Energy and Water Development: FY2007 Appropriations

Energy and Water Development:
FY2007 Appropriations
Updated May 2, 2007
Carl E. Behrens, Coordinator,
David M. Bearden, Nicole T. Carter, Betsy Cody,
Mark Holt, Marc Humphries, 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?P RDS_CLI _ITEM_ID=73].

Energy and Water Development:
FY2007 Appropriations
Summary
The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill in the past included
funding for civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the
Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), most of the Department
of Energy (DOE), and a number of independent agencies. For FY2006, the Congress
reorganized the appropriations subcommittees and the content of the various
appropriations bills to be introduced. In the case of Energy and Water Development,
the only changes were the consolidation of DOE programs that had previously been
funded by the Interior and Related Agencies bill. That organization was followed by
the Administration in submitting its FY2007 budget request in February 2006.
Key budgetary issues involving these programs include
^!the need to balance efforts by the Army Corps of Engineers to
prevent storm damage in Louisiana with the rest of the agency’s
portfolio of authorized projects (Title I);
^!support of major ecosystem restoration initiatives, such as Florida
Everglades (Title I) and California “Bay-Delta” (CALFED) (Title
II);
^!funding for the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada, and proposals to store nuclear spent fuel
temporarily (Title III: Nuclear Waste Disposal); and
^!the Administration’s proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
to supply plutonium-based fuel to other nations (Title III: Nuclear
Energy).

Key Policy Staff
Area of ExpertiseNameCRS DivisionTelephone
GeneralCarl BehrensRSI7-8303
Carol GloverRSI7-7353
Corps of EngineersNicole CarterRSI7-0854
Steve HughesRSI7-7268
Bureau of ReclamationNic LaneRSI7-7905
Betsy CodyRSI7-7229
Solar and Renewable EnergyFred SissineRSI7-7039
Nuclear EnergyMark HoltRSI7-1704
Science ProgramsDaniel MorganRSI7-5849
Nuclear Weapons StewardshipJonathan MedaliaFDT7-7632
Nonproliferation and TerrorismCarl BehrensRSI7-8303
DOE Environmental ManagementDavid BeardenRSI7-2390
Power Marketing AdministrationsNic LaneRSI7-7905
Bonneville Power AdministrationNic LaneRSI7-7905
Fossil Energy ResearchMarc HumphriesRSI7-7264
Naval/Strategic Petroleum ReserveCarl BehrensRSI7-8303
Energy ConservationFred SissineRSI7-7039
Budget Data and Report PreparationCarol Glover RSI7-7353
^Divⁱ^sⁱ^on^abbrev^iation^s^:^R^S^{I = R}^e^s^o^u^r^ces^{, Scien}^{ce, an}^{d In}^du^s^t^ry^{; FDT}⁼^Foreigⁿ^A^f^f^a^irs^,^Def^eⁿ^s^{e, an}^d
^T^r^ade.

Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
Status ...........................................................1
Overview ........................................................2
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers.....................................4
Key Policy Issues — Corps of Engineers...........................5
Project Backlog and Agency Priorities.........................5
Everglades ...............................................6
Hurricane Katrina Repairs and Coastal Louisiana Restoration.......6
Title II: Department of the Interior....................................6
Central Utah Project and Bureau of Reclamation: Budget In Brief........7
Key Policy Issues — Bureau of Reclamation........................8
Background ..............................................8
CALFED ................................................9
Security .................................................9
Water 2025...............................................9
Title III: Department of Energy.......................................9
Key Policy Issues — Department of Energy........................11
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy......................11
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE)................13
Nuclear Energy...........................................14
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration........17
Strategic Petroleum Reserve................................19
Science .................................................20
Nuclear Waste Disposal....................................21
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship......................23
Nonproliferation and National Security Programs................31
Environmental Management................................33
Power Marketing Administrations............................39
Title IV: Independent Agencies.....................................41
Key Policy Issues — Independent Agencies........................41
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.............................41
For Additional Reading............................................43
CRS Products................................................43

Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2007...1
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2000 to FY2007..2
Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary..........3
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title I:
Army Corps of Engineers........................................4
Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title II:
Central Utah Project Completion Account..........................7
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title II:
Bureau of Reclamation..........................................7
Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title III:
Department of Energy.........................................10
Table 8. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs..............13
Table 9. FutureGen Funding Profile..................................19
Table 10. Funding for Weapons Activities.............................24
Table 11. NNSA Future Years Nuclear Security Program.................24
Table 12. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs...............31
Table 13. Environmental Management Program Appropriations............35
Table 14. Office of Legacy Management Appropriations.................39
Table 15. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title IV:
Independent Agencies.........................................41

Energy and Water Development:
FY2007 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
The Bush Administration’s FY2007 budget request was released in February
2006. The request followed the reorganization of appropriations subcommittees in
2005, in which the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill acquired
Department of Energy (DOE) programs that previously had been included in the
appropriations bill for Interior and Related Agencies. Including these programs, the
requested amount for FY2007 Energy and Water Development totaled $29.45 billion.
For FY2006, $36.73 billion was appropriated for comparable programs (including
$6.6 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations for the Corps of Engineers).
The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
marked up an FY2007 appropriations bill May 11, and the full committee approved
the bill (H.R. 5427, H.Rept. 109-474) May 17. The House passed the measure May

24.

The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
approved its version of H.R. 5427 on June 27, and the full committee reported it out
June 29 (S.Rept. 109-274). The Senate did not act on the bill in 2006.
Energy and Water Development programs were funded for FY2007 in the
Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (H.J.Res. 20, P.L. 110-5). On
March 16, 2007, DOE submitted its “operating plan” to Congress, detailing funding
for individual programs not specifically identified in P.L. 110-5.
Status
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2007
SubcommitteeCont. Resolution
Markup House House Senat e Senat e Cont . Approval
ReportPassageReportPassageRes.Public LawHouseSenateHouseSenate

5/11/066/27/06H.Rept.109-4745/24/06S.Rept.109-274 — H.J.Res.201/31/072/14/07P.L. 110-52/15/07

Overview
The Energy and Water Development bill has historically included funding for
civil works projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department
of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), most of DOE, and a number of
independent agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). With the reorganization of the
appropriations subcommittees in 2005, DOE programs that had been funded in the
Interior and Related Agencies bill were transferred to the Energy and Water
Development bill. The Bush Administration’s FY2007 request was $29.455 billion
for all of the programs now included in the Energy and Water bill, compared with
$36.726 billion appropriated for FY2006, including $6.6 billion in emergency
funding for the Corps of Engineers following the Katrina hurricane disaster.
H.R. 5427, as passed by the House May 24, 2006, would have appropriated
$30.017 billion for Energy and Water Development programs, $546 million more
than the requested amount. The Senate version of H.R. 5427, as reported by the
Senate Appropriations Committee, would have appropriated $31.238 billion. The
Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-5) appropriated $30.265 billion.
Table 2 includes budget totals for energy and water development appropriations
enacted for FY2000 to FY2006 and the requested amount for FY2007.
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations,
FY2000 to FY2007
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
F Y 00 F Y 01 F Y 02 F Y 03 F Y 04 F Y 05 F Y 06 F Y 07*

21.2 23.9 25.2 26.1 26.7 30.2^a 36.7^a,^b 29.4^a

^No^te:^T^h^{ese f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{es r}^e^p^r^esen^{t cu}^r^r^eⁿ^t^d^o^llar^s^{, ex}^clu^d^{e p}^e^r^m^an^en^{t b}^u^d^g^{et au}^th^o^r^{ities, an}^d^r^e^f^l^ect
^r^e^sc^issioⁿ^s.
^{* R}^e^q^u^e^s^t
^{a. I}ⁿ^clu^d^{es DOE p}^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^tr^an^sf^er^r^e^d^f^r^o^m^Iⁿ^terⁱ^o^r^an^d^Related^A^g^en^{cies ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^b^ill.
^b^.^Iⁿ^clu^d^{es $}⁶^.⁶^b^illioⁿⁱⁿ^em^er^g^eⁿ^c^y^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^r^th^{e Co}^r^p^{s o}^f^En^gⁱⁿ^eer^s.
Table 3 lists totals for each of the four titles. It also lists several “scorekeeping”
adjustments of accounts within the four titles, reflecting various expenditures or
sources of revenue besides appropriated funds. These adjustments affect the total
amount appropriated in the bill but are not included in the totals of the individual
titles. Amounts listed in this report are derived from the Administration’s FY2007
Congressional Budget Requests, from H.Rept. 109-474, from S.Rept. 109-274, and
from P.L. 110-5. For Title III, some figures from DOE’s FY2007 Operating Plan
were used.

Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary
($ millions)
TitleFY2006FY2007RequestHouseSenateP.L. 110-5
Title I: Corps of Engineers$11,914.6*$4,733.0$4,983.8$5,139.4$5,340.2
Title II: CUP & BOR1,054.8923.8941.01,067.31,054.7
Title III: Department of Energy24,046.824,074.824,373.524,725.124,093.2
Title IV: Independent Agencies268.4248.8227.8306.3306.0
E&W Subtotal 37,299.629,980.430,526.130,170.930,794.1
Scorekeeping Adjustments
Undistributed Pay Raise33.0
Title II
Central Valley(43.9)(33.8)NANA(44.0)
Title III
Colorado River Basins, WAPA(23.0)(23.0)NANA(23.0)
Uranium Fund(446.5)(452.0)NANA(446.0)
Excess Fees FERC(15.5)(16.4)NANA(19.2)
E&W Total36,725.729,455.230,017.031,238.030,294.9
^Source:^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^F^Y^{2007 bu}^dg^et^requ^es^t^,^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^{474, S}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^{274, P.L}^.^110-^5.
^No^te:^{Details m}^a^yⁿ^o^{t ad}^d^to^to^{tals d}^u^{e to}^r^o^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.^NA^{: No}^{t av}^ailab^l^e.
^*^Iⁿ^clu^d^{es $}⁶^.⁶^b^illioⁿ^em^er^g^eⁿ^c^y^su^p^p^l^em^en^{tal f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.^See^Ta^ble⁴^f^o^r^d^e^tails.
For the FY2007 Corps of Engineers budget, the Administration requested
$4.733 billion, a decrease of $0.595 billion from the enacted appropriation for
FY2006 (not including emergency supplementals). The House-passed bill would
have appropriated $4.984 billion. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $5.139 billion. P.L. 110-5 appropriated $5.239 billion. The
Administration asked for $923.8 million for FY2007 for the Department of the
Interior (DOI) programs included in the Energy and Water Development bill: the
Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah Project. This would be have been a
decrease of $131 million from the FY2006 funding level. The House bill would have
appropriated $941.0 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommendation was $1.0673 billion. P.L. 110-5 appropriated $1.011 billion.
The FY2007 request for DOE programs was $24.075 billion, approximately the
same amount appropriated for the previous year. The major activities in the DOE
budget are energy research and development, general science, environmental cleanup,
and nuclear weapons programs. Also included in the DOE total is funding of DOE’s
programs for fossil fuels, energy efficiency, and energy statistics, which had
historically been included in the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
The House bill would have funded these programs at $24.374 billion. The Senate

Appropriations Committee recommended $24.725 billion. P.L. 110-5 appropriated
$23.617 billion.
The FY2007 request for funding of the independent agencies in Title IV of the
bill was $249 million, compared with $268 million appropriated for FY2006. The
House bill would have appropriated $228 million. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $306 million. P.L. 110-5 appropriated $306 million.
Tables 4 through 15 provide budget details for Title I (Corps of Engineers),
Title II (Department of the Interior), Title III (Department of Energy), and Title IV
(independent agencies) for FY2005-FY2006.
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers
Under P.L. 110-5, the FY2007 Energy and Water Development appropriations
for the Corps is $5,340.2 million, which is close to the enacted amount for FY2006
(not including supplemental funds). Bill language specified the total amount for the
Corps’ various civil works budget accounts. Guidelines to the agency for how to
distribute each account’s funds across the hundreds of Corps projects usually are laid
out in congressional reports accompanying appropriations bills, with funding for only
10 to 30 projects, on average, specified in bill language. P.L. 110-5 eliminated the
provisions in the FY2006 bill language related to funding of specific projects; the
reports accompanying P.L. 110-5 did not provide guidance on how to distribute each
account’s money across the portfolio of Corps-authorized projects. Consequently,
the Administration had greater flexibility and discretion on how much to allocate to
authorized projects in FY2007 than it has had in most fiscal years. Reprogramming
and contracting restrictions enacted with the FY2006 appropriations, P.L. 109-103,
continue into FY2007 under P.L. 110-5.
The Corps reported its FY2007 work plan to the Appropriations Committees on
March 19, 2007. The work plan was developed so that generally only projects that
received money in FY2006 were funded, and generally the Administration’s FY2007
budget request was the basis for the amounts allocated to projects.
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers
($ millions)
FY2006 Approp.
ProgramFY2007RequestHouseSenateP.L.110-5P.L. 109-Emerg.
103 F undi ng^a Tot a l
Investigations and$162.4$40.6$203.0$94.0$128.0$168.5$162.9
Planning
Construction, 2,348.3 650.8 2,999.1 1,555.0 1,891.1 1,986.4 2,336.5
including rescission
Flood Control,396.0153.8549.8278.0290.6450.5396.6

