chairman BARTLETT. We would be very pleased if you would provide that. That was indeed a very good presentation. Thank you. Thank you very much. The nuclear energy, I know that on our Committee there are differences of opinion about whether we ought to move more aggressively into nuclear energy. I was very pleased that my colleague noted that she would be more supportive of it if she was sure that we could solve the problems of storage.
And I think that she speaks for most Americans, by the way. And I think that we need a big education program here. I would note that we kill many people a year in using coal for producing power. We run over them at the railroad crossings. We dump millions of tons of dirt and rock on them in the mines. We blow them up in the mines. We lay them in their graves as a result of black lung disease. And we have accepted as a society that this is a reasonable price to pay for electricity that we get from coal.
As far as I know, we have not had a single death in the nuclear industry for producing power. Now we had a couple in our weapons labs but none for producing nuclear power. And I think that nuclear is a very desirable source. I think we have gone a long way to managing the waste products and I think that what we most need is education as to where we are and how good we have come. And we are really derelict here in the Congress because we have been taking money from that industry for a very long time to store their waste and we haven't done it.
Page 417 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
If we can be sued, we ought to be sued for our malfeasance there. Mr. Marvin, you were mentioning the alternatives, sustainable energy. I have a real concern that we are not exploiting the opportunities that we could in agriculture. Everybody that I know of in the Congress is really concerned about this economic state of our agriculture and we have big potentials for energy from agriculture, biodiesel, soy diesel, biomass, ethylnol.
By the way, it is cheaper to heat your house with corn than it is with electricity. I have some real problems burning corn but it is less than $100 a ton and if you just throw the corn in a stove in your house you will heat it for cheaper than you can with electricity. And so we have a good source of ethylnol there. There is an exciting opportunity to create ethylnol from the glucose that we can split from cellulose by a new bio-engineered organism that does in grand scale what is done in a very slow process in the gut of our cows and sheep and goats and deer and so forth in breaking cellulose down into glucose which could then easily be fermented to become ethylnol.
We can convert newspapers into ethylnol with this process. And I am wondering what you think the potential is for getting energy from ag products which would solve two problems, demonstrate the efficacy of renewables and also help our agricultural community.
Mr. MARVIN. I think you raise an excellent point. I think that both in the transportation side and on the electricity generation side it is a wonderful potential marriage and I think you are seeing a lot of the technologies beginning to do that including the industries. And although the biomass industry is the most obvious one where you are using agricultural waste, for example, for electricity generation you are also—obviously the ethylnol story is well known and well told and the focus on reducing the energy inputs into ethylnol to make it a more energy valuable process.
Page 418 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I thought one of the things that was most interesting, we are putting about almost a billion dollars worth of wind turbines into the State of Texas in an 18-month period and another quarter of a billion dollars into Southwest Minnesota. And some of the biggest advocates of those projects have been the farmers because they realize now that with the turbines we are putting it onto farmland.
We are putting the turbines on the farmland and the farmers realize that effectively what they are is upside down oil wells because they are using about 3 to 5 percent of their acreage and they are getting land leases that make it significantly more profitable to farm and so you are finding in Southwest—as I say, in Southwest Minnesota in the Fort Davis area in Texas, you are finding farmers being the ones who come forward and said we support renewable energy and it is great simpatico and it is a wonderful opportunity because we continue to hear that issue about space and renewable energy takes up too much space and the like. And so I agree with you. There are excellent opportunities that we have seen and I think more are coming down the road.
Chairman BARTLETT. Growing windmills, wind machines on the farm is probably dollar wise second only to growing marijuana as a profitable crop, isn't it?
Mr. MARVIN. I wouldn't touch that one, sir.
Chairman BARTLETT. I might note that marijuana is the number one agricultural crop in California.
Page 419 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. MARVIN. And as long as you went down that direction, I do believe that it was one of the reasons that the solar industry got its start is the need to generate electricity off grid for obvious reasons.
Chairman BARTLETT. I want to thank the members of the panel and I want to ask my colleagues if they have additional questions or comments.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Right. I want to tell you that is Mike Thompson's district, not mine. But I think we ought to all start looking at a wasted opportunity and that is the Federal Government for how we set an example of how to conserve and where we could use renewables. So I am just going to plant that right now. You don't have to respond to it but if you have any comments on that, please let—would you let me know and I will let the rest of the committee know. Mr. Marvin, do you want to comment now, besides the fact that there is so much hot air here. I want you to——
Mr. MARVIN. Well, that is a perfect safe way for me then. Thank you. I think that you really raise an excellent point and I am sorry that I didn't raise it in my earlier comments. The Federal Energy Management Program dollar for dollar is one of the most logical prudent investments that the country can make. We are looking at a proposed reduction of about 50 percent in that budget, 48 percent, I believe, for fiscal year 2002 taking it from roughly 20 to roughly $10 million.
Last year in large part because of the significant efforts of FEMP in working with the Department of Defense and working with others we are the Nation's—the government is the largest electricity user in the country. We use 1.7 percent of all the electricity generated in the United States and we reduced our electricity bill by $400 million last year.
