Order Code RL31307
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2003:
Energy and Water Development
Updated January 30, 2003
Coordinated by Carl Behrens and Marc Humphries
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current
program authorizations.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress passes each
year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy and Water. It summarizes the current legislative
status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related legislative activity. The
report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at:
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.sht
ml].
Appropriations for FY2003:
Energy and Water Development
Summary
The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill includes funding for
civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior’s
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), most of the Department of Energy (DOE), and a
number of independent agencies. The Bush Administration requested $25.5 billion
for these programs for FY2003 compared with $25.2 billion appropriated in FY2002.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended a bill, H.R. 5431, with $26.0
billion on September 5. On July 24, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported
out its own bill, S. 2784, providing $26.3 billion in funding. Before adjourning sine
die the 107th Congress passed H.J.Res. 124 (P.L. 107-294), making continuing
appropriations for FY2003 for Energy and Water, and other programs, through
January 11, 2003.
The 108th Congress extended funding until January 31 (H.J.Res. 1, P.L. 108-2),
and on January 23 the Senate passed an omnibus appropriations resolution (H.J.Res.
2), including all 11 unpassed appropriations bills for the rest of FY2003. A House-
Senate conference on the measure was scheduled to meet during the week of January
27.
Key issues involving Energy and Water Development appropriations programs
include:
! Matching budget request amounts with ongoing Corps construction
schedules (“full capability funding”) and congressional priorities;
! Funding for major water/ecosystem restoration initiatives such as
Florida Everglades and California “Bay-Delta”;
! Proposed higher funding for DOE’s civilian nuclear waste
management program as the Department prepares a construction
permit application for a waste repository under Nevada’s Yucca
Mountain;
! A proposed $800 million Environmental Management Cleanup
Reform account in DOE, focused on radioactive sites where
environmental regulators would allow alternative cleanup methods;
and
! DOE’s “Nuclear Power 2010” initiative, to “identify the technical,
institutional and regulatory barriers to the deployment of new
nuclear power plants by 2010.”
Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
CRS
Telephone
Division
General
Carl Behrens
RSI
7-8303
Carol Glover
RSI
7-7353
Marc Humphries
RSI
7-7264
Bureau of Reclamation
Betsy Cody
RSI
7-7229
Corps of Engineers
Steve Hughes
RSI
7-7268
Nicole Carter
RSI
7-0854
Nuclear Energy
Mark Holt
RSI
7-1704
Solar and Renewable Energy
Fred Sissine
RSI
7-7039
Science Programs
Daniel Morgan
RSI
7-5849
DOE Environmental Management
David Bearden
RSI
7-2390
Nonproliferation and Terrorism
Carl Behrens
RSI
7-8303
Nuclear Weapons Stewardship
Jonathan Medalia
FDT
7-7632
PMAs
Rob Bamberger
RSI
7-7240
Report Preparation and Support
Carol Glover
RSI
7-7353
Division abbreviations: RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry; FDT= Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Trade.
Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Title I: Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Key Policy Issues — Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Project Construction & Maintenance Backlog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Proposed Corps “Reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Missouri River Water Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Everglades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Title II: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Background on Reclamation Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Bureau of Reclamation Budget In Brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Key Policy Issues – Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
CALFED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Title III: Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Key Policy Issues — Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Renewable Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Nuclear Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Nonproliferation and National Security Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Environmental Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Civilian Nuclear Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Power Marketing Administrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Title IV: Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Key Policy Issues — Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Nuclear Regulatory Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Additional Legislative Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
CRS Issue Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Appropriations, FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY1996 to FY2003 . . 3
Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title I: Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title III: Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title IV: Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appropriations for FY2003:
Energy and Water Development
Most Recent Developments
On January 23 the Senate passed an omnibus appropriations resolution
(H.J.Res. 2) that included all 11 unpassed appropriations bills for the rest of
FY2003. The Senate-passed omnibus resolution would provide funding for Energy
and Water Development programs totaling $26.2 billion, compared to the Bush
Administration request of $25.5 billion. None of the amendments adopted during the
Senate debate would affect the funding of Energy and Water programs. A House-
Senate conference on the measure was expected to meet during the week of January
27. In the 107th Congress the House Appropriations Committee had recommended
$26.0 billion, and the Senate Appropriations Committee $26.3 billion, but neither bill
reached the floor.
Status
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Appropriations, FY2003
Subcommittee
Conference
Markup
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Report Approval
Public
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
Law
House
Senate
House
Senate
H.Rept. H.J.Res. 2 S.Rept. H.J.Res. 2
7/10/02
7/22/02
–
–
–
–
107-681
1/8/03
107-220
1/23/03
Overview
The Energy and Water Development bill includes funding for civil works
projects of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR), most of the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of
independent agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). The Administration’s request was $25.5
billion for these programs for FY2003, compared with $25.2 billion appropriated for
FY2002.
The Energy and Water bill was one of 11 appropriations bills that did not pass
in the 107th Congress, although both the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees reported their versions of the bill. Funding for these programs was
provided by a series of continuing resolutions, the latest (H.J.Res. 1, P.L. 108-2)
CRS-2
covering the period through January 31, 2003. In the meantime the Senate took up
H.J.Res. 2, which passed the House January 8, adopting an amendment in the nature
of a substitute by Appropriations Chairman Stevens that would fund programs in all
11 unpassed appropriations bills for the remainder of FY2003. After numerous
amendments were considered on the Senate floor, the bill passed the Senate January
23. The bill is expected to go to conference with the House the week of January 27.
The Energy and Water programs are funded in Division D of H.J.Res. 2 as
passed by the Senate. The Appropriations Committee did not formally report out the
legislation, but the committee reports were printed in the Congressional Record in
draft form in the issue of January 15, 2003. (The draft report for Energy and Water
programs begins on page S492 of that issue.) In this CRS report, funding levels of
individual programs are given as requested by the Administration, as recommended
by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees in the 107th Congress, and as
stated in the Stevens amendment adopted January 15. The appropriations tables
compare the request with the House committee recommendation in the 107th
Congress and the Stevens amendment (labeled H.J.Res. 2). None of the amendments
adopted on the Senate floor prior to passage affected funding for Energy and Water
programs, but the original Stevens amendment contained an offset across-the-board
rescission of 1.6% (Division N, Title VI), and another 1.3% cut was included in one
of the amendments adopted on the floor. These across-the-board cuts are not
reflected in the appropriations table figures or in the figures cited in the text of the
report. Reports indicate that the conference committee may find it possible to reduce
the overall across-the-board cuts.
For the Corps of Engineers, the Administration requested $4.17 billion in
FY2003, about $450 million less than the amount appropriated for FY2002. The
House Appropriations Committee recommended $4.76 billion, and the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $4.65 billion. H.J.Res. 2 as passed by the
Senate funds the civil works of the Corps at $4.55 billion.
Two Corps-related amendments to the Stevens Amendment were tabled:
McCain Amendment No. 214, which would have required completion of studies
before appropriations could be spent on an emergency outlet for Devils Lake, North
Dakota, and McCain Amendment No. 230, which would have reduced funding for
the Yazoo Basin’s Backwater Pumping Plant from $15 million to $0.25 million. A
Sense of the Congress provision that encourages agreement on a flow regime for
2003 among the Member States and Tribes of the Missouri River Basin Association
was added to the Stevens Amendment.
The Administration asked for $881 million for FY2003 for the Department of
the Interior programs included in the Energy and Water bill — the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Central Utah Project. This would be a decrease of
approximately $61 million from the FY2002 funding level. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended $944.5 million for this title, the same as
appropriated for FY2002. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved $992.3
million, and H.J.Res. 2 as passed by the Senate includes the same funding.
The request for DOE programs was $20.53 billion, about $660 million more
than the previous year. The major activities in the DOE budget are energy research
CRS-3
and development, general science, environmental cleanup, and nuclear weapons
programs. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $20.7 billion for
these programs; the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $21 billion.
H.J.Res. 2 as passed by the Senate maintained the Senate figure. (Funding of DOE’s
programs for fossil fuels, energy efficiency, and energy statistics is included in the
Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The FY2003 net appropriations
request for these programs was $1.8 billion.)
The request for funding the independent agencies in Title IV of the bill was
$195.1 million, compared with $220.5 million in FY2002. The House bill would
have cut this funding to $151.9 million, and the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $219.7 million. H.J.Res. 2 as passed by the Senate maintained the
Senate funding level.
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations,
FY1996 to FY2003
(budget authority in billions of current dollars*)
FY96
FY97
FY98
FY99
FY00
FY01
FY02
FY03
(Req.)
19.3
20.0
21.2
21.2
21.2
23.9
25.2
25.5
*These figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect
rescissions.
