Order Code RL31807
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2004:
Energy and Water Development
Updated May 16, 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 FY2004:
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 $26.94 billion
for these programs for FY2004 compared with $26.14 billion appropriated for
FY2003.
Key issues involving Energy and Water Development appropriations programs
include:
! Funding and progress of Corps projects not considered priorities by
the Administration;
! Legislative proposals to expand the Corps’ use of the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund and the Inland Waterway Trust Fund;
! Funding for major water/ecosystem restoration initiatives such as
Florida Everglades and California “Bay-Delta”;
! Funding for developing a new nuclear warhead, the Robust Nuclear
Earth Penetrator, 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.”
This report will be updated as events warrant.

---

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
Nicole Carter
RSI
7-0854
Steve Hughes
RSI
7-7268
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
Power Marketing Administrations
Rob Bamberger
RSI
7-7240
Bonneville Power Administration
Kyna Powers
RSI
7-6881
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Key Policy Issues — Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Funding Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Discretionary Funding Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Changes in Corps Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Proposed “Reforms” of Corps Processes and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Missouri River Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Everglades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Title II: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Bureau of Reclamation Budget In Brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Key Policy Issues – Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
CALFED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Sumner-Peck Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Title III: Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Key Policy Issues — Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Renewable Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Nuclear Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Nonproliferation and National Security Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Environmental Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Civilian Nuclear Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Power Marketing Administrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Title IV: Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Key Policy Issues — Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Nuclear Regulatory Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
CRS Issue Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2003 . . . 1
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY1997 to FY2004 . . 2
Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title I: Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

---

Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title III: Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 7. Funding for Weapons Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 8. NNSA 5-Year Budget Projection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 9. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 10. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title IV: Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

---

Appropriations for FY2004:
Energy and Water Development
Most Recent Developments

The Administration’s FY2004 budget request, released February 3, 2003, would
fund Energy and Water Development Programs at $26.94 billion. The FY2003
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution (H.J.Res. 2, P.L. 108-7) and the Emergency
Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 (P. L. 108-11) funded these
programs at $26.14 billion.
Status
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2003
Subcommittee
Conference
Markup
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Report Approval
Public
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
Law
House
Senate
House
Senate
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
$26.940 billion for these programs for FY2004, compared with $26.138 billion
appropriated for FY2003.
For the Corps of Engineers in FY2004, the Administration requested $4.19
billion, almost 10% ($445 million) less than the amount appropriated for FY2003.
The Administration’s request focuses funding on construction projects that will be
completed in FY2004 and eight projects considered priorities by the Administration,
including the Florida Everglades. The request also contemplates legislative proposals
for expanding the types of activities funded by the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
and the Inland Waterway Trust Fund.

---

CRS-2
The Administration asked for $885 million for FY2004 for the Department of
the Interior programs included in the Energy and Water Development bill — the
Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah Project. This would be a decrease of
$45 million from the FY2003 funding level.
The FY2004 request for DOE programs in the bill is $21.689 billion, about
$1.32 billion more than the previous year. The major activities in the DOE budget are
energy research and development, general science, environmental cleanup, and
nuclear weapons programs. (Funding of DOE’s programs for fossil fuels, energy
efficiency, and energy statistics is included in the Interior and Related Agencies
appropriations bill. The FY2004 net appropriations request for these programs is $1.7
billion.)
The request for funding the independent agencies in Title IV of the bill is $148
million, compared with $207 million in FY2003.
Table 2 includes budget totals for energy and water development appropriations
enacted for FY1997 to FY2003 and the Administration’s request for FY2004.
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations,
FY1997 to FY2004
(budget authority in billions of current dollarsa)
FY97
FY98
FY99
FY00
FY01
FY02
FY03
FY04
(Req.)
20.0
21.2
21.2
21.2
23.9
25.2
26.1
26.9
a These figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect
rescissions.
Tables 3-10 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 FY2003 - FY2004.

---

CRS-3
Title I: Corps of Engineers
The President’s request for FY2004 for the civil works program of the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers is $4.19 billion, a decrease of $445 million from the
FY2003 appropriation. The request also contains legislative proposals for expanding
the use of funds from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund. (See “Key Policy Issues,” below.)

Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title I: Corps of Engineers
($ millions)
Program
FY2003
FY2004
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
Investigations and
Planning
134.1
100.0
Construction
1,744.6
1,350.0
Flood Control,
Mississippi River
342.3
280.0
Operation and
Maintenance
1,966.6a
1,939.0
Regulatory
138.1
144.0
General Expenses
154.1
171.0
FUSRAPb
144.1
140.0
Flood Control and
Coastal Emergencies
14.9
70.0
Total
4,638.8a
4,194.0
a Includes $39 million appropriated in Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations
Act, 2003, P. L. 108-11.
b Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
Although the budget request would limit funding for the planning and design of
new projects, it would fully fund all projects whose construction can be completed
in FY2004, and provides substantial funding for eight projects considered by the
Administration to be priorities, such as $33.3 million for construction of the Upper
Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program. The total $1.35
billion request for the construction account is $395 million (23%) less than the
FY2003 appropriation. The Administration’s budget would provide some support for
140 other projects, but construction would proceed more slowly than originally
planned because these projects are not fully funded. The Administration’s request
includes funding to complete design of 22 proposed projects, while deferring work
on all other design efforts. The $100 million request for the investigations and
planning account was $34 million (25%) less than the FY2003 appropriations.

---

CRS-4
The request provided no funds for studies and “environmental infrastructure”
projects in the following non-traditional mission areas: wastewater treatment,
irrigation water supply, and municipal and industrial water supply treatment and
distribution. By not seeking funding for these activities, the Bush Administration
was again showing its interest in focusing available federal funding on navigation,
flood control, storm damage reduction, and ecosystem restoration projects. The
Administration’s budget provided no funding for controversial projects (like
construction of the Yazoo Backwater Pump project, the emergency outlet for Devils
Lake, North Dakota, and the Delaware River dredging project) that have raised
concerns because of their potential environmental damages, but have continued to
receive congressional support.
Of the $1.9 billion sought for the operation and maintenance (O&M) account,
$104 million is planned for protecting facilities from terrorist attack. Of the $104
million requested, $91 million is for protecting the projects normally funded from the
O&M account. The remaining $13 million for this O&M account would be spent to
protect administration buildings and facilities; projects from the Flood Control,
Mississippi River, and Tributaries account; and the Washington Aqueduct drinking
water plant that serves the District of Columbia.
The Administration’s $70 million request for the Flood Control and Coastal
Emergencies account was significantly higher than the FY2003 appropriation of $15
million and the FY2003 request for $20.2 million. The actual expenditure for
activities under this account in previous years has averaged $70 million, with much
of the funding being provided through supplemental appropriations. This account
finances response and recovery activities for flood and storm events, preparedness
for these events, and the Corps’ support of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) through the Federal Response Plan. Because this is an emergency
management program, annual costs vary significantly based on actual events and/or
changing missions. According to testimony by the Acting Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works, the requested amount of $70 million ensures sufficient funds
to respond to flood and storm emergencies and reduces the likelihood of having to
borrow from other accounts or needing to seek emergency supplemental
appropriations for recovery efforts.
Key Policy Issues — Corps of Engineers
Funding Level. 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. The FY2003 appropriation followed suit; it was $466 million
(11%) above the requested amount. The FY2004 budget request proposed a 9% cut
from current spending. Some Members of Congress expressed their displeasure with
the Administration’s proposed cuts for the Corps at FY2004 budget hearings in
February and March 2003.

