EXCERPTS - DOE Provisions
105th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 105-132
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
----------
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 1119
together with
ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
June 16, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
One Hundred Fifth Congress
FLOYD D. SPENCE, South Carolina, Chairman
BOB STUMP, Arizona RONALD V. DELLUMS, California
DUNCAN HUNTER, California IKE SKELTON, Missouri
JOHN R. KASICH, Ohio NORMAN SISISKY, Virginia
HERBERT H. BATEMAN, Virginia JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah Carolina
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado OWEN PICKETT, Virginia
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey LANE EVANS, Illinois
STEVE BUYER, Indiana GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
TILLIE K. FOWLER, Florida NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
JAMES TALENT, Missouri ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama JANE HARMAN, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland PAUL McHALE, Pennsylvania
HOWARD ``BUCK'' McKEON, California PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
RON LEWIS, Kentucky ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
J.C. WATTS, Jr., Oklahoma SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas TOM ALLEN, Maine
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana VIC SNYDER, Arkansas
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia JIM TURNER, Texas
VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee F. ALLEN BOYD, Jr., Florida
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida ADAM SMITH, Washington
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
Carolina JAMES H. MALONEY, Connecticut
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
SONNY BONO, California CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas
JIM RYUN, Kansas
MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey
BOB RILEY, Alabama
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
Andrew K. Ellis, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS
AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS....................................... 475
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS...... 475
PURPOSE........................................................ 475
OVERVIEW....................................................... 475
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 488
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative and Control of
Supercomputer Technology................................. 488
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory............................... 488
Defense Asset Acquisition.................................. 489
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management..... 489
Enhanced Surveillance Program at the Production Plants..... 491
Inertial Confinement Fusion................................ 491
Infrastructure and Manufacturing Improvements at Weapons
Production Sites......................................... 492
Initiatives For Proliferation Prevention................... 492
Laboratory Review of Missile Defenses...................... 493
Management and Organization of DOE's Nuclear Weapons
Program.................................................. 493
Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting Program...... 494
Naval Reactors............................................. 494
Nuclear Energy............................................. 495
Operation of F and H canyons............................... 495
Privatization.............................................. 495
Program Direction for Defense Programs..................... 498
Recurring General Provision Relating to Availability of
Funds.................................................... 498
Stockpile Life Extension Program at Y-12 Plant............. 499
Technology Transfer........................................ 499
Transfer of Funds Associated with Security at Rocky Flats
Site and the Fernald Site................................ 499
Tritium Production......................................... 499
Worker and Community Transition............................ 500
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 501
Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorization.......... 501
Section 3101--Weapons Activities........................... 501
Section 3102--Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management............................................... 501
Section 3103--Other Defense Activities..................... 501
Section 3104--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal............... 501
Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions..................... 501
Section 3121--Reprogramming................................ 501
Section 3122--Limits on General Plant Projects............. 502
Section 3123--Limits on Construction Projects.............. 502
Section 3124--Fund Transfer Authority...................... 502
Section 3125--Authority for Conceptual and Construction
Design................................................... 502
Section 3126--Authority for Emergency Planning, Design and
Construction Activities.................................. 502
Section 3127--Funds Available for all National Security
Programs of the Department of Energy..................... 503
Section 3128--Authority Relating to Transfer of Defense
Environmental Management Funds........................... 503
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 503
Section 3131--Ballistic Missile Defense National Laboratory
Program.................................................. 503
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 503
Section 3141--Plan for Stewardship, Management, and
Certification of Warheads in the Nuclear Weapons
Stockpile................................................ 503
Section 3142--Repeal of Obsolete Reporting Requirement..... 503
Section 3143--Revisions to Defense Nuclear Facilities
Workforce Restructuring Plan Requirements................ 503
Section 3144--Extension of Authority for Appointment of
Certain Scientific, Engineering, and Technical Personnel. 504
Section 3145--Report on Proposed Contract for Hanford Tank
Waste Vitrification Project.............................. 504
Section 3146--Limitation on Conduct of Subcritical Nuclear
Weapons Tests............................................ 504
Section 3147--Limitation on Use of Certain Funds Until
Future Use Plans are Submitted........................... 505
Section 3148--Plan for External Oversight of National
Laboratories............................................. 505
Section 3149--University-Based Research Center............. 505
Section 3150--Stockpile Stewardship Program................ 505
Section 3151--Reports on Advanced Supercomputer Sales to
Certain Foreign Nations.................................. 505
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
AUTHORIZATION.................................................. 507
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 507
Section 3201--Authorization................................ 507
Section 3202--Plan for Transfer of Functions of Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to Nuclear Regulatory
Commission............................................... 507
.............
Additional views of John Spratt................................ 770
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
PURPOSE
Title XXXI would authorize appropriations for the national
security programs of the Department of Energy (DOE) for fiscal
year 1998, including management and operations of programs for
research, development, and production in support of the armed
forces, the production of strategic and critical materials for
the armed forces, the protection of critical materials,
materials and information necessary for national defense,
management of defense radioactive wastes, environmental
management, naval nuclear propulsion, and other military
applications of nuclear energy.
OVERVIEW
The fiscal year 1998 budget request for DOE national
security programs totaled $13.6 billion. Of the total amount
requested, $3.6 billion was for weapons activities, $5.0
billion for environmental restoration and waste management,
$2.2 billion for defense fixed asset acquisition, $1.0 billion
for environmental management privatization, $1.6 billion for
other defense activities, and $190.0 million for defense
nuclear waste disposal. The committee recommends $11.0 billion,
a decrease of $2.6 billion. The following table summarizes the
request and the committee recommendations:
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative and Control of Supercomputer
Technology
The budget request contained $204.8 million for the
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) and $151.5
million for stockpile computations and modeling. The committee
recommends funding these two programs within the stockpile
stewardship program at the requested level. While the committee
believes that the continued viability of these two programs is
critical to the Department of Energy's ability to certify the
reliability of our nation's nuclear stockpile, it is disturbed
by reports that U.S. manufactured supercomputers have been
transferred to the premier Russian nuclear weapons laboratories
without the required government export licenses. In fact, a
company that recently admitted transferring supercomputers
without an export license to a Russian nuclear weapons
laboratory is a DOE contractor on the accelerated strategic
computing initiative.
