Order Code RL34417
Energy and Water Development:
FY2009 Appropriations
Updated March 18, 2008
Carl E. Behrens, Coordinator,
Anthony Andrews, David M. Bearden,
Nicole T. Carter, Mark Holt, Nic Lane,
Daniel Morgan, and Fred Sissine
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Jonathan Medalia
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Carol Glover
Knowledge Services Group

---

The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and supplemental) by
Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also encompasses the
consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit legislation, other spending
measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the operation of programs and the spending
of appropriated funds are subject to constraints established in authorizing statutes.
Congressional action on the budget for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission
of the President’s budget at the beginning of the session. Congressional practices governing
the consideration of appropriations and other budgetary measures are rooted in the
Constitution, the standing rules of the House and Senate, and statutes, such as the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to the regular appropriations bills that Congress considers each year.
It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development. It summarizes the status
of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related congressional activity, and is
updated as events warrant. 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://beta.crs.gov/cli/level_
2.aspx?PRDS_CLI_ITEM_ID=73].

---

Energy and Water Development:
FY2009 Appropriations
Summary
The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill provides funding for
civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department of the
Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Department of Energy (DOE), and a
number of independent agencies.
Key budgetary issues involving these programs include
! the distribution of Army Corps of Engineers appropriations across
the agency’s authorized construction and maintenance activities
(Title I);
! support of major ecosystem restoration initiatives, such as Florida
Everglades (Title I) and California “Bay-Delta” (CALFED) (Title
II);
! a proposal by the Bush Administration to eliminate funding for
DOE’s Weatherization program for low income homes (Title III,
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy);
! the Administration’s request for funding of DOE’s Reliable
Replacement Warhead (RRW) nuclear weapons program, which
Congress declined to fund for FY2008 (Title III, Nuclear Weapons
Stockpile Stewardship);
! funding for the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada (Title III: Nuclear Waste Disposal); and
! the Administration’s proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
to supply plutonium-based fuel to other nations (Title III: Nuclear
Energy).

---

Key Policy Staff
CRS
Area of Expertise
Name
Division Telephone
General
Carl Behrens
RSI
7-8303
Carol Glover
KSG
7-7353
Corps of Engineers
Nicole Carter
RSI
7-0854
Steve Hughes
RSI
7-7268
Bureau of Reclamation
Nic Lane
RSI
7-7905
Betsy Cody
RSI
7-7229
Solar and Renewable Energy
Fred Sissine
RSI
7-7039
Nuclear Energy
Mark Holt
RSI
7-1704
Science Programs
Daniel Morgan
RSI
7-5849
Nuclear Weapons Stewardship
Jonathan Medalia
FDT
7-7632
Nonproliferation and Terrorism
Carl Behrens
RSI
7-8303
DOE Environmental Management
David Bearden
RSI
7-2390
Power Marketing Administrations
Nic Lane
RSI
7-7905
Bonneville Power Administration
Nic Lane
RSI
7-7905
Fossil Energy Research
Anthony Andrews
RSI
7-6843
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Robert Bamberger
RSI
7-7240
Energy Conservation
Fred Sissine
RSI
7-7039
Budget Data
Carol Glover
KSG
7-7353
Division abbreviations: RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry; FDT = Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Trade; KSG = Knowledge Services Group.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Key Policy Issues — Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Hurricane Katrina Repairs and Coastal Louisiana Restoration . . . . . . . 3
Project Backlog and Performance Budgeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Everglades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Title II: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Central Utah Project and Bureau of Reclamation: Budget In Brief . . . . . . . . 7
Key Policy Issues — Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
CALFED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
San Joaquin River Restoration Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Water for America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Title III: Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Key Policy Issues — Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Nuclear Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration . . . . . . . . 19
Strategic Petroleum Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Nuclear Waste Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Loan Guarantees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Nonproliferation and National Security Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Environmental Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
President’s FY2009 Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Power Marketing Administrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Title IV: Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Key Policy Issues — Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Nuclear Regulatory Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
CRS Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

---

List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2009 . . . 1
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2002 to FY2009 . . 2
Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title I: Army
Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title II: Central
Utah Project Completion Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title II:
Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title III:
Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 8. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 9. Clean Coal Technology Transfers and Deferrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 10. Fossil Energy Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 11. Energy Policy Act of 2005 Title IV Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 12. Funding for Weapons Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 13. NNSA Future Years Nuclear Security Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 14. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 15. Environmental Management Program Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Table 16. Office of Legacy Management Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 17. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title IV:
Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

---

Energy and Water Development:
FY2009 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
The Administration’s request for funding Energy and Water Development
programs for FY2009, submitted in February 2008, totaled $30.932 billion, compared
to $30.853 billion appropriated for FY2008.
Status
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2009
Subcommittee
Markup
Final Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House
Senate
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House
Senate
Law
As Table 1 indicates, neither the House nor the Senate appropriations
subcommittees have marked up the FY2009 Energy and Water Development bill.
Later updates of this report will indicate changes in status of the bill.
Overview
The Energy and Water Development bill includes funding for civil works
projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department of the
Interior’s Central Utah Project (CUP) and Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the
Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of independent agencies, including the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Appalachian Regional Commission
(ARC).
Table 2 includes budget totals for energy and water development appropriations
enacted for FY2002 to FY2009.

---

CRS-2
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations,
FY2002 to FY2009
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09c
25.2
26.1
26.7
30.2a
36.7b
29.4
30.9
30.9
Note: Figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect rescissions.
a. For FY2005 and later, total includes DOE programs formerly funded in the Interior and Related
Agencies appropriations bill and transferred to the Energy and Water Development
appropriations bill.
b. Includes $6.6 billion in emergency funding for the Corps of Engineers.
c. Requested.
Table 3 lists totals for each of the bill’s four titles. It also lists several
“scorekeeping” adjustments of accounts within the four titles, reflecting various
expenditures or sources of revenue besides appropriated funds. These adjustments
affect the total amount appropriated in the bill but are not included in the totals of the
individual titles.
Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary
($ millions)
FY2009
Title
FY2008
Request
House
Senate
Final
Title I: Corps of Engineers
$5,587.1
$4,741.0
Title II: CUP & BOR
1,150.9
961.3
Title III: Department of Energy
24,378.0
25,514.9
Title IV: Independent Agencies
281.3
263.5
E&W Subtotal
31,397.3
31,480.7
Scorekeeping Adjustments
Title II
Central Valley
(51.3)
(48.3)
Title III
Uranium Fund
(458.8)
(463.0)
Excess Fees FERC
(34.4)
(36.9)
E&W Total
30,852.8
30,932.5
Source: Administration FY2009 budget request.
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Tables 4 through 17 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 FY2008-FY2009. Accompanying these tables is a
discussion of the key issues involved in the major programs in the four titles.

---

CRS-3
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers
The President requested $4.741 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
civil works activities; it was less than the budget request of $4.871 billion for
FY2008 and an 18% decrease from the $5.586 billion in FY2008 enacted
appropriations. Funding for the Corps’ civil works program is often a contentious
issue between the Administration and Congress, with final appropriations typically
providing more funding than requested, regardless of which political party controls
the White House and Congress. Generally around 85% of the appropriations for the
agency is directed to specific projects. Often Congress will direct funding to projects
not included in the Administration’s request. Consequently, the agency’s funding is
often part of the debate over earmarks and congressionally requested items.
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers
($ millions)
FY2009
Program
FY2008
Requestb
House
Senate
Conf.
Investigations and Planning
$167.2
$91.0
Construction
2,289.3
1,402.0
Mississippi River & Tributaries
387.4
240.0
Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
2,243.6
2,475.0
Regulatory
180.0
180.0
General Expenses
175.0
177.0
FUSRAPa
140.0
130.0
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
0.0
40.0
Office of the Asst. Secretary of the Army
4.5
6.0
Total Title I
5,587.1
4,741.0
Sources: FY2009 Budget Request.
a. “Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.”
b. The FY2009 request reflects a transfer of certain activities from the Corps construction account to its O&M account.
Key Policy Issues — Corps of Engineers
Hurricane Katrina Repairs and Coastal Louisiana Restoration. The
Corps is responsible for much of the repair and fortification of the hurricane
protection system of coastal Louisiana, particularly in the greater New Orleans area;
to date, most of the Corps’ work on the region’s hurricane protection system has been
funded through $7 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations, not through the
annual appropriations process. The Administration anticipates that these funds will
be used by the end of FY2008, but that much remaining work is required to reduce
the hurricane flooding risk to the New Orleans area to a 100-year level of protection

---

CRS-4
(i.e., 1% probability of flooding in any given year) and to restore and complete
hurricane protection in surrounding areas to previously authorized levels of
protection by 2011. The Administration included in its FY2009 budget a request for
$5.761 in emergency supplemental funds to complete these construction activities
and for related purposes. The request said the $7 billion in previously appropriated
funds are insufficient to complete these activities because of increased costs,
improved data on costs, and other factors. As proposed by the Administration, the
state cost-share for these construction activities would be roughly $1.3 billion.
The Administration also proposed as part of its FY2009 budget request
legislative language to consolidate the authorities for the Corps hurricane protection
projects in the New Orleans area into a single project. Consolidation would allow
for the hurricane protection activities funding to be managed systematically, rather
than on a project-by-project basis.
Project Backlog and Performance Budgeting. The policy debate on
how to structure the Corps’ budget and priorities is ongoing. The Corps civil works
program has been criticized by some observers as an agglomeration of projects with
no underlying design. These observers see the Corps’ backlog of authorized
activities as a symptom of this lack of priority setting. Prior to enactment of the $23
billion authorization bill for the agency known as the Water Resources Development
Act (WRDA) in November 2007, estimates of the backlog’s size had varied from $11
billion to more than $60 billion, depending on which projects are included. Although
some observers view the backlog as the Corps’ “to do” list, others are concerned that
projects face construction delays and related cost overruns as appropriations are
spread across an increasing portfolio of projects.
The Corps’ backlog of authorized projects and concerns about the fiscal
planning and management of the agency’s portfolio contribute to support for the
Administration’s performance-based criteria for structuring the agency’s budget.
Critics argue that the performance-based criteria are too simplistic and as a result the
President’s request ignores the need to invest in other authorized, cost-beneficial
projects. The critics also contend that basing the Corps’ budget on these criteria does
not produce an integrated multiyear program for the agency. The Corps is expected
to release a five-year development plan before Summer 2008.
Performance-Based Budgeting. The Administration performance-based
budgeting approach consists of requesting construction and maintenance funds for
projects based on their economic and environmental returns and their protection of
human safety. The construction projects selected for funding were chosen largely on
their having either a high ratio of monetary benefits to costs, or, for environmental
projects, a high cost-effectiveness. The FY2009 budget request continued the
Administration’s movement toward presenting the agency’s budget according to
“business lines” (e.g., navigation, flood control, recreation, hydropower). For
example, of the $4.741 billion budget request, $1.900 billion (40%) is for
commercial navigation, $1.314 billion (28%) is for flood and coastal storm damage
reduction, and $286 million (6%) and $95 million (2%) are for the agency’s relatively
new roles in aquatic ecosystem restoration and environmental stewardship,
respectively. The agency’s regulatory responsibilities represent $180 million, 4% of
the agency’s budget.