Mississippi River

FY2006 Approp.
ProgramFY2007RequestHouseSenateP.L.110-5P.L. 109-Emerg.
103 F undi ng^a Tot a l
Operation and1,969.1330.72,299.82,258.02,195.52,030.01,975.1
Maintenance (O&M)
Regulatory158.4 — 158.0173.0173.0168.0159.3
General Expenses152.5 — 152.5164.0142.1164.0167.2
FUSRAP^b138.6 — 138.6130.0130.0140.0138.7
Flood Control and — 5,408.05,408.081.032.032.0 —
Coastal Emergencies
Office of the Asst.
Secretary 4.01.65.6 — 1.50.04.0
of the Army
Total Title I5,329.26,585.511,914.64,733.04,983.85,139.45,340.2
^Source:^F^Y^{2007 Bu}^dg^et^R^e^qu^es^t^;^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^474:^S^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^274;^P.L^.^110-^5;^A^r^m^y^C^o^rps^of
^En^gⁱⁿ^eers^Cⁱ^vⁱ^l^Work^s^:^F^Y^{2007 Work}^Pl^an^(March^{19, 2007).}
^{a. T}^h^{e D}^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2006 (P.L}^{. 109-}^{148) real}^l^o^cat^{ed F}^Y^{2005 em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y
^s^u^ppl^em^en^t^f^uⁿ^d^s^t^o^t^h^{e C}^o^rps^’^ci^vⁱ^l^w^o^rk^s^prog^ram^.^A^l^s^oⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^es^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^P.L^.^109-^234.
^b^.^“^F^o^r^m^e^r^l^y^Utilized^{Sites Rem}^e^dⁱ^{al A}^c^tioⁿ^P^r^o^g^r^a^m^.^”
Key Policy Issues — Corps of Engineers
Project Backlog and Agency Priorities. P.L. 110-5 did not address the
ongoing appropriations policy debate about how to structure the agency’s budget and
priorities. 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 an example of this lack of focus. Estimates
of the backlog’s size vary from $11 billion to more than $50 billion, depending on
which projects are included. Although some observers view the backlog as nothing
more than a Corps “to do” list, others are concerned that projects in the backlog face
construction delays and related cost overruns as available appropriations are spread
across an increasing portfolio of projects.
The Corps’ backlog of authorized projects and concerns about the fiscal
planning and management of the agency’s portfolio contribute to support for
performance-based criteria for structuring the agency’s budget and for concentrated
appropriations on a small set of priority projects. Others also express concerns about
the agency’s fiscal planning and management, yet reject both the use of performance-
based criteria that have been proposed and the focus on 8 to 10 priority projects.
These critics argue that the criteria used are too simplistic and that basing the Corps’
budget on performance criteria does not produce an integrated multiyear program for
the agency. They also argue that the focus on priority projects has resulted in a
disproportionate amount of the agency’s budget being concentrated on a few

projects, resulting in less investment in other authorized, cost-beneficial projects and
in those regions of the country that do not have priority projects.
Everglades. The Corps plays a significant coordination role in the restoration
of the Central and Southern Florida ecosystem. The agency’s FY2007 workplan
provided the $164 million sought for Everglades restoration activities by the
Administration in its FY2007 budget request — Central and Southern Florida Project
($91 million), Kissimmee River Restoration Project ($34 million), Everglades and
South Florida Restoration Projects ($4 million), and Modified Water Deliveries
Project ($35 million).¹ This is an increase from the $137 million appropriated for
Corps Everglades restoration projects in FY2006. The FY2007 work plan also
provided $3 million for the Florida Keys Everglades Improvement project, a project
that had received funding in FY2006 but was not part of the FY2007 budget request.
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 FY2006 emergency supplemental appropriations, as shown in Table
4. The Corps also received $400 million for these activities through FY2005
supplemental appropriations. The vast majority of the enacted and requested
supplemental appropriations for the region is for structural hurricane defenses;
coastal wetlands restoration activities by the Corps have received less than $200
million of the enacted Katrina appropriations. For more information on the FY2006
supplemental appropriations for Louisiana, see CRS Report RL33298, FY2006
Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq and Other International Activities; Additional
Hurricane Katrina Relief, coordinated by Paul M. Irwin and Larry Nowels.
Title II: Department of the Interior
The Department of the Interior initially requested that Congress provide an
increase in funding for the Central Utah Project Completion Account and reduction
for the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) for FY2007; however, the final FY2007
funding level is the same as that enacted for FY2006.

¹ For more information on the Modified Water Deliveries Project, see CRS Report RS21331,
Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project, by Pervaze A. Sheikh.

Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account
($ millions)
ProgramFY2006FY2007RequestHouseSenateP.L. 110-5
Central Utah Project Construction$31.4$37.6$37.6$37.6$31.4
Mitigation and Conservation Activities0.91.01.01.00.9
Oversight & Administration1.71.61.61.61.7
Total, Central Utah Project34.040.240.240.234.0
^Source:^Cen^t^r^a^{l Utah}^P^r^o^j^ect^Co^m^p^letioⁿ^A^c^t,^{FY2007 Budget Jus}^tification^;^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^474;^S^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^274;^P.L^.
^110-^5.
^No^te:^{Details m}^a^yⁿ^o^{t ad}^d^to^to^{tals d}^u^{e to}^r^o^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Bureau of Reclamation
($ millions)
ProgramFY2006FY2007RequestHouseSenateP.L. 110-5
Water and Related Resources$874.7$833.4$849.1$889.0$874.7
Desert Terminal Lakes Rescission — (88.0)(88.0)0.0 —
Policy & Administration57.358.158.158.157.3
CVP Restoration Fund (CVPRF)^a52.141.541.541.552.1
Calif. Bay-Delta (CALFED)36.638.640.138.636.6
Gross Current Authority1,020.7883.6900.81,027.21,020.7
CVP Collections^a(43.9)(33.8)(33.8)(33.8)(43.9)
Net Current Authority 976.8849.8867.0993.4976.8
Total, Title II1,054.7923.8941.01,067.31,054.7
^Source:^Bu^reau^of^R^ecl^am^atⁱ^oⁿ^F^Y^{2007 Bu}^dg^et^Ju^s^tⁱ^fⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^;^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^474;^S^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^274;^P.L^.^110-^5.
^{a. In}^its^requ^es^{t, th}^{e R}^eclam^ation^{lists CVP}^Co^llectioⁿ^s^{as an}^“^o^f^f^s^{et.” Co}ⁿ^g^r^{ess d}^o^e^{s n}^o^{t f}^o^llo^w^th^{is p}^r^o^ced^u^r^e.
Central Utah Project and Bureau of Reclamation:
Budget In Brief
The Administration requested $40.2 million for the Central Utah Project (CUP)
Completion Account for FY2007. Final FY2007 funding of the CUP remains at the
$34.0 million FY2006 level. The FY2007 request for the Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR) totaled $833.6 million in gross current budget authority, including a rescission
of $88 million for the Desert Terminal Lakes. This amount is $137.1 million less

than enacted for FY2006. The FY2007 request included “offsets” of $33.8 million
for the Central Valley Project (CVP) Restoration Fund, yielding a “net” current
authority of $849.8 million for BOR. BOR has been funded at the FY2006 level for
FY2007, with the total for Title II funding at $1.05 billion.
BOR’s single largest account, Water and Related Resources, encompasses the
agency’s traditional programs and projects, including construction, operations and
maintenance, the Dam Safety Program, Water and Energy Management
Development, and Fish and Wildlife Management and Development, among others.
The Administration requested $833.4 million for the Water and Related Resources
Account for FY2007. This amount is $41.3 million (4.7%) less than enacted for
FY2006. The FY2006 enacted funding level of $874.7 million is retained for
FY2007.
The House Appropriations Committee made recommendations to provide $17
million more for BOR programs than the President’s request. The Central Utah
project, Central Valley Project, and Policy and Administration were funded as
requested. The Committee recommended that the Water and Related Resources be
funded at a level $15.7 million higher than the FY2007 request. The California Bay-
Delta Restoration project also saw a recommended increase for FY2007 of $1.5
million.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended funding BOR Title II
programs at a level $109.8 million more than the President’s request and $92.6
million more than the House recommendations. The Central Utah Project, Central
Valley Project, and Policy and Administration were funded as requested by the
President and as recommended by the House. The California Bay-Delta Restoration
project was funded at the level requested by the President, but $1.5 million lower
than the House. The Committee recommended that Water and Related Resources be
funded at a level $55.6 million higher than the Administrations’s FY2007 request,
and $39.9 million more than the House provided. The Senate had no Desert Terminal
lakes rescission in its recommendations, this was -$88 million in the President’s
budget and House report.
The final continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5) appropriated the same amounts that
were appropriated for FY2006.
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 $38.6 million for the California Bay-
Delta Restoration Account (Bay-Delta, or CALFED) for FY2007. The bulk of the
requested funds were targeted at three main program areas, including the
Environmental Water Account, the Storage Program, and conveyance. The remainder
of the request was allocated for science, water quality, ecosystem restoration,
planning and management, and water use efficiency. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended funding CALFED at $1.5 million above the budget request
and provided a detailed delineation of how it expects funding to be allocated within
the program. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended funding
CALFED as requested by the Administration and $1.5 million less than the House.
P.L. 110-5 provides the same as the FY2006 level, $36.6 million. (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.)
Security. The Administration requested $39.6 million for site security for
FY2007. This amount is comparable to that enacted for FY2006. The bulk of the
request is for facility operations/security. Funding covers such activities as
administration of the security program (e.g., surveillance and law enforcement),
antiterrorism activities, and physical emergency security upgrades. P.L. 110-5
provides the same as the FY2006 level and the request, $39.6 million. (For more
information, see CRS Report RL32189, Terrorism and Security Issues Facing the
Water Infrastructure Sector, by Claudia Copeland and Betsy A. Cody.)
The FY2007 request assumes annual costs for guard and patrol activities will
be treated as project O&M costs, and hence will be reimbursable based on project
cost allocations. These costs are estimated to be $20.9 million in FY2007, of which
$18.9 million is reimbursable. BOR will continue to treat facility fortification and
antiterrorism management-related expenses as nonreimbursable.
Water 2025. The 2007 budget request for this program was $14.5 million, an
increase of $9.5 million from FY2006. In 2007, the program plans to continue
retrofitting and modernizing existing facilities aimed at water conservation. BOR
also plans to introduce a grant program for System Optimization Reviews in FY2007.
The House and Senate Appropriations Committees recommended funding Water

2025 at the level requested. P.L. 110-5 provides the same amount, $14.5 million.

Title III: Department of Energy
Until last year, the Energy and Water Development bill included funding for
most, but not all, of DOE’s programs; other DOE programs were funded in the
Interior and Related Agencies bill. 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.

The subcommittee reorganization of the appropriations committees last year
transferred DOE’s programs for fossil fuels, energy efficiency, the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, and energy statistics, formerly included in the Interior and
Related Agencies appropriations bill, to the Energy and Water Development bill.
Including the transferred programs, the total request for Title III for FY2007 was
$24.0748 billion, slightly more than appropriated for FY2006 (excluding the
adjustments noted in Table 3). The House-passed bill, H.R. 5427, would have
appropriated $24.3735 billion. The Senate Appropriations Committee version of
H.R. 5427 recommended $24.7251 billion. P.L. 110-5 appropriated $23.617 billion.
Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title III: Department of Energy
($ millions)
^Program^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Request^Hou^s^e^S^en^ate^P^.L^{. 110-5}²
^Energ^y^Supply^{& Co}^nserv^a^t^ioⁿ
^En^erg^y^Ef^fⁱ^ci^en^cy^&^R^eⁿ^e^w^a^bl^es^$1,173.8^$1,176.4^$1,319.4^$1,385.5^$1,474.3
^Electricity^Deliv^ery^&^En^erg^y^R^e^liability^161.9^124.9^144.0^135.0^137.0
^N^u^cl^ear^En^erg^y^416.0^559.8^499.8^711.3^618.2
^En^vⁱ^ron^m^en^t^,^S^a^f^e^t^y^{, H}^eal^t^h^27.7^29.1^29.1^29.1^27.8
^L^e^g^acy^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^33.2^33.1^33.1^33.1^33.2
^Ad^j^u^s^t^m^eⁿ^t¹^—^—^—^—⁽^135.0)
^To^t^a^{l, Energ}^y^Supply^{& Co}^ns.^1,812.6¹^,923.3²^,025.5²^,294.0²^,154.5
^Fo^{ssil Energ}^y^R&D^592.0^469.7^558.2^644.3^592.6
^Clean^{Coal T}^echⁿ^o^{logy (Deferral)}^(20.0)^—^—^(50.0)^—
^N^aval^Petrol^{. &}^Oi^l^S^h^a^l^e^R^e^s^erves^21.3^18.8^18.8^39.8^21.3
^Elk^H^{ills Scho}^o^l^La^{nds Funds}⁸⁴^.⁰^—^—^—^—
^{Strategic Petroleum}^Res^erve^207.3^155.4^155.4^155.4^164.4
^N^o^rth^e^as^{t Hom}^e^Heatiⁿ^{g Oi}^l^R^s^rv.^—^5.0⁵^.0^5.0⁵^.0
^{Strategic Petroleum}^Acct.⁽⁴³^.⁰⁾^—^—^—^—
^Eⁿ^{ergy I}ⁿ^form^ati^oⁿ^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rati^on^85.3^89.8^89.8^93.0^90.7
^No^n-^Def^e^{nse Env}ⁱ^ro^nm^ent^a^{l Clea}^nup^349.7^310.4^309.9^310.4^349.7
^U^r^anⁱ^u^m^D^econ^t^amⁱⁿ^ati^oⁿ^an^d^556.6^579.4^579.4^573.4^556.6
^D^ecom^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^onⁱⁿ^{g Fu}ⁿ^d
^Science
^Hⁱ^g^h^En^erg^y^Ph^y^sⁱ^c^s^716.7^775.1^775.1^766.8^751.8
^N^u^cl^{ear Ph}^y^sⁱ^c^s^367.0^454.1^454.1^434.1^422.8
^Basⁱ^{c En}^erg^y^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^ces^1,134.6¹^,421.0¹^,421.0¹^,445.9^1,250.3
^Bi^{o. &}^En^v^.^R^&^D^579.8^510.3^540.3^560.0^483.5
^F^u^sⁱ^on^287.6^319.0^319.0^307.0^319.0
^A^d^v^aⁿ^{ced S}^cⁱ^eⁿ^tⁱ^fⁱ^c^C^o^m^p^u^tⁱⁿ^g^234.7^319.0^319.0^318.7^283.4
^Hⁱ^{gh E}ⁿ^e^r^gy^D^e^nsi^t^y^P^h^y^sⁱ^c^s^—^—^—⁷⁹^.⁹^—