---

CRS-5
Discretionary Funding Proposals. As previously mentioned, the
Administration included in its request legislative proposals to fund more activities
through discretionary funding. The Administration’s request for FY2003 had been
for 76% of the appropriations to come from the general fund and 24% from
discretionary sources. The sources of appropriations under the FY2004 request are
70% from the general fund and 30% from discretionary sources. The increase in
discretionary funding would come from a broader set of activities being covered by
the Inland Waterway Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and direct
funding by three power marketing administrations for hydropower maintenance
activities. The Administration proposed that for FY2004 these changes be made
through the appropriations process. To make the changes permanent, an
authorization would typically be sought through the next Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA). Because the usually biennial WRDA was not enacted
during the 107th Congress, many anticipate a WRDA in 2004.
The two trust funds have built up substantial unused balances in recent years,
causing concern about why the funds were not being put to use. The House
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the Committee on
Transportation during the 107th Congress stated in a hearing announcement that the
“committee has been concerned that the balances in these funds from money
collected from project users have not been spent to provide the needed maintenance
and improvements to the Nation’s water navigation system.”1
The Administration’s FY2004 budget proposed to expand the use of the Inland
Waterway Trust Fund to include operation and maintenance of the inland waterway
system. The fund historically has been restricted to funding one-half of construction
and major rehabilitation. Under the Administration’s proposal, the fund would be
used to finance 25% of the O&M costs of eight waterways that have averaged
annually more than five billion ton-miles of traffic over the past five years, and 50%
of the O&M cost for the Nation’s remaining twenty waterways. This would increase
the use of the trust fund from $104 million in FY2002 and an estimated $84 million
in FY2003 to $256 million in FY2004—$110 million for construction and $146
million for O&M. This increased withdrawal would cause the balance in the fund
to drop from an estimated $433 million at the end of FY2003 to $287 million at the
end of FY2004. The fund was authorized under the Inland Waterways Revenue Act
of 1978 (P.L. 95-502). Its revenue is derived from a twenty cent per gallon fuel tax
imposed on vessels engaged in commercial waterway transportation, plus investment
interest.
Similarly, the Administration’s request proposed to expand the use of the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to include all federal costs associated with coastal
port and channel construction. The fund historically has financed all of the Corps’
harbor operation and maintenance costs, but no construction activities. Under the
Administration’s proposal, the fund would be used to finance all federal costs
associated with the construction of coastal ports and channels. This would increase
the use of the trust fund from $653 million in FY2002 and an estimated $769 million
1 Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, “Hearing on The Corps of
Engineers’ Budget and Priorities for FY2003,” Hearing announcement, February 27, 2002.

---

CRS-6
in FY2003 to $826 million in FY2004—$212 million for construction and $600
million for O&M. The increased withdrawal would not cause the balance in the fund
to drop, since revenues are expected to be $880 million in FY2004, but it would
decrease the growth in the fund’s balance. The fund was authorized under the Harbor
Maintenance Revenue Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). Revenue is derived from receipts
from a 0.125 percent ad valorem tax imposed upon commercial users of ports.
Port and river trade groups responded quickly to the FY2004 budget request
with criticisms that the Administration was raiding these funds for an unprecedented
use of the money that had not been endorsed by the users paying the fees. These
groups also commented that the Administration’s proposals would quickly drain the
Inland Waterway Trust Fund, thus resulting in pressure to increase user fees. They
argue that any surplus in these funds should be used for their original purposes, not
for new purposes.
Another change to the Corps’ discretionary funding is the direct funding of
hydropower maintenance activities by three power marketing administrations. The
proposal is listed in the Corps’ budget; however, the related legislative proposal is
set out as part of the Department of Energy’s budget. Under the proposal, power
marketing administrations would be expected to pay the Corps at the beginning of the
fiscal year (as opposed to the current practice of paying at the end of the year) for
planned and upcoming work related to hydropower maintenance. This process is
similar to an existing process for the Bonneville Power Administration. A similar
proposal was made by the Administration for FY2003 but was not enacted.
Changes in Corps Operation. There are currently two initiatives to change
the operation of the civil works program (and military programs) of the Army Corps
of Engineers: the government-wide President’s Management Agenda (PMA) and an
Army initiative referred to as the Third Wave. Neither initiative specifically targets
the Corps, but both encompass the Corps’ activities. The PMA was undertaken by
the Bush Administration as part of a movement toward more entrepreneurial
government; one of the five components of the PMA is a competitive sourcing
initiative. The PMA directed executive agencies to competitively source commercial
activities in order to produce quality services at a reasonable cost through efficient
and effective competition between public and private sources. The Administration
mandated for FY2002 and FY2003 the competition of 5% and 10%, respectively, of
the commercial positions at agencies, including the Corps.
The Army’s Third Wave initiative is broader than the PMA. The Third Wave
is searching for ways to not only improve the Army’s operations but also focus its
energies on its core war-fighting competencies. Under the Third Wave, the Army is
reviewing all its commands, including the Corps, to identify how to focus their
activities. The Third Wave reviews all positions and functions (i.e., entire areas of
responsibilities and missions, such as wetlands regulation) that are not part of the
Army’s core military competencies. Options that can be considered under the Third
Wave for non-core functions and positions include competitive sourcing, transfer of
responsibilities to other agencies, and divestiture. A significant portion of the Corps’
workforce is included in the current phase of the Third Wave because much of the
work performed by the Corps is not considered as essential to the Army’s war-
fighting competencies. Requests for exemptions from the Third Wave are now being

---

CRS-7
reviewed by the Army. No implementation actions are anticipated to be undertaken
before FY2004. Implementation of the Third Wave is expected to begin in FY2004
and continue through FY2009. The Army may need to seek approval of Congress
for actions, especially transfer and divestiture of responsibilities, that it plans to take
under the Third Wave.
Division D, Section 109, of P.L. 108-7, the omnibus appropriations bill for
FY2003, included language that prohibits the use of funds to study or implement any
“plans privatizing, divesting or transferring of any Civil Works missions, functions,
or responsibilities” without specific direction by Congress. The Corps’ interpretation
of the language is that although privatizing is not allowed, competitive sourcing is
permissible. Therefore, the agency is continuing with its competitive sourcing
activities under the PMA and limiting its Third Wave review to competitive sourcing
and management tools. The Corps interprets the prohibition as not extending beyond
FY2003.
Proposed “Reforms” of Corps Processes and Procedures. During
the 107th Congress, the Corps came under criticism for the way it evaluates and
undertakes projects. Although the issue received media attention, it was not directly
addressed through legislation. Bills proposing changes to the project development
and authorization process were introduced (e.g., see H.R. 1310 and S. 1987);
however, no action was taken. (For more information, see CRS Report RL30928,
Army Corps of Engineers: Reform Issues for the 107th Congress.) Corps reform may
be addressed during consideration of the next WRDA, though it could also be
considered as part of the FY2004 Energy and Water Development Appropriations
bill, because the request contains various proposals for review and quality control
mechanisms.
Some critics of the Corps have called for major agency “reforms”; others have
called for review of Corps programs and policies. The 106th Congress, in passing
WRDA 2000 (P.L. 106-541, Section 216) directed the Corps to contract with the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study the feasibility of establishing an
independent review panel for Corps studies. NAS’s July 2002 report recommended
that large-scale Corps projects be independently reviewed by experts outside the
agency.2
Corps officials gave testimony at FY2004 budget hearings, and at a March 2003
hearing of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, on how the agency is
“transforming” itself in response to these criticisms. In this testimony, the Corps
officials defended the integrity of the agency’s review process and detailed recent
efforts to further strengthen it, including the use of independent peer review panels
for a few complex projects.3 The Administration’s FY2004 budget request included
2 National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, Review Procedures for
Water Resources Project Planning, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002.
3 Les Brownlee (Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army) and Lieutenant General Robert B.
(continued...)