---

CRS-5
To address the backlog of authorized Corps activities, the Administration’s
request limited the number of new activities started to only two planning activities.
The President’s request would fund 79 construction projects, of which 12 are
anticipated to be completed in FY2009.
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Budgeting. Unlike previous budget
requests, the FY2009, FY2008, and FY2007 requests did not specify the amount that
individual Corps projects would receive for Operation and Maintenance (O&M).
Instead, the Administration’s would have divided the country into regions and specify
O&M funding for each region for six different categories of activities — commercial
navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction, environment, hydropower,
recreation, and water supply. The FY2009 request divides the nation into 54 river
systems. Congress did not adopt the regional approach in its FY2008 funding for the
Corps’ O&M; instead, the conference report specified amounts for individual
projects and directed the Corps to prepare integrated O&M budgets for four regions
— the Ohio River, the Great Lakes, the Texas coast, and the California coast.
Unlike for the FY2007 and FY2008 requests, the Corps has provided no
estimates of how much individual projects within each of the 54 systems are
expected to receive in FY2009. This budgeting approach appears to allow the agency
flexibility to move money across projects within the region as O&M needs arise,
without being subject to many of the reprogramming restrictions put into place with
the agency’s FY2006 appropriations. Some project stakeholders are likely to be
uncomfortable as a result of the decreased certainty in the O&M funding available
for particular projects under this system-based O&M budgeting approach. Attempts
by Congress to specify O&M amounts for individual projects may be considered
congressionally directed since no amounts appear in the President’s request.
Everglades. The Corps plays a significant coordination role in the restoration
of the Central and Southern Florida ecosystem. The President requested $185
million for FY2009. The agency received $131 million for FY2008 Everglades
restoration activities in the omnibus report language; the FY2008 budget request had
been $162 million.
The activities to be funded under the South Florida Everglades Restoration line
item in the Administration’s FY2009 request include Central and Southern Florida
Project ($100 million), Kissimmee River Restoration Project ($31 million),
Everglades and South Florida Restoration Projects ($4 million), and Modified Water
(Mod Waters) Deliveries Project ($50 million). FY2006 was the first year that funds
for the Mod Waters project were included in the Corps budget request and enacted
appropriations; previously, the project was funded solely through Department of the
Interior appropriations. The FY2008 omnibus report language noted appropriators’
concerns regarding the changing design of the Mod Waters project. The report
directed the Corps to submit to the Appropriations Committees its plan for
completion of Mod Waters, and it provided direction to Interior regarding its funding
of the project. (For more information, see CRS Report RS21331, Everglades
Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project, by Pervaze A. Sheikh.)
In addition to funding for Corps activities through Energy and Water
Development appropriations, federal activities in the Everglades are funded through

---

CRS-6
Department of the Interior appropriations bills. Concerns regarding the level of
appropriations and progress in the restoration effort are discussed in CRS Report
RS20702, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole T. Carter.
Title II: Department of the Interior
The Department of the Interior requested that Congress reduce funding for the
Central Utah Project (CUP) Completion Account and also for the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) for FY2009. The total request for Title II funding is $961.3
million — $189.6 million below FY2008 funding levels.
Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account
($ millions)
FY2009
Program
FY2008 Request
House
Senate
Conf.
Central Utah Project Construction
$40.4
$39.4
Mitigation and Conservation
1.0
1.0
Activities
Oversight & Administration
1.6
1.6
Total, Central Utah Project
43.0
42.0
Source: FY2009 Budget Request.
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Bureau of Reclamation
($ millions)
FY2009
Program
FY2008
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
Water and Related Resources
$949.9
$779.3
Policy & Administration
58.8
59.4
CVP Restoration Fund (CVPRF)a
59.1
48.6
Calif. Bay-Delta (CALFED)
40.1
32.0
Gross Current Authority
1,107.9
919.3
Total, Title II
1,150.9
961.3
Source: FY2009 Budget Request.
a. This figure reflects a legislative proposal (H.R. 4024) for BOR to redirect $7.5 million collected
from Friant Division water users to the new San Joaquin River Restoration Fund.

---

CRS-7
Central Utah Project and Bureau of Reclamation:
Budget In Brief
The Administration requested $42.0 million for the CUP Completion Account
for FY2009 (Table 5). The FY2009 request for BOR totals $919.3 million in gross
current budget authority (Table 6). This amount is $188.6 million less than what was
enacted for FY2008. The FY2009 request included “offsets” of $48.3 million for the
Central Valley Project (CVP) Restoration Fund, yielding a “net” current authority of
$871.0 million for BOR. The total budget request for Title II funding, Central Utah
Project and Bureau of Reclamation, is $961.3 million.
BOR’s single largest account, Water and Related Resources, encompasses the
agency’s traditional programs and projects, including construction, operations and
maintenance, the Dam Safety Program, Water and Energy Management
Development, and Fish and Wildlife Management and Development, among others.
The Administration requested $779.3 million for the Water and Related Resources
Account for FY2009 (Table 6). This amount is $170.6 million (approximately18%)
less than enacted for FY2008.
Key Policy Issues — Bureau of Reclamation
Background. Most of the large dams and water diversion structures in the
West were built by, or with the assistance of, the Bureau of Reclamation. Whereas
the Army Corps of Engineers built hundreds of flood control and navigation projects,
BOR’s mission was to develop water supplies, primarily for irrigation to reclaim arid
lands in the West. Today, BOR manages hundreds of dams and diversion projects,
including more than 300 storage reservoirs in 17 western states. These projects
provide water to approximately 10 million acres of farmland and 31 million people.
BOR is the largest wholesale supplier of water in the 17 western states and the
second-largest hydroelectric power producer in the nation. BOR facilities also
provide substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. At the
same time, operations of BOR facilities are often controversial, particularly for their
effect on sensitive fish and wildlife species and conflicts among competing water
users.
CALFED. The Administration requested $32.0 million for the California Bay-
Delta Restoration Account (Bay-Delta, or CALFED) for FY2009 (Table 6). This
request is nearly identical to BOR’s FY2008 request of $31.8 million, and is
approximately $8 million less than the $40.1 million FY2008 enactment. The bulk
of the requested funds are targeted at four program areas: the environmental water
account, the storage program, water quality, and conveyance. The remainder of the
request is allocated for science, planning and management, and ecosystem
restoration. (For more information on CALFED, see CRS Report RL31975,
CALFED Bay-Delta Program: Overview of Institutional and Water Use Issues, by
Betsy A. Cody and Pervaze Sheikh.)
San Joaquin River Restoration Fund. BOR is proposing an allocation of
$17.3 million to the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund in FY2009. The Fund
would be authorized by the enactment of H.R. 4074, the San Joaquin River

---

CRS-8
Restoration Settlement Act. The Fund would implement provisions of the Stipulation
of Settlement for the Natural Resources Defense Council et al. v. Rodgers lawsuit
and would be funded through the combination of a reallocation of $7.5 million in
receipts from the Friant Division water users (see Table 6, note a) and other federal
and non-federal sources. In its FY2008 budget request, BOR also planned for the
redirection of $7.5 million in receipts from the Friant Division water users; however,
authorizing legislation was not enacted and the $7.5 million planned for the Fund was
reallocated to other CVP Restoration Fund programs. (For more information on the
San Joaquin River Restoration Fund, see CRS Report RL34237, San Joaquin River
Restoration Settlement, by Betsy A. Cody, Eugene H. Buck, Harold F. Upton,
Kristina Alexander, Mary Tiemann, Nicole T. Carter, Pervaze A. Sheikh, Peter
Folger, and Renee Johnson.)
Security. Under BOR’s Water and Related Resources account, the
Administration requested $29.0 million for site security for FY2009, a decrease of
$6.5 million compared with that requested for FY2007. The bulk of the request is
for facility operations/security. Funding covers activities such as administration of
the security program (e.g., surveillance and law enforcement), antiterrorism activities,
and physical emergency security upgrades. (For more information, see CRS Report
RL32189, Terrorism and Security Issues Facing the Water Infrastructure Sector, by
Claudia Copeland.)
The FY2009 request assumes that annual costs for guard and patrol activities
will be treated as project O&M costs, and hence reimbursable based on project cost
allocations. These costs were estimated to be $20.1 million in FY2009, of which
$12.2 million would be in up-front funding from power customers, and $7.9 million
would be appropriated funds which are reimbursed by irrigation, municipal, and
industrial users and other customers.
Water for America. BOR proposes funding a new program for FY2009.
The Water for America Initiative, part of BOR’s Water and Related Resources
budget account, is a partnership between BOR and the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS). BOR indicates that the Water for America Initiative is meant to address
increased demand, aging infrastructure, and decreased or changed water availability
— factors that BOR has identified as threats to its ability to continue to provide
water to the West. The initiative would subsume two existing BOR programs, Water
2025, and the Water Conservation Field Services program.
BOR’s funding request for its portion of the program is $31.9 million ($19
million appears under a Water for America line item, and the remaining $12.9
million is included in specific programs for endangered species and other programs).
These funds would be used to address two of the program’s three strategies: “Plan
for Our Nation’s Water Future,” and “Expand, Protect, and Conserve Our Nation’s
Water Resources.” The third strategic thrust of the initiative, to be addressed by
USGS, is “Enhance Our Nation’s Water Knowledge.”
BOR proposes to apply $8.0 million in FY2009 toward activities that fall under
the “Plan for Our Nation’s Water Future” thrust. This funding would be divided
equally between basin studies (2 or 3 comprehensive water supply and demand
studies) and investigations (with a focus on analyzing and developing new water

---

CRS-9
supplies). The balance of BOR’s funding request for this initiative, $23.9 million,
would be devoted to the “Expand, Protect, and Conserve Our Nation’s Water
Resources” effort. Within this subset of funding is $11.0 million for challenge grants,
$4.0 million for the Water Conservation Field Services program, and $8.9 million for
endangered species recovery activities.
Title III: Department of Energy
The Energy and Water Development bill since FY2005 has funded all DOE’s
programs. Major DOE activities historically funded by the Energy and Water bill
include research and development on renewable energy and nuclear power, general
science, environmental cleanup, and nuclear weapons programs, and now includes
programs for fossil fuels, energy efficiency, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and
energy statistics, which formerly had been included in the Interior and Related
Agencies appropriations bill.
Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title III: Department of Energy
($ millions)
FY2009
Program
FY2008
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
Energy Supply & Conservation
Energy Efficiency &
Renewables
$1,722.4
$1,255.4
Electricity
Delivery
& Energy Reliability
138.6
134.0
Nuclear
Energy
961.7
853.6
Legacy Management
33.9
—
Total, Energy Supply
& Conservation
2,856.5
2,243.0
Fossil Energy R&D
742.8
754.0
Clean Coal
Technology (Deferral)
(58.0)
—
Naval Petrol. & Oil
Shale Reserves
20.3
19.1
Strategic Petroleum
Reserve
186.8
344.0
Northeast Home
Heating Oil Rsrv.
12.3
9.8
Energy Information
Administration
95.5
110.6

---

CRS-10
FY2009
Program
FY2008
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
Non-Defense
Environmental
Cleanup
182.3
213.4
Uranium
Decontamination and
Decommissioning
Fund
622.2
480.3
Science
High Energy Physics
689.3
805.0
Nuclear Physics
432.7
510.1
Basic Energy
Sciences
1,269.9
1,568.2
Bio. & Env. R&D
544.4
568.5
Fusion
286.5
493.1
Advanced Scientific
Computing
351.2
368.8
Cong. Directed Proj.
123.6
—
Other
452.3
408.4
Adjustments
(53.2)
—
Total, Science
3,973.1
4,722.0
Nuclear Waste
Disposal
187.3
247.4
Departmental Admin.
(net)
148.4
154.8
Office of Inspector
General
46.1
51.9
Innovative
Technology Loan
Guarantee
4.5
—
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
Weapons
6,297.5
6,618.1
Nuclear
1,336.0
1,247.0
Nonproliferation
Naval Reactors
774.7
828.1
Office of
402.2
404.1
Administrator
Total, NNSA
8,810.3
9,097.3

---

CRS-11
FY2009
Program
FY2008
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
Defense
Environmental
5,349.3
5,297.3
Cleanup
Other Defense
754.4
1,313.5
Activities
Defense Nuclear
199.2
247.4
Waste Disposal
Total, Defense
15,113.1
15,955.4
Activities
Power Marketing Administrations (PMA)
Southeastern
6.4
7.4
Southwestern
30.2
28.4
Western
228.9
193.3
Falcon & Armistad
2.5
3.0
O&M
Colorado River
(23.0)
Basins
Total, PMAs
267.9
209.1
Total, Title III
24,378.0
25,514.9
Source: FY2009 Budget Request.
The Administration’s FY2009 request for DOE programs was $25.5149 billion,
compared with $24.3780 billion appropriated for FY2008.
Key Policy Issues — Department of Energy
DOE administers a wide variety of programs with different functions and
missions. In the following pages, the most programs are described and major issues
are identified, in approximately the order in which they appear in Table 7.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). The President’s
2008 State of the Union address set out goals to strengthen energy security and
confront global climate change, and stated that “... the best way to meet these goals
is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and
more energy-efficient technology.”1 As part of that effort, the Administration
proposes to continue its support for the Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI, an element
of the American Competitiveness Initiative), which aims to reduce America’s
1 The White House. State of the Union 2008. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/
2008/01/print/20080128-13.html]

---

CRS-12
dependence on imported energy sources. The AEI includes hydrogen, biofuels, and
solar energy initiatives that are supported by programs in EERE.2
According to the FY2009 budget document, the Hydrogen Initiative has a long-
term aim of developing hydrogen technology, and to “enable industry to
commercialize a hydrogen infrastructure and fuel cell vehicles by 2020.” The
Biofuels Initiative seeks to make cellulosic ethanol cost competitive by 2012 using
a wide array of regionally available biomass sources. The Solar America Initiative
aims to “... accelerate the market competitiveness of photovoltaic systems using
several industry-led consortia which are focused on lowering the cost of solar energy
through manufacturing and efficiency improvements.”3 Further, the proposed
FY2009 federal budget sets a goal of making solar power “cost-competitive with
conventional [sources of] electricity by 2015.”4
As Table 8 shows, DOE’s FY2009 request contains $1,255.4 million for the
EERE programs. Compared to the FY2008 appropriation, the FY2009 request would
reduce EERE funding by $467.0 million, or 27.1%. Three proposed cuts would
comprise most of this reduction. First, the request would eliminate $186.7 million
in congressionally directed assistance. Second, it would reduce Facilities
construction spending by $57.3 million.5 Third, the request would cut $227.2
million in funding to terminate the Weatherization Assistance Program. At February
2008 hearings on the FY2009 DOE budget request, concerns were raised about
DOE’s proposed termination of that program.6
Weatherization Program funding has often been a source of tension between
Congress and the Administration. In 2001, the Administration launched an initiative
to increase DOE Weatherization Program funding by $1.2 billion over 10 years.7 The
DOE request took a big jump for FY2002, and subsequent requests increased steadily
— though modestly — through FY2005. For each of those fiscal years, the final
appropriation was somewhat lower than the request. In FY2006, both trends
reversed. The FY2006 request was well below the FY2005 request, and requests
2 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
Year 2007, Appendix, p. 390. Also see DOE, FY2007 Congressional Budget Request:
Budget Highlights, p. 41.
3 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
Year 2009, Appendix, p. 393.
4 Ibid., p. 59.
5 Facilities funding for construction tends to be provided in a lump sum. No major
construction projects would be cancelled as a result of this proposed reduction.
6 The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing on the DOE
FY2009 Budget Request on February 6, 2008.
[http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=
1673]. The House Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held its hearing on
February 7, 2007. [http://energycommerce.house.gov/membios/schedule.shtml]
7 The White House. National Energy Policy. Report of the National Energy Policy
Development Group. May 2001. p. 2-12. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/
National-Energy-Policy.pdf]

