1. www.energy.gov/EM 1 Terry Tyborowski Deputy Assistant Secretary, Program Planning and Budget for Environmental Management February 27, 2014 Budget Update and Program Outlook

2. Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master subtitle style www.energy.gov/EM 2 EM Budget Update

3. Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master subtitle style www.energy.gov/EM 3 Oct. Sep. 28 th : Six month CR passed March 26 th : full-year CR (with sequestration) Nov.Dec.Jan.Feb.Mar.Apr.May Jun. July – Sep. May 15 th : Reprogramming to align funding within program Budget Timeline: FY 2013 Jan. 1 st : Congress passed a two month delay to sequestration

4. Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master subtitle style www.energy.gov/EM 4 Oct. Oct. 17 th – Jan. 18 th : EM fundingat $4.9B level ($700M below request) Oct. 1 st – 16 th : Lapse in appropriations severely impacts EM operations President releases FY 2015 Budget Oct. 17 tH : Congress passes Continuing Resolution, ending lapse in appropriations Sep. 30 th – Deadline for Congress to pass an appropriation for FY 2015 Nov.Dec.Jan.Feb.Mar.Apr.May Jun. July – Sep. Budget Timeline: FY 2014 Events and FY 2015 Outlook Jan 17 th : Full-year appropriation funds EM $208M above request Dec 26 th : Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 signed into law

5. Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master subtitle style www.energy.gov/EM 5 FY 2014 Budget Passed January 17 th, 2014 Congressional Hearing Room

6. Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master subtitle style www.energy.gov/EM 6 The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013  Sets overall discretionary spending for the current fiscal year at $1.012 trillion—about halfway between the Senate budget level of $1.058 trillion and the House budget level of $967 billion.  The agreement would provide $63 billion in sequester relief over two years, split evenly between defense and non- defense programs.  In fiscal year 2014, defense discretionary spending would be set at $520.5 billion, and non-defense discretionary spending would be set at $491.8 billion.  Sequester relief in 2014 and 2015 is fully offset by savings elsewhere in the federal budget. Temporary Relief from the Budget Control Act of 2011

7. Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master subtitle style www.energy.gov/EM 7 EM’s Recent Budget History $411M Funding Reduction from Sequestration $319M Reduction from CR Rules *Annualized funding level from the temporary continuing resolution Funding Increase in FY14 Omnibus Appropriation (dollars in millions)

8. Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master subtitle style www.energy.gov/EM 8 EM Long-Term Budget History (Dollars in billions) Historical EM Average Funding Level: $6.2 billion

9. Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master subtitle style www.energy.gov/EM 9 EM’s FY 2014 Budget: Funding by Mission Area $2,007M $1,160M $855M $797M $442M $414M $155M * *Includes Program Direction, Program Support, TDD, Post Closure Administration and Community and Regulatory Support Total Funding: $5.830 Billion

10. Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master subtitle style www.energy.gov/EM 10 EM Funding by Site in FY 2014 Total Funding: $5.830 Billion

11. Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master subtitle style www.energy.gov/EM 11 Key Planned Activities for FY 2014 IWTU Hot Operations – Idaho National Lab, ID Waste Shipment – Carlsbad, NM Operational Tank Closures 5 & 6 – SRS, SC K-25 D&D – Oak Ridge, TN

12. Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master subtitle style www.energy.gov/EM 12 Strategic Planning Initiatives

13. Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master subtitle style www.energy.gov/EM 13 Remaining dollars available for progress continues to decrease Inflation continues to increase maintenance/ support costs Impact of Funding Reductions on Purchasing Power  EM’s funding is divided between two main categories: The costs of maintaining a safe, secure and operations ready posture (“Maintenance Dollars”) and the costs of performing active cleanup work (“Progress Dollars”).  Funding reductions disproportionately impact “Progress Dollars,” since maintenance costs are largely fixed.  High maintenance costs are driven in part by the 78 Hazard Category 2 and 3 Nuclear Facilities managed by EM (more than any other DOE program).

14. Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master subtitle style www.energy.gov/EM 14 Path Forward Hanford River Corridor cleanup Idaho facility demolition  Evaluate effectiveness of improvements on an annual basis, propose improvements to the initiatives, and implement best practices complex-wide  Complete evaluation of infrastructure and maintenance activities in order to: o Identify specific activities o Understand requirements driving those activities o Compare information/best practices across sites

15. Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master subtitle style www.energy.gov/EM 15 EM Online Timeline  EM is developing a timeline that will show historical accomplishments at each site and tell the story of the EM mission.  The timeline will be viewable at the complex level and will also be viewable by site, by state, and by mission area.  Links to videos, photos, documents, presentations, and other materials for each event will provide a wide range of historical information in one centralized location.  The timeline is not a static application and will be updated as accomplishments warrant. Planned, future events may be added at a later time.