Our growth has consisted of $288 million just to take care of the additional production workload, and we've got an increase of $68 million to enhance the RD&T. There's a $51 million increase in the facilities restoration budget and $44 million on continued construction projects that were authorized in fiscal year 1984 and earlier. For safeguards and security, there's a total increase from the base 1984 budget of $121 million. There's an increase in environmental protection of $77 million; $80 million for the strategic defense initiative. The materials production initiatives budget is $180 million, $90 to $100 million of which we believe we can reduce and not materially affect it. The other increase is some $281 million for inflation, [deleted].

Senator ABDNOR. I want you gentlemen to know one thing, I've been a pretty good supporter. I'm not out trying to make cuts, but there are those who are very interested in it, and it's very apparent to me that there is going to be, and I don't suppose anyone knows quite where the ax is going to fall. I don't know who made the decision to accept the cut, but it sounds like that has been done, so you might be in for a surprise, too, before they get through, here. I assume, and I'll tell you, instead of asking you, that they have to make a lot of cuts. I mean, I don't know how many billion we're talking about, but somewhere in the range of 71⁄2 to 131⁄2 percent or something like that, so, that's going to be a pretty sizable amount. I'm sure you people must

Dr. WAGNER. On the DOD side, of course, the cut is down to $290 billion.

Senator ABDNOR. Do you think that's where it's all going to come from, then?

Dr. WAGNER. And, if in meeting that, the Department of Defense chooses to cut back on some nuclear weapon systems, then there will be commensurate savings on the DOE side. The cut beyond that, I would argue, could turn out to be a false economy, because what it would do is increase the risk to the programs, and therefore, the risk-they're going to have to come back and spend more money to rectify mistakes later on.

General HOOVER. I'd like to make a comment, if I might, sir, and it goes back to the fact that the weapons complex in the Department of Energy is a [deleted]. It's not like we would be cutting back in a marginal sense on an industrial base across the country. It's not like the aircraft industry, for example. If there were some cutbacks in specific aircraft systems by the Department of Defense, you would affect certain producers, but you would still have the capability. When you cut back on the nuclear weapons complex, it's a unique, single-line infrastructure. There's no other place to go if you need to restart quickly and, therefore, I think it's very dangerous to just tar us with the same brush a certain percentage cut-just because it's labeled defense programs. That's what concerns me.

Senator ABDNOR. Well, I think those are good points to make, and probably it's good to have it for the record, because those points, I'm sure, will have to be taken into consideration when decisions are made.

This committee, if it comes to that, will have to make the cuts. They'll have to do it depending on the Budget Committee-and the final budget resolution.

MX MISSILES

If we limit the number of MX missiles in fiscal year 1985, what will be the savings in the DOE warhead program?

General HOOVER. In fiscal year 1985, sir, there will be no savings in the Department of Energy's budget request. We are already committed to produce the number of warheads to support 10 MX missiles for their initial operating capability. The construction funds requested in the fiscal year 1985 budget and the operating funds for procurement of bits and pieces and manpower to support those production efforts basically will support those MX missiles which have already been funded in the Department of Defense. So, any cutback in this year's Department of Defense MX missile buy may affect out-year funding needs of the Department of Energy. If the Department of Energy were cut, it would affect our capabilities to deliver the warheads for the missiles that have already been authorized and appropriated for procurement within the Department of Defense.

Senator ABDNOR. In other words, you're saying the MX can be reviewed for cuts in 1986 or 1987, maybe, but not 1985. But, again, if we're going to make cuts, and if there are cuts within Defense, you say it can't be made in this area and it can't be made in MX in 1985. But certainly I don't think any of us want to start cutting back on the salaries and wages which make up 47 to 48 percent of the Defense budget. Where do we go to make these cuts? I mean, we've got to talk about 1985. That's what they're telling us.

Mr. MORGAN. But, within the supporting process that we have, we've looked at the area of potential cuts and have identified about $100 million that we could cut in material production [deleted]. We're looking at a different loading of the reactors, but we strongly believe that cuts below that would affect the deliveries that we are required to meet for DOD. Now, if the cuts within the DOD changes in weapon systems, then, of course, we would look at those in a different light. I don't believe that it's our process to tell the DOD what to cut on the defense activities.

Dr. WAGNER. Sir, you chose one example that, just by accident, turns out to be a place where a DOD cut would not reflect in a DOE cut. There might be some other areas. For instance-to pick one at random-I don't know whether DOD will do this-if one were to delay production of the B-1 bomber, I could imagine slowing down production on some of the bombs-the new bomb that's being developed partly for the B-1. So, there are some areas where DOD cuts would have transfer to DOE cuts, but the MX is not one of them.

Senator ABDNOR. Good points, because it's awfully easy to talk about where we ought to go make these great reductions. You know, every time you talk about cutting back on deficits, we have a tendency to look at defense, and it's not that simple, either. Just to start whacking

out great hunks without a lot of thought behind it. I assume whoever came up with the proposed cuts of the administration must have paid some attention to this.