---

CRS-13
continued to decline annually through FY2008. Also, for FY2006 through FY2008,
the final appropriations exceeded the request each year. For FY2009, the DOE
request seeks to terminate the program, citing a higher benefit-cost ratio for
technology programs than for the Weatherization Program.8 A major study of the
program’s benefits and costs in 1989 was published in 1993. In 2007, DOE launched
a plan for a comprehensive review of program benefits and costs based on data
collected during program year (PY) 2006.9
For renewable energy technologies, Table 8 shows that, compared to the
FY2008 appropriation, the key increases are for Biomass Energy ($26.8 million) and
Geothermal Energy ($10.2 million). The key decreases are for Water/Hydrokinetic
Power (-$6.9 million) and Solar Energy (-$12.3 million). Overall, funding for
renewable energy technologies would increase by $20.7 million (4.6%). For
deployment programs, the main increase is for the Asia Pacific Partnership ($7.5
million).10 Also, the request would terminate the Renewable Energy Production
Incentive (-$5.0 million).11

For energy efficiency technologies, Table 8 shows that, compared with the
FY2008 appropriation, the main increase is for Buildings ($14.8 million) and the
only decrease is for Industrial programs (-$2.3 million). Overall, energy efficiency
technologies would increase by $22.7 million (5.6%). For deployment programs, the
main increase is for State programs ($5.9 million). Also, as noted above, the request
seeks to terminate the Weatherization Program (-$227.2 million).
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. The FY2009 request includes
$134.0 million for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE).
Compared with the FY2008 appropriation, the FY2009 request would reduce funding
by $4.6 million, or 3.3%.
8 DOE states that “EERE’s Energy Efficiency portfolio has historically provided
approximately a 20 to 1 benefit to cost ratio. In comparison, Weatherization has a benefit
cost ratio of 1.53 to 1.” DOE, FY 2009 Congressional Budget Request, vol. 3, p. 44.
9 The 1993 study and the 2007 plan are discussed in DOE. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
National Evaluation of the Weatherization Assistance Program: Preliminary Evaluation
Plan for Program Year 2006. February 2007. p. 1.
10 DOE Request, p. 482-483. The Asia Pacific Partnership (APP) is a multinational
undertaking that the federal government supports through several agencies. The Department
of State is the lead agency for APP. DOE’s request for APP in FY2009 would support new
renewable power generating capacity, best manufacturing practices for targeted industries,
and best design and construction practices for buildings and efficient appliance standards.
11 For a brief discussion of the Renewable Energy Production Incentive, see the section on
Clean Renewable Energy Bonds in CRS Report RL34162, Renewable Energy: Background
and Issues for the 110th Congress.

---

CRS-14
Table 8. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs
($ millions)
FY2009
FY2009
-
FY2009
-
FY2008
Program
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 Request FY2008 Percent
Hydrogen Technologies
$153.5
$189.5
$211.1
$146.2
-64.8
-30.7%
Biomass & Biorefinery Systems
89.8
196.3
198.2
225.0
26.8
13.5%
Solar Energy
81.8
157.0
168.5
156.1
-12.3
-7.3%
— Photovoltaics
58.8
138.4
136.7
137.1
0.4
-0.3%
Wind Energy
38.3
48.7
49.5
52.5
3.0
6.0%
Geothermal Technology
22.8
5.0
19.8
30.0
10.2
51.4%
Water Power (Hydro/Ocean)
0.5
0.0
9.9
3.0
-6.9
-69.7%
Subtotal, Renew. & Hydrogen
386.6
596.5
657.0
612.8
-44.1
-6.7%
Vehicle Technologies
178.4
183.6
213.0
221.1
8.0
3.8%
Building Technologies
68.2
103.0
109.0
123.8
14.8
13.5%
Industrial Technologies
55.9
55.8
64.4
62.1
-2.3
-3.6%
Federal Energy Management
19.0
19.5
19.8
22.0
2.2
11.0%
Subtotal, Efficiency R&D
321.4
361.8
406.3
429.0
22.7
5.6%
Facilities & Infrastructure
26.1
107.0
76.2
14.0
-62.2
-81.6%
Program Management
115.2
110.2
114.9
141.8
27.0
23.5%
R&D Subtotal
849.2
1,175.5
1,254.3
1,197.6
-56.6
-4.5%
Federal Assistance
— Weatherization Grants
242.6
204.6
227.2
0.0
-227.2 -100.0%
— State Energy Grants
36.1
58.8
44.1
50.0
5.9
13.4%
— Renewables Deployment
38.2
18.4
10.9
8.5
-2.4
-22.0%
— Cong.-Directed Assistanceb
—
0.0
186.7
0.0
-186.7 -100.0%
— Prior Year Balances
—
—
(0.7)
-0.7
0.0
-0.7%
Federal Assistance Subtotal
316.9
281.7
468.1
57.8
-410.4
-87.7%
Total Appropriation, EE & RE
1,166.1
1,457.2
1,722.4
1,255.4
-467.0
-27.1%
Office of Electricity Delivery &
Energy Reliability (OE)a
158.2
134.4
138.6
134.0
-4.6
-3.3%
Sources: DOE FY2007 Operating Plan; H.Rept. 110-185; S.Rept. 110-127; Joint Explanatory Statement on
the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2007 (Cong. Record, Dec. 17, 2007, p. 15587 and p. H15940).
a. The Distributed Energy Program was moved from EERE to OE in FY2006.
b. In FY2006, there was $159.0 million in congressionally-directed funds spread over EERE accounts. For
FY2008, the House approved (H.Rept. 110-185, part 2) $104.3 million for congressionally directed
assistance to be taken from available funds. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $90.3
million in assistance, to be provided from a separate (new) account line.

---

CRS-15
Nuclear Energy. For nuclear energy research and development — including
advanced reactors, fuel cycle technology and facilities, nuclear hydrogen production,
and infrastructure support — DOE requested $1.419 billion for FY2009. That
amount is about 40% higher than the FY2008 appropriation of $1.033 billion. The
FY2009 request includes an 80% increase in assistance for new commercial reactor
orders (Nuclear Power 2010), a 70% increase for nuclear spent fuel reprocessing
R&D (the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative), and a 75% boost for a mixed-oxide
(MOX) fuel fabrication facility to make fuel from surplus weapons plutonium. Those
activities are funded by various appropriations accounts through DOE’s Office of
Nuclear Energy.
According to DOE’s FY2009 budget justification, the nuclear energy R&D
program is intended “to develop new nuclear energy generation technologies to meet
energy and climate goals.” However, opponents have criticized DOE’s nuclear
research program as providing wasteful subsidies to an industry that they believe
should be phased out as unacceptably hazardous and economically uncompetitive.
The increased funding for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) would
help implement the Administration’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).
GNEP is intended to develop technologies for recycling uranium and plutonium from
spent nuclear fuel without creating pure plutonium that could be easily used for
nuclear weapons. According to DOE’s budget justification, such technologies could
allow greater expansion of nuclear power throughout the world “with reduced risk
of nuclear weapons proliferation.”12 But nuclear opponents dispute DOE’s
contention that nuclear recycling technology can be made sufficiently proliferation-
resistant for widespread use.
Nuclear Power 2010. President Bush’s specific mention of “emissions-free
nuclear power” in his 2008 State of the Union address reiterated the Administration’s
interest in encouraging construction of new commercial reactors — for which there
have been no U.S. orders since 1978. DOE’s efforts to restart the nuclear
construction pipeline have been focused on the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, which
will pay up to half of the nuclear industry’s costs of seeking regulatory approval for
new reactor sites, applying for new reactor licenses, and preparing detailed plant
designs. The Nuclear Power 2010 Program, which includes the Standby Support
Program authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) to pay for
regulatory delays, is intended to encourage near-term orders for advanced versions
of existing commercial nuclear plants.
Two industry consortia are receiving DOE assistance over the next several years
to design and license new nuclear power plants. DOE awarded the first funding to
the consortia in 2004. DOE requested $241.6 million for Nuclear Power 2010 for
FY2009, an increase of $107.8 million from the FY2008 funding level. According
to DOE’s budget justification, the additional funding will be used to accelerate the
first-of-a-kind design activities for the two reactors being planned by the two industry
12 Department of Energy, FY 2009 Congressional Budget Request, February 2008, Vol. 3,
p. 691.

---

CRS-16
consortia, the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor and the General Electric Economic
Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR).
The nuclear license applications under the Nuclear Power 2010 program are
intended to test the “one-step” licensing process established by the Energy Policy Act
of 1992 (P.L. 102-486). Under the process, NRC may grant a combined construction
permit and operating license (COL) that allows a completed plant to begin operation
if all construction criteria have been met. Even if the licenses are granted by NRC,
the industry consortia funded by DOE have not committed to building new reactors.
Two consortia are receiving Nuclear Power 2010 assistance:
! A consortium led by Dominion Resources that is preparing a COL
for the GE ESBWR. The proposed reactor would be located at
Dominion’s existing North Anna plant in Virginia, where the
company received an NRC early-site permit with DOE assistance.
Dominion Energy submitted a COL application for a new unit at
North Anna on November 27, 2007.
! A consortium called NuStart Energy Development, which includes
Exelon and several other major nuclear utilities. NuStart announced
on September 22, 2005, that it would seek a COL for two
Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at the site of TVA’s uncompleted
Bellefonte nuclear plant in Alabama and for an ESBWR at the
Grand Gulf plant in Mississippi. The Nuclear Power 2010 Program
is providing funding for review and approval of the Bellefonte COL,
which was submitted to NRC on October 30, 2007.
The Nuclear Power 2010 Program also helped three utilities seek NRC Early
Site Permits (ESPs) for potential new reactors in Illinois, Mississippi, and Virginia.
NRC issued the first of these on March 15, 2007, to Exelon Generating Company for
a potential new reactor at the company’s Clinton, Illinois, nuclear plant. The Clinton
ESP cost $15 million, of which DOE paid half. NRC authorized a second ESP on
March 27, 2007, for the Grand Gulf site in Mississippi, and a third, for the North
Anna site in Virginia, on November 20, 2007. The holders of those ESPs will not
have to revisit site-related issues if they seek licenses for new reactors at those
locations during the next 20 years.
Generation IV. Advanced commercial reactor technologies that are not yet
close to deployment are the focus of DOE’s Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems
Initiative, for which $70.0 million was requested for FY2009. The request is $44.9
million below the FY2008 funding level of $114.9 million, which was nearly triple
the Administration’s FY2008 budget request of $36.1 million.
Most of the FY2009 request — $59.5 million — is for Next Generation Nuclear
Plant (NGNP) research and development, which received an FY2008 appropriation
of $114.1 million. Under DOE’s current plans, NGNP will use Very High
Temperature Reactor (VHTR) technology, which features helium as a coolant and
coated-particle fuel that can withstand temperatures up to 1,600 degrees celsius.