Supercomputers can be used to enhance and maintain a
nuclear device by processing complex computer simulations to
determine the effect of modifications of the device. The U.S.
government requires exporters to apply for licenses to export
supercomputers to such Russian nuclear facilities so the
government can review the prospective transfer and determine
the appropriateness of the computer in question for its stated
end-use, the history of the facility in question, and the risk
the computer would be diverted to prohibited end-uses. It is
the stated policy of the U.S. government to deny such exports
for use in proliferation-related activities such as research
on, or development, design, manufacture, construction, testing,
or maintenance of any nuclear explosive device or components
and subsystems of such a device. The use of U.S. supplied
supercomputers in such proliferation-related activities could
have detrimental effects on U.S. national security. The
committee expects the Department of Energy to take a more
assertive role in the export control of sensitive technologies
that have nuclear proliferation implications. The Department of
Energy should take the lead in the preventing hazardous
transfers of nuclear technologies to countries and end-users of
proliferation concern. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Energy to implement the necessary policy and
programmatic changes to ensure that the Department is able to
effectively track and assess the flow of specific technologies
with nuclear applications to countries of proliferation
concern. The committee recommends elsewhere in this title
additional reporting requirements for the Department and the
ASCI contractors to ensure the protection of this program.
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory
The budget request contained $15.7 million for the
incremental component of the construction upgrades at the
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility at Los Alamos
National Laboratory. The total project cost has been estimated
at $174.0 million. The committee has been advised by the
Department that construction has been suspended as the result
of a preliminary review indicating that work was being
performed outside theauthorized scope and that an investigation
has been initiated. The committee is further concerned with reports of
high cost and apparent overruns during the first phase of this project.
Because of the uncertainty and the likely need for substantial
revisions in the estimates of the total project cost, the committee
does not recommend funding of the incremental request. The committee
adopts this position, without prejudice, and upon receipt of additional
information and the results of the investigation will reevaluate the
budget request for incremental funding for this project in this fiscal
year.
Defense Asset Acquisition
The budget request contained $2.2 billion for defense asset
acquisition. The committee rejects the recommendation of
Department to establish a new defense asset acquisition
account. This proposal would have consolidated construction
projects for all DOE national security programs into one
account. The committee believes that this proposal would
unnecessarily complicate its ability to ascertain appropriate
funding levels from year to year in what are clearly distinctly
different programs. The committee also rejects the Department's
proposal to fully fund construction projects in the year they
are first requested. Not only does the Department's proposal
request full funding for projects which are being requested for
the first time in this fiscal year but also for projects which
have been authorized in prior years. The Department's proposal
would require an additional fiscal year 1998 authorization of
$1.5 billion above the funds requested in fiscal year 1997 for
this purpose. The committee recommends authorization of the
fiscal year 1998 incremental funding component for each of the
authorized construction projects in weapons activities,
environmental management, and other defense activities
accounts.
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
The budget request contained $5.0 billion for the
activities of the Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management. The committee recommends an authorization of $5.3
billion.
The committee also recommends transferring $743.6 million
from the subaccount entitled ``environmental restoration'' to
the closure fund for the purpose of accelerating the closure of
the Rocky Flats Environmental Site and the Fernald
Environmental Management Project. This action would allow the
consolidation of management and funding activities for these
sites into one account at the level requested in the budget.
The committee recommends transferring $45.2 million from the
operations and maintenance account within the stockpile
management program to the closure fund. This transfer of $45.2
million represents the costs associated with the provision of
security at the Rocky Flats Site and the Fernald site. The
committee believes that this consolidation of all activities
and the costs associated with those activities will provide
greater control and accountability. The committee is further
designating these sites as ``closure sites'' pursuant to the
provisions of section 3143 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201).
The committee believes that the Department should consider, as
part of its fiscal year 1999 budget request, the continued
consolidation of all national security funding for these two
sites into the closure fund. The committee is disappointed that
the Department chose to include only $15.0 million in the
closure fund in fiscal year 1998.
The committee further recommends an increase of $102.0
million for the closure account. Of this amount, the committee
recommends allocating $69.9 million to the Rocky Flats site and
$32.1 million to the Fernald site. The committee strongly
supports the efforts of the adjacent communities to close these
two sites within the next ten years. The committee intends to
assure through appropriate funding levels that this goal is
achieved. The committee is persuaded that the overall savings
to the Department by accelerating the clean up at these sites
will be measured in the billions of dollars.
The committee also recommends that of the funds authorized
within the subaccount entitled ``waste management'', an
additional $40.0 million be allocated to the Savannah River
site to allow the consolidated incineration facility to operate
at full capacity, as originally intended, to assure that the
Defense Waste Processing Facility operates at its designed
capacity, and that the site has sufficient funds to accelerate
the disposal of transuranic waste. At the funding level
requested, only periodic burning and treatment of benzene
produced in support of the high level waste vitrification
effort is possible. These additional funds will allow the full
time incineration of other low and mixed radioactive wastes,
meet the site treatment plan commitment, and mitigate the use
of the E-Area low level waste vault. Finally, the committee
urges the Department to assess the cost savings that may be
available if it is able to successfully develop a spent fuel or
high level waste storage cask system using high density
concrete. Of the funds authorized in section 3102 of this
title, no more than $3.0 million may be made available for this
demonstration project.
The committee recommends reducing the budget request for
the subaccount entitled ``program direction'' by $100.0
million. The committee recommends reducing support service
contractors, training and other related expenses by $60.0
million and federal employment expenses, including salaries and
travel, by 15 percent or $40.0 million. Despite reductions to
this account in each of the last two fiscal years, the
Department has failed to significantly reduce federal
employment levels as directed by this committee, particularly
at DOE headquarters. Instead, the Office of Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management has chosen to transfer federal
employees and their headquarters function to the field and to
detail individuals to the Environmental Protection Agency. This
action occurred despite protestations from site managers who
were not requesting additional employees.
