Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
Congressional research reportJan 31, 2008
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Energy and Water Development:
FY2008 Appropriations
name redacted, Coordinator
Specialist in Energy Policy
January 31, 2008
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RL34009
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
Summary
The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill provides funding for civil works projects
of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR), the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of independent agencies.
Key budgetary issues involving these programs include
•
the distribution of Army Corps of Engineers appropriations across the agency’s
authorized construction and maintenance activities (Title I);
•
support of major ecosystem restoration initiatives, such as Florida Everglades
(Title I) and California “Bay-Delta” (CALFED) (Title II);
•
funding for the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada, and proposals to store nuclear spent fuel temporarily (Title III: Nuclear
Waste Disposal); and
•
the Administration’s proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to supply
plutonium-based fuel to other nations (Title III: Nuclear Energy).
The FY2008 Energy and Water Development bill was enacted as Division C of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161). The omnibus funding measure was passed by
Congress December 19, 2007, and signed by the President December 26, 2007. The act provides
$31.4659 billion for Energy and Water programs, about $1 billion below the FY2007
appropriation and about $500 million above the Administration’s request.
The House Appropriations Committee reported out its FY2008 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill, H.R. 2641 (H.Rept. 110-185), on June 6, 2007. The bill as reported did not
contain indications of funding for specific projects. On June 20 the bill was debated on the House
floor, but was not voted on pending submission by the Appropriations Committee of a supplement
specifying funding for individual projects. That supplement was voted by the committee July 12,
and the House approved the bill July 17, 2007.
The Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Appropriations approved its
version of the bill on June 26, and the full Senate Appropriations Committee approved it June 28,
2007 (S. 1751, S.Rept. 110-127).
Congressional Research Service
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Developments.........................................................................................................1
Status..........................................................................................................................................1
Overview ....................................................................................................................................1
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers.................................................................................................3
Key Policy Issues—Corps of Engineers ................................................................................3
Project Backlog and Agency Priorities.............................................................................3
Everglades ......................................................................................................................6
Hurricane Katrina Repairs and Coastal Louisiana Restoration .........................................6
Title II: Department of the Interior ..............................................................................................6
Central Utah Project and Bureau of Reclamation: Budget In Brief .........................................7
Key Policy Issues—Bureau of Reclamation...........................................................................8
Background ....................................................................................................................8
CALFED ........................................................................................................................9
Loan Guarantee Program.................................................................................................9
Security ..........................................................................................................................9
Water 2025.................................................................................................................... 10
General Provisions ........................................................................................................ 10
Title III: Department of Energy ................................................................................................. 10
Key Policy Issues—Department of Energy.......................................................................... 12
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ..................................................................... 13
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ................................................................... 14
Nuclear Energy ............................................................................................................. 15
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration............................................ 20
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.......................................................................................... 22
Science ......................................................................................................................... 23
Nuclear Waste Disposal................................................................................................. 25
Loan Guarantees ........................................................................................................... 26
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship ....................................................................... 26
Nonproliferation and National Security Programs.......................................................... 37
Environmental Management.......................................................................................... 40
Power Marketing Administrations ................................................................................. 47
Title IV: Independent Agencies.................................................................................................. 48
Key Policy Issues—Independent Agencies .......................................................................... 49
Nuclear Regulatory Commission................................................................................... 49
For Additional Reading ............................................................................................................. 50
CRS Products...................................................................................................................... 50
Tables
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2008 ................................1
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2001 to FY2008 .............................2
Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary .............................................2
Congressional Research Service
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title I: Army Corps of
Engineers .................................................................................................................................3
Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title II: Central Utah Project
Completion Account ................................................................................................................7
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title II: Bureau of Reclamation ...........7
Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title III: Department of Energy ......... 11
Table 8. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs .................................................... 14
Table 9. Fossil Energy Research and Development Programs .................................................... 20
Table 10. Energy Policy Act of 2005 Title IV Authorization....................................................... 22
Table 11. Funding for Weapons Activities.................................................................................. 27
Table 12. NNSA Future Years Nuclear Security Program........................................................... 27
Table 13. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs ..................................................... 38
Table 14. Environmental Management Program Appropriations ................................................ 43
Table 15. Office of Legacy Management Appropriations ........................................................... 47
Table 16. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title IV: Independent
Agencies ................................................................................................................................ 48
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 51
Key Policy Staff........................................................................................................................ 51
Congressional Research Service
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
The FY2008 Energy and Water Development bill was enacted as Division C of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161). The omnibus funding measure was passed by
Congress December 19, 2007, and signed by the President December 26, 2007. The act provides
$31.4659 billion for Energy and Water programs, about $1 billion below the FY2007
appropriation and about $500 million above the Administration’s request.
The Bush Administration’s FY2008 budget request was released in February 2007. The House
Appropriations Committee reported out its FY2008 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill, H.R. 2641, on June 6, 2007. The bill as reported did not contain indications
of funding for specific projects. On June 20 the bill was debated on the House floor, but was not
voted on pending submission by the Appropriations Committee of a supplement specifying
funding for individual projects. That supplement was voted out by the committee July 12, and the
House approved the bill July 17, 2007.
The Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Appropriations approved its
version of the bill, S. 1751, on June 26, and the full Senate Appropriations Committee approved it
June 28.
Energy and Water Development programs were funded for FY2007 in the Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (H.J.Res. 20, P.L. 110-5). On March 16, 2007, the Department
of Energy (DOE) submitted its “operating plan” to Congress, detailing funding for individual
programs not specifically identified in P.L. 110-5.
Status
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2008
Subcommittee
Markup
House
Senate
5/30/07
6/26/07
Final
Approval
House
Report
House
Passage
Senate
Report
Senate
Passage
Conf.
Report
House
Senate
H.Rept.
110-185
7/17/07
S.Rept.
110-127
None
None
12/19/07
12/18/07
Public
Law
P.L.
110-161
Overview
The Energy and Water Development bill includes funding for civil works projects of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department of the Interior’s Central Utah Project (CUP)
and Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of
independent agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Appalachian
Regional Commission (ARC).
Congressional Research Service
1
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
Table 2 includes budget totals for energy and water development appropriations enacted for
FY2001 to FY2008.
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2001 to FY2008
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY01
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
23.9
25.2
26.1
26.7
30.2a
36.7b
29.4
31.5
Note: Figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect rescissions.
a.
For FY2005 and later, total includes DOE programs formerly funded in the Interior and Related Agencies
appropriations bill and transferred to the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill.
b.
Includes $6.6 billion in emergency funding for the Corps of Engineers.
Table 3 lists totals for each of the bill’s four titles. It also lists several “scorekeeping” adjustments
of accounts within the four titles, reflecting various expenditures or sources of revenue besides
appropriated funds. These adjustments affect the total amount appropriated in the bill but are not
included in the totals of the individual titles. Amounts listed in this report are derived from the
Administration’s FY2008 Congressional Budget Requests, from H.Rept. 110-185, to accompany
H.R. 2641, from the S.Rept. 110-127, to accompany S. 1751, and from the explanatory statement
for the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2764, P.L. 110-161).
Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary
($ millions)
Title
FY2007
FY2008
Request
House
Senate
Final
Title I: Corps of Engineers
$5,340.2
$4,871.0
$5,584.4
$5,448.1
$5,587.1
Title II: CUP & BOR
1,054.7
1,001.4
1,065.4
1,144.3
1,150.9
Title III: Department of Energy
24,228.2
24,762.7
25,243.1
25,896.9
24,446.6
Title IV: Independent Agencies
306.0
251.5
237.8
301.0
281.3
30,794.1
30,863.6
32,130.7
32,790.2
31,465.9
(44.0)
(51.6)
(51.6)
(51.6)
NA
Colorado River Basins, WAPA
(23.0)
(23.0)
(23.0)
(23.0)
NA
Uranium Fund
(446.0)
(463.0)
(463.0)
(463.0)
NA
Excess Fees FERC
(19.2)
(17.5)
(17.5)
(17.5)
NA
30,294.9
30,308.5
31,575.6
32,235.1
NA
E&W Subtotal
Scorekeeping Adjustments
Undistributed Pay Raise
33.0
Title II
Central Valley
Title III
E&W Total
Source: Administration FY2008 budget request; H.Rept. 110-185; S.Rept. 110-127. Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008, P.L. 110-161.
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Includes the across-the board rescission (Sec. 312). NA:
Not available.
Congressional Research Service
2
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
Tables 4 through 16 provide budget details for Title I (Corps of Engineers), Title II (Department
of the Interior), Title III (Department of Energy), and Title IV (independent agencies) for
FY2005-FY2006.
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers
P.L. 110-161 provided $5.587 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; it was an increase
over the Administration’s budget request of $4.871 billion and 5% above the FY2007
appropriations (not including supplemental funds) of $5.340 billion. The omnibus funding
measure rescinded a total of $4.9 million of prior appropriations for the Corps.
Funding for the Corps’ civil works program is often a contentious issue between the
Administration and Congress, with final appropriations typically providing more funding than
requested, regardless of which political party controls the White House and Congress. Generally
around 85% of the appropriations for the agency is directed to specific projects. Often Congress
will direct funding to projects not included in the Administration’s request.
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers
($ millions)
FY2007
FY2008
Request
Housea
Senate
Comm.
Final
Investigations and Planning
$162.9
$90.0
$120.0
$172.1
$167.2
Construction
2,336.5
1,523.0
2,004.2
2,059.5
2,289.3
396.6
260.0
278.0
375.0
2,243.6
1,975.1
2,471.0
2,655.2
2,292.0
387.4
Regulatory
159.3
180.0
180.0
180.0
180.0
General Expenses
167.2
177.0
171.0
175.0
175.0
FUSRAPb
138.7
130.0
130.0
140.0
140.0
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
—
40.0
40.0
50.0
0.0
Office of the Asst. Secretary of the Army
4.0
—
6.0
4.5
4.5
5,340.2
4,871.0
5,584.4
5,448.1
5,587.1
Program
Mississippi River & Tributaries
Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
Total Title I
Sources: FY2008 Budget Request; Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works: FY2007 Work Plan (March 19, 2007);
H.Rept. 110-185; S.Rept. 110-127.
a.
These figures account for rescissions.
b.
“Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.”
Key Policy Issues—Corps of Engineers
Project Backlog and Agency Priorities
The policy debate on how to structure the Corps’ budget and priorities is ongoing. The Corps civil
works program has been criticized by some observers as an agglomeration of projects with no
Congressional Research Service
3
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
underlying design. These observers see the Corps’ backlog of authorized activities as an example
of this lack of focus. Prior to enactment of the $23 billion authorization bill for the agency known
as the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) in November 2007, estimates of the backlog’s
size had varied from $11 billion to more than $60 billion, depending on which projects are
included. Although some observers view the backlog as nothing more than a Corps “to do” list,
others are concerned that projects face construction delays and related cost overruns as available
appropriations are spread across an increasing portfolio of projects.
The Corps’ backlog of authorized projects and concerns about the fiscal planning and
management of the agency’s portfolio contribute to support for performance-based criteria for
structuring the agency’s budget and for concentrated appropriations on a small set of priority
projects. Others also express concerns about the agency’s fiscal planning and management, yet
reject both the use of performance-based criteria that have been proposed and the focus on 6 to 10
priority projects. These critics argue that the criteria used are too simplistic and that basing the
Corps’ budget on performance criteria does not produce an integrated multiyear program for the
agency. They also argue that the focus on priority projects has resulted in a disproportionate
amount of the agency’s budget being concentrated on a few projects, resulting in less investment
in other authorized, cost-beneficial projects and in those regions of the country that do not have
priority projects.
Performance-Based Budgeting
One way recent Administration requests have tried to address the backlog of Corps projects has
been the application of a performance-based budgeting approach for determining which projects
to include in its requests for construction and maintenance funds; the performance measures were
based on their economic and environmental returns and protection of human safety. The
construction projects selected for funding were chosen largely on their having either a high ratio
of benefits to costs, or, for environmental projects, a high cost-effectiveness. The FY2008 budget
request continued the Administration’s movement toward presenting the agency’s budget
according to “business lines” (e.g., navigation, flood control, recreation, hydropower). For
example, of the $4.871 billion budget request, $2.009 billion (41%) is for commercial navigation,
$1.384 billion (28%) is for flood and coastal storm damage reduction, and $274 million (6%) and
$110 million (2%) are for the agency’s relatively new roles in aquatic ecosystem restoration and
environmental stewardship, respectively. The agency’s regulatory responsibilities represent $180
million, 4% of the agency’s budget.
Although little of the debate about performance-based budgeting is reflected in the omnibus
report language, the earlier House and Senate reports illustrated differing opinions about how best
to manage the Corps’ budget. H.Rept. 110-185 generally supported the Administration
performance-based budgeting approach; it states: “While the Committee agrees in large part with
the prioritization of projects, it does not believe the level of funding provided by the
Administration is sufficient to meet the needs of the Nation.” In contrast, the Senate
Appropriations Committee report stated: “From the Committee’s perspective, the Corps’ budget
seems to be developed exactly in the opposite manner that it should be.” It then echoes the House
by stating “the country needs to invest more heavily in its water resources.” The Senate
Appropriations Committee report criticized the Administration’s focus on a small number of
projects, and its lack of support for projects at the different stages of development (e.g.,
planning). It also questioned the effect that focusing on a few projects would have on the ability
and interest in partnering with the Corps of the local project sponsors for the Corps’ other
authorized, but unbudgeted, projects and studies.
Congressional Research Service
4
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
Priority Projects and New Starts
To address the backlog of authorized Corps activities, the Administration’s request limited the
number of new activities started to only two planning activities and one maintenance assessment.
The President’s request would fund construction projects that could be completed in FY2008 and
six projects considered by the Administration to be priorities, similar to the President’s FY2007,
FY2006, and FY2005 requests.
Although little of the debate about new starts is reflected in the omnibus report language, the
earlier House and Senate reports illustrated differing opinions about how best to manage the
Corps’ budget. H.Rept. 110-185 expressed general support for the Administration’s no new start
policy as applied to the FY2008 budget for the Corps. The exception noted by the Committee is
that it “will consider funding for the major rehabilitation” at specific locks on the Ohio and
Mississippi River systems because it “does not view the rehabilitation of existing infrastructure as
a new construction start ... but rather a necessity.” The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended a limited number of new construction starts. Numerous construction projects that
were not included in the President’s request were included among the projects funded in the
omnibus report language.
Financial Management and O&M Budgeting
Unlike previous budget requests, the FY2007 and FY2008 requests did not specify the amount
that individual Corps projects would receive for O&M. Instead, the Administration’s recent
requests divide the country into 21 regions and specify O&M funding for each region for six
different categories of activities—commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage
reduction, environment, hydropower, recreation, and water supply. The Corps has provided
estimates of how much individual projects are expected to receive; however, these estimates are
not part of the agency’s formal budget request and budget justification package. This budgeting
approach appears to allow the agency flexibility to move money across projects within the region
as O&M needs arise, without being subject to many of the reprogramming restrictions put into
place with the agency’s FY2006 appropriations. Some project stakeholders are likely to be
uncomfortable as a result of the decreased certainty in the O&M funding available for particular
projects under this regional O&M budgeting approach.
Although little of the debate about new starts is reflected in the omnibus report language, the
earlier House and Senate reports illustrated differing opinions about how best to manage the
Corps’ budget. H.Rept. 110-185 was critical of how the Administration developed its request for
each of the 21 regions, and it adopts the regional approach to O&M funding by specifying an
O&M funding level for each region. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
rejecting the regional budgeting for O&M, arguing that this budgeting tactic serves no real
purpose other than circumventing reprogramming guidance and that Corps projects (not regions)
are authorized by Congress. The omnibus report language did not adopt the O&M regions.
