[House Report 107-112]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
_______________________________________________________________________
107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 107-112
======================================================================
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2002
_______
June 26, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Callahan, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2311]
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making
appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes.
INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT
Page Number
Bill Report
Introduction............................................... 1
3
I. Department of Defense--Civil:
Corps of Engineers--Civil:
Introduction............................... 2
5
General investigations..................... 2
6
Construction, general...................... 3
33
Flood control, Mississippi River and
tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, and Tennessee................ 6
50
Operation and maintenance, general......... 7
55
Regulatory program......................... 8
76
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program................................ 8
76
General expenses........................... 9
77
Administrative provisions.................. 9
General provisions......................... 10
78
II. Department of the Interior:
Central Utah Project completion account............ 12
79
Bureau of Reclamation:
Water and related resources................ 13
79
Bureau of Reclamation loan program account. 14
90
Central Valley Project restoration fund.... 15
92
California Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration.
92
Policy and administration.................. 15
93
Administrative provision................... 16
General provisions......................... 16
93
III. Department of Energy:
Introduction....................................... 17
95
Energy supply...................................... 17
101
Non-defense environmental management............... 18
109
Uranium facilities maintenance and remediation..... 18
111
Science............................................ 19
112
Nuclear waste disposal............................. 19
117
Departmental administration........................ 21
120
Office of Inspector General........................ 22
122
Atomic energy defense activities:
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Weapons activities......................... 22
123
Defense nuclear nonproliferation........... 23
127
Naval reactors............................. 23
133
Office of the administrator................ 24
134
Environmental and Other Defense Activities:
Defense environmental restoration and waste
management............................. 24
134
Defense facilities closure projects........ 25
140
Defense environmental management
privatization.......................... 25
142
Other defense activities................... 25
142
Defense nuclear waste disposal............. 26
147
Power marketing administrations:
Bonneville Power Administration............ 26
148
Southeastern Power Administration.......... 26
149
Southwestern Power Administration.......... 27
149
Western Area Power Administration.......... 28
150
Falcon and Amistad operating and
maintenance fund....................... 29
150
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission............... 29
151
General provisions................................. 30
164
IV. Independent agencies:
Appalachian Regional Commission.................... 34
169
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............ 35
169
Delta Regional Authority...........................
169
Denali Commission..................................
170
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...................... 35
170
Office of Inspector General........................ 36
171
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board............... 37
172
V. General provisions...................................... 37
173
House reporting requirements...............................
175
Summary of Estimates and Recommendations
The Committee has considered budget estimates which are
contained in the Budget of the United States Government, 2002.
The following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year
2001 the budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill
for fiscal year 2002.
[Dollars in thousands]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 recommendation compared with--
--------------------------------------------------------
2001 2002 estimate 2002 2001
recommendation appropriation 2002 estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I--Department of Defense--Civil.................... $4,541,065 $3,900,000 $4,468,233 ($72,832) $568,233
Title II--Department of the Interior..................... 816,637 819,727 842,890 26,253 23,163
Title III--Department of Energy.......................... 18,475,148 18,106,554 18,747,360 272,212 640,806
Title IV--Independent Agencies........................... 171,474 181,721 136,517 (34,957) (45,204)
Title V--Rescissions..................................... (172,000) ................. ................. 172,000 .................
Title VI--Emergency Supplemental......................... 213,988 ................. ................. (213,988) .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 24,046,312 23,008,002 24,195,000 148,688 1,186,998
Scorekeeping adjustments................................. (489,982) (491,000) (491,000) (1,018) .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total of bill.................................... 23,556,330 22,517,002 23,704,000 147,670 1,186,998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2002 totals $23,704,000,000, which is $147,670,000
above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001, and
$1,186,998,000 above the President's budget request. Under
constrained funding conditions, the Committee has given
priority to maintaining the existing inventory of Corps of
Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation water resources projects;
continuing construction of ongoing water resources projects to
avoid increased costs from stretching out project schedules;
protecting basic science programs at the Department of Energy;
investing in new energy technologies; providing sufficient
funds for the Secretary of Energy to make a recommendation on
the suitability of Yucca Mountain as a repository for the
nation's nuclear waste; maintaining the nation's nuclear
weapons stockpile; and providing for cleanup of contaminated
Department of Energy sites.
There has been much interest in how this bill would address
the Nation's energy shortages. The Committee wishes to
emphasize that the Department of Energy's energy technology
programs are not designed to provide immediate relief for the
energy crisis. Instead, the energy technology programs consist
primarily of research and development into technologies such as
renewable energy which are intended to provide long-term
solutions to the nation's energy needs. Near-term deployment of
available energy technologies is best accomplished through
incentives other than appropriations.
The National Energy Policy directed the appropriate Federal
agencies to take actions to remove constraints on the
interstate transmission grid and to allow our nation's
electricity supply to meet the growing needs of the economy.
The Secretary of Energy was directed to examine the benefits of
establishing a national grid, identify transmission
bottlenecks, and identify measures to remove transmission
bottlenecks. The Committee expects to address these issues
throughout the appropriations process as information becomes
available on possible remedies requiring Congressional
appropriations action.
Title I of the bill provides $4,468,233,000 for the
programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a decrease of
$72,832,000 from fiscal year 2001 and $568,233,000 over the
budget request of $3,900,000,000. The Committee has maintained
nearly level funding for the civil works program despite
budgetary constraints. By concentrating resources on
traditional missions such as flood control and navigation which
yield the greatest economic benefits for the nation, the
Committee seeks to ensure the highest possible payback on
taxpayer investment. The Committee has generally been unable to
provide funds for new construction projects within the water
resources programs of the Corps of Engineers.
Title II provides $842,890,000 for the Department of
Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, an increase of
$26,253,000 over fiscal year 2001 and $23,163,000 over the
budget request of $819,727,000. The Committee has not provided
funding for the California Bay-Delta Restoration program in
California pending the enactment of authorizing legislation.
Title III provides $18,747,360,000 for the Department of
Energy, an increase of $272,212,000 over fiscal year 2001 and
$640,806,000 over the budget request of $18,106,554,000. The
Committee has provided additional funding for energy
technology, environmental cleanup, and nuclear nonproliferation
programs. Basic research and science programs are supported at
a level consistent with fiscal year 2001. In addition, $7
billion is provided for environmental cleanup programs to
remediate contaminated defense and non-defense sites throughout
the nation, and $443 million is provided for the nuclear waste
fund program in support of a final geologic repository for
spent fuel high-level nuclear waste.
Funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration,
which includes nuclear weapons activities, defense nuclear
nonproliferation, naval reactors, and the office of the
administrator is $6,667,274,000, an increase of $90,225,000
over fiscal year 2001 and a decrease of $109,496,000 from the
budget request.
Title IV provides $136,517,000 for several Independent
Agencies, a decrease of $34,957,000 from fiscal year 2001 and a
decrease of $45,204,000 below the budget request of
$181,720,000. Funding is provided for the Appalachian Regional
Commission, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Board, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and its Inspector General, and the
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Introduction
The Committee is very concerned about the level of funding
requested by the Administration for the water resources
programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The amount
requested by the Administration is about $640 million below the
amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001. At the level of
funding recommended by the Administration, ongoing construction
projects would have been funded at an average of only 57% of
their capability, with the result being that $5.8 billion in
benefits would be forgone due to delayed completion dates. In
addition, $500 million in increased costs would be incurred for
these projects due to stretched out completion schedules.
The Committee understands that the new Administration did
not have time to fully analyze the importance of the Corps of
Engineers' missions to the economic well-being of the Nation.
Here are some examples of that importance. The Corps of
Engineers is responsible for constructing and maintaining the
Nation's ports and waterways. In 1999, about 2.3 billion tons
of commerce moved through and on those ports and waterways. The
value of the foreign commerce handled at ports is about $672
billion. The Federal taxes generated by waterborne commerce at
ports is $150 billion per year. Those ports also generate about
13 million jobs. In the area of flood control, Corps projects
have prevented an annual average of over $20 billion in damages
between 1991 and 2000. Since 1928, Corps of Engineers flood
control projects have prevented almost $6.00 for each dollar
expended. The Corps of Engineers operates 75 hydroelectric
power projects, which have an installed generating capacity of
20,720 megawatts. These plants provide 24% of the Nation's
hydropower output and 3% of total U.S. generating capacity.
Even though the Corps does not construct projects for the sole
purpose of recreation, recreation at Corps projects also
contributes significantly to the Nation's economy. About 10% of
the U.S. population visits at least one Corps project each year
and those visitors spend $15 billion per year. That visitation
supports about 600,000 full- and part-time jobs.
For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has recommended
$4,328,233,000 for the Civil Works functions of the Corps of
Engineers, $568,233,000 over the amount requested by the
Administration (the total amount of $4,468,233,000 recommended
for the Corps of Engineers includes $140,000,000 for the
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program). Even at this
level, the Committee's recommendation includes no new
construction starts, and many ongoing projects are funded well
below their optimum levels.