Table 2 includes budget totals for energy and water appropriations enacted for
FY1996 to FY2002 and the Administration’s request for FY2003. Tables 3-7
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
FY2002 - FY2003.
CRS-4
Title I: Corps of Engineers
The President’s budget request for FY2003 included $4.172 billion for the civil
works projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), a decrease of $450
million from the total enacted level for FY2002. (The Corps received $4.486 billion
via the annual Energy and Water appropriations bill for FY2002. An additional $139
million was appropriated for Site Security/Counter Terrorism in the FY2002 Defense
and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, P.L. 107-117.) The House
Appropriations Committee recommended funding of $4.76 billion for Corps
programs; the Senate Appropriations Committee bill included $4.65 billion. H.J.Res.
2 as passed by the Senate recommended $4.55 billion.
Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title I: Corps of Engineers
(in millions of dollars)
Program
FY2002 FY2003
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
H.R. 5431
H.J.Res. 2
Investigations &
Planning
154.3
102.5
143.7
148.3
--
Construction
1,716.0
1,415.6
1,824.0
1,636.6
--
Flood Control,
Mississippi River
346.0
280.7
342.1
346.4
--
Operation and
Maintenance
1,874.8
1,913.8
1,990.3
1,956.2
--
Regulatory
127.0
144.3
134.0
144.3
--
General Expenses
153.0
155.7
154.7
155.7
--
FUSRAP
140.0
140.3
150.0
140.3
--
Flood/Coastal
Emergencies
--
20.2
20.0
20.2
--
Total
4,625.0 4,173.0
4,760.0
4,548.0
--
Key Policy Issues — Corps of Engineers
Funding for the Corps’ civil works program has often been 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. For FY2001, for example, Congress added $480
million (12%) to the $4.08 billion requested by the Clinton Administration.
Similarly, the FY2002 House bill funded the Corps at almost 15% more than
requested by the Bush Administration, and the final act appropriated slightly more
than that.
CRS-5
The FY2003 budget followed a similar pattern. The request as presented in
February 27, 2002, testimony in the House recommended a cut from current
spending: approximately 4% overall, but 30% less for investigation/studies, and 16%
less for construction1 – with virtually no “new starts” in these two accounts during
fiscal year 2003. Request priorities continued only projects with Administration
support – not congressionally added projects from FY2002 that lacked favorable
executive branch review (such as water supply assistance). The House, Senate, and
Stevens amendment recommendations were, respectively, 14.1%, 11.5% , and 9.0%
higher than the Administration’s request.
The budget proposal received considerable media attention in the wake of the
March 2002 resignation of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (who
sets policy for the Corps’ civil activities). The resignation, or dismissal by some
accounts, was reportedly over a rift with the White House on the budget proposal.
The Senate Committee report noted that the dismissal (firing) of the Assistant
Secretary resulted in the committee accepting written testimony from the
Administration in lieu of an oral statement. The House report did not comment on
the dismissal per se, but both the Senate and House reports expressed the
Appropriations Committees’ displeasure with the low budget request.
Project Construction & Maintenance Backlog. The Administration
estimates the current project backlog for ongoing work at $21 billion and uses this
backlog in part to justify its “no new starts” stance on construction. The Senate
Committee countered that the Administration’s request would cause the construction
backlog to grow from $40 billion to $44 billion and result in a critical maintenance
backlog of $884 million (a $182 million increase from FY2002 levels). The House
Appropriations Committee noted that “many ongoing construction projects would be
negatively impacted” by the budget proposals; it included in its recommendations
several new construction projects and studies “in the belief that the water resources
development needs of the Nation are growing and cannot be met with just the
projects currently underway.”2
Proposed Corps “Reforms.” During the 107th Congress, the Corps came
under criticism for the way it evaluates and undertakes projects. Although the issue
received media attention, it has not been directly addressed in consideration of
FY2003 appropriations. Legislation proposing changes to the project development
and authorization process was introduced in the 107th Congress (e.g., see H.R. 1310
and S. 1987); however, no action was taken.
Some have called for major agency “reforms”; others have called for review of
Corps programs and policies. The 106th Congress, in passing the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (WRDA, P.L. 106-541, Section 216) directed the Corps
to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to study the feasibility of
establishing an independent review panel for Corps studies. Its July 2002 report
recommended that large-scale Corps projects be independently reviewed by experts
1 The Senate Appropriations Committee report (S.Rept. 107-220) notes that 4 projects
account for 30% of the proposed general construction budget. p. 8.
2 Ibid. p.7-8.
CRS-6
outside the agency. In response to the criticism, the Corps initiated during FY2002
an additional internal staff review of project justifications by the office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
In reporting the FY2002 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bills,
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees acknowledged criticism of the
Corps; however, both committees generally supported the Corps’ efforts to deal with
such criticisms. Neither committee addressed reform issues in reporting the bills for
FY2003. These issues might be addressed during consideration of a biennial
authorization bill for the Corps, the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA).
The WRDA expected in 2002 did not pass; a WRDA in 2003 is anticipated. (For
more information, see CRS Report RL30928, Army Corps of Engineers: Reform
Issues for the 107th Congress.)
Missouri River Water Flows. The current drought in the Missouri River
basin has contributed to the debate on the operations of the basin’s dams. Operations
are managed under a Master Manual and annual operating plans. The operating plan
for 2003, in particular the flow regime that will be implemented during the nesting
season for threatened and endangered species and the navigation season, has not yet
been finalized. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) stated its dissatisfaction
with both of the regimes proposed by the Corps and proposed an alternate regime.
Neither the House nor the Senate Appropriations Committee FY03 reports
mentioned Missouri River operations. Senator Bond introduced an amendment to
the Stevens Amendment that would have restricted the use of funds by the FWS to
require a steady release flow for the Missouri River and to prevent the Corps from
relocating bird nests along its banks. On the Senate floor, the amendment (SA186)
was modified to a Sense of the Congress provision that encourages agreement on a
flow regime for 2003 among the Member States and Tribes of the Missouri River
Basin Association. (The language in the Congressional Record for January 23, 2003,
on page S1428 is confusing because the Sense of the Congress language appears
alongside part of the FWS language that was expected to be removed. On January
28 the Senate, by unanimous consent, further modified the amendment to contain
only the Sense of the Congress language.)
The revision of the Master Manual is also a contentions issue. The operation of
the Missouri River’s dams determines the timing of water releases, which affect
competing uses of the river such as barge traffic, threatened and endangered species
protection, and upstream recreation. In November 2000, the FWS issued a biological
opinion, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, that recommended altering dam
operations to provide higher springtime water releases to benefit the pallid sturgeon.
This change is believed by some to also benefit other threatened and endangered
species negatively affected by current dam operations. The Corps has issued a draft
implementation plan and is evaluating the effects of the proposed spring rise on other
Missouri River water users. The Corps and FWS reinitiated formal consultation on
the operation of the dam system in December 2002.
After extended debate in both the House and the Senate, Section 116 of the final
Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for FY2002 included Senate
language that prohibited the use of funds "to accelerate the schedule to finalize the
CRS-7
Record of Decision for the revision of the Missouri River Master Water Control
Manual and any associated changes to the Missouri River Annual Operating Plan."
The amended provision also directed the Corps to consider views of other federal and
non-federal agencies and individuals "to ensure that other congressionally authorized
purposes are maintained" in addition to endangered species protection. The provision
represented a temporary compromise of an ongoing issue that had led President
Clinton to veto the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill for FY2001.
Everglades. Implementation of a Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
(CERP) was authorized in 2002 by Title VI of WRDA. CERP is one of many efforts
to restore the Central and Southern Florida ecosystem. The annual Energy and Water
Development Appropriations bill provides funding for the Corps’ participation in
these efforts. Funding for the participation of the DOI agencies, such as the National
Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service, is part of the annual Department of the
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. (For more information, see CRS
Report RL31306, Appropriation for FY2003: Interior and Related Agencies.)
The President’s request for FY2003 included a total of $151 million for Corps’
construction projects in the region. The FY2003 request for the Kissimmee River
restoration and the Everglades and South Florida ecosystem restoration was $23.7
million and $19.5 million, respectively. For these two projects, the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees and H.J.Res. 2 as passed by the Senate provides the same
funding level as requested. For the Central and Southern Florida project (which
included $37 million for CERP activities), the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees and H.J.Res. 2 as passed by the Senate included $96 million, $98
million, and $90 million, respectively. The Senate and Stevens reports explained that
the reduction resulted from questions raised about the implementation of the project,
specifically that it was too heavily weighted in favor of commercial development of
water supplies.