Instead it directed the Corps to prepare integrated O&M budgets for four regions—the Ohio
River, the Great Lakes, the Texas coast, and the California coast.
The omnibus report language also provided direction to the Corps on reprogramming of funds,
five-year budget plans, budget submission materials, and the use of multi-year continuing
contracts.
Congressional Research Service
5
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
Everglades
The Corps plays a significant coordination role in the restoration of the Central and Southern
Florida ecosystem. The agency received $131 million for FY2008 Everglades restoration
activities in the omnibus report language. The FY2008 budget request was for $162 million,
down from the $164 million requested and provided for FY2007.
The FY2008 funds consist of Central and Southern Florida Project ($82 million, down from the
$91 million requested), Kissimmee River Restoration Project ($31 million, down from the $33
million requested), Everglades and South Florida Restoration Projects ($8 million, up from the $4
million requested), and Modified Water Deliveries Project ($10 million, down from the $35
million requested). FY2006 was the first year that funds for the Mod Waters project were
included in the Corps budget request and enacted appropriations; previously, the project was
funded solely through Department of the Interior appropriations. The omnibus report language
noted appropriators’ concerns regarding the changing design of the Mod Waters project. The
report directs the Corps to submit to the Appropriations Committees its plan for completion of
Mod Waters, and it provides direction to Interior regarding its funding of the project. (For more
information, see CRS Report RS21331, Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries
Project, by (name redacted).)
In addition to funding for Corps activities through Energy and Water Development
appropriations, federal activities in the Everglades are funded through Department of the Interior
appropriations bills. Concerns regarding the level of appropriations and progress in the restoration
effort are discussed in CRS Report RS20702, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
Hurricane Katrina Repairs and Coastal Louisiana Restoration
The Corps is responsible for much of the repair and fortification of the hurricane protection
system of coastal Louisiana, particularly in the greater New Orleans area; to date, most of the
Corps’ work on the region’s hurricane protection system has been funded through emergency
supplemental appropriations, not through the annual appropriations process. The Corps has
received more than $7 billion in emergency supplemental funds for flood protection and water
resources repair and recovery work. The vast majority of the enacted and requested supplemental
appropriations for the region are for structural hurricane defenses; coastal wetlands restoration
activities by the Corps have received less than $200 million of the enacted Katrina appropriations.
The 110th Congress enacted emergency supplemental legislation with an additional $1.64 billion
for the Corps, largely to continue repairs and accelerate completion of flood and storm damage
reduction projects in the New Orleans and south Louisiana area. Previously appropriated funds
were insufficient to complete these activities because of increased costs, improved data on costs,
and other factors.
Title II: Department of the Interior
The Department of the Interior requested that Congress provide an increase in funding for the
Central Utah Project (CUP) Completion Account and a reduction for the Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR) for FY2008. The total approved by P.L. 110-161 for Title II funding is $1.1509 billion—
$149.5 million above the President’s request.
Congressional Research Service
6
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account
($ millions)
FY2007
FY2008
Request
House
Senate
Comm.
P.L.
110-161
Central Utah Project Construction
$31.4
$40.4
$40.4
$40.4
$40.4
Mitigation and Conservation Activities
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Oversight & Administration
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
34.0
43.0
43.0
43.0
43.0
Program
Total, Central Utah Project
Source: Central Utah Project Completion Act, FY2008 Budget Justification. H.Rept. 110-185; S.Rept. 110-127.,
P.L. 110-161.
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Bureau of Reclamation
($ millions)
FY2007
FY2008
Request
House
Senate
Comm.
P.L.
110-161
$874.7
$816.2
$871.2
$950.1
$949.9
Policy & Administration
57.3
58.8
58.8
58.8
58.8
CVP Restoration Fund (CVPRF)a
52.1
59.1
59.1
51.6
59.1
Legislative Proposal—SJRRFb
—
(7.5)
(7.5)
0.0
0.0
Calif. Bay-Delta (CALFED)
36.6
31.8
40.8
40.8
40.1
1,020.7
958.4
1,022.4
1,101.3
1,107.9
CVP Collectionsa
(43.9)
(51.6)
(51.6)
(51.6)
(51.6)
Net Current Authority
976.8
906.8
970.8
1,049.7
1,056.3
1,054.7
1,001.4
1,065.4
1,144.3
1,150.9
Program
Water and Related Resources
Gross Current Authority
Total, Title II
Source: Bureau of Reclamation FY2008 Budget Justification. H.Rept. 110-185; S.Rept. 110-127,P.L. 110-161.
a.
In its request, BOR lists CVP Collections as an “offset.” Congress does not follow this procedure.
b.
FY2008 reflects a legislative proposal to redirect $7.5 million collected from Friant Division water users to
the new San Joaquin River Restoration Fund.
Central Utah Project and Bureau of Reclamation: Budget In Brief
The Administration requested $43.0 million for the CUP Completion Account for FY2008 (Table
5). The FY2008 request for BOR totaled $958.4 million in gross current budget authority. This
amount is $62.3 million less than enacted for FY2007. The FY2008 request included “offsets” of
$51.6 million for the Central Valley Project (CVP) Restoration Fund, yielding a “net” current
authority of $906.8 million for BOR. The total budget request for Title II funding, Central Utah
Project and Bureau of Reclamation, was $1.0014 billion.
BOR’s single largest account, Water and Related Resources, encompasses the agency’s traditional
programs and projects, including construction, operations and maintenance, the Dam Safety
Program, Water and Energy Management Development, and Fish and Wildlife Management and
Congressional Research Service
7
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
Development, among others. The Administration requested $816.2 million for the Water and
Related Resources Account for FY2008 (Table 6). This amount is $58.5 million (6.7%) less than
enacted for FY2007.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended funding at the amount reflected in the
President’s Budget for CUP (Table 5), Policy and Administration, and the CVP (Table 6). The
Committee recommended increases of $55 million for Water and Related Resources and $9
million for CALFED (Table 6). The Committee initially made no recommendations for specific
water projects within Water and Related Resources, indicating that it would consider individual
project allocations after further analysis. The Committee’s final recommendation for Water and
Related Resources matched the President’s request for facilities and operations and maintenance
(O&M). The additional funding recommended by the Committee was on the Resource
Management side of the Water and Related Resources budget.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended funding at the amount reflected in the
President’s Budget for the CUP and Policy and Administration. Recommended funding for Water
and Related Resources is $134 million more than the President’s request and $79 million more
than the level recommended by the House. The CALFED recommendation, an increase of $9
million over the President’s request, matches the House. The Committee provided $7.5 million
less funding for the CVP Restoration Fund, indicating that the Administration’s proposed San
Joaquin River Restoration Fund (which was included as an offset) was not yet authorized.
The House and Senate agreed on final appropriations for the BOR that were close to the levels
recommended by one or both chambers previously. Policy and Administration remains unchanged
from the President’s request at $58.8 million. The CVP Restoration Fund remains at the level
requested by the President, $59.1 million. However $7.5 million that the Administration and
House intended for the proposed San Joaquin River Restoration Fund (SJRRF) was reallocated to
other CVP Restoration Fund programs because the SJRRF was not authorized. Water and Related
Resources and CALFED are both funded at levels similar to those passed by the Senate: $949.9
and $40.1 respectively. The total approved by P.L. 110-161 for Title II funding is $1.1509
billion—$149.5 million above the President’s request.
Key Policy Issues—Bureau of Reclamation
Background
Most of the large dams and water diversion structures in the West were built by, or with the
assistance of, the Bureau of Reclamation. Whereas the Army Corps of Engineers built hundreds
of flood control and navigation projects, BOR’s mission was to develop water supplies, primarily
for irrigation to reclaim arid lands in the West. Today, BOR manages hundreds of dams and
diversion projects, including more than 300 storage reservoirs in 17 western states. These projects
provide water to approximately 10 million acres of farmland and 31 million people. BOR is the
largest wholesale supplier of water in the 17 western states and the second-largest hydroelectric
power producer in the nation. BOR facilities also provide substantial flood control, recreation,
and fish and wildlife benefits. At the same time, operations of BOR facilities are often
controversial, particularly for their effect on sensitive fish and wildlife species and conflicts
among competing water users.
Congressional Research Service
8
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
CALFED
The Administration requested $31.8 million for the California Bay-Delta Restoration Account
(Bay-Delta, or CALFED) for FY2008 (Table 6). The bulk of the requested funds were targeted at
three main program areas, including the environmental water account, the storage program, and
conveyance. The remainder of the request was allocated for science, water quality, planning and
management, and ecosystem restoration.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended that all programs within CALFED be
funded at the level in the FY2008 budget request, except for a $1 million reduction in Planning
and Management. The Committee also recommended $5 million each for Water Use Efficiency
and Delta Levees, which were not in the President’s Budget. The Committee indicated that
funding for Delta Levees is to be transferred to the Corps of Engineers. The recommended $10
million addition and $1 million reduction result in a recommended net increase of $9 million over
the President’s request.
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved funding at the amount recommended by the
House Appropriations Committee. The final appropriations level agreed to by both chambers is
$40.1 million for CALFED. (For more information on CALFED, see CRS Report RL31975,
CALFED Bay-Delta Program: Overview of Institutional and Water Use Issues, by (name redac
ted) and (name redacted).)
Loan Guarantee Program
BOR requested $1 million in FY2008 to establish a loan guarantee program. Reclamation is
establishing this program to guarantee private loans to water districts that have responsibility for
funding O&M or rehabilitation costs on Reclamation facilities. Because the federal government
retains title to these projects, it may be difficult for water users to secure loans from private
lenders. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees recommended funding this program at
the level requested.
Security
Under BOR’s Water and Related Resources account, the Administration requested $35.5 million
for site security for FY2008, a decrease of $4.1 million compared with that enacted for FY2007.
The bulk of the request is for facility operations/security. Funding covers activities such as
administration of the security program (e.g., surveillance and law enforcement), antiterrorism
activities, and physical emergency security upgrades. (For more information, see CRS Report
RL32189, Terrorism and Security Issues Facing the Water Infrastructure Sector, by (name re
dacted).)
The FY2008 request assumed that annual costs for guard and patrol activities would be treated as
project O&M costs, and hence would be reimbursable based on project cost allocations. These
costs were estimated to be $18.9 million in FY2008, of which $11.6 million would be in up-front
funding from power customers and $7.3 million would be appropriated funds which are
reimbursed by irrigation, municipal, and industrial users and other customers. BOR would
continue to treat facility fortification and antiterrorism management-related expenses as
nonreimbursable.
Congressional Research Service
9
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
The House and Senate Appropriations Committees both recommended funding this program at
the level requested, and the final appropriation was $35.0 million.
Water 2025
This program, part of the Water and Related resources account, is intended to reduce water use
conflicts by increasing certainty, diversity, and flexibility of water supplies. In 2008, BOR plans
to focus program resources on areas where water conflicts exist currently or are likely to develop
in the future. The 2008 budget request for this program is $11.0 million, a decrease of $3.5
million from FY2007. The House Appropriations Committee did not include funding for Water
2025, citing a lack of authorization for the program (however, see General Provisions below for
Water 2025 authorization). The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $14 million for
Water 2025, indicating that funds above the President’s $11 million request are intended to
provide for efficiency and water improvements related to the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
District. Ultimately, $5.9 million was agreed upon by both chambers.
General Provisions
Final appropriations language includes a number of general provisions authorizing approximately
$66 million in Nevada for water projects such as dam removal, fish passage, municipal water
treatment, and watershed inventory (§208). Section 210 authorizes two water reuse projects: the
Inland Empire and Cucamonga Valley in California. A total of $30 million is authorized for these
projects. An additional $20 million is authorized for the Southern California Desert Region
Integrated Water and Economic Sustainability Program (§214).
Though no funding is specified, §204 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the
Commissioner of Reclamation, to fund grants at a 50% cost share aiding irrigation or water
districts and states in their planning, design, and construction of projects to conserve water or
improve water use efficiency. This language appears to authorize the BOR’s Water 2025 program.
Title III: Department of Energy
The Energy and Water Development bill since FY2005 has funded all DOE’s programs. Major
DOE activities historically funded by the Energy and Water bill include research and
development on renewable energy and nuclear power, general science, environmental cleanup,
and nuclear weapons programs, and now includes programs for fossil fuels, energy efficiency, the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and energy statistics, which formerly had been included in the
Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
Congressional Research Service
10
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title III: Department of Energy
($ millions)
FY2007
FY2008
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
$1,474.3
$1,236.2
$1,873.8
$1,715.6
$1,722.4
Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability
137.0
114.9
134.2
169.4
138.6
Nuclear Energy
482.2
801.7
759.2
719.6
961.7
Environment, Safety, Healtha
27.8
—
—
—
—
Legacy Management
33.2
35.1
—
35.1
33.9
2,154.5
2,187.9
2,767.2
2,639.7
2,856.5
592.6
566.8
708.8
808.1
742.8
Clean Coal Technology (Deferral)
—
(58.0)
(58.0)
(58.0)
(58.0)
Naval Petrol. & Oil Shale Reserves
21.3
17.3
17.3
21.3
20.3
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
164.4
331.6
163.5
163.5
186.8
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve
5.0
5.3
5.3
12.8
12.3
Energy Information Administration
90.7
105.1
105.1
105.1
95.5
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup
349.7
180.9
286.0
195.4
182.3
Uranium Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund
556.6
573.5
618.8
573.5
622.2
High Energy Physics
751.8
782.2
782.2
789.2
688.0
Nuclear Physics
422.8
471.3
471.3
471.3
433.0
1,250.3
1,498.5
1,498.5
1,512.3
1,270.0
Bio. & Env. R&D
483.5
531.9
581.9
605.8
544.0
Fusion
319.0
427.9
427.9
427.9
287.0
Advanced Scientific Computing
283.4
340.2
340.2
334.9
351.0
Other
292.2
351.5
417.7
361.5
450.3
Adjustments
(5.6)
(5.6)
(5.6)
(5.6)
(5.6)
Total, Science
3,797.3
4,397.9
4,514.1
4,497.3
4,017.7
Program
Energy Supply & Conservation
Energy Efficiency & Renewables
Total, Energy Supply & Conservation
Fossil Energy R&D
Sciencea
Basic Energy Sciences
Nuclear Waste Disposal
99.2
202.5
202.5
202.5
187.3
Environment, Safety, Healthb
—
—
31.8
—
—
Departmental Admin. (net)
153.8
148.6
143.0
146.8
148.4
Office of Inspector General
41.8
48.4
47.7
47.7
46.1
—
8.4
—
8.4
4.5
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee
Congressional Research Service
11
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
Program
FY2007
FY2008
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
Weapons
6,275.6
6,511.3
5,879.1
6,489.0
6,297.5
Nuclear Nonproliferation
1,818.3
1,672.6
1,683.7
1,872.6
1,336.9
Naval Reactors
781.8
808.2
808.2
808.2
774.7
Office of Administrator
340.3
394.7
415.9
394.7
402.2
Total, NNSA
9,216.0
9,386.8
8,786.9
9,564.5
8,811.2
Defense Environmental Cleanup
5,731.8
5,363.9
5,766.6
5,690.4
5,349.4
Other Defense Activities
636.3
764.0
604.3
765.5
754.4
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
346.5
292.0
292.0
242.0
199.2
15,930.6
15,806.8
15,449.8
16,262.4
15,114.1
Southeastern
5.6
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.4
Southwestern
30.0
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.2
Western
232.3
201.0
201.0
231.0
228.9
2.7
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Total, PMAs
270.6
240.4
240.4
270.4
267.9
FERC
(revenues)
221.9
(221.9)
255.4
(255.4)
255.4
(255.4)
255.4
(255.4)
258.1
(258.1)
24,228.2
24,762.7
25,243.1
25,896.9
24,446.6
Total, Defense Activities
Power Marketing Administrations (PMA)
Falcon & Armistad O&M
Total, Title III
Sources: DOE FY2008 Congressional Budget Request, February 2007; H.Rept. 110-185; S.Rept. 110-127.
