include developing, coordinating, and implementing policies, standards, and guidance related to aviation, maritime, rail, highway, pipeline, and hazardous materials safety. This program performs evaluations and analyses of safety analysis reports for packaging and provides external coordination between the Department and other governmental, commercial, and international bodies regarding transportation safety and packaging certification. The program participates in the development of transportation safety and packaging standards by national and international organizations, and coordinates within the Department all matters pertaining to hazardous materials package certification and transportation safety. For FY 1999, the requested amount is $3,884,000. This is $764,000 less than for FY 1998. 3. Pollution Prevention The Office of Pollution Prevention coordinates pollution prevention program activities for the entire Department and provides non-defense resources to DOE's Oakland Operations Office, Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), and Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC). Its mission is to reduce the generation of all waste streams in order to minimize the impact of the Department's operations on the environment, reduce operational costs, and improve the safety and health of its operations. The DOE Oakland Operations Office independently manages pollution prevention programs at its reporting sites. The Pollution Prevention program is part of the Office of Environmental Management's ongoing efforts to reduce waste generation by the Department and enhance efficiency through cost reduction. Existing waste reduction goals for the Department are reflected in the draft Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure, and a performance measure for waste reduction from environmental restoration and stabilization program activities is being finalized. The FY 1999 pollution prevention budget will continue to fund operations/field office programs to reduce the waste from routine operations at DOE sites. Specifically, the Secretary of Energy established the following DOE-wide goals to be achieved by December 31, 1999: Reduce by 50 percent the generation of radioactive waste Reduce by 50 percent the generation of hazardous waste Reduce by 50 percent the generation of low-level mixed waste Reduce by 33 percent the generation of sanitary waste Recycle 33 percent of sanitary waste from all operations Increase procurement of Environmental Protection Agency designated recycled products to 100 percent, except where they are not commercially available at a reasonable price or do not meet performance standards James M. Owendoff was named Acting Assistant Secretary for the Environmental Management (EM) program at the U.S. Department of Energy on January 30, 1998. This $6 billion program is responsible for the overall management, technology development, environmental restoration, waste management and nuclear material stabilization and facility decontamination for approximately 80 sites that are located throughout the United States. These sites and associated cleanup challenges result from more than five decades of nuclear weapons design, development, testing and production dating back to the original Manhattan Project. Mr. Owendoff brings the right set of skills to help the Department meet its goals of accelerating the clean up work at the Department's sites and deal with extremely high expectations from Congress and the public. Jim arrived at the Department of Energy in 1995 and served as Deputy Assistant Prior to joining the Department, Jim served in the Office of the Deputy Under Jim is married to the former Marilyn Miller of Phoenix, Arizona. They have two sons (Nate and John) and currently reside in Annandale, Virginia. Printed with soy ink on recycled paper Mr. ROEMER. You will be invited up very soon. [Laughter.] THE PCAST REPORT AND DOE'S REQUEST FOR FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES Chairman CALVERT. I'll start off with the questioning. First, Dr. Krebs, throughout the DOE budget, credit is given to the PCAST report for increased efforts in scientific research programs. Yet, when it comes to fusion energy, PCAST is ignored. The PCAST report agrees with the almost unanimous view of the scientific community working in this field that $250 million is the required level of funding for a viable program. In a budget that accommodates hundreds of millions of dollars in additional program funding, why are you not including an additional $20 million for fusion? Ms. KREBS. In the development of any budget, there are lots of discussions that go back and forth between OMB and the Department, within the Department. I think it is also fair to note that PCAST recommended a great deal more funding than, in fact, is represented in this budget for other programs within the Department as well. As result of all of this process, we made every effort to maintain the budget at a level which we believe is consistent with maintaining, first, the health of the community that is carrying out this program, and then, in addition, we believe that this budget will also allow us to continue to do the restructuring of the fusion program from a technology-focused one to a science-focused program. COMPETITION BETWEEN DOE'S BASIC RESEARCH PROGRAMS AND WATER PROJECTS Chairman CALVERT. Dr. Krebs, in your testimony you say that more money for the scientific user facilities is available because the budget added-funding for the neutron source is added on the base budget. However, in the appropriations process this funding is tied to funding for water projects, which is squeezed down by the Administration. At the same time, massive increases are requested for renewable energy and energy-efficiency programs. If the appropriations cannot come up with all this extra money, aren't we likely to wind up with a big construction project and less money for basic research? Ms. KREBS. I think that—I simply can't speculate at this particular time. The discussions with the Appropriations Committees have only just begun. The extent to which they are likely to fund a new construction project at the expense of ongoing research is something that you may have better insight into than I Chairman CALVERT. Well, I just point that out. It's also competing against some water projects, and the history around this place, water projects tend to have a little more level of funding than certain science projects. Ms. KREBS. I worry about it. Chairman CALVERT. So we could have a little bit of a problem here, don't you agree? Ms. KREBS. I worry about it. OPERATING FUNDS FOR RESEARCH FACILITIES Chairman CALVERT. Dr. Krebs, fairly or unfairly, the Department of Energy has often been cited for spending large sums on new facilities, but starving them for operating money, once they're built. How would you characterize the ability of researchers to take advantage of our large user facilities today, and what performance goals do you have in this area? In other words, is there any plan to move toward an optimum level for use of these facilities in the future? Ms. KREBS. Well, let me answer that a little more discursively. In the 1996 budget, we proposed $100 million initiative to increase the utilization of these unique scientific facilities. That initiative included not only funding operating dollars for increasing the time and capacity of the facilities themselves, it also provided funding that would allow us to initiate new research that would take advantage of this improved capability. Over the last 2 years, as our funding was essentially held constant, what has happened is that we've maintained availability, but the improving capacity, capability, and productivity, we've not kept pace. In the 1999 continuation of this initiative, we're providing an additional $85 million for these facilities. Obviously, in the best of all possible worlds, we could usefully use additional funds. Obviously, our advisory committees have given us a list of priorities that is larger than what we have funded, but I believe that we've made some very tough choices that are basically consistent with their priorities. The optimum use of these facilities changes with time, depending on the opportunity, as identified by the community, and with the age of the facilities that we have. Chairman CALVERT. I just might point out, I think the optimum level of these facilities hasn't been used in some time. With that, I'll pass it on to Mr. Roemer. Mr. ROEMER. I thank the Chairman. Mr. Owendoff, we are so grateful for your succinct testimony. Are there any questions you would like to ask us? [Laughter.] FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES FUNDING Mr. ROEMER. All right. Dr. Krebs, my first question is not a question, since the Chairman probably more articulately stated it than I could; it's more just to associate myself with his concerns about the funding level in the fusion program. Both the PCAST recommendations and the Department of Energy Fusion Advisory Committee recommendations with the $20 million, and that we currently have a $1 million cut, rather than a $20 million increase. I'm hopeful that you're willing to work with the Committee. I know that you want to do a lot with this budget. You want to do a lot of science and research and development, but there are a number of us that are concerned about that fusion funding level. IMPLEMENTATION OF GALVIN REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. ROEMER. On a different note, I've asked you in the past about how you have, in your role in the management and the progress on the federal labs, how you have implemented the Galvin |