Dr. WAGNER. We are, of course, in defense, looking hard to come up with exactly what those cuts will be, and I think we will try to take overall DOD-DOE savings into account when they do that, but the DOE is a kind of a small fraction of the DOD-total national security budget. So, looking at this program, for much in the way of savings, I don't think it's not likely to come from theirs.

Senator ABDNOR. Once again, what is your budget request for fiscal 1985?

Mr. MORGAN. Our budget total is $7.3 billion in 1985.

Senator ABDNOR. And how does that compare to last year's level?

Mr. MORGAN. Up about $1 billion, and that's all those incremental items that I mentioned, are the reason for those increases that we had. Inflation, increased production requirements, increased material requirements, safety environment, and revitalization of the program, and we believe those are legitimate requests in increase, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ABDNOR. Yours is a small part of the total DOD function. Mr. MORGAN. The weapons-on the nuclear weapons systems, we believe that we are approximately 15 percent of the total system. In other words, just on the nuclear weapons systems-that our budget is approximately 15 percent of the total.

DEFENSE WASTE AND BY PRODUCTS MANAGEMENT

Senator ABDNOR. You were talking a minute ago who was it, Dr. Gilbert-on waste, was it? Nuclear waste?

Dr. GILBERT. Waste isolation pilot plant. We were discussing it with Senator Domenici, yes, sir.

Senator ABDNOR. I guess I missed most of that, but that should be no problem? On either or both in liquid or solids?

Dr. GILBERT. No, sir, I wouldn't characterize it as being a problem. We have a major backlog of nuclear wastes from about 30 to 40 years of the atomic energy defense activities that we have to dispose of. We have liquid wastes at Richland and Savannah River and solid wastes at Idaho. We have a plan to essentially dispose of those wastes. That plan was submitted by the President to the Congress in June of last year and .we are following that plan essentially on schedule.

DEFENSE WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

DEFENSE WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

DISPOSAL POLICY

-READILY RETRIEVABLE WASTE TO GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL -ALL OTHER TO BE RETRIEVED IF BENEFITS JUSTIFY COSTS AND RISKS

-OTHERWISE: STABILIZE IN PLACE

-RETRIEVED TRU WILL BE MADE ACCEPTABLE TO WIPP -IMMOBILIZED HIGH LEVEL WASTE TO COMMERCIAL

REPOSITORY BARRING ADVERSE IMPACTS ON DEFENSE PROGRAMS

Dr. GILBERT. Among the major features of that plan is the waste isolation pilot plant in New Mexico, which is intended as a repository for our transuranic wastes, which are mostly plutonium contaminated waste. The high-level waste we plan to vitrify-make it into glass at Savannah River. We will have a vitrification facility which is intended to cast the high-level waste into glass logs which will be stored at Savannah River pending the availability of a geologic repository for high-level waste. The mechanism for getting that repository was established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which Congress passed in 1982. So we have a plan and a program, and we are going ahead with defense waste disposal. We think that, in that sense, we are way ahead of the civil side of the house, but we have a long way to go.

Senator ABDNOR. You are ahead on the civilian side?

Dr. GILBERT. In the sense that we have facilities already started, yes, sir.

Senator ABDNOR. Are they benefitting from your experiences?

Dr. GILBERT. We think they are, and we have offered to share everything we have with them, and they are participating with us in that.

Mr. MORGAN. We will be conducting high-level waste experiments at the WIPP facility, and in effect, sharing that with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act activity, sir.

Senator ABDNOR. That's good, because that's a big issue in a couple of States, and all parts of the country, I guess. I ran into it in South Dakota. It got to be the biggest single issue, I think, almost in our legislature this year-establishing a facility.

Please proceed.

NUCLEAR MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS

Dr. GILBERT. If I may, I have picked out a few of Mr. Morgan's slides that he didn't use, but I'll start with one that he did use. [Chart.] I'm not sure whether you were in the room. [Deleted.] We have enough uranium right now to meet our demands; [deleted].

[Deleted.]

[Deleted.] Right now, we need to restart an old facility that we have at Oak Ridge, and we do have a request for $4.9 million in the fiscal year 1984 supplemental to restore that facility which hasn't been operated for about 20 years. That's the only near-term budget impact of the uranium requirement.

MATERIALS PRODUCTION

The budget request for 1985 for materials production is $1.8 billion.

NUCLEAR MATERIALS PRODUCTION

FY 1985 BUDGET REQUEST-BUDGET SUMMARY

Dr. GILBERT. I'm not going to go into all of these, but I do want to emphasize a few things. Back in 1981, [deleted] we did several things. We initiated a project to restart a reactor at Savannah River. That reactor is now ready to go pending completion of an environmental impact