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, P.L. 110-161.
a.
Figures in italic for the Office of Science have been adjusted by CRS for the across-the board rescission
(Sec. 312) but not for a specific rescission of $44.6 million in prior-year funds.
b.
Environment, Safety and Health moved from Energy Supply and Conservation for FY2008.
The Administration’s FY2008 request for DOE programs was $24.7627 billion, compared with
$24.2282 billion appropriated for FY2007. The final omnibus act provides $24.4466 billion, $218
million above FY2007 but $316 million below the request. The FY2008 total reflects an acrossthe-board rescission on all DOE programs imposed by Section 312 of Title III, Division C of the
act. Section 312 requires all funding levels in the explanatory statement to be reduced by 1.6% of
earmarked funds and 0.91% for all other funding. Summary tables at the end of the explanatory
statement reflect the Section 312 rescission, but the detailed tables do not. DOE is required to
submit a report to the Appropriations Committees within 30 days with detailed numbers reflecting
the rescission.
Key Policy Issues—Department of Energy
DOE administers a wide variety of programs with different functions and missions. In the
following pages, the programs are described and major issues are identified, in approximately the
order in which they appear in the budget tables in Table 7.
Congressional Research Service
12
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
The omnibus appropriations act provides $1,722.4 million for DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy (EERE) for FY2008, which is $486.2 million more than the request and
$248.1 million more than the FY2007 appropriation. Table 8 shows the FY2008 funding amounts
by program. Relative to FY2007, the FY2008 appropriation provides key increases of $25.0
million for Vehicles, $22.7 for Weatherization, $17.5 million for Hydrogen, $14.8 million for
Geothermal, $9.9 million for Water (Marine and Hydrokinetic) technologies, and $9.1 million for
Solar. The FY2008 appropriation also includes $30.9 million less for Facilities. This reduction
does not affect the level of funding for facilities operations; instead, it reflects a reduced level of
spending on construction of new buildings. The main cuts in FY2008 are $9.5 million less for
International Renewables (which terminates the program) and $5.4 million less for State Grants.
As Table 8 shows, DOE’s FY2008 request sought $1,236.2 million for the EERE programs. The
Administration’s Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI, part of the American Competitiveness
Initiative) “aims to reduce America’s dependence on imported energy sources.” The AEI includes
hydrogen, biofuels, and solar energy initiatives that are supported by programs in EERE. The
Hydrogen Initiative aims to “facilitate a decision by industry to commercialize hydrogen
infrastructure and fuel cell vehicles by 2015.”1The Biofuels Initiative seeks to develop
transportation fuels, such as cellulosic ethanol. The Solar America Initiative’s goals are to cut the
cost of photovoltaics (PV) technology, increase its commercial use, and displace natural gas use
for electric power generation. The President’s 2007 State of the Union address set out a goal to
reduce gasoline use by 20% and to increase the production of “alternative” fuels, including
cellulosic ethanol, to 35 billion gallons by 2017. To support the AEI and those fuels goals, the
FY2008 EERE budget request proposed significant increases for the Biofuels, Hydrogen, and
Solar programs. 2 At hearings on the FY2008 DOE budget request, concerns were raised about
DOE’s proposed termination of the Geothermal and Hydropower programs. 3 The House approved
$1,873.8 million and the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $1,715.6 million for
FY2008 EERE programs.
The House Committee report includes several policy directives to EERE. First, on page 59, it
directs DOE to quantify and track the progress and impact of the investments in the EERE
portfolio and brief the Committee annually on the return on investment for each of the accounts.
Second, on page 60, the report directs DOE to implement an aggressive program that focuses on
using Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions to deepen
the recruiting pool of diverse scientific and technical staff available to support the growing
renewable energy marketplace. Third, on page 65, within funding available for the State Energy
Program, the Committee directs DOE to implement section 140 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
to support state-wide pilot programs that encourage reduced electricity and natural gas use.
The report of the Senate Appropriations Committee directs DOE to draw from available funds to
study and report on five special topics. First, on page 131, DOE is directed to conduct a study on
“the feasibility of increasing consumption of ethanol-blended gasoline with levels of ethanol
blends between 10%-25%, including a study of production and infrastructure constraints on
1
U.S. Executive Office of the President, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2007, Appendix, p. 390.
Also see DOE, FY2007 Congressional Budget Request: Budget Highlights, p. 41.
2
The Energy Independence and Security Act (P.L. 110-140, H.R. 6) also addressed those goals.
3
Secretary Bodman’s Senate testimony is available at http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/BodmanTestimony.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
13
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
increasing consumption.” Second, on page 131, the Committee requests that DOE prepare
updates on the National Biofuels Action Plan and deliver the final plan by the end of January
2008. Third, on pages 131-132, the Committee recommends that DOE report on its planned
procedure for holding a reverse auction for cellulosic biofuels grants, as directed by the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (§942). Fourth, on page 134, the Committee directs DOE to study methods of
increasing the fuel efficiency of alternative fueled vehicles by improving their ability to use E-85
(85% ethanol) fuel. Fifth, on page 138, under the Electricity Program, the Committee encourages
DOE to identify the potential for distributed energy equipment to provide energy savings and
reduce transmission line losses. DOE is directed to focus the study on commercial potential.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
The FY2008 request included $114.9 million for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability (OE). The House approved $134.2 million and the Senate Appropriations Committee
approved $169.4 million. The omnibus law provides $138.7 million. The Senate Committee
report directs OE to increase energy storage efforts in support of intermittent wind and solar
power production and to increase support for deployment of distributed generation equipment.
Table 8. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs
($ millions)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Request
FY2008
House
FY2008
SAppC
FY2008
Conf.
$153.5
$193.6
$213.0
$194.6
228.0
211.1
Biomass & Biorefinery Systems
89.8
199.7
179.3
250.0
244.0
198.2
Solar Energy
81.8
159.4
148.3
200.0
180.0
168.5
—Photovoltaics
58.8
—
137.3
149.0
145.3
136.7
Wind Energy
38.3
49.3
40.1
57.5
57.5
49.5
Geothermal Technology
22.8
5.0
0.0
44.3
25.0
19.8
Water Power (Hydro/Ocean)
0.5
0.0
0.0
22.0
10.0
9.9
Subtotal, Renew. & Hydrogen
386.6
606.9
580.6
768.4
744.5
657.0
Vehicle Technologies
178.4
188.0
176.1
235.4
230.0
213.0
Building Technologies
68.2
104.3
86.5
146.5
137.0
109.0
Industrial Technologies
55.9
56.6
46.0
57.0
57.0
64.4
Federal Energy Management
19.0
19.5
16.8
27.0
23.0
19.8
Subtotal, Efficiency R&D
321.4
368.4
325.4
465.9
447.0
406.2
Facilities & Infrastructure
26.1
107.0
7.0
195.7
7.0
76.2
Program Management
115.2
110.2
118.3
128.9
118.3
114.9
R&D Subtotal
849.2
1,192.6
1,031.3
1,558.9
1,316.8
1,254.3
—Weatherization Grants
242.6
204.6
144.0
245.6
240.6
227.2
—State Energy Grants
36.1
58.8
45.5
49.5
55.0
44.1
Program
Hydrogen Technologies
Federal Assistance
Congressional Research Service
14
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
Program
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Request
FY2008
House
FY2008
SAppC
FY2008
Conf.
—Renewables Deployment
38.2
18.4
15.4
19.9
12.0
10.9
—Cong.-Directed Assistancea
—
0.0
0.0
—
91.2
185.9
Federal Assistance Subtotal
316.9
281.7
204.9
314.9
398.8
468.1
Total Appropriation, EE & RE
1,166.1
1,474.3
1,236.2
1,873.8
1,715.6
1,722.4
158.2
137.0
114.9
134.2
169.4
138.7
Office of Electricity Delivery & Energy
Reliability (OE)b
Sources: DOE FY2007 Operating Plan; H.Rept. 110-185; S.Rept. 110-127; Joint Explanatory Statement on the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2007 (Cong. Record, Dec. 17, 2007, p. 15587 and p. H15940).
a.
In FY2006, there was $159.0 million in congressionally-directed funds spread over EERE accounts. For
FY2008, the House approved (H.Rept. 110-185, part 2) $104.3 million for congressionally-directed
assistance to be taken from available funds.
b.
The Distributed Energy Program was moved from EERE to OE in FY2006.
Nuclear Energy
For nuclear energy research and development—including advanced reactors, fuel cycle
technology, nuclear hydrogen production, and infrastructure support—DOE received $1.037
billion for FY2008. That amount is substantially higher than the FY2007 funding level and the
Administration’s request, but it includes large transfers from other accounts and eliminates most
of the Administration’s proposed increase for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI). The
higher AFCI funding would have allowed DOE to continue developing a demonstration plant for
extracting plutonium and uranium from spent nuclear fuel, as part of the Administration’s Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). The nuclear energy program is run by DOE’s Office of
Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology.
DOE requested $801.7 million for FY2008, nearly 30% above the FY2007 funding level. The
request would have boosted funding for AFCI from $167.5 million in FY2007 to $395.0 million
in FY2008. The omnibus appropriation holds AFCI to $181 million and shifts the mixed-oxide
(MOX) fuel program—totaling $281 million—to the nuclear energy program from the nuclear
nonproliferation program. That brings the nuclear energy total to $970.5 million ($961.7 million
with the rescission), about 20% above the request. An additional $75.9 million provided in the
Other Defense Activities account brings the Office of Nuclear Energy’s total spending level to
$1.046 billion ($1.037 billion with the rescission).
Overall, the House had provided a funding level of $835.2 million for nuclear energy, including
$74.9 million from the Other Defense Activities account and $167.8 million transferred for the
MOX program. The Senate Appropriations Committee had recommended $795.5 million for
nuclear energy, including $75.9 million from Other Defense Activities, while opposing the MOX
funding transfer.
According to DOE’s FY2008 budget justification, the nuclear energy R&D program is intended
“to secure nuclear energy as a viable, long-term commercial energy option, providing diversity in
the energy supply.” However, opponents have criticized DOE’s nuclear research program as
providing wasteful subsidies to an industry that they believe should be phased out as
unacceptably hazardous and economically uncompetitive.
Congressional Research Service
15
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
Under the Administration’s GNEP initiative, plutonium partially separated from the highly
radioactive spent fuel from nuclear reactors would be recycled into new fuel to expand the future
supply of nuclear fuel and potentially reduce the amount of radioactive waste to be disposed of in
a permanent repository. Under the initial concept for GNEP, the United States and other advanced
nuclear nations would lease new fuel to other nations that agreed to forgo uranium enrichment,
spent fuel recycling (also called reprocessing), and other fuel cycle facilities that could be used to
produce nuclear weapons materials. The leased fuel would then be returned to supplier nations for
reprocessing. Solidified high-level reprocessing waste would be sent back to the nation that had
used the leased fuel, along with supplies of fresh nuclear fuel. However, a GNEP Statement of
Principles signed by the United States and 15 other countries on September 16, 2007, preserves
the right of all participants to develop fuel cycle facilities while encouraging the establishment of
a “viable alternative to acquisition of sensitive fuel cycle technologies.”4
Although GNEP is largely conceptual at this point, DOE issued a Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling
Program Plan in May 2006 that provided a general schedule for a GNEP Technology
Demonstration Program (TDP),5 which would develop the necessary technologies to achieve
GNEP’s goals. According to the Program Plan, the first phase of the TDP, running through
FY2006, consisted of “program definition and development” and acceleration of AFCI. Phase 2,
running through FY2008, was to focus on the design of technology demonstration facilities,
which then were to begin operating during Phase 3, from FY2008 to FY2020. The National
Academy of Sciences in October 2007 strongly criticized DOE’s “aggressive” deployment
schedule for GNEP and recommended that the program instead focus on research and
development.6
Nuclear critics oppose GNEP’s emphasis on spent fuel reprocessing, which they see as a weapons
proliferation risk, even if weapons-useable plutonium is not completely separated from other
spent fuel elements, as envisioned by the Administration. “As the research of DOE scientists
makes clear, the reprocessing technologies under consideration would still produce a material that
is not radioactive enough to deter theft, and that could be used to make nuclear weapons,”
according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.7
The omnibus appropriation cuts the Administration’s GNEP request to $181 million, including
$30 million for upgrades to existing facilities. The remaining $151 million is for research,
development, and design activities, with no funds for constructing facilities for technology
demonstration or commercialization. The GNEP budget totals, as well as the remaining nuclear
program numbers cited below, do not reflect the 0.91% across-the-board DOE rescission.
Nuclear Power 2010
President Bush’s specific mention of “clean, safe nuclear power” in his 2007 State of the Union
address reiterated the Administration’s interest in encouraging construction of new commercial
reactors—for which there have been no U.S. orders since 1978. DOE’s efforts to restart the
4
5
See GNEP website at http://www.gnep.energy.gov.
DOE, Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling Plan, Report to Congress, May 2006.
6
National Academy of Sciences, Review of DOE’s Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program,
prepublication draft, October 2007.
7
Union of Concerned Scientists, U.S. Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Initiative,
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_terrorism/US_Nuclear_Fuel_Reprocessing_Initiative.html.
Congressional Research Service
16
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
nuclear construction pipeline have been focused on the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, which will
pay up to half of the nuclear industry’s costs of seeking regulatory approval for new reactor sites,
applying for new reactor licenses, and preparing detailed plant designs. The Nuclear Power 2010
Program, which includes the Standby Support Program authorized by the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (P.L. 109-58) to pay for regulatory delays, is intended to encourage near-term orders for
advanced versions of existing commercial nuclear plants.
Two industry consortia are receiving DOE assistance over the next several years to design and
license new nuclear power plants. DOE awarded the first funding to the consortia in 2004. DOE
requested $114.0 million for Nuclear Power 2010 for FY2008, more than 40% above the FY2007
funding level of $80.3 million. The omnibus act provided a $21.0 million increase from the
budget request, as recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee, for a total of $135.0
million. The funding increase is intended to accelerate progress on the new reactor licenses. The
House had approved flat funding for the program, contending that funds should not be provided
for reactor design work.
The nuclear license applications under the Nuclear Power 2010 program are intended to test the
“one-step” licensing process established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486). Under
the process, NRC may grant a combined construction permit and operating license (COL) that
allows a completed plant to begin operation if all construction criteria have been met. Even if the
licenses are granted by NRC, the industry consortia funded by DOE have not committed to
building new reactors. The following two consortia are receiving COL assistance under the
Nuclear Power 2010 program:
•
A consortium led by Dominion Resources that is preparing a COL for an
advanced General Electric reactor. The proposed reactor would be located at
Dominion’s existing North Anna plant in Virginia, where the company received
an NRC early-site permit with DOE assistance. Dominion Energy submitted a
COL application for a new unit at North Anna on November 27, 2007.
•
A consortium called NuStart Energy Development, including Exelon and several
other major nuclear utilities, which announced on September 22, 2005, that it
would seek a COL for two Westinghouse reactors at the site of TVA’s
uncompleted Bellefonte nuclear plant in Alabama and for a General Electric
design at the Grand Gulf plant in Mississippi. The Nuclear Power 2010 Program
is providing funding for review and approval of the Bellefonte COL, which was
submitted to NRC on October 30, 2007.