CRS-8
Title II: Department of the Interior
For the Department of the Interior, the Energy and Water Development bill
provides funding for the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and the Central Utah Project
Completion Account. For FY2003 the President requested $36 million for the
Central Utah Project Completion Account and $805.4 million for BOR (net current
authority). The total Title II request for FY2003 is $880.9 million. The total
appropriation for these programs in FY2002, according to congressional sources, was
$944.5 million: $908.3 million for BOR (gross current authority), and $36.2 million
for the Central Utah Project Completion Account.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $944.5 million for this
title, the same as appropriated for FY2002. The Senate Appropriations Committee
approved $992.3 million, and H.J.Res. 2 as passed by the Senate included the same
amount.
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account
(in millions of dollars)
Program
FY2002
FY2003
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
H.R. 5431
H.J.Res. 2
Central Utah project
construction and oversight
--
25.0
--
25.0**
--
Mitigation and
conservation activities*
--
11.0
--
11.3
--
Total, Central Utah
Project
36.2
36.2
36.2
36.2
--
Columns may not total because of rounding.
* Includes funds available for Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation
Commission activities and $5 million for the contribution authorized by §402(b)(2) of
the Central Utah Project Completion Act (P.L. 102-575). Totals do not reflect
permanent appropriations of approximately $1.2 million.
** Includes $1.33 million for program administration and oversight; $23.64 million
for Central Utah Project construction.
CRS-9
Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Bureau of Reclamation
(in millions of dollars)
Program
FY2002
FY2003
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
H.R. 5431
H.J.Res. 2
Water and Related Resources
792.8*
726.2
804.5
816.2
--
Loan Program Account
7.5
--
0.0
7.5
--
Policy & Admin.
53.0
54.9
54.9
54.9
--
Central Valley Project (CVP)
Restoration Fund
55.0
48.9
48.9
48.9
--
California Bay-Delta
(CALFED)
--
15.0
--
--
--
Gross Current Authority
908.3
844.9
908.3
956.1
--
CVP Restoration Fund Offset**
44.9
39.6
--
--
--
Net Current Authority
863.4
805.4
--
--
--
*Includes $30.3 million from Site Security/Counter Terrorism appropriated in the FY2002
Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act, P.L. 107-117.
** In presenting its budget justifications, the Bureau includes an “offset” of approximately
$39.6 million for the CVP restoration fund, resulting in Net Current Authority of $805.4
million. (Figures may not total due to rounding.)
Background on Reclamation Policy
Most of the large dams and water diversion structures in the West were built by,
or with the assistance of, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). Whereas the Corps built
hundreds of flood control and navigation projects, BOR’s mission was to develop
water supplies and to reclaim arid lands in the West, primarily for irrigation. Today,
BOR manages more than 600 dams in 17 western states, providing water to
approximately 10 million acres of farmland and 31 million people. BOR is the
largest 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.
Bureau of Reclamation Budget In Brief
For FY2003, BOR is requesting a total of $805.4 in net current authority. This
request is $58 million, or 6.72 % less than BOR’s appropriated funding of $863.4
million for FY2002. The FY2003 request as presented includes a $39 million
“offset” for the Central Valley Project (CVP) Restoration Fund. The figures
displayed above do not include $24.9 million for the government-wide legislative
proposal to shift to agencies the full cost of the Civil Service Retirement System
pension and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program for current employees.
CRS-10
BOR’s single largest account, Water and Related Resources, encompasses the
agency’s traditional programs and projects, including operations and maintenance,
the Dam Safety Program, Water and Energy Management Development, and Fish and
Wildlife Management and Development, among others. For this account in FY2003,
BOR is requesting $726.1 million, $66.7 million less than appropriated in the regular
annual appropriations Act for FY2002. (BOR FY2002 funding for this account
eventually included $30.3 million for site security and counterterrorism appropriated
in the FY2002 Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, P.L. 107-
117). The House Appropriations Committee has recommended $804.5 million for
the Water and Related Resources Account, while the Senate Appropriations
Committee has recommended $816.2 million.
Key Policy Issues – Bureau of Reclamation
CALFED. Funds have not been appropriated for the California Bay-Delta
Restoration Program (Bay-Delta, or CALFED) since FY2000 when the authorization
for appropriations expired. However, funds were provided for FY2002 for some
activities that support the CALFED program. The Administration has requested $15
million for the program, for the Environmental Water Account and costs associated
with administrative support, for FY2003. Neither the House nor the Senate bill has
provided funding directly for the program; however, the Senate has provided $30
million for activities that support the goals of the program in funding for the Central
Valley Project in the Water and Related Resources account, and the House has
provided $2 million in the account to support local work to accelerate investigations
associated with determining the feasibility of constructing Sites Reservoir. (For
information on the status of authorization bills, see CRS Issue Brief 10019, Western
Water Resource Issues.)
Other Issues. BOR is requesting $28.4 million for continued heightened
safety and security efforts at BOR facilities. This request includes $26.6 million
specifically for counterterrorism measures including guards and surveillance and
equipment to provide increased security for the general public, BOR employees and
facilities (including rehabilitation), and information technology security. Both the
House and Senate have recommended $28.4 million in funding for FY2003, the same
as the President’s request. (For more information on terrorism and security issues
involving the water infrastructure sector, see CRS Report RS21026: Terrorism and
Security Issues Facing the Water Infrastructure Sector, CRS Report by Claudia
Copeland and Betsy A. Cody, updated September 4, 2002; also, see the CRS
Terrorism Electronic Briefing Book, updated regularly, accessed at
[http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebter1.shtml]).
CRS-11
Title III: Department of Energy
The Energy and Water Development bill includes funding for most of DOE’s
programs. Major DOE activities in the bill include research and development on
renewable energy and nuclear power, general science, environmental cleanup, and
nuclear weapons programs. The Administration’s FY2003 request for DOE programs
in the Energy and Water bill is $20.53 billion, about $650 million more than the
amount appropriated for FY2002. (The FY2003 appropriations request for DOE’s
programs for fossil fuels, energy efficiency, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and
energy statistics, included in the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill,
was $1.8 billion. For details, see CRS Report RL31306, Appropriations for
FY2003: Interior and Related Agencies.)
The House Appropriations Committee recommendation for these programs was
$147 million over the Administration’s request, $800 million over the FY2002
appropriation. The Senate Appropriations Committee bill included funding of
$20.96 billion, $430 million greater than the request. H.J.Res. 2 as passed by the
Senate included the same figure as the Senate bill.
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title III: Department of Energy
(in millions of dollars)
Program
FY2002
FY2003
House
Senate
Request
H.R. 5431 H.J.Res. 2
Conf.
Energy Supply R&D
Solar and Renewable
396.0
407.0
396.0
448.1
--
Nuclear Energy
250.5
249.8
213.7
324.1
--
Other
38.3
37.1
26.2
43.1
--
Adjustments
(18.1)
(2.0)
--
--
Total, Energy Supply
666.7
693.9
633.9
815.3
--
Uranium Facilities
418.4
382.2
382.2
471.2
--
Maintenance & Remediation
General Science
High Energy Physics
716.1
725.0
725.0
730.0
--
Nuclear Physics
380.5
382.4
382.4
387.4
--
Basic Energy Sciences
1,003.7
1,020.0
1,000.0
1,044.6
--
Bio. & Env. R&D
527.4
504.2
504.2
531.2
--
Fusion
248.5
257.3
248.5
259.3
--
Advanced Scientific Computing
158.1
169.6
174.6
169.6
--
Other
216.5
225.7
235.6
226.7
--
Adjustments
(17.7)
(4.4)
(18.6)
(19.4)
--
CRS-12
Program
FY2002
FY2003
House
Senate
Request
H.R. 5431 H.J.Res. 2
Conf.
Total, General Science
3,233.1
3,279.5
3,270.0
3,329.5
--
Non-Defense Environmental
Management
236.4
166.0
213.3
176.0
--
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
Weapons
5,560.2
5,867.0
5,770.0
6,109.0
--
Nuclear Nonproliferation
1,029.6
1,113.6
1,170.0
1,115.6
--
Naval Reactors
688.0
706.8
706.8
706.8
--
Office of Administrator
312.6
335.9
261.9
335.9
--
Total, NNSA
7,590.5
8,023.3
7,900.0
8,267.3
--
Defense Activities
Defense Environmental Management
Environ. Restoration
5,242.8
4,544.1
4,543.7
5,370.5
--
Environ. Mgmt. Cleanup Reform
800.0
1,100.0
--
--
Defense Facilities Closure Projects
1,092.9
1,091.3
1,091.3
1,125.3
--
Environ. Restoration Privatization
153.5
158.4
158.4
158.4
--
Total, Defense Env. Man.