---

CRS-8
$3 million for a peer review panel to examine selected projects and $2 million for ex
post facto studies of 15 to 25 completed projects to compare the estimated and actual
project costs and benefits. In addition, 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.
The Corps reform discussions also encompassed concerns raised by critics, the
Bush Administration, and some Members of Congress that the expansion of the
agency’s activities into new areas hurts the agency’s efforts in its traditional
missions. P.L. 108-7 did not address directly this issue or other Corps reform issues;
however, it did authorize and provide limited appropriations for the controversial
environmental infrastructure projects previously mentioned.
Missouri River Management. Drought in the Missouri River basin has
contributed to an ongoing debate on the operations of the basin’s dams. This debate
raises some fundamental question about water resources management in the Nation,
such as whether some river uses should take precedence over others and if the current
institutional arrangements for river management need to be reconsidered. The
Missouri River basin is currently in the fourth year of drought, with moderate to
extreme drought conditions throughout the basin. Predictions for runoff indicate that
to maintain flows for navigation in the summer, Missouri River mainstem reservoir
levels, already far below normal, may be drawn down to record lows.
Operations of the mainstem dams of the Missouri River are managed under a
Master Manual and annual operating plans. In late January 2003, the Corps published
the final 2002-2003 Annual Operating Plan.4 The Corps has announced that it will
provide only minimum navigation service (a 1-foot shallower channel than under full
service) and that the navigation season will be shortened by six days at its close.
Although the Corps published the final operating plan, the flow regime to be
implemented during the nesting season for threatened and endangered bird species
and the overlapping navigation season that begins April 1 has yet to be finalized. The
Corps has proposed two options: a steady flow release and a flow to meet navigation
targets. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has expressed concerns with both
regimes and is particularly concerned with the need to move nests under the flow-to-
target regime. The Corps and the FWS are currently in consultation on the impacts
of the flow-to-target release schedule.
3 (...continued)
Flowers (Chief of Engineers) provided testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development of the Senate Committee on Appropriations on March 5, 2003, before
the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the House Committee on
Appropriation on March 26, 2003, and the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on February 27,
2003.
4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northwest Division, Missouri River Mainstem System
2 0 0 2 - 2 0 3 A n n u a l O p e r a t i n g P l a n , J a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 a v a i l a b l e a t :
[http://www.nwd-mr.usace.army.mil/rcc/reports/pdfs/finalaop02.pdf].

---

CRS-9
Differing opinions on how to best manage the Missouri River during drought
conditions have increased attention on not only the annual operating plan but also the
ongoing revision of the Master Manual, which guides the operation of the Missouri
River’s mainstem dams. The manual has been in revision for 14 years. The Corps’
challenge in updating the manual is the multiple competing uses of the river. The
timing and the quantity of the water released from the dams affects uses of the river
such as barge traffic, threatened and endangered species protection, water supply, and
river recreation.
Missouri River management has been raised numerous times during the
appropriations process in recent years. An amendment offered by Senator Bond to
the omnibus appropriations bill for FY2003 failed. It would have prohibited the
FWS from both requiring a steady release flow and preventing the Corps from
relocating bird nests along the Missouri River’s banks. In the FY2002 Energy and
Water appropriations bill after extended debate in both the House and the Senate,
Section 116 included Senate language that prohibited the use of funds “to accelerate
the schedule to finalize the 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. A significant addition to the Corps’ mission in recent years is
its growing role in large environmental restoration programs. The Corps plays a
significant coordination role in the restoration of the Central and Southern Florida
ecosystem. The Corps is particularly involved in the implementation of the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) that was authorized in 2002 by
Title VI of WRDA. The annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill
provides funding for the Corps’ participation in these efforts.
The President’s request for FY2004 included a total of $145 million for the
Corps’ construction projects in the region, compared to $151 million appropriated
for FY2003. The FY2004 request for the Kissimmee River restoration project and the
Everglades and South Florida ecosystem restoration project was $17.7 million and
$14.8 million, respectively. For the Central and Southern Florida project, the
Administration requested $112.5 million (which included $39.0 million for CERP
activities). The final appropriations for FY2003 did not provide the full amount
requested by the Administration for this project. The Senate Appropriations
Committee explained that the reduction resulted from questions raised about its
implementation, specifically concerns that it was too heavily weighted in favor of
commercial development of water supplies (S.Rept. 107-220).

---

CRS-10
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.
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account
(in millions of dollars)
Program
FY2004
FY2003
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
Central Utah project
construction
23.5
36.5
Mitigation and conservation
activities
11.2
--

Oversight & Administration
1.3
1.7
Total, Central Utah Project
36.0
38.2
Columns may not total because of rounding.
Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Bureau of Reclamation
(in millions of dollars)
Program
FY2004
FY2003
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
Water and Related Resources
832.2a
771.2
Loan Program Account
–
0.2
Policy & Admin.
54.5
56.5
Central Valley Project (CVP)
Restoration Fund
48.6
39.6
California Bay-Delta
(CALFED)
–
15.0
Gross Current Authority
936.3
878.0
CV Project Collectionsb
-40.0
-30.8
Net Current Authority
894.3
847.2
a Includes $25 million appropriated in Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations
Act, 2003, P. L. 108-11.
b In presenting its budget justifications, the Bureau lists this amount as an “offset.” (Figures
may not total due to rounding.)

---

CRS-11
Bureau of Reclamation Budget In Brief
For FY2004, the President requested $38.2 million for the Central Utah Project
Completion Account, an increase of $2 million over the FY2003 request. The
FY2004 request for BOR totals $878 million in gross current budget authority.5 This
amount is an increase of $23.1 million from the amended FY2003 request (according
to BOR), or $33.1 million according to congressional sources,6 and is approximately
$33.3 million less than enacted for FY2003 in P.L. 108-7. The Bureau has received
an additional $25 million in supplemental appropriations for FY03 for homeland
security purposes (P.L. 108-11).
Included in the $878 million BOR request is $863 million in current
appropriations for agency water resources management activities and $15 million for
the California Bay-Delta Restoration Account (CALFED). The FY2004 request as
presented includes a $30.8 million “offset” for the Central Valley Project (CVP)
Restoration Fund, yielding a “net” current authority of $847.2 million for BOR.
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. BOR requested $771.2
million for this account for FY2004, $37 million less than appropriated in P.L. 108-7.

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 (BOR).
Whereas the Corps 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 348 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 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.
CALFED. Funds have not been appropriated for the California Bay-Delta
Restoration Account (Bay-Delta, or CALFED) since FY2000, when the authorization
for appropriations expired. However, funds were provided for FY2002 and FY2003
5 The BOR budget also includes several permanent appropriations, which when added to the
agency’s net current authority results in a grand total of $927.7 million requested and
projected for BOR operations for FY04.
6 The BOR budget justifications document for FY2004 shows a requested increase of $23.1
million in gross budget authority, while tables accompanying the conference report on H.J.
Res. 2 (consolidated appropriations for FY03) yield an increase of $33.1 million.