The Nuclear Power 2010 Program also helped three utilities seek NRC Early Site Permits (ESPs)
for potential new reactors in Illinois, Mississippi, and Virginia. NRC issued the first of these on
March 15, 2007, to Exelon Generating Company for a potential new reactor at the company’s
Clinton, Illinois, nuclear plant. Under Nuclear Power 2010, DOE paid half the $15 million cost of
the Clinton ESP. NRC authorized a second ESP on March 27, 2007, for the Grand Gulf site in
Mississippi, and a third, for the North Anna site in Virginia, on November 20, 2007. The holders
of those ESPs will not have to revisit site-related issues if they seek licenses for new reactors at
those locations during the next 20 years.
Generation IV
Advanced commercial reactor technologies that are not yet close to deployment are the focus of
DOE’s Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative, for which $36.1 million was requested
Congressional Research Service
17
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
for FY2008—about the same as the FY2007 funding level. The omnibus measure nearly tripled
the request to $116.0 million, with $74 million devoted to the Next Generation Nuclear Plant
(NGNP). At least $38 million of the NGNP funding is to be spent for developing a conceptual
design and baseline cost estimate, and $36 million is for NRC pre-licensing activities. Under
DOE’s current plans, NGNP will use Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) technology, which
features helium as a coolant and coated-particle fuel that can withstand temperatures up to 1,600
degrees Celsius.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes $1.25 billion through FY2015 for NGNP development
and construction (Title VI, Subtitle C). The authorization requires that NGNP be based on
research conducted by the Generation IV program and be capable of producing electricity,
hydrogen, or both. Phase I research on the NGNP is to continue until 2011, when a decision will
be made on moving to the Phase II design and construction stage, according to the FY2008 DOE
budget justification.
In conjunction with the GNEP Technology Demonstration Program, the Generation IV Program
will also focus on developing a sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR). Existing U.S. commercial
nuclear reactors use water to slow down, or “moderate,” the neutrons released by the fission
process (splitting of nuclei). The relatively slow (thermal) neutrons are highly efficient in causing
fission in certain isotopes of heavy elements, such as uranium 235 and plutonium 239.8 Therefore,
fewer of those isotopes are needed in nuclear fuel to sustain a nuclear chain reaction (in which
neutrons released by fissioned nuclei then induce fission in other nuclei, and so forth). The
downside is that thermal neutrons cannot efficiently induce fission in more than a few specific
isotopes.
In contrast, “fast” neutrons, which have not been moderated, are less effective in inducing fission
than thermal neutrons but can induce fission in a much wider range of isotopes, including all
major plutonium isotopes. Therefore, nuclear fuel for a fast reactor must have a higher proportion
of fissionable isotopes than a thermal reactor to sustain a chain reaction, but a larger number of
different isotopes can constitute that fissionable proportion.
A fast reactor’s ability to fission most heavy radioactive isotopes, called “transuranics” (TRU),
makes it theoretically possible to repeatedly separate those materials from spent fuel and feed
them back into the reactor until they are entirely fissioned. In a thermal reactor, the buildup of
non-fissile isotopes sharply limits the number of such separation cycles before the recycled fuel
can no longer sustain a nuclear chain reaction.
“Given the benefits of continuous recycling, at this time GNEP-TDP is focused on the
development of fast reactor technologies, recognizing that fast reactor operating experience is
much more limited than thermal reactor operating experience, and that fast burn reactor fuels, or
transmutation fuels, are not fully developed,” according to the DOE Program Plan.9
The House Appropriations Committee report directed DOE to make the gas-cooled NGNP a
higher priority than fast reactors for GNEP and begin a competitive solicitation for a commercial
demonstration plant at the Idaho National Laboratory. The Senate panel also emphasized gascooled reactors in the Generation IV program.
8
9
Isotopes are atoms of the same chemical element but with different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei.
Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling Program Plan, p. 8.
Congressional Research Service
18
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
The Generation IV program is also monitoring international research on lead-cooled fast reactors,
gas-cooled fast reactors, and supercritical water-cooled reactors, according to the FY2008 budget
justification.
Fuel Cycle Research and Facilities
The omnibus act places the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative within the new category of Fuel Cycle
Research and Facilities, along with Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication, which was transferred from
the nuclear nonproliferation account (described in a separate section of this report). Funding for
the new category totals $462.3 million.
The FY2008 funding request of $395 million for AFCI, the primary component of GNEP, was
more than double the FY2007 funding level of $167.5 million, which in turn was more than
double the FY2006 appropriation. The omnibus act reduced AFCI to $181.0 million, as discussed
above. According to the DOE budget justification, AFCI will develop and demonstrate nuclear
fuel cycles that could reduce the long-term hazard of spent nuclear fuel and recover additional
energy. Such technologies would involve separation of plutonium, uranium, and other long-lived
radioactive materials from spent fuel for reuse in a nuclear reactor or for transmutation in a
particle accelerator. Much of the program’s research will focus on a separations technology called
UREX+, in which uranium and other elements are chemically removed from dissolved spent fuel,
leaving a mixture of plutonium and other highly radioactive elements. Proponents believe the
process is proliferation-resistant, because further purification would be required to make the
plutonium useable for weapons and because its high radioactivity would make it difficult to divert
or work with.
FY2008 funding was also to have been used for conceptual design work on an Advanced Fuel
Cycle Facility (AFCF) to provide an engineering-scale demonstration of AFCI technologies,
according to the budget justification. At the same time, industry design teams were to complete
conceptual designs for nuclear fuel recycling demonstration facilities to be used for GNEP.
However, the omnibus measure specifically rejected funding for development of AFCF in
FY2008.
Removing uranium from spent fuel would eliminate most of the volume of spent nuclear fuel that
would otherwise require disposal in a deep geologic repository, which DOE is developing at
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The UREX+ process also could reduce the heat generated by nuclear
waste—the major limit on the repository’s capacity—by removing cesium and strontium for
separate storage and decay over several hundred years. Plutonium and other long-lived elements
would be fissioned in accelerators or fast reactors (such as the type under development by the
Generation IV program) to reduce the long-term hazard of nuclear waste. Even if technically
feasible, however, the economic viability of such waste processing has yet to be determined, and
it still faces significant opposition on nuclear nonproliferation grounds.
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative
In support of President Bush’s program to develop hydrogen-fueled vehicles, DOE is requesting
$22.6 million in FY2008 for the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, about 10% above the FY2007
funding level but below the FY2006 appropriation. The omnibus measure provides $10 million
for the program. The House had provided flat funding for the program, and the Senate Committee
had approved the full request. According to DOE’s FY2008 budget justification, the program will
Congressional Research Service
19
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
continue laboratory-scale experiments to allow selection by 2011 of a hydrogen-production
technology for pilot-scale demonstration by 2013.
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration
The Bush Administration requested $566.8 million in the FY2008 omnibus act for Fossil Energy
Research and Development (see Table 9). This is about 20.7% more than the $469.7 million
requested in FY2007. (Final funding under the FY2007 Operating Plan showed spending of
$592.6 million). Major funding categories and amounts in the FY2008 request include the
President’s Coal Research Initiative (Clean Coal Power Initiative, $73 million; FutureGen, $108
million; and Fuels and Power Systems, $245.6 million), Program Direction ($130 million), Fossil
Energy Environmental Restoration ($9.6 million), and Special Recruitment Programs ($0.7
million). Coal and coal-related activities accounted for more than 75% of the FY2008 Fossil
Energy R&D budget request.
The FY2007 funding bill (P.L. 110-5) as enacted deferred $257million in unobligated Clean Coal
Technology balances to FY2008. The FY2008 omnibus act transfers $166 million to the Fossil
Energy Research and Development account in FY2008, and recommends the deferral of $149
million in Clean Coal Technology balances until FY2009 (as proposed by the Senate and not the
rescission of balances proposed by the House). The FY2008 act provides $750 million for Fossil
Energy Research and Development (an across-the-board rescission of 0.91% reduces this to
$742.8 million). Under that heading, $70 million is marked for the Clean Coal Power Initiative
($3 million below request); $75 million for FutureGen ($33 million below request due to unused
prior-year funds); $352.9 million for Fuels and Power Systems ($107.3 million above request);
$20 million for Natural Gas Technologies; $5 million for Petroleum-Oil Technologies; $150
million for Program Direction; $13 million for Plant and Capital Equipment; $0.7 million for
Special Recruitment Programs; $5 million for Cooperative Research and Development; and $48.9
million for congressionally directed projects.
Table 9. Fossil Energy Research and Development Programs
($ millions)
Clean Coal Technology
FY2007
Op. Plan
Def. unobligated bal., FY2007
257.0
Def. unobligated bal., FY2008
-257.0
FY2008
Request
FY2008
House
FY2008
S.Cmte.
FY2008
Appropriations
257.0
257.0
257.0
257.0
Def. unobligated bal., FY2009
-149.0
Rescission, uncommitted bal.
—
-149.0
-149.0
-149.0
Transfer to Clean Coal Pwr. Init.
—
-58.0
—
-73.0
-70.0
Transfer to FutureGen
—
-108.0
-108.0
-88.0
-75.0
Transfer to Fuels & Power Sys.
-58.0
Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D
-5.0
Transfer to Carbon
Sequestration
Total
Congressional Research Service
-21.0
-58.0
—
-58.0
-58.0
-58.0
-58.0
20
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
FY2007
Op. Plan
FY2008
Request
FY2008
House
FY2008
S.Cmte.
FY2008
Appropriations
Clean Coal Power Initiative
60.4
73.0
73.0
88.0
70.0
FutureGen
54.0
108.0
108.0
88.0
75.0
Fossil Energy R & D
Fuels & Power Systems
Innovations for existing plants
36.4
Advanced IGCC
54.0
Advanced turbines
24.0
Carbon sequestration
120.0
Fuels
25.0
Fuel Cell
56.0
Advanced research
37.5
Subtotal
311.3
245.6
375.6
374.0
352.9
Natural Gas Technologies
12.0
—
12.0
20.0
20.0
Petroleum-Oil Technologies
2.7
—
2.7
10.0
5.0
129.8
130.0
127.0
150.0
150.0
Program Direction
Plant & Capital Equipment
Fossil Energy Env. Restoration
—
9.7
Special Recruitment Program
9.6
13.0
9.6
16.6
9.6
0.7
0.7
Congressionally Directed
48.0
Other
12.7
0.7
07
61.6
Total
592.6
566.8
708.8
808.1
750.0a
Sources: DOE FY2007 Operating Plan; DOE FY2008 Budget Request; H.Rept. 110-185; S.Rept. 110-127;
Congressional Record, December 17, 2007.
a.
does not reflect a 0.91% across-the-board rescission.
The Clean Coal Power Initiative is intended to demonstrate advanced clean coal-based power
generation technologies on a commercial scale capable of achieving 45% thermal efficiency. The
FutureGen project will partner with industry to build the advanced coal-based Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant that can produce electricity at 45%-50% efficiency at
a capital cost of $1,000/kilowatt (in 2003 dollars) and can integrate CO2 separation, capture, and
sequestration. The FutureGen Industrial Alliance, Inc., has selected Mattoon, Illinois, as the plant
site. The Fuels program is a key component of the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and will provide the
hydrogen production supporting R&D for the FutureGen project. The Fossil Energy
Environmental Restoration program remediates the National Energy Technology Laboratory at
the Morgantown, WV; Pittsburgh, PA; Tulsa, OK; Fairbanks, AK; and Albany, OR, sites.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58, Title IV) authorizes the annual appropriation of
$200 million in FY2006 through FY2014 for the Clean Coal Power Initiative (see Table 10). Of
the funds made available, 70% (i.e., $140 million annually) are to be used only in funding coalbased gasification technologies: combined cycle, fuel cell, coproduction, hybrid, and advanced
technologies capable of producing concentrated carbon monoxide—technologies aimed at
FutureGen. The Coal and Related Technologies Program is authorized $611 million in FY2007,
$626 million in FY2008, and $641 million in FY2009, in addition to programs for research,
Congressional Research Service
21
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
development, demonstration, and commercial application of coal-based power generation through
gasification, advanced combustion, and turbines for synthesis gas derived from coal.
Table 10. Energy Policy Act of 2005 Title IV Authorization
($ millions)
EPAct Authorization
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
Clean Coal Power
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
FutureGen related
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
611
626
641
Fossil Energy
Source: DOE FY2008 Budget Request.
DOE had proposed terminating programs in Natural Gas Technology and Petroleum-Oil
Technology in FY2008. OMB rated both programs as ineffective based on its Program
Assessment Rating Tool. Nor had DOE requested funding for Plant and Capital Equipment or the
Cooperative Research and Development program (believing that research center sponsored work
can compete for Fossil Energy funding through the competitive solicitation process, DOE had not
requested funding in FY2007 or FY2008). Congress has reinstated the funding of these programs.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(P.L. 94-163) in 1975, consists of caverns formed out of naturally occurring salt domes in
Louisiana and Texas in which roughly 690 million barrels of crude oil are stored. Current
capacity is 727 million barrels; the SPR currently holds 690 million barrels. The purpose of the
SPR is to provide an emergency source of crude oil that may be tapped in the event of a
presidential finding that an interruption in oil supply, or an interruption threatening adverse
economic effects, warrants a drawdown from the reserve. A Northeast Heating Oil Reserve
(NHOR) was established during the Clinton Administration. NHOR houses 2 million barrels of
home heating oil in above-ground facilities in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.
Program costs for the SPR in recent years have been dedicated principally to maintaining SPR
facilities and keeping the SPR in readiness should it be needed. Any fill activity was
accomplished by accepting deliveries of royalty-in-kind (RIK) oil to the SPR in lieu of cash
royalties on offshore production being paid to the federal government. The Administration request
for FY2007 for the SPR was $155.4 million. DOE’s 2007 operating plan set FY2007 spending at
$169.4 million, including $5.0 million for the NHOR. The FY2008 request for the same activities
was $168.8 million. However, the request included an additional $168.1 million to launch the
Administration’s plan to expand the SPR to 1.5 billion barrels, for a total of $331.6 million. At
present, expansion of the Reserve is authorized to 1 billion barrels by the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (P.L. 109-58). The FY2008 request from the Administration was intended to achieve
capacity of 1 billion barrels by adding 115 million barrels of capacity at three existing sites and
establishing a new site, in Richton, Mississippi, where 160 million barrels of capacity would be
created. The FY2008 budget request indicated that the Administration would seek authority at a
later date to expand the SPR to 1.5 billion barrels, and that planned spending during FY2008
would be a start toward that goal.
Congressional Research Service
22
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
The proposal to raise spending significantly to expand the SPR was anticipated to be
controversial. In its report on the bill (H.Rept. 110-185), the House Committee on Appropriations
indicated that it did not support expansion of the SPR at this time, noting an estimate that it would
cost $10 billion for creating additional capacity and $55 billion to fill, and expansion would not
be completed until 2027. The Committee said the plans for the expansion lacked “analytical
clarity,” citing recommendations in a 2006 report from the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) that a new assessment be made of the optimal mix for the SPR of sweet and sour crudes,
as well as the appropriate size of the SPR. The Committee recommended $163.5 million for the
SPR program in FY2008, and approved the Administration request of $5.3 million for the NHOR.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations had the same reaction as the House committee. Citing
the same statistics as in the House report, the Senate committee also settled on a recommendation
of $163.5 million. The omnibus bill provides $188.5 million, an increase of $25 million, which is
directed to be spent to acquire land at a new site. The explanatory statement on the bill is explicit
that the Appropriations Committees do not support expansion of the SPR to 1.5 billion barrels.
Meanwhile, fill of the SPR with royalty-in-kind (RIK) oil continues to be controversial. Critics
argue that it is inadvisable to add oil to the SPR when markets are tight and prices are touching
inflation-adjusted historic highs, and that the additional oil adds little to U.S. energy security.
Supporters of RIK fill argue that the fill rate is too little to have a discernible impact on markets,
and that currently high product prices are sustained owing to factors other than crude supply,
which is more than ample at this time. Deliveries of RIK oil to the SPR totaled 4.3 million barrels
during FY2007. Deliveries of RIK oil during FY2008 are estimated at 19.1 million barrels.