In the last year, the Corps of Engineers has received a
significant amount of external criticism, most of it centered
around an ongoing study, for which the Corps has never made a
recommendation, of the need to expand the navigation capacity
of the upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway. The
Committee believes that that study was poorly managed by the
Corps of Engineers; however, the National Academy of Sciences
has found that the Corps' officers who questioned the
preliminary results of the study were completely justified in
doing so since those preliminary results were based on a
seriously flawed model. It is unfortunate that the Army
Inspector General did not have the benefit of the National
Academy's work before it issued a report critical of those
officers. The other major area of criticism leveled at the
Corps was that it was secretly trying to grow its program. The
Committee finds this criticism to be somewhat absurd. The Corps
currently has a backlog on active projects of $40 billion. The
Corps has plenty of work to keep it busy for years to come even
if Congress enacts no new project authorizations, which is
highly unlikely. The Committee believes that it is the American
people, who have recognized the need for increased investment
in water resources, who have been attempting to expand the
Corps' programs.
Some have also criticized the Corps for not being ``green''
enough when, in fact, the Corps has requested over $300 million
for construction of projects it categorizes as
``environmental'' and 36% of its ongoing studies have
environmental restoration as their primary purpose. Some think
the Corps has become too ``green.'' The Committee fully
supports the environmental restoration efforts being undertaken
by the Corps, but urges it to maintain a balance in its work
and not lose sight of its traditional missions of navigation
and flood control, which are so important to the Nation's
economy.
General Investigations
Appropriation, 2001................................... $160,584,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 130,000,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 163,260,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +2,676,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. +33,260,000
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
False Pass Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee has provided
$313,000 for the Corps of Engineers to accelerate completion of
plans and specifications for the False Pass Harbor, Alaska,
project.
Colonias Along the U.S.-Mexico Border, Arizona.--The
Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
initiate detailed design and plans and specifications for a
wastewater treatment facility and distribution system in the
City of Marana, Pima County, Arizona.
Tucson Drainage Area, Arizona.--The bill includes $410,000
for the Corps of Engineers to complete preconstruction
engineering and design for the Tucson Drainage Area, Arizona,
project.
Va Shly-Ah Akimel Salt River Restoration Project,
Arizona.--The Committee has provided an additional $300,000 for
the Va Shly-Ah Akimel Salt River Restoration Project in Arizona
to advance completion of the study by one year.
Pine Mountain Dam, Arkansas.--The Committee has provided
$200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to update the design for
the Pine Mountain Dam project in Arkansas.
White River Navigation, Arkansas.--The Committee has
provided $169,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the
ongoing studies for the White River Navigation to Newport,
Arkansas, project.
Arroyo Seco Watershed, California.--The Committee has
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to evaluate non-
structural flood control management, opportunities for water
quality improvement, and habitat restoration in the Arroyo Seco
Watershed.
City of San Bernardino, California.--The bill includes
$250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a feasibility
study of flooding problems and environmental restoration
opportunities in the City of San Bernardino, California.
City of Santa Clarita, California.--The Committee has
provided $100,000 for the Corps of engineers to undertake a
reconnaissance study of flood control improvements and
environmental restoration opportunities in the City of Santa
Clarita, California.
Coast of California, Los Angeles, County, California.--The
Committee has provided $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
continue the feasibility phase of the study of long-term
shoreline changes, as well as coastal processes information
needed to plan and design future shore protection projects.
Huntington Beach, Coastal Bluff Erosion, California.--The
bill includes $400,000 for preconstruction engineering and
design for a project to correct a serious erosion problem of
the coastal bluff adjacent to the Pacific Coast Highway in
Huntington Beach, California.
Murrieta Creek, California.--The Committee has included
language in the bill which directs the Secretary of the Army to
proceed with the Murrieta Creek, California, project in
accordance with the cost sharing established for the project in
Public Law 106-377.
Newport Bay (LA-3 Site Designation Study), California.--The
Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
complete monitoring studies to secure a permanent designation
of the LA-3 Ocean Disposal Site.
Regional Conservation/Conjunctive Use Project,
California.--The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps
of Engineers to complete the reconnaissance and feasibility
studies for the regional water conservation and recycling
project within Placer County, El Dorado County, and the service
area of the San Juan Water District.
Riverside County Special Area Management Plan,
California.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the
Corps of Engineers to continue work on Special Area Management
Plans for the San Jacinto and Santa Margarita watersheds.
Rock Creek-Keefer Slough Flood Control Project,
California.--The Committee has included language in the bill
which directs the Corps of Engineers to use the feasibility
report prepared under the authority of section 205 of the Flood
Control Act of 1948, as amended, as the basis for the Rock
Creek-Keefer Slough Flood Control Project in Butte County,
California, and has provided $200,000 for preconstruction
engineering and design of the project.
San Diego County Special Area Management Plan,
California.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for
completion of the Otay River Watershed Special Area Management
Plan and initiation of the San Luis Rey River Watershed plan.
San Diego County Shoreline, California.--The Committee has
provided $750,000 to continue the study of the erosion of the
City of Oceanside's beaches.
Santa Ana River and Tributaries, Big Bear Lake,
California.--The bill includes $100,000 for the Corps of
Engineers to undertake a reconnaissance study of environmental
restoration, water quality, and related issues at Big Bear
Lake, California.
Santa Barbara and Ventura County Shoreline, California.--
The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers
to undertake a reconnaissance study of shoreline erosion
problems in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties.
Fountain Creek and Tributaries, Colorado.--The Committee
has provided $175,000 to initiate the feasibility phase of the
Fountain Creek and Tributaries study. The Committee recommends
that the Corps of Engineers include erosion and sedimentation
as a project purpose equal in priority to that of flood damage
reduction and environmental restoration along Fountain Creek
north of Pueblo, Colorado.
Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island,
Fenwick Island, Delaware.--The Committee has provided $200,000
for the Corps of Engineers to initiate preconstruction
engineering and design for the Delaware Coast from Cape
Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Fenwick Island, Delaware, project.
Egmont Key Shoreline, Florida.--The Committee has provided
$500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to study alternatives for
shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key. Florida.
Hillsborough River, Florida.--The bill includes $375,000
for the Corps of Engineers to continue the study of water
conservation, water supply, environmental restoration, and
other related problems in the Hillsborough and Withlacoochee
River Basins.
New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, Georgia.--The Committee
has provided $800,000 for preconstruction engineering and
design of the project to rehabilitate the New Savannah Bluff
Lock and Dam in preparation for transferring the project to the
City of North Augusta and Aiken County, South Carolina.
Illinois Beach State Park, Illinois.--The bill includes
$250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete plans and
specifications for the Illinois Beach State Park between
Waukegan and Zion, Illinois.
Illinois River Basin Restoration, Illinois.--The Committee
has provided $2,000,000 for the Corps Engineers to initiate
development of a comprehensive plan for the restoration of the
Illinois River Basin.
Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Study, Illinois,
Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.--The bill includes
$1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to prepare the Upper
Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan in accordance with section
459 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999.
Indiana Harbor, Indiana.--The Committee has provided an
additional $250,000 to accelerate work on the Indiana Harbor,
Indiana, feasibility study.
Fort Dodge, Iowa.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for
the Corps of Engineers to undertake a reconnaissance study of
enhancement of the Des Moines River at Fort Dodge, Iowa.
North Fork Licking River, Kentucky.--The Committee has
provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of flood control,
water supply, and recreation at North Fork Lake in Bracken,
Robertson, and Mason Counties, Kentucky.
West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.--The Committee has
provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake an
expedited study of waterfront and riverine preservation,
restoration, and enhancements of the Mississippi River, West
Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, project, and, if justified,
proceed directly to preconstruction engineering and design, as
authorized by section 517(5) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1999.
West Shore, Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.--The Committee
is aware of concerns expressed by St. John the Baptist Parish
regarding proposed levee alignments north of Interstate 10. The
Committee included report language on this issue last year, but
understands that it remains unresolved. The Committee
understands that the delay in resolving this issue could result
in the delay of flood protection for citizens in St. John the
Baptist Parish and directs the Crops of Engineers to make
immediate resolution of this issue a top priority.
Muddy River, Brookline, and Boston, Massachusetts.--The
Committee has provided $600,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
complete the feasibility study and initiate and complete
preconstruction engineering and design for the Muddy River,
Brookline, and Boston, Massachusetts, project.
Cass River, Vassar, Michigan.--The Committee has provided
$100,000 for a reconnaissance study of flooding problems at
Vassar, Michigan.
Belle Island Shoreline, Michigan.--The bill includes
$150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate feasibility
phase studies for the Belle Island Shoreline project which will
identify areas in need of stabilization and also identify where
to employ innovative techniques for bank stabilization.
Detroit River Master Plan, Michigan.--The bill includes
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to develop a master plan
for the riverfront and historic trails along the Detroit River,
Detroit, Michigan.
Rouge River Watershed, Michigan.--The Committee has
provided $200,000 for a basin-wide watershed management study
to address flood hazard reduction, riverine ecosystem
restoration, and recreation needs in the Rouge River Watershed.
New Madrid Harbor, Missouri.--The Committee has provided
$50,000 for the Corps of Engineers to determine if federal
maintenance of New Madrid Harbor is economically and
environmentally feasible.
St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.--The
Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
complete a comprehensive water management reconnaissance study
for ecosystem restoration and related purposes in the St. Clair
River and Lake St. Clair watershed in Michigan pursuant to
section 426 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999.
Hancock County, Mississippi.--The bill includes $100,000
for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a reconnaissance study
of the seawall in Hancock County, Mississippi.
Lower Platte River Watershed, Nebraska.--The Committee has
provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to assess and plan
for water quality improvements in the Lower Platte River
watershed.