^Program^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Request^Hou^s^e^S^en^ate^P^.L^{. 110-5}²
^O^t^h^e^r^281.6^309.3^309.3^334.3^292.2
^A^d^j^u^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^s⁽^5.6)^(5.6)⁽^5.6)^(5.6)⁽⁵^.⁷⁾
^To^t^a^{l, Science}^3,596.4⁴^,102.1⁴^,131.7⁴^,241.0³^,797.3
^{Nuclear Was}^t^{e Dis}^p^os^al^148.5^156.4^186.4^136.4^99.2
^Depa^rt^m^e^nt^a^l^Admⁱ^{n. (}ⁿ^et⁾^128.5^155.4^102.6^158.4^153.8
^{Office of I}ⁿ^s^p^{ector G}^e^neral^41.6^45.5^45.5^45.5^41.8
^{National Nuclear}^{Security Adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^stra^tioⁿ^(NNSA)
^Weapon^s^6,369.6⁶^,407.⁹⁶^,412.0⁶^,503.1⁶^,275.6
^N^u^cl^{ear N}^oⁿ^p^rolⁱ^f^eratⁱ^oⁿ¹^,614.8¹^,726.2¹^,620.9¹^,572.7¹^,683.3
^Nav^a^{l R}^eactors^781.6^795.1^795.1^795.1^781.8
^O^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rat^o^r^338.5^386.6^399.6^386.6^340.3
^T^o^ta^{l, NNSA}^9,104.5⁹^,315.8⁹^,227.6⁹^,257.4^9,081.0
^Defens^{e E}ⁿ^vironm^{ental Cleanup}^6,130.4⁵^,390.3⁵^,551.8⁵^,479.1⁵^,731.8
^{Other Defens}^{e Activities}^635.6^717.8^720.8^731.8^636.3
^Defens^{e Nuclear Was}^t^{e Dis}^p^os^al^346.5^388.1^388.1^358.1^346.5
^T^o^tal^,^Defen^s^{e Acti}^vi^ti^es^16,217.0^15,812.0^15,888.3^15,826.4^15,795.6
^Pow^{er M}^a^rk^{eting Adm}ⁱ^nis^t^rations^(PM^A⁾
^S^o^u^t^h^eas^t^e^rn^5.5⁵^.7^5.7⁵^.7^5.6
^S^o^u^t^h^w^es^t^e^rn^29.9^31.5^31.5^31.5^30.0
^Wes^t^ern^231.7^212.2^212.2^212.2^232.3
^Falcon^&^A^r^mⁱ^s^t^{ad O&}^M²^.7^2.5²^.5^2.5^2.7
^To^t^a^l,^P^M^A^s^269.7^252.0^252.0^252.0^270.6
^FE^RC^218.2^230.8^230.8^230.8^255.4
⁽^r^e^ve^nue^s)^(218.2)^(230.8)^(230.8)^(230.8)⁽^255.4)
^T^o^{tal, T}ⁱ^{tle III}^24,046.8^24,074.8^24.^375.5^24,725.1^24,093.2
^{1. In}^clu^d^es^{$122.6 m}^illion^f^r^om^Oth^e^{r Def}^eⁿ^s^{e A}^c^tiv^ities^an^{d $13.4 m}^illion^f^r^om^Nav^a^{l R}^eactors^.
^{2. F}ⁱ^g^u^r^esⁱⁿⁱ^t^a^lⁱ^c^s^{are f}^r^om^D^O^E^F^Y^{2007 O}^p^eratⁱⁿ^g^Pl^an^;^O^t^h^e^{r f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^{are f}^r^om^P.L^.^110-^5.
^Source:^D^O^E^F^Y^{2007 C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^Bu^dg^et^R^e^qu^es^t^,^F^e^bru^a^ry^2006;^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^474;^S^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^274;^P.L^.^110-^5;
^D^O^E^F^Y^{2007 O}^p^eratⁱⁿ^g^Pl^an^{, March}^{16, 2007.}
Key Policy Issues — Department of Energy
DOE administers a wide variety of programs with different functions and
missions. In the following pages, the programs are described, and major issues
identified, in approximately the order in which they appear in the budget tables in
Table 7.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. A key component of the
Administration’s American Competitiveness Initiative is the Advanced Energy
Initiative (AEI). DOE said AEI “aims to reduce America’s dependence on imported

energy sources.” Under AEI, initiatives for hydrogen, biofuels, and solar energy
would be supported by DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE). To support AEI, the DOE FY2007 request for EERE programs proposed
major funding increases under Hydrogen and Fuel Cell programs. The request also
sought large increases under the Biomass and Solar Energy programs. Overall, the
FY2007 DOE request sought $484.7 million for energy efficiency R&D, which was
$32.6 million, or 7.2%, more than the FY2006 appropriation. Also, the request
sought $359.2 million for renewable energy R&D, which was $126.0 million, or

54%, more than the FY2006 appropriation.

P.L. 110-5 (H.J.Res. 20) set EERE funding at $1.47 billion, which is $311.6
million more than the FY2006 appropriation. Table 8 shows how the DOE FY2007
Operating Plan would distribute the $311.6 million across major EERE programs.
The $107.0 million for Facilities contains an $80.9 million increase. It includes $63
million to build a new facility at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL),
$20 million for NREL’s ethanol research biorefinery, and $16 million for advanced
photovoltaic manufacturing equipment. Other key increases include Biomass
($109.9 million), Solar Energy ($77.6 million), Hydrogen ($40.1 million), and
Building Technologies ($36.1 million). The main cuts are for Weatherization grants
(-$38.0 million), Geothermal (-$17.8 million), and Small Hydro termination (-$0.5
million).
The House Committee report includes several policy directives to EERE. First,
it says (pp. 72-73) that EERE could have avoided employee layoffs at the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) through better management of uncosted
balances, and it directs EERE to report by January 31, 2007, on steps taken to
identify prior year balances and account for all out-year commitments. Second, the
report directs (p. 73) EERE to report by January 31, 2007, on the progress of
implementing the Inspector General’s recommendations to improve the management
of cooperative agreements (IG audit report DOE/IG-0689). Further, the report directs
(pp. 74-75) EERE to fully fund a biomass R&D grant to Natureworks LLC,
strengthen recruiting from Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and prepare
a report on solar water heaters by January 31, 2007, that covers potential energy
savings, market impediments, and deployment strategy. Also, one DOE-wide
directive that would clearly affect EERE involves funding for the Asia Pacific
Partnership (APP), which would support clean, energy-efficient technologies. The
report directs (pp. 67-68) DOE to submit a reprogramming request if it intends to
support APP with FY2006 funds and to submit a detailed budget justification (which
would be considered by the conference committee) if it proposes to use FY2007
funds. Other DOE-wide directives (pp. 68-70) that could affect EERE involve
refocusing of Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) funds to high-
priority research, elimination of “excess facilities,” updates of five-year plans, and
controls over the use of budget reprogrammings.
The Senate Committee report also includes several policy directives to EERE.
First, it recommends (p. 116) that DOE complete unfinished awards for biorefineries
before funding new ones. It urges that DOE focus on cellulosic ethanol to reduce oil
imports, and directs DOE to recommend ways to implement the cellulosic biomass
production incentive in EPACT (P.L. 109-58, §942). Second, the Committee joins
with the House in requiring (p. 117) a report on solar water heaters. Third, it urges

(p. 117) DOE to focus on non-silicon materials and directs DOE to prepare a report
by March 31, 2007, on short- and long-term silicon market conditions and the
potential impact on the photovoltaic market. Fourth, it recommends (p. 117) a $9
million increase to support deployment of a solar-hydrogen pilot plant that would
fulfill certain sections of EPACT. Fifth, the Committee directs (p. 117) that funding
for a 1 MW solar thermal facility can only be used for deployment in New Mexico.
Sixth, it requests (pp. 117-118) that EERE and OE provide a report by March 2007
that identifies the most promising locations for wind resources and the best
opportunities for integrating the potential power generation facilities into the electric
grid. Seventh, it encourages (p. 118) DOE to form an interagency group to promote
renewable energy use in all aspects of federal agency operations, especially those on
federal lands. In particular, this group should address the issue of wind energy
project delays due to Department of Defense concerns about radar interference.
Eighth, it recommends (p. 118) that $2.4 million be provided as a competitive award
for development of a 2 MW permanent magnet motor wind turbine, which has the
potential to eliminate the need for gearboxes. Ninth, it directs (p. 118) that funding
for Hydropower include a study of advanced techniques for ocean energy, including
an assessment of locations for demonstration plants, with a report by May 1, 2007.
Tenth, it directs (pp. 118-119) DOE to study possible impacts of plug-in hybrids on
electricity supply and distribution networks, including urban areas, and to study
environmental aspects of fuel-switching. Eleventh, it directs (p. 119) DOE to
provide a strategy to accelerate the development of zero energy buildings by five to
seven years.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE). The FY2007 request
included $124.9 million for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
(OE). The House approved $144.0 million, and the Senate Appropriations
Committee approved $135.0 million. P.L. 110-5 includes $137.0 million, which is
$21.2 million less than the FY2006 appropriation.
Table 8. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs
($ millions)
FY2007FY2007FY2007 FY2007
ProgramFY2006RequestHouseSenate P.L. 110-5
Hydrogen Technologies$153.5$195.8$195.8189.9193.6
— Fuel Cell Technologies66.696.696.685.4 —
Biomass & Biorefinery Systems89.8149.7149.7213.0199.7
— Biochemical Platform10.432.832.8 — —
(Cellulose)
Solar Energy81.8148.4148.4148.4159.4
— Photovoltaics58.8139.5134.5125.5 —
Wind Energy38.343.843.839.449.3
Geothermal Technology22.80.05.022.55.0
Small Hydropower0.50.00.04.00.0
Vehicle Technologies178.4166.0172.5180.0188.0

FY2007FY2007FY2007 FY2007
ProgramFY2006RequestHouseSenate P.L. 110-5
Building Technologies68.277.380.095.3104.3
Industrial Technologies52.145.651.647.656.6
Federal Energy Management19.016.918.916.919.5
Facilities & Infrastructure26.15.915.95.9107.0
Weatherization Grants242.6164.2268.0200.0204.6
State Energy Grants35.649.549.549.549.5
Program Management115.2102.0102.0101.9110.2
R&D Subtotal884.6962.81,001.41,136.01,220.3
Grants Subtotal278.2213.7317.5249.5254.0
Use of Prior Year Balances — — — — —
Total Appropriation, EE &RE1,162.71,176.41,319.41,385.51,474.3
Office of Electricity Delivery &158.2124.9144.0135.0137.0
Energy Reliability (OE)*
^Source:^D^O^E^F^Y^{2007 O}^p^eratⁱⁿ^g^Pl^an^;^S^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^274;^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109}^-^474;^D^O^E^F^Y^{2007 C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^Bu^dg^e^t
^R^e^qu^es^t^,^v^.^{3, F}^e^{b. 2006.}
^*^T^h^{e D}ⁱ^s^t^ri^bu^t^e^{d En}^erg^y^Prog^ram^w^a^s^m^o^v^e^{d f}^r^om^EER^{E t}^o^O^Eⁱⁿ^F^Y^2006.
Nuclear Energy. For nuclear energy research and development — including
advanced reactors, fuel cycle technology, nuclear hydrogen production, and
infrastructure support — DOE requested $632.7 million for FY2007, an 18.1%
increase from the FY2006 appropriation. The request would have boosted funding
for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) from $79.2 million in FY2006 to
$243.0 million in FY2007. The higher AFCI funding was intended to allow DOE to
begin developing an engineering-scale facility to demonstrate new technology for
separating plutonium and uranium in spent nuclear fuel, as part of the
Administration’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). The nuclear energy
program is run by DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology.
The House on May 24, 2006, passed its version of the FY2007 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5427, H.Rept. 109-474) with $572.8
million for nuclear energy research and development — $59.9 million below the
Bush Administration’s request but $20.8 million above the FY2006 funding level.
The House-passed funding bill would have cut the AFCI funding request to $120
million, which would still have been 50% above the FY2006 level. In contrast, the
Senate Appropriations Committee voted June 29 to increase nuclear energy funding
by $151.5 million over the request, to $784.2 million, including $279.0 million for
AFCI (S.Rept. 109-274).
The DOE FY2007 operating plan provides $618.2 million for nuclear energy,
about 10% above the FY2006 level. AFCI funding more than doubles to $167.5
million.

According to DOE’s FY2007 budget justification, the nuclear energy R&D
program is intended “to enable nuclear energy to fulfill its promise as a safe,
advanced, inexpensive and environmentally benign approach to providing reliable
energy to all of the world’s people.” 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.
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. The United States and
other advanced nuclear nations would lease new fuel to other nations that agreed to
forgo uranium enrichment, spent fuel recycling (also called reprocessing), and other
fuel cycle facilities that could be used to produce nuclear weapons materials. The
leased fuel would then be returned to supplier nations for reprocessing. Solidified
high-level reprocessing waste would be sent back to the nation that had used the
leased fuel, along with supplies of fresh nuclear fuel, according to the GNEP concept;
see [http://www.gnep.energy.gov].
Although GNEP is largely conceptual at this point, DOE issued a Spent Nuclear
Fuel Recycling Program Plan in May 2006 that provides a general schedule for a
GNEP Technology Demonstration Program (TDP),² 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, is
to focus on the design of technology demonstration facilities, which then are to begin
operating during Phase 3, from FY2008 to FY2020.
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.³
Nuclear Power 2010. President Bush’s specific mention of “clean, safe
nuclear energy” in his 2006 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