Deliveries of roughly 15 million barrels are scheduled through July 2008.
Science
The DOE Office of Science conducts basic research in six program areas: basic energy sciences,
high-energy physics, biological and environmental research, nuclear physics, fusion energy
sciences, and advanced scientific computing research. Through these programs, DOE is the thirdlargest federal funder of basic research and the largest federal funder of research in the physical
sciences.10 For FY2008, DOE requested $4.398 billion for Science, an increase of 16% from the
FY2007 amount of $3.797 billion. This unusually large increase reflected the American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which President Bush announced in his State of the Union
address on January 31, 2006. Over 10 years, the ACI would double the combined R&D funding
of the DOE Office of Science and two other agencies. The House provided $4.514 billion for
Science. The Senate committee recommended $4.497 billion. The final appropriation was $4.018
billion,11 which was $380 million less than the request but a 6% increase from FY2007.
The requested funding for the largest Office of Science program, basic energy sciences, was
$1.498 billion, a 20% increase from FY2007. Much of the requested increase was to expand
facility operating time, as called for by the House and Senate appropriations reports for FY2006.
The House provided the requested amount, and the Senate committee recommended a further
increase of $14 million. The final appropriation was $1.270 billion, less than the request by $229
10
Based on preliminary FY2006 data from Tables 29 and 22 of National Science Foundation, Division of Science
Resources Statistics, Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2004-06, NSF 07-323 (June 2007).
11
Adjusted for the across-the board rescission (Sec. 312) but not for a specific rescission of $44.6 million in prior-year
funds.
Congressional Research Service
23
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
million but a 2% increase from FY2007. The explanatory statement did not explain how this
reduction relative to the request should be allocated to particular activities. In particular, it did not
mention the operating time issue. It did state that the final bill included “less funding than
requested for two projects where the start of major construction activity can be delayed,” but the
total request for construction in this program was only $121 million.
For high-energy physics, the request was $782 million, up 4% from FY2007. The budget
justification stated that the program’s “highest priority R&D effort is the development of the
proposed International Linear Collider (ILC).” The House provided the requested amount,
including the requested increase for the ILC. The House committee also emphasized its support
for the NASA/DOE Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM), for which it said “DOE has done its
part” but “NASA has failed to budget and program for launch services.” The Senate committee
also recommended the requested ILC funding, although as in previous years it expressed concern
that the ILC “will crowd out other valuable research”; it provided a $7 million increase to
“aggressively ramp up” JDEM and related activities. The final appropriation was $688 million,
$94 million less than the request and 8% down from FY2007. The final bill provided $15 million
for the ILC, $45 million less than the request; the explanatory statement directed DOE to proceed
with JDEM during FY2008, together with NASA, but if the two agencies cannot agree on a joint
approach, to provide no support for space science satellite missions in future years. The Fermi
National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) received about $52 million less than requested, and
the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) received about $25 million less. The directors of
Fermilab and SLAC have announced plans to lay off 200 and 125 employees respectively.12
The request for biological and environmental research was $532 million, up 10%. The House
provided an increase of $30 million for biological research and an increase of $20 million for
climate change research. The Senate committee recommended an increase of $73 million, mostly
for congressionally directed projects. The final appropriation was $544 million, an increase of
$12 million. In past years, biological and environmental research has been the main location for
congressionally directed projects in the Science account. The explanatory statement for FY2008
grouped all such projects (for the entire Office of Science) in a separate category, for which it
provided $124 million.
For nuclear physics, the request was $471 million, up 11% from FY2007. As in the FY2007
request, no funds were included for construction of the Rare Isotope Accelerator (RIA), despite
direction in Section 981 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) that construction of this
project must begin no later than the end of FY2008. A National Academies report on the RIA was
released in December 2006 and is available on the nuclear physics program’s website.13 The
House provided the requested amount and endorsed DOE’s decision to fund additional R&D
rather than build the RIA. The Senate committee recommended the requested amount and did not
mention the RIA. The final appropriation was $433 million, less than the request by $39 million
but 2% up from FY2007.
The request for fusion energy sciences was $428 million, up 34%. Almost the entire increase was
for the U.S. share of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), a fusion
12
Pier J. Oddone, director of Fermilab, presentation slides from an “all hands” meeting on December 20, 2007,
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/files/All_Hands_Meeting_122007.ppt; Persis S. Drell, director of SLAC, presentation
slides from an “all hands” meeting on January 7, 2008, http://today.slac.stanford.edu/misc/AllHands-010708.ppt.
13
National Research Council, Scientific Opportunities with a Rare-Isotope Facility in the United States, online at
http://www.sc.doe.gov/np/program/docs/RareIsotopeScienceAssessment.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
24
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
facility now under construction whose other participants include China, the European Union,
India, Japan, Russia, and South Korea. The House provided the requested amount, but rejected
the proposed creation of a new activity in high energy-density physics and instead redistributed
its requested $12 million among existing non-ITER activities. The Senate committee also
recommended the requested amount, but it supported the new program in high energy-density
physics and encouraged DOE to expand it in future years. The final appropriation was $287
million, less than the request by $141 million and 10% down from FY2007. The requested $150
million for U.S. contributions to ITER was not included, although $10 million for related R&D
was, and DOE was directed not to use reprogramming to restore ITER funding. According to
press reports, ITER officials expect no immediate impact on the project’s planned start in 2008,
but “what the other ITER partners now want from the United States is clarity” about its future
plans.14 Under an agreement signed in 2006, the U.S. share of ITER construction costs is 9.1%, or
an estimated $1.122 billion through FY2014.
The request for the smallest of the Office of Science research programs, advanced scientific
computing research, was $340 million, up 20% from FY2007. The House provided the requested
amount. The Senate committee recommended $335 million. The final appropriation was $351
million.
The request for laboratory infrastructure was $79 million, up from $42 million in FY2007. The
House provided $152 million: the bulk of this increase was to accelerate facility cleanup,
replacement, renovation, and upgrades at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). The
Senate committee recommended $89 million, expressed its continued support for the affected
PNNL facilities, and questioned why the budget request did not fund an agreement on those
facilities signed by DOE and the Department of Homeland Security in 2006. The final
appropriation was $65 million. It included $10 million less than the request for PNNL, but the
explanatory statement directed DOE to increase future funding for PNNL by $10 million to
restore the baseline.
Nuclear Waste Disposal
DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) is responsible for
developing a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for disposal of nuclear reactor
spent fuel and defense-related high-level radioactive waste.
The omnibus appropriations act provides $386.5 million in FY2008 for the nuclear waste
program (including the rescission), about $50 million below the FY2007 level and more than
$100 million below the Administration’s $494.5 million request. The funding cut may affect
OCRWM’s plans to submit the Yucca Mountain license application to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission by June 30, 2008, and the current goal of opening the repository by 2017. The
House had approved the full request, while the Senate Appropriations panel had voted to hold the
program at $446.1 million, about the FY2007 level.
Funding for the program is provided under two appropriations accounts. The Administration
requested $202.5 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund, which holds fees paid by nuclear utilities.
An additional $292.0 million was requested in the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal account,
14
Dennis Normile, “U.S. Wavers Again on ITER,” ScienceNOW Daily News, December 21, 2007
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/1221/1.
Congressional Research Service
25
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
which pays for disposal of high-level waste from the nuclear weapons program in the planned
Yucca Mountain repository. The omnibus measure provides $187.3 million from the Nuclear
Waste Fund and $199.2 million under the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal account (with both
figures reflecting the rescission).
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA, P.L. 97-425), as amended, names Yucca
Mountain as the sole candidate site for a national geologic repository. Congress passed an
approval resolution in July 2002 (H.J.Res. 87, P.L. 107-200) that authorized the Yucca Mountain
project to proceed to the licensing phase.
NWPA required DOE to begin taking waste from nuclear plant sites by January 31, 1998. Nuclear
utilities, upset over DOE’s failure to meet that deadline, have won two federal court decisions
upholding the department’s obligation to meet the deadline and to compensate utilities for any
resulting damages. Utilities have also won several cases in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
DOE estimates that liability payments will total $7 billion if Yucca Mountain begins receiving
waste by 2017 and $11 billion if the repository’s opening is delayed until 2020.15 (For more
information, see CRS Report RL33461, Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal, by (name redacted).)
Loan Guarantees
Congress established the DOE Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. The act authorized loan guarantees for energy projects using “new or
significantly improved technologies” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The omnibus act allows DOE to guarantee repayment of up to $38.5 billion in loans for energy
projects during FY2008 and FY2009. Of that amount, $18.5 billion is for nuclear power plants,
$6 billion for coal projects that incorporate carbon capture and sequestration, $2 billion for
advanced coal gasification, $10 billion for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects, and
$2 billion for uranium enrichment and other “front end” nuclear fuel cycle facilities. DOE must
submit an implementation plan to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees at least 45
days before issuing the loan guarantees.
In the FY2008 request, the Administration sought $9 billion in loan guarantee authority
(including $2 billion previously requested for FY2007). The House approved $7 billion in loan
guarantees for FY2008, allocating $2 billion for coal, $4 billion for biofuels, and $1 billion for
electric transmission and renewable power systems, specifically omitting the Administration’s
mention of nuclear power. The Senate Appropriations Committee’s version of the bill did not cap
the loan guarantee level or specify eligible technologies.
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship
Congress established the Stockpile Stewardship Program in the FY1994 National Defense
Authorization Act (P.L. 103-160) “to ensure the preservation of the core intellectual and technical
competencies of the United States in nuclear weapons.” The program is operated by the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semiautonomous agency within DOE that Congress
15
Statement of Edward F. Sproat III, Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Before the
House Budget Committee, October 4, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
26
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
established in the FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 106-65, Title XXXII). It
seeks to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile.
Stockpile stewardship consists of all activities in NNSA’s Weapons Activities account. The three
main elements of stockpile stewardship, described below, are Directed Stockpile Work (DSW),
Campaigns, and Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF). Table 11 presents funding
for these elements. NNSA manages two programs outside of Weapons Activities: Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation, discussed later in this report, and Naval Reactors.
Most stewardship activities take place at the nuclear weapons complex, which consists of three
laboratories (Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
CA; and Sandia National Laboratories, NM and CA); four production sites (Kansas City Plant,
MO; Pantex Plant, TX; Savannah River Site, SC; and Y-12 Plant, TN); and the Nevada Test Site.
NNSA manages and sets policy for the complex; contractors to NNSA operate the eight sites.
Table 11. Funding for Weapons Activities
($ millions)
FY2007
Operating Plan
FY2008
Request
House
Senate
Approps. Cmte.
Consolidated
Approps. Act
DSW
$1,425.7
$1,447.2
$1,336.6
$1,409.5
$1,413.9
Campaigns
1,979.0
1,866.2
1,725.2
1,933.2
1,890.7
RTBF
1,613.2
1,662.1
1,479.6
1,659.2
1,652.1
Othera
1,257.7
1,535.7
1,337.7
1,487.1
1,398.9
Total
6,275.6
6,511.3
5,879.1
6,489.0
6,355.6
Program
Sources: DOE FY2008 Congressional Budget Request, vol. 1 (NNSA), p. 59; U.S. Department of Energy, FY
2007 Operating Plan by Appropriation, March 16, 2007, pp. 15-21; U.S. Congress. House. Committee on
Appropriations. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2008, 110th Congress, 1st Session, H.Rept. 110185, pp. 136-140; U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Appropriations. Energy and Water Appropriations Bill,
2008, 110th Congress, 1st Session, S.Rept. 110-127, pp. 193-198; and U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Rules.
Text of the House Amendments to Senate Amendment to H.R. 2764—State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008). Joint Explanatory Statement to Accompany
Consolidated Appropriations Amendment, Division C—Energy and Water, pp. 58e-58h.
Notes: Does not reflect applicable rescissions. Details may not add to totals due to rounding. DSW, Directed
Stockpile Work; RTBF, Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities.
a.
Includes Secure Transportation Asset, Nuclear Weapons Incident Response, Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program, Environmental Projects and Operations, Safeguards and Security, and several
adjustments.
The FY2008 request document includes data from NNSA’s Future Years Nuclear Security
Program (FYNSP), which projects the budget and components through FY2012 (see Table 12).
Table 12. NNSA Future Years Nuclear Security Program
($ millions)
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
DSW
$1,447.2
$1,483.4
$1,520.5
$1,558.5
$1,597.5
Campaigns
1,866.2
1,916.6
1,941.1
1,933.7
1,942.0
Congressional Research Service
27
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
RTBF
1,662.1
1,698.4
1,765.5
1,862.7
1,952.6
Othera
1,535.7
1,606.6
1,677.0
1,756.0
1,831.9
Total
6,511.3
6,705.0
6,904.0
7,111.0
7,324.0
Source: DOE FY2008 Congressional Budget Request, vol. 1 (NNSA), pp. 59, 60.
Note: Does not reflect applicable rescissions. Details may not add to totals because of rounding.
a.
Includes Secure Transportation Asset, Nuclear Weapons Incident Response, Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program, Environmental Projects and Operations, Safeguards and Security, and several
adjustments.
Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration
In testimony before the House Appropriations Committee’s Energy and Water Subcommittee in
March 2004, the Secretary of Energy agreed to conduct a review of reconfiguring the nuclear
weapons complex (the “Complex”). The committee’s FY2005 energy and water report contained
a requirement for that study. The committee was concerned about high costs, the security of
fissile material distributed among many sites, and the size and age of the Complex. A task force
of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board released its final report in October 2005. It
recommended a Consolidated Nuclear Production Center (CNPC) that would make nuclear
components (such as those of uranium or plutonium) and would assemble and dismantle nuclear
weapons. It recommended consolidating uranium and plutonium, and probably closing several
current sites. The House Appropriations Committee, in its FY2007 report, supported the task
force’s recommendations and rejected NNSA’s “Complex 2030” plan to modernize the Complex
with less consolidation. The committee recommended $100.0 million “for transition planning, site
selection, and preliminary design and development for a consolidated nuclear production site for
reliable replacement warheads and stockpile support.” The bill as passed by the House provided
this sum. NNSA had not requested funds for this purpose. The Senate Appropriations Committee
did not recommend funds for this purpose, and the DOE FY2007 operating plan did not include
such funds. For FY2008, NNSA did not request funds for CNPC, but did request funds
throughout its proposed budget for upgrading and consolidating the Complex. In January 2007, it
submitted a report to Congress on its plan for transforming the Complex. This plan included
evaluation of CNPC in a draft Supplement to the Stockpile Stewardship and Management
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Complex 2030.
The House Appropriations Committee, in its FY2008 report, expressed extreme displeasure with
the Administration’s rationale for the nuclear weapons program and with NNSA’s plan for the
Complex. It stated that the Reliable Replacement Warhead program (RRW, discussed below) and
Complex 2030 “are being proposed in a policy vacuum without any Administration statement on
the national security environment that the future nuclear deterrent is designed to address.”
Accordingly, “The Committee believes it is premature to proceed with further development of the
RRW or a significant nuclear complex modernization plan, until a three-part planning sequence is
completed.” This sequence has three elements: “a comprehensive nuclear defense and
nonproliferation strategy”; a detailed description translating that strategy into a “specific nuclear
stockpile”; and “a comprehensive, long-term expenditure plan, from FY2008 through FY2030....”
“The Committee views completion of this three-part planning sequence as a necessary condition
before considering additional funding for Complex 2030 and RRW activities.” It noted its “strong
reservations” on Complex 2030 and stated that “NNSA continues to pursue a policy of rebuilding
Congressional Research Service
28
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
and modernizing the entire complex in situ without any thought given to a sensible strategy for
long-term efficiency and consolidation.”