---

CRS-17
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes $1.25 billion through FY2015 for
NGNP development and construction (Title VI, Subtitle C). The authorization
requires that NGNP be based on research conducted by the Generation IV program
and be capable of producing electricity, hydrogen, or both. Phase I research on the
NGNP is to continue until 2011, when a decision will be made on moving to the
Phase II design and construction stage, according to the FY2009 DOE budget
justification.
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative
funding request for FY2009 is $301.5 million, nearly 70% above the FY2008
appropriation of $179.4 million. The final FY2008 appropriation was far below the
FY2008 request of $395.0 million. AFCI, the primary component of the GNEP
program, includes R&D on reprocessing technology and fast reactors that could use
reprocessed plutonium.
According to the DOE budget justification, AFCI will develop and demonstrate
nuclear fuel cycles that could reduce the long-term hazard of spent nuclear fuel and
recover additional energy. Such technologies would involve separation of plutonium,
uranium, and other long-lived radioactive materials from spent fuel for reuse in a
nuclear reactor or for transmutation in a particle accelerator. Much of the program’s
research will focus on a separations technology called UREX+, in which uranium and
other elements are chemically removed from dissolved spent fuel, leaving a mixture
of plutonium and other highly radioactive elements.
FY2009 funding of $10.4 million was requested for conceptual design work on
an Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility (AFCF) to provide an engineering-scale
demonstration of AFCI technologies, according to the budget justification. The
FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations act rejected funding for development of AFCF.
Removing uranium from spent fuel would eliminate most of the volume of spent
nuclear fuel that would otherwise require disposal in a deep geologic repository,
which DOE is developing at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The UREX+ process also
could reduce the heat generated by nuclear waste — the major limit on the
repository’s capacity — by removing cesium and strontium for separate storage and
decay over several hundred years. Plutonium and other long-lived elements would
be fissioned in accelerators or fast reactors to reduce the long-term hazard of nuclear
waste. Even if technically feasible, however, the economic viability of such waste
processing has yet to be determined, and it still faces significant opposition on
nuclear nonproliferation grounds. Nevertheless, proponents believe the process is
proliferation-resistant, because further purification would be required to make the
plutonium useable for weapons and because its high radioactivity would make it
difficult to divert or work with.
Under the Administration’s GNEP initiative, plutonium partially separated from
the highly radioactive spent fuel from nuclear reactors would be recycled into new
fuel to expand the future supply of nuclear fuel and potentially reduce the amount of
radioactive waste to be disposed of in a permanent repository. Under the initial
concept for GNEP, the United States and other advanced nuclear nations would lease
new fuel to other nations that agreed to forgo uranium enrichment, spent fuel
recycling (also called reprocessing), and other fuel cycle facilities that could be used

---

CRS-18
to produce nuclear weapons materials. The leased fuel would then be returned to
supplier nations for reprocessing. Solidified high-level reprocessing waste would be
sent back to the nation that had used the leased fuel, along with supplies of fresh
nuclear fuel. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty guarantees the right of all
participants to develop fuel cycle facilities, and a GNEP Statement of Principles
signed by the United States and 15 other countries on September 16, 2007, preserves
that right, while encouraging the establishment of a “viable alternative to acquisition
of sensitive fuel cycle technologies.”13
Although GNEP is largely conceptual at this point, DOE issued a Spent Nuclear
Fuel Recycling Program Plan in May 2006 that provided a general schedule for a
GNEP Technology Demonstration Program (TDP),14 which would develop the
necessary technologies to achieve GNEP’s goals. According to the Program Plan,
the first phase of the TDP, running through FY2006, consisted of “program definition
and development” and acceleration of AFCI. Phase 2, running through FY2008, was
to focus on the design of technology demonstration facilities, which then were to
begin operating during Phase 3, from FY2008 to FY2020. The National Academy
of Sciences in October 2007 strongly criticized DOE’s “aggressive” deployment
schedule for GNEP and recommended that the program instead focus on research and
development.15
As part of GNEP, AFCI is conducting R&D on an Advanced Burner Reactor
(ABR) that could destroy recycled plutonium and other long-lived radioactive
elements. DOE requested $18.0 million for the ABR program for FY2009, up from
$11.7 million in FY2008. The program is expected to focus on developing a sodium-
cooled fast reactor (SFR).
Existing U.S. commercial nuclear reactors use water to slow down, or
“moderate,” the neutrons released by the fission process (splitting of nuclei). The
relatively slow (thermal) neutrons are highly efficient in causing fission in certain
isotopes of heavy elements, such as uranium 235 and plutonium 239. Therefore,
fewer of those isotopes are needed in nuclear fuel to sustain a nuclear chain reaction
(in which neutrons released by fissioned nuclei then induce fission in other nuclei,
and so forth). The downside is that thermal neutrons cannot efficiently induce fission
in more than a few specific isotopes.
In contrast, “fast” neutrons, which have not been moderated, are less effective
in inducing fission than thermal neutrons but can induce fission in a much wider
range of isotopes, including all major plutonium isotopes. Therefore, nuclear fuel for
a fast reactor must have a higher proportion of fissionable isotopes than a thermal
reactor to sustain a chain reaction, but a larger number of different isotopes can
constitute that fissionable proportion.
13 See GNEP website at [http://www.gnep.energy.gov]
14 DOE, Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling Plan, Report to Congress, May 2006.
15 National Academy of Sciences, Review of DOE’s Nuclear Energy Research and
Development Program, prepublication draft, October 2007.

---

CRS-19
A fast reactor’s ability to fission most heavy radioactive isotopes, called
“transuranics” (TRU), makes it theoretically possible to repeatedly separate those
materials from spent fuel and feed them back into the reactor until they are entirely
fissioned. In a thermal reactor, the buildup of non-fissile isotopes sharply limits the
number of such separation cycles before the recycled fuel can no longer sustain a
nuclear chain reaction.
“Given the benefits of continuous recycling, at this time GNEP-TDP is focused
on the development of fast reactor technologies, recognizing that fast reactor
operating experience is much more limited than thermal reactor operating experience,
and that fast burn reactor fuels, or transmutation fuels, are not fully developed,”
according to the DOE Program Plan.16
Nuclear critics oppose GNEP’s emphasis on spent fuel reprocessing, which they
see as a weapons proliferation risk, even if weapons-useable plutonium is not
completely separated from other spent fuel elements, as envisioned by the
Administration. “As the research of DOE scientists makes clear, the reprocessing
technologies under consideration would still produce a material that is not radioactive
enough to deter theft, and that could be used to make nuclear weapons,” according
to the Union of Concerned Scientists.17
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative. In support of President Bush’s program to
develop hydrogen-fueled vehicles, DOE requested $16.6 million for FY2009 for the
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, about 67% above the FY2008 funding level but below
the FY2007 appropriation. According to DOE’s FY2009 budget justification, the
program will continue laboratory-scale experiments to allow selection by 2011 of a
hydrogen-production technology for pilot-scale demonstration by 2013.
Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility. DOE requested $487.0 million for
the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River Site in South
Carolina — a 75% increase from the FY2008 funding level. The multi-billion-dollar
facility is intended to convert surplus weapons plutonium into oxide form and then
blend it with uranium oxide to produce fuel for nuclear power plants. The FY2008
Consolidated Appropriations act shifted funding for the project to the DOE nuclear
energy program from the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account. For FY2009,
DOE proposes to shift the program’s funding to the Other Defense Activities
account. (See “Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship: Directed Stockpile Work,”
below.)
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration. The
Bush Administration’s FY2009 budget request of $765.3 million for Fossil Energy
Research and Development represents a 35% increase over the FY2008 request of
$566.8 million (see Tables 9 and 10). The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act
16 Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling Program Plan, op. cit., p. 8.
17 Union of Concerned Scientists, U.S. Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Initiative,
[http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_terrorism/US_Nuclear_Fuel_Reprocessi
ng_Initiative.html], viewed March 14, 2008.

---

CRS-20
provided $750 million for Fossil Energy Research and Development programs.18
Major funding categories under the current request include $623.7 for Clean Coal
Technology, $126.3 for Program Direction, $5 million for Plant and Capital
Equipment, $9.7 million for Fossil Energy Environmental Restoration (remediates
the National Energy Technology Laboratory at the Morgantown, WV; Pittsburgh,
PA; Tulsa, OK; Fairbanks, AK; and Albany, OR, sites), and $0.7 million for Special
Recruitment Programs. The increased request reflects the deferral of $149 million
in prior year obligation to FY2009. FutureGen remains the centerpiece for
demonstrating carbon capture and sequestration (CC&S), but under a change in
direction. Instead of a single 275-megawatt Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
(IGCC) plant as first envisioned, the redirected FutureGen would focus on
demonstrating CC&S at two or three commercial IGCC plants.

Under the FY2009 request, programs in Natural Gas Technology, Petroleum-Oil
Technology, and Cooperative R&D would be left unfunded. DOE had proposed
terminating programs in Natural Gas Technology and Petroleum-Oil Technology in
FY2008. OMB rated both programs as ineffective based on its Program Assessment
Rating Tool. Nor had DOE requested funding for Plant and Capital Equipment or
the Cooperative Research and Development program (believing that research center
sponsored work can compete for Fossil Energy funding through the competitive
solicitation process, DOE had not requested funding in FY2007 or FY2008).
Congress reinstated the funding of these programs in FY2008.
Table 9. Clean Coal Technology Transfers and Deferrals
($ Millions)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2009
Clean Coal Technology
Request
Appropriations
Request
Deferred. unobligated balance,
257.0
257.0
0
FY2008
Deferred. unobligated balance,
-149.0
149.0
FY2009
Rescission, uncommitted balance
-149.0
Transfer to Clean Coal Pwr. Init.
-58.0
-70.0
0
Transfer to FutureGen
-108.0
-75.0
-149.0
Transfer to Fuels and Power Sys.
-21.0
0
Total
-58.0
-58.0
Source: FY2009 Budget Request
18 Division C — Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2008 ($708.8 million was proposed by the House and $808.1 million proposed by the
Senate).

---

CRS-21
Table 10. Fossil Energy Research and Development
($ Millions)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2009
Program
Request
Approp.
Request
Clean Coal Power Initiative
73.0
70.0
85.0
FutureGen
108.0
75.0
156.0
Fuels and Power Systems
- Innovations for existing plants
36.4
40.0
- Advanced IGCC
54.0
69.0
- Advanced turbines
24.0
28.0
- Carbon sequestration
120.0
149.1
- Fuels
25.0
10.0
- Fuel Cell
56.0
60.0
Subtotal
245.6
352.9
383.7
Natural Gas Technologies
—
20.0
—
Petroleum-Oil Technologies
—
5.0
—
Program Direction
130.0
150.0
126.3
Plant and Capital Equipment
—
13.0
5.0
Fossil Energy Environ. Restoration
9.6
9.6
9.7
Special Recruitment Program
0.7
0.7
0.7
Cong. Directed Projects
—
48.0
—
Other
0.7
—
—
Total
566.8
750.0
765.3
Source: FY2009 Budget Request
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58, Title IV) authorizes the annual
appropriation of $200 million in FY2006 through FY2014 for the Clean Coal Power
Initiative (see Table 11). Of the funds made available, 70% (i.e., $140 million
annually) are to be used only in funding coal-based gasification technologies:
combined cycle, fuel cell, coproduction, hybrid, and advanced technologies capable
of producing concentrated carbon monoxide — technologies aimed at FutureGen.
The Coal and Related Technologies Program is authorized $611 million in FY2007,
$626 million in FY2008, and $641 million in FY2009, in addition to programs for
research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of coal-based

---

CRS-22
power generation through gasification, advanced combustion, and turbines for
synthesis gas derived from coal.
Table 11. Energy Policy Act of 2005 Title IV Authorization
($ millions)
EPAct
Authorization
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
Clean Coal Power
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
FutureGen related
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
Fossil Energy
611
626
641
Source: DOE FY2008 Budget Request.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR),
authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94-163) in 1975,
consists of caverns formed out of naturally occurring salt domes in Louisiana and
Texas in which nearly 700 million barrels of crude oil are stored. Its current capacity
is 727 million barrels, and it is authorized at 1 billion barrels. The purpose of the SPR
is to provide an emergency source of crude oil that may be tapped in the event of a
presidential finding that an interruption in oil supply, or an interruption threatening
adverse economic effects, warrants a drawdown from the reserve. A Northeast
Heating Oil Reserve (NHOR) was established during the Clinton Administration.
NHOR houses 2 million barrels of home heating oil in above-ground facilities in
Connecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.
Program costs for the SPR in recent years have been dedicated principally to
maintaining SPR facilities and keeping the SPR in readiness should it be needed.
Since FY1999, any fill of the SPR has been with deliveries of royalty-in-kind (RIK)
oil to the SPR in lieu of cash royalties to the federal government on offshore
production. Through FY2007, royalty-in-kind deliveries to the SPR have totaled
roughly 140 million barrels and forgone receipts to the Department of the Interior are
estimated to be $4.6 billion. DOE has projected deliveries of RIK oil during FY2008
of 19.1 million barrels and $1.170 billion in forgone revenues.19
The Administration request for FY2009 for the SPR is $346.9 million. As in its
FY2008 request, the Administration is seeking funding to expand the capacity of the
SPR to 1 billion barrels by adding 115 million barrels of capacity at three existing
sites and establishing a new site, in Richton, Mississippi, where 160 million barrels
of capacity would be created. Included in the request is $13.5 million to initiate the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental review process for
expansion of the SPR to 1.5 billion barrels, a level not yet authorized by Congress
19 Annual figures through FY2006 may be found in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Annual
Report for FY2006, p. 39, [http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/publications/
Pubs-SPR/spr_annual_rpt_06.pdf]. Estimates for FY2008 furnished in a communication
from DOE.