---

CRS-12
for activities that support the CALFED program. The Administration has requested
$15 million for this account for FY2004.
The final FY2003 appropriation for BOR provided $23 million for CVP
activities that support the goals of the CALFED program within the Water and
Related Resources Account, instead of the $30 million proposed by the Senate and
$2 million proposed by the House. Several specific activities were identified in the
conference agreement, including $1.75 million for investigations of storage
opportunities in the Upper San Joaquin watershed (Friant Division); $9 million for
the Environmental Water Account (under Miscellaneous Project Programs); $1.5
million to continue planning activities related to the Sites Reservoir (Sacramento
River Division); and $2.5 million for evaluation of potential impacts of raising Shasta
Dam (Shasta Division). Division D, Section 215, of the bill specifically authorizes
the Secretary, “in carrying out CALFED-related activities,” to begin feasibility
studies for Sites Reservoir, enlargement of Los Vaqueros Reservoir, and an Upper
San Joaquin Storage project.
Security. BOR requested $28.6 million for continued heightened safety and
security efforts at BOR facilities. The bulk of the request is for facility
operations/security. Funding covers such activities as administration of the security
program, periodic security reviews, and employee training and awareness. An
additional $1 million is being requested for national security cyber systems, under the
category of Critical Infrastructure Protection. (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, 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]). The BOR received an additional
$25 million for homeland security expenses in P.L. 108-11.
Sumner-Peck Settlement. The federal government and the Westlands
Water District, which receives CVP water, settled a long-standing lawsuit December
10, 2002. The lawsuit concerned the effects of irrigation water buildup beneath
private land and the government’s obligation to provide irrigation drainage service.
The drainage problem has been an ongoing problem within the San Luis Unit of the
CVP, where toxins such as selenium have built up in the soil and rendered land
unsuitable for farming. The $107 million settlement (federal share) has been quite
controversial both for its initial sum and potential for additional suits from other
nearby landowners, as well as for the specific terms of the agreement and how it will
be paid. While the land will be retired from farming, Westlands will hold title to the
land and water rights, the plaintiffs reserve valuable commodity base acreage, and the
federal government receives certain easements and covenants guaranteeing the land
will not be used again for farming. A proposal to pay for the first installment of the
settlement using appropriated funds from the Energy and Water annual
appropriations bill was blocked by a provision in the FY2003 omnibus appropriations
bill (§212, Division D of P.L. 108-7), on the grounds that it would reduce funding for
other programs. The action caused the Justice Department to reverse its earlier
stance and allow the first $34 million to be paid from the federal government
Judgment Fund. However, it is not clear how future settlement payments will be
made.

---

CRS-13
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 FY2004 request for DOE programs
in the Energy and Water Development bill is $21.67 billion, about $780 million more
than the amount appropriated for FY2003. (The FY2004 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, is $1.7 billion.)
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title III: Department of Energy
($ millions)
Program
FY2003
FY2004
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
Energy Supply R&D
Solar and Renewable
422.3
444.2
Nuclear Energy
261.7
387.6
Other
22.7
30.0
Adjustments
–
(3.0)
Total, Energy Supply
696.9
861.8
Non-Defense Environmental
213.6
–
Management
Non-Defense Site Acceleration
–
170.9
Completionb
Non-Defense Environmental
–
292.1
Servicesb
Uranium Facilities
453.4
–
Maintenance & Remediation
Uranium Decontamination and
–
418.1
Decommissioning Fundb
(442.0)
(452.0)
General Science
High Energy Physics
727.0
738.0
Nuclear Physics
384.4
389.4
Basic Energy Sciences
1,030.0
1,008.6
Bio. & Env. R&D
530.0
499.5
Fusion
250.0
257.3
Advanced Scientific Computing
172.6
173.5

---

CRS-14
Program
FY2003
FY2004
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
Other
236.3
244.6
Adjustments
(24.4)
(4.4)
Total, General Science
3,272.3 a
3,310.9
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
Weapons
5,981.4 a
6,378.0
Nuclear Nonproliferation
1,168.8 a
1,340.2
Naval Reactors
702.2
768.4
Office of Administrator
325.1
348.0
Total, NNSA
8,177.6
8,834.6
Defense Activities
Defense Environmental Management
Environ. Restoration
5,434.8 a
–
Defense Facilities Closure
Projects
1,130.9
–
Environ. Restoration
Privatization
158.4
–
Defense Site Accel. Completionb
–
5,814.6
Defense Environmental
Servicesb
–
995.2
Total, Defense Env. Man.
6,723.1
6,809.8
Other Defense Activities
515.7 a
522.7
Defense Nuclear Waste
313.0
430.0
Total, Defense Activities
15,729.3
16,522.1
Departmental Admin. (net)
85.3
179.6
Office of Inspector General
37.4
39.5
Power Marketing Administrations (PMA’s)
Southeastern
4.5
5.1
Southwestern
27.2
28.6
Western
167.8
171.0
(22.0)
(22.0)
Falcon & Armistad O&M
2.7
2.6
Total, PMA’s
202.3
207.3

---

CRS-15
Program
FY2003
FY2004
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
FERC
192.0
199.4
(revenues)
(192.0)
(199.4)
Civilian Nuclear Waste
144.1
161.0
Total, Title III
20,370.4
21,689.4
a Includes funding appropriated in the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003,
P. L. 108-11.
bNew program structures proposed for FY2004. See “Environmental Management” section, below.
Key Policy Issues — Department of Energy
Renewable Energy. The Administration’s FY2004 budget request for DOE
finds that hydrogen energy is the “most promising long-term revolution in energy use
that can help the nation “liberate itself from dependence on imported oil.” The
request for DOE’s Renewable Energy Program elaborates that its aim is to
“accelerate progress” and make hydrogen technologies “cleaner, safer, and lower in
cost.” Further, it stresses that the new National Climate Change Technology
Initiative will create “competitive solicitations” in applied research that aims to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will “complement” existing R&D programs.
More specifically, the request for the Renewable Energy Program under DOE’s
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) seeks $444.2 million
(excluding funding for retirements), which is $27.7 million more than the FY2003
appropriation of $416.5 million. It includes $49.4 million more for Hydrogen (as
part of the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative) and $15.0 million more for a
National Climate Change Technology Initiative. It would terminate the
Concentrating Solar Power Program and cut the Biomass and Biorefinery Program
(which the FY2003 appropriations bill, P.L. 108-7, formed by combining the former
biofuels and biopower subprograms) by $17.0 million. The request presents a new
budget structure that follows from a major reorganization of the EERE Office.
Nuclear Energy. For nuclear energy research and development – including
advanced reactors, fuel cycle technology, and nuclear hydrogen production – the
Administration is requesting $387.6 million for FY2004. That request is
substantially higher than the $261.7 million appropriated for FY2003, but about $110
million of the increase is related to the transfer of primary responsibility for the Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) to the nuclear energy
program from DOE’s environmental management program.
“Nuclear energy, which is already a vital component of our balanced energy
portfolio, presents some of our most promising solutions to the world’s long-term
energy challenges,” according to DOE’s FY2004 budget justification. However,
opponents have criticized DOE’s nuclear research program as providing wasteful