The Senate Appropriations Committee expressed concern with NNSA’s plans for the Complex. It
felt that there was an inadequate linkage between warheads, the Complex, and strategy.
“Congress should have a more vigorous analysis and debate of our national strategic defense
policy prior to deciding whether to continue or terminate RRW development.” Further,
The Committee rejects the Department’s premature deployment of the NNSA Complex 2030
consolidation effort. This plan was based on the adoption and deployment of the Reliable
Replacement Warhead systems. The Government Accountability Office found this proposal
to be lacking critical details about the size and military mission of the RRW system, which
of course would dictate the size and makeup of the future stockpile including the necessity
for a new pit manufacturing capability.
The committee also expressed concern about “sustaining the science capability at the
laboratories.” It directed DOE to provide (1) a comprehensive, long-term strategy for
computation at the labs and (2) an R&D plan “that addresses unresolved physics and materials
questions.”
The joint explanatory statement accompanying the consolidated appropriations bill said, “The
Congress agrees to the direction contained in the House and Senate reports requiring the
Administration ... to develop and submit to the Congress a comprehensive nuclear weapons
strategy for the 21st century.”
On December 18, 2007, NNSA announced its plans for the Complex, called Nuclear Weapons
Complex Transformation. This plan, to be more fully described in a draft supplemental
programmatic environmental impact statement to be released in January 2008, would retain
existing sites, reduce the weapons program footprint by as much as one-third, close or transfer
from weapons activities about 600 structures, reduce the number of weapons workers by 20-30%,
dismantle weapons more rapidly, and build several major new facilities, such as a Uranium
Processing Facility at Y-12 Plant, a Weapons Surveillance Facility at Pantex Plant, and a
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility at Los Alamos National
Laboratory.16
Directed Stockpile Work (DSW)
This program involves work directly on nuclear weapons in the stockpile, such as monitoring
their condition; maintaining them through repairs, refurbishment, life extension, and
modifications; R&D in support of specific warheads; and dismantlement. The FY2008 DSW
request would support life extension programs for the B61 gravity bomb and the W76 warhead
for Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles. It would fund surveillance and maintenance
for eight warhead types, dismantlement and disposition of retired warheads and components, and
16
U.S. Department of Energy. National Nuclear Security Administration. “NNSA Releases Draft Plan to Transform
Nuclear Weapons Complex.” Press release, December 18, 2007, at
http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/docs/newsreleases/2007/PR_2007-12-18_NA-07-64.htm; National Nuclear Security
Administration, “Nuclear Weapons Complex Transformation,” with links to plans for each site, at
http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/complextransformation.htm; and Walter Pincus, “Administration Plans to Shrink U.S.
Nuclear Arms Program,” Washington Post, December 19, 2007, p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
29
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
management and technology work linked to multiple warhead types or to no specific warhead
type. It also included funds for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program.
RRW originated as a funded program in the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 108447, which included $9.0 million for the program and described it as a “program to improve the
reliability, longevity, and certifiability of existing weapons and their components.” For FY2006,
Congress appropriated $24.8 million. The FY2007 operating plan included $35.8 million, and the
FY2008 request is $88.8 million. Outyear projections are FY2009, $99.8 million; FY2010,
$109.2 million; FY2011, $167.4 million; and FY2012, $179.9 million. (See CRS Report
RL32929, The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program: Background and Current Developments,
by Jonathan Medalia, and CRS Report RL33748, Nuclear Warheads: The Reliable Replacement
Warhead Program and the Life Extension Program, by Jonathan Medalia.)
Although RRW is a small part of the NNSA budget, the House Appropriations Committee, in its
FY2006 report, viewed it as enabling large changes, such as transitioning the Complex “from a
large, expensive Cold War relic into a smaller, more efficient modern complex” and allowing
“long-term savings by phasing out the multiple redundant Cold War warhead designs that require
maintaining multiple obsolete production technologies.” The Senate Appropriations Committee
stated that the recommended funding increase for RRW is “to accelerate the planning,
development and design for a comprehensive RRW strategy that improves the reliability,
longevity and certifiability of existing weapons and their components.” The conference report
emphasized that RRW “must stay within the military requirements of the existing deployed
stockpile” and “must stay within the design parameters validated by past nuclear tests.” P.L. 109163, the FY2006 National Defense Authorization Act, section 3111, set seven objectives for the
RRW program, including “[t]o increase the reliability, safety, and security of the United States
nuclear weapons stockpile” and “[t]o further reduce the likelihood of the resumption of
underground nuclear weapons testing.”
For FY2007, the Administration requested $27.7 million for RRW. The House Appropriations
Committee linked RRW with a restructured, smaller, and consolidated nuclear weapons complex:
“The Committee supports the RRW, but only if it is part of a larger package of more
comprehensive weapons complex reforms.” It recommended $52.7 million for RRW but
restricted use of the additional $25.0 million until NNSA delivered an infrastructure plan to
Congress. The committee also directed NNSA to have the JASON Defense Advisory Group
conduct a peer review of competing RRW designs and to analyze the premise of RRW—that a
new warhead can be designed and deployed without nuclear testing. The bill as passed by the
House left these provisions unchanged.
Also under DSW, the committee (1) reduced the $232.7 million request for warhead life
extension programs by $80.0 million, directed NNSA to terminate the life extension program for
the W80 warhead for cruise missiles, and used the funds to support weapons complex
transformation, and (2) increased funding for warhead dismantlement from $75.0 million to
$105.0 million to accelerate that activity. The bill as passed by the House left these provisions
unchanged.
The Senate Appropriations Committee supported RRW. It found, “The directors of Los Alamos,
Sandia and Livermore National Labs and the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command share the
belief that maintaining incremental modifications to the existing and highly optimized legacy
systems [i.e., life extension programs (LEPs) of warheads now in the stockpile] is not
sustainable.” It “urges the NNSA to accelerate the transition to a responsive infrastructure and to
Congressional Research Service
30
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
proceed expeditiously with the RRW design.” It noted that DOD and the Nuclear Weapons
Council no longer support the W80 LEP, and provided $10.0 million for a design competition for
a second RRW in lieu of W80 LEP activities. It recommended $62.7 million for RRW and
reducing funds for warhead dismantlement to $35.0 million, preferring to ensure that facilities for
disassembling pits and for fabricating mixed-oxide fuel will be built before providing full
funding. DOE’s FY2007 operating plan included $35.8 million for RRW, $264.4 million for Life
Extension Programs, and $75.0 million for weapons dismantlement and disposition.
NNSA requested $88.8 million for RRW for FY2008. (The Navy requested an additional $30.0
million for RRW; those funds are in the defense appropriations bill and are not discussed here.)
NNSA had planned to use the FY2008 RRW funds mainly to develop a detailed cost, scope, and
schedule baseline for RRW. Other DSW funds requested for FY2008 include $238.7 million for
Life Extension Programs, $346.7 million for Stockpile Systems, $52.3 million for Weapons
Dismantlement and Disposition, and $720.8 million for Stockpile Services. The latter category
includes, for example, funds for production support, safety, and other work supporting multiple
warhead types or otherwise not linked to one specific warhead.
The House Appropriations Committee expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the RRW program.
Its FY2008 report stated, “The Committee finds the RRW program the DoD and NNSA have
pursued at the direction of Congress goes far beyond the scope and purpose of the original
congressional language and intent.... The Committee is unconvinced that pursuing the RRW
design competition to a production phase is necessary at this time.” Further,
A particularly troubling issue for the Committee related to the RRW proposal is the
contradictory U.S. policy position of demanding other nations give up their nuclear
ambitions while the U.S. aggressively pursues a program to build new nuclear warheads. The
Administration needs to develop a policy rationale that explains why the RRW program is
not contradictory and does not undermine our international nuclear nonproliferation goals.
As noted above, the committee felt it necessary to have the planning sequence described earlier
before continuing RRW design activities; accordingly, it recommended providing no funds for
RRW for FY2008.
The committee recommended providing $1,336.6 million for DSW, a reduction of $110.6 million
from the request. This reflects reductions of $88.8 million for RRW, $27.4 million for Stockpile
Systems because of the termination of W80 warhead activities, and $115.5 million for Stockpile
Services, and an increase of $121.0 million for weapons dismantlement and disposition.
Regarding the latter category, the committee stated that DOE “must view dismantlement as a
priority in and of itself, rather than as a workload leveling function to fill-in for down times in the
life extension workload at Pantex.” The committee also recommended transferring NNSA’s
activity to build a Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility from the Office of Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation to the Office of Defense Programs, and directed DOE to begin the siting process
to build the facility at Pantex Plant (TX) rather than at Savannah River Site (SC) to avoid security
risks in transporting pits from Texas to South Carolina.
The Senate Appropriations Committee provided $66.0 million for NNSA for RRW in order to
complete Phase 2A. As noted earlier, it made clear that it was not committed to proceeding with
Phase 3 but wanted “a more vigorous analysis and debate” first. It wanted more information to
help with this decision, such as characteristics of the future stockpile, the possible effects of RRW
on U.S. nuclear nonproliferation efforts, and comparative costs of RRW vs. LEP. “It will be
incumbent upon NNSA to provide specific details as to how many RRW weapons will be
Congressional Research Service
31
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
manufactured, how the Department of Defense intends to integrate the system into the stockpile
and how many weapons from the existing deterrent can be retired.” While it recommended funds
to continue Phase 2A work on the first RRW type, it barred the use of funds for initial research on
a second RRW type. In other areas of DSW, the committee recommended a net reduction of $37.7
million ($22.8 million from RRW, and $14.9 million, the entire amount requested, from
“responsive infrastructure,” a management program to support decisions on the Complex). It
expressed concern with cost growth in the W76 LEP and commended DOE for recent efforts to
increase the rate at which it dismantled nuclear warheads.
The consolidated appropriations bill eliminated NNSA funds for RRW. The explanatory statement
said, “Congress believes a new strategic nuclear deterrent mission assessment for the 21st century
is required to define the associated stockpile requirements and determine the scope of the
weapons complex modernization plans.” The largest change under DSW was to increase funding
for weapons dismantlement and disposition from $52.3 million requested to $135.9 million. The
bill also provided funds for the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility at Savannah River Site
rather than at Pantex.
Campaigns
These are “multi-year, multi-functional efforts” that “provide specialized scientific knowledge
and technical support to the directed stockpile work on the nuclear weapons stockpile.” The
FY2008 request includes six Campaigns, each with multiple components: Science, Engineering,
Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield, Advanced Simulation and Computing, Pit
Manufacturing and Certification, and Readiness. Many items within Campaigns have significance
for policy decisions. As one example, the Science Campaign’s goals include improving the ability
to assess warhead performance without nuclear testing, improving readiness to conduct tests
should the need arise, and maintaining the scientific infrastructure of the nuclear weapons
laboratories. Campaigns also fund some large experimental facilities, such as the National
Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Dual-Axis Radiographic
Hydrotest Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Microsystems and Engineering
Sciences Applications Complex at Sandia National Laboratories.
NNSA’s proposal to build a Modern Pit Facility (MPF) had been controversial for years. A pit is
the fissile core of a nuclear weapon that is used to trigger a thermonuclear explosion. The United
States has been unable to manufacture pits that can be certified for use in the stockpile since
1989. Los Alamos has a small-scale pit manufacturing facility, called TA-55; NNSA’s plan is that
TA-55 would be able to manufacture 10 pits per year by the end of FY2007 and 30-50 RRW pits
per year by FY2012, but NNSA saw that capacity as insufficient to maintain the stockpile and
favored building MPF, with a capacity of perhaps 125 pits per year. H.R. 2419, the FY2006
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, as passed by the House, eliminated MPF
funds until “capacity requirements tied to the long-term stockpile size are determined” and “until
the long-term strategy for the physical infrastructure of the weapons complex has incorporated
the Reliable Replacement Warhead strategy.” The bill as passed by the Senate provided the
amount requested for MPF, $7.7 million. The appropriation bill, as passed, provided no funds for
MPF. Conferees on the energy and water bill directed NNSA to focus instead on improving
manufacturing capability at TA-55. NNSA requested no funds for MPF for FY2007 and instead
planned to increase capacity at TA-55. It requested $237.6 million for the Pit Manufacturing and
Certification campaign for FY2007; H.R. 5427 as passed by the House provided that amount, and
the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended that amount. The FY2007 operating plan
included $242.4 million for this campaign, and the FY2008 request is $281.2 million. NNSA
Congressional Research Service
32
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
envisions a new pit manufacturing facility able to deliver 125 pits per year to the stockpile by
2022 as part of Complex 2030.17
The House Appropriations Committee recommended providing $150.0 million for pit
manufacturing and certification for FY2008, a reduction of $131.2 million on grounds that the
request has funds in multiple lines “that assume a preferred future programmatic approach” that
“ensures unnecessary expenditures and lack of accountability.” It linked pit funding to the
strategic plan discussed above:
The Committee will not continue to fund activities that are not part of a clearly articulated
facilities strategy. Until the Committee receives a new nuclear weapons strategic plan that
addresses the future requirements for plutonium production, including specifically how
plutonium facilities factor into supporting the future stockpile, the Committee will not
support funding activities that assume a modernization-in-place strategy for the current
nuclear weapons complex.
The Committee recommendation includes no funds for the consolidated plutonium center
proposal.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $256.3 million for pit manufacturing for
FY2008, a reduction of $24.9 million. It “does not endorse the consolidated plutonium center and
has not provided any funding for this activity” because DOD “has been unable to articulate a
coherent policy and pit requirement for the stockpile.”
The consolidated appropriations bill provided $215.8 million for pit manufacturing and
certification. It provided no funds for the consolidated plutonium center. According to the
explanatory statement,
Until a modern nuclear weapons strategy, including required pit production capacity defined
by nuclear stockpile requirements, is developed, the NNSA is directed to constrain the outyear planning for plutonium operations to a pit production capacity no greater than 80 pits
per year. The NNSA Administrator is directed to provide quarterly reports to the Committees
on Appropriations on pit production, with the first report due on April 1, 2008.
The appropriate test readiness posture—the time between a presidential order to resume testing
and the conduct of the test—has been contentious. The posture was set at 24 to 36 months after
the Cold War, but NNSA and others expressed concern that it had become 36 months or more.
The Administration and Congress sought to shorten it, but there was a dispute over how much.
NNSA and the Armed Services Committees favored an 18-month posture on grounds that it
would take that long to prepare a test but that any testing should not be delayed beyond that time.
The Appropriations Committees favored a 24-month posture, seeing an 18-month posture as
provocative and more costly. The FY2006 appropriation was $19.8 million. In its FY2007
request, NNSA stated that it achieved a 24-month readiness posture in FY2005 and planned to
maintain that posture at least through FY2011. It stated that the posture is 18 months “under
current law” but that it “has thus far been limited to 24 months by Congressional funding.” The
FY2007 test readiness request was $14.8 million, and NNSA’s operating plan included $14.6
million.
17
U.S. Department of Energy. National Nuclear Security Administration. Office of Defense Programs. Complex 2030:
An Infrastructure Planning Scenario for a Nuclear Weapons Complex Able to Meet the Threats of the 21st Century,
DOE/NA-0013, October 2006, p. 11.
Congressional Research Service
33
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
For FY2008, NNSA requested no funds for test readiness, but plans to request funds for FY2009.
The House provided $20.0 million for test readiness to restore funding to this activity and keep it
from being degraded. The House Appropriations Committee stated that it was “baffled by the
Administration’s decision to eliminate funding for nuclear test readiness after four budget cycles
of insisting that shortening to an 18-month test readiness posture was required for national
security reasons.” The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended no funds for test
readiness. The consolidated appropriations bill provided $5.0 million for this activity.