² DOE, Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling Plan, Report to Congress, May 2006.
³ Union of Concerned Scientists, U.S. Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Initiative,
[ h t t p : / / w w w . u c s u s a . o r g/ gl o b a l _ s e c u r i t y/ n u c l e a r _ t errorism/doe_proliferation_r e s i s t a n c e .
html]

preparing detailed plant designs. The program is intended to provide assistance for
advanced versions of existing commercial nuclear plants that could be ordered within
the next few years.
The Nuclear Power 2010 Program is helping three utilities seek NRC approval
for potential nuclear reactor sites in Illinois, Mississippi, and Virginia. The first of
those, for the Illinois site, was issued March 15, 2007, and the second, for the
Mississippi site, on March 27, 2007. In addition, 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’s FY2007
budget request included $54.0 million for Nuclear Power 2010; the House-passed
funding bill would have provided the full request, and the Senate Appropriations
Committee voted to increase the program’s funding to $88.0 million. DOE’s
operating plan provides $80.3 million. DOE assistance under the program, including
the early site permits, is planned to reach a multiyear total of about $550 million.
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 $31.4 million was requested for FY2007 — 30% less than the
FY2006 request and more than 40% below the final appropriation of $53.3 million.
The House-passed funding bill would have provided the requested amount; most of
the proposed reduction would have come from the Next Generation Nuclear Plant
(NGNP), which would have dropped from $40 million to $23.4 million. The Senate
Appropriations Committee voted to provide $48.0 million for the program and
continue level funding of $40.0 million for NGNP. The DOE operating plan
provides $35.6 million for Generation IV.
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. The Generation IV
program is focusing on advanced designs that could be commercially available
around 2020-2030.
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. The nuclear energy program’s Advanced
Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) was the primary component of GNEP in the FY2007
budget request. The $243 million budget request for AFCI constituted nearly all of
the $250 million GNEP program (with the remaining $7 million requested for
program direction).
According to the 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 re-use in a
nuclear reactor or for transmutation in a particle accelerator. Most of the proposed
AFCI funding would be for an engineering-scale demonstration of a separations
technology called UREX+ ($155 million), in which uranium and other elements are
chemically removed from dissolved spent fuel, leaving a mixture of plutonium and
other highly radioactive elements. Proponents believe the process is proliferation-
resistant, because further purification would be required to make the plutonium

useable for weapons and because its high radioactivity would make it difficult to
divert or work with.
However, the House Appropriations Committee expressed concern that more
fundamental research on the UREX+ process was needed, particularly on waste
byproducts, before moving ahead to the demonstration phase. As a result, the House-
passed energy and water funding bill would have held the program’s spending to
$120 million. But the Senate Appropriations Committee, calling GNEP “imperative”
for reducing nuclear waste and increasing energy supplies, boosted AFCI funding by
$36 million over the request. As noted above, the spending plan provides $167.5
million for the program.
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
would reduce the heat generated by nuclear waste — the major limit on the
repository’s capacity — by removing cesium and strontium for separate storage and
decay over several hundred years. Plutonium and other long-lived elements would
be fissioned in accelerators or fast reactors (such as the type under development by
the Generation IV program) to reduce the long-term hazard of nuclear waste. Even
if technically feasible, however, the economic viability of such waste processing has
yet to be determined, and it still faces significant opposition on nuclear
nonproliferation grounds.
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative. In support of President Bush’s program to
develop hydrogen-fueled vehicles, DOE requested $18.7 million in FY2007 for the
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, a 25% reduction from the FY2006 level. The House-
passed funding bill would have provided the same amount, but the Senate
Appropriations Committee voted to boost the program to $31.7 million. The DOE
operating plan provides $19.3 million. According to DOE’s FY2005 budget
justification, “preliminary estimates ... indicate that hydrogen produced using
nuclear-driven thermochemical or high-temperature electrolysis processes would be
only slightly more expensive than gasoline” and result in far less air pollution.
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration. The
Bush Administration’s FY2007 budget request of $469.7 million for fossil energy
research and development was about 21% less than the amount enacted for FY2006
($592.0 million). Major funding categories and amounts included Coal (President’s
Coal Research Initiative, $280.7 million, and Other Coal Related Activities, $63.9
million), Program Direction ($129 million), and Fossil Energy Environmental
Restoration ($9.7 million). Coal and coal-related activities accounted for more than
70% of the FY2007 Fossil Energy R&D budget request. The House bill would have
funded Fossil Energy programs at $558.2 million, including increasing the Clean
Coal Power Initiative from $5 million to $36.4 million, and other increases in the
Fuels and Power Systems category. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved
$644.3 million for Fossil Energy programs, 37% more than the Administration’s
request. It would have provided $70 million for the Clean Coal Power Initiative and
substantial increases for the Fuels and Power Systems programs. P.L. 110-5 funded
the programs at the FY2006 level, $592 million.

DOE again proposed for FY2007 to terminate both the Natural Gas and Oil
Technology programs, based on a Program Assessment Rating Tool review that rated
both programs ineffective. Congressional support of Natural Gas and Oil
Technology programs has been significantly higher than the Bush Administration’s
request in previous years. Congress funded both programs in FY2006. The House
Committee agreed not to fund Natural Gas Technologies and scaled back funding for
Petroleum Technologies to $2.7 million because, according to the Committee, the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes $50 million of “mandatory receipts” for oil and
gas technologies R&D. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $17
million for the development of natural gas from methane hydrates and $10 million
for R&D efforts in oil shale and tar sands technology.
The Administration’s $5 million request for its Clean Coal Power Initiative
(CCPI) would have been directed toward the next CCPI solicitation, but no new
money would have been requested for CCPI projects directly. The Administration
said it would rather improve the use of current CCPI funds. The Senate
Appropriations Committee believed that the small request for CCPI was inconsistent
with the Administration’s goal of long-term domestic energy development.
According to DOE’s budget justification, CCPI is a “cost-shared program between
the government and industry to rapidly demonstrate emerging technologies in coal-
based power generation and to accelerate their commercialization.” About $500
million has been appropriated since FY2002. The Administration previously
announced its commitment to spend $2 billion over 10 years for clean coal research.
CCPI is similar to the Clean Coal Technology Program (CCTP), which began in the
late 1980s. CCTP has completed most of its projects and has been subject to
rescissions and deferrals since the mid-1990s. It eventually is to be phased out.
However, while Congress and the Administration agreed that there is an
unused, previously appropriated balance of $257 million from the Clean Coal
Technology Program, the Administration requested again in FY2007 to rescind the
money and incorporate the funds into the fossil fuel account for FutureGen activities
as an advanced appropriation to be used beginning in FY2007 ($54 million) and
beyond. In FY2006, Congress deferred the $257 million but acknowledged that the
funds would be used for the FutureGen program in fiscal years 2007 and beyond (see
FutureGen funding schedule in Table 9, below). FutureGen is a project to
demonstrate co-production of electricity and hydrogen from coal without emissions.
For FY2007, the House Appropriations Committee recommended rescinding $257
million of clean coal funding because it is “no longer needed to complete active
projects in the program.” The Senate Appropriations Committee would instead have
deferred $203 million and rescinded $50 million from the CCTP. None of these
proposals was included in P.L. 110-5.
Within the Coal R&D program, the Administration requested $54 million for
gasification research in FY2007, about $2 million less than what was enacted for
FY2006. This level of funding request indicated a sustained commitment by the
Administration and Congress to the integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC)
technology aimed at commercialization. There is ongoing investment in IGCC
because of its potential benefits from reduced NOx, SOx, mercury, and fine
particulate matter emissions. Moreover, lower CO2 emissions through greater plant
efficiencies and/or potential sequestration could be substantial. Under the

Administration’s request, funding for DOE’s Carbon Sequestration program would
have increased from $66.3 million in FY2006 to $73.9 million in FY2007. The
House Appropriations Committee supported FutureGen and Carbon Sequestration
programs at the same levels of funding as the Administration’s request. The Senate
Appropriations Committee voted to provide $90 million for Carbon Sequestration,
$16 million more than the Administration’s request and the House allowance and the
same level of funding for FutureGen as the Administration’s request. But the Senate
Committee expressed its concern over the need for the Administration to maintain
an adequate level of funding for core fossil energy R&D programs.
Table 9. FutureGen Funding Profile
($ millions)
Other cash
FYDOE directflowsTotal
2004-200527211
200618725
2007502575
200810044144
20098975164
20105766123
2011-2018 159 224 383
Total500450950
^Source:^U^.^S.^D^e^p^a^r^t^m^e^nt^o^f^Eⁿ^e^r^gy^,^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^o^f^F^o^s^sⁱ^l^Eⁿ^e^r^gy^,^Fut^u^r^e^G^e^n,^Iⁿ^t^e^gr^a^t^e^d^H^y^d^r^o^g^eⁿ^,
^{Electric P}^o^w^e^{r P}^r^odu^ction^an^{d C}^a^rbon^Sequ^es^tration^R^e^s^earch^In^itiativ^{e, March}^2004.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR),
authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94-163) in late 1975,
consists of caverns formed out of naturally occurring salt domes in Louisiana and
Texas in which roughly 685 million barrels of crude oil are stored. 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.
Recent program costs for the SPR have been almost exclusively dedicated to
maintaining SPR facilities and keeping the SPR in readiness should it be needed.
Congress agreed to a funding level of $207.3 million for the program in FY2006.
The Administration request for FY2007 for the SPR was $155.4 million, and the
House and Senate bills included the same amount. P.L. 110-5 did not specifically
change SPR’s FY2007 funding from the FY2006 level of $164.4 million, and DOE’s
FY2007 operating plan projects that amount of spending.

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 basic⁴
research and the largest federal funder of research in the physical sciences. For
FY2007, DOE requested $4.102 billion for Science, an increase of 14% from the
FY2006 appropriation of $3.596 billion. This unusually large increase reflected the
American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which the President announced in his
State of the Union address on January 31, 2006. Over the next 10 years, the ACI
would double R&D funding for the DOE Office of Science and two other agencies.
The House provided $4.132 billion, or $30 million more than the request. The
Senate committee recommended $4.241 billion, or $139 million more than the
request. The appropriation specified in the final continuing resolution was $3.796
billion (P.L. 110-5, Sec. 20313).
The requested funding for the largest Office of Science program, basic energy
sciences, was $1.421 billion, a 25% increase from the FY2006 level of $1.135
billion. About $200 million of the requested increase would have supported
expanded facility operating time. (The House and Senate appropriations reports for
FY2006 both called for increased funding for this purpose.) The House provided the
requested amount. The Senate committee recommended an additional $25 million
for water-related research. Under the March 2007 operating plan, basic energy
sciences received $1.250 billion.
The request for fusion energy sciences was $319 million, an 11% increase.
Included was $60 million for U.S. participation in the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor (ITER), a fusion facility whose other participants include
China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia, and South Korea. The estimated
total U.S. share of the cost of ITER is $1.2 billion through FY2014. The House and
conference appropriations reports for FY2006 both directed DOE to fund ITER out
of additional resources, not through reductions in the domestic fusion program.
Although the multiyear increase proposed for Science as part of the American
Competitiveness Initiative may take some of the budget pressure off the fusion
program, the impact of ITER on the domestic program is likely to remain an issue for
future years. The House provided the requested amount, with the House committee
report expressing pleasure “that the department finally requested sufficient funding.”
The Senate committee recommended the requested amount, but proposed moving
$12 million of it to a new Science program in high energy-density science. Under the
Senate committee recommendations, the new program would also have received $20
million moved from nuclear physics, $8 million moved from high-energy physics,
and $39 million moved from the inertial confinement fusion program (in the
Weapons Activities account) for a total of $80 million. Under the March 2007
operating plan, fusion energy sciences received the requested amount, $319 million.
The operating plan did not include the Senate’s proposed new program in high
energy-density science.

⁴ Based on preliminary FY2005 data from Tables 29 and 22 of National Science Foundation,
Division of Science Resources Statistics, Federal Funds for Research and Development:
Fiscal Years 2003, 2004, and 2005, NSF 06-313 (May 2006).

Biological and environmental research was the only Science program whose
request for FY2007 was less than it received in FY2006: $510 million, down 12%.
The decrease resulted from the requested termination of 161 congressionally directed
projects, with total funding of $130 million, that were specified in the FY2006
appropriations conference report. The House provided the requested funding plus an
increase of $30 million to pay for 67 directed projects. The Senate committee
recommended the requested funding plus an increase of $50 million to pay for 61
directed projects. As in FY2006, the budget request for biological and environmental
research included no funds for nuclear medicine. The Senate bill (Sec. 314) would
have directed DOE to support nuclear medicine activities from the Energy
Technology Commercialization Fund established by Sec. 1001(e) of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). The Senate report expressed the committee’s
expectation that $25 million would be provided in this way. The March 2007
operating plan provided $483 million for biological and environmental research.
The three remaining Office of Science research programs would all have
received increases under the FY2007 request: $775 million for high-energy physics,
up 8% from FY2006; $454 million for nuclear physics, up 24%; and $319 million for
advanced scientific computing research, up 36%. The request for nuclear physics
included no funds for construction of the Relativistic Ion Accelerator, despite
direction in Sec. 981 of P.L. 109-58 that construction of this project must begin no
later than the end of FY2008. The House provided the requested amount for all three
programs, and the House committee report directed DOE to submit a report on its
plans to comply with or seek relief from the Relativistic Ion Accelerator requirements
of P.L. 109-58. The Senate committee recommended the requested amount for all
three programs but moved some of the recommended funds to a new program in high
energy-density science as noted above. The Senate committee report also expressed
concern about the long-term effects that funding for the planned International Linear
Collider project may have on other activities supported by the high-energy physics
program. (In this discussion, the Senate report made analogies with both ITER and
the Relativistic Ion Accelerator.) For all three programs, the March 2007 operating
plan provided more than the FY2006 appropriation but less than the request: $752
million for high-energy physics, $423 million for nuclear physics, and $283 million
for advanced scientific computing research.
The Senate committee recommended an increase of $25 million in non-research
funding for science workforce development. The additional funds would have paid
for graduate fellowships, summer training for primary and secondary mathematics
and science teachers, and the use of national laboratory staff and equipment to
support centers of excellence in public secondary schools. These activities were
closely related to provisions of the PACE-Energy Act (S. 2197) and PACE-Education
Act (S. 2198). The March 2007 operating plan provided $8 million for the workforce
development program, a decrease of $3 million from the request.
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. OCRWM’s funding comes from two
appropriations accounts: the Nuclear Waste Disposal account, for which DOE
requested $156.4 million for FY2007, and Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, with a

request of $388.1 million. Appropriations under the Nuclear Waste Disposal account
come from the Nuclear Waste Fund, which holds disposal fees paid by nuclear
utilities.
The total FY2007 nuclear waste budget request of $544.5 million was $50
million above the FY2006 appropriation. The House approved the full request, plus
$30 million, not from the Nuclear Waste Fund, “to initiate the process for selecting
and licensing one or more interim storage sites.” The House Appropriations
Committee further stated:
If the Congress has not provided the Department with clear statutory authority
for interim storage by the end of FY2007, the remaining funds shall be re-
directed to non-site-specific activities to select a second repository for nuclear
waste disposal, consistent with Section 161 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
[which prohibits site-specific activities on a second repository].
The Senate Appropriations Committee voted to cut the request to $494.5
million, about the same as the FY2006 funding level. Delays in the Yucca Mountain
program “have forced the Committee to reconsider the project’s budget needs,”
according to the panel’s report. The Committee directed DOE to reduce funding for
transportation activities related to future waste disposal at Yucca Mountain and to not
proceed with any procurement or construction activities at a planned waste canister
handling facility. The DOE FY2007 operating plan provides $445.7 million for the
nuclear waste program — $99.2 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund and $346.5
million in the defense nuclear waste disposal account.
DOE announced on October 25, 2005, that it would require most spent fuel to
be sealed in standardized canisters before shipment to Yucca Mountain, a change that
would largely eliminate the handling of individual fuel assemblies at the site. DOE
subsequently informed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that making those
changes to the repository’s operational plans would further delay submission of a
Yucca Mountain license application to NRC. DOE announced on July 19, 2006, that
an application would be submitted by June 30, 2008, with a goal of opening the
repository in 2017.
Because of the continued delays, the Senate panel added an extensive provision
to the Energy and Water bill (section 313), which ultimately was not enacted, to
authorize the Secretary of Energy to designate interim storage sites for spent nuclear
fuel. The Secretary would have been required, after consultation with the governor,
to designate a storage site in each state with a nuclear power plant, if feasible, or to
designate regional storage facilities. Such sites would have been required to be
federally owned or able to be purchased by the federal government from a willing
seller and could not be located in Nevada or Utah (which has a licensed but
undeveloped private storage site). DOE would have been required to take over all
responsibility for spent fuel stored at shutdown reactors, upon the reactor owners’
request. The storage provisions in this section would have been deemed sufficient
to satisfy NRC requirements that new nuclear power plants demonstrate the ability
to safely dispose of nuclear waste before being licensed to operate.