---

CRS-16
subsidies to an industry that they believe should be phased out as unacceptably
hazardous and economically uncompetitive.
Within the nuclear energy budget, the Administration is requesting $48 million
for the nuclear energy technologies program, which focuses on development of new
reactors. That request is $3.0 million above the FY2003 appropriation. The program
includes $35.0 million for an initiative to encourage construction of new commercial
reactors by 2010 (“Nuclear Power 2010") and $9.7 million for advanced (“Generation
IV”) reactor designs that could be ready for deployment after 2010.
According to the DOE budget justification, the Nuclear Power 2010 program
“will achieve near-term deployment of new power plants in the United States through
cost-shared demonstration of the new, untested regulatory processes and cost-shared
development of advanced reactor technologies.” 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 includes site approval, reactor design
certification, license applications, detailed design work, and development of
improved construction techniques. DOE is soliciting proposals for joint
DOE/industry teams in which DOE will pay up to half the cost of these activities.
DOE’s Generation IV program is focusing on six advanced designs that could
be deployed after 2010: two gas-cooled, one water-cooled, two liquid-metal-cooled,
and one molten-salt concept. Some of these reactors would use plutonium recovered
through reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. The Administration’s May 2001 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, because of plutonium’s potential
use in nuclear bombs, undermines U.S. policy on nuclear weapons proliferation.
The development of plutonium-fueled reactors in the Generation IV program is
closely related to the nuclear energy program’s Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative
(AFCI), for which $63.0 million is requested for FY2004 – about $5 million above
the FY2003 appropriation. According to the budget justification, AFCI will “develop
advanced proliferation-resistant fuel treatment and fabrication technologies that could
be deployed by 2015,” as well as technologies that could reduce the long-term hazard
of spent nuclear fuel. Such technologies would involve separation of plutonium,
uranium, and other long-lived radioactive materials from spent fuel for re-use in a
nuclear reactor or for transmutation in a particle accelerator. AFCI includes a
previously funded research program on accelerator transmutation called Advanced
Accelerator Applications. The program also includes longstanding DOE work on
electrometallurgical treatment of spent fuel from the Experimental Breeder Reactor
II (EBR-II) at INEEL.
In support of President Bush’s program to develop hydrogen-fueled vehicles,
DOE is requesting $4.0 million in FY2004 for a new “Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.”
According to DOE’s budget justification, the program would investigate the use of
high-temperature nuclear reactors to make hydrogen from water in a thermo-chemical
process. According to DOE, “preliminary estimates indicate that hydrogen produced
using nuclear-driven thermo-chemical processes would be only slightly more

---

CRS-17
expensive than gasoline” and result in far less air pollution. Activities planned in
FY2004 include development of a “roadmap” for developing nuclear hydrogen
technologies and laboratory testing of thermo-chemical processes and related
research. Even if the technology is successful, however, DOE officials have
predicted that significant quantities of nuclear-produced hydrogen would not become
available until 2020-2030.7
The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) provides grants for research on
innovative nuclear energy technologies. DOE is requesting $12.0 million for NERI
in FY2004, about half of the FY2003 appropriation. According to the budget
justification, no new grants will be awarded in FY2003 and FY2004, with new
program funding to be used only for completing previously initiated projects.
DOE proposes no new funding in FY2004 for the Nuclear Energy Plant
Optimization program (NEPO), which received $5.0 million in FY2003. The
program supports cost-shared research by the nuclear power industry on ways to
improve the productivity of existing nuclear plants.
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 FY2004, DOE requested $3.311 billion for Science. After adjusting for
rescissions and the transfer of two programs from the Office of Science to the new
Department of Homeland Security, the comparable FY2003 appropriation was
$3.261 billion.8 On this basis, the FY2004 request is a net increase of 1.5%. Within
this overall funding, three of the six program areas would receive increases, and three
would receive decreases; the largest change in either direction would be 4.2%.
The requested funding for the largest program, basic energy sciences, is $1.009
billion, a decrease of $8 million below the comparable FY2003 appropriation. The
request includes $125 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. The FY2003 appropriation for the Spallation
Neutron Source was $209 million; the reduction reflects the planned construction
schedule, with completion planned for 2006, not a delay or scaling back of the
project. A growth area in basic energy sciences is nanoscience, for which the FY2004
budget requests $193 million, of which $85 million would fund construction of three
Nanoscale Science Research Centers.
The FY2004 request for high-energy physics is $738 million, an increase of $20
million above the comparable FY2003 appropriation.
7 EnergyWashington.com Daily Updates, February 5, 2003.
8 All figures in the text of this section are adjusted in this manner.

---

CRS-18
The requested funding for biological and environmental research is $500
million, a decrease of $4 million below the comparable FY2003 appropriation.
Activities within this program relating to microbial pathogens, with FY2003 funding
of $20 million, were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security on
March 1, 2003.
The request for nuclear physics is $389 million, an increase of $10 million
above the comparable FY2003 appropriation.
The request for fusion energy sciences is $257 million, a $10 million increase
above the comparable FY2003 appropriation. In early 2003, the United States
rejoined negotiations on construction of the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor (ITER), a fusion facility whose other participants include
Canada, China, the European Union, Japan, and Russia. About $12 million of the
requested FY2004 budget for fusion energy sciences would be devoted to ITER. The
budget impact of ITER in future years, once construction actually begins, depends
on the outcome of the ongoing negotiations; the U.S. share is generally expected to
be in the range of $50 million to $100 million per year.
The smallest Science program, advanced scientific computing research, would
receive $173 million in the FY2004 request, an increase of $6 million above the
comparable FY2003 appropriation. The portion of this program that was located at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, with FY2003 funding of approximately
$3 million, was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security on March 1,
2003.
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
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.
Stockpile stewardship consists of all activities in NNSA’s Weapons Activities
account. Appropriations were $4,908.7 million for FY2001 and $5,560.2 million for
FY2002; Table 7 provides FY2003 and FY2004 data. The three main elements of
stockpile stewardship, described next, are Directed Stockpile Work, Campaigns, and
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities. NNSA manages two major programs
outside of Weapons Activities: Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, discussed in a
subsequent section of this report, and Naval Reactors. Table 7 presents the main
elements of the Weapons Activities program.

---

CRS-19
Table 7. Funding for Weapons Activities
($ millions)
FY2003
FY2004
House
Senate
Conf.
Program
Request
Directed Stockpile
1,198.6
1.364.8
Work
Campaigns
2,086.6
2,395.5
Readiness
1,794.0
1,613.5
Othera
903.2
1,004.3
Total
5,981.4
6,378.0
a Includes Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program, Secure Transportation
Asset, Safeguards and Security, use of prior year balances, and other adjustments.
Figures may not add due to rounding.
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;
maintaining them through repairs, refurbishment, life extension, and modifications;
R&D in support of specific warheads; and dismantlement. The FY2004 DSW
request would support life extension programs for four nuclear warheads: B61
(gravity bomb), W76 (for Trident I and II submarine-launched ballistic missiles),
W80 (for cruise missiles), and W87 (for Minuteman III and MX/Peacekeeper
intercontinental ballistic missiles).
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP). Within DSW, NNSA plans to
conduct a study for the RNEP, for which $15.0 million was appropriated for FY2003;
another $15.0 million is requested for FY2004. 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. This warhead is
controversial. Supporters argue that it is needed to attack hard and deeply buried
targets (such as leadership bunkers or chemical weapons production facilities) in
countries of concern, thereby deterring or defeating such nations; critics reply that
RNEP would lower the threshold for use of nuclear weapons and prompt other
nations to develop nuclear weapons to deter U.S. attack. (See CRS Report RS20834,
Nuclear Earth Penetrator Weapons.) The FY2003 National Defense Authorization
Act, P.L. 107-314, fully funded the $15.0 million request but barred obligation of
FY2003 funds for the NNSA study until 30 days after the Department of Defense
submits a study on RNEP, including military requirements, employment policy,
targets, and conventional weapon alternatives. (The study was sent to Congress on