The consolidated appropriations bill provided $15.0 million for a new campaign, Advanced
Certification, to be “focused very narrowly on addressing the long-term scientific issues related to
continued certification of the nuclear stockpile without underground nuclear testing and [certain]
scientific uncertainties.”
The Engineering Campaign includes the Enhanced Surveillance Program (ESP), which seeks to
develop “predictive capabilities for early identification and assessment of stockpile aging
concerns ... to give NNSA a firm basis for determining when systems must be refurbished.” It is
conducting experiments to determine the service life of pits based on plutonium aging
characteristics. The FY2007 request for ESP was $86.5 million, the operating plan provided $87.5
million, and the FY2008 request is $80.6 million. The House provided the requested funding both
for ESP and for the entire Engineering Campaign, $152.7 million. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended providing the requested funding for the Engineering Campaign,
excepting an addition of $20.0 million for Enhanced Surety to “accelerate efforts ... to increase
the safety, security and improved surveillance of nuclear weapons in the existing stockpile by
developing modern surety technologies. ...” The consolidated appropriations bill provided $171.1
million for the Engineering Campaign, vs. $152.7 million requested. It added $9.6 million for
Enhanced Surety and authorized transfer of $10.0 million for refurbishing an ion beam laboratory
at Sandia National Laboratories.
According to NNSA, the Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) and High Yield Campaign “is to
develop laboratory capabilities to create and measure extreme conditions ... approaching those in
a nuclear explosion, and conduct weapons-related research in these environments.” A key part of
this campaign is the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
which is already the world’s most powerful laser. NNSA plans to complete the NIF project by
March 30, 2010.
Cost growth of NIF has been of concern to Congress. Total project cost was originally estimated
at $1,073.6 million in FY1996; the current estimate is $3,502.4 million. 18 For FY2007, NNSA
requested $451.2 million for this campaign, of which $111.4 million was for NIF construction.
H.R. 5427, as passed by the House, provided $528.2 million for this campaign, including the
requested amount for NIF construction. The Senate Appropriations Committee said NNSA was
pursuing “a NIF-at-all-costs strategy.” It continued, “The NNSA has pursued this agenda as a
means to justify an aggressive spending baseline at the expense of more compelling stewardship
responsibilities in the ICF campaign. The NNSA has proven unable to maintain a balanced ICF
and high yield research program. As such the Committee has reallocated funding out of NIF
demonstration and Construction activities to ensure that there is adequate program balance.” It
recommended funding the campaign at $412.3 million and, within that sum, funding NIF
18
U.S. Department of Energy, FY 2008 Congressional Budget Request, vol. 1, National Nuclear Security
Administration, DOE/CF-014 (February 2007), p. 160.
Congressional Research Service
34
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
construction at $81.4 million. The FY2007 operating plan included $489.7 million for this
campaign, of which $111.4 million was for NIF construction.
The FY2008 request is $412.3 million, including $10.1 million for NIF construction. NNSA
states that this latter decrease “reflects ramp down of construction work as the project nears
completion.” The House Appropriations Committee recommended increasing the request by
$111.8 million to support reaching the 2010 ignition goal. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended increasing the request by $46.9 million, of which $28.9 million was shifted from
RTBF, mainly “to fully reestablish experimental capabilities on the refurbished Z facility” at
Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, NM. The Z facility is an inertial confinement
fusion machine that uses high-energy x-rays (instead of lasers, as with NIF) to generate high
energy densities for such tasks as research on materials and components, to evaluate performance
of plutonium in nuclear weapons without nuclear testing, and to provide data used in validating
computer simulations for stockpile stewardship including the Life Extension Program. The
consolidated appropriations bill provided $474.4 million for the Inertial Confinement Fusion
campaign, including an additional $15.1 million to accelerate NIF target development, restoration
of $29.7 million for the Inertial Fusion Technology program, and an additional $13.0 million for
Z machine operations. The bill provided another $28.9 million for Z machine operations under
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities.
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF)
This program funds infrastructure and operations at nuclear weapons complex sites. The FY2007
operating plan included $1,613.2 million, and the FY2008 request is $1,662.1 million. RTBF has
six subprograms. The largest is Operations of Facilities ($1,150.1 million in the FY2007
operating plan, $1,159.3 million requested for FY2008). Others include Program Readiness,
which supports activities occurring at multiple sites or in multiple programs ($75.2 million in the
FY2007 operating plan, $71.5 million requested for FY2008), and Material Recycle and
Recovery, which recovers plutonium, enriched uranium, and tritium from weapons production
and disassembly ($70.0 million in the FY2007 operating plan, $70.0 million requested for
FY2008). Construction is a separate category within RTBF; the FY2007 operating plan included
$262.5 million, and the FY2008 request is $307.1 million.
For FY2007, the House Appropriations Committee recommended reducing RTBF by $27.0
million from the request, including an increase of $73.0 million for Operations of Facilities and a
reduction of $100.0 million, from a request of $112.4 million, for a Chemistry and Metallurgy
Research Facility Replacement (CMRR) at Los Alamos. CMRR would replace a building about
50 years old that, among other things, conducts research into plutonium and supports pit
production at TA-55. The committee stated that CMRR construction should be terminated and
“[p]roduction capabilities proposed in the CMRR should be located at the future production site
that supports the RRW and long term stockpile requirements.” The committee noted that NNSA
proposed to build a Consolidated Plutonium Production Center by 2022, so that “CMRR will
serve its primary production support function for only eight years before it is made obsolete by
the new plutonium facility.” The House did not change these provisions in considering H.R. 5427.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $1,780.8 million for RTBF, including the
amount requested for CMRR: “The Committee firmly believes [CMRR] will continue to play a
central role in the plutonium mission at Los Alamos and is needed to support the research and
chemistry mission of plutonium activities.” The FY2007 operating plan included $53.4 million
for CMRR, and the FY2008 request includes $95.6 million.
Congressional Research Service
35
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
The House Appropriations Committee recommended the following amounts for RTBF for
FY2008: for the entire program, $1,479.6 million, a reduction of $182.5 million from the request;
Operations of Facilities, $1,041.4 million, a reduction of $117.9 million; Program Readiness,
$71.5 million, as requested; Material Recycle and Recovery, $73.0 million, an increase of $3.0
million; and construction, $236.5 million, a reduction of $70.6 million. The committee
recommended no funds for CMRR, instead of the $95.6 million requested, to halt construction at
the facility. It stated,
Proceeding with the CMRR project as currently designed will strongly prejudice any nuclear
complex transformation plan. The CMRR facility has no coherent mission to justify it unless
the decision is made to begin an aggressive new nuclear warhead design and pit production
mission at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The NNSA is directed to develop a long-term
plan to maintain the nation’s nuclear stockpile requirements that does not assume an a priori
case for the current program.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the following amounts for RTBF for
FY2008: for the entire program, $1,659.2 million, a reduction of $2.9 million from the request;
Operations of Facilities, $1,126.4 million, a reduction of $32.9 million; Program Readiness, $71.5
million, as requested; Material Recycle and Recovery, $65.0 million, a reduction of $5.0 million;
and construction, $352.1 million, an increase of $45.0 million. The committee recommended the
$95.6 million requested for CMRR.
The consolidated appropriations bill provided $1,652.1 million for RTBF, $10.0 million less than
the request, including $74.8 million for CMRR construction.
Other Programs
Weapons Activities includes four smaller programs in addition to DSW, Campaigns, and RTBF.
•
Secure Transportation Asset provides for the transport of nuclear weapons,
components, and materials safely and securely. It includes special vehicles used
for this purpose, communications and other supporting infrastructure, and threat
response. The FY2007 request was $209.3 million and the FY2007 operating
plan included $209.5 million. The FY2008 request is $215.6 million, and the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees recommended that amount. The
consolidated appropriations bill provided $213.4 million.
•
Nuclear Weapons Incident Response provides for use of DOE assets to manage
and respond to a nuclear or radiological emergency within DOE, in the United
States, or abroad. The FY2007 request was $135.4 million, and the FY2007
operating plan included $133.5 million. The FY2008 request is $161.7 million,
and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees recommended that
amount. The consolidated appropriations bill provided $160.1 million.
•
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) provides for
deferred maintenance and infrastructure improvements for the nuclear weapons
complex. NNSA states that the purpose of RTBF, in contrast, is to “ensure that
facilities necessary for immediate programmatic workload activities are
maintained sufficiently.” The FY2007 request for FIRP was $291.2 million. The
House Appropriations Committee recommended reducing the latter sum by
$145.0 million, and “directs the NNSA to reassess its out-year planning for FIRP
Congressional Research Service
36
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
projects to ensure coordination between FIRP funds and the reduced facility
requirements consistent with the consolidation of the complex under the longterm Responsive Infrastructure planning.” H.R. 5427 as passed by the House, left
these provisions unchanged. The Senate Appropriations Committee made a
number of changes to FIRP and recommended $283.2 million. It said the funds
were “to restore, rebuild, and revitalize the physical infrastructure of the nuclear
weapons complex.” The FY2007 operating plan included $169.4 million. The
FY2008 request is $293.7 million; the House Appropriations Committee
recommended $137.7 million on grounds that NNSA should reassess how it will
use the final years of FIRP funding in a way that is consistent with long-term
plans for Complex transformation. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $262.7 million, urging that the “old facilities” that FIRP addresses
“continue to be a drain on resources and should be demolished or disposed of as
quickly as possible.” The consolidated appropriations bill provided $181.6
million.
•
Safeguards and Security (S&S) provides operations and maintenance funds for
physical and cyber security, and related construction. In the wake of 9/11, the
relevant threats and the Design Basis Threat changed. Ambassador Linton
Brooks, then Administrator of NNSA, stated in 2005, “We must now consider the
distinct possibility of well-armed and competent terrorist suicide teams seeking
to gain access to a warhead in order to detonate it in place. This has driven our
site security posture from one of ‘containment and recovery’ of stolen warheads
to one of ‘denial of any access’ to warheads. This change has dramatically
increased security costs for ‘gates, guns, guards’ at our nuclear weapons sites.”
The cost of S&S is a major concern for Congress and NNSA. Many changes
have been proposed to reduce Complex security costs, such as reducing the area
to be guarded by reducing the footprint of several sites and by consolidating
uranium and plutonium at fewer sites. The FY2006 S&S appropriation was
$797.8 million. The FY2007 request was $754.4 million, and the FY2007
operating plan included $761.2 million. The FY2008 request is $881.1 million.
(The foregoing figures do not reflect S&S offsets for work for others of $32.0
million for FY2006, $33.0 million for FY2007, and $34.0 million for FY2008.)
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $911.6 million for S&S, an
increase of $30.5 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$893.1 million, an increase of $12.0 million. The increase would be used to
complete cyber security upgrades of a secure network at Los Alamos. The
committee expressed its frustration with “the continued climb in funding” for
S&S, and recommended that the National Academy of Sciences report on S&S
issues, including cost growth. The consolidated appropriations bill provided
$907.6 million. It added $14.8 million to refurbish one building and complete
another at Idaho National Laboratory to consolidate and store uranium and
plutonium, and for other missions.
Nonproliferation and National Security Programs
DOE’s nonproliferation and national security programs provide technical capabilities to support
U.S. efforts to prevent, detect, and counter the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide. These
nonproliferation and national security programs are included in the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA).
Congressional Research Service
37
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
Table 13. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
($ millions)
FY2007
FY2008
Request
House
Senate
Comm.
Finala
Nonproliferation & Verification R&D
$270.4
$265.3
$440.4
$322.3
$365.8
Nonproliferation & International Securityb
128.9
124.9
144.9
210.9
151.4
International Materials Protection, Control and
Accounting (MPC&A)
472.7
371.8
831.8
391.8
630.2
Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production
225.7
181.6
191.6
152.6
181.6
666.5
66.8
Program
Fissile Materials Disposition
470.1
609.5
66.8c
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
115.5
119.6
251.3
185.6
195.0
—
—
—
(57.0)
(322.0)
1,683.3
1,672.6
2,070.6
1,872.6
1,336.9
Use of prior year balancesd
Total
Sources: DOE FY2008 Congressional Budget Request; P.L. 110-5; DOE FY2007 Operating Plan; H.Rept. 110185; S.Rept. 110-127, Explanatory Statement of Consolidated Appropriations Act.
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
a.
Total final appropriation reflects Section 312 rescission, but subprogram amounts do not.
b.
Includes funding for two formerly separate programs: Russian Transition Initiatives and HEU Transparency
Implementation.
c.
Funding for MOX plant transferred to Nuclear Energy, and Pit Disassembly plant to NNSA.
d.
From the Russian Fissile Materials Disposition program, MOX construction, and FY1999 emergency
supplemental.
Funding for these programs in FY2007 was $1.818 billion, including $135 million appropriated
in the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Act, 2007
(H.R. 2206, P.L. 110-28). For FY2008, the Administration requested $1.673 billion. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended $1.684 billion, not including two construction projects
for which the Administration requested $393.8 million and which the Appropriations Committee
recommended moving to other programs. The omnibus funding act transfers the construction
projects as recommended by the House and includes additional offsets, resulting in a net
appropriation of $1.3369 billion (reflecting the across-the-board rescission).
The Nonproliferation and Verification R&D program was allotted $262.4 million in DOE’s
FY2007 Operating Plan; for FY2008, the Administration requested $265.3 million. The House
Appropriations Committee, citing “the urgent need to develop advanced proliferation detection
technology and nuclear explosion monitoring capability,” boosted funding for this activity to
$484.3 million. The omnibus act provides $390.8 million, not reflecting the rescission.
Nonproliferation and International Security programs include international safeguards, export
controls, and treaties and agreements. They would have received $127.41 million in the FY2007
request, including the transfer of two previously independent programs: Russian Transition
Initiatives and HEU Transparency Implementation. These three programs received $133.2 million
in FY2006. The House bill and the Senate Appropriations Committee recommendation followed
the Administration’s request. The DOE Operating plan allotted $128.9 million for FY2007. The
FY2008 request was $124.9 million. The House Appropriations Committee recommended
Congressional Research Service
38
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
increasing funding to $144.9 million. The omnibus act provides $151.4 million, not reflecting the
rescission.
International Materials Protection, Control and Accounting (MPC&A), which is concerned with
reducing the threat posed by unsecured Russian weapons and weapons-usable material, would
have received $413.18 million under the President’s FY2007 request, compared with $422.73
million appropriated for FY2006. P.L. 110-5 specified $472.7 million for this program. The
FY2008 request was $371.8 million. The House Appropriations Committee recommended
boosting MPC&A funding to $831.8 million, labeling the move “clear congressional direction to
the Administration to shift the nuclear nonproliferation issues beyond marginally supported
security programs to one accorded the highest priority in the war on world wide terror.” The
omnibus measure provides $630.2 million, not reflecting the rescission.
Requested funding for the Fissile Materials Disposition program for FY2006 was $653.1 million.
The program’s goal is disposal of U.S. surplus weapons plutonium by converting it into fuel for
commercial power reactors, including construction of a facility to convert the plutonium to
“mixed-oxide” (MOX) reactor fuel at Savannah River, South Carolina, and a similar program in
Russia. The House Appropriations Committee cut funding for the Savannah River facility sharply
for FY2006, citing delays in agreement with Russia over the program. The final appropriation for
FY2006 was $468.8 million.
For FY2007, the Administration, noting that the issue that had delayed the program in Russia had
been resolved, requested $603.3 million. However, the House Appropriations Committee report
said “in 2006 it has become clear that the Russian government is not going to participate in the
MOX-light water reactor” plan that the United States has proposed, and the House-passed version
of H.R. 5427 would have cut the funding drastically to $248.0 million. The move would have
shut down the MOX-fuel construction project at Savannah River.