With respect to the detailing of employees to the
Environmental Protection Agency, the committee is concerned
that scarce DOE funds are being spent on activities which are
unrelated or only tangentially related to the Department's core
remediation effort. The committee notes that the Office of
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management currently has
staffing levels that are almost 20 percent above the levels
recommended by the Department as part of its own Strategic
Alignment Initiative.
Finally, the committee recommends reducing the budget
request for the subaccount entitled ``technology development''
by $75.0 million. The committee does not support the
Department's proposal to create a new technology deployment
initiative office. Based on the supporting documentation
provided to the committee, it appears thatthis program is
really not a program to deploy innovative technology, but rather an
effort to accelerate remediation efforts by using existing commercially
available technology. This appears to be the case at several sites,
particularly at Fernald. The committee notes that the Department has
chosen to reduce the level of funding for this account below last
year's request. The Department apparently agrees with the committee
that this office has been unable to execute a program which was
intended to develop and deploy new remediation technology in a timely
manner.
The committee remains concerned that the fundamental
problems that have resulted in expenditures of over $2.0
billion for technology development over the last several years,
with very little actual field deployment, have yet to be
corrected. With the transition to fixed priced contracts over
the next several years, the role of technology development will
necessarily shift to the private sector. With the proper profit
incentives included in these contracts, the private sector
will, on its own, develop the technologies needed to fulfill
the terms of the contracts. The Department should consider
these facts in preparing its fiscal year 1999 budget request.
Enhanced Surveillance Program at the Production Plants
The budget request contained $60.0 million to implement the
Enhanced Surveillance Program (ESP) within the weapons
stockpile management account. The committee recommends $75.0
million, an increase of $15.0 million. The ESP, involving the
four production plants and the three laboratories, is designed
to develop new technologies for detecting degradation in aging
weapons components in order to ensure, reliability, safety,
effectiveness, and performance of existing weapons beyond their
planned service life. While the committee recognizes that this
is a complex-wide initiative, it expects that the additional
resources provided by this increase will be directed to the
production plants, particularly those engaged in pit
disassembly activities and monitoring of limited life
components. For example, if the Pantex Plant does not receive
additional funds for enhanced surveillance activities, it will
not be prepared, from an engineering and process development
standpoint, to perform its stockpile life extension mission.
Inertial Confinement Fusion
The budget request contained $217.0 million for inertial
confinement fusion (ICF) operating program. The committee
recommends $217.0 million, the amount requested. Within the
total committee recommendation, $26.1 million shall be made
available for the University of Rochester's Laboratory for
Laser Energetics, an increase of $2.5 million.
The committee notes that many non-governmental
organizations have questioned the need and the cost of the
Department of Energy's National Ignition Facility (NIF). The
committee also notes that currently the Department is in
litigation over its Programatic Environmental Impact Statement
on Stockpile Stewardship and Management. The committee urges
the Secretary to ensure that the defense program office manages
the NIF construction project in a manner that does not make
irreversible commitments of resources to construction until the
outstanding environmental process issues are addressed in the
district court.
Peer review is a fundamental element of analyzing,
developing and understanding the answers to the complex
scientific, engineering and technical issues that go into
determining whether or not to continue the substantial
investments required in any facility such as the NIF. The
committee directs the Secretary to request the National Academy
of Sciences to continue to review, operating in full compliance
with applicable law, the scientific and programmatic issues
surrounding the NIF.
Infrastructure and Manufacturing Improvements at Weapons Production
Sites
The budget request contained $588.0 million for
infrastructure programs within the core stockpile management
program. The committee recommends $623.0 million, an increase
of $35.0 million. This increase would assist the production
sites in successfully completing the transition from older,
excess-capacity facilities to smaller, more efficient units.
The committee is concerned that the Department has failed to
address basic infrastructure problems, such as roof repairs,
steam and condensate piping upgrades, power deficiencies,
obsolete smoke detectors, and fire alarm control panels at the
Pantex plant. Pantex is the central facility where the
mechanics of the stockpile life extension program (SLEP) will
be performed for every weapon in the enduring stockpile. A
degraded Pantex places the success of the SLEP into question.
The committee also believes that substantial long-term cost
savings will accrue to the Department if it is able to
accelerate the downsizing initiative currently underway at the
Kansas City plant. With this acceleration, the Department will
need to purchase and install new manufacturing equipment to
enhance the expected efficiencies that should occur. The
committee expects that the remainder of the increase, would be
applied to address the manufacturing problems at these two
sites through implementation of the Advanced Design and
Production Technologies (AdaPT) program and the Process
Development Program (PDP).
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention
The budget request contained $234.6 million for activities
related to the prevention of weapons proliferation within the
office on nonproliferation and national security. The committee
recommends $205.0 million, a reduction of $29.6 million from
the request. The committee recommends that this reduction be
applied against the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention
program. The committee remains unconvinced of the merits of
this program and other programs whose goal is to promote long
term stability within the states of the Former Soviet Union.
The committee is further concerned by reports that nearly half
the aid intended for Russian scientists is being siphoned off
by duties, regional taxes, overhead charges and suspected
payoffs.
Laboratory Review of Missile Defenses
In House Report 104-563 accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201),
the committee required the directors of each of the nuclear
weapons laboratories to submit a report that assessed ballistic
missile defense expertise and problem solving capabilities
within their respective organizations. The laboratories have a
long-standing role in nonproliferation, counter-proliferation,
and conventional defense activities, and a history of
significant contributions to missile defense programs. The
committee required this most recent assessment of the
laboratories' capabilities to determine if greater laboratory
involvement could strengthen the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense
(BMD) program. Options for greater involvement by the nuclear
weapons laboratories ranged from the use of supercomputing and
modeling capabilities, which can provide simulation tools to
support risk reduction in BMD system development and
deployment, to the use of the laboratories' Strategic Target
System for Theater Missile Defense and National Missile Defense
test and evaluation.