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. The nation’s largest nuclear
utility, Exelon Corporation, reached a breach-of-contract settlement with the federal
government in August 2004 that may total $600 million if DOE does not begin taking
spent fuel before its current goal of 2017.
Further delays in the Yucca Mountain program could result from a July 2004
court decision that overturned a key aspect of the Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA’s) regulations for the repository. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that EPA’s 10,000-year
compliance period was too short, but it rejected several other challenges to the
standards. EPA proposed revised Yucca Mountain standards on August 9, 2005.
More controversy erupted in March 2005 with the release of e-mail messages
from Yucca Mountain scientists that indicated that some of their data and
documentation may have been fabricated. The House Appropriations Committee
report cited all those problems as reasons for establishing a DOE interim storage
program. (For more information, see CRS Report RL33461, Civilian Nuclear Waste
Disposal, by Mark Holt.)
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. The three main elements of stockpile stewardship, described below, are
Directed Stockpile Work (DSW), Campaigns, and Readiness in Technical Base and
Facilities (RTBF). Table 10 presents funding for these elements. NNSA manages
two programs outside of Weapons Activities: Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation,
discussed later in this report, and Naval Reactors.
Most stewardship activities take place at the nuclear weapons complex, which
consists of three laboratories (Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM; Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, CA; and Sandia National Laboratories, NM and
CA); four production sites (Kansas City Plant, MO; Pantex Plant, TX; Savannah
River Site, SC; and Y-12 Plant, TN); and the Nevada Test Site. NNSA manages and
sets policy for the complex; contractors to NNSA operate the eight sites.

Table 10. Funding for Weapons Activities
($ millions)
Senate
F Y 2007 Approp. Operating
P r ogram F Y 2006 Re que s t H ous e Comm. Plan
DSW $1,372.3 $1,410.3 $1,312.2 $1,323.2 $1,425.7
Campaigns 2,123.2 1,937.4 2,033.6 2,027.6 1,979.0
CNPC — — 100.0 — —
RT BF 1,644.8 1,685.8 1,658.8 1,780.8 1,613.2
Other^a 1,229.4 1,374.5 1,307.4 1,371.5 1,257.7
Total 6,369.6 6,407.9 6,412.0 6,503.1 6,275.6
^Sources^:^D^O^E^F^Y^{2007 C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^Bu^dg^et^R^e^qu^es^t^,^v^o^l^.¹^(N^N^S^A⁾^,^{p. 55;}^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^{474, pp.}
^138-^142;^an^d^U^.^S.^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^En^erg^y^,^FY^{2007 O}^p^er^atⁱ^{ng Pl}^{an by Appr}^oprⁱ^a^tⁱ^on,^March^16,
^{2007, pp. 15-}^21.
^No^tes:^{Details m}^a^yⁿ^o^{t ad}^d^to^to^{tals d}^u^{e to}^r^o^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.^DSW^,^Dir^ected^Sto^c^k^pⁱ^l^e^W^o^r^k^{; RT}^B^F^,
^Readⁱⁿ^{ess in}^T^echⁿⁱ^{cal B}^a^{se an}^d^{Facilities; CNP}^C^{, Co}ⁿ^s^o^lid^ated^Nu^clear^P^r^o^d^u^ctioⁿ^Cen^t^er^.
^{a. I}ⁿ^clu^d^{es Secu}^r^e^T^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ^A^{sset, Nu}^clear^W^eap^oⁿ^{s I}ⁿ^cid^eⁿ^t^Resp^oⁿ^{se, F}^a^c^{ilities an}^d
^In^f^r^as^tru^c^tu^{re R}^{ecapitalization}^P^r^og^ram^,^En^vⁱ^ron^m^en^t^a^l^P^r^oj^ects^an^{d Operation}^s^{, Saf}^e^g^u^a^rds
^an^{d Secu}^rity^{, an}^{d s}^e^v^e^{ral adj}^u^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^s^.
The FY2007 request document includes data from NNSA’s Future Years
Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP), which projects the budget and components
through FY2011 (see Table 11).
Table 11. NNSA Future Years Nuclear Security Program
($ millions)
F Y 2007 F Y 2008 F Y 2009 F Y 2010 F Y 2011
DSW $1,410.3 $1,381.9 $1,431.4 $1,462.3 $1,495.0
Campaigns 1,937.4 1,961.6 1,920.9 1,899.0 1,853.3
RT BF 1,685.8 1,767.6 1,833.8 1,907.5 2,008.9
Other^a 1,374.5 1,425.0 1,480.7 1,531.3 1,578.9
T otal 6,407.9 6,536.0 6,666.8 6,800.1 6,936.1
^Source:^D^O^E^F^Y^{2007 C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^Bu^dg^et^R^e^qu^es^t^,^v^o^l^.^{1 (N}^N^S^A⁾^{, pp. 55, 56.}
^No^te:^Details^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add to totals}^becau^s^e^of^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.
^{a. I}ⁿ^clu^d^{es Secu}^r^e^T^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ^A^{sset, Nu}^clear^W^eap^oⁿ^{s I}ⁿ^cid^eⁿ^t^Resp^oⁿ^se^,^{Facilities an}^d
^In^f^r^as^tru^c^tu^{re R}^{ecapitalization}^P^r^og^ram^,^En^vⁱ^ron^m^en^{tal P}^r^oj^ects^an^{d Operation}^s^{, S}^a^fe^guards
^an^{d Secu}^rity^{, an}^{d s}^e^v^e^{ral adj}^u^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^s^.

Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration. In testimony before the
House Appropriations Committee’s Energy and Water Subcommittee in March 2004,
the Secretary of Energy agreed to conduct a review of reconfiguring the nuclear
weapons complex (the “Complex”). The Committee’s FY2005 energy and water
report contained a requirement for that study. The committee was concerned about
high costs, the security of fissile material distributed among many sites, and the size
and age of the current Complex. A task force of the Secretary of Energy Advisory
Board released its final report in October 2005. It recommended, among other things,
having a Consolidated Nuclear Production Center that would make nuclear
components (such as those of uranium or plutonium) for nuclear weapons and would
assemble and dismantle nuclear weapons. The task force also recommended
consolidating large quantities of uranium and plutonium at few sites, and probably
closing several current Complex sites. The House Appropriations Committee, in its
FY2007 report, supported the task force’s recommendations and rejected NNSA’s
plan to modernize the current Complex in place. The Committee recommended
$100.0 million “for transition planning, site selection, and preliminary design and
development for a consolidated nuclear production site for reliable replacement
warheads and stockpile support.” The bill as passed by the House provided this sum.
NNSA had not requested funds for this purpose. The Senate Appropriations
Committee did not recommend funds for this purpose, and the DOE Operating Plan
did not include such funds.
Directed Stockpile Work (DSW). This program involves work directly on
nuclear weapons in the stockpile, such as monitoring their condition; maintaining
them through repairs, refurbishment, life extension, and modifications; R&D in
support of specific warheads; and dismantlement. The FY2007 DSW request would
support life extension programs for three nuclear warheads: B61 (gravity bomb),
W76 (for Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles), and W80 (for cruise
missiles). It would fund surveillance and maintenance for nine warhead types,
dismantlement and disposition of retired warheads and components, and management
and technology work linked to multiple warhead types or to no specific warhead type.
It also included funds for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program.
RRW originated as a funded program in the FY2005 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-447, where it was described as a “program to improve
the reliability, longevity, and certifiability of existing weapons and their
components.” NNSA had not requested funds for it, and committee reports had not
mentioned it. Instead, the legislation transferred $9.0 million to RRW from the
Advanced Concepts Initiative, a weapons-related research program. NNSA
requested $9.4 million for RRW for FY2006. It stated that the program “is to
demonstrate the feasibility of developing reliable replacement components that are
producible and certifiable for the existing stockpile” and to initially provide
replacement pits (first-stage cores) “that can be certified without Underground
Tests.” For FY2006, Congress appropriated $25.0 million (subsequently reduced to
$24.75 million by a 1% across-the-board rescission). The FY2007 request was $27.7
million, and outyear projections were FY2008, $14.6 million; FY2009, $29.7
million; FY2010, $29.6 million; and FY2011, $28.7 million. (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, both by Jonathan
Medalia.)
Although RRW is a small program in relation to the total NNSA budget, the
House Appropriations Committee, in its FY2006 report on the energy and water bill,
viewed RRW as enabling large changes: transitioning the nuclear weapons complex
“from a large, expensive Cold War relic into a smaller, more efficient modern
complex”; allowing “long-term savings by phasing out the multiple redundant Cold
War warhead designs that require maintaining multiple obsolete production
technologies”; “obviat[ing] any reason to move to a provocative 18-month test
readiness posture” by increasing warhead reliability and reducing the need to test;
permitting a reduction in Advanced Simulation and Computing funds by redirecting
them to current warhead maintenance programs pending initiation of RRW; and
supporting other changes and budget decisions. The Senate Appropriations
Committee’s report stated that the recommended funding increase for RRW is “to
accelerate the planning, development and design for a comprehensive RRW strategy
that improves the reliability, longevity and certifiability of existing weapons and their
components.” The conference report emphasized that RRW design work “must stay
within the military requirements of the existing deployed stockpile” and that any
design “must stay within the design parameters validated by past nuclear tests.”
Other goals that the conference report set for RRW were improving manufacturing
practices, reducing cost, and increasing performance margins to support a reduction
in stockpile size. Further, P.L. 109-163, the FY2006 National Defense Authorization
Act, section 3111, set seven objectives for the RRW program, including “[t]o
increase the reliability, safety, and security of the United States nuclear weapons
stockpile” and “[t]o further reduce the likelihood of the resumption of underground
nuclear weapons testing.”
For FY2007, the Administration requested $27.7 million for RRW. In its
FY2007 report, the House Appropriations Committee linked RRW with a
restructured, smaller, and consolidated nuclear weapons complex. “The Committee
supports the RRW, but only if it is part of a larger package of more comprehensive
weapons complex reforms.” It recommended $52.7 million for RRW but restricted
use of the additional $25.0 million until NNSA delivered an infrastructure plan to
Congress. The committee also directed NNSA to have the JASON Defense Advisory
Group conduct a peer review of competing candidate RRW designs and to analyze
the premise of RRW — that a new warhead can be designed and deployed without
nuclear testing. The committee called for the report to be submitted to Congress.
The bill as passed by the House left these provisions unchanged.
Also under DSW, the committee (1) reduced the $232.7 million request for
warhead life extension programs by $80.0 million, directed NNSA to terminate the
life extension program for the W80 warhead for cruise missiles, and used the funds
to support weapons complex transformation; and (2) increased funding for warhead
dismantlement from $75.0 million to $105.0 million to accelerate that activity. The
bill as passed by the House left these provisions unchanged.
The Senate Appropriations Committee strongly supported RRW. It found, “The
directors of Los Alamos, Sandia and Livermore National Labs and the Commander,
U.S. Strategic Command share the belief that maintaining incremental modifications

to the existing and highly optimized legacy systems [i.e., life-extension programs
(LEPs) of warheads now in the stockpile] is not sustainable.” It “urges the NNSA
to accelerate the transition to a responsive infrastructure and to proceed expeditiously
with the RRW design.” It noted that DOD and the Nuclear Weapons Council no
longer support the W80 LEP, and provided $10.0 million for a design competition
for a second RRW in lieu of W80 LEP activities. It provided $62.7 million for
RRW, an increase of $35.0 million from the budget request. It recommended
reducing funds for warhead dismantlement to $35.0 million, preferring to ensure that
facilities for disassembling pits and for fabricating mixed-oxide fuel will be built
before providing full funding.
DOE’s FY2007 Operating Plan provided $35.8 million for RRW; $264.4
million for Life Extension Programs, including $12.5 million for the W80 Life
Extension Program; and $75.0 million for weapons dismantlement and disposition.
In the FY2004-FY2006 budget cycles, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator
(RNEP) was highly controversial. RNEP was to be a study of the cost and feasibility
of modifying existing nuclear bombs to enable them to penetrate the ground before
detonating, thereby magnifying their effect on a buried target. (See CRS Report
RL32130, Nuclear Weapon Initiatives: Low-Yield R&D, Advanced Concepts, Earth
Penetrators, Test Readiness, by Jonathan Medalia, and CRS Report RL32347,
“Bunker Busters”: Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Issues, FY2005 and FY2006,
by Jonathan Medalia.) The FY2005 and FY2006 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Acts deleted all funds for RNEP. For FY2007, NNSA requested no
funds for the program, and the FY2007 Operating Plan provided none.
Campaigns. These are “multi-year, multi-functional efforts” that “provide
specialized scientific knowledge and technical support to the directed stockpile work
on the nuclear weapons stockpile.” The FY2007 request included six Campaigns,
each with multiple components: Science, Engineering, Inertial Confinement Fusion
and High Yield, Advanced Simulation and Computing, Pit Manufacturing and
Certification, and Readiness. Many items within Campaigns have significance for
policy decisions. As one example, the Science Campaign’s goals include improving
the ability to assess warhead performance without nuclear testing, improving
readiness to conduct tests should the need arise, and maintaining the scientific
infrastructure of the nuclear weapons laboratories.
NNSA’s proposal to build a Modern Pit Facility (MPF) had been controversial
for a number of years. A pit is the fissile core of a nuclear weapon that is used to
trigger a thermonuclear explosion. The United States has been unable to manufacture
pits that can be certified for use in the stockpile since 1989. Los Alamos has a small-
scale pit manufacturing facility, called TA-55; NNSA’s plan is that TA-55 would be
able to manufacture 10 pits per year by the end of FY2007 and 30-40 by FY2012, but
NNSA saw that capacity as insufficient to maintain the stockpile and has favored
building MPF, with a capacity of perhaps 125 pits per year. H.R. 2419, the FY2006
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, as passed by the House,
eliminated MPF funds until “capacity requirements tied to the long-term stockpile
size are determined” and “until the long-term strategy for the physical infrastructure
of the weapons complex has incorporated the Reliable Replacement Warhead
strategy.” The bill as passed by the Senate provided the amount requested for MPF,

