1 / 11

EM Budget---Past/Present/Future

EM Budget---Past/Present/Future. Mark W. Frei U.S. Department of Energy October 14, 2005. $7.1B. $6.8B. $6.6B. $6.5B. $6.3B. $6.0B. *. *. *. *. *. **. *Congressional Appropriations **Congressional Request. Past – Historic EM Funding. FY 2001-2006

taima
Download Presentation

EM Budget---Past/Present/Future

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EM Budget---Past/Present/Future Mark W. Frei U.S. Department of Energy October 14, 2005

  2. $7.1B $6.8B $6.6B $6.5B $6.3B $6.0B * * * * * ** *Congressional Appropriations **Congressional Request Past – Historic EM Funding FY 2001-2006 • FY 2005 peak year • The FY 2006 request is sufficient to deliver risk reduction and environmental cleanup that is safe for the workers, protective of the environment, and respectful of the taxpayer 2

  3. Past – FY 2005 Appropriations Type of cleanup changes over time – as we resolve urgent risks, EM program will be comprised of lower risk remediation/D&D activities 2

  4. EM FY 2006 Site Request House Mark Senate Mark Carlsbad $ 212,629 $ 212,629 $ 230,629 Idaho 536,999 536,999 549,999 Oak Ridge 469,481 485,581 498,068 Portsmouth/Paducah 419,900 404,900 409,900 Richland 795,830 862,123 795,830 River Protection 928,306 1,051,918 962,699 Savannah River 1,229,082 1,219,082 1,247,082 Post Closure 1,008,589 1,038,589 1,008,589 NNSA & NV Off-Sites 145,545 349,947 353,247 HQ 52,600 52,600 32,600 All Other Sites 166,972 156,972 166,972 Program Direction 230,931 248,816 230,931 S&S 287,223 287,223 287,223 TD&D 21,389 21,389 56,389 D&D Fund 451,000 451,000 451,000 EM Subtotal FY 2006 Budget 6,956,476 7,379,768 7,281,158 UED Fund Offset (451,000) (451,000) (451,000) EM Total FY 2006 Budget $ 6,505,476 $ 6,928,768 $ 6,830,158 Present – Request vs. Marks 3

  5. Present – Potential Issues • Good news: House/Senate marks both higher than EM request • General Issue • Proposed Site Transfers from EM to NNSA • Site-Specific Issues • Mound OU-1 • Savannah River Pu Vit and 3013 CSSC strategy • Idaho Sodium Bearing Waste strategy • Portsmouth Tc-99, GCEP, Building X-7725 • Portsmouth/Paducah DUF6 construction • Moab • Hanford FFTF 4

  6. Present – Budget Structure 5

  7. Future – Strategic Approach to FY 2007-2011 Budget Request • Focus on risk reduction, cleanup and site closure in a safe, cost-effective manner in accordance with existing EM site baselines and projects • Maintain environmentally compliant base program 7

  8. Future – Out Year Priorities Given strategic approach, EM budget request includes funding to meet DOE commitments and reduce risks • Conduct compliant and safe operations • Fully establish the “disposition machine” for radioactive liquid tank waste, special nuclear materials, and spent nuclear fuel • Dispose of transuranic waste and low-level waste • D&D facilities no longer needed • Continue to remediate the soil and groundwater contamination • Fund post-closure benefits and liability requirements • Finish several sites by 2011 8

  9. Future – Changing Landscape EM has successfully implemented an improved acquisition strategy and improved cleanup efficiency, BUT – some basic assumptions have not materialized • ASSUMPTION: Successfully modify agreements with regulators, as appropriate, to support accelerated cleanup strategies • Hanford PFP D&D delayed; accelerated transuranic (TRU) waste retrieval • Limited retrieval of Idaho buried TRU waste • Waste Incidental to Reprocessing (WIR) – 3116 implementation at Idaho and Savannah River; not at Hanford or West Valley • Revised End State at Brookhaven • ASSUMPTION: EM would not be subject to new regulation/ statutes/orders that would constrain accelerated cleanup strategies • Increased Design Basis Threat (DBT) requirements • Initiative 297 (Washington State Cleanup Priorities Act) • Los Alamos National Laboratory Consent Order 9

  10. Future – Changing Landscape • ASSUMPTION: No new mission requirements or responsibilities • Plutonium Vitrification Facility at Savannah River • Future liabilities scope • D&D of Portsmouth and Paducah gaseous diffusion plants • D&D of additional facilities at Oak Ridge • D&D of additional Los Alamos facilities per Consent Order • Funding for Long-Term Stewardship activities • Increased funding for pensions, post-closure responsibilities • Continued storage of High Level Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel awaiting Yucca Mountain repository availability • SEFOR reactor D&D (Energy Policy Act of 2005) • GTCC Waste EIS (Energy Policy Act of 2005) • Moab uranium mill tailings pile and vicinity properties remediation (September 2005 Record of Decision) • Oak Ridge Building 3019 (U233) mission 11

  11. The Bottom Line With funding to date, EM has been successful in focusing on risk reduction and completing cleanup safely For the future, EM is working to secure the needed funding for our evolving mission scope – mindful of important other National priorities 12

More Related