---

CRS-23
but strongly supported by the Administration. Congress approved nearly $25 million
in the FY2008 budget for land acquisition at the Richton site but otherwise expressed
opposition to funding expansion. In its report on the FY2008 appropriations bill
(H.Rept. 110-185), the House Committee on Appropriations noted an estimate that
it would cost $10 billion to create additional capacity and $55 billion to fill it, and
expansion would not be completed until 2027. The Committee said the plans for the
expansion lacked “analytical clarity.” Congress approved funding of $186.8 million
for FY2008; the Administration had requested $331.6 million.
The Administration has requested $9.8 million for the NHOR in FY2009, a
reduction of $2.5 million from the FY2008 enactment, principally due to a reduction
in the need for funds for repurchasing heating oil that was sold during FY2007 to
finance new storage contracts.

Meanwhile, fill of the SPR with royalty-in-kind oil continues to be
controversial. Critics argue that it is inadvisable to add oil to the SPR when markets
are tight and prices remain high. They argue further that the additional oil adds little
to U.S. energy security. Supporters of RIK fill argue that the fill rate is too little to
have a discernible impact on markets, and that currently high refined-product prices
are sustained by factors other than crude supply, which is more than ample at this
time. Legislation has been introduced in the Second Session (H.R. 5146, S. 2598)
to suspend RIK fill. The House bill would also mandate a sale of 13 million barrels
of SPR oil during FY2008, with the proceeds to be spent on a number of energy
efficiency and alternative fuel programs. Both bills would establish conditions,
including a significant decline in crude oil prices, that would have to be satisfied
before RIK fill could be resumed. The outlook for these bills is unclear.
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 funder of basic
research and the largest federal funder of research in the physical sciences.20 For
FY2009, DOE has requested $4.722 billion for Science, an increase of 19% from the
FY2008 amount of $3.973 billion. This unusually large increase reflects the
American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which President Bush announced in
January 2006. Over 10 years, the ACI would double the combined R&D funding of
the DOE Office of Science and two other agencies.
The requested funding for the largest Office of Science program, basic energy
sciences, is $1.568 billion, up 23% from FY2008. Increases include $153 million for
a new program of Energy Frontier Research Centers,21 $66 million to initiate
20 Based on preliminary FY2006 data from Tables 29 and 22 of National Science
Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Federal Funds for Research and
Development: Fiscal Years 2004-06, NSF 07-323 (June 2007).
21 These are intended to address energy challenges identified by the Basic Energy Sciences
Advisory Committee in its December 2007 report Directing Matter and Energy: Five
Challenges for Science and the Imagination, online at [http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/
(continued...)

---

CRS-24
construction of the National Synchrotron Light Source II at Brookhaven National
Laboratory, and $73 million to expand facility operating time. The House and Senate
appropriations reports for FY2006 both called for an increase for facility operating
time. Increases were proposed in the FY2007 and FY2008 budget requests and
funded in the House and Senate appropriations bills for those years, but were not
ultimately included in either the FY2007 or the FY2008 appropriation. (The request
also includes increases to expand facility operating time in some of the other Office
of Science research programs.)
For high-energy physics, the request is $805 million, a 17% increase from
FY2008. Included are increases for three programs whose funding Congress sharply
reduced in the final FY2008 appropriation: $37 million (up from $6 million) for
construction of the NOVA detector at Fermilab, $25 million (up from $5 million) for
superconducting radiofrequency R&D, and $35 million (up from $15 million) for
R&D related to the proposed International Linear Collider. The request includes $10
million for the DOE/NASA Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM). Responding to
appropriations report language in FY2008, NASA has included its portion of JDEM
in its FY2009 request.
The request for biological and environmental research is $569 million, up 4%.
The bulk of the requested increase is for climate change modeling.
For nuclear physics, the request is $510 million, up 18% from FY2008.
Included are $20 million for isotope production and applications (transferred from
the Office of Nuclear Energy) and $15 million to begin construction of an upgrade
at the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF). Most other nuclear
physics activities would also receive increases.
The request for fusion energy sciences is $493 million, up 72%. Almost the
entire increase ($204 million) is for the U.S. share of the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor (ITER), a fusion facility now under construction in France.
For FY2008, although the House and Senate bills both provided the requested
amount for ITER, the final appropriation eliminated all except $10 million for related
R&D. According to press reports, ITER officials expect the lack of U.S. funds in
FY2008 to have no immediate impact on the project’s planned 2008 start, but “what
the other ITER partners now want from the United States is clarity” about its plans.22
The ITER partners are China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia, South
Korea, and the United States. Under an agreement signed in 2006, the U.S. share of
ITER’s construction cost is 9.1%. That share is now expected to be between $1.45
billion and $2.2 billion, with a completion date between FY2014 and FY2017. A
preliminary estimate of $1.122 billion through FY2014 was revised upwards in
December 2007.
21 (...continued)
files/GC_rpt.pdf].
22 Dennis Normile, “U.S. Wavers Again on ITER”, ScienceNOW Daily News, December 21,
2007, [http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/1221/1].

---

CRS-25
The request for the smallest of the Office of Science research programs,
advanced scientific computing research, is $369 million, up 5% from FY2008. The
majority of the requested increase would fund establishment of a new Applied
Mathematics-Computer Science Institute.
The request for laboratory infrastructure is $110 million, up 65% from FY2008.
An Infrastructure Modernization Initiative, to be funded in FY2009 by transfers from
the research programs, accounts for $33 million of the requested increase.
Nuclear Waste Disposal. DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management (OCRWM) is responsible for developing a nuclear waste repository at
Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for disposal of nuclear reactor spent fuel and defense-
related high-level radioactive waste.
The FY2009 OCRWM request is $494.7 million, 28% above the FY2008
appropriation. However, the FY2008 level of $386.4 million is about $50 million
below the FY2007 level and more than $100 million below the Administration’s
FY2007 request. The funding cut will force at least 500 layoffs at the Yucca
Mountain Project and probably will delay OCRWM’s plans to submit the Yucca
Mountain license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by June 30,
2008, according to Program Director Edward Sproat. He told a Nevada legislative
committee that OCRWM’s goal of opening the repository by 2017 would also be
pushed back.23
Funding for the program is provided under two appropriations accounts. The
Administration requested $247.4 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund, which holds
fees paid by nuclear utilities. An additional $247.4 million was requested in the
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal account, which pays for disposal of high-level
waste from the nuclear weapons program in the planned Yucca Mountain repository.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA, P.L. 97-425), as amended,
names Yucca Mountain as the sole candidate site for a national geologic repository.
Congress passed an approval resolution in July 2002 (H.J.Res. 87, P.L. 107-200) that
authorized the Yucca Mountain project to proceed to the licensing phase.
NWPA required DOE to begin taking waste from nuclear plant sites by January
31, 1998. Nuclear utilities, upset over DOE’s failure to meet that deadline, have won
two federal court decisions upholding the department’s obligation to meet the
deadline and to compensate utilities for any resulting damages. Utilities have also
won several cases in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. DOE estimates that liability
payments will total $7 billion if Yucca Mountain begins receiving waste by 2017 and
$11 billion if the repository’s opening is delayed until 2020.24 (For more
information, see CRS Report RL33461, Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal, by Mark
Holt.)
23 Rogers, Keith, “Yucca Mountain Layoffs Imminent, Official Warns,” Las Vegas Review-
Journal, January 18, 2008 (through Energy Central Professional).
24 Statement of Edward F. Sproat III, Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management, Before the House Budget Committee, October 4, 2007.

---

CRS-26
Loan Guarantees. Congress established the DOE Innovative Technology
Loan Guarantee Program in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The act authorized loan
guarantees for energy projects using “new or significantly improved technologies”
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The FY2008 omnibus act allowed DOE to guarantee repayment of up to $38.5
billion in loans for energy projects during FY2008 and FY2009. Of that amount,
$18.5 billion is for nuclear power plants, $6 billion for coal projects that incorporate
carbon capture and sequestration, $2 billion for advanced coal gasification, $10
billion for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects, and $2 billion for
uranium enrichment and other “front end” nuclear fuel cycle facilities. DOE must
submit an implementation plan to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees
at least 45 days before issuing the loan guarantees.
DOE’s FY2009 budget request proposes to extend the previously approved
$38.5 billion in loan guarantee authority. Under the request, $20 billion would be
available through FY2010 for technologies other than nuclear power plants, while the
remaining $18.5 billion for nuclear power plants would continue to be available
through FY2011. In addition to the $38.5 billion in loan guarantee authority that
must be used by FY2010 and FY2011, the FY2007 DOE appropriation (included in
P.L. 110-5) provided $4 billion in loan guarantee authority with no expiration date
or specified technology. To administer the loan guarantee program, DOE requested
an appropriation of $19.9 million for FY2009, an amount that is to be entirely offset
by fees imposed on project sponsors.
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship. Congress established the
Stockpile Stewardship Program in the FY1994 National Defense Authorization Act
(P.L. 103-160) “to ensure the preservation of the core intellectual and technical
competencies of the United States in nuclear weapons.” The program is operated by
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semiautonomous agency
within DOE that Congress established in the FY2000 National Defense
Authorization Act (P.L. 106-65, Title XXXII). It seeks to maintain the safety and
reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile.
Stockpile stewardship consists of all activities in NNSA’s Weapons Activities
account: three main programs — Directed Stockpile Work, Campaigns, and
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities — as well as several smaller ones. All
are described below. Table 12 presents their funding. NNSA manages two programs
outside of Weapons Activities: Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, discussed later in
this report, and Naval Reactors.
Most stewardship activities take place at the nuclear weapons complex, which
consists of three laboratories (Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM; Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, CA; and Sandia National Laboratories, NM and
CA); four production sites (Kansas City Plant, MO; Pantex Plant, TX; Savannah
River Site, SC; and Y-12 Plant, TN); and the Nevada Test Site. NNSA manages and
sets policy for the complex; contractors to NNSA operate the eight sites.

---

CRS-27
Table 12. Funding for Weapons Activities
($ millions)
FY2008
House
Senate
Final
FY2009
Program
Current
Approps.
Approps.
Appropriation
Request
Approp.
Cmte.
Cmte.
(P.L. 110-xxx)
DSW
1,401.3
$1,675.7
Campaigns
1,873.7
1,631.7
RTBF
1,637.4
1,720.5
Othera
1,385.0
1,589.9
Total
6,297.5
6,618.1
Sources: DOE FY2009 Congressional Budget Request, vol. 1 (NNSA), p. 71.
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. DSW, Directed Stockpile Work; RTBF,
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities.
a. Includes Secure Transportation Asset, Nuclear Weapons Incident Response, Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program, Environmental Projects and Operations,
Transformation Disposition, Defense Nuclear Security, Cyber Security, Congressionally
Directed Projects, and several adjustments.
The FY2009 request document includes data from NNSA’s Future Years
Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP), which projects the budget and components
through FY2013 (see Table 13).
Table 13. NNSA Future Years Nuclear Security Program
($ millions)
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
DSW
$1,762.1
1,790.0
1,760.2
1,776.4
Campaigns
1,588.4
1,494.9
1,495.7
1,516.5
RTBF
1,904.4
2,153.6
2,275.9
2,372.9
Othera
1,731.0
1,759.4
1,755.1
1,794.4
Total
6,985.7
7,197.8
7,286.9
7,460.3
Source: DOE FY2009 Congressional Budget Request, vol. 1 (NNSA), pp. 72.
Note: Details may not add to totals because of rounding.
a. Includes Secure Transportation Asset, Nuclear Weapons Incident Response, Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program, Environmental Projects and Operations, Safeguards
and Security, and several adjustments.
Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration. Although the nuclear
weapons complex (the “Complex”) currently consists of the eight sites noted above,
it was much larger during the Cold War in terms of number of sites, budgets, and
personnel. Despite the post-Cold War reduction, many in Congress have for years

---

CRS-28
wanted the Complex to change further, in various ways: fewer personnel, lower cost,
greater efficiency, smaller footprint at each site, increased security, and the like. (For
congressional action on FY2005-FY2008 appropriations, see CRS Report RL34009,
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations.) In response, in January
2007 NNSA submitted a report to Congress on its plan for transforming the
Complex, “Complex 2030.”
The House Appropriations Committee, in its FY2008 report, expressed
displeasure with this plan and demanded “a comprehensive nuclear defense and
nonproliferation strategy,” a detailed description translating that strategy into a
“specific nuclear stockpile,” and “a comprehensive, long-term expenditure plan, from
FY2008 through FY2030...” before considering further funding for Complex 2030
and a nuclear weapon program, the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW, discussed
below). It stated that “NNSA continues to pursue a policy of rebuilding and
modernizing the entire complex in situ without any thought given to a sensible
strategy for long-term efficiency and consolidation.” Similarly, the Senate
Appropriations Committee expressed concern with NNSA’s plans for the Complex.
It saw an inadequate linkage between warheads, the Complex, and strategy, and
“rejects the Department’s premature deployment of the NNSA Complex 2030
consolidation effort.” The joint explanatory statement accompanying the consolidated
appropriations bill said, “The Congress agrees to the direction contained in the House
and Senate reports requiring the Administration ... to develop and submit to the
Congress a comprehensive nuclear weapons strategy for the 21st century.”
On December 18, 2007, NNSA announced its plan, Complex Transformation,
a name change from Complex 2030. It would retain existing sites, reduce the
weapons program footprint by as much as one-third, close or transfer from weapons
activities about 600 structures, reduce the number of weapons workers by 20-30%,
dismantle weapons more rapidly, and build several major new facilities, such as a
Uranium Processing Facility at Y-12 Plant, a Weapons Surveillance Facility at
Pantex Plant, and a Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear
Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory.25 This plan is more fully described in
a Draft Complex Transformation Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement released in January 2008.26
Directed Stockpile Work (DSW). This program involves work directly on
nuclear weapons in the stockpile, such as monitoring their condition; maintaining
them through repairs, refurbishment, life extension, and modifications; R&D in
25 U.S. Department of Energy. National Nuclear Security Administration. “NNSA Releases
Draft Plan to Transform Nuclear Weapons Complex.” Press release, December 18, 2007,
at [http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/docs/newsreleases/2007/PR_2007-12-18_NA-07-64.htm];
National Nuclear Security Administration, “Nuclear Weapons Complex Transformation,”
with links to plans for each site, at [http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/complextransformation.htm];
and Walter Pincus, “Administration Plans to Shrink U.S. Nuclear Arms Program,”
Washington Post, December 19, 2007, p. 1.
26 This statement and supporting materials are available at [http://www.complex
transformationspeis.com/project.html].