As a result of this study, the committee recommends,
elsewhere in this title, the establishment of a new program
office that will integrate the existing BMD weapons laboratory
expertise with the Department of Defense Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization (BMDO). This new program office would be
chaired on a rotating basis by the laboratory directors. Office
staff would be assigned specific-problem solving tasks in
response to requests for assistance by the BMDO. Of the funds
available for core stockpile stewardship in fiscal year 1998,
the committee recommends that $50.0 million be made available
to implement this program. The committee believes that the
laboratories have resources and expertise that can be of great
use to the Department of Defense not only in the areas noted
above, but also in areas such as metallurgy, acoustics and
component analysis. The committee believes that if the
laboratories are successful in solving the problems related to
the BMD program in a cost effective way, then it is likely that
this program will be expanded in future years to such areas as
submarine development and component analysis.
Management and Organization of DOE's Nuclear Weapons Program
Section 3140 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) directed the Department
to conduct a study of the current management structure of the
nuclear weapons program, including an analysis of the functions
performed at headquarters, the operations offices, and the
applicable area and site offices. The study made a number of
recommendations designed to improve the management operations
within the weapons programs. These recommendations were made as
a result of conclusive evidence assembled by the authors of the
report that significant management problems existed between
headquarters and the field offices and that there were too many
employees at both locations. The report concluded that these
excess employees create work not only for themselves but for
others as well, undermining attempts to establish disciplined
staffing processes. The report recommended that DOE
``streamline and reduce headquarters and field staffing--
federal employees and contractors by a least 20-30 percent.''
The committee is concerned over the possible confusion and
inefficiencies that may result from the existing organizational
arrangement. While the committee received a letter from the
Department on June 4, 1997 explaining the actions taken to
date, these actions were long overdue in light of the serious
nature of the report's findings. It remains to be seen whether
the actions proposed will in fact address the fundamental
problems outlined in the report. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Energy to provide a follow-up report
to the congressional defense committees by October 15, 1997, on
the status of the corrective action being taken. Upon receipt
of this follow-up report, the committee intends to schedule a
series of hearings to examine the state of the nuclear weapons
complex, its future missions, and its organizational structure.
Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting Program
The committee recognizes that the development and
implementation of the Materials, Protection, Control, and
Accounting Program for fissile materials in Russia addresses
important national security interests of the United States.
Because fissile materials will remain in Russia for 20 to 40
years before disposition can be safely implemented and
completed, the security of these fissile materials during all
aspects of storage and disposition is of considerable
importance to U.S. national security. Out of the unexpended
balances in the Nonproliferation and National Security account,
the Department is urged to allocate up to $3.0 million for the
implementation of a nuclear materials safety management program
modeled after the best lessons-learned from the joint U.S.-
Russian disposition activities. The committee recognizes the
Amarillo National Resource Center for Plutonium for its leading
work within the Department on joint U.S.-Russian efforts in the
area of nuclear materials safety management. Finally, the
committee recommends that the Department develop a
comprehensive nuclear materials safety management program
budget for fiscal year 1999.
Naval Reactors
The budget request contained $632.5 million for naval
reactors. The committee recommends $678.5 million, an increase
of $43.0 million, to allow the orderly completion of the
prototype inactivation work. This increase would prevent delays
in the A1W-A defueling; expedite related data retrieval from
the plant's core; prevent delays in the inactivation of the
Windsor site and the D1G and S3G reactor plants at the
Kesselring site; and allow planned remediation efforts to
continue on schedule at the naval reactor facility in Idaho.
Nuclear Energy
The budget request contained $81.0 million for nuclear
energy activities, including $25.0 million for nuclear
technology research and development and $50.0 million for the
international nuclear safety program. The committee recommends
$47.0 million, a decrease of $34.0 million. The former
activity, which involves electrometallurgical research, was
funded in fiscal year 1997 by DOE's civilian technology office
and not through an authorization within this committee's
jurisdiction. The committee continues to believe this research
should not be funded within DOE'snational security
authorization and, therefore, recommends $12.0 million be authorized
for this purpose. The committee does not intend to fund this program in
future years. The international nuclear safety program has in the past
been carried out by the Agency for International Development using
foreign assistance funds. The committee believes these activities
should be funded in the foreign assistance budget. Accordingly, the
committee recommends $25.0 million be authorized for this purpose.
Again, the committee does not intend to fund this program in future
years within DOE's national security authorization. Within line items
entitled Nuclear Security and the Chornobyl Shutdown Initiative, the
committee recognizes the United States commitment to its G-7
obligations. However, the committee believes these programs are
essentially civilian programs and should be funded from the foreign
assistance accounts. The committee recommends $10.0 million for
plutonium core conversion, which was funded last year through the
Department of Defense.
Operation of F and H Canyons
The budget request contained $492.3 million for operations
and maintenance within the nuclear material and facility
stabilization account at the Savannah River Site. The committee
recommends $533.3 million, an increase of $41.0 million over
the amount requested, to allow for the operation of both the F-
canyon and the H-canyon facilities at the site and to maintain
the unique capability for the stabilization of aluminum clad
spent nuclear fuel. The committee believes that the long-term
storage and direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel, currently in
wet storage or being shipped to the site, presents significant
risks and costs that can be more appropriately addressed by
using the reprocessing capability of the canyons.
Privatization
The budget request contained $1.0 billion for the defense
environmental management privatization initiative. The
committee does not recommend funding for this initiative. The
committee recognizes that this is an important initiative of
the Department, and it accepts the premise that the remediation
effort undertaken to date at many of the former nuclear weapons
defense sites has been overly costly and, to a large degree,
ineffective. The committee further understands and supports the
desire to reduce costs and to improve efficiencies through the
use of performance-based fixed price contracts. However, the
committee is not persuaded that the privatization proposal has
been properly developed at this point and to the extent
required, considering the amount of money being requested, the
technical complexity of many of the projects, the large margin
of error in the cost estimates, the Department's poor track
record of successful project completion, and the lack of
suitable staff and procedures to oversee the contracting
process and the contractors' activities.
The committee believes it should defer further
consideration of this initiative until the Department's fiscal
year 1999 budget request. While the committee provided funding
for a limited privatization initiative in fiscal year 1997, it
did so based on the assumption that the Department would be
able to support its continuation based upon a rigorous analysis
of projected cost savings that would accrue to the government.
The committee directed the Department to provide that report to
the committee no later than December 31, 1996. The Department
has not submitted the required report nor has it provided the
level of documentation to support a request of this magnitude.