$7.7 million. The appropriation bill, as passed, provided no funds for MPF.
Conferees on the energy and water bill directed NNSA to focus instead on improving
manufacturing capability at TA-55. In response, NNSA requested no funds for MPF
for FY2007 and instead plans to increase capacity at TA-55. NNSA requested
$237.6 million for the Pit Manufacturing and Certification campaign for FY2007;
H.R. 5427 as passed by the House provided that amount, and the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended that amount. The FY2007 Operating Plan
included $242.4 million for this activity.
The appropriate test readiness posture — the time between a presidential order
to resume testing and the conduct of the test — has been contentious. The posture
was set at 24 to 36 months several years ago, with fears that it was in actuality 36
months or more. The Administration and Congress sought to shorten it, but there was
a dispute over how much. NNSA and the Armed Services Committees favored an 18-
month posture on grounds that it would take that long to prepare a test but that any
testing should not be delayed beyond that time. In contrast, the Appropriations
Committees favored a 24-month posture on grounds that an 18-month posture would
be provocative and significantly more costly. (See CRS Report RL33548, Nuclear
Weapons: Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, by Jonathan Medalia.) The FY2006
request was $25.0 million; the appropriation was $19.8 million. In its FY2007
request, NNSA stated that it achieved a 24-month readiness posture in FY2005 and
planned to maintain that posture at least through FY2011. It further stated that the
posture is 18 months “under current law” but that it “has thus far been limited to 24
months by Congressional funding.” The FY2007 test readiness request was $14.8
million; H.R. 5427 as passed by the House provided that amount, the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended that amount; and the FY2007 Operating
Plan included $14.6 million.
The Engineering Campaign includes the Enhanced Surveillance Program (ESP),
which seeks to develop “predictive capabilities for early identification and
assessment of stockpile aging concerns ... to give NNSA a firm basis for determining
when systems must be refurbished.” Of particular interest to Congress, it is
conducting experiments to determine the service life of pits based on plutonium
aging characteristics. The result will bear on decisions to build MPF and to pursue
RRW. NNSA requested $96.2 million for ESP for FY2006; the appropriation was
$99.2 million. The FY2007 request was $86.5 million; H.R. 5427 as passed by the
House provided that amount. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$103.2 million, with some of the funds “used to accelerate the deployment of
advanced micro-engineering devices that can be used to adopt advanced surveillance
devices into the RRW design.” The FY2007 Operating Plan provided $87.5 million.
According to NNSA, the Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) and High Yield
Campaign “is to develop laboratory capabilities to create and measure extreme
conditions ... approaching those in a nuclear explosion, and conduct weapons-related
research in these environments.” A key part of this campaign is the National Ignition
Facility (NIF), a partly completed facility at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory that is already the world’s most powerful laser. NNSA plans to complete
the NIF project by March 30, 2010.

For FY2006, NNSA requested $141.9 million for NIF construction, and H.R.
2419, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, as passed by the
House, contained that sum. The Senate Appropriations Committee noted that the
planned five-year budget projection for Weapons Activities in the FY2006 request
was reduced by $3.0 billion, compared with the FY2005 request, and directed that
no funds be expended on NIF construction “in order to focus on supporting a
comprehensive stewardship program.” The appropriation was $140.5 million.
For FY2007, NNSA requested $451.2 million for the ICF and High Yield
Campaign, of which $111.4 million was for NIF construction. H.R. 5427 as passed
by the House provided $528.2 million for this campaign, including the requested
amount for NIF construction. The Senate Appropriations Committee was critical of
NIF. It called NNSA’s “enhanced management” activity for the campaign “a NIF-at-
all-costs strategy.” It continued, “The NNSA has pursued this agenda as a means to
justify an aggressive spending baseline at the expense of more compelling
stewardship responsibilities in the ICF campaign. The NNSA has proven unable to
maintain a balanced ICF and high yield research program. As such the Committee
has reallocated funding out of NIF demonstration and Construction activities to
ensure that there is adequate program balance.” It recommended funding the
campaign at $412.3 million and, within that sum, funding NIF construction at $81.4
million. The FY2007 Operating Plan included $489.7 million for this campaign, of
which $111.4 million was for NIF construction.
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF). This program
provides infrastructure and operations at the nuclear weapons complex sites. The
FY2006 appropriation was $1,644.8 million; the FY2007 request was $1,685.8
million; and the FY2007 Operating Plan included $1,613.2 million. RTBF has six
subprograms. By far the largest is Operations of Facilities ($1,166.2 million
appropriated for FY2006; $1,203.8 million requested for FY2007; and $1,150.1
million in the FY2007 Operating Plan). Others include Program Readiness, which
supports activities occurring at multiple sites or in multiple programs ($104.7 million
appropriated for FY2006; $75.2 million requested for FY2007; and $75.2 million in
the FY2007 Operating Plan), and Material Recycle and Recovery, which recovers
plutonium, enriched uranium, and tritium from weapons production and disassembly
($72.0 million appropriated for FY2006; $70.0 million requested for FY2007; and
$70.0 million in the FY2007 Operating Plan). Construction is a separate category
within RTBF; the FY2006 appropriation for that purpose was $259.9 million, the
FY2007 request was $281.4 million, and the amount in the FY2007 Operating Plan
was $262.5 million.
For FY2007, the House Appropriations Committee recommended reducing
RTBF overall by $27.0 million from the request, including an increase of $73.0
million for Operations of Facilities and a reduction of $100.0 million, from a request
of $112.4 million, for a Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility Replacement
(CMRR). CMRR would replace a building about 50 years old at Los Alamos that,
among other things, conducts research into plutonium and supports pit production at
TA-55. The committee stated that CMRR construction should be terminated, DOE
should revise its long-term plan for the Complex, and “[p]roduction capabilities
proposed in the CMRR should be located at the future production site that supports
the RRW and long term stockpile requirements.” The committee noted that NNSA

proposed to build a Consolidated Plutonium Production Center by 2022, so that
“CMRR will serve its primary production support function for only eight years before
it is made obsolete by the new plutonium facility.” The House, in considering H.R.
5427, made no changes to these provisions. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $1,780.8 million for RTBF, including the amount requested for
CMRR. It said, “The Committee firmly believes this facility [CMRR] will continue
to play a central role in the plutonium mission at Los Alamos and is needed to
support the research and chemistry mission of plutonium activities.” The FY2007
Operating Plan included $1,613.2 million for RTBF, including $53.4 million for
CMRR.
Other Programs. Weapons Activities includes four smaller programs in
addition to DSW, Campaigns, and RTBF.
^!Secure Transportation Asset provides for the transport of nuclear
weapons, components, and materials safely and securely. It includes
special vehicles used for this purpose, communications and other
supporting infrastructure, and threat response. The appropriation for
FY2006 was $210.0 million. The FY2007 request was $209.3
million. The House-passed bill provided that amount, the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended that amount, and the
FY2007 Operating Plan included $209.5 million.
^!Nuclear Weapons Incident Response provides for use of DOE assets
to manage and respond to a nuclear or radiological emergency within
DOE, in the United States, or abroad. The FY2006 appropriation
was $117.6 million. The FY2007 request was $135.4 million; the
House-passed bill provided that amount, the Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended that amount, and the FY2007 Operating
Plan included $133.5 million.
^!Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP)
provides for deferred maintenance and infrastructure improvements
for the nuclear weapons complex. In contrast, RTBF “ensure[s] that
facilities necessary for immediate programmatic workload activities
are maintained sufficiently,” according to NNSA. The FY2006
appropriation for FIRP was $149.4 million, and the FY2007 request
was $291.2 million. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended reducing the latter sum by $145.0 million, and
“directs the NNSA to reassess its out-year planning for FIRP
projects to ensure coordination between FIRP funds and the reduced
facility requirements consistent with the consolidation of the
complex under the long-term Responsive Infrastructure planning.”
H.R. 5427 as passed by the House left these provisions unchanged.
The Senate Appropriations Committee made a number of increases
and decreases to FIRP, mostly to construction projects, and
recommended $283.2 million for the program. It said the funds were
“to restore, rebuild, and revitalize the physical infrastructure of the
nuclear weapons complex.” The FY2007 Operating Plan included
$169.4 million.

^!Safeguards and Security provides operations and maintenance funds
for physical and cyber security, and related construction, to protect
NNSA personnel and assets from terrorist and other threats.
Safeguards and Security is a major concern for NNSA. Ambassador
Linton Brooks, then Administrator of NNSA, stated to the Senate
Armed Services Committee on April 4, 2005, “We must now
consider the distinct possibility of well-armed and competent
terrorist suicide teams seeking to gain access to a warhead in order
to detonate it in place. This has driven our site security posture from
one of ‘containment and recovery’ of stolen warheads to one of
‘denial of any access’ to warheads. This change has dramatically
increased security costs for ‘gates, guns, guards’ at our nuclear
weapons sites.” The FY2006 appropriation was $797.8 million. The
FY2007 request was $754.4 million; the House Appropriations
Committee recommended increasing this sum by $78.0 million, to
$832.4 million, for various security upgrades. H.R. 5427 as passed
by the House left these provisions unchanged. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $759.4 million for this
program, adding $5.0 million for Sandia to conduct R&D on
enhanced security measures “to reduce the overall security costs for
the Complex.” The FY2007 Operating Plan included $761.2
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).
Funding for these programs in FY2006 was $1.615 billion. For FY2007, the
Administration requested $1.726 billion. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $1.593 billion.
Table 12. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
($ millions)
F Y 2007 P.L.^c
P r ogram F Y 2006 Request H ouse Senat e 110-5
Nonproliferation & Verification$318.8$268.9$308.1$282.9$262.4
R&D
Nonproliferation & International74.3127.4^b127.4^b127.4^b128.9^b
Security
International Materials
Protection, Control and422.7413.2583.2427.2472.7
Accounting (MPC&A)
Russian Transition Initiatives^a39.6 — ^b — ^b — ^b — ^b

F Y 2007 P.L.^c
P r ogram F Y 2006 Request H ouse Senat e 110-5
Elimination of Weapons-Grade174.4206.7206.7 — 225.7
Plutonium Production
HEU Transparency19.3 — ^b — ^b — ^b — ^b
Implementation
Fissile Materials Disposition468.8603.3248.0618.4470.1
Global Threat Reduction97.0106.8147.6116.8115.5
Initiative
Total 1,614.8 1,726.2 1,620.9 1,572.7 1,683.3
^Sources^:^D^O^E^F^Y^{2007 C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^Bu^dg^et^R^e^qu^es^t^;^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^474;^S^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^274;^P.L^.^110-
^5;^D^O^E^F^Y^{2007 O}^p^eratⁱⁿ^g^Pl^an^.
^No^te:^N^u^m^b^e^r^{s m}^a^y^no^t^a^d^d^d^u^e^t^o^r^o^undⁱ^ng.
^a.^A^s^{it did las}^t^y^{ear, DOE}^propos^es^ch^an^gⁱⁿ^g^th^e^prog^ramⁿ^a^m^e^{to Global In}^itiativ^es^f^o^{r P}^r^olif^eration
^P^r^ev^en^tion^.^T^h^{e f}ⁱⁿ^a^{l FY2006 appropriation}^s^{bill k}^e^pt^th^{e prev}^iou^sⁿ^a^m^e^{, as}^s^h^owⁿⁱⁿ^th^{e table.}
^{b. Fu}ⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r R}^u^s^sⁱ^an^T^r^an^s^ition^Iⁿⁱ^tiativ^es^{($28.140 m}^illion⁾^an^{d HEU T}^r^an^s^p^aren^cy
^Im^plem^en^tation^{($17.531 m}^illion⁾^w^a^sⁱⁿ^clu^d^{ed in}^Non^p^rolif^eration^&^In^tern^ation^a^{l Secu}^rity^.
^{c. F}ⁱ^g^u^r^esⁱⁿⁱ^t^a^lⁱ^c^s^{are f}^r^om^D^O^E^F^Y^{2007 O}^p^eratⁱⁿ^g^Pl^an^;^ot^h^e^{r f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^{are f}^r^om^P.L^.^110-^5.
The Nonproliferation and Verification R&D program received $318.78 million
for FY2006; for FY2007, the Administration requested $268.89 million. The House
bill would have funded the activity at $308.1 million; the Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $282.9 million. DOE’s FY2007 Operating Plan funds the
activity at $262.4 million.
Nonproliferation and International Security programs include international
safeguards, export controls, and treaties and agreements. They would have received
$127.41 million in the FY2007 request, including the transfer of two previously
independent programs, Russian Transition Initiatives and HEU Transparency
Implementation. These three programs received $133.2 million in FY2006. The
House bill and the Senate Appropriations Committee recommendation followed the
Administration’s request. The DOE Operating plan allots $128.9 million.
International Materials Protection, Control and Accounting (MPC&A), which
is concerned with reducing the threat posed by unsecured Russian weapons and
weapons-usable material, would have received $413.18 million under the President’s
request, compared with $422.73 million appropriated for FY2006. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended $583.20 million, citing “expanded
opportunities for high priority work” at two Russian sites, and that amount was in the
bill as passed by the House. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$427.2 million. P.L. 110-5 specified $472.7 million for MPC&A.
Two programs in the former Soviet Union, Initiatives for Proliferation
Prevention (IPP) and the Nuclear Cities Initiatives (NCI), were combined for FY2005
into a single program called “Russian Transition Initiative,” aimed at finding