6,489.2
6,593.8
6,893.4
6,654.3
--
Other Defense Activities
547.5
468.7
485.1
537.7
--
Defense Nuclear Waste
280.0
315.0
315.0
280.0
--
Total, Defense Activities
14,907.2
15,400.9
15,601.9
15,739.2
--
Departmental Admin. (net)
73.0
161.7
128.7
97.7
--
Office of Inspector General
32.4
37.7
37.7
37.7
--
Power Marketing Administrations (PMA’s)
Southeastern
4.9
4.5
4.5
4.5
--
Southwestern
28.0
27.4
27.4
27.4
--
Western
171.9
162.8
162.8
168.9
--
Falcon & Armistad O&M
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
--
Total, PMA’s
207.5
197.4
197.4
203.5
--
FERC
184.1
192.0
192.0
192.0
(revenues)
(184.1)
(192.0)
(192.0)
(192.0)
--
Civilian Nuclear Waste
95.0
209.7
209.7
56.0
--
Total, Title III
19,869.8
20,528.9
20,675.9
20,925.8
--
CRS-13
Key Policy Issues — Department of Energy
Renewable Energy. The FY2003 request for DOE’s Renewable Energy
Program seeks “to meet the growing need for clean and affordable energy,” according
to the Appendix to the U.S. Government’s FY2003 Budget (p. 397). In accordance
with this policy, DOE proposes to increase solar and renewables funding under
DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) from $396.0
million in FY2002 to $407.0 million in FY2003 (excluding funding for programs
under the Office of Science).
Overall, this is a relatively flat budget request. However, some programs would
get either a significant increase or decrease. The major cuts in proposed spending
include decreases of $11.3 million for Concentrated Solar, $6.2 million for
Biopower, and $2.6 million for Program Direction.
In the 107th Congress, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$448.1 million (excluding $15.0 million in prior year balances) for the Renewable
Energy Program. This is $41.1 million, or 13%, more than the request. This includes
$14.0 million more for Biomass/Biofuels, $10.5 million more for Geothermal, $6.0
million more for Wind, $5.1 million more for Hydrogen, $4.1 million more for
Concentrating Solar Power, and $4.0 million more for Program Support.
The Senate report found that DOE has not adequately implemented
“congressionally-directed activities” that were specified in the previous year’s
conference report. The report directs that this situation be addressed “before the
Conference Committee completes action on the final funding bill.”
In contrast, the House Appropriations Committee sought $396.0 million for the
Renewable Energy Program. This is the same amount, not accounting for inflation,
as the FY2002 appropriation, and it is $11 million, or 3%, less than the
Administration’s request.
As in the Senate report, the House report also expressed concern about DOE’s
“slow pace in executing projects” directed in the previous year’s appropriation bill.
Additionally, the House report aimed to “renew” its previous year’s direction to DOE
to provide Congress with “quantitative measures that can be used to evaluate the
potential costs and benefits of various renewable energy technologies.” The House
found that DOE failed to meet the previous request for this information and, thus,
“had no objective basis for supporting the changes in research emphasis proposed in
the fiscal year 2003 budget request.”
In the 108th Congress, H.J.Res. 2 as passed by the Senate adopts the Senate
Appropriations Committee’s recommendations for DOE’s Renewable Energy
Program. Relative to the request, the Amendment would provide $41.1 million
(excluding $15.0 million from prior year balances), or 10%, more for the Program.
Compared to FY2002, it would provide $52.1 million, or 13%, more (not adjusting
for inflation). This includes $14.0 million more for Hydrogen, $12.0 million more
for Electric/Storage, $9.0 million more for Wind, $8.0 million more for Geothermal,
$7.0 million more for Biomass/Biofuels, and $6.3 million more for Renewable
American Indian Resources. It also includes $2.3 million less for Program Support.
CRS-14
Nuclear Energy. For nuclear energy programs — including reactor research
and development, spent fuel processing, and closing of surplus facilities — the Bush
Administration requested $249.8 million for FY2003. The Administration’s National
Energy Policy, issued in May 2001, calls for “the expansion of nuclear energy in the
United States.” The FY2003 nuclear energy request reflects that policy with a
funding initiative to encourage construction of new commercial reactors by 2010
(“Nuclear Power 2010”) and additional funding for advanced (“Generation IV”)
reactor designs that could be ready for deployment after 2010. However, total
funding for nuclear energy supply programs would remain about the same as in
FY2002.
“Nuclear energy is the only expandable, large-scale electricity source that avoids
air emissions and meets the energy demands of a growing, modern economy,”
according to the DOE FY2003 budget justification. 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.
The House Appropriations Committee in the 107th Congress recommended
$213.7 million for nuclear energy programs, a decrease of $36.1 million from the
Administration request. However, the reduction would have come entirely from
transferring funds for decommissioning the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) from
nuclear energy to the environmental management program. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $324.1 million, including FFTF and the
Advanced Accelerator Applications program, which was previously a separate
funding category; the same provisions are included in H.J.Res. 2 as passed by the
Senate.
The budget request would provide $46.5 million for nuclear energy
technologies, which includes $38.5 million for Nuclear Power 2010 and $8.0 million
for Generation IV advanced reactor technologies. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended cutting the nuclear energy technologies request to $41.5
million so that $5 million could be shifted to the nuclear energy plant optimization
program (NEPO, described below), which the Administration had proposed to
terminate. The House panel also called for $5 million of the nuclear energy
technologies funding to go toward pursuing the advanced nuclear reactor and fuel-
cycle recommendations of a joint U.S.-Russian task force. The Senate voted to boost
the nuclear energy technologies request to $48.5 million.
According to the DOE budget justification, the Nuclear Power 2010 program,
which is to receive a $30.5 million increase over FY2002, will “identify the
technical, institutional and regulatory barriers to the deployment of new nuclear
power plants by 2010.” The program seeks to deploy both a water-cooled reactor
(similar to most existing commercial plants) and a gas-cooled reactor. The current
phase of the initiative would include site approval, reactor design certification,
license applications, detailed design work, and development of improved
construction techniques. DOE announced it would seek proposals for joint
DOE/industry teams in which DOE would pay up to half the cost of these activities.
CRS-15
DOE’s request for Generation IV technologies is double the FY2002 level. A
variety of concepts are under consideration, according to the budget justification,
including reactors fueled by plutonium recovered through reprocessing of spent
nuclear fuel. The Administration’s National Energy Policy report contends that
plutonium recovery could reduce the long-term environmental impact of nuclear
waste disposal and increase domestic energy supplies. However, opponents contend
that the separation of plutonium from spent fuel poses unacceptable environmental
risks and undermines U.S. policy on nuclear weapons proliferation.
DOE is requesting $18 million to study pyroprocessing technology and for
electrometallurgical treatment of spent fuel from the Experimental Breeder Reactor
II (EBR-II) in Idaho. No funding is requested for waste transmutation, which
involves bombarding nuclear waste with neutrons from a fast reactor or particle
accelerator to convert long-lived radioactive isotopes into radioisotopes that decay
more quickly. Because those programs involve plutonium separation, they are
generally opposed by nuclear nonproliferation groups. DOE announced July 17,
2002, that work on advanced nuclear reactor and reprocessing technologies would
be centered at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
(INEEL), which would be placed under the control of the DOE Office of Nuclear
Energy, Science, and Technology.
The Senate would boost DOE’s advanced nuclear fuel cycle activities to $77.9
million, including the requested $18 million for EBR-II fuel treatment. According
to the Senate report, “This program subsumes the Advanced Accelerator Applications
program and its activities and will focus on the development of advanced fuel cycles,
recycle or reprocessing of spent fuel, and transmutation technologies.” The House
panel also approved the $18 million request for EBR-II but, aside from the $5 million
related to the joint U.S.-Russia task force (noted above), recommended no additional
FY2003 funding for reprocessing and transmutation.
A DOE program to support innovative nuclear energy research projects, the
“nuclear energy research initiative” (NERI), would receive $25 million under the
FY2003 request, a $7 million reduction from FY2002. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended the full NERI request, while the Senate panel called for a
$4 million increase. As noted above, the House Committee recommended $5 million
for NEPO, a research program to improve the economic competitiveness of existing
nuclear power plants. The Senate also recommended $5 million for the program, $2
million below the FY2002 level.
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 third-largest federal supporter of basic
research and the largest federal supporter of research in the physical sciences.
For FY2003, DOE requested $3.279 billion for Science, compared with $3.233
billion appropriated in FY2002. Within this nearly flat overall funding, five of the six
programs would receive increases, while one, biological and environmental research,
would receive a reduction. The House Appropriations Committee recommended a
net reduction of $8 million from the request. The Senate Appropriations Committee
CRS-16
recommended an increase of $50 million. H.J.Res. 2 as passed by the Senate
maintains the Senate Appropriations Committee level.
The requested funding for the largest program, basic energy sciences, is $1.020
billion, compared with $1.004 billion in FY2002. This request includes $211 million
for continued construction of the Spallation Neutron Source, a large facility at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory for research in physics, materials science, and other fields.