The committee is not persuaded by estimates of cost savings
where the comparisons are between traditional non-competitive
management and operating contracts and ``privatized''
contracts.
The committee believes that several additional comments are
warranted. It is important to note that DOE's privatization
initiative is not a divestiture, which generally involves the
sale of government-owned assets or functions. For all practical
purposes, DOE's activities are already privatized, in that the
private sector contractors already conduct DOE's programs at
its major sites.
What sets the proposed privatization initiative apart from
DOE's traditional approach is the attempt to shift the
responsibility for financing, and much of the risk, to the
contractor. Thus, under the Department's proposal, private-
sector contractors would be responsible for the funding,
construction and operation of the ``privatized'' facility. At
the time the facility is completed, DOE would begin paying the
contractor for the services provided. In fact, as presently
contemplated by DOE, virtually no expenditures of the
government's funds would occur until fiscal year 2003, when
outlays of between $1.0 and $2.0 billion would begin. From the
limited cost estimates available, the projects that are being
requested in fiscal year 1998 are expected to result in
construction costs exceeding $2.8 billion and operating costs
exceeding $5.8 billion.
At least one of the projects chosen for privatization, the
tank waste remediation project, is perhaps the most technically
complex, risky, and expensive environmental remediation project
in the DOE program. DOE has spent about $2.5 billion on this
project alone since 1989 and its life-cycle cost is estimated
to be $36.0 billion. DOE has estimated that the ``privatized''
approach for a portion of the $36.0 billion project would
result in a cost of $9.6 billion. Using DOE's traditional
noncompetitive management and operations approach, the same
project is estimated to cost $13.6 billion. However, a recent
General Accounting Office (GAO) study determined that both
estimates were based on a range of values with a margin of
error of plus or minus 40 percent. That is, the cost of the
privatized approach could range from $5.8 billion to $13.4
billion and the noncompetitive approach, from $8.0 billion to
$18.6 billion. Because of the large margin of error in these
cost estimates, GAO concluded that the ``privatization approach
could be more costly.''
At least eight of the other projects being proposed for
privatization suffer from even less analysis and more
uncertainty regarding cost savings. In many of these cases, DOE
obtained an estimate from its existing management and operating
contractor and apparently arbitrarily reduced it by anywhere
from 10 percent to 35 percent. In several cases, it is clear
that the funding is not required this fiscal year because the
contracts could not be executed. In fact, in the case of the
tank waste remediation project discussed above, it is clear
that DOE may not even obligate in fiscal year 1998 the funds
that were authorized and appropriated for this project in
fiscal year 1997. The rationale and justification for a request
of an additional $427.0 million in fiscal year 1998 for this
project alone is lacking. In other cases, it is apparent that
projects were chosen which were not of the highest priority nor
were required by compliance agreements. It appearsthat these
projects were simply chosen because they would not result in outlays
during the next five years. It is clear to the committee that deferral
of this program for one budget cycle will not result in any irreparable
harm or in any way affect the safety of the nuclear weapons complex.
The committee strongly suggests that the Department consider obtaining
outside independent assessments as to the life-cycle costs for these
projects before continuing to recommend their privatization. Finally,
DOE has cited several examples of successful privatization projects.
Two of these involve the ``privatizing'' of a laundry facility for
contaminated worker clothing. Another involves the remediation effort
at Pit 9 near Idaho Falls which is now the subject of a contract
dispute and which could result in a doubling of the original contract
price of $179.0 million for this one-acre site out of 88 acres that
need to be cleaned up. The committee believes there is substantially
more complexity in managing the tank waste remediation project than in
building a laundry.
The committee's concern is amplified by the knowledge that
of the 80 projects initiated in the last 16 years, only 15 have
been completed, most of which were behind schedule and over
budget. After billions of dollars had been invested, 31 of
these projects were terminated before completion.
In rejecting the blanket approval of the privatization
initiative, the committee is not suggesting that it is
abandoning the effort to develop a successful and cost
effective remediation program across the DOE complex,
particularly at the Hanford tank waste site. In the case of the
Hanford site, the committee recognizes that a substantial
investment by the Department is required for many years,
regardless of the method chosen to finance the effort or the
scope of the effort. Accordingly, the committee recommends
elsewhere in this title a funding level sufficient to allow
this remediation effort to continue on schedule. The committee
believes that the $170.0 million authorized for fiscal year
1997 and which remains unobligated, added to the $54.0 million
which is being paid out this year to the prospective bidders
from fiscal year 1996 funds for the cost of bid preparation,
coupled with the $70.0 million authorized elsewhere in this
title, should be more than sufficient to allow the remediation
effort to continue, whether the project uses private capital or
annual appropriations. In doing so, the committee recommends
that the Department provide substantial and detailed
documentation to the congressional defense committees 30 days
prior to the execution of a contract. The committee will
require that a compelling case be made before it will accept a
proposal of the scope currently being proposed. The committee
believes that the Department should assess the cost and the
need to construct two low-level waste treatment facilities that
will for all practical purposes be performing identical
functions. The committee recommends that the Department
evaluate very carefully the long term advantages and the
disadvantages of privatization to the United States, the State
of Washington, the stakeholders and the contractor or
contractors before it renews its proposal to seek private
sector financing for an activity this complex and this
expensive.
As noted above, the committee remains concerned that many
of the Department's projects have been mismanaged, leading to
cost overruns, delays, and in some cases, project failures. The
committee believes that the Department's excessive red tape,
bureaucracy, and an unclear chain of command make it difficult
if not impossible to manage a large complex project like the
one at Hanford. Regardless of the ultimate method chosen for
financing this project, the committee believes that the
Department should immediately seek to correct these basic
management deficiencies.
Program Direction for Defense Programs
The budget request contained $303.5 million for the program
direction function within the office of Defense Programs. The
committee recommends $208.5 million, a reduction of $95.0
million. Program direction provides funds for all federal
personnel-related expenses, capital equipment, travel, outside
contractual services, and the community assistance program at
Los Alamos. The committee further recommends that this
reduction be obtained by reducing support services, training
and other related expenses by $70.0 million. The committee
recommends that the remaining reductions be obtained by
reducing federal employment, including salaries and travel
costs, by 15 percent or $25.0 million.