---

CRS-20
March 19, 2003.) The Consolidated Appropriations Resolution for FY2003, P.L.
108-7, provided the amount requested.
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.” For FY2004, there are 16 campaigns. Examples
are: Enhanced Surveillance ($74.9 million appropriated for FY2003,$94.8 million
requested for FY2004), which seeks to assess lifetimes of weapons components and
predict defects resulting from aging; Advanced Design and Production Technologies
($72.0 million appropriated for FY2003, $79.9 million requested for FY2004), which
seeks to develop new technologies and processes to improve manufacturing in the
nuclear weapons complex; Advanced Simulation and Computing ($683.9 million
appropriated for FY2003, $750.6 million requested for FY2004), which aims to
advance the state of the art of nuclear weapon simulation, apply these advances to
current stockpile tasks, and deliver by FY2008 “a high fidelity, full-system physics
characterization of a nuclear weapon”; and Tritium Readiness ($124.8 million
appropriated for FY2003, $134.9 million requested for FY2004), which is making
preparations to use a commercial light water reactor to produce tritium, an isotope
of hydrogen that is a key ingredient in nuclear weapons.
Pits. Pits are the fissile cores of nuclear warheads that trigger the thermonuclear
secondary stage. DOE has had no facility to produce pits for use in stockpiled
weapons since it suspended pit production at the Rocky Flats Plant (CO) in 1989. As
a result, the United States has been unable to make all-new nuclear warheads of
existing or advanced new designs. The Pit Manufacturing and Certification
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.
This campaign has attracted much congressional interest. 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 would judge NNSA’s success on how well
the pit project succeeds. (H.Rept. 107-112.) 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.” (S.Rept. 107-39.) In its
FY2003 request, NNSA stated its 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 planned to defer detailed
design of a Modern Pit Facility until FY2004, “with FY 2003 funding used to
continue manufacturing concepts.” The FY2002 appropriation for this campaign was
$219 million.
The FY2003 request was $194.5 million. The request included $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

---

CRS-21
for pit activities not specifically supporting the W88, and $2.0 million for planning
for the Modern Pit Facility.
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.
(S.Rept. 107-220.) The House Appropriations Committee provided $194.5 million,
the requested amount, for pit manufacturing and certification. The final
appropriation provided $220.6 million for pit manufacturing and certification.
According to the joint explanatory statement of the Committee of Conference, “The
increase will ensure that the NNSA maintains its commitment to produce a certifiable
W88 pit by 2003 and a certified W88 pit by 2007.” The statement directed NNSA
“to provide a revised pit production and certification plan to the relevant
Congressional committees by March 31, 2003, and annually thereafter.” (H.Rept.
108-10.)
For FY2004, the Administration requests a substantial increase to items in this
campaign: $126.8 million for manufacturing the pit for the W88 warhead, $108.6
million for W88 pit certification, $19.7 million for pit activities not specifically
supporting the W88, and $22.8 million for planning for the Modern Pit Facility. In
addition, $42.4 million is requested for “subcritical experiments [at Nevada Test
Site] which support the certification of the W88 pit.” For FY2004, this funding
element was transferred into the Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign from
Directed Stockpile Work; its FY2003 request was $41.5 million. Thus the total
request for FY2004 is $320.2 million, an increase of 35.7% over the FY2003 request
of $236.0 million (with both figures including subcritical experiments supporting
W88 pit certification).
National Ignition Facility (NIF). This facility, 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.
Over the years, various reports have been highly critical of NIF on such grounds
as technical problems, delays, and cost overruns.9 In 1999, the NIF Project identified
9 For links to reports criticizing NIF, see Natural Resources Defense Council, “National
Ignition Facility and Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship Resource Page,” available at
(continued...)

---

CRS-22
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. Since mid-2001, criticism of NIF has fallen sharply; for example, the
Natural Resources Defense Council’s NIF resources page was last updated February
7, 2000, and the most recent General Accounting Office report on NIF was dated
June 1, 2001.10 The NIF Project Office stated in 2002 that the project was on the
schedule and budget set forth in the new baseline, and that no technical obstacles
remained. The FY2004 budget document shows the total project cost of NIF to
remain at $2,248.1 million, plus $1,200.0 million in other related costs, with physical
construction to be completed in the fourth quarter of 2008; these dates and costs are
the same as the FY2001 amended budget request. The document further states that
the NIF project “continues to meet all major milestones on or ahead of schedule,”
and that the first stockpile stewardship experiments on NIF are planned for 2004.
In its report on FY2003 energy and water development appropriations, the
Senate Appropriations Committee expressed concern over changes to the project’s
scope implied by the request. The title of the campaign changed from “Inertial
Confinement Fusion and High Yield” to “High Energy Density Physics,” which the
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 committee added $35.0 million
to the FY2003 request for inertial confinement fusion, for a total of $487.3 million.
(S.Rept. 107-220.)
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.”
(H.Rept. 107-681.)
The final figure for FY2003 was $489.7 million for inertial confinement fusion,
including $214.0 million, the same as the request, for continued construction of NIF.
9 (...continued)
[http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nif/nifinx.asp]. See also U.S. General Accounting Office.
National Ignition Facility: Management and Oversight Failures Caused Major Cost
Overruns and Schedule Delays, Report GAO/RCED-00-141, August 2000, 45 p.
10 U.S. General Accounting Office. Department of Energy: Follow-up Review of the
National Ignition Facility. Report GAO-01-677R, June 1, 2001, 18 p.

---

CRS-23
The conferees’ statement did not provide further guidance on the focus of the inertial
confinement fusion program.
For FY2004, the Administration requests $466.8 million for the Inertial
Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign, including $150.0 million for
NIF construction. The title of the campaign reflects congressional concerns. Further,
Everet Beckner, Deputy NNSA Administrator for Defense Programs, testified to the
House Armed Services Committee on March 6, 2003, that NIF’s “mission is to
obtain fusion ignition.”11
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF). This program
provides infrastructure and operations at the nuclear weapons complex sites. The
request includes seven subprograms. By far the largest is Operations of Facilities
($1,001.0 million appropriated for FY2003, $972.8 million requested for FY2004).
Others include Program Readiness, which supports activities occurring at multiple
sites or in multiple programs ($213.6 million appropriated for FY2003, $131.1
million requested for FY2004), and Material Recycle and Recovery, which recovers
plutonium, enriched uranium, and tritium from weapons production and disassembly
($100.8 million appropriated for FY2003, $76.2 million requested for FY2004).
Construction is a separate category within RTBF; $310.9 million was appropriated
for FY2003, and $273.4 million is requested for FY2004.
Of particular interest is the RTBF element Nuclear Weapons Incident Response,
for which $88.4 million was appropriated for FY2003 and $89.7 million is requested
for FY2004. This activity provides for a technical response to a nuclear or
radiological emergency within DOE, in the United States, or abroad. In addition, the
RTBF element Operations of Facilities included $32.5 million appropriated for
FY2003 for the National Center for Combating Terrorism. The FY2004 request
contains no funds for the center “due to the uncertainty about the ultimate sponsor,
scope, and size of the mission for this facility.”
Nuclear Testing and Enhanced Test Readiness. A key issue is whether
the United States can and should continue to maintain its weapons through the
Stockpile Stewardship Program without nuclear testing. While that program has
sought to do so, statements in early 2002 implied a reduced commitment to that
approach. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reportedly 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.”12 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
11 Testimony of Everet Beckner, Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, NNSA, on
the FY2004 budget request for the Office of Defense Programs, before the Subcommittee
on Strategic Forces of the House Armed Services Committee, March 6, 2003.
12 Walter Pincus, “Nuclear Arms Plan: Saving, Not Scrapping,” Washington Post, January
9, 2002: 4.

