DOE Appropriations Hearing Focuses on SNS Construction

“Everybody thinks [the SNS] is a great tool for science. I hope you don’t mess it up!” Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Chairman Pete Domenici

On April 13, Chairman Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico) and members of the Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee heard from Martha Krebs, Director of DOE’s Office of Science, and other DOE officials, on their FY 2000 budget requests. The appropriators were non-committal about the requests, and gave no indication of what programs they might single out for cuts. Domenici, who also chairs the Senate Budget Committee, made no mention of his budget resolution (see FYI #68 ), which was just passed by both House and Senate this week, nor of the resulting reductions that will have to be made to discretionary spending to stay within the budget caps.

Much of the discussion revolved around programs outside the Office of Science. Domenici asked a series of detailed questions on nuclear energy programs, while Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota) praised the department’s wind energy efforts and Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) asked about solar energy and Earthquake research. Reid, while acknowledging the importance of science to U.S. leadership, said DOE’s science programs would have to compete with other subcommittee priorities. Many people, he said, “seem to see science as a luxury...that can be reduced or abandoned.” He warned that science programs were “very difficult to fund,” and called on DOE to help demonstrate their relevance.

Domenici, who has two DOE weapons labs in his state, is generally thought of as a supporter of the department’s R&D. He had few questions about the majority of Office of Science programs. Most of his questioning of Krebs focused on a recent review criticizing DOE’s management of construction on the Spallation Neutron Source (see FYIs #30 , 45 ).

Krebs defended her office’s budget request and its activities. She stressed the importance of DOE’s support of science, pointing out that the department is second only to NIH in its investment in research, and leads NASA and NSF as the primary supporter of research in physical sciences. Research funded by the Office of Science is also necessary to support the department’s energy and environmental missions, she noted. Additionally, the Office of Science plays a principle role in providing large user facilities to the science community. Krebs highlighted some of the recent progress made in areas funded by her office, such as corrosion- resistant materials, nanostructures, bioremediation of waste, use of Positron Emission Tomography to enhance understanding of addiction and epilepsy, and research into expansion of the universe and neutrino mass. The Office of Science’s $2.8 billion budget request represents an increase of $138 million (or 5 percent) above current funding, she said. Of that request, major increases would go to the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), the Scientific Simulation Initiative for information technology, and the department’s science education efforts.

Regarding management of the SNS, Krebs reported that a January DOE review resulted in “fairly strong criticism,” of the project’s management, which was then confirmed by a GAO report. Krebs’ office took corrective action by choosing a new project director and developing an action plan to get the project back on track, which will be delivered to DOE Under Secretary Ernie Moniz and Members of Congress this week.

Krebs noted that her office was successfully “wrapping up” work on the F-Factory, the Fermilab Main Injector, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, and the Combustion Research Facility. Concluding her testimony, she called the request “a good budget,” and said she believed her office was “managing effectively, although there is room for improvement.”

“It concerns me greatly that we’re in this position” on the SNS, Domenici said. “The Department of Energy doesn’t have the greatest record of getting these projects to completion.” Krebs assured him that “we’re paying a lot of attention to the management” of the SNS. She noted that the difficulties were discovered, and revealed, by DOE’s own internal review process, and that her office took prompt action to deal with them.

Domenici also asked about staffing levels within the Office of Science, the status of the High Flux Beam Reactor (HFBR), and the Bates Laboratory at MIT (see FYI #19 ). Krebs acknowledged that, after several years of downsizing, DOE was short on program officers, with many in the Office of Science approaching retirement. Within the next year, she said, her office will begin to address these issues.

On the issue of the HFBR at Brookhaven National Laboratory, closed due to a tritium leak (see FYI #149, 1997 ), Krebs reported that no decision about restart was necessary by the May- June release of the draft Environmental Impact Statement. A “preferred alternative” to either restart or shut down permanently would be required by the time of the final report in November or December. Krebs added that significant preparation time (of more than a year) would be required regardless of which option was chosen.

Krebs affirmed that DOE had submitted, and she thought OMB had just approved, an amendment to the budget request in order to continue operating the Bates facility through 2004, and complete the BLAST detector. When Domenici asked where the money would come from, Krebs said she would have to see the budget amendment to answer. Domenici commented that Bates “must have some good support,” and asked, “it wouldn’t be the only science facility around that it would be good to find more money for, would it?”

Before adjourning, Domenici asked whether the Office of Science had any other reactor leaks, or construction projects running over budget, or any programs in trouble “that you think the subcommittee ought to know about.” Krebs responded that, other than the SNS, all construction projects were, “to my knowledge, pretty much on schedule and cost,” and because of the open review process, “you hear almost as soon as we do if there are difficulties.” Within the available budget, is DOE “operating our facilities in a safe and optimized way? I can say we are,” she concluded.

Now that the FY 2000 budget resolution, which does not need a presidential signature, has been passed, the next step will be for the House and Senate to divvy up budget allocations to their appropriations subcommittees. This tells the subcommittees how much money they will have to apportion among programs under their jurisdiction. At that point, the actual drafting of the appropriations bills can begin. Some appropriators are hoping that a recalculation of the size of the surplus this summer will open the door to lifting the budget caps before the appropriations cycle is completed.