Recurring General Provision Relating to Availability of Funds
The committee does not recommend the inclusion of a
provision which would provide that amounts authorized to the
Department of Energy for operating expenses or for plant and
capital equipment remain available until expended. This change
is consistent with the approach adopted by the committee with
respect to Department of Defense authorization and
appropriations accounts. This change would allow greater
financial accountability and would allow a better analysis of
uncosted balances carried over in future fiscal years.
Stockpile Life Extension Program at Y-12 Plant
The budget request contained $1.8 billion for core
stockpile management. Within this program, the committee
recommends an additional $35.0 million for the stockpile life
extension program. Recent risk reduction analysis has indicated
a need for additional funding in fiscal year 1998 to support
near-term W87 workload activities at DOE's Y-12 plant and to
provide additional resources at that plant for future stockpile
extension activities.
Technology Transfer
The budget request contained $60.0 million for technology
transfer. The committee recommends $52.5 million, a reduction
of $7.5 million from the amount requested. Funding is not
provided for projects under the program entitled ``Partnership
for a New Generation of Vehicles.'' The committee believes
that, if this program is meritorious, funding in future years
should be requested within other non-defense programs of the
Department of Energy. Of the remaining amount made available
for technology transfer, the committee recommends $10.0 million
for the American Textiles Partnership project, an increase of
$4.5 million above the amount requested for this activity.
Transfer of Funds Associated with Security at Rocky Flats Site and the
Fernald Site
The committee, as noted above, in the discussion on the
Defense Environmental Management Program recommends
transferring $45.2 million from the operations and maintenance
account within the stockpile management program to the closure
fund. The transfer of $45.2 million represents the costs
associated with the provision of security at the Rocky Flats
site and the Fernald site. The committee understands that the
Department has no objection to this transfer from the stockpile
management account. The committee believes that this
consolidation of all activities and the costs associated with
those activities will provide greater control and
accountability. The committee also believes that this transfer
more accurately reflects the programmatic responsibility for
those costs and the provision of those activities. The
committee believes those costs should be borne by the
environmental restoration and waste management program. The
committee urges the Department to assess other areas and costs
which are not clearly related to the weapons activities
accounts and to consider a realignment in the fiscal 1999
budget request.
Tritium Production
The committee continues to support the Department of
Energy's dual-track strategy for determining the most reliable
and cost-effective method for the production of tritium for
national security, however, it did not receive the
Administration's proposal for legislative changes to certain
underlying statutory provisions affecting tritium production
until after the conclusion of the hearing process on the
Department's annual authorization. These proposed changes are
significant and, in some cases, seek to address issues such as
the sale of power generated from commercial tritium production
facilities which may involve matters within the jurisdiction of
another committee. The committee will seek to address these
technical, policy and jurisdictional issues during the
remainder of this Congress.
Worker and Community Transition
The budget request contained $70.5 million for Worker and
Community Transition. The committee recommends $22.0 million.
The committee further recommends that this program be
terminated at the end of fiscal year 1999.
The worker and community transition program was created
pursuant to section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484). This Act
established requirements and objectives to guide the Department
in its efforts to restructure the private contractor workforce
following the end of the cold war. The build-up in contractor
employment within the Department, especially across the defense
nuclear weapons complex, accelerated during the late 1980s and
reached its peak at the end of fiscal year 1992, when the
Department employed over 148,000 contractor employees. With the
end of the cold war, the Department recognized that the weapons
production mission would need to be reduced and that its
primary mission would shift toward environmental management.
Section 3161 was designed to minimize the impacts on workers
and communities during this transition.
Since the enactment of section 3161, the Department has
spent over $609.0 million to provide benefits to contractor
employees separated in workforce restructuring and downsizing
efforts. In addition, approximately $150.0 million has been
provided to communities affected by the downsizing. Payments to
displaced workers took the form of enhanced severance payments,
relocation allowances, educational benefits, and enhanced
retirement benefits.
The committee recommends that the provisions contained in
section 3161 be phased out by the end of fiscal year 1999. This
recommendation is based on a number of factors. First, most of
the separations have now occurred. At the end of fiscal year
1998, the DOE contractor employment levels will be at 100,000.
Second, with DOE's movement to fixed price contracts,
administration and determination of employment levels will be
within the purview of the contractor, not the government.
Third, much of the upcoming work will be dictated by
environmental compliance agreements and not by nuclear weapons
production demands. Separations that occur to a large extent in
the future will have nothing to do with the end of the cold
war. However, if the weapons complex requires a similar or
significant downsizing at some point in the future, Congress
can, at that time, develop remedies appropriate to those
situations. Fourth, the program has come under significant
scrutiny by the DOE Inspector General and the U.S. General
Accounting Office (GAO) for questionable payments and
ineffective administration. For example, the Inspector General
reported that during the first restructuring at the Fernald
weapons plant, of the 255 separations effective in fiscal year
1994, all but 14 of the positions had been refilled within one
year by either previous employees or ones with similar skills--
a 95 percent rehire rate. Moreover, the 255 separated employees
were provided severance payments based on their length of
service, medical benefits, outplacement support, and retirement
benefits at a cost of $2.9 million. Similarly, a subsequent
restructuring plan for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 was uncovered
by the Inspector General at that same site. Had it not been
stopped, it would have cost an additional $12.9 million for
workforce restructuring that would have provided little or no
benefit to the Department. Audits of worker and community
transition programs at DOE sites at Mound, Pinellas, Oak Ridge,
and Rocky Flats, and Las Vegas likewise revealed questionable
or unnecessary expenditures.
In addition, a recent GAO report found that the benefits
paid to these private sector workers varied widely from site to
site and virtually always exceeded payments available to
federal workers. The committee notes that similar programs are
not available to private contractor employees who lose their
jobs when defense facilities like shipyards or aircraft
manufacturers downsize. While the committee is sympathetic to
any contract worker who is displaced, it believes that this
program has largely met its original goal of minimizing the
effects of post-cold war downsizing on workers and local
communities through expenditures exceeding $750.0 million.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorization
Section 3101--Weapons Activities
This section would authorize DOE weapons activity funding
for fiscal year 1998.