Lower Las Vegas Wash Wetlands, Nevada.--The Committee has
provided an additional $350,000 to accelerate completion of the
Lower Las Vegas Wash Wetlands feasibility study.
Goffle Brook, Borough of Hawthorne, New Jersey.--The
Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
undertake a reconnaissance study of flooding problems along
Goffle Brook in the Borough of Hawthorne, New Jersey.
New Jersey Shoreline Protection, Alternative Long-Term
Nourishment Study, New Jersey.--The Committee has provided
$250,000 for feasibility phase studies to develop comprehensive
beach inlet and borrow area management strategies to
efficiently manage New Jersey sand resources.
Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Keyport, New Jersey.--The
bill includes $350,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate
feasibility phase studies for the Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook
Bay, Keyport, project.
Southwest Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study, Albuquerque,
New Mexico.--The Committee has provided $475,000 for the Corps
of Engineers to continue, on an expedited basis, the
feasibility phase for the Southwest Valley Flood Damage
Reduction, Albuquerque, New Mexico, study. The Committee has
included language in the bill which directs the Secretary of
the Army to include in the study an evaluation of flood
reduction measures that would otherwise be excluded based on
policies regarding the frequency of flooding, the drainage
areas, and the amount of runoff.
Bronx River, New York.--The Committee has provided $300,000
for the Corps of Engineers to continue the ongoing Bronx River
ecosystem restoration study.
Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New York and New Jersey.--The
Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to direct sufficient
resources from the Hudson-Raritan Estuary project to include in
its study area the habitat restoration opportunities in the
entirety of the Hackensack Meadowlands ecosystem located in
northern New Jersey.
Lake Montauk Harbor, New York.--The Committee has provided
$200,000 for the Lake Montauk Harbor study. In conducting this
study, the Corps of Engineers should determine if improvements
for storm damage reduction for the eastern and western shores
adjacent to Lake Montauk Inlet, in conjunction with possible
improvements for navigation, are advisable at this time.
Beneficial use of dredged material and sand bypassing should
also be considered.
Upper Susquehanna River Basin Study, New York.--The
Committee has provided $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
continue work on the Upper Susquehanna River Basin study.
Surfside and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina.--The
Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
initiate the feasibility phase of the Surf City and North
Topsail Beach, North Carolina, study.
Mahoning River Environmental Dredging, Ohio.--The bill
includes $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate
feasibility phase studies for the project to remove
contaminated sediments from the Mahoning River.
Western Lake Erie Basin Study, Ohio.--The Committee has
provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the
reconnaissance level studies for the Western Lake Erie Basin
watershed study.
Miami and Vicinity, Oklahoma.--The bill includes $300,000
for the Corps of Engineers to initiate feasibility phase
studies for the Miami and Vicinity, Oklahoma, flood control
study.
Wister Lake Watershed, Oklahoma.--The Committee has
provided $375,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate the
feasibility phase of the study for watershed management at
Wister Lake, Oklahoma.
Schuylkill River, Wissahickon, Pennsylvania.--The Committee
has provided $100,000 for reconnaissance study of environmental
restoration opportunities along the Schuylkill River at
Wissahickon, Pennsylvania.
Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.--The Committee has
provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a
reconnaissance study of the deepening of Charleston Harbor,
South Carolina.
Reedy River, South Carolina.--The Committee has provided
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a
reconnaissance study of ecosystem restoration, flood damage
reduction, and streambank stabilization in the Reedy River
basin in South Carolina.
Chickamauga Lock, Tennessee.--The bill includes $500,000
for the Corps of Engineers to initiate preconstruction
engineering and design for the Chickamauga Lock project in
Tennessee.
Brazoria County, Texas.--The Committee has provided
$100,000 for a reconnaissance study of flooding problems along
Mustang Bayou in Brazoria County, Texas.
Sulpher River Environmental Restoration, Texas.--The
Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
initiate feasibility phase studies for the Sulpher River
environmental restoration and flood reduction study.
Upper Trinity River Basin, Texas.--The Committee has
provided additional funds for the Corps of Engineers to
evaluate existing flood control improvements and identify
additional measures needed to protect the urban center of Fort
Worth, Texas at the confluence of the West and Clear Forks of
the Trinity River.
Fourmile Run, Virginia.--The Committee has provided
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a
reconnaissance study of flood control needs and environmental
restoration opportunities in Fourmile Run, Virginia.
Goshen Dam, Virginia.--The Committee has provided $500,000
for the Corps of Engineers to complete plans and specifications
for the dam safety improvements at Goshen Dam, Lake
Merriweather, Virginia.
Commencement Bay Environmental Dredging, Washington.--The
Committee has provided $100,000 for reconnaissance study of
environmental dredging needs in Commencement Bay, Washington.
Walla Walla River Watershed, Washington.--The Committee has
provided $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the
feasibility study to restore instream flows in the Walla Walla
River in Washington and Oregon.
Erickson/Wood County Public Port, West Virginia.--The bill
includes $600,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue
preconstruction engineering and design at the Erickson/Wood
County public port site.
Parkersburg/Vienna, West Virginia.--The Committee has
provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the
feasibility report and initiate preconstruction engineering and
design for the Parkersburg/Vienna, West Virginia, project.
Weirton Public Port, West Virginia.--The bill includes
$400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue preconstruction
engineering and design at the Weirton public port site.
Coastal Field Data Collection.--The Committee has provided
an additional $1,000,000 for the Southern California Beach
Process Study.
Great Lakes Remedial Action Program.--The Committee has
provided $1,000,000 to continue work on the Great Lakes
Remedial Action Program.
Planning Assistance to States.--Within the amount provided
for the Planning Assistance to States Program, $50,000 is for
the preparation of a Comprehensive Drainage Basin Plan for
Francis Bland Floodway Ditch (Eight Mile Creek) and tributaries
in the vicinity of Paragould, Arkansas, and $100,000 is for the
Corps of Engineers to provide planning assistance to develop a
master plan for Elk Creek Lake in Fleming County, Kentucky.
Flood Plain Management Services.--Within the amount
provided for Flood Plain Management Services, $100,000 is to
update a flood plain study for Tripps Run in the City of Falls
Church, Virginia. In addition, the amount provided for Flood
Plain Management Services includes $1,300,000 for the
development of a Foundational Floodplain Management Geographic
Information System for East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana,
containing essential graphic and non-graphic detailed
databases. The system will facilitate the wisest use and
planning within the floodplain, as well as improving the
response to emergency situations and watershed planning
requirements.
Research and Development.--The Committee has provided
$27,300,000 for the Corps of Engineers Research and Development
program. Within the amount provided, $3,300,000 is to continue
the National Shoreline Erosion Control Development and
Demonstration Program authorized by section 227 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996. This program allows the
Corps of Engineers to fund the demonstration of innovative
techniques for promoting shoreline protection and preventing
coastal erosion. Within the funds provided, the Committee has
provided $1,300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to demonstrate
the effectiveness of erosion control systems consisting of
permeable groins installed perpendicular to the shoreline which
reduce wave and current energy allowing a portion of the
sediment load to fall out of suspension at Gulf State Park in
Gulf Shores, Alabama. The Committee also expects the Corps to
continue the research program being undertaken along the Lake
Michigan shoreline which have revealed the significance of
groundwater, rather than waves, as a primary cause of slumps
and landslides.
In addition, the Committee encourages the Corps of
Engineers to fully investigate the use of electro-osmotic-pulse
technologies at facilities where chronic water seepage and
floods are problematic.
Within the funds provided for the Research and Development
Program, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to test the
effectiveness of the Aqua Levee emergency flood control system,
and report back to the Committee on the feasibility of
deploying this emergency flood control system for use in
fighting floods.
Cooperation With Institutions of Higher Learning.--The
Committee recognizes the ongoing problems associated with
severe weather phenomena in coastal regions and encourages the
Corps of Engineers, whenever possible, to collaborate with the
engineering departments of post secondary institutions in the
development of environmental, geotechnical, structural, and
hydraulic systems to address and prevent damage caused by
severe weather.
Construction, General
Appropriation, 2001................................... $1,716,165,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 1,324,000,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 1,671,854,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... -44,311,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. +347,854,000
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
Rio Salado, Phoenix and Tempe Reaches, Arizona.--The
Committee has provided $22,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers
to continue construction of the Rio Salado project in Arizona.
Fourche Bayou Basin, Arkansas.--The bill includes $180,000
for the Corps of Engineers to complete the Limited Reevaluation
Report for the Fourche Bayou Basin, Arkansas, project.
Red River Waterway, Index, Arkansas to Denison Dam,
Texas.--The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the Corps of
Engineers to construct a bendway weir bank stabilization
project along the Red River in the vicinity of the Oklahoma
State Highway 271 bridge. This project will demonstrate the
effectiveness of bendway weirs in preventing the severe bank
erosion that is occurring on the Red River between Index,
Arkansas and Denison Dam, Texas.
City of Santa Clarita, California.--The Committee has
provided $2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the
study of perchlorate contamination and the planning for its
removal within the Eastern Santa Clara River Basin in the City
of Santa Clarita.
Kaweah River, California.--The Committee has provided an
additional $2,000,000 for the Kaweah River, California,
project. The Committee is aware that the project sponsors have
appropriated all their required funds for the entire project.
Lower Walnut Creek, California.--The Committee has provided
$250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a General
Reevaluation Report which will detail a new project alternative
that incorporates riparian restoration goals with flood control
objectives.
