Images de page
PDF
ePub

on the surface this would appear to argue for a decrease in the FY 1987 production and surveillance funding requirement, this is not the case. Given the lead times involved, the FY 1987 request is required to initiate the recovery of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings driven reductions as well as conduct the necessary product/process engineering and tooling design to bring eight systems to first production DELETED

This is, of course, in addition to meeting FY 1987 and FY 1988 delivery requirements.

Question: Please describe the activities being conducted and the funding level for the Marshall Islands in FY 1986 and FY 1987.

Answer: Current FY 1986 activities, funded at the level of $4.5 million, fall into four categories: medical, bioassay, environmental, and logistical support. The medical portion is designed to continue follow-up health care to the 174 members of the exposed population. This includes: (1) two annual ship-supported missions to Majuro, Ebeye, Utirik, and Mejato to examine and treat exposed and control populations; and (2) maintenance of a resident physician, nurse, and lab technician on Kwajalein for follow-up of the exposed population. The bioassay work is performed to verify dose predictions and to ensure that populations are within national and international radiation standards. This includes: (1) whole body counting for the resettled Enewetak population and the Bikinians who resided on Bikini in the 1970's; and (2) plutonium analysis of urine samples.

Environmental efforts focus on sampling the northern Marshalls environment, formulating dose assessments, and maintaining a radiological data base pertaining to the Marshalls. Included here are four ship-supported missions to Bikini to characterize the radiological conditions, to develop methods to reduce or block the uptake of radionuclides in the food chain, and to provide radiological advice relative to atoll resettlement. Lastly, the Department of Energy, through its field operations and support contractor, provide logistical support to the Marshall Islands programs including procurement, transportation, equipment maintenance, chartering of the medical ship, and establishing field camps on Enewetak and Bikini.

The breakdown of the $4.5 million funding for FY 1986 is as follows:

($ in Millions) Medical

$1.2 Bioassay

.5 Environmental 1.5 Logistical

1.3 Total

$4.5

FY 1987 activities and funding are more difficult to predict since the Department of Energy is assigned no direct responsibility in the Compact of Free Association legislation. However, we are prepared to continue activities for which we have the United States expertise--provided funding is made available by the Congress or on a reimbursable basis by another agency or the Government of the Marshall Islands.

Question: List how much is included in the FY 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987 budget for State taxes. Please provide this by site and State.

Answer:

I am pleased to provide the requested data.

(The information follows.)

State Taxes Estimates
(Includes Gross Receipts, Sales/Use, and Property Taxes)

($ in Thousands)

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Total

$18,563 $22,344 $23,700 $27,087

Question: What rate of inflation was assumed in this appropriation in FY 1984, FY 1985, and FY 1986? Please provide the details that form the composite.

Answer: The inflation Information you requested is shown in a table which I would like to insert in the record,

(The information follows.)

Fiscal Year
Appropriation

% Operating
Escalation

% Equipment
Escalation

% Composite
Escalation

1984
1985
1986

7.5%
5.0%
5.0%

7.5% 5.0% 5.0%

7.5% 5.0% 5.0%

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

a/ Unless otherwise noted, the source for data are the FY 1985,

FY 1986, and FY 1987 Congressional Budget Books. b/ The source of these data after FY 1983 is the MA-22 analysis

of Maintenance as gathered from the FIS. The data shown in these columns is for the entire Weapons Program. It is not broken down to the OMA level.

Question: Please provide a table showing the funding for environmental activities for FY 1984 - FY 1987. Please provide this information by location at each site with a brief description of each environmental problem.

Answer: We do not budget for or collect costs for environmental compliance; however, we can provide estimates that show approximate costs for environmental compliance and protection for FY 1984-FY 1987. The following estimates include operating costs, capital equipment costs, and construction line items including general plant projects.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

The major portion of the funding for environmental compliance activities is for routine operating expenses for staff and associated expenses for environmental assessments, site characterization, monitoring, treatment of effluents, and waste management. Following are active line item construction projects to address specific environmental concerns.

Oak Ridge - 84-D-124, Environmental Improvements, includes construction of new facilities and modification of some existing facilities for the handling and treatment of liquid and solid wastes and for the containment or elimination of major pollution sources and hazards.

Oak Ridge - 85-D-121, Air and Water Pollution Control Facilities, will provide facilities for reducing mercury in liquid effluents and for controlling particulate uranium emissions from process stacks.

The two Oak Ridge projects respond to a Memorandum of Understanding between Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Tennessee Department of Health and Environment. The Memorandum of Understanding details the objectives and major actions toward full compliance in areas of existing noncompliance. Failure to meet the objectives could result in legal actions by the State and/or EPA aimed at shutting down certain operations critical to the manufacture of nuclear weapons components at Y-12. Since these operations are not duplicated in the weapons complex, a shutdown would seriously effect the national defense effort.

Albuquerque - 86-D-122, Structural Upgrade of Existing Plutonium Facilities will upgrade the Class 1 plutonium facilities at Rocky Flats which do not meet current wind loading criteria and thereby reduce the risk of catastrophic failure due to natural wind forces.

Albuquerque - 87-D-127, Environmental, Safety, and Health Upgrade will correct numerous deficiencies to the site storm and sanitary water systems at the Mound Plant near Dayton, Ohio. Without this project, Mound will continue to be in violation of its NPDES permit and will not comply with a Consent Order issued by the State of Ohio.

San Francisco - 85-D-102, Tritium Facility Upgrade, will provide safety and monitoring control of tritium facilities at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to reduce tritium releases to the environment.

San Francisco - 86-D-103, Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility will replace existing 40-year-old facilities at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory with a centralized facility which brings it into full compliance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

« PrécédentContinuer »