nonweapons employment for roughly 35,000 underemployed nuclear scientists from
the former Soviet weapons complex. The FY2006 appropriation for the program was
$39.6 million. For FY2007, the program was included in Nonproliferation and
International Security, with $28.14 million allotted for it in the request.
Requested funding for the Fissile Materials Disposition program for FY2006
was $653.1 million, but the Congress appropriated $468.8 million. The program’s
goal is disposal of U.S. surplus weapons plutonium by converting it into fuel for
commercial power reactors, including construction of a facility to convert the
plutonium to “mixed-oxide” (MOX) reactor fuel at Savannah River, South Carolina,
and a similar program in Russia. The House Appropriations Committee cut funding
for the Savannah River facility sharply, citing delays in agreement with Russia over
the program. Total funding for fissile materials disposition in H.R. 2419 as passed
by the House would have been $301.7 million. The Senate version of the bill would
have funded the program at the requested $653.1 million level.
For FY2007, the Administration, noting that the issue that had delayed the
program in Russia had been resolved, requested $603.3 million. However, the House
Appropriations Committee report said “in 2006 it has become clear that the Russian
government is not going to participate in the MOX-light water reactor” plan that the
United States has proposed, and the House-passed version of H.R. 5427 would have
cut the funding drastically to $248.0 million. The move would have shut down the
MOX-fuel construction project at Savannah River.
The Senate Appropriations Committee likewise expressed disappointment that
the Russian government was not pursuing its program to convert surplus weapons
plutonium to MOX, but supported the continuation of the U.S. program to convert
its own surplus weapons plutonium to MOX with continued construction of the
facility at Savannah River. The Senate version of H.R. 5427 would have funded the
Fissile Materials Disposition program at $618.4 million, $15 million more than
requested by the Administration.
P.L. 110-5 specifies that the “Secretary of Energy may not make available any
of the funds provided by this division or previous appropriations Acts for
construction activities for Project 99-D-143, mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility,
Savannah River Site, South Carolina, until August 1, 2007.” DOE’s FY2007
Operating Plan allocates $470.1 million for Fissile Materials Disposition, including
$262.5 million for Project 99-D-143.
Environmental Management. The adequacy of funding to address human
health and environmental risks resulting from the past production of nuclear weapons
is a long-standing issue. DOE established the Office of Environmental Management
in 1989 to consolidate its efforts to administer the cleanup of former nuclear weapons
sites. These efforts include the disposal of radioactive and other hazardous wastes,
management and disposal of surplus nuclear materials, the remediation of soil and
groundwater contaminated from such wastes, and the decontamination and
decommissioning of excess buildings and facilities. Through this program, DOE also
administers the disposal of wastes and remediation of contamination at sites where
the federal government conducted civilian nuclear energy research. Altogether, there

were 114 “geographic”⁵ sites in 30 states where these activities resulted in the
generation of wastes and contamination.
Some of the ongoing issues associated with efforts to clean up contaminated
sites have been the adequacy of risk-based approaches to cleanup, the technical
soundness of waste treatment facility designs, how to safely remove, treat, and
dispose of high-level radioactive waste stored in underground tanks,⁶ 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 clean up nuclear waste and contamination are substantial and require
significant resources. As such, this cleanup program is the second largest function
within DOE (after the National Nuclear Security Administration), and represents
approximately one-fourth of the Department’s total budget.
FY2007 Appropriations. As indicated in the table below, DOE’s FY2007
Operating Plan allocates $6.19 billion for the Environmental Management Program.⁷
This funding level is more than the $5.83 billion that the President originally
requested in February 2006, and more than the $5.99 billion the full House approved^th
in passing H.R. 5427 in the 109 Congress and the $5.91 billion the Senate
Appropriations Committee reported in its version of that bill. Although DOE’s
Operating Plan allocates an increase relative to the funding originally proposed for
FY2007, it provides less funding for the program than the $6.59 billion that Congress
appropriated for FY2006. Accounting for the use of prior year balances, DOE’s plan
indicates a larger amount of funding was allocated in FY2006 for the Defense
Environmental Cleanup account, resulting in a greater decrease in FY2007 for the
program when a comparison is made to FY2006 funding including the use of these
balances. (See the notes to the table below.)
A substantial portion of the reduction in funding for the program relative to
FY2006 is due to the completion of cleanup at “accelerated closure” sites, such as
Rocky Flats in Colorado. Despite the overall decrease, DOE’s plan allocates over
$100 million more for closure activities at Rocky Flats than any of the original
proposals for FY2007, and more than twice the original proposals for administration
of closure sites. For sites where cleanup is not complete, there are varying decreases
and increases in funding when comparing DOE’s FY2007 Operating Plan to the
President’s FY2007 request, the FY2007 proposals considered in the 109^th Congress,
and the FY2006 appropriation. Sites with some of the larger differences in funding

⁵ DOE makes a distinction between its “geographic” sites that 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.
⁶ See CRS Report RS21988, Radioactive Tank Waste from the Past Production of Nuclear
Weapons: Background and Issues for Congress, by David Bearden and Anthony Andrews.
⁷ The $6.19 billion total reflects a $452 million offset resulting from federal payment to the
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund.

include those where substantial cleanup and waste disposal challenges remain, such
as Hanford (WA) and Savannah River (SC), both of which store high-level
radioactive waste in underground tanks. As required by the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act, this waste must be removed for permanent disposal in a geologic repository.
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. Construction of the Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant has been delayed as a result of various engineering and design
issues. DOE’s FY2007 Operating Plan allocates significantly more funding for the
waste plant than appropriated in FY2006, but allocates less funding than in FY2006
for the management of the waste still stored in the underground tanks.
The table below indicates the FY2006 appropriation, the President’s FY2007
request, the full House and Senate Appropriations Committee FY2007 funding
proposals in the 109^th Congress, and funding allocated in DOE’s FY2007 Operating
Plan. 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.
Table 13. Environmental Management Program Appropriations
($ millions)
^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^Eⁿ^vi^ron^m^en^tal^M^aⁿ^agem^eⁿ^t^FY²⁰⁰⁶
^Program^A^ccouⁿ^t^s^Request^Hou^s^e-^Sena^t^e^-^DOE
^P^a^sse^d^Reported^Op^{. Pl}^an
^Defens^{e E}ⁿ^vironm^{ental Cleanup}
^A^{ccelerated C}^l^os^u^r^{e S}^ites^$1,018.3^$320.9^$321.9^$320.9^$468.1
^A^s^h^t^abu^l^a^$15.8^$0.3^$1.3^$0.3^$1.3
^C^o^l^u^m^b^u^s^$9.4^$0.0^$0.0^$0.0^$0.0
^F^e^rn^al^d^$324.3^$258.9^$258.9^$258.9^$254.8
^Mi^amⁱ^s^bu^rg^$104.5^$34.9^$34.9^$34.9^$39.9
^R^o^ck^y^F^l^at^s^$564.3^$1.0^$1.0^$1.0^$115.5
^C^l^os^u^r^{e S}ⁱ^t^e^s^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^$0.0^$25.9^$25.9^$25.9^$56.6
^H^aⁿ^f^ord^$1,619.7^$1,768.8^$1,726.8^$1,768.8^$1,802.4
^Rⁱ^ch^l^aⁿ^d^O^f^fⁱ^ce^$772.8^$804.7^$832.7^$804.7^$835.3
^O^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^Rⁱ^v^e^{r Prot}^ectⁱ^oⁿ^$846.9^$964.1^$894.1^$964.1^$967.1
^W^a^s^t^{e T}^r^eat^m^ent^Pl^ant^$520.7^$690.0^$600.0^$690.0^$690.0
^{Tank Far}^m^Activities^$326.2^$274.1^$294.1^$274.1^$277.1
^S^a^v^aⁿⁿ^a^h^Rⁱ^v^e^{r S}ⁱ^t^e^$1,158.9^$1,084.4^$1,195.4^$1,084.4^$1,113.4
^Idah^{o N}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^L^a^borat^ory^$532.8^$512.6^$544.6^$512.6^$526.9

^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^Eⁿ^vi^ron^m^en^tal^M^aⁿ^agem^eⁿ^t^FY²⁰⁰⁶^Hou^s^e-^Sena^t^e^-^DOE
^Program^A^ccouⁿ^t^s^Request^P^a^sse^d^Reported^Op^{. Pl}^an
^O^a^k^Rⁱ^dg^{e R}^e^s^e^rv^atⁱ^oⁿ^$238.4^$159.9^$199.4^$179.2^$203.9
^Was^t^{e Is}^ol^atⁱ^oⁿ^Pi^l^o^t^Pl^an^t^$228.3^$213.3^$213.3^$232.3^$228.8
^N^N^S^{A a}ⁿ^d^N^e^va^d^a^O^ff-Sⁱ^t^e^s^$299.4^$232.1^$232.1^$282.5^$306.5
^T^echⁿ^o^l^o^g^y^D^e^v^e^l^opm^en^t^$29.8^$21.4^$31.4^$21.4^$21.4
^S^a^f^e^g^u^a^rds^an^{d S}^ecu^ri^t^y^$284.4^$295.8^$295.8^$295.8^$275.9
^Prog^ram^Dⁱ^rectⁱ^oⁿ^$241.4^$291.2^$301.2^$291.2^$294.5
^Prog^ram^S^u^pport^$32.5^$37.9^$37.9^$37.9^$38.0
^Fed^e^r^a^{l P}^a^y^m^en^{t to}^Ur^an^iu^m^a
^Eⁿ^rⁱ^c^h^m^e^nt^D^&^D^Fund^$446.5^$452.0^$452.0^$452.0^$452.0
^T^o^{tal Defens}^{e E}ⁿ^vironm^ental^{b c}
^Clea^nup^$6,130.4^$5,390.3^$5,551.8^$5,479.1^$5,731.8
^No^n-^Def^e^{nse Env}ⁱ^ro^nm^ent^a^l
^Clea^nup^$349.7^$310.4^$309.9^$310.4^$349.7
^Uraⁿ^ium^Eⁿ^richm^e^{nt D&D Fund}^a^$556.6^$579.4^$579.4^$573.4^$556.6
^Uran^iu^m^En^rich^m^eⁿ^t^D&^{D Fu}ⁿ^d^a
^O^ffse^t^$-^446.5^$^-^452.0^$^-^452.0^$^-^452.0^$^-^452.0
^To^t^a^{l Env}ⁱ^r^o^nm^eⁿ^t^a^l
^M^aⁿ^agem^eⁿ^t^$6,590.2^$5,828.1^$5,989.¹^$5,910.9^$6,186.1
^P^r^{epared by}^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Servⁱ^{ce w}^ithⁱⁿ^f^o^r^m^atioⁿ^f^r^o^m^th^{e f}^o^llo^wⁱⁿ^g^so^u^r^ces:
^F^Y^{2006 en}^act^{ed, F}^Y²⁰⁰⁷^requ^es^t^,^F^Y^{2007 H}^o^u^s^e-^pas^s^e^{d, an}^{d F}^Y^{2007 S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^-^r^eport^e^{d am}^ouⁿ^t^s^are^th
^f^r^om^th^{e Sen}^a^{te A}^ppropriation^s^C^o^m^m^{ittee repor}^{t on}^the^{FY2007 appropriation}^s^{bill in}^th^{e 109}
^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^(H^.R^{. 5427, S}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^274).
^D^O^E^’^s^F^Y²⁰⁰⁷^O^p^era^tⁱⁿ^g^P^l^aⁿ^s^p^e^cⁱ^fⁱ^e^s^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^a^l^l^o^c^a^t^e^d^f^o^r^t^h^e^a^b^o^v^e^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^a^c^tⁱ^v^{ities w}^ith
^au^th^orities^prov^{ided in}^th^{e R}^e^vⁱ^s^e^{d C}^oⁿ^tin^uⁱⁿ^g^A^ppropriation^s^R^e^s^o^lu^tion^f^o^r^FY2007^(P^.L^{. 110-}^5).
^No^tes:
^a^D&^{D = Decon}^t^amⁱⁿ^ation^an^{d Decom}^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^onⁱⁿ^g^.^Federal^pay^m^en^t^to^th^{e Uran}^iu^m^En^rich^m^eⁿ^t^D&^D
^Fuⁿ^d^{is ty}^pⁱ^cally^tr^eated^{as an}^o^f^f^s^{et to}^th^{e to}^{tal f}^o^r^th^{e En}^vⁱ^r^oⁿ^m^en^{tal Man}^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^P^r^o^g^r^a^m^.
^b^D^O^E^’^s^F^Y^{2007 O}^p^eratⁱⁿ^g^Pl^anⁱⁿ^di^cat^ed^a^t^o^t^a^l^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^of^{$6,316,047,000 f}^o^{r t}^h^{e D}^e^f^eⁿ^s^e
^En^vⁱ^r^o^nm^en^{tal C}^l^ean^u^p^accouⁿ^tⁱⁿ^F^Y^{2006, in}^clu^dⁱⁿ^g^{$166,318,000 in}^{prior y}^{ear balan}^ces^an^d
^{$20,000,000 f}^r^om^th^{e FY2005 “}^uⁿ^c^os^{ted” balan}^{ce f}^o^{r th}^{e Salt W}^a^s^t^e^P^r^o^c^e^s^sⁱⁿ^g^Facility^{at th}^e
^S^a^v^aⁿⁿ^a^h^Rⁱ^v^e^{r s}ⁱ^t^e^{. T}^h^{e F}^Y^{2006 am}^ouⁿ^t^s^f^o^rⁱⁿ^di^vⁱ^du^al^sⁱ^t^e^sⁱⁿ^di^cat^edⁱⁿ^D^O^E^’^s^F^Y^{2007 O}^p^eratⁱⁿ^g
^Pl^anⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{e t}^h^{e di}^s^t^ri^bu^tⁱ^oⁿ^of^t^h^es^{e carri}^{ed ov}^{er bal}^aⁿ^ces^{, an}^{d as}^{a res}^u^l^t^,^s^o^m^e^F^Y²⁰⁰⁶^am^ouⁿ^t^s^f^o^r
ⁱⁿ^dⁱ^vⁱ^d^u^{al sites in}^DOE’^s^p^l^an^ar^{e m}^o^r^e^th^an^th^{e Sen}^a^{te A}^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Co^m^m^{ittee r}^e^p^o^r^tedⁱⁿ^t^h^e^th
¹⁰⁹^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^,^an^{d as}^{are depicted in}^th^{e abov}^{e table.}
^c^P.L^.^110-^{5 prov}ⁱ^d^{ed a t}^o^t^a^l^of^{$5,730,448,000 f}^o^{r t}^h^{e D}^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e En}^vⁱ^ron^m^en^t^a^l^C^l^e^a^nup^a^ccouⁿ^t^.
^{DOE allocated $5,731,839,000 f}^o^{r th}^is^accouⁿ^tⁱⁿ^its^F^Y²⁰⁰⁷^Operatin^g^P^l^an^,^bu^t^didⁿ^o^t^ex^plain^th^e
^di^f^f^e^ren^{ce f}^r^om^t^h^{e s}^t^at^u^t^ory^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^provⁱ^d^{ed i}ⁿ^P.L^.^110-^5.