Petaluma River, California.--The bill includes $8,000,000
for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of the
Petaluma River, California, project, and reimburse the local
sponsor for expenses in excess of the required cost sharing.
Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel, California.--The
Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
continue the Limited Reevaluation Report for the Sacramento
River Deep Water Ship Channel project.
Santa Ana River Mainstem, California.--The bill includes
$10,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction
of Reach 3B of the San Timoteo Creek feature of the Santa Ana
River Mainstem project in California.
San Lorezo River, California.--The Committee has provided
$3,490,000 to continue work on the San Lorenzo River project.
When the project authorization was modified in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999, it was the intent of
Congress that the Corps of Engineers treat the modification as
a seamless part of the original project, and that the bank
erosion control portion of the project not be treated as a
separate project subject to a separate new start decision.
Surfside-Sunset and Newport Beach, California.--The bill
includes $3,800,000 to continue the stage 11 nourishment at
Surfside-Sunset beach.
Brevard County, Florida.--The Committee has provided
$8,500,000 for renourishment of the South Reach of the Brevard
County, Florida, project.
Broward County, Florida.--The bill includes $2,500,000 for
the Corps of Engineers to reimburse Broward County for costs
associated with the renourishment of the Broward County,
Florida, project.
Central and Southern Florida, Florida.--Within the funds
provided for the Central and Southern Florida project, the
Committee expects the Committee to use $600,000 to undertake a
review and evaluation of the performance of the regional canal
system in Miami-Dade County.
Dade County, Florida.--The Committee has provided
$14,857,000 for the Dade County, Florida, project. The
additional funds will enable the Corps of Engineers to continue
work on the Alternative Sand Test Beach project and renourish
the Haulover Beach/Bal Harbour segment of the project. The
funds provided will also permit the Corps of Engineers to
undertake innovative beach erosion prevention and sand
recycling initiatives.
Duval County, Florida.--The bill includes $3,000,000 for
renourishment of the Duval County, Florida, shore protection
project.
Fort Pierce Beach, Florida.--The Committee has provided
$500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the Bryzone
study and prepare plans and specifications to permanently fix
the erosion problem for the one mile of beach front adjoining
the Federal project south of the inlet.
Martin County, Florida.--The bill includes $3,000,000 to
complete the renourishment of the Martin County, Florida,
project.
Palm Beach County, Florida.--The Committee has provided
$4,500,000 for renourishment of the Delray Beach segment of the
project.
Pinellas County, Florida.--The Committee has provided
$2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction
of the Pinellas County, Florida, project.
Port Everglades, Florida.--The Committee has provided
$4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to reimburse Port
Everglades for the Federal share of the costs associated with
widening and deepening the Southport Channel and the Turning
Notch at Port Everglades, Florida.
Sarasota County, Florida.--The Committee directs the Corps
of Engineers to use available funds to reimburse the City of
Venice, Florida, the Federal share of the construction costs of
an artificial reef that is to be considered an integral part of
the Sarasota County beach nourishment project, as well as the
Federal share of the costs of constructing and/or relocating
any stormwater outfall whose primary function is to drain storm
water from public property.
East St. Louis and Vicinity Interior Flood Control,
Illinois.--The bill includes $688,000 for the Corps of
Engineers to continue the General Reevaluation Report for the
East St. Louis and Vicinity Interior Flood Control project.
Olmsted Locks and Dam, Illinois.--The Committee has
provided $40,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue
construction of the Olmsted Locks and Dam project. Within the
amount provided, the Committee urges the Corps to work with the
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission to develop tools
to describe and monitor the biological processes of the Ohio
River for the purpose of maintaining and improving water
quality.
Calumet Region, Indiana.--The bill includes $3,000,000 for
the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of the Calumet
Region, Indiana, project.
Indiana Shoreline Erosion, Indiana.--The Committee has
provided $1,000,000 to continue construction of the Indiana
Shoreline Erosion, Indiana, project.
Missouri River Levee System, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and
Missouri.--The Committee has provided an additional $700,000
for the Unit L15 levee project.
Carr Creek Lake, Kentucky.--The bill includes $1,000,000
for the Corps of Engineers to modify the Carr Creek Lake,
Kentucky, project by reallocating reservoir storage and
undertaking measures at full Federal expense to mitigate the
impacts of raising the seasonal pool elevation to provide
additional water supply storage for the Upper Kentucky River
Basin in accordance with the Louisville District Carr Creek
Lake Water Supply Reallocation Study, dated January 2001.
Louisville Waterfront, Kentucky.--The Committee has
provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue design
of the Louisville Waterfront project.
Pond Creek, Kentucky.--The bill includes $425,000 for the
Corps of Engineers to continue the study to evaluate the
purchase and demolition of residences in the 100-year
floodplain.
Southern and Eastern Kentucky, Kentucky.--The bill includes
$4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue design and
construction of selected environmental infrastructure projects
in southern and eastern Kentucky.
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, Louisiana.--The
Committee is aware of the potential impacts on vehicular
traffic as a result of the construction of a new lock on the
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal. The Committee directs the Corps
of Engineers to work with the Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development and the U.S. Coast Guard on a
revised traffic study. The traffic study shall evaluate the
feasibility of replacing existing bridges with a tunnel or
higher elevation crossings with the goal of minimizing
vehicular traffic delays resulting from the project. Further,
the Committee expects the Corps to make traffic impacts a high
priority when developing and implementing a community
mitigation plan with local community leaders.
Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.--The Committee
recognizes the life-threatening situations that have occurred
several times by the closing of the Golden Meadow floodgates to
protect its ``interior'' citizens from storm surges. While the
Committee supports the use and operation of this flood control
system, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to expedite
to the fullest extent possible completion of the Leon Theriot
Lock to allow for the unimpeded passage of mariners seeking
safe harbor north of the floodgates at Bayou Lafourche.
Anacostia River and Tributaries, Maryland.--The Committee
has provided $2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete
the project to restore wetland areas along the Anacostia River.
Desoto County, Mississippi.--The Committee has provided
$5,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction
of the Desoto County, Mississippi, project.
Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri.--The
Committee is aware of the devastating flooding and life
threatening situation that occurred to residents of Perry
County, Missouri, during the flood of 1993 when levee
deficiencies resulted in failure of the existing Bois Brule
Drainage and Levee District, Missouri, project authorized by
the Flood Control Acts of 1936 and 1965. Therefore, the
Committee has provided $1,200,000 for the project and directs
the Secretary of the Army to initiate design and construction
of deficiency correction work to restore the Bois Brule
Drainage and Levee District project to its authorized level of
protection using continuing contracts as appropriate, and with
study and construction cost sharing consistent with the
original project. Additionally, the Committee is aware that a
portion of the study effort being performed under the Section
205 program is attributable to the design deficiency project,
and, therefore, directs the Secretary to transfer the
associated study costs to the design deficiency project.
St. Louis, Missouri.--The Committee has provided $4,000,000
for the Corps of Engineers to continue to work with the St.
Louis Metropolitan Sewer District to address critical flooding
and water contamination problems in St. Louis, Missouri.
Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, New Jersey.--
The Committee has included language in the bill which directs
the Secretary of the Army to construct the locally preferred
plan for the Middlesex Borough element of the Raritan River
Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, New Jersey, project.
Atlantic Coast of New York City, Rockaway Inlet to Norton
Point, New York.--The Committee has provided an additional
$600,000 for the Corps of Engineers to prepare plans and
specifications, modify the existing Project Cooperation
Agreement, and advertise a contract for implementing the
recommended T-groin alternative.
Long Beach Island, New York.--The Committee remains fully
supportive of the Long Beach Island, New York, project and
understands that sufficient carryover funding is available to
satisfy program requirements in fiscal year 2002.
Brunswick County Beaches, North Carolina.--The Committee
has provided $800,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue
preparation of a General Reevaluation Report for the Oak
Island, Caswell Beach, and Holden Beach segments of the
Brunswick County Beaches project in North Carolina.
Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay, North Carolina.--The Committee has
provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue
shoreline monitoring, and complete the General Design
Memorandum and Environmental Impact Statement supplement for
the Oregon Inlet project.
West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet, North Carolina.--The
Committee has provided $700,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
continue preparation of a General Reevaluation Report of the
currently authorized project and the remaining shoreline at
Topsail Beach.
Lower Girard Lake Dam, Ohio.--The Committee has provided
$1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work on the
project to repair and rehabilitate the Lower Girard Lake Dam in
Girard, Ohio.
Mill Creek, Ohio.--The Committee has provided an additional
$1,000,000 for the Mill Creek, Ohio, project. The funds are to
be used to accelerate completion of the General Reevaluation
Report and develop an early warning system to alert businesses
and residents in the watershed of possible floods.
Ohio Environmental Infrastructure, Ohio.--The bill includes
$4,000,000 for the Ohio Environmental Infrastructure program,
including $1,500,000 to assist the City of Springfield, Ohio,
with its wastewater treatment and sewer improvement needs.
Ottawa River, Ohio.--The Committee has provided $300,000
for the Corps of Engineers to complete the reevaluation report
and initiate plans and specifications for the Ottawa River,
Ohio, project.
Folly Beach, South Carolina.--The Committee has provided
$200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to identify a new sand
source for the Folly Beach, South Carolina, project.