Section 3102--Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
This section would authorize funds for DOE defense
environmental restoration and waste management activities for
fiscal year 1998.
Section 3103--Other Defense Activities
This section would authorize funds for DOE other defense
activities for fiscal year 1998.
Section 3104--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
This section would authorize funds for defense nuclear
waste disposal activities of the Department for fiscal year
1998.
Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions
Section 3121--Reprogramming
This section would prohibit the reprogramming of funds in
excess of 102 percent of the amount authorized for the program,
or in excess of $1.0 million above the amount authorized for
the program until the Secretary of Energy has notified the
congressional defense committees and a period of 30 calendar
days has elapsed after the date on which the notification is
received.
Section 3122--Limits on General Plant Projects
This section would limit the initiation of ``general plant
projects'' authorized by the bill if the current estimated cost
for any project exceeds $2.0 million. However, if the Secretary
of Energy finds that the estimated cost of any project will
exceed $2.0 million, the congressional defense committees must
be notified of the reasons for the cost variation. The
committee notes that the Department was required pursuant to
the provisions of section 3122 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) to
submit a report to support increasing the threshold for general
plant projects. The committee has not received that report and
has accordingly not been able to consider the Department's
views.
Section 3123--Limits on Construction Projects
This section would permit any construction project to be
initiated and continued only if the estimated cost for the
project does not exceed 125 percent of the higher of: (1) the
amount authorized for the project, or (2) the most recent total
estimated cost presented to the Congress as justification for
such project. To exceed such limits, the Secretary of Energy
must report in detail to the congressional defense committees
and the report must be before the committees for 30 legislative
days. This section would also specify that the 125 percent
limitation would not apply to projects estimated to cost under
$5.0 million.
Section 3124--Fund Transfer Authority
This section would permit funds authorized by the bill to
be transferred to other agencies of the government for
performance of work for which the funds were authorized and
appropriated. The provision would permit the merger of such
funds with the authorizations of the agency to which they are
transferred. This section would also limit to no more than five
percent the amount of funds that may be transferred between
accounts in the Department of Energy that were authorized
pursuant to this act.
Section 3125--Authority for Conceptual and Construction Design
This section would limit the Secretary of Energy's
authority to request construction funding until the Secretary
has certified a conceptual design has been completed, except in
the case of emergencies.
Section 3126--Authority for Emergency Planning, Design and Construction
Activities
This section would permit, in addition to any advance
planning and construction design otherwise authorized by the
bill, the Secretary of Energy to perform planning and design
utilizing available funds for any Department of Energy national
security program construction project whenever the Secretary
determines that the design must proceed expeditiously to
protect the public health and safety, to meet the needs of
national defense, or to protect property.
Section 3127--Funds Available for all National Security Programs of the
Department of Energy
This section would authorize, subject to section 3121 of
this bill, amounts for management and support activities and
for general plant projects to be made available for use, when
necessary, in connection with all national security programs of
the Department of Energy.
Section 3128--Authority Relating to Transfer of Defense Environmental
Management Funds
This section would provide the manager of each field
office of the Department of Energy with the limited authority
to transfer defense environmental management funds from a
program or project under the jurisdiction of the office to
another such program or project.
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
Section 3131--Ballistic Missile Defense National Laboratory Program
This section would establish a program within the DOE
weapons laboratories for the purpose of assisting the
Department of Defense in the testing and development of a
ballistic missile defense program.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Section 3141--Plan for Stewardship, Management, and Certification of
Warheads in the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to
report annually on the Department's plan for the Stockpile
Stewardship and Management Program. This report would be
submitted in both a classified and unclassified form and
provided in lieu of a number of other reporting requirements
which have become redundant. The report required by this
section is a consolidation of previous reporting requirements.
Section 3142--Repeal of Obsolete Reporting Requirement
This section would repeal a number of obsolete reporting
requirements.
Section 3143--Revisions to Defense Nuclear Facilities Workforce
Restructuring Plan Requirements
This section would modify and repeal selected provisions of
section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484). Section 3161 provided
authority to the Secretary of Energy to make severance payments
to private contractor employees whose positions were being
eliminated as the result of the end of the cold war and the
downsizing of the nuclear weapons complex. This provision also
granted authority to the Secretary to make grants to
communities which had been affected by the downsizing. The
modifications to section 3161 would eliminate the authority of
the Department to make assistance grants effective upon
enactment, and would eliminate the authority to make severance
payments after September 30, 1999. The modifications to section
3161 would also make it clear that this section does not apply
to federal employees.
Section 3144--Extension of Authority for Appointment of Certain
Scientific, Engineering, and Technical Personnel
This section would extend the authority of the Secretary of
Energy to appoint certain scientific, engineering, and
technical personnel to positions within the Department without
regard to the provisions governing the appointments in the
competitive service, classification schedules, and pay rates
contained in title 5, United States Code.
Section 3145--Report on Proposed Contract for Hanford Tank Waste
Vitrification Project
This section would require prior notice to the
congressional defense committees before entering into a
contract for the Hanford tank waste vitrification project. The
section would also require the submission of a detailed report
describing the activities to be carried out under the contract,
a description of the contractual and financial aspects of the
contract, and an analysis of the cost to the United States of
the proposed contract over the life of the project.
Section 3146--Limitation on Conduct of Subcritical Nuclear Weapons
Tests
This section would require the submission of a detailed
report on the manner in which funds available to the Secretary
for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 to conduct subcritical tests
were used. The committee has authorized over $100.0 million for
the conduct of these tests during this and the previous fiscal
year. At the present time, despite substantial support by this
committee for the conduct of such tests, no such tests have
occurred. The Department has again requested substantial
additional sums for fiscal year 1998 for the conduct of such
tests and there are indications that the funds contained in the
budget request may be insufficient to perform the planned
activities. While the committee strongly supports these tests,
it is concerned that over $100.0 million has apparently been
spent without a single test having been completed. The
committee is aware that the costs for the actual tests may be a
relatively small part of the overall costs of this program,
however it is concerned that the Department has potentially
utilized the amounts authorized for the subcritical tests on
other activities. Therefore, the committee expects this report
to detail by site and by detailed line activities, the
expenditures attributable to this program and to submit this
report prior to utilizing funds authorized for fiscal year
1998.