---

CRS-29
support of specific warheads; and dismantlement. Specific items under DSW include
the following:
! Life Extension Programs (LEPs). These programs aim to extend the
life of existing warheads by 20 to 30 years through design,
certification, manufacture, and replacement of components. Two
LEPs are underway. One for the B61 mods 7 and 11 bombs will
complete actions needed to close out the program in FY2009; its
FY2008 budget is $61.9 million, and the FY2009 request is $2.2
million. The other LEP is for the W76 warhead for the Trident II
submarine-launched ballistic missile. Its FY2008 budget is $172.2
million, while its FY2009 request is $209.2 million. Work in
FY2008 involves preparation for manufacture with a goal of making
the first production unit. NNSA plans to ramp to full production in
FY2009.
! Stockpile Systems. This program involves routine maintenance,
replacement of limited-life components, ongoing assessment, and
the like for all weapon types in the stockpile. The FY2008 budget
is $340.1 million; the FY2009 request is $338.7 million. Of the
eight warhead types listed, the two largest programs under stockpile
systems are for the B61 and W76.
! Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition (WDD). The President
and Congress have agreed on the desirability of reducing the
stockpile to the lowest level consistent with national security, and
numbers of warheads have fallen sharply since the end of the Cold
War. According to NNSA, “Reducing the total number of U.S.
nuclear weapons sends a clear message to the world that critical
modernization programs do not signal a return to the arms race of
the Cold War.” WDD involves interim storage of warheads to be
dismantled, dismantlement, and disposition, i.e., storing or
eliminating warhead components and materials. The FY2008
budget is $134.7 million; the FY2009 request is $183.7 million.
Within WDD, the major activity is the Pit Disassembly and
Conversion Facility (PDCF). The “pit” is the fissile component
(usually plutonium) of a nuclear warhead that initiates a
thermonuclear explosion. As warheads are dismantled, pits may be
stored, but for permanent disposition PDCF would convert the
plutonium in pits to plutonium oxide for use in a Mixed Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility (MFFF), where it would become fuel for
commercial light-water nuclear reactors. The project also includes
a Waste Solidification Building (WSB) to convert liquid wastes
from PDCF and MFFF into solids for disposal off-site. (In FY2008,
MFFF was transferred from NNSA to DOE’s Office of Nuclear
Energy. The FY2009 budget request would transfer the project to
Other Defense Activities.) In FY2009, NNSA plans to begin
construction of WSB and to continue design and technology
development for PDCF.

---

CRS-30
! Stockpile Services. This category includes Production Support;
R&D Support; R&D Certification and Safety; Management,
Technology, and Production; Pit Manufacturing; and Pit
Manufacturing Capability. Under Pit Manufacturing, NNSA plans
to manufacture stockpile-quality pits for the W88 warhead at Los
Alamos National Laboratory. NNSA established a capacity of 10
pits per year in FY2007, a figure it plans to increase to 50 to 80 pits
per year. Closely related is Pit Manufacturing Capability, which
develops processes to manufacture pits other than for the W88. The
budget for Stockpile Services was $692.4 million for FY2008;
$931.9 million is requested for FY2009.
! Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). This program seeks to
develop a warhead initially to replace W76 warheads. The design
would trade characteristics important during the Cold War, notably
high warhead yield per unit of warhead weight, for features deemed
more important now, such as ease of manufacture, enhanced use
denial, reduced cost, and ease of certification without nuclear
testing. Supporters assert RRW can meet these goals; critics raise
technical concerns, argue that it could spur nuclear proliferation, and
hold that the Life Extension Program can maintain existing
warheads. Congress eliminated FY2008 funds for developing this
warhead. For FY2009, NNSA requests $10.0 million to address
certain questions on certifying RRW and to document work
completed through FY2007. (See CRS Report RL32929, The
Reliable Replacement Warhead Program: Background and Current
Developments, and CRS Report RL33748, Nuclear Warheads: The
Reliable Replacement Warhead Program and the Life Extension
Program, by Jonathan Medalia.)
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.” Many items within Campaigns have significance
for policy decisions. For example, the Science Campaign’s goals include improving
the ability to assess warhead performance without nuclear testing, improving
readiness to conduct nuclear tests should the need arise, and maintaining the
scientific infrastructure of the nuclear weapons laboratories. Campaigns also fund
some large experimental facilities, such as the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, the Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrotest Facility at
Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Microsystems and Engineering Sciences
Applications Complex at Sandia National Laboratories. The FY2009 request includes
five Campaigns:
! Science Campaign. This campaign pursues the science underlying
nuclear weapons performance and aging in an effort to better
maintain confidence in the U.S. nuclear stockpile. Further, NNSA
calls it “the principal mechanism for supporting the science required
to maintain the technical vitality of the national nuclear weapons
laboratories.” Through it, NNSA seeks “a predictive capability for
the entire nuclear explosive package by 2020.” Congress established

---

CRS-31
a component of this campaign, Advanced Certification, to improve
the ability to certify warheads without testing despite changes to
nuclear components. Another component of the Science Campaign
is Test Readiness, the ability to conduct nuclear testing should that
be deemed necessary. In FY2007, NNSA had achieved the ability
to conduct a test within 24 months of an order to do so; because of
budgetary pressures, that schedule increased to 24 to 36 months.
The FY2008 budget for the Science Campaign is $287.6 million; the
FY2009 request is $323.1 million.
! Engineering Campaign. This campaign develops capabilities to
assess and improve nonnuclear components of a nuclear warhead. It
provides technologies to improve safety, security, and use control of
nuclear weapons; develops means to assess weapons design,
manufacturing, and certification; provides the means to qualify
components to meet requirements for high-radiation environments,
such as from missile defenses; and develops capabilities to detect
and assess stockpile aging at an early stage. The FY2008 budget for
the Engineering Campaign is $169.5 million; the FY2009 request is
$142.7 million.
! Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign.
This campaign is developing the tools to create extremely high
temperatures and pressures in the laboratory — approaching those
of a nuclear explosion — to support weapons-related research and
to attract scientific talent to the Stockpile Stewardship Program. The
centerpiece of this campaign is the National Ignition Facility (NIF),
the world’s largest laser. While NIF was controversial in Congress
for many years and had significant cost growth and technical
problems, completion is expected by March 2009, so the controversy
over NIF has waned. The FY2008 budget for this campaign is
$470.2 million; the FY2009 request is $421.2 million.
! Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign. This campaign
develops computation-based models of nuclear weapons, which
integrate data from other campaigns, past test data, laboratory
experiments, and elsewhere to create what NNSA calls “the
computational surrogate for nuclear testing,” thereby enabling
“comprehensive understanding of the entire weapons lifecycle from
design to safe processes for dismantlement.” It includes funds for
hardware and operations as well as for software. Its FY2008 budget
is $574.5 million; the FY2009 request is $561.7 million.
! Readiness Campaign. This campaign develops technologies and
techniques to improve the safety and efficiency of manufacturing
and reduce its costs. Subprograms focus on production of high
explosives, nonnuclear components, and weapons components with
special materials. Another subprogram, Tritium Readiness,
“reestablishes and operates the Departmental capability for
producing tritium.” (Tritium, an isotope of hydrogen, is used to

---

CRS-32
increase the explosive force of the first stage of a nuclear weapon.)
The FY2008 budget for this campaign is $158.1 million; the FY2009
request is $183.0 million.
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF). This program
funds infrastructure and operations at nuclear weapons complex sites. The FY2008
budget is $1,637.4 million, and the FY2008 request is $1,720.5 million. RTBF has
six subprograms. By far the largest is Operations of Facilities (FY2008 budget,
$1,154.5 million; FY2009 request, $1,212.9 million). Others include Program
Readiness, which supports activities occurring at multiple sites or in multiple
programs (FY2008 budget, $70.1 million; FY2009 request, $73.8 million); Material
Recycle and Recovery, which recovers plutonium, enriched uranium, and tritium
from weapons production and disassembly (FY2008 budget, $71.6 million; FY2009
request, $72.5 million); and Construction (FY2008 budget, $285.0 million; FY2009
request, $308.5 million). The most costly and controversial item in Construction is
the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building Replacement (CMRR) Project at
Los Alamos National Laboratory (FY2008 budget, $74.1 million; FY2009 request,
$100.2 million). CMRR would replace a building about 50 years old that, among
other things, houses research into plutonium and supports pit production at Los
Alamos. In considering the FY2008 budget, the House Appropriations Committee
stated, “Proceeding with the CMRR project as currently designed will strongly
prejudice any nuclear complex transformation plan. The CMRR facility has no
coherent mission to justify it unless the decision is made to begin an aggressive new
nuclear warhead design and pit production mission at Los Alamos National
Laboratory.” In contrast, the Senate Appropriations Committee stated, “The current
authorization basis for the existing CMR [facility] lasts only through 2010, as it does
not provide adequate worker safety or containment precautions. However, deep
spending cuts ... will likely result in delays that will require the laboratory to continue
operations in the existing CMR facility.”
Other Programs. Weapons Activities includes several smaller programs in
addition to DSW, Campaigns, and RTBF. Among them:
! Secure Transportation Asset: provides for the transport of nuclear
weapons, components, and materials safely and securely. It includes
special vehicles used for this purpose, communications and other
supporting infrastructure, and threat response. The FY2008 budget
is $211.5 million; the FY2009 request is $221.1 million.
! Nuclear Weapons Incident Response: provides for use of DOE assets
to manage and respond to a nuclear or radiological emergency within
the United States or abroad. The FY2008 budget is $158.7 million;
the FY2009 request is $221.9 million.
! Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP):
“applies new direct appropriations to address an integrated,
prioritized series of repair and infrastructure projects focusing on
elimination of legacy deferred maintenance that significantly
increases the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the NNSA
nuclear weapons complex,” according to NNSA. Its FY2008 budget

---

CRS-33
is $180.0 million; its FY2009 request is $169.5 million. One of its
subprograms, Facility Disposition, requests no funds for FY2009, vs.
an FY2008 budget of $25.0 million, because it will reach its FY2009
goal in FY2008.
! Environmental Projects and Operations: seeks to reduce
environmental and health risks at NNSA facilities and surrounding
areas by operating and maintaining certain environmental cleanup
systems and by conducting long-term environmental monitoring. Its
FY2008 budget is $8.6 million; its FY2009 request is $40.6 million.
! Transformation Disposition: eliminates excess NNSA facilities
through demolition, transfer, or sale in order to reduce the area
(gross square feet) these facilities occupy, thereby reducing costs.
It has no funds for FY2008; its FY2009 request is $77.4 million.
! Safeguards and Security (S&S) is split into two elements: Defense
Nuclear Security, which provides operations, maintenance, and
construction funds for protective forces, physical security systems,
personnel security, and the like, and Cyber Security. In the wake of
9/11, the relevant threats and the Design Basis Threat changed.
Ambassador Linton Brooks, then Administrator of NNSA, stated in
2005, “We must now consider the distinct possibility of well-armed
and competent terrorist suicide teams seeking to gain access to a
warhead in order to detonate it in place. This has driven our site
security posture from one of ‘containment and recovery’ of stolen
warheads to one of ‘denial of any access’ to warheads. This change
has dramatically increased security costs for ‘gates, guns, guards’ at
our nuclear weapons sites.”27 The cost of S&S is a major concern
for Congress and NNSA. Many changes have been proposed to
reduce Complex security costs, such as reducing the area to be
guarded by reducing the footprint of several sites and by
consolidating uranium and plutonium at fewer sites. For Defense
Nuclear Security, the FY2008 budget is $765.2 million (after
deducting $34.0 million for security work for others), and the
FY2009 request is $737.3 million. For Cyber Security, the FY2008
budget is $100.3 million, and the FY2009 request is $122.5 million.
Nonproliferation and National Security Programs. DOE’s
nonproliferation and national security programs provide technical capabilities to
support U.S. efforts to prevent, detect, and counter the spread of nuclear weapons
worldwide. These nonproliferation and national security programs are included in
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).
27 Statement of Ambassador Linton F. Brooks, Administrator, National Nuclear Security
Administration, before the Senate Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic
Forces, April 4, 2005.