Black Fox, Murfree, and Oaklands Springs Wetlands,
Tennessee.--The bill includes $2,000,000 to continue
construction of the authorized Black Fox, Murfree, and Oaklands
Springs Wetlands project in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. The Corps
of Engineers is directed to use available funds for additional
features at the Outdoor Classroom Space and at the passive and
active park areas identified in Figure 10 of the authorizing
document for the project.
Red River Basin Chloride Control, Texas and Oklahoma.--The
Committee has provided $2,100,000 for the Corps of Engineers
complete a reevaluation study, continue construction, and
continue environmental monitoring for the Red River Basin
Chloride Control project.
Red River Below Denison Dam, Texas, Arkansas, and
Louisiana.--The Committee has provided $2,500,000 for the Red
River Below Denison Dam project. Of the amount provided,
$500,000 is to rehabilitate the Bowie County Levee in Texas.
The remaining funds are to be used for the levee upgrade
program in northwest Louisiana.
San Antonio Channel Improvement, Texas.--The Committee has
provided $1,200,000 for a General Reevaluation Report for the
San Antonio Channel Improvement project to define the Federal
interest in the environmental restoration and recreation
components of the project. In addition, $200,000 is provided
for expand ongoing hydraulic performance studies for the
project.
Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia.--The Committee has
provided $1,200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work
on the Marlinton element of the project.
Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper
Cumberland River, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky.--The
bill includes a total of $35,200,000 for the Levisa and Tug
Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River
project. The amount provided includes: $4,500,000 for the
Clover Fork, Kentucky, element of the project; $1,000,000 for
the City of Cumberland, Kentucky, element of the project;
$1,650,000 for the Town of Martin, Kentucky, element of the
project; $2,100,000 for the Pike County, Kentucky, element of
the project, including $1,100,000 for additional studies along
the tributaries of the Tug Fork and continuation of a Detailed
Project Report for the Levisa Fork; $3,850,000 for the Martin
County, Kentucky, element of the project; $950,000 for the
Floyd County, Kentucky, element of the project; $600,000 for
the Harlan County, Kentucky, element of the project; and
$800,000 for additional studies along the tributaries of the
Cumberland River in Bell County, Kentucky.
In addition, the Committee has provided $18,600,000 for the
Corps of Engineers to continue work on the Grundy, Virginia,
element of the project, $450,000 to complete the Buchanan
County, Virginia, Detailed Project Report, and $700,000 to
continue the Dickenson County, Virginia, Detailed Project
Report. The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to
continue the Dickenson County Detailed Project Report as
generally defined in Plan 4 of the Huntington District
Engineer's Draft Supplement to the Section 202 General Plan for
Flood Damage Reduction dated April 1997, including all Russell
Fork tributary streams within the County and special
considerations as may be appropriate to address the unique
relocations and resettlement needs for the flood prone
communities within the County.
West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control, West Virginia
and Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided $2,300,000 for
the West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control project. Of
the amount provided, $600,000 is to complete the Detailed
Project Reports for Philippi and Belington, West Virginia, and
to implement an emergency flood warning system for the Tygart
River Basin in West Virginia. In addition, $1,700,000 is
provided for the Meyersdale flood damage reduction project in
Somerset County, Pennsylvania, and the Hooversville flood
damage reduction project in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.
Shoreline Protection Projects (Section 103).--The Committee
has provided the amount of $5,000,000 for the Section 103
program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation
includes: $400,000 for the Carpinteria Beach Erosion Control
project, California, project; $212,000 for plans and
specifications for the project at Nantasket Beach, Hull,
Massachusetts; $1,000,000 for the Sylvan Beach Breakwater, New
York, project; $556,000 for beach restoration and shore
protection on the Hudson River, Dutchess County, New York;
$200,000 to initiate and complete plans and specifications for
the project on Lake Erie at Athol Springs, New York; and,
$100,000 to initiate the feasibility phase on the project to
restore the Bay Point Peninsula off of the City of Luna Pier,
Michigan, in Maumee Bay.
Small Navigation Projects (Section 107).--The Committee has
provided $15,000,000 for the Section 107 program. Within the
amount provided, the recommendation includes: $300,000 to
determine the Federal interest in a project for navigation on
the Tennessee River, Bridgeport, Alabama; $100,000 to complete
the feasibility study on the Tennessee River, Barton River
Port, Tuscumbia, Alabama; $1,000,000 to complete plans and
specifications and to initiate construction on the Slackwater
Harbor, Arkansas River, Russelville, Arkansas, project;
$677,000 to complete the feasibility study of the Blytheville
Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas; $250,000 to complete the
feasibility phase for Pillar Point Harbor, California; $330,000
for the project at Oyster Point Marina, California; $1,500,000
to initiate construction of the Port Hueneme, California,
project; $1,500,000 to initiate and complete plans and
specifications and initiate construction of the San Diego Bay
Harbor Deepening, California, project; $200,000 to complete the
feasibility study of the Whiting Shoreline, Whiting, Indiana,
project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for Federal
interest in navigation on the Rouge River, Michigan; $827,000
to initiate and complete construction of the Pemiscot County
Harbor, Missouri, project; $1,000,000 for the construction of
the Buffalo-Inner Harbor Excavation Project, Buffalo, New York;
$100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for Lake Erie at
Sturgeon Point, Evans, New York; $100,000 to initiate the
feasibility study for the West Side Rowing Club, Buffalo, New
York; $2,000,000 to continue construction of the Lakeshore
State Park, City of Milwaukee Navigation Improvement,
Wisconsin; and $100,000 for Saxon Harbor, Wisconsin.
The Committee's recommendation also includes the necessary
funds to reimburse local interests for credits authorized by
Section 323 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
related to the construction of phase 1 of the New Madrid County
Harbor, Missouri, project.
Mitigation Damages Attributable to Navigation Projects
(Section 111).--The Committee has provided $900,000 for the
Section 111 program. Within the amount provided, the
recommendation includes $350,000 to complete plans and
specifications for the Saco River and Camp Ellis Beach, Saco,
Maine, project; $190,000 for the Saugatuck Harbor Federal
Navigation Structure project, Michigan; $260,000 for the
initial assessment and feasibility study of Mattituck Inlet,
Southold, New York; and $100,000 for the Puget Sound Shoreline,
Washington, project.
Project Modifications for the Improvement of the
Environment (Section 1135).--The Committee has provided
$25,000,000 for the Section 1135 program. Within the amount
provided, the recommendation includes: $5,000,000 for the
design and construction of the Garrow's Bend Basin Restoration,
Mobile, Alabama; $340,000 for the Rillito/Swan Wetlands,
Arizona, project; $100,000 to initiate and complete the
feasibility study for Ditch 28, Arkansas; $650,000 initiate and
complete plans and specifications and construction on the Bull
Creek Channel Ecosystem Restoration, Sepulveda Flood Control
Basin Restoration, California, project; $1,745,000 for the
Gunnerson Pond, Lake Elsinore, California, project; $100,000 to
complete the preliminary restoration plan and initiate the
feasibility study on Pillar Point Harbor, California;
$1,000,000 to initiate the feasibility study of the San Gabriel
River Basin, Los Cerritos Wetlands Environmental Restoration,
California; $750,000 to continue construction on the Colfax
Reach, South Platte River, Colorado, project; $240,000 to
complete the feasibility phase and initiate plans and
specifications on the Sand Creek Ecosystem Restoration, Newton,
Kansas, project; $1,000,000 to complete plans and
specifications and initiate construction of the Kansas City
Riverfront Habitat Restoration, Missouri, project; $685,000 to
complete plans and specifications and initiate construction on
the Little Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration, North Carolina,
project; $200,000 for the Great South Bay Hard Clam
Restoration, New York, project; $290,000 to complete the
feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications on the
Times Beach Environmental Improvement, Buffalo, New York,
project; $200,000 to initiate a feasibility study of the Smokes
Creek Relocation, Lackawanna, New York; $80,000 to complete
plans and specifications for the Boyd's Marsh Restoration,
Rhode Island, project; $60,000 to complete plans and
specifications for the Allin's Cove, Rhode Island, project;
$530,000 to complete plans and specifications and initiate
construction of the San Antonio River, Eagleland Habitat
Restoration, San Antonio, Texas, project; and $844,000 to
complete the feasibility study and plans and specifications on
the Richland Wye Shoreline Enhancement, Washington.
Emergency Streambank and Erosion Control (Section 14).--The
Committee has provided $9,000,000 for the Section 14 program.
Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes:
$100,000 to initiate and complete the planning and design
analysis for the Ditto Landing Phase II, Huntsville, Alabama,
project; $800,000 to initiate and complete bank stabilization
on the Little Rock Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas, project;
$75,000 to complete the planning and design analysis and
initiate plans and specifications for the Powers Boulevard at
East Fork of Sand Creek, Colorado Springs, Colorado, project;
$140,000 to prepare the detailed project report and initiate
plans and specifications for the Chelton Road Bridge over Sand
Creek, Colorado Springs, Colorado, project; $220,000 for the
Webster County, Iowa, project; $40,000 to initiate and complete
the planning and design analysis for the Ackerman Creek in
Morton, Illinois; $40,000 to initiate and complete the planning
and design analysis for Farm Creek in Washington, Illinois;
$40,000 to initiate the planning and design analysis for the
Maumee River, Shoreline Erosion Protection, Fort Wayne,
Indiana; $960,000 to complete the planning and design analysis
and initiate construction of the Punch Island Road, Dorchester
County, Maryland, project; $100,000 to continue the planning
and design analysis at Belle Isle South Shore, Michigan;
$188,000 to complete construction of the Lake Michigan Center,
Muskegon, Michigan, project; $60,000 to initiate and complete
planning and design for the Bakers Creek, Clinton, Mississippi,
project; $635,000 to complete plans and specifications and
initiate construction of the Poughkeepsie, New York, project;
$140,000 to initiate and complete construction of the Dresden,
Tennessee, project; $650,000 to complete the planning and
design analysis and initiate construction of the Bogachiel
River near La Push, Clallam County, Washington, project; and
$40,000 to initiate the planning and design analysis on the
Kenosha Harbor Retaining Wall, Shoreline Erosion Protection,
City of Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Beneficial Use of Dredge Material (Section 204).--The
Committee has provided $1,500,000 for the Section 204 program.
Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes:
$219,000 for the Mississippi Gulf River Outlet, Louisiana and
$90,000 for the Restoration of the Cat Island Chain, Wisconsin.
Small Flood Control Projects (Section 205).--The Committee
has provided $40,000,000 for the Section 205 program. Within
the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $200,000 to
initiate the feasibility study for the Brewton, Alabama,
project; $200,000 for the Jasper, Alabama, project; $500,000 to
complete the plans and specifications and initiate construction
of the locally preferred plan for the Pinhook Creek,
Huntsville, Alabama, project; $50,000 to complete the
feasibility study of Bono Lake, Arkansas; $500,000 to initiate
construction for the Indian Bayou in Lonoke and Jefferson
Counties, Arkansas, project; $50,000 to complete the
feasibility study of Spring Creek, St. Francis County,
Arkansas; $113,000 to complete the detailed project report and
initiate the feasibility study for Coyote Creek at Rock
Springs, California; $2,000,000 to initiate construction on the
Magpie Creek, Sacramento, California, project; $200,000 to
continue the detailed project report of Magpie Creek on
McClellan Air Force Base, California; $100,000 to continue the
feasibility study of the City of Santa Clarita, Castaic Creek,
Old Road Bridges, California, project; $400,000 for the
feasibility study of Anaverde Creek, Palmdale, California;
$375,000 for the City of Whittier, California, project;
$300,000 for the City of Norwalk, California, project; $100,000
to initiate a feasibility study for flood control at Huntington
Beach, California; $200,000 to initiate the detailed project
report for Contra Costa Canal (Rock Slough), Oakley and
Knightsen, California; $200,000 to initiate the detailed
project report for Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California;
$650,000 to determine Federal interest, design, and reconstruct
the Santa Venetia Pump Replacement, California, project;
$100,000 to initiate the feasibility study on Cheyenne Creek,
Colorado Springs; $2,000,000 for construction of the Van
Bibber-Arvada Plaza Drainage, Colorado, project; $115,000 to
complete the feasibility study for flood protection of the Farm
River, North Branford/East Haven, Connecticut; $100,000 to
initiate the feasibility study of the Ocmulgee River Levee,
Macon, Georgia; $70,000 to initiate a feasibility study at
Monroe County, Illinois; $1,439,000 to continue construction of
the East Peoria, Illinois, project; $30,000 for the feasibility
study at Grafton, Illinois; $100,000 for the Prairie du Pont,
Illinois, project; $100,000 to complete the preliminary
assessment and feasibility study of the Mississinewa River,
Marion, Indiana; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study on
the Southwest Branch, Cedar Falls, Iowa; $1,430,000 for East
Boyer River Denison, Iowa, project; $450,000 for the Mad Creek,
Muscatine, Iowa, project; $200,000 to expeditiously complete
the feasibility study of the Whitewater and Walnut Rivers,
Augusta, Kansas in light of the devastation that occurred
during the Halloween flood of 1998, which resulted in millions
of dollars in property damage to more that 600 homes and
business; $454,000 for Cowskin Creek, Wichita, Kansas; $100,000
to complete the preliminary project report and feasibility
study at Versailles, Kentucky; $100,000 to complete the
preliminary project report and feasibility study at Winchester,
Kentucky; $350,000 to evaluate alternative solutions and
resolve the issue of continued flooding associated with the
Mayfield Creek and Tributaries, Kentucky, flood control
project; $100,000 to complete the preliminary project report
and feasibility study at Nicholasville, Kentucky; $100,000 to
complete the preliminary project report and feasibility study
of Banklick Creek, Kenton County, Kentucky; $2,972,000 for the
construction of the Jean Laffitte (Fisher School Basin),
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, project; $300,000 to complete
plans and specifications for the Rosethorn Basin, Jean Lafitte,
Louisiana, project; $200,000 to initiate and complete plans and
specifications for the Pailet Basin, Jefferson Parish,
Louisiana, project; $100,000 to initiate a feasibility study of
the Aberjona River, Winchester, Massachusetts; $25,000 for the
Little River Diversion, Dutchtown, Missouri; $550,000 to
complete construction of the Main Ditch 8, Pemiscot County,
Missouri, project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study
for the Trailwood Subdivision Area, Clinton, Mississippi;
$750,000 to complete construction of the Mckeel Brook, Morris
County, New Jersey, project; $100,000 to initiate the
feasibility study of Jackson Brook, New Jersey; $500,000 to
initiate construction of the Mill Brook, Highland Park, New
Jersey, project; $200,000 to initiate plans and specifications
for the Popular Brook, Monmouth County, New Jersey, project;
$100,000 for the feasibility study of the Lower Palomas Creek,
Sierra County, New Mexico; $50,000 for the Cazenovia Creek Ice
Control Structure, West Seneca, New York, project; $100,000 for
the feasibility study of Brentwood Brook, Harrison, New York;
$100,000 for the feasibility study of Larchmont Reservoir,
Larchmont, New York; $1,000,000 for the Red River, Wahepeton,
North Dakota, project; $150,000 for the Dam Break Early Warning
System, Silverton, Oregon; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility
study for the City of Keizer, Labish Ditch, Oregon, project;
$100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for Coloso Valley,
Aquada, Puerto Rico; $188,000 to initiate plans and
specifications for the Beaver Creek, Bristol, Tennessee and
Virginia, project; $100,000 to complete the feasibility study
and initiate plans and specifications for the Erwin, Tennessee,
project; $195,000 to initiate and complete construction for the
Baxter Bottom, Tipton County, Tennessee, project; $50,000 to
complete the feasibility study at Covington, Tennessee;
$100,000 to initiate and complete a feasibility study at
Dresden, Tennessee; $75,000 to complete the feasibility study
of the Dyer County Little Levee, Tennessee; $50,000 to complete
the feasibility study of Oliver Creek, Shelby County,
Tennessee; $100,000 to initiate the detailed project report of
the Dry Canyon Storm Watershed, Utah; $210,000 to complete the
feasibility study for Snoqualmie River at North Bend,
Washington; and $210,000 for the feasibility study of Wind
Lake, Wisconsin.
The Committee notes that the Snoqualmie Flood Control
Project is behind schedule and expects the Corps of Engineers
to proceed with the project as expeditiously as possible.
The Committee, in accordance with the authority provided in
Section 332 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, has
also provided $700,000 for the Bois Brule Drainage and Levee,
District, Missouri project under the Continuing Authorities
Program and directs the Secretary to increase the authorized
level of projection from 50-years to 100-years. The project
costs allocated to the incremental increase in level of
projection shall be cost shared consistent with Section 103(a)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, notwithstanding
Section 202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996,
and this increment should be constructed concurrently with the
deficiency correction work to ensure a technically sound and
cost effective solution is provided to the flooding problems in
this area.