---

CRS-24
CTBT [Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty] ratification. We also continue to adhere to
a testing moratorium.”13
The FY2004 budget request contains $303.5 million for Weapons Activities at
the Nevada Site Office, vs. $292.5 million for FY200314. Much of this is for
operation of the site, safeguards and security, and operation and maintenance of
experimental facilities at NTS.
Of particular interest regarding testing is Test Readiness, a component of the
Program Readiness element of RTBF. Since the inception of the U.S. moratorium
on nuclear tests in September 1992, U.S. policy has been that NNSA (or DOE prior
to NNSA’s establishment) should be ready to conduct a nuclear test within 24 to 36
months from the time the order is given. Recent studies identified work needed to
reduce this time to 18 months. These studies were funded by “Enhanced Test
Readiness.” The FY2004 budget document states, “The DoD and the NNSA agreed
to transition to an 18-month test readiness posture while continuing to review the
optimum posture. The actions necessary for moving toward an 18-month posture are
expected to begin upon completion of the final FY 2003 appropriation.” The Senate
Armed Services Committee’s bill for FY2004 national defense authorizations, S.
1050, section 3132, requires an 18-month posture unless the Secretary of Energy
determines that a different posture is preferable. Meanwhile, through FY2003, funds
in the “Nevada Site Readiness” account maintained the 24- to 36-month posture with
ongoing work at the Nevada Test Site. Because no policy decision had been reached
on reducing the time needed to test, the Enhanced Test Readiness and Nevada Site
Readiness accounts had to be kept separated. With the move to an 18-month test
readiness posture, the enhanced posture will become the current posture, making this
separation unnecessary. Accordingly, the two accounts are expected to be merged
into “Test Readiness” beginning in FY2004, depending on congressional language,
though the FY2004 NNSA budget request volume does not reflect that merger.
The FY2003 appropriation for enhanced test readiness was $15.0 million.
Conferees on the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution for FY2003 directed DOE
to notify the Appropriations Committees before obligating any of these funds in
FY2003. (H.Rept. 108-10.) Notification is pending. The FY2004 request for Test
Readiness is $24.9 million, and for Nevada Site Readiness is $39.6 million.
Budget Process Issues. NNSA issued its first Future Years Nuclear
Security Program (FYNSP) in March 2002. The House Appropriations Committee,
however, criticized that effort. The committee, in its FY2003 report on Energy and
Water Development Appropriations (H.Rept. 107-681), stated,
13 U.S. Department of Defense. News Transcript. Special Briefing on the Nuclear Posture
Review, presented by J.D. Crouch, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Policy, January 9, 2002.
14 U.S. Department of Energy. FY 2004 Congressional Budget Request: Laboratory Tables
(Preliminary), p. 74. A final appropriation figure for the Nevada Site Office was not
available as of May 15, 2003. NNSA budgets by program, not by site, and as of that date
not all FY2003 appropriations had been distributed to the sites pending programmatic
decisions.

---

CRS-25
the FYNSP has several fundamental weaknesses that limit its usefulness
for Congressional oversight. ... The NNSA budget and the FYNSP are
built around activities rather than programs and products. ... The FYNSP
includes a laundry list of performance targets – few of which are the same
as an identifiable program – and there is no specific funding associated
with any of the performance targets. Thus, it is impossible to determine
how a specific resource allocation will impact performance. ... It is difficult
for the Congress to determine what NNSA proposes to accomplish with
these funds. ... [Accordingly, the] Committee directs the Department to
conduct an independent assessment of the NNSA’s PPBS [planning,
programming, and budgeting system] process and structure, including its
comparability to that of the Department of Defense.
Conferees agreed with the House language and “direct[ed] the NNSA to contract
for an independent assessment of the NNSA’s planning, programming, and budgeting
system, including its comparability to that of the Department of Defense.”
In its FY2003 budget request document, NNSA stated, “We are implementing
a new PPBE [program planning, budgeting and evaluation] process that offers the
potential for significant improvements in our resource management and decision
making while still meeting all of the DOE’s and Congress’ requirements for
information ... [beginning] with the FY 2004 budget cycle” and noted that DOE “is
considering a parallel PPBES process.” Accordingly, the FY2004 request document
provided a five-year projection for NNSA’s budget (Table 8):
Table 8. NNSA 5-Year Budget Projection
($ millions)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
Office of Admin.
348
337
344
353
355
362
Weapons Activities
6,378
6,661
6,961
7,277
7,518
7,651
Nonproliferation
1,340
1,356
1,371
1,389
1,322
1,346
Naval Reactors
768
808
795
811
819
834
Total
8,835
9,162
9,471
9,830
10,014
10,193
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.
Funding for these programs in FY2003 was provided in the Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution (H.J. Res. 2, P.L. 108-7), which appropriated the amount
requested by the Administration, $1.1136 billion. For FY2004, the Administration
has requested $1.3402 billion.

---

CRS-26
In particular, the Nonproliferation and Verification R&D program, which
received a total of $283 million for FY2003 (less $79 million for programs
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, for a total of $204 million),
would be funded at $204 million in the Administration FY2004 request.
Nonproliferation and International Security programs, formerly called “Arms
Control,” would receive $102 million in the request, compared with $93 million in
FY2003. These programs include international safeguards, export controls, and
treaties and agreements.
Table 9. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
($ millions)
FY2004
FY2003
Program
Request
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
222.5 a
203.9
Nonproliferation and International Security
114.1 a
101.7
International Materials Protection, Control and Accounting
331.6 a
226.0
(MPC&A)
Russian Transition Initiative
39.0
40.0
International Nuclear Safety
14.5
14.1
Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production
49.0
50.0
HEU Transparency Implementation
17.1
18.0
Accelerated Materials Disposition
–
30.0
Fissile Materials Disposition
445.1
656.5
Adjustments
-64.0
–
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
1,168.9 a
1,340.2
a Includes $148 million total appropriated in Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act,
2003, P. L. 108-11: $20 million in R&D, $22 million in Nonproliferation and International Security,
and $106 million in MPC&A.
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 receive $226 million, compared to $233 million
(less $4 million transferred to DHS) appropriated for FY2003. Two programs in the
former Soviet Union, Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) and the Nuclear
Cities Initiatives (NCI), which comprise the “Russian Transition Initiative,” would
receive $40 million, compared to the FY2003 appropriation of $39.3 million.
Requested funding for the Fissile Materials Disposition program for FY2004 is
$656.5 million, compared with $448 million in FY2003. The increased funding is
for 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 reactor fuel at Savannah River, SC.
(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

---

CRS-27
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 George H. W. 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 114 geographic sites in 31 states and one U.S.
territory 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 million acres, which
is equivalent to the land area of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. DOE reports
that all response actions were complete at 75 sites as of the end of FY2002 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, if program reforms are not initiated, 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.
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 calendar year 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 calender year 2006. The Defense Environmental Management Privatization
Account funds cleanup and waste management projects at nuclear weapons sites that
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 FY2004, DOE has requested a total of $7.2 billion for its Environmental
Management Program, $241 million more than the FY2003 enacted level of nearly
$7.0 billion. While an increase has been proposed, the budget request would alter
the existing appropriations account structure in order to focus funding on efforts to
accelerate cleanup schedules and lower costs. These efforts are part of DOE’s