Funding for the Spallation Neutron Source in FY2002 was $276 million; the
reduction in FY2003 reflects the planned construction schedule, not a delay or
scaling back of the project. The House Appropriations Committee recommended
funding basic energy sciences at the requested level. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended an increase of $25 million. Both recommendations include
full funding for the Spallation Neutron Source.
The largest requested percentage increase is for the smallest program, advanced
scientific computing research, which would increase almost 8% to $170 million. The
House Appropriations Committee recommended an additional increase of $5 million
for this program. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended funding the
program at the requested level.
The only program to be reduced in the request is biological and environmental
research, which would receive $504 million, compared with $527 million the
previous year. The proposed reduction results mainly from the completion of 74
medical applications projects that were funded at congressional direction in FY2002.
Funding for the Genomes to Life project, which was a new initiative in FY2002,
would increase to $37 million. The House Appropriations Committee recommended
funding biological and environmental research at the requested level. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended an increase of $27 million above the
request, more than reversing the requested reduction. Of the Senate increase, $10
million is designated for the Genomes to Life program, which the Committee
“strongly encourages” DOE to expand in FY2004, stating that it “shows tremendous
potential and deserves enhanced support.” Another $6 million of the Senate increase
is designated for research and demonstration projects on removal of arsenic from
municipal water supplies.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended funding high-energy
physics and nuclear physics at the requested levels of $725 million and $382 million
respectively. In both cases this is an increase over FY2002. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended increasing each of these programs by an
additional $5 million above the request.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended reducing funding for
fusion energy sciences by $9 million from the requested level of $257 million. It also
directed DOE to prepare an updated fusion program plan, including an evaluation of
the possibility of re-engaging in the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor (ITER) project. (U.S. participation in ITER was discontinued in 1998 at the
end of the initial engineering design phase. The remaining partners, Canada, Europe,
Japan, and Russia, are currently in negotiations prior to the start of construction.) The
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a $2 million increase above the
request for fusion energy sciences to fund an evaluation of the concept known as
CRS-17
“fast ignition”; a report on this evaluation is to be provided to the Committee by
August 1, 2003.
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship. Congress established the
Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) 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
established by Congress in the FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L.
106-65, Title XXXII) within DOE. It seeks to maintain the safety and reliability of
the U.S. nuclear stockpile.
A key issue is whether this task can and should continue to be done without
nuclear testing. While SSP has sought to maintain warheads without testing,
statements in early 2002 implied a reduced commitment to that approach. Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that nations with nuclear weapons have “a
responsibility to see that they are safe and reliable. To the extent that can be done
without testing, clearly that is the preference. And that is why the President has
concluded that, thus far, that is the case.” J.D. Crouch, Assistant Secretary of
Defense for International Security Policy, stated that there is “no change in the
Administration’s policy at this point on nuclear testing. We continue to oppose
CTBT [Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty] ratification. We also continue to adhere to
a testing moratorium.”
The Administration requested $15 million to begin to improve “nuclear test
readiness” – to reduce the time between a decision to test and the conduct of the test
– pending completion of a study and policy on optimum test readiness time. The
Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report on the FY2003 Energy and Water
Development Appropriation Bill, stated the matter differently: “weapons activities
[funds] provide for the continuing assurance of safety, reliability, and security of the
nuclear weapons in our enduring nuclear weapons stockpile while adhering to the
spirit of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.” The committee bill provides “within
available funds” $64.2 million for test site readiness (a category broader than nuclear
test readiness), as well as other funds that “contribute to the test readiness posture.”
The House Appropriations Committee recommended providing the requested
amount, while directing DOE to notify the committee before obligating any of these
funds in FY2003.
Stockpile stewardship consists of all activities in NNSA’s Weapons Activities
account, for which the FY2003 request was $5,867.0 million and the Senate bill
provided $6,109.0 million. H.J.Res. 2 as passed by the Senate leaves all budget
figures for FY2003 that are contained in this section, “Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
Stewardship,” unchanged from the bill, S. 2784, as reported from the Senate
Appropriations Committee. H.R. 5431 provided $5,967.1 million, of which $195.0
million was prior year balances. Comparable appropriations were $4,908.7 million
for FY2001 and $5,560.2 million for FY2002. The three main elements of stockpile
stewardship, described below, are Directed Stockpile Work, $1,045.8 million for
FY2002, $1,234.5 million requested for 2003 and provided by the House and Senate
bills; Campaigns, $2,167.1 million for FY2002, $2,067.8 million requested for
FY2003, $2,148.2 million provided by the Senate bill, and $2,088.9 million provided
CRS-18
by the H.R. 5431; and Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities, $1,553.1 million
for FY2002, $1,688.2 million for FY2003, $1,849.8 million provided by the Senate
bill, and $1,738.2 million provided by H.R. 5431.
NNSA manages two major programs in addition to Weapons Activities:
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ($1,113.6 million requested; see below) and Naval
Reactors ($706.8 million requested). The total FY2003 request for NNSA, including
the foregoing elements and several smaller ones, is $8,023.4 million, compared with
$7,590.5 million appropriated for FY2002. The Senate bill provides $1,115.6 million
for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, $706.8 million for Naval Reactors, and
$8,267.3 million in total for NNSA. Comparable figures for H.R. 5431 are $1,167.6
million, $706.8 million, and $7,908.4 million, respectively.
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.
Directed Stockpile Work (DSW). This program involves work directly on
nuclear weapons in the stockpile, such as monitoring the condition of weapons and
maintaining them through repairs, refurbishment, life extension, and modifications.
It includes R&D to support activities to be undertaken for specific warheads. The
FY2003 DSW request would support work on a number of nuclear weapons: full-
scale refurbishment of the W87, development engineering for the B61 mods 7/11, an
engineering study of the W80 to extend its life and enhance surety, and development
engineering to extend the life, refurbish major systems, and add new components to
the W76. NNSA plans to begin production engineering for the latter two warheads
in FY2003. It also plans to conduct a study for the “Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrator” (RNEP), for which $15.0 million was requested for FY2003. Warheads
of this type would burrow into the ground before detonating in order to destroy
underground targets with less explosive yield than a surface-burst weapon would
require. The Senate Armed Services Committee’s FY2003 defense authorization bill,
S. 2514, included no funds for the RNEP, and the Senate Appropriations Committee
bill was silent on the matter. In contrast, the House Appropriations Committee bill
provided the amount requested for RNEP.
Campaigns. These are “focused scientific and engineering efforts” that seek
to “develop and maintain special capabilities and tools needed for continued
certification of the stockpile ... in the absence of underground nuclear testing.” For
FY2003, there are 16 campaigns. Examples are: Enhanced Surveillance ($82.3
million appropriated for FY2002, $77.2 million requested for FY2003 and provided
by the Senate and House bills), which seeks to assess lifetimes of weapons
components and predict defects resulting from aging; Advanced Design and
Production Technologies ($75.5 million for FY2002, $74.1 million requested for
FY2003 and provided by the Senate and House bills), which seeks to improve
individual manufacturing processes, integrate product information, and develop the
ability to fabricate complex parts in small lots; Advanced Simulation and Computing
($729.9 million for FY2002, $724.9 million requested for FY2003 and provided by
CRS-19
H.R. 5431, $704.3 million provided by the Senate bill), which aims to obtain a 100-
trillion operations per second computer by 2005 and is developing computer models
(e.g., of nuclear weapon performance) needed to certify the stockpile; and Tritium
Readiness ($123.5 million for FY2002, $126.3 million requested for FY2003 and
provided by H.R. 5431, and $112.9 million provided by the Senate bill), which is
developing means of using a commercial light water reactor to produce tritium, an
isotope of hydrogen that is a key ingredient in nuclear weapons.
The Pit Manufacturing and Certification campaign has attracted much
congressional interest. Pits are the fissile cores of nuclear warheads that trigger the
thermonuclear secondary stage. The United States has been unable to produce pits
for use in stockpiled weapons since 1989, when DOE suspended pit production at the
Rocky Flats Plant (CO). As a result, the United States has been unable to make all-
new nuclear warheads of existing or advanced new designs. The campaign supports
two pit projects: installation of a low-capacity pit production facility, and supporting
R&D, at Los Alamos National Laboratory; and planning for a higher-capacity
Modern Pit Facility. R&D, procurement, and construction costs for the two projects
might total some $5 billion over two decades. The FY2003 request is $194.5 million,
compared with $219 million appropriated for FY2002. The request includes $112.5
million for manufacturing the pit for the W88 warhead, one of the two types of
warheads used on the Trident II missile, $78.0 million for W88 pit certification, $2.0
million for pit activities not specifically supporting the W88, and $2.0 million for
planning for the Modern Pit Facility.