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206).--The Committee
has provided $20,000,000 for the Section 206 program. Within
the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $105,000 to
complete the ecosystem report for the Aqua Caliente Wash, Pima
County, Arizona, project; $225,000 to initiate the feasibility
study for the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management
Initiative, California; $100,000 for the Arundo Donax, Santa
Clara River, Santa Clarita, California, project; $450,000 for
the Delta Science Center, California; $500,000 for the
Huntington Beach Aquatic Restoration, California, project;
$175,000 for the Mill River Corridor Revitalization,
Connecticut, project; $200,000 to complete the feasibility
study of the Stevenson Creek Estuary, Florida; $700,000 for the
East Pass Opening (Channel), Panama City Harbor, Florida,
project; $425,000 for the Hogan's Creek Restoration, Florida,
project; $700,000 for the Dinner Key (Sea Plane) Aquatic
Ecosystem Restoration, Florida, project; $201,000 for the Duck
Creek, Davenport, Iowa, project; $45,000 for the Chouteau
Island, Madison County, Illinois, project; $225,000 to initiate
the feasibility study for Squaw Creek Basin, Illinois; $400,000
to prepare plans and specifications and initiate construction
of the Hoffman, Armitage, and Fairbanks Dams, Illinois,
modification project; $275,000 for the Kankakee River Basin
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Illinois, project; $1,000,000
for the Wolf Lake, Indiana, project; $400,000 for construction
of the Lake Nemaha Wetlands, Seneca, Kansas, project; $100,000
to initiate the feasibility study for the Lost River Valley
Wetlands Development, Bowling Green, Kentucky; $200,000 for the
Luling Oxidation Pond, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, project;
$118,000 for the St. James Parish Ecosystem Restoration,
Louisiana; $200,000 for the Nashawannuck Pond, Easthampton,
Massachusetts, project; $160,000 to complete the feasibility
study of the Hennepin Marsh, Grosse Ile Township, Michigan,
project; $50,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the
Black Lagoon, Trenton, Michigan; $600,000 for the Rivers South
Recreation Plan, River Des Peres, Missouri; $100,000 to
initiate the feasibility study for the David City Wetlands,
Butler County, Nebraska; $210,000 for the feasibility study of
Lake Weamaconk, New Jersey; $50,000 for the Cazenovia, New
York, project; $200,000 to prepare a preliminary restoration
plan and feasibility study for Chenango Lake, Chenango County,
New York; $100,000 for the Oyster Reef Creation, Port
Jefferson, New York, project; $100,000 to initiate a
feasibility study of the Oak Orchard Creek and Tonawanda Creek
Watersheds, New York; $100,000 for the feasibility study of the
Nepperhan River Outlet, Yonkers, New York; $180,000 for the
Weir Creek, Bronx, New York, project; $10,000 for the initial
assessment of the Sheldrake and Goodlife Pond, New Rochelle and
Mamaroneck, New York; $10,000 for the initial assessment of the
Mamaroneck Reservoir, Mamaroneck, New York; $10,000 for the
initial assessment of the Duck Pond Restoration, Harrison, New
York; $350,000 to complete plans and specifications and
initiate construction on the Little Sugar Creek Aquatic
Ecosystem Restoration, North Carolina, project; $125,000 to
initiate a feasibility study of Middle Cuyahoga River, Kent Dam
Restoration, Portage County, Ohio; $250,000 to continue the
feasibility study of the Lake Carl Blackwell Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration, Oklahoma; $1,000,000 for the Springfield Millrace,
Oregon, project; $400,000 for the Kettle Creek Watershed, Dents
Run, Pennsylania, project; $250,000 for the environmental
restoration report for the Wetland Education Center, University
of Texas Marine Science Institute, Port Aransas, Texas;
$250,000 to complete the ecosystem restoration report and
initiate plans and specifications for the West Jordan, Utah,
project; $400,000 for the Ely/Pucketts Creek, Viriginia,
project; $100,000 to determine Federal interest and initiate
design of the Duwamish Waterway Marsh Restoration, Washington,
project; and $150,000 for the Lake Koshkonong Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration, Wisconsin, project.
Snagging and Clearing (Section 208).--The Committee has
provided $1,000,000 for the Section 208 program. Within the
amount provided, the recommendation includes: $324,000 for
construction of the Big Slough Ditch, Craighead County,
Arkansas, project; $100,000 for construction of the Ditch 2,
Craighead County, Arkansas, project; $80,000 to construct the
Farrenburg Ditch, Missouri, project; and $205,000 to complete
the planning and design analysis and initiate and complete
construction of the Lateral No. 3, Missouri, project.
Aquatic Plant Control Program.--Within the amount provided
for the Aquatic Plant Control Program: $150,000 is for the
eradication of aquatic weeds in Clear Lake, California; $50,000
is for the removal of aquatic weeds in the Lavaca and Navidad
Rivers in Texas; $300,000 is for the removal of aquatic weeds
in Caddo Lake, Texas; and $100,000 is for the removal of
aquatic growth in the Potomac River in Virginia, Maryland, and
the District of Columbia.
Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability Correction Program.--
Within the amount provided for the Dam Safety and Seepage/
Stability Correction Program, the Committee has provided
$3,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue critical dam
safety repairs to Waterbury Dam in Vermont.
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries
Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and
Tennessee
Appropriation, 2001................................... $350,458,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 280,000,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 347,655,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... -2,803,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. +67,655,000
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
General investigations
Donaldsonville to the Gulf, Louisiana.--The Committee has
provided an additional $800,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
expedite the feasibility study of solutions for flooding in the
area.
Horn Lake and Tributaries, Tennessee and Mississippi.--The
Committee is aware of the residual flooding problems along the
urban areas of Horn Lake Creek and the need for a higher level
of flood protection to be provided. The Committee, therefore,
has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue
the reevaluation of the project.
Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas.--The Committee is aware of the
need to complete the reevaluation of the Bayou Meto Basin
project, conditionally authorized by Section 363(a) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996. The Committee,
therefore, has included $2,573,000 for the Corps of Engineers
to complete the reevaluation and preconstruction engineering
and design.
Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana.--The Committee
has provided an additional $2,500,000 to continue the expedited
engineering and design of the Houma Lock and completion of the
Morganza to the Gulf feasibility study this calendar year.
Construction
Channel Improvement.--The Committee recognizes the critical
need of providing navigation along the Mississippi River and
the efficiency in the construction of dikes as they reduce
dredging requirements. Therefore, the Committee has included
$43,905,000 for the project, $500,000 above the budget request,
to initiate dike construction at Keyes Point, Arkansas; Kate
Aubrey, Arkansas; and Ashport-Goldust, Arkansas and Tennessee.
Mississippi River Levees.--The Committee recognizes the
importance of the Mississippi River Levees and has provided an
additional amount of $6,543,000 above the budget request of
$43,457,000. Further, the committee is aware of the conditions
of the levee in the vicinity of New Madrid, Missouri. This
condition is primarily the result of stone being placed along
the slope of the levee by the Corps of Engineers during flood
situations to protect the levee from wave wash and from
dilapidated structures that exist in the vicinity of the levee
section. These conditions pose a threat to safe public access
and prevent satisfactory maintenance of the levee. The
Committee, therefore, directs the Corps to construct
improvements under the Mississippi River Levees authority,
which have been identified in a report prepared by the Memphis
District. The Committee has included $4,100,000 within the
additional amount to construct these improvements.
St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.--The Committee is
aware of the frequent and prolonged flooding of lands and
improvements along the uncompleted portion of the St. Francis
Basin project. Therefore, the Committee has provided an
additional $1,000,000 above the budget request of $3,230,000 to
complete construction of Ditches 1 & 6, Missouri.
Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.--The Committee has
included $1,300,000 above the budget request of $1,600,000 for
the project features at the Davis Pond area. Additionally, the
Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to continue to work with
the oyster fishing industry to resolve any impacts resulting
from the construction and operation of the project.
Demonstration Erosion Control, Mississippi.--The work to
date by the Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources
Conservation Service has shown positive results in the
reduction of flood damages, decreased erosion and sediments,
and improvements to the environment. These positive results
show that continued funding for the program is important and
that it should be completed to recognize the total benefits of
the program. This may well be a case where the completed
program gives results that are much greater than the sum of the
individual items of work. The additional funds are provided to
continue design, real estate acquisition, monitoring of
completed work, and initiation of continuing contracts. The
Committee expects the Administration to continue to request
funds for this important project.
Upper Yazoo Project, Mississippi.--The Committee has
provided an additional $5,000,000 to continue construction on
the Upper Yazoo Project, Mississippi.
St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway, Missouri.--The
Committee has provided an additional $850,000 for a total of
$1,000,000 to advance construction of elements within the State
of Missouri on the St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway.
Nonconnah Creek, Flood Control Feature, Tennessee and
Missouri.--The Committee has provided $1,615,000 of which
$200,000 is to be used to reevaluate the extension of the flood
control project upstream five miles and $115,000 is to be used
to investigate recreational and environmental enhancements for
the Nonconnah Creek project.
Maintenance
St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.--The Committee
recognizes the critical backlog of maintenance items on this
project and has provided an additional $8,367,000 above the
budget request to address this problem. The funds are to be
used for levee maintenance, scour repairs, and channel cleanout
at various locations of the St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and
Missouri, project.
Bonnet Carre, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided an
additional $960,000 for the replacement of critical operating
equipment bringing the total funds provided to $2,814,000 on
the Bonnet Carre, Louisiana, project.
Yazoo Basin, Mississippi.--The Committee provides the
following additional amounts for the maintenance of the Yazoo
Basin projects: $4,000,000 for Arkabutla Lake, $2,700,000 for
Big Sunflower River, $2,500,000 for Enid Lake, $2,100,000 for
Grenada Lake, $3,000,000 for Sardis Lake, and an additional
$847,000 for the Yazoo Tributaries, Mississippi.
Wappapello Lake, Missouri.--The Committee provides an
additional $500,000 above the budget request for a total of
$8,500,000. The additional funds are to be used for road
relocation as part of the Wappapello Lake Missouri, project.
Operation and Maintenance, General
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001.................................. $1,897,775,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................ 1,745,000,000
Recommended, 2002.................................... 1,864,464,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001.............................. -33,311,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................ +119,464,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
Alabama-Coosa River, Alabama.--The Committee has provided
an additional $4,625,000 for annual operation and maintenance
including lake and recreation maintenance, environmental
studies, and replacement of spillway safety signs for the
Alabama-Coosa River, Alabama, project.
Bayou Coden, Alabama.--The Committee has provided an
additional $500,000 for maintenance dredging of the Bayou
Coden, Alabama, project.
Bayou La Batre, Alabama.--The Committee has provided an
additional $150,000 for maintenance dredging of the Bayou La
Batre, Alabama, project.
Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama.--The Committee
has provided an additional $2,600,000 for annual operation and
maintenance including the locks and dams, recreation
facilities, and upland disposal areas on the Black Warrior and
Tombigbee Rivers
Dauphin Island Bay, Alabama.--The Committee has provided an
additional $350,000 for annual operation and maintenance on the
Dauphin Island Bay, Alabama, project.