Estimated Future Funding Needs. The need for annual appropriations of
several billion dollars to clean up nuclear waste sites has motivated ongoing concern
within Congress about the long-term financial liability of the United States to meet
these needs. Accordingly, there has been much debate about how to ensure public
health and safety, and the protection of the environment, in the most expedient and
cost-effective manner. DOE reports that it had cleaned up 81 of the 114 geographic⁸
sites as of the end of FY2006. 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 certain sites within the next few years. However, the
Department anticipates cleanup to continue for decades at the larger and more
complex sites, such as Hanford, Savannah River, and the Idaho National Laboratory,
where high-level radioactive waste is in need of treatment and disposal, and soil and
groundwater contamination is generally more severe. Based on recent assumptions,
DOE expects cleanup and disposal of wastes to be complete at Savannah River in

2031, at the Idaho National Laboratory in 2035, and at Hanford in 2042.⁹

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
many final decisions have yet to be made because of technical limitations and
uncertainties, such as the “end state”¹⁰ of many sites. DOE periodically revises its
estimates of outstanding costs to complete cleanup and dispose of wastes as
individual project baselines and assumptions change. These estimates have varied
widely over time 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 contained in the department’s
performance and accountability reports. DOE’s Performance and Accountability
Report for FY2006 estimated that, as of the end of FY2006, $159 billion would be
needed to complete cleanup and dispose of wastes at the remaining sites administered

⁸ DOE. Office of the Chief Financial Officer. FY2008 Congressional Budget Request.
Volume 5, Environmental Management. p. 31. DOE referenced 108 geographic sites, as
it excluded six Nevada off-sites proposed for transfer to the Office of Legacy Management.
The total of 114 geographic sites noted above includes these six sites.
⁹ Ibid., p. 40. Two separate offices within the Environmental Management Program
administer cleanup and disposal of wastes at Hanford: the Richland Office and the Office
of River Protection. The projected completion date for activities of the Richland Office is
2035, and the projected completion date for activities of the Office of River Protection
(ORP) is 2042. The primary purpose of the ORP is to remove, treat, and dispose of high-
level radioactive waste stored in underground tanks near the Columbia River.
¹⁰ 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.

under DOE’s Environmental Management Program.¹¹ The $159 billion estimate is
not adjusted for inflation and is in FY2006 dollars.
In addition to inflation, other factors could cause actual costs to exceed the $159
billion estimate. For example, actual costs could be higher than expected, depending
on whether federal and state regulators may 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 $159 billion estimate also does not include the costs of long-term care
of sites once cleanup remedies are in place to ensure the protection of human health
and the environment into the future. DOE’s Performance and Accountability Report
for FY2006, estimated that, as of the end of FY2006, $18 billion would be needed for
cleanup and post-closure site responsibilities after work under the Environmental
Management program is completed.¹² These responsibilities include surveillance and
monitoring, long-term operation and maintenance of soil and groundwater cleanup
remedies, and disposal of excess materials remaining on-site after closeout under the
Environmental Management Program. DOE estimated that this $18 billion cost
would be incurred over 75 years through FY2081.¹³ DOE expects some long-term
site care to be needed beyond this time, requiring additional funding. However, the
Department “believes” that costs beyond 75 years cannot “reasonably” be estimated
because of uncertainties inherent to such distant time frames.¹⁴ Current
administration and FY2007 funding for long-term site care is discussed below.
Long-Term Site Care. 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.¹⁵ This office also manages the payment of pensions
and post-retirement benefits of former contractor personnel who worked at these
sites.¹⁶ DOE’s FY2007 Operating Plan allocates $64 million for the Office of Legacy

¹¹ DOE. Performance and Accountability Report for FY2006. pp. 173-175.
¹² Ibid.
¹³ Ibid.
¹⁴ Ibid.
¹⁵ When there is a continuing mission, long-term site care is transferred to the program
office within DOE that is responsible for administering that mission or is the “landlord” of
the site.
¹⁶ Likewise, 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
(continued...)

Management, including both defense and non-defense accounts. This amount is less
than the FY2006 appropriation of $78 million, and is substantially less than the $201
million that the President requested for FY2007 in February 2006, and the full House
and the Senate Appropriations Committee proposed in the 109^th Congress in their
respective versions of H.R. 5427.
The majority of the originally proposed increase above FY2006 was intended
to support the payment of pensions and post-retirement benefits associated with sites
expected to be cleaned up and transferred to this office. Of the originally proposed
increase, $20 million was intended for site care related to long-term cleanup
responsibilities, including surveillance and monitoring at Rocky Flats, Fernald,
Columbus, and certain Nevada “off-sites.” How the funding reduction in DOE’s plan
would affect these site responsibilities is unclear. However, Rocky Flats did receive
continued funding within the Environmental Management Program at a level that is
over $100 million more than originally proposed for FY2007. More than double the
funding than originally proposed was provided for continued administration of
closure sites, such as Rocky Flats, within that program as well.
Table 14. Office of Legacy Management Appropriations
($ millions)
^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^T^y^p^e^{of S}ⁱ^te^FY²⁰⁰⁶^Hou^s^e-^Sena^t^e^-^DOE
^Request^P^a^sse^d^Reported^Op^{. Pl}^an
^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^e^$44.6^$167.9^$167.9^$167.9^$30.9
^N^oⁿ^-^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^e^$33.2^$33.1^$33.1^$33.1^$33.2
^T^o^t^a^l^$77.8^$201.0^$201.0^$201.0^$64.1
^P^r^{epared by}^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Servⁱ^{ce w}^ithⁱⁿ^f^o^r^m^atioⁿ^f^r^o^m^th^{e f}^o^llo^wⁱⁿ^g^so^u^r^ces:
^F^Y^{2006 en}^act^{ed, F}^Y^{2007 requ}^es^t^,^F^Y^{2007 H}^o^u^s^e-^pas^s^e^d,^an^d^F^Y^{2007 S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^-^r^eport^e^{d am}^ouⁿ^t^s^are^th
^f^r^om^th^{e Sen}^a^{te A}^ppropriation^s^C^o^m^m^{ittee repor}^t^oⁿ^th^{e FY2007 appropriation}^s^{bill in}^th^{e 109}
^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^(H^.R^{. 5427, S}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^274).
^D^O^E^’^s^F^Y²⁰⁰⁷^O^p^e^r^a^tⁱⁿ^g^P^l^aⁿ^s^p^e^cⁱ^fⁱ^e^s^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^a^l^l^o^c^a^t^e^d^f^o^r^t^h^e^a^b^o^v^e^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^a^c^tⁱ^v^{ities w}^ith
^au^th^orities^prov^{ided in}^th^{e R}^e^vⁱ^s^e^{d C}^oⁿ^tin^uⁱⁿ^g^A^ppropriation^s^R^e^s^o^lu^tion^f^o^r^FY2007^(P^.L^.^110-^5).
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

¹⁶ (...continued)
that mission or is the “landlord” of the site, rather than the Office of Legacy Management.

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. Their rates are
the focus of considerable discussion, and in its FY2006 budget request, the
Administration recommended that Congress raise PMA rates to “market rates.” The
House rejected this proposal in its Energy and Water appropriations bill. It was not
mentioned in the conference report, and no related legislation was introduced in the
109^th Congress. (For more information, see CRS Report RL32798, Power Marketing
Administrations: Proposals for Market-Based Rates, by Kyna Powers.)
The Administration’s net FY2007 request for the PMAs of $249.5 million was
a reduction of 6.6% from the FY2006 appropriation of $267.1 million. This reflected
a reduction of $19.4 million for WAPA, with slight increases of $1.7 million for
Southwestern and $180,000 for Southeastern. The House and Senate Appropriations
Committees recommended funding for the PMAs as requested, with an FY2007
allocation of $252.0 million (this included $2.5 million for the Falcon and Amistad
O&M fund). DOE’s FY2007 Operating Plan indicates a net outlay of $247.6 million
for the PMAs.
The House Appropriations Committee did not support the Administration’s
proposals to recover O&M expenses for WAPA, SEPA, and SWPA through
offsetting collections, or to increase PMA rates to reflect market-based rates. Nor did
the committee incorporate the Administration’s proposal to directly fund Corps
hydropower O&M expenses through the revenues of WAPA, SEPA, and SWPA.
In FY2007 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 change was expected to have a rate impact of less than 1% (the Agency
Rate was 0.4% higher on average than PMA rates from 1997-2005) and to generate
$11.8 million in additional Treasury revenue from 2007 to 2011. The Senate
Appropriations Committee rejected this proposal in S.Rept. 109-274, §312.
BPA receives no annual appropriation, but funds some of its activities from
permanent borrowing authority, which was increased in FY2003 from $3.75 billion
to $4.45 billion (a $700 million increase). DOE’s 2007 Operating Plan indicates that
BPA intends to use $305 million of its borrowing authority during the remainder of
FY2007.
Beginning in FY2007 BPA was proposing to use secondary net revenues beyond
$500 million to make advance amortization payments to the Treasury on BPA’s bond
obligations. BPA is expecting this additional revenue to be $169 million in FY2007.
P.L. 109-234, §2308 prevents this use of BPA revenue.

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 15. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title IV: Independent Agencies
($ millions)
ProgramFY2006FY2007RequestHouseSenateP.L. 110-5
Appalachian Regional Commission$65.0$65.0$35.5$65.5$65.0
Nuclear Regulatory Commission735.2776.6816.6816.6821.6
(Revenues) (618.4)(627.7)(663.7)(663.7)(667.4)
Net NRC116.8148.9152.9152.9154.2
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board21.822.322.322.321.8
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board3.63.73.73.73.6
Denali Commission49.52.57.550.049.5
Delta Regional Authority11.95.95.912.011.9
Total 268.4 248.8 227.8 306.3 306.0
^Source:^F^Y^{2007 Bu}^dg^et^R^e^qu^es^t^;^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^474.
Key Policy Issues — Independent Agencies
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) requested a total budget of $776.6 million for FY2007, including $8.1 million
for the NRC inspector general’s office. The request was 4.5% above the FY2006
appropriation of $741.5 million. 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 a $22 million increase in the Nuclear Reactor
Safety program, largely to handle anticipated new nuclear power plant license
applications. No commercial reactor license applications have 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) have prompted electric utilities to announce
plans for more than a dozen reactor license applications over the next few years. The
House and the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a further increase of $40
million for reactor licensing, with the Senate panel designating $2 million of the
increase for oversight of spent fuel recycling under GNEP. The continuing resolution
provides $821.6 million for NRC in FY2007, including the inspector general’s office.
NRC’s proposed budget included a 10% reduction, to $41.0 million, for
licensing DOE’s planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, reflecting delays

in the program. The budget request assumed that DOE would submit a repository
license application in FY2008.
For all homeland security activities, NRC’s FY2007 budget request included
$70.3 million, an 11% decrease from FY2006. NRC oversees force-on-force security
exercises at nuclear plants and is requiring revised reactor security plans to reflect
increased baseline threats. (For more information on protecting licensed nuclear
facilities, see CRS Report RS21131, Nuclear Power Plants: Vulnerability to
Terrorist Attack, by Carl E. Behrens and Mark Holt.)
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 $45.7
million from the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for waste repository licensing, spending
on generic homeland security, and DOE defense waste oversight. The continuing
resolution specifies that the offsets must result in a net appropriation of not more than
$154.2 million.

For Additional Reading
CRS Products
CRS Report RL31975. CALFED Bay-Delta Program: Overview of Institutional and
Water Use Issues, by Betsy A. Cody and Pervaze Sheikh.
CRS Report RL33461. Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal, by Mark Holt.
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 RL33294. DOE Budget Earmarks: A Selective Look at Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy R&D Programs, by Fred Sissine.
CRS Report RL33599. Energy Efficiency Policy: Budget, Electricity Conservation,
and Fuel Conservation Issues, by Fred Sissine.
CRS Report RL32543. Energy Saving Performance Contracts, by Anthony
Andrews.
CRS Report RS21331. Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project,
by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RL30478. Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater
Treatment Programs, by the Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
CRS Report RL33298. FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq and Other
International Activities; Additional Hurricane Katrina Relief, coordinated by
Paul M. Irwin and Larry Nowels.
CRS Report RS21442. Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicle R&D: FreedomCAR and the
President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, by Brent D. Yacobucci.
CRS Report RL31098. Klamath River Basin Issues: An Overview of Water Use
Conflicts, coordinated by Betsy A. Cody.
CRS Report RL33558. Nuclear Energy Policy, by Mark Holt and Carl Behrens.
CRS Report RS21131. Nuclear Power Plants: Vulnerability to Terrorist Attack, by
Carl E. Behrens and Mark Holt.
CRS Report RL31993. Nuclear Warhead “Pit” Production: Background and Issues
for Congress, by Jonathan Medalia.
CRS Report RL32130. Nuclear Weapon Initiatives: Low-Yield R&D, Advanced
Concepts, Earth Penetrators, Test Readiness, by Jonathan Medalia.

CRS Report RL32131. Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze A.
Sheikh and Barbara Johnson.
CRS Report RL32798. Power Marketing Administrations: Proposals for Market-
Based Rates, by Kyna Powers.
CRS Report RL32163. Radioactive Waste Streams: An Overview of Waste
Classification for Disposal, by Anthony Andrews.
CRS Report RL33588. Renewable Energy Policy: Tax Credit, Budget, and
Regulatory Issues, by Fred Sissine.
CRS Report RL32347. Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Budget Request and Plan,
FY2005-FY2009, by Jonathan Medalia.
CRS Report RL32189. Terrorism and Security Issues Facing the Water
Infrastructure Sector, by Claudia Copeland and Betsy A. Cody.
CRS Report RS20569. Water Resource Issues in the 109^th Congress, by Betsy A.
Cody and H. Steven Hughes.