In action on this issue for FY2002, the House Appropriations Committee
recommended the requested amount, $128.5 million, but asserted that DOE cannot
show “that it has a viable plan to manufacture and certify pits on the schedule
dictated by national security needs,” criticized the project as “years behind schedule
and hundreds of millions of dollars over the original cost estimate,” and stated that
it will judge NNSA’s success on how well the pit project succeeds. The Senate
Appropriations Committee for FY2002 recommended increasing funding
substantially to “fully fund” all relevant activities, viewing the then-current schedule,
which would not certify a pit for use in the stockpile until FY2009, as
“unacceptable.” In its FY2003 request, NNSA states that it plans to “certify a W88
pit built at [Los Alamos National Laboratory] without underground nuclear testing
by FY 2009, with a goal of achieving an earlier date of FY 2007.” Further, NNSA
plans to defer detailed design of a Modern Pit Facility until FY2004, “with FY 2003
funding used to continue manufacturing concepts.”
In its report on FY2003 energy and water appropriations, the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $246.0 million for pit manufacturing and
certification, an increase of $51.5 million over the request. The sum includes the
requested $2.0 million for pit activities and $2.0 million for the Modern Pit Facility.
The committee, however, “remains greatly concerned about the NNSA’s refusal to
request funds consistent with its own project plan submitted less than 1 year ago.”
Because this was not done, which would have resulted in a lower request for this
important project, “the Committee has been forced to reduce other items in the
budget.” The Senate Appropriations Committee directed NNSA to revise the plan
and report to Congress before the end of the current fiscal year and then annually.
CRS-20
The House Appropriations Committee provided $194.5 million, the requested
amount, for pit manufacturing and certification.
The National Ignition Facility (NIF), under construction at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, is to be the world’s largest laser. It is a key project for the
stockpile stewardship program. NIF is intended to help solve weapons problems,
attract top physicists to the nuclear weapons program, and advance the quest for
fusion power. A top priority of the facility is to achieve “ignition,” in which nuclear
fusion of deuterium and tritium (isotopes of hydrogen) would release more energy
than was provided by the laser to achieve fusion.
In 1999, the NIF Project identified several problems with the original cost
estimates and notified DOE that NIF could not be completed for the original
estimated cost. The project was rebaselined and revalidated in 2000, adding
approximately $1 billion to the cost and several years to the schedule. Over the
years, various reports have raised questions about technical issues. The NIF Project
Office, however, states that the project is now on the schedule and budget set forth
in the new baseline, and that no technical obstacles remain. In its FY2003 request,
DOE estimated total project-related costs for NIF at $3,448.1 million.
In its report on FY2003 energy and water appropriations, the Senate
Appropriations Committee expressed great concern over changes to the project’s
scope implied by the request. The title of the campaign has changed from “Inertial
Confinement Fusion and High Yield” to “High Energy Density Physics,” which the
Senate Appropriations Committee felt marked a shift “from a focus on achieving the
specific goal of ignition to a generalized physics research program.”
The Senate panel was also concerned that the performance criteria for
acceptance testing of the laser beams could be reduced “significantly below what is
required to support ignition experiments.” The Committee expressed its “impression
that NNSA is not committed to the NIF Project and might down scope the project to
the point where laser performance that is needed to evaluate ignition targets would
never be realized.” In response, “[t]he Committee rejects this re-prioritization and
down-scoping. Ignition is now and will remain the primary objective” for NIF. In
part because of concern that the Administration did not request certain funds for
equipment and technology essential for ignition, the Senate Appropriations
Committee added $35.0 million to the FY2003 request for inertial confinement
fusion, for a total of $487.3 million.
The House Appropriations Committee provided $498.8 million, and also
expressed concern that NNSA was changing the focus “from the specific goal of
ignition to a generalized physics research program.” Accordingly, it “direct[ed]
NNSA to re-establish ignition as the primary objective and justification for the NIF.”
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF). This program
provides infrastructure and operations at the nuclear weapons complex sites. The
request includes eight categories. By far the largest is Operations of Facilities
($897.8 million for FY2002, $949.9 million requested for FY2003, $1,026.0 million
provided by the Senate bill, $994.9 provided by H.R. 5431). Other large categories
include Program Readiness, which supports activities occurring at multiple sites or
CRS-21
in multiple programs ($192.0 million appropriated for FY2002, $208.1 million
requested for FY2003 and provided by H.R. 5431, $218.0 in the Senate bill),
Material Recycle and Recovery ($90.3 million appropriated for FY2002, $98.8
million requested for FY2003 and provided in the Senate bill, $103.8 million in H.R.
5431), and Construction ($204.9 million appropriated for FY2002, $270.3 million
requested for FY2003 and provided by the House bill, $328.2 million in the Senate
bill).
Of particular interest is the RTBF element Nuclear Weapons Incident Response,
for which $91.0 million is requested for FY2003 and provided in the House bill, and
$96.0 million provided in the Senate bill, compared with $88.9 million appropriated
for FY2002. This activity provides funds for an appropriate technical response to any
nuclear or radiological emergency within DOE, in the United States, or abroad. In
addition, the RTBF element Operations of Facilities includes $10.0 million requested
for FY2003, unchanged from FY2002, for the National Center for Combating
Terrorism. The Senate bill provides $27.0 million for this center; H.R. 5431 did not
specify an amount for it.
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).
Funding for these programs in FY2002 was provided both in the regular Energy
and Water Development bill, which appropriated $803.6 million, and in the FY2002
Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-117), which
added $223 million, for a total of $1.0266 billion. In FY2001 these programs
received $872.3 million. The FY2003 request would maintain an increased level, at
$1.1136 billion. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $1.17 billion.
The Senate Appropriations Committee bill included $1.1156 billion, and this amount
was included in H.J.Res. 2 as passed by the Senate.
In particular, the Nonproliferation and Verification R&D program, which
received a total of $286.5 million for FY2002, would be funded at $283 million in
the Administration request and H.R. 5431, and $293 million in the Senate bill.
Nonproliferation and International Security programs, formerly called “Arms
Control,” would receive $132 million in the request and in both House and Senate
bills, compared with $118 million in FY2002. These programs include international
safeguards, export controls, treaties and agreements, and two programs in the former
Soviet Union, Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) and the Nuclear Cities
Initiatives (NCI). (The House and Senate Appropriations Committees broke out IPP
and NCI into a separate line item called “Russian Transition Initiative” and list the
FY2003 request for them as $39.3 million, compared to $42.0 million appropriated
for FY2002.)
International Materials Protection, Control and Accounting (MPC&A), which
is concerned with reducing the threat posed by unsecured Russian weapons and
weapons-usable material, received a big increase in FY2002 to $293 million, from
$174 million in FY2001. The request for FY2003 was $233 million. The Senate bill
CRS-22
and H.J.Res. 2 as passed by the Senate include the same amount; the House
Appropriations Committee recommended $243 million.
Requested funding for the Fissile Materials Disposition program for FY2003 is
$448.0 million, compared with $302.4 million in FY2002. The Administration
proposes to abandon plans to vitrify and immobilize a portion of surplus plutonium
from dismantled U.S. nuclear weapons and instead dispose of almost all of it as fuel
for commercial power reactors. Some of the increased funding would go toward
construction of a facility to convert the plutonium to reactor fuel at Savannah River,
SC. FY2003 funding for the project would be $93.0 million, compared to $65.9
million for FY2002. Money for Russian surplus materials disposition would also
increase, from $61.0 million in FY2002 to $98.0 million in FY2003. House and
Senate funding for these programs matched the Administration request.
(For details on these programs, see CRS Issue Brief IB10091, Nuclear
Nonproliferation Issues.
Environmental Management. The amount of time and money needed to
clean up environmental contamination resulting from the production of nuclear
weapons during the Cold War has been a longstanding issue. Since the beginning of
the U.S. atomic energy program, DOE and its predecessors have been responsible for
administering the production of nuclear weapons and managing radioactive and other
hazardous waste. In later years, DOE expanded its efforts to include the
environmental restoration of radioactive sites and those with other hazardous
contamination in buildings, soil, and water to ensure their safety for future uses.
In 1989, the Bush Administration established an Environmental Management
Program within DOE to consolidate the agency’s efforts in cleaning up
contamination from defense nuclear waste, as well as waste from civilian nuclear
energy research. DOE is responsible for complying with numerous federal
environmental laws and regulations in administering the program, and is subject to
fines and penalties for violations of these requirements. Consequently, DOE has
signed numerous legally binding compliance agreements with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the states to perform cleanup activities and dispose of
waste according to specific deadlines.
DOE reports that there are a total of 114 contaminated sites in 30 states where
the production of nuclear weapons, and civilian nuclear energy research and
development activities, resulted in radioactive and other hazardous contamination.