Page 420 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
And a lot of that was in California and prices have not—it has not been a price friendly area and so it is one of those things and now FEMP is reaching out to the private sector to Honeywell, to Sempra, to Johnson Controls, to Duke Solutions where they are saying, look, we know how to run the government, you know how to run energy plants. We will hire you, we will split the profits. You come in and you use your expertise. You buy the equipment, you manage it, you maintain it, you just verify the savings are there and we will split the profits.
It is the Energy Savings Performance Contracting Program that was passed as part of the Energy Policy Act. It is one of the most logical programs and a wonderful program that continues to have its problems mired in bureaucracy particularly over at the Office of Management and Budget but I appreciate you raising that because really the Federal Government can lead by example and I think it largely has failed to do so.
Chairman BARTLETT. I would agree we have lots of opportunities in the Federal Government to be a leader and a model and we have exploited very few as compared to the potential we have. I would just like to note in closing, Mr. Marvin, you mentioned how arbitrary and capricious the government can be, that we can be in funding and all of you have mentioned the big problems that you see in the future as a result of the down turn in funding which makes the point that I have been trying to make and that is that perhaps one of the best things that the Congress can do for future basic research and R&D is to provide incentives so that more and more of this will be done in the private sector.
Nothing magic happens to a dollar because we take it out of your pocket and bring it to the Federal Government. And I just think that tax incentives so that more and more basic research and applied research is done in the private sector is the proper way to go but we can't do this de novo without major disruptions and so as we move that direction we need to provide adequate funding for basic research and R&D from the government since we have been a major source of that in the past.
Page 421 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I want to thank you all very much for your testimony and we will now adjourn our Subcommittee hearing.
[Whereupon, at 12:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions Submitted by The Majority
Next Hearing Segment(2)
(Footnote 1 return)
The B-Factory provides for collisions of 9 billion electron volts (GeV) electrons with 3–GeV positrons at high luminosity.
(Footnote 2 return)
The Tevatron is capable of accelerating protons and antiprotons for both fixed and colliding beam experiments at one trillion electron volts (TeV).
(Footnote 3 return)
The LHC is a 7 TeV on 7 TeV proton-proton colliding beam facility currently under construction at CERN, which is located near Geneva, Switzerland.
(Footnote 4 return)
A Budget Amendment transferring $5.0 million from HEP to Fusion Energy Sciences is expected to be transmitted shortly.
(Footnote 5 return)
A Budget Amendment transferring $2.7 million from ASCR to Fusion Energy Sciences is expected to be transmitted shortly.
(Footnote 6 return)
A Budget Amendment transferring $0.3 million from Energy Research Analysis to Fusion Energy Sciences is expected to be transmitted shortly.
(Footnote 7 return)
In addition, $10.0 million will be transferred to FES in a Budget Amendment that is expected to be submitted shortly. Details will be provided at that time.
(Footnote 8 return)
A Budget Amendment transferring $2.0 million from Program Direction to Fusion Energy Sciences is expected to be submitted shortly.
(Footnote 9 return)
These amounts will be modified by a budget amendment to be submitted shortly. Renewable Energy Resources will be increased by $39.176 million in the following areas: Biomass/Biofuels energy systems, Hydrogen Research, Hydropower, Electric Energy Systems and Storage, and Renewable Support and Implementation. Reductions in the Energy Conservation account will offset this increase.
(Footnote 10 return)
Pu-238 is a non-weapons usable isotope of plutonium used to fuel radioisotope power systems.
(Footnote 11 return)
A Pending Budget Amendment to transfer $10M to Fusion Energy Sciences from Advanced Scientific Computing Research ($2.7M), High Energy Physics ($5.0M), Energy Research Analyses ($0.3M), and Science Program Direction ($2.0M) will be submitted shortly.
(Footnote 12 return)
A Pending Budget Amendment to transfer $10M to Fusion Energy Sciences from Advanced Scientific Computing Research ($2.7M), High Energy Physics ($5.0M), Energy Research Analyses ($0.3M), and Science Program Direction ($2.0M) will be submitted shortly.
(Footnote 13 return)
A Pending Budget Amendment to transfer $10M to Fusion Energy Sciences from Advanced Scientific Computing Research ($2.7M), High Energy Physics ($5.0M), Energy Research Analyses ($0.3M), and Science Program Direction ($2.0M) will be submitted shortly.
(Footnote 14 return)
A Pending Budget Amendment to transfer $10M to Fusion Energy Sciences from Advanced Scientific Computing Research ($2.7M), High Energy Physics ($5.0M), Energy Research Analyses ($0.3M), and Science Program Direction ($2.0M) will be submitted shortly.
(Footnote 15 return)
A Pending Budget Amendment to transfer $10M to Fusion Energy Sciences from Advanced Scientific Computing Research ($2.7M), High Energy Physics ($5.0M), Energy Research Analyses ($0.3M), and Science Program Direction ($2.0M) will be submitted shortly.