---

CRS-34
Table 14. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
($ millions)
FY2009
Program
FY2008
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
Nonproliferation & Verification R&D
$387.2
$275.1
Nonproliferation & International
Securitya
150.0
140.5
International Materials Protection,
624.5
429.7
Control and Accounting (MPC&A)
Elimination of Weapons-Grade
179.9
141.3
Plutonium Production
Fissile Materials Dispositionb
66.2
41.8
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
193.2
219.6
Cong. Dir. Projects
56.9
—
Use of prior year balancesc
(322.0)
—
Total
1,336.0
1,247.1
Sources: DOE FY2009 Congressional Budget Request.
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
a. Includes funding for two formerly separate programs: Russian Transition Initiatives and HEU Transparency
Implementation.
b. Funding for MOX plant transferred to Nuclear Energy, and Pit Disassembly plant to NNSA.
c. From the Russian Fissile Materials Disposition program, MOX construction, and FY1999 emergency supplemental.
Funding for these programs in FY2008 was $1.336 billion, compared to the
FY2007 level of $1.683 billion. The reduction reflected moving two major
construction projects, the Mixed-Oxide (MOX) plant and the Pit Disassembly plant,
from the Fissile Materials Disposition program to other parts of DOE. (See below.)
For FY2009, the Administration agreed to move those projects out of the
Nonproliferation program, and requested $1.247 billion.
The Nonproliferation and Verification R&D program was funded at $387.2
million for FY2008. The request for FY2009 was $275.1 million.
Nonproliferation and International Security programs include international
safeguards, export controls, and treaties and agreements. The FY2009 request for
these programs was $140.5 million, compared to $150.0 million appropriated for
FY2008.
International Materials Protection, Control and Accounting (MPC&A), which
is concerned with reducing the threat posed by unsecured Russian weapons and
weapons-usable material, was funded at $624.5 million in FY2008; the FY2009
request is $429.7 million.

---

CRS-35
The goal of the Fissile Materials Disposition program is disposal of U.S. surplus
weapons plutonium by converting it into fuel for commercial power reactors,
including construction of a facility to convert the plutonium to “mixed-oxide”
(MOX) reactor fuel at Savannah River, South Carolina, and a similar program in
Russia. However, funding for the U.S. side of the program has been controversial
for several years, because of lack of progress on the program to dispose of Russian
plutonium. For FY2008 the Administration requested $609.5 million for Fissile
Materials Disposition, including $393.8 million for construction. The House
Appropriations Committee, noting that Russia had decided in 2006 not to pursue
plutonium disposition in light water MOX reactors but to build fast breeder reactors
instead, declared the bilateral agreement a failure and asserted that the $1.7 billion
previously appropriated for facilities to be used in the U.S. side of the plutonium
disposal agreement was “without any nuclear nonproliferation benefit accrued to the
U.S. taxpayer.”
The committee recommended transferring the MOX plant and another project,
the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF), both at Savannah River, SC,
to the nuclear energy program and NNSA’s weapons program respectively. The
FY2008 omnibus funding act adopted the House position, transferring the MOX
plant and PDCF to other programs. The net appropriation for the NNSA’s Fissile
Materials Disposition program was reduced to $66.2 million. For FY2009, the
Administration requested $41.8 million.
Environmental Management. In the late 1980s, the United States ceased its
production of nuclear weapons, due to military projections that the nuclear weapons
stockpile was sufficient to protect national security and respond to future threats.
Past production of these weapons generated substantial quantities of radioactive and
other hazardous wastes, and resulted in contamination of soil, groundwater, and
buildings. As a consequence, environmental problems arising from this past
production continue to present challenges today. However, potential health and
environmental risks vary considerably among individual sites, depending on the type
and quantity of waste and contamination present at each site, and the potential for
exposure to wastes and contaminants.
The adequacy of funding to address health and environmental risks resulting
from the past production of nuclear weapons is a long-standing issue. DOE
established the Office of Environmental Management in 1989 to consolidate its
efforts to administer the cleanup of former nuclear weapons sites. These efforts
include the disposal of radioactive and other hazardous wastes, management and
disposal of surplus nuclear materials, the remediation of soil and groundwater
contaminated from such wastes, and the decontamination and decommissioning of
excess buildings and facilities. Through this management program, DOE also
administers the disposal of wastes and remediation of contamination at sites where
the federal government conducted civilian nuclear energy research. Altogether, there

---

CRS-36
were 114 “geographic”28 sites in 30 states where these activities resulted in the
generation of wastes and contamination.
Some of the ongoing issues associated with the disposal of wastes and the
cleanup of contamination have been the adequacy of risk-based approaches to
address these needs; the technical soundness of waste treatment facility designs; how
to safely remove, treat, and dispose of high-level radioactive waste stored in
underground tanks; the effectiveness and cost-savings of incentive-based cleanup
contracts; and the pace and adequacy of cleanup overall. The challenges of the
Environmental Management Program to dispose of wastes and clean up
contamination are substantial and require significant resources. As such, this
program represents a sizeable portion of DOE’s budget, constituting approximately
one-fifth of the President’s FY2009 budget request for the Department.
President’s FY2009 Budget Request. The President has requested a total
of $5.53 billion for DOE’s Environmental Management Program in FY2009, $166.7
million less than the FY2008 enacted appropriation of $5.70 billion. The request
continues a downward trend in overall funding for the program over the past few
years. One of the primary reasons for this trend is a decrease in funds for “accelerated
closure” sites where all planned cleanup actions are complete, or are nearing
completion, under the Environmental Management Program. Congress had increased
funding at these sites for several years to speed the pace of cleanup, such as the
Rocky Flats site in Colorado and the Fernald site in Ohio. These sites were suitable
for accelerated cleanup because the challenges were more technically feasible to
address than those at more complex sites. Now that all or most of the work is
completed at these sites, there has been a sharp decline in funding as these needs
have diminished.

Although DOE has accomplished much in accelerating cleanup at certain sites,
substantial challenges persist at many other sites where cleanup is not complete and
large quantities of wastes and contamination remain. For these and other pending
sites, there are varying decreases and increases in funding when comparing the
President’s FY2009 request to the appropriation that Congress enacted for FY2008.
(See Table 15.) These differences can be attributed to many reasons, including
differing priorities among other competing needs within the federal budget, opposing
views on the adequacy of funding to meet cleanup needs, and varying factors at
individual sites, such as the technical complexity of cleanup, the prioritization of
remedial actions based on health and environmental risks, and the timing of
individual cleanup actions.
Some Members of Congress and states have expressed particular concern that
the President’s proposed decreases in funding for some sites may delay compliance
28 DOE makes a distinction between its “geographic” sites, which represent entire facilities
and the lands they occupy, and the thousands of discrete contaminated sites located on each
facility that have been, or need to be, cleaned up. One of these geographic sites, the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, was constructed as a repository to dispose of
transuranic radioactive waste from other sites. Although this facility is not a cleanup site,
its operation is essential to the cleanup of transuranic waste at many sites where such waste
is removed and prepared for permanent disposal off-site.

---

CRS-37
with cleanup “milestones.” These milestones establish time frames (i.e., deadlines)
for the completion of individual actions or steps within the cleanup process at each
site. They are specified in written agreements among DOE, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), and state regulatory agencies. Although these milestones
are legally binding, the ability to meet specified deadlines depends upon the
availability of funding to carry out necessary actions, the technical feasibility of those
actions, and in some cases, the resolution of other regulatory issues upon which a
milestone may be based. Consequently, funding alone does not necessarily determine
the ability of DOE to comply with the cleanup milestones to which it has agreed.
Of the total sites still in need of cleanup, the Hanford, WA, site is the largest and
most complex site administered under the Environmental Management Program.
This site alone represents about one-third of the funding for the entire program. The
adequacy of funding to clean up Hanford has been particularly controversial for many
reasons, including potential risks from radioactive contamination migrating through
groundwater into the Columbia River and the delayed construction of the Waste
Treatment and Immobilization Plant. This facility is a key element in DOE’s plans
to treat the substantial volume of high-level radioactive waste to be removed from
the underground tanks at Hanford, and to solidify that waste for permanent disposal
in a geologic repository. This task is one of the more costly cleanup challenges
across the complex of sites.
Various engineering and design issues have delayed construction of the Waste
Treatment and Immobilization Plant at Hanford. The President has requested $690.0
million for the construction of this facility for FY2009, an increase above the
FY2008 enacted appropriation of $683.7 million. The request also includes $288.4
million for the management of the wastes still stored in the underground tanks,
slightly more than the appropriation of $285.8 million enacted for FY2008.
Together, the amounts for these activities in each respective year constitute the total
funding for the Office of River Protection at Hanford, which addresses potential risks
to the Columbia River from the high-level tank wastes.
Table 15 presents the amount of appropriations that Congress enacted for the
Environmental Management Program for FY2008, compared with the President’s
budget request for FY2009. Amounts are indicated for each of the three statutory
accounts that fund the Environmental Management Program, and for selected sites
and program activities within those accounts in which there has been broad
congressional interest. The amounts enacted for FY2008 are as presented in DOE’s
FY2009 budget justification for the Environmental Management Program, which
reflect the across-the-board rescission of 0.91% for ongoing program elements, and
1.6% for congressionally designated projects, as required by the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161).

---

CRS-38
Table 15. Environmental Management Program Appropriations
($ millions)
Environmental
FY2008
FY2009
Management
Enacted
Program Accounts
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Accelerated Closure Sites
$42.1
$45.9
Ashtabula
$0.3
$0.0
Fernald
$0.0
$2.1
Miamisburg
$30.0
$30.6
Closure Sites
Administration
$11.7
$13.2
Hanford
$1,856.0
$1,830.2
Completion Projects
$886.5
$851.8
Office of River
Protection
$969.5
$978.4
Waste Treatment
Plant
$683.7
$690.0
Tank Farm
Activities
$285.8
$288.4
Savannah River Site
$1,131.2
$1,206.4
Idaho National Laboratory
$508.4
$432.1
Oak Ridge Reservation
$190.5
$237.7
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
$234.6
$211.5
NNSA Sites
$290.3
$245.1
Technology Development
$21.2
$32.4
Safeguards and Security
$259.3
$251.3
Program Direction
$306.9
$308.8
Program Support
$32.8
$33.9
Federal Contribution to
Uranium Enrichment D&D
Fund a
$458.8
$463.0
Congressionally Directed
Projects
$17.2
$0.0
Subtotal Defense
Environmental Cleanup
$5,349.3
$5,298.4
Non-Defense
Environmental Cleanup
$182.3
$214.1
Uranium Enrichment
D&D Fund a
$622.2
$480.3
Uranium Enrichment D&D
Fund Offset a
$-458.8
$-463.0
Use of Prior Year Defense
$0.0
$-1.1

---

CRS-39
Environmental
FY2008
FY2009
Management
Enacted
Program Accounts
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Use of Prior Year Non-
Defense
$0.0
$-0.7
Total Environmental
Management Program
$5,695.0
$5,528.0
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service using information from the Department of
Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, FY2009 Congressional Budget Request, Volume 5,
February 2008. FY2008 enacted amounts reflect applicable rescissions, as reported by the Department
of Energy.
a. D&D = Decontamination and Decommissioning. Federal payment to the Uranium Enrichment
D&D Fund is typically treated as an offset to the total for the Environmental Management
Program.
Estimated Future Funding Needs. The need for annual appropriations of
several billion dollars to clean up nuclear waste sites has motivated ongoing concern
within Congress about the long-term financial liability of the United States to meet
these needs. Accordingly, there has been much debate about how to ensure public
health and safety, and the protection of the environment, in the most expedient and
cost-effective manner. DOE reports that it had cleaned up 85 of the original 114
geographic sites, as of the end of FY2007.29 Although DOE has disposed of
substantial quantities of waste and remediated many areas of contamination at the
remaining sites, much work remains to be done to complete cleanup at many of them.
DOE expects to complete cleanup at many sites within the next several years.
However, the Department anticipates cleanup to continue for decades at the larger
and more complex sites, such as Hanford, Savannah River, and the Idaho National
Laboratory, where high-level radioactive waste is in need of treatment and disposal,
and soil and groundwater contamination are generally more severe. Based on its
more recent assumptions, DOE expects the cleanup and disposal of wastes to be
complete at Savannah River sometime between 2038 and 2040, at the Idaho National
Laboratory between 2035 and 2044, and at Hanford between 2050 and 2062.30 DOE
previously had estimated a specific year for the completion of cleanup at each site,
but has since revised its estimates to include a range of years over a longer time
period for certain sites because of greater uncertainties in its assumptions.
Accurately assessing the time and funding needed to complete cleanup and
dispose of all radioactive and other hazardous wastes is difficult at best. Developing
reliable estimates is especially challenging for the larger, more complex sites where
29 DOE, Office of Chief Financial Officer, FY2009 Congressional Budget Request, Volume
5, February 2008, p. 38. DOE referenced 108 geographic sites, as it excluded six sites slated
for transfer to the Office of Legacy Management for long-term stewardship. The total of
114 geographic sites noted above includes these six sites to provide a comparison of
completed sites to the total number of sites that originally were contaminated.
30 Ibid., p. 48.