Together, these sites occupy approximately 2.1 million acres, which is equivalent to
the land area of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. DOE reports that all response
actions were complete at 74 sites as of the end of FY2001 at a cost of over $60
billion, and that cleanup is expected to be complete at two additional sites by the end
of FY2003. However, the sites that have been cleaned up are relatively small and are
among the least hazardous, and the sites where cleanup remains underway contain
some of the most severely contaminated areas. DOE estimates that cleanup at the
remaining sites may take 70 years to complete, and that total cleanup costs may range
from $220 billion to as high as $300 billion if program reforms are not initiated.
CRS-23
Five accounts within the annual appropriations bill for Energy and Water
Development have traditionally funded DOE’s Environmental Management Program.
The Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Account funds
cleanup and waste management activities at nuclear weapons sites where all response
actions are projected to continue beyond 2006. The Defense Facilities Closure
Projects Account supports cleanup and waste management activities at nuclear
weapons sites where all response actions are scheduled to be complete by the end of
2006. The Defense Environmental Management Privatization Account funds cleanup
and waste management projects at nuclear weapons sites, which are performed under
“privatization” contracts. This contracting approach relies on the private sector to
construct and operate facilities or conduct cleanup actions on a fixed-price, fee-for-
service basis. The Non-Defense Environmental Management Account funds cleanup
and waste management activities at civilian nuclear energy research and development
sites. Lastly, the Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation Account funds
the cleanup of uranium and thorium processing sites.
For FY2003, DOE initially requested a total of $6.7 billion for the above
accounts, approximately the same amount as enacted for FY2002. However, $800
million of the initial request was allocated to a new Environmental Management
Cleanup Reform Account, which would fund efforts to reduce risk, decrease cleanup
costs, and accelerate cleanup schedules. The Administration budgeted the majority
of the funding for this new account by decreasing support for sites funded under the
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Account. Under this
approach, funding would be restored at these sites only if compliance agreements
with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states are re-negotiated to
accelerate cleanup schedules.
DOE contends that many of the requirements under its existing compliance
agreements are too costly, ineffective, and unnecessarily time-consuming, and that
its agreements need to be re-examined to explore ways to increase the pace of
cleanup and reduce costs. Concerns have been raised over whether EPA and the
states might agree to weaker cleanup standards, rather than face the possibility of the
loss of funds which may prevent sites from fulfilling existing agreements.
To date, DOE has signed letters of intent with EPA and the states to accelerate
cleanup at the following sites: the Hanford site in Washington, the Oak Ridge site in
Tennessee, the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, the
Nevada Test Site, the Savannah River site in South Carolina, the Pantex site in
Texas, and the Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories
in New Mexico. On August 2, 2002, the President submitted a budget amendment
to request an additional $300 million in FY2003 to fulfill these new agreements,
increasing the request for a new Environmental Management Cleanup Reform
Account to $1.1 billion, and the overall request for the Environmental Management
Program to $7.0 billion.
During the 107th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce held a hearing on DOE’s cleanup
reform initiative on July 19, 2002. Jesse Roberson, Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management, testified that the objective of the cleanup reform
initiative is to identify and implement more risk-oriented and efficient cleanup
CRS-24
approaches, and that the intent is not to weaken any of DOE’s compliance
agreements. The General Accounting Office (GAO) testified on the status of
compliance agreements with EPA and the states at each nuclear waste cleanup site,
and indicated that DOE faces challenges in developing and implementing a risk-
based method to prioritize cleanup activities due to failed attempts to do so in the
past. GAO also indicated that DOE’s reform initiative in some cases could involve
“potential changes in technology or approach that would result in leaving more of the
waste on site than currently planned and thus could significantly reduce cleanup
costs. In other cases, it could allocate funding using a greater emphasis on risk
reduction, which could shift funding among sites.” Representatives from the states
of Washington, Idaho, and Tennessee indicated that the letters of intent to re-
negotiate cleanup agreements in their states would not result in weakened cleanup
standards, but would provide a framework for cooperation among the parties
involved to establish new cleanup goals.
H.J.Res. 2 as passed by the Senate would not allocate any funding to the
Environmental Management Cleanup Reform Account. The amendment indicates
that the reform account would not be funded due to concerns about how DOE would
allocate the amount among various sites. Instead, the amendment would increase
funding for the Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Account
by approximately $826 million above the Administration’s request of $4.54 billion.
The increase to this account would be allocated among the sites based on the
letters of intent to accelerate cleanup that DOE has signed and on reasonable
expectations to accelerate cleanup at sites where an agreement is not yet in place. To
the extent that such funding would be in excess of the allocations in FY2002, DOE
would be directed not to release any additional funds for the reform of cleanup
activities to individual sites or laboratories until a final revised cleanup agreement
and performance management plan are completed. The amendment also would direct
DOE to clearly identify the amount of funding that would be necessary to fulfill re-
negotiated cleanup agreements in its future budget submissions to Congress. During
the 107th Congress, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a similar action.
However, the House Appropriations Committee would have funded the reform
account at the fully requested level of $1.1 billion.
The level of funding to appropriate in FY2003 for the four other accounts has
been less controversial. Overall, H.J.Res. 2 as passed by the Senate would
appropriate nearly $6.9 billion for all five defense and non-defense accounts which
support DOE’s Environmental Management Program. This amount is nearly $40
million less than the Senate Appropriations Committee approved in the 107th
Congress, and is approximately $140 million less than the House Appropriations
Committee approved in the 107th Congress as well.
Civilian Nuclear Waste. The Bush Administration is seeking $524.7 million
for the DOE civilian waste disposal program for FY2003, a 40% boost over FY2002.
The increased budget is intended primarily to pay for preparing a construction permit
application for a national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. DOE
expects to submit the 10,000-page application to NRC in late 2004. The additional
funds are also needed for detailed repository design work, repository performance
studies, and transportation planning, according to DOE. Despite the delay in
CRS-25
submitting a construction application, DOE contends that it can still begin receiving
waste at the site by 2010 as previously scheduled.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended the full Administration
request, citing enactment of the Yucca Mountain approval resolution discussed
below. However, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended cutting the
request to $336 million, nearly 10% below the FY2002 level, and the same level is
included in H.J.Res. 2 as passed by the Senate. The Yucca Mountain approval
resolution was vigorously opposed by Senator Reid, Ranking Democrat on the Senate
Committee’s Energy and Water Development Subcommittee.
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.
Following the recommendation of Energy Secretary Abraham, President Bush on
February 15, 2002, recommended to Congress that DOE submit an application to
NRC to construct the Yucca Mountain repository. Nevada Governor Guinn then
exercised his right under NWPA to submit a “notice of disapproval” (or “state veto”)
to Congress. Under NWPA, the state disapproval blocks the Yucca Mountain site
unless a congressional approval resolution is signed into law within 90 days of
continuous session. The approval resolution was signed July 23, 2000 (H.J.Res. 87,
P.L. 107-200), allowing the Yucca Mountain project to proceed to the licensing
phase.
Funding for the nuclear waste program comes from two sources. Under the
FY2003 budget request, $209.7 million is to be provided from the Nuclear Waste
Fund, which consists of fees paid by nuclear utilities, and $315 million from the
defense nuclear waste disposal account, which pays for disposing of high-level waste
from the nuclear weapons program in the planned civilian repository. The Senate
panel recommended that $56 million come from the Nuclear Waste Fund, and $280
million from the defense account.
The 2010 target for opening a permanent repository is 12 years later than the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act deadline of January 31, 1998, for DOE to begin taking
waste from nuclear plant sites. Nuclear utilities and state utility regulators, upset
over DOE’s failure to meet the 1998 disposal 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, although specific damages have not yet been
determined.
Power Marketing Administrations. DOE’s four Power Marketing
Administrations (PMAs) developed out of the construction of dams and multi-
purpose water projects during the 1930s that are operated by the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers. The original intention behind many
of these projects was conservation and management of water resources, including
irrigation, flood control, recreation and other objectives. However, many of these
facilities generated electricity for project needs. The PMAs were established to
market the excess power; they are the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA),
Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA), Southwestern Power Administration
(SWPA), and Western Area Power Administration (WAPA).
CRS-26
The power is sold at wholesale to electric utilities and federal agencies "at the
lowest possible rates ... consistent with sound business practice," and priority on
PMA power is extended to "preference customers," which include municipal utilities,
co-ops and other "public" bodies. The PMAs do not own the generating facilities,
but they generally do own transmission facilities, except for Southeastern. The
PMAs are responsible for covering their expenses and repaying debt and the federal
investment in the generating facilities.
The 104th Congress debated sale of the PMAs and did, in 1995, authorize
divestiture of one PMA, the Alaska Power Administration. There has been no press
to dispose of the remaining PMAs, and none seems likely given the broader
uncertainties governing electric utility restructuring.