---

CRS-28
cleanup reform strategy which is based on assessing the risk of exposure to determine
which cleanup remedies are selected. Risk is currently one of many factors that DOE
uses to select cleanup remedies. Altering the current process to use risk as the
primary factor could result in decisions to contain waste on site as a means of
preventing exposure, rather than removing it. While containment can often be
accomplished more quickly and at less cost, the possibility of future exposure
remains if the method of containment fails over time.
The proposed accounts are structured according to the purposes of “Site
Acceleration Completion” and “Environmental Services,” and there would be
separate “Defense” and “Non-defense” accounts for each category. The Site
Acceleration Completion accounts represent nearly $6.0 billion of the total request,
and would fund efforts to complete cleanup and close contaminated facilities at a
faster pace than previously scheduled. The Environmental Services accounts would
fund activities that indirectly support the mission of accelerated cleanup and closure,
such as policy development and coordination, and the integration of mission
activities across the complex of sites. DOE estimates that its cleanup acceleration
strategy could save between $50 billion and $100 billion in total cleanup costs over
the long term, and that the time frame for total site cleanup could be moved from
2070 to 2035.
While there has been widespread concern about the amount of time and money
needed to clean up nuclear waste sites, questions have been raised as to how DOE
would use a risk-based approach to accomplish its goals of faster and less costly
cleanups without weakening environmental protection. Some have drawn attention
to the possibility that basing the selection of cleanup remedies on risk alone might
result in more contamination being left on site, rather than it being removed.
Because of the substantial amount of time required for radioactive decay to occur,
arguments have been raised that contamination left in place may migrate in
unexpected ways over the long-term, and result in pathways of exposure that could
not have been predicted when the remedy was originally selected. Others counter
that completely removing radioactive contamination from all sites to permit
unrestricted future land use, and eliminate all future pathways of exposure, would not
be economically feasible, and in some cases would be beyond the capabilities of
current cleanup technologies.
DOE first proposed a risk-based cleanup reform strategy as part of its FY2003
budget request. Numerous questions were presented during the FY2003
appropriations debate as to whether the use of risk-based approaches would provide
adequate environmental protection. Prior to final action on FY2003 appropriations,
DOE signed letters of intent with EPA and the states to accelerate cleanup at most
of its sites. Some Members criticized DOE’s attempt to implement its cleanup
reform strategy prior to the appropriation of funds as premature. While Congress did
appropriate funding to honor these agreements, it provided the funds under the
existing account structure rather than under a separate cleanup reform account that
DOE had proposed. Some Members expressed concern about how the funds would
have been distributed among the sites if DOE had been given an unallocated lump
sum under a new account. Similar criticisms about the use of risk-based approaches
to clean up nuclear waste sites, and DOE’s proposal to significantly alter the structure

---

CRS-29
of existing appropriations accounts to fund such approaches, may be raised during
the FY2004 appropriations debate.
Civilian Nuclear Waste. The Bush Administration is requesting $591
million for the DOE civilian nuclear waste disposal program for FY2004, a 30%
boost over FY2003. 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 an estimated 10,000-page application to
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in December 2004. The additional funds
are also needed for detailed repository design work, repository performance studies,
and transportation planning, according to DOE.
DOE contends that it cannot meet its 2010 target date for shipping nuclear waste
to Yucca Mountain without receiving its entire FY2004 budget request for the
program. Between FY2005 and FY2010, funding will have to further increase to an
average of $1.3 billion per year, according to the budget justification. The
Administration is proposing that discretionary spending caps be adjusted to
accommodate the program’s higher future funding.
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 would have blocked the Yucca
Mountain site if a congressional approval resolution had not been 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
FY2004 budget request, $161.0 million would be provided from the Nuclear Waste
Fund, which consists of fees paid by nuclear utilities, and $430.0 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 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. (For details see CRS Issue Brief IB92059, Civilian Nuclear Waste
Disposal.)
The State of Nevada has filed a variety of lawsuits to block the Yucca Mountain
project, including a contention that the federal government lacks authority under the
Constitution to force Nevada to accept the nation’s nuclear waste.

---

CRS-30
Power Marketing Administrations. DOE’s four Power Marketing
Administrations (PMAs) developed during the 1930s out of the construction of dams
and multi-purpose water projects 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).
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 Act, P. L. 104-58). There
has been no press to dispose of the remaining PMAs, and none seems likely given the
broader uncertainties governing electric utility restructuring.
Congress enacted a funding level of $203.5 million in the FY2003
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 108-7), including an additional $6.1
million for WAPA above the Administration’s FY2003 request. The request for
FY2004 is $207.3 million – $5.1 million for SEPA, $28.6 million for SWPA, $171
million for WAPA, and $2.6 million for operation of hydroelectric facilities at the
Falcon & Amistad Dams located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and
Mexico. The increase in the FY2004 request over the enacted FY2003 spending
level may be attributed to an increase of nearly $10 million for Program Direction at
WAPA. Workload requirements attributed to certain orders from the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC), and additional hires are cited as the justification for
an increase of nearly 10% in higher salaries and benefits for WAPA in FY2004.
BPA receives no annual appropriation, but funds some of its activities from
permanent borrowing authority, which was increased in FY2003 from $3.75 billion
to $4.45 billion (a $700 million increase). BPA is not requesting additional
borrowing authority in FY2004. BPA intends to borrow $528 million in FY2004,
down from $630.8 million in FY2003, to be used for generation and transmission
services, conservation, energy efficiency, fish and wildlife, and capital equipment
programs.

---

CRS-31
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 10. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title IV: Independent Agencies
(in millions of dollars)
Program
FY2003
FY2004
Request
Appalachian Regional Commission
70.8
33.1
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
585.0
626.1
(Revenues)
(526.5)
(545.6)
Net NRC
58.5
80.5
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board
18.9
19.6
Nuclear Waste Technical Review
Board
3.2
3.1
Denali Commission
47.7
9.5
Delta Regional Authority
7.9
2.0
Total
206.7
147.9
Key Policy Issues — Independent Agencies
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) is requesting a total budget of $626.1 million for FY2003, including $7.3
million for the NRC inspector general’s office. The funding request would provide
a 8.3% increase over FY2003. 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.
In the wake of the September 11, 2001, 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 FY2004 budget request includes
$53.1 million for activities related to homeland security, a 50% increase over
FY2003. During FY2003, NRC plans to finish revising the nuclear plant security
“design-basis threat” – the potential attacks that nuclear plants must be capable of
withstanding. In FY2004, NRC intends to begin conducting “full security

---

CRS-32
performance reviews, including force-on-force exercises, at each nuclear power plant
on a 3-year cycle instead of the 8-year cycle that the agency used before September
11, 2001.” (For more information on protecting licensed nuclear facilities, see CRS
Report RS21131, Nuclear Power Plants: Vulnerability to Terrorist Attack.)
NRC proposes to spend $33.5 million on licensing activities for possible new
commercial reactors, which are being encouraged by DOE’s Nuclear Power 2010
program. The FY2003 appropriation provided about $25 million for new reactor
licensing, up from $10 million 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.
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 Development Appropriations Act
(P.L. 106-377) 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,
92% of the FY2004 NRC request – minus $33.1 million transferred from the Nuclear
Waste Fund to pay for waste repository licensing – would be offset by fees on
licensees.

---

CRS-33
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 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.

---