EM BudgetPastPresentFuture

1
EM Budget---Past/Present/Future

• Mark W. Frei
• U.S. Department of Energy
• October 14, 2005

2
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

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/DD activities
4
Present Request vs. Marks
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

6
Present Budget Structure
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

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
• DD facilities no longer needed
• Continue to remediate the soil and groundwater
  contamination
• Fund post-closure benefits and liability
  requirements
• Finish several sites by 2011

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 DD 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

10
Future Changing Landscape

• ASSUMPTION No new mission requirements or
  responsibilities
• Plutonium Vitrification Facility at Savannah
  River
• Future liabilities scope
• DD of Portsmouth and Paducah gaseous diffusion
  plants
• DD of additional facilities at Oak Ridge
• DD 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 DD (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
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