The Administration's request for SEPA, SWPA, and WAPA for FY2003 was
$197.4 million, a reduction from the FY2002 appropriation of $207.3 million. The
Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $203.5 million, which included
an additional $6.1 million, added to the budget for the Western Power
Administration, which would be transferred to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Commission. Otherwise, the recommended levels were the same as in
the Administration budget. This level of funding was included in H.J.Res. 2 as
passed by the Senate. The House Committee recommended the levels sought by the
Administration.
BPA receives no annual appropriation, but funds some of its activities from a
permanent borrowing authority, currently $3.75 billion. For FY2003, BPA has
intended to borrow $630.8 million, to be used for transmission system construction,
system replacement, energy resources, fish and wildlife, and capital equipment
programs. BPA had requested an additional $2 billion in permanent borrowing
authority in the FY2002 budget “to address critical infrastructure needs,” but
Congress did not support the request. The Administration requested an additional
$700 million in borrowing authority for BPA in the FY2003 budget request.
However, a provision for an increase of $1.3 billion in borrowing authority was
included in the Senate version of comprehensive energy legislation, H.R. 4, which
reached conference in the 107th Congress, but was not enacted by adjournment.
Consequently, Senator Craig submitted an amendment (SA 34) to S.J.Res. 2 to add
$700 million in borrowing authority, the level supported by the Administration in its
request. The amendment was approved. (For details on BPA’s funding procedure see
CRS Report RL31215, Bonneville Power Administration’s Authority to Borrow from
the U.S. Treasury.)
CRS-27
Title IV: Independent Agencies
Independent agencies that receive funding from the Energy and Water
Development bill include the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), and the Denali Commission.
Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title IV: Independent Agencies
(in millions of dollars)
Program
FY2003
House
Senate
FY2002
Request
H.R. 5431 H.J.Res. 2
Conf.
Appalachian Regional Commission
71.3
66.3
71.3
74.4
--
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
578.5
585.0
578.0
578.2
(Revenues)
(479.5)
(498.9)
(520.0)
(520.1)
Net NRC
99.0
85.6
58.0
58.1
--
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
18.5
19.0
19.0
19.0
--
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.2
--
Denali Commission
38.0
29.9
--
50.0
--
Delta Regional Authority
10.0
10.0
--
15.0
--
Total
220.5
195.1
151.9
219.7
--
Key Policy Issues — Independent Agencies
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) requested a total budget of $585.0 million for FY2003, including $6.8 million
for the NRC inspector general’s office. The funding request would provide an
increase of $25.3 million from FY2002 (including FY2002 supplemental funding).
Major activities conducted by NRC include safety regulation and licensing of
commercial nuclear reactors, licensing of nuclear waste facilities, and oversight of
nuclear materials users.
The House and Senate Appropriations panels recommended the full NRC
request, and H.J.Res. 2 as passed by the Senate includes that figure.
In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States, NRC
has focused additional attention on the security of nuclear power plants and other
users of radioactive material. NRC’s FY2003 budget request includes $29.3 million
for activities related to homeland security, about $6 million below the $36 million
provided in the FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill. According
to the NRC budget justification, the funding is being used for:
CRS-28
! Re-analyzing the threat of radiological sabotage and the theft of
nuclear material;
! Re-analyzing the adequacy of physical protection requirements for
nuclear facilities and transportation of radioactive materials;
! Re-analyzing procedures for authorizing access to nuclear facilities;
! Strengthening NRC emergency preparedness and response
capabilities;
! Better integrating NRC security and emergency preparedness
planning; and
! Strengthening NRC infrastructure and communications capabilities.
(For more information on protecting licensed nuclear facilities, see CRS Report
RS21131, Nuclear Powerplants: Vulnerability to Terrorist Attack.)
NRC proposes to more than double its spending on licensing of new commercial
reactors, which are being seriously considered for the first time in at least 20 years.
The FY2003 request includes $24.8 million for new reactor licensing, up from $10
million provided in FY2002. According to the NRC budget justification, the funding
will be used for early site permits (sites approved for future reactors), reactor pre-
licensing and licensing reviews, and updating the nuclear licensing infrastructure.
The NRC licensing program dovetails with DOE’s program to encourage
construction of two new nuclear power plants by 2010.
For the decade before FY2001, NRC’s budget was offset 100% by fees on
nuclear power plants and payments by other licensed activities, such as the DOE
nuclear waste program. The nuclear power industry had long contended that the fee
structure required nuclear reactor owners to pay for a number of NRC programs, such
as foreign nuclear safety efforts, from which they did not directly benefit. To account
for that concern, the FY2001 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill included an NRC
proposal to phase down the agency’s fee recovery to 90% during the subsequent 5
years – two percentage points per year. As a result, 94% of the FY2003 NRC
appropriation – minus $24.9 million transferred from the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay
for waste repository licensing and $29.3 million for homeland security – is to be
offset by fees on licensees, under the budget request. The House and Senate
Appropriations Committees recommended that the 94% offset also apply to the
homeland security funding, resulting in a lower net appropriation than in the budget
request.
Additional Legislative Provisions
H.J.Res. 2 as passed by the Senate includes a 15-year extension of the Price-
Anderson Act nuclear incident liability system. The language is identical to Price-
Anderson provisions agreed to by House-Senate conferees on an omnibus energy bill
(H.R. 4) in the 107th Congress. The energy conference agreement was not completed
CRS-29
by the end of the session, however, so the proposed Price-Anderson extension was
not enacted.
Under the Price-Anderson Act (primarily Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2210), the owners of commercial reactors must assume all
liability for reactor-related radiological damages awarded to the public by the court
system, but their total liability is limited to the amount provided by private insurance
and an industry self-insurance system. The Price-Anderson Act also authorizes DOE
to indemnify contractors who operate hazardous DOE nuclear facilities. The limit
on DOE contractor liability is the same as for commercial reactors, except when the
limit for commercial reactors drops because of a decline in the number of covered
reactors.
H.J.Res. 2 as passed by the Senate would provide a 15-year Price-Anderson
extension to commercial reactors and DOE contractors. Following a major nuclear
incident, each of the 106 currently covered commercial reactors would have to
contribute up to $15 million per year following a major nuclear incident, up to a total
of $94 million per reactor. The DOE contractor liability limit would be raised to $10
billion. All those limits would be adjusted for inflation every five years. Modular
reactors of 100-300 megawatts built together in a plant of up to 1,300 megawatts
would be considered a single reactor under Price-Anderson. DOE would be
authorized to impose civil penalties on non-profit contractors that are currently
exempted by Section 234A of the Atomic Energy Act. (The non-profit contractor
provision was omitted when the Stevens Amendment was originally published in the
Congressional Record but was restored in the final version of the Senate-passed bill
published January 28, 2003, on page S1639.)
Without an extension of the law, any commercial nuclear reactor licensed after
August 1, 2002, could not be covered by the Price-Anderson system, although
coverage would continue for existing reactors. Because no new U.S. reactors are
currently planned, missing the deadline for extension has had little short-term effect
on the nuclear power industry. However, any new DOE contracts signed during a
Price-Anderson lapse would have to use alternate indemnification authority. To
prevent that problem, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2003 (P.L. 107-
314), signed December 2, 2002, extends Price-Anderson coverage for DOE
contractors through December 31, 2004.
CRS-30
For Additional Reading
CRS Issue Briefs
CRS Issue Brief IB88090. Nuclear Energy Policy.
CRS Issue Brief IB92059. Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal.
CRS Issue Brief IB10041. Renewable Energy: Tax Credit, Budget, and Electricity
Production Issues
CRS Issue Brief IB10019. Western Water Resource Issues.
CRS Issue Brief IB10072. Endangered Species: Difficult Choices.
CRS Issue Brief IB10091. Nuclear Nonproliferation Issues.
CRS Reports
CRS Report RS20702. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
CRS Report RL30928. Army Corps of Engineers: Reform Issues for the 107th
Congress.
CRS Report RS20569. Water Resource Issues in the 107th Congress.
CRS Report RS20866. The Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers:
A Primer.
CRS Report RL31116. Water Infrastructure Funding: Review and Analysis of
Current Issues.
CRS Report RL31044. Renewable Energy Legislation in the 107th Congress.
CRS Report RL31215. Bonneville Power Administration's Authority to Borrow from
the U.S. Treasury.
CRS Report RL30478. Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater
Treatment Programs.
CRS Report RS21026. Terrorism and Security Issues Facing the Water
Infrastructure Sector.
CRS Report RS21131. Nuclear Powerplants: Vulnerability to Terrorist Attack.
CRS Report RL31098. Klamath River Basin Issues: An Overview of Water Use
Conflicts.