Section 3147--Limitation on Use of Certain Funds Until Future Use Plans
are Submitted
This section would limit the ability of the Secretary of
Energy to spend funds authorized for the office of Policy and
Management within the Defense Environmental Management program
until the draft future use plans and the final future use plans
required under section 3153 (f) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) are
submitted. The committee understands that the Department has
yet to initiate a program that would allow for the timely
compliance with this requirement. The committee remains
concerned that many of the reportingrequirements are not being
completed on time and hopes this action will encourage the adherence to
the statutory deadlines.
Section 3148--Plan for External Oversight of National Laboratories
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to
develop a plan for the external oversight of the national
laboratories. The plan would provide for the establishment of
an external oversight committee comprised of representatives of
industry and academia for the purpose of making recommendations
to the Secretary of Energy and to the congressional defense
committees on the productivity of the laboratories and on the
excellence, relevance, and appropriateness of the research
conducted at the laboratories. The plan also would provide for
the establishment of a competitive peer review process for
funding basic research at the laboratories.
Section 3149--University-Based Research Center
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to
establish a university-based research center to coordinate the
collaboration among national laboratories, universities and
industry in support of scientific and engineering advancement
in key Department of Energy defense program areas.
Section 3150--Stockpile Stewardship Program
This section would provide that, as a matter of U.S.
policy, the stockpile stewardship program shall be conducted
consistent with U.S. national security requirements and in
conformity with the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty when and if that treaty enters
into force. The stockpile stewardship and management program
has been undertaken to ensure the safety, security,
effectiveness, and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons
stockpile.
Section 3151--Reports on Advanced Supercomputer Sales to Certain
Foreign Nations
This section would require companies that participate in
the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) of the
Department of Energy to report each sale of computers that
operate at a speed of over 2,000,000 theoretical operations per
second (MTOPS) to countries designated as Tier III countries.
The ASCI contractor would be required to submit these reports
to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy on a
quarterly basis. On an annual basis, the Secretary of Energy
would be required to report to Congress on all computer sales
reported by ASCI companies under this provision during the
previous year.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD AUTHORIZATION
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3201--Authorization
This section would authorize $17.5 million for the
operation of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, as
provided in the budget request.
Section 3202--Plan for Transfer of Functions of Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board to Nuclear Regulatory Commission
This section would require the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board (DNFSB) to develop a plan, in consultation with
the Secretary of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), for the transfer the DNSFB's functions to the NRC.
.............
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF JOHN SPRATT
I support most aspects of this legislation and will vote
for it, but I disagree with the diversion of $2.6 billion in
budget authority from the Department of Energy (budget
subfunction 053) to the Department of Defense (budget
subfunction 051). I agree with OMB Director Frank Raines, who
wrote the following to the Chairman of the House National
Security Committee prior to committee mark-up:
The Administration does not support reducing funds
from DOE (subfunction 053) accounts below the
President's 1998 budget request or allocating these
funds to DOD programs. This would be inconsistent with
our understanding of the Budget Agreement reached with
the Congressional leadership.
Of the $2.6 billion diverted, $1.5 billion was designated
to start a ``full funding'' policy of major Department of
Energy (DOE) capital investments. ``Full funding'' simply means
that Congress provides sufficient budget authority to cover the
entire estimated procurement cost of major capital investments
in one year, rather than paying for the project over a period
of years (``incremental funding''). In essence, the DOE was
``banking'' funds needed for large projects, most of which were
for the Stockpile Stewardship program (which ensures the safety
and reliability of our nuclear weapon stockpile) and for
environmental clean-up of sites contaminated by radioactive
waste.
The committee also slashed $936 million from the DOE's
$1.006 billion request to ``privatize'' portions of its
environmental clean-up program. The DOE wants private companies
to build facilities to treat hazardous radioactive waste. In
exchange, the DOE will guarantee that it will pay for the
treatment of the waste at a set price per unit of treated
waste. By law, an agency cannot enter into a contract without
having the budget authority to fully cover the costs of the
contract, so the DOE needs to have the budget authority now in
order to commit to paying for treatment of waste years from
now.
I am not sold yet on DOE's privatization policy, and the
committee may be wise in postponing this policy. But I am sold
on the need to clean up DOE's nuclear weapons facilities, and
whether the clean-up is financed through direct appropriations
or by privatizing some projects, there is a need for
environmental funding. The simple fact is that the committee
diverted these funds to the Department of Defense (DOD) and
created a $936 million hole in the DOE's five-year
environmental clean-up plan. It would have been more prudent to
fence the money, to prohibit DOE from spending it until we are
convinced of the merits of privatization. If the committee
remained unconvinced, Congress could then direct that the funds
be used to clean-up our nuclear weapon sites in more
traditional ways. Diverting the funding to DOD has effectively
cut nearly $1 billion from a sorely needed program.
The committee's actions have created a $2.6 billion
shortfall in the DOE's planned activities over the next five
years. In prior years, this shortfall could have been overcome
by re-adjusting future budget requests. But under the
bipartisan budget agreement, function levels for discretionary
spending have been established for the next five years. The DOE
will be hard-pressed to replace this loss of funding since it
will either mean retrieving the money from future DOD budgets,
or adding funding from other budget functions to the 050
function and violating the budget agreement. This problem is
exacerbated since the $2.6 billion diversion fromDOE to DOD
went into procurement items that will generate future DOD costs, making
it even harder to retrieve the funding from future DOD budgets.
I do not believe that we fully thought through the
implications for environmental clean-up or nuclear weapons,
particularly stockpile stewardship, when we decided to divert
this funding. While I support the overall bill, I hope these
issues will be revisited during the House-Senate conference.
Other important programs at DOE received cuts that seem
unwarranted. The Office Worker and Community Transition was
established by Congress in the early 1990s to ease the impact
of worker layoffs at DOE sites.
.............
John Spratt.
.............
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