The Senate Appropriations Committee in its FY2007 report likewise expressed disappointment
that the Russian government was not pursuing its program to convert surplus weapons plutonium
to MOX, but supported the continuation of the U.S. program to convert its own surplus weapons
plutonium to MOX with continued construction of the facility at Savannah River. The Senate
version of H.R. 5427 would have funded the Fissile Materials Disposition program at $618.4
million, $15 million more than requested by the Administration.
P.L. 110-5 specified that the “Secretary of Energy may not make available any of the funds
provided by this division or previous appropriations Acts for construction activities for Project
99-D-143, mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, Savannah River Site, South Carolina, until
August 1, 2007.” DOE’s FY2007 Operating Plan allocated $470.1 million for Fissile Materials
Disposition, including $262.5 million for Project 99-D-143.
For FY2008 the Administration requested $609.5 million for Fissile Materials Disposition,
including $393.8 million for construction. The House Appropriations Committee, noting that
Russia had decided in 2006 not to pursue plutonium disposition in light water MOX reactors but
to build fast breeder reactors instead, declared the bilateral agreement a failure and asserted that
the $1.7 billion previously appropriated for facilities to be used in the U.S. side of the plutonium
disposal agreement was “without any nuclear nonproliferation benefit accrued to the U.S.
taxpayer.” The committee recommended transferring the MOX plant and another project, the Pit
Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF), both at Savannah River, SC, to the nuclear energy
program and NNSA’s weapons program respectively.
Congressional Research Service
39
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
In contrast to the House action, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $609.5
million for the Fissile Materials Disposition program, including full funding for the MOX plant
and the PDCF, instructing DOE to “proceed expeditiously with construction” of the two facilities
and to “focus on delivering this project at cost and on time.” In view of the delays in the Russian
side of the program, the committee said it is “not backing away from the United States obligation
to provide assistance to this program” but instructed DOE to rescind $57 million already
appropriated to be directed to the U.S. construction projects.
The omnibus funding act adopted the House position, transferring the MOX plant and PDCF to
other programs. The net appropriation for the program was reduced to $66.8 million, not
reflecting the rescission.
Environmental Management
In the late 1980s, the United States ceased its production of nuclear weapons, due to military
projections that the nuclear weapons stockpile was sufficient to protect national security and
respond to future threats. The past production of these weapons generated substantial quantities of
radioactive and other hazardous wastes, and resulted in contamination of soil, groundwater, and
buildings. As a consequence, environmental problems arising from this past production continue
to present challenges today. However, potential health and environmental risks vary considerably
among individual sites, depending on the type and quantity of waste and contamination present at
each site, and the potential for exposure to wastes and contaminants.
The adequacy of funding to address health and environmental risks resulting from the past
production of nuclear weapons is a long-standing issue. DOE established the Office of
Environmental Management in 1989 to consolidate its efforts to administer the cleanup of former
nuclear weapons sites. These efforts include the disposal of radioactive and other hazardous
wastes, management and disposal of surplus nuclear materials, the remediation of soil and
groundwater contaminated from such wastes, and the decontamination and decommissioning of
excess buildings and facilities. Through this program, DOE also administers the disposal of
wastes and remediation of contamination at sites where the federal government conducted civilian
nuclear energy research. Altogether, there were 114 “geographic”19 sites in 30 states where these
activities resulted in the generation of wastes and contamination.
Some of the ongoing issues associated with the disposal of wastes and the cleanup of
contamination have been the adequacy of risk-based approaches to address these needs; the
technical soundness of waste treatment facility designs; how to safely remove, treat, and dispose
of high-level radioactive waste stored in underground tanks;20 the effectiveness and cost-savings
of incentive-based cleanup contracts; and the pace and adequacy of cleanup overall. The
challenges of the Environmental Management Program to dispose of wastes and clean up
19
DOE makes a distinction between its “geographic” sites, which represent entire facilities and the lands they occupy,
and the thousands of discrete contaminated sites located on each facility that have been, or need to be, cleaned up. One
of these geographic sites, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, was constructed as a repository to dispose of
transuranic radioactive waste from other sites. Although this facility is not a cleanup site, its operation is essential to the
cleanup of transuranic waste at many sites where such waste is removed and prepared for permanent disposal off-site.
20
See CRS Report RS21988, Radioactive Tank Waste from the Past Production of Nuclear Weapons: Background and
Issues for Congress, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
40
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
contamination are substantial and require significant resources. As such, this program represents
approximately one-fourth of the Department’s total budget.
Congressional Action on FY2008 Appropriations
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 provided a total of $5.75 billion for DOE’s
Environmental Management Program. However, the final funding is subject to two across-theboard rescissions, somewhat reducing the appropriation. Nearly all of the $5.75 billion is subject
to a 0.91% rescission, whereas $17.5 million of that amount for congressionally designated
projects is subject to a higher rescission of 1.6%. These rescissions apply to funding not only for
the Environmental Management Program, but to all DOE activities funded in Title III of Division
C, as required by Section 312 of that title. Prior to the final bill, the House had proposed a higher
amount of $6.21 billion for the Environmental Management Program, and the Senate
Appropriations Committee had recommended $6.00 billion. The President had proposed the
lowest amount under consideration for FY2008, requesting $5.66 billion for the program.
Congress appropriated $6.19 billion for FY2007.
Although the House initially had proposed the highest amount for FY2008, nearly $200 million
of its increase would not have provided additional resources for the program. Rather, this increase
was due to the House’s proposal to consolidate funding for the Office of Legacy Management
with the Environmental Management Program. This office has been funded independently under
other accounts, and is responsible for long-term site care after cleanup is complete under the
Environmental Management Program. In its initial bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee had
rejected the House’s proposal, and recommended that the Office of Legacy Management continue
to be funded in other accounts independent of the Environmental Management Program. Taking
this accounting difference into consideration, the House and the Senate Appropriations
Committee had recommended similar levels of funding for the Environmental Management
Program as a whole. In the final bill, Congress followed the approach of the Senate
Appropriations Committee, and did not consolidate funding for these two functions. See the
“Office of Legacy Management” section later in this report.
The FY2008 enacted appropriation of $5.75 billion (prior to rescissions) for the Environmental
Management Program is significantly less than the $6.19 billion that Congress appropriated for
FY2007. However, this difference in total funding is largely because of a $425.7 million decrease
in funds for “accelerated closure” sites where all planned cleanup actions are complete under the
Environmental Management Program. These sites include Rocky Flats (CO), Fernald (OH), and
several other defense sites. Congress had increased funding at these sites for several years to
speed the pace of cleanup. These sites were suitable for accelerated cleanup because the
challenges were more technically feasible to address than those at more complex sites. Now that
most of the work is completed at some sites, and nearing completion at others, there has been a
corresponding downward trend in funding as these needs have diminished.
Although DOE has accomplished much in accelerating cleanup at the above sites, substantial
challenges remain at many other sites where cleanup is not complete and large quantities of
wastes and contamination are still present. For these and other pending sites, there are varying
decreases and increases in funding when comparing the appropriation enacted for FY2008 to the
initial recommendations of the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee, the President’s
FY2008 request, and the appropriation for the prior year in FY2007. (See Table 14.) These
differences in funding are due to differing priorities among other competing needs within the
federal budget, opposing views on the adequacy of funding to meet cleanup needs, and varying
Congressional Research Service
41
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
factors at individual sites, such as the technical complexity of cleanup, the prioritization of
remedial actions based on health and environmental risks, scheduling of actions to meet time
frames in regulatory agreements, and numerous other considerations.
The Hanford site is the largest and most complex site administered under the Environmental
Management Program. This site alone represents about one-third of the funding for the entire
program. The adequacy of funding to clean up Hanford has been particularly controversial for
many reasons, including potential risks from radioactive contamination migrating through
groundwater into the Columbia River and the delayed construction of the Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant. This facility is a key element in DOE’s plans to treat the substantial volume
of high-level radioactive waste to be removed from the underground tanks at Hanford, and to
solidify that waste for permanent disposal in a geologic repository. This task is one of the more
costly cleanup challenges across the complex of sites.
Various engineering and design issues have delayed construction of the Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant at Hanford. The President had requested $690.0 million for the construction
of this facility in FY2008, the same amount as Congress appropriated in FY2007. The request
also included $273.4 million for the management of the wastes still stored in the underground
tanks, slightly less than the FY2007 appropriation of $277.1 million. Prior to rescissions, the
appropriation enacted for FY2008 included $690.0 million for the construction of the waste
treatment plant, and $288.4 million for managing the tank wastes while the construction of the
plant continues.
The House initially had proposed $590.0 million for the waste treatment plant, and the same
amount as the President requested for managing the tank wastes. In its initial report, the House
Appropriations Committee had indicated that its proposed lower funding for the plant could have
been augmented with $100.0 million in “uncosted balances” carried over from FY2007 because
of slow construction progress, raising the total available to the President’s request of $690.0
million. The Senate Appropriations Committee had recommended the full request for the waste
treatment plant without the use of these uncosted balances, and had recommended a higher
amount of $326.0 million for managing the tank wastes.
Table 14 indicates appropriations that Congress enacted for the Environmental Management
Program for FY2008, compared to the initial recommendations of the full House and the Senate
Appropriations Committee prior to the enactment of the final bill, the President’s request, and the
prior-year appropriation in FY2007. Amounts are indicated for each of the three statutory
accounts that fund the Environmental Management Program, and for selected sites and program
activities within those accounts in which there has been broad congressional interest. The
amounts enacted for FY2008 are as presented in the Congressional Record of December 17,
2007, which do not reflect the across-the-board rescission of 0.91% for ongoing program
elements, and 1.6% for congressionally designated projects.
Congressional Research Service
42
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
Table 14. Environmental Management Program Appropriations
($ millions)
Environmental Management
Program Accounts
FY2007
Enacted
FY2008
Request
House
Senate
Committee
Enacted
$468.1
$42.4
$42.4
$55.9
$42.4
Ashtabula
$1.3
$0.3
$0.3
$0.3
$0.3
Fernald
$254.8
$0.0
$0.0
$13.5
$0.0
Miamisburg
$39.9
$30.3
$30.3
$30.3
$30.3
Rocky Flats
$115.5
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Closure Sites Administration
$56.6
$11.8
$11.8
$11.8
$11.8
$1,802.4
$1,840.5
$1,813.4
$1,966.4
$1,873.0
Richland Office
$835.3
$877.1
$950.0
$950.4
$894.6
Office of River Protection
$967.1
$963.4
$863.4
$1,016.0
$978.4
Waste Treatment Plant
$690.0
$690.0
$590.0
$690.0
$690.0
Tank Farm Activities
$277.1
$273.4
$273.4
$326.0
$288.4
Savannah River Site
$1,113.4
$1,206.1
$1,160.5
$1,200.1
$1,141.6
Idaho National Laboratory
$526.9
$504.0
$600.8
$532.9
$513.0
Oak Ridge Reservation
$203.9
$179.3
$235.3
$179.3
$192.3
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
$228.8
$219.7
$219.7
$250.7
$236.7
NNSA and Nevada Off-Sites
$306.5
$271.1
$271.1
$361.7
$292.9
Technology Development
$21.4
$21.4
$108.1
$55.1
$21.4
Safeguards and Security
$275.9
$273.4
$278.4
$273.6
$261.7
Program Directiona
$294.5
$309.8
$341.8
$309.8
$309.8
Program Support
$38.0
$33.1
$35.1
$41.9
$33.1
Federal Payment to Uranium Enrichment D&D
Fundb
$452.0
$463.0
$463.0
$463.0
$463.0
Defense Legacy Managementa
$0.0
$0.0
$148.1
$0.0
$0.0
Material Consolidationc
$0.0
$0.0
$50.3
$0.0
$0.0
Congressionally Directed Projects
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$17.5
$5,731.8
$5,363.9
$5,768.0
$5,690.4
$5,398.6
$0.0
$0.0
$-1.5
$0.0
$0.0
Total Defense Environmental Cleanup
$5,731.8
$5,363.9
$5,766.6
$5,690.4
$5,398.6
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanupa
$349.9
$180.9
$286.0
$195.4
$183.9
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Accelerated Closure Sites
Hanford
Subtotal Defense Environmental Cleanupd
Transfer to ES&He
Congressional Research Service
43
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
Environmental Management
Program Accounts
FY2007
Enacted
FY2008
Request
House
Senate
Committee
Enacted
Uranium Enrichment D&D Fundd
$556.6
$573.5
$618.8
$573.5
$627.9
Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund Offsetb
$-452.0
$-463.0
$-463.0
$-463.0
$-463.0
Total Environmental Management
Program
$6,186.3
$5,655.3
$6,208.4
$5,996.3
$5,747.4
Sources: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with information from H.Rept. 110-185, S.Rept. 110127, and the joint explanatory statement accompanying Title III of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations
Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161, H.R. 2764), as presented in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, House,
p. H15942, and pp. H15948-H15950, which does not reflect applicable rescissions.
a.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended the consolidation of the Office of Legacy
Management into the Environmental Management Program, including $11.0 million within the Program
Direction line-item in the Defense Environmental Cleanup account, $148.1 million as a separate line-item
within that defense account, and $35.1 million as a separate line-item within the Non-Defense
Environmental Cleanup account. Combined, the House Appropriations Committee recommended a total of
$194.2 million for the Office of Legacy Management. The President requested this same amount, but in
different accounts in which Congress has provided this funding in past years. The President requested
$159.1 million for defense Legacy Management within the Other Defense Activities account, and $35.1
million for non-defense Legacy Management within the Energy Supply and Conservation account, for a total
of $194.2 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended similar funding within the existing
account structure, as was adopted in the final bill but in a slightly lower amount.
b.
D&D = Decontamination and Decommissioning. Federal payment to the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund is
typically treated as an offset to the total for the Environmental Management Program.
c.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended a new Office of Materials Consolidation, which was
not included in the President’s FY2008 request. The Senate Appropriations Committee did not recommend
any funding for such an office, nor did Congress include any funding for this office in its enactment of
appropriations for FY2008.
d.
P.L. 110-5 provided a total of $5,730,448,000 for the Defense Environmental Cleanup account. DOE
allocated $5,731,839,000 for this account in its FY2007 Operating Plan, but did not explain the difference
from the statutory appropriation provided in P.L. 110-5. The House Appropriations Committee report
specified the same amount of funding for FY2007 as in DOE’s Operating Plan. The Senate Appropriations
Committee specified a slightly higher amount of $5,731,849,000 in its report.
e.
ES&H = Environmental Safety and Health account. The House Appropriations Committee recommended a
transfer of $1.5 million from the Dense Environmental Cleanup account to the Environmental Safety and
Health account in FY2008. The Senate Appropriations Committee did not recommend this transfer of
funds, nor did Congress include such a transfer in its enactment of appropriations for FY2008.
Estimated Future Funding Needs
The need for annual appropriations of several billion dollars to clean up nuclear waste sites has
motivated ongoing concern within Congress about the long-term financial liability of the United
States to meet these needs. Accordingly, there has been much debate about how to ensure public
health and safety, and the protection of the environment, in the most expedient and cost-effective
manner. DOE reports that it had cleaned up 81 of the 114 geographic sites as of the end of
FY2006.21 Although DOE has disposed of substantial quantities of waste and remediated many
21
DOE, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, FY2008 Congressional Budget Request, February 2007, vol. 5,
Environmental Management, p. 31. DOE referenced 108 geographic sites, as it excluded six Nevada off-sites proposed
for transfer to the Office of Legacy Management. The total of 114 geographic sites noted above includes these six sites.
Congressional Research Service
44
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations
areas of contamination at the remaining sites, much work remains to be done to complete cleanup
at many of them. DOE expects to complete cleanup at certain sites within the next few years.
However, the Department anticipates cleanup to continue for decades at the larger and more
complex sites, such as Hanford, Savannah River, and the Idaho National Laboratory, wher
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.