---

CRS-40
many final decisions have yet to be made because of technical limitations and
uncertainties, such as the “end state”31 of many sites. DOE periodically revises its
estimates of the outstanding time and costs to complete cleanup and disposal of
wastes as individual project baselines and assumptions change. Similar to the
estimated dates of completion, the cost estimates also have varied over time, and by
many billions of dollars. DOE reports its financial liabilities for the Environmental
Management Program, and all of its other program responsibilities, in its annual
financial statements.
DOE’s most recent financial statement, for FY2007, estimated that $188.7
billion would be needed to complete cleanup and dispose of wastes at the remaining
sites administered under its Environmental Management Program.32 This estimate
is $29.5 billion more than the estimate of $159.2 billion in DOE’s FY2006 financial
statement.33 Similar to the increases in the time frame estimates, the higher cost
estimate in the FY2007 financial statement is attributed to various factors, such as
shifts in individual project baselines and greater uncertainties in the DOE’s
assumptions. It also should be noted that the Department’s cost estimate of $188.7
billion is in FY2007 dollars. The Department noted that “future inflation could cause
actual costs to be substantially higher” over time.34
In addition to inflation, other factors could cause actual costs to exceed the more
recent $188.7 billion estimate. For example, actual costs could be higher than
expected, depending on whether federal and state regulators require more stringent
and costlier cleanup actions than DOE plans to take. Costs also could rise if initial
cleanup actions prove inadequate to protect human health and the environment over
the long-term. Future performance of cleanup actions is especially critical for nuclear
waste sites because of the rate of decay of radioactivity, which can be thousands of
years, depending on the particular radionuclide. Predicting the effectiveness of
methods to contain radioactive wastes over such long periods of time is challenging,
if not impracticable, in some cases. Consequently, additional funding could be
needed at sites where cleanup was thought to be complete, if the initial cleanup
proves inadequate over time.
DOE’s $188.7 billion estimate also does not include the costs of long-term,
“post-closure” care of sites once wastes are disposed of, and cleanup remedies are in
place, to ensure the protection of human health and the environment into the future.
DOE’s FY2007 financial statement estimated that $29.4 billion would be needed for
31 DOE uses the term “end state” to denote the intended condition or land use of a
contaminated site once cleanup is complete. Determining the end state is critical to making
cleanup decisions, as the degree of cleanup required, and the specific action to achieve that
degree of cleanup, are dependent on the potential pathways of human exposure that would
occur as a result of how the land will be used in the future. Land uses resulting in greater
potential for human exposure generally require a greater degree of cleanup.
32 DOE, U.S. Department of Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2007, DOE/CF-
0022, pp. 61.
33 DOE, Performance and Accountability Report Fiscal Year 2006, DOE/CF-0012, p. 173.
34 DOE, U.S. Department of Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2007, DOE/CF-
0022, pp. 61.

---

CRS-41
long-term care of sites after work under its Environmental Management Program is
completed.35 This estimate is $11.2 billion more than the estimate of $18.2 billion
in the Department’s FY2006 financial statement.36
It should be noted that a substantial portion of the increase in the more recent
estimate is attributed to a difference in accounting of the estimated costs for the
disposal of certain materials, including surplus plutonium. The FY2006 financial
statement listed the cost of this responsibility separately, whereas the FY2007
financial statement included it in the estimate for “legacy environmental liabilities”
along with long-term site care. Adjusting for this difference in accounting, the
estimate of $29.4 billion for legacy environmental liabilities in the FY2007 financial
statement is $1.3 billion more than the comparable, prior year estimate of $28.1
billion, when the estimated costs of the disposal of surplus plutonium and other
materials are included.
DOE explained that its more recent estimate of $29.4 billion for post-closure
site care and other long-term stewardship activities would be incurred over 75 years
through FY2082.37 DOE also assumed that some additional funds would be needed
to continue the long-term care of sites beyond this time frame, but stated that such
future costs over a lengthy planning horizon “cannot reasonably be estimated.”38 The
President’s FY2009 budget request for the long-term care of sites administered under
DOE’s Office of Legacy Management is discussed below.
Office of Legacy Management. Once a site is cleaned up and there is no
continuing DOE mission, responsibility for long-term care of the site is transferred
to DOE’s Office of Legacy Management.39 This office also manages the payment of
pensions and post-retirement benefits of former contractor personnel who worked at
these sites.40 As indicated in Table 16, the President has requested a total of $186.0
million for the Office of Legacy Management in FY2009, approximately $2.8 million
less than the appropriation of $188.8 million that Congress enacted for FY2008.
The President has proposed to consolidate the funding for this office within
DOE’s “Other Defense Activities” account, whereas Congress has been appropriating
the funding separately for defense and non-defense sites. DOE states that less than
20% of the funding in the FY2009 budget request would be devoted to non-defense
sites. Although the President’s total request for the Office of Legacy Management
35 Ibid.
36 DOE, Performance and Accountability Report Fiscal Year 2006, DOE/CF-0012, p. 173.
37 DOE, U.S. Department of Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2007, DOE/CF-
0022, pp. 62.
38 Ibid.
39 When there is a continuing mission, long-term site care is transferred to the program
office within DOE responsible for administering that mission or is the “landlord” of the site.
40 At sites with a continuing mission, payment of pensions and post-retirement benefits is
assigned to the program office within DOE that is responsible for administering that mission
or is the “landlord” of the site, rather than the Office of Legacy Management.

---

CRS-42
is a relatively small decrease below the FY2008 enacted appropriation, the funding
needs for the office are likely to grow significantly in future years, as more sites are
transferred from the Environmental Management Program for long-term care once
cleanup remedies are in place and wastes are disposed of permanently.
Table 16. Office of Legacy Management Appropriations
($ millions)
FY2009
Type
FY2008
of Site
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
Defense
$155.0
$186.0
Non-defense
$33.9
$0.0
Total
$188.8
$186.0
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service using information from the Department of
Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, FY2009 Congressional Budget Request, Volume 5,
February 2008. FY2008 enacted amounts reflect applicable rescissions, as reported by the Department
of Energy.
Power Marketing Administrations. DOE’s four Power Marketing
Administrations (PMAs) — Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Southeastern
Power Administration (SEPA), Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA), and
Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) — were established in response to the
construction of dams and multipurpose water projects operated by the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers. In many cases, conservation and
management of water resources — including irrigation, flood control, recreation or
other objectives — were the primary purpose of federal projects. However, these
facilities often generated electricity to meet project needs; PMAs were established
to market the excess power. (For more information, see CRS Report RS22564,
Power Marketing Administrations: Background and Current Issues, by Nic Lane.)
Priority for PMA power is extended to “preference customers,” which include
municipal utilities, co-ops, and other “public” bodies. The PMAs sell power to these
entities “at the lowest possible rates” consistent with what they describe as “sound
business practice.” The PMAs are responsible for covering their expenses and for
repaying debt and the federal investment in the generating facilities.
The Administration’s FY2009 request for the PMAs was $209.1 million (Table
7). This is an overall reduction of $8.3 million compared with the FY2008 request.
The individual requests for each PMA are: SEPA, $7.4 million; SWPA, $28.4
million; and WAPA, $193.3 million. WAPA figures net to $173.3 million with the
inclusion of $3.0 million for the Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance
fund and -$23.0 million for the anticipated difference between expenses and
offsetting collections for the Colorado River Basins Power Marketing Fund
(CRBPMF). BPA is a self-funded agency under authority granted by P.L. 93-454, the
Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act of 1974, and receives no
appropriations.

---

CRS-43
In FY2008 WAPA, SEPA, and SWPA proposed to assign “Agency Rates” to
new obligations. The Agency Rate is the rate at which federal corporations and BPA
borrow. This proposal was not enacted in FY2008 and was not included in the
FY2009 request.
Although BPA receives no annual appropriation, it 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 expects to use a net $269
million of borrowing authority in FY2008 ($510 million gross capital requirement
minus $241 million in bond repayment) and estimates that it will use a net of $301
million ($560 million need offset by $259 million bond repayment) in FY2009. Any
third-party funding agreements for capital projects may further restrict the agency’s
use of borrowing authority.
BPA has included no administrative proposals in the FY2009 budget request.
In FY2008, BPA proposed to use secondary net revenues beyond $500 million to
make advance amortization payments to the Treasury on BPA’s bond obligations.
The Appropriations Committees opposed that proposal and indicated that they hoped
the Administration would not pursue a similar proposal in FY2009.41
Title IV: Independent Agencies
Independent agencies that receive funding from the Energy and Water
Development bill include the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), and the Denali Commission.
Table 17. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title IV: Independent Agencies
($ millions)
FY2009
Program
FY2008
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
Appalachian Regional
Commission
$73.0
$65.0
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
926.1
1,017.0
(Revenues)
(779.1)
(855.5)
Net NRC (including Insp. Gen.)
147.0
161.5
Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board
21.9
25.0
Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board
3.6
4.0
Denali Commission
21.8
2.0
41 Joint Explanatory Statement to Accompany Consolidated Appropriations Amendment, p.
56. See [http://www.rules.house.gov/110/text/omni/jes/jesdivc.pdf].

---

CRS-44
FY2009
Program
FY2008
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
Fed. Coordinator, Alaska Gas
Projects
2.3
—
Delta Regional Authority
11.7
6.0
Total
281.3
263.5
Source: FY2009 Budget Request.
Key Policy Issues — Independent Agencies
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) requested $1.017 billion for FY2009 (including $9.0 million for the inspector
general’s office), an increase of $90.9 million from the FY2008 funding level. Major
activities conducted by NRC include safety regulation and licensing of commercial
nuclear reactors, licensing of nuclear waste facilities, and oversight of nuclear
materials users.
The NRC budget request included $237.5 million for new reactor activities,
largely to handle anticipated new nuclear power plant license applications. No
commercial reactor license applications had been submitted to NRC since the 1970s,
but higher fossil fuel prices and incentives provided by the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (P.L. 109-58) prompted electric utilities to announce plans for more than 30
reactor license applications over the next few years, with the first new application
submitted September 20, 2007. NRC predicts that 14 reactor license applications
will be submitted through FY2008 and seven more during FY2009. NRC’s proposed
FY2009 budget also included $37.3 million for licensing DOE’s planned Yucca
Mountain nuclear waste repository, with the expectation that DOE would submit a
repository license application in FY2008, although DOE has indicated that the
application could be delayed.
For reactor oversight and incident response, NRC’s FY2009 budget request
included $279.0 million. Those activities include reactor safety inspections,
collection and analysis of reactor performance data, and oversight of security
exercises. (For more information on protecting licensed nuclear facilities, see CRS
Report RL34331, Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities, by Mark Holt
and Anthony Andrews.)
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 permanently extended a requirement that 90%
of NRC’s budget be offset by fees on licensees. Not subject to the offset are
expenditures from the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for waste repository licensing,
spending on generic homeland security, and DOE defense waste oversight. The
offsets in the FY2009 request would result in a net appropriation of $161.5 million.

---

CRS-45
For Additional Reading
CRS Products
CRS Report RL31975. CALFED Bay-Delta Program: Overview of Institutional and
Water Use Issues, by Pervaze Sheikh and Betsy A. Cody.
CRS Report RL33504. Water Resources Development Act (WRDA): Corps of
Engineers Project Authorization Issues, by Nicole T. Carter, H. Steven Hughes,
Pervaze A. Sheikh and Jeffrey A. Zinn.

CRS Report RL32064. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Projects:
Authorization and Appropriations, by Nicole T. Carter and H. Steven Hughes,
CRS Report RS20866. The Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers:
A Primer, by Nicole T. Carter and Betsy A. Cody.
CRS Report RS21331. Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project,
by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RL31098. Klamath River Basin Issues: An Overview of Water Use
Conflicts, coordinated by Betsy A. Cody.
CRS Report RL32131. Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze A.
Sheikh and Barbara Johnson.
CRS Report RS21442. Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicle R&D: FreedomCAR and the
President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, by Brent D. Yacobucci.
CRS Report RL33558. Nuclear Energy Policy, by Mark Holt.
CRS Report RL34331. Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities, by Mark
Holt and Anthony Andrews.
CRS Report RL33461. Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal, by Mark Holt.
CRS Report RL32163. Radioactive Waste Streams: Waste Classification for
Disposal, by Anthony Andrews.

---