Mobile Area Digital Area Mapping and Geographic Information
System, Alabama.--The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the
Corps of Engineers to continue work begun in fiscal year 2001
to develop an area-wide geographic information system for
Mobile and Baldwin Counties in Alabama. This effort will
continue the development of a geographic information system to
organize, store, analyze, and maintain geospatial data
associated with Federal projects in the area.
Millers Ferry Lock and Dam, Alabama.--The Committee has
provided an additional $2,300,000 for a debris disposal system
and to replace a raw water piping system for the Millers Ferry
Lock and Dam project.
Mobile Harbor, Alabama.--The Committee has provided an
additional $5,700,000 to dredge the bay and channel sumps,
maintain Arlington channel, perform sediment reevaluation,
continue data reporting, and develop the Chickasaw Creek
disposal plan for the Mobile Harbor, Alabama, project.
Robert F. Henry Lock and Dam, Alabama.--The Committee has
provided an additional $600,000 to replace spillway safety
signs on the Robert F. Henry Lock and Dam.
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama.--The Committee has
provided an additional $1,700,000 for the Tennessee-Tombigbee
Waterway project. The additional funds above the budget request
are to be used for deferred maintenance dredging, to repair and
resite the historic snagboat, Montgomery, and to clear the
channel from the downstream end of the Big Creek Bendway past
the confluence with Big Creek.
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Wildlife Mitigation, Alabama
and Mississippi.--The Committee has provided $1,200,000 for the
states of Mississippi and Alabama to administer 125,925 acres
of wildlife mitigation lands for the Tennessee-Tombigbee
Waterway.
Anchorage Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee has provided an
additional $1,000,000 for a model study of Anchorage Harbor,
Alaska.
Kodiak Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee has provided an
additional $750,000 for maintenance dredging of Kodiak Harbor,
Alaska.
Helena Harbor, Phillips County, Arkansas.--The Committee
has provided $340,000 for maintenance dredging of Helena
Harbor, Arkansas.
Narrows Dam, Lake Greeson, Arkansas.--The Committee has
provided an additional $1,000,000 for recreation and powerhouse
facilities rehabilitation on the Narrows Dam, Lake Greeson,
Arkansas, project.
Osceola Harbor, Arkansas.--The Committee has provided an
additional $610,000 for maintenance dredging of Osceola Harbor,
Arkansas.
Yellow Bend Port, Arkansas.--The Committee has provided an
additional $150,000 for maintenance dredging of Yellow Bend
Port, Arkansas.
Bodega Bay, California.--The Committee has provided
$1,800,000 for the preparation of an upland disposal site for
the dredging of the Bodega Bay, California, project.
Isabella Lake, California.--The Committee expects the Corps
of Engineers to use funds appropriated in the Act to conduct
the measures required by the June 14, 2000, Biological Opinion
issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with respect to
long-term operation of Isabella Reservoir, Kern County,
California. The Committee further expects the Corps of
Engineers to identify the least costly actions available,
including, whenever possible, the utilization of partnerships
with other Federal and non-Federal agencies and organizations,
so that the Corps can continue to operate and maintain Isabella
Dam and Reservoir for flood control and water conservation
purposes as provided in the October 23, 1964, contract among
the United States of America and various public agencies.
Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California.--The
Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 to grade and
maintain the basin within Hansen Dam to enhance and maintain
flood capacity and to provide for future use of the basin for
compatible purposes consistent with the Master Plan, including
recreation and environmental restoration on the Los Angeles
County Drainage Area, California, project.
Moss Landing Harbor, California.--The Committee has
provided $2,500,000 for maintenance dredging of the Federal
channel in Moss Landing Harbor, California.
Redwood City Harbor, California.--The Committee has
provided $2,000,000 for maintenance dredging of Redwood City
Harbor, California.
San Francisco Bay, Long Term Management Strategy,
California.--The Committee has provided $200,000 to continue
the development of a long term strategy for the disposal of
dredged material for the San Francisco Bay, California, area.
San Francisco Harbor and Bay (Drift Removal), California.--
The Committee has provided an additional $134,000 for debris
removal activities in San Francisco Bay and Harbor, California.
San Francisco Harbor, California.--The Committee has
provided an additional $199,000 for maintenance dredging of San
Francisco Harbor, California.
San Joaquin River, California.--The Committee has provided
an additional $2,802,000 for maintenance dredging on the San
Joaquin River, California, project.
Ventura Harbor, California.--The Committee has provided an
additional $1,165,000 for repairs of the South Beach Groin on
the Ventura Harbor, California, project.
Cherry Creek Lake, Colorado.--None of the funds provided
for operation and maintenance of the Cherry Creek Lake project
in Colorado may be used to undertake a study of dam safety at
the project.
Intracoastal Waterway from Delaware River to Chesapeake
Bay, Delaware and Maryland.--None of the funds provided for
operation and maintenance of the Intracoastal Waterway from
Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay project may be used to close
or remove the St. Georges Bridge without prior authorization of
the Congress.
Canaveral Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has provided an
additional $2,930,000 for maintenance dredging of the Canaveral
Harbor, Florida, project.
Carrabella Bay Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has provided
$150,000 for a sand flat removal dredge management study at the
Carrabella Bay Harbor, Florida, project.
Fort Pierce Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has provided an
additional $1,951,000 for maintenance dredging of the Fort
Pierce Harbor, Florida, project.
Miami River, Florida.--The Committee has provided
$4,000,000 for maintenance dredging of the Miami River,
Florida, project.
Suwanee River, Florida.--The Committee has provided
$2,000,000 for the dredging of McGriff Pass on the Suwanee
River, Florida, project.
Allatona Lake, Georgia.--The Committee has provided an
additional $906,000 for recreational facility maintenance at
the Allatona Lake, Georgia, project.
Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, Georgia,
Alabama, and Florida.--The Committee has provided an additional
$6,818,000 to address the maintenance and dredging backlog on
the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers project.
Of the funds provided, $540,000 is to restore fish and
wildlife habitat and hydrologic connections to Florida River,
Kennedy Creek, and Iamonia Lake within the Apalachicola system,
and $500,000 is to restore the historic hydrologic connection
between the Apalachicola River and Virginia Cut.
Carters Dam and Lake, Georgia.--The Committee has provided
an additional $1,200,000 for powerhouse repairs at the Carters
Dam and Lake, Georgia, project.
Savannah Harbor, Georgia.--The Committee has provided an
additional $1,089,000 for operation and maintenance dredging on
the Savannah Harbor, Georgia, project.
Kaskaskia River Navigation, Illinois.--The Committee has
provided an additional $491,000 for maintenance dredging on the
Kaskaskia River Navigation project, Illinois.
Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky.--The Committee has provided an
additional $120,000 for recreational improvements on the
Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky, project.
Carr Creek Lake, Kentucky.--The Committee has provided an
additional $120,000 for recreational improvements on the Carr
Creek Lake, Kentucky, project.
Elvis Stahr (Hickman) Harbor, Kentucky.--The Committee has
provided $460,000 for maintenance dredging of the Elvis Stahr
Harbor, Kentucky, project.
Barataria Bay Waterway, Louisiana.--The Committee has
provided $2,000,000 for dredging on the Barataria Bay Waterway
project including Bayou Rigaurd and Barataria Pass in the
vicinity of Grand Isle, Louisiana.
Bayou Teche, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided
$2,000,000 to dredge the bayou and East and West Calumet
Floodgates on the Bayou Teche, Louisiana, project.
Freshwater Bayou, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided an
additional $2,000,000 to perform maintenance dredging on the
Freshwater Bayou, Louisiana, between the Freshwater Bayou Lock
and the Gulf of Mexico.
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana.--The Committee has
provided an additional $2,000,000 to address critical backlog
maintenance on the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana,
project.
Mermentau River, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided an
additional $300,000 to dredge between Grand Cheniere and the
Gulf of Mexico on the Mermentau River, Louisiana.
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Louisiana.--The Committee
has provided an additional $2,000,000 for embankment
stabilization on the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Louisiana,
project. The Committee is very concerned about erosion problems
on the channel.
Waterway from Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to Bayou Dulac,
Louisiana.--The Committee has provided $500,000 to maintain the
waterway from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to Bayou Dulac,
Louisiana.
Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland.--The Committee has
provided an additional $1,000,000 to upgrade recreational
facilities on the Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland, project.
Aunt Lydia's Cove, Massachusetts.--The Committee has
provided $300,000 for the dredging of the Aunt Lydia's Cove,
Massachusetts, project.
Andrew's River, Massachusetts.--The Committee has provided
$130,000 for the dredging of the Andrew's River, Massachusetts,
project.
Scituate Harbor, Massachusetts.--The Committee has provided
$1,500,000 to dredge the Federal channel, anchorages, and
repair the South Jetty on the Scituate Harbor, Massachusetts,
project.
St. Mary's River, Little Rapids Channel, Michigan.--The
Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the St. Mary's River,
Little Rapids Channel.
Grand Marais, Michigan.--The Committee has provided
$200,000 to conduct a major rehabilitation reevaluation of the
harbor project at Grand Marais, Michigan.
Caruthersville Harbor, Missouri.--The Committee has
provided $240,000 for maintenance dredging of the project at
Caruthersville Harbor, Missouri.
Clearwater Lake, Missouri.--The Committee has provided an
additional $1,635,000 for the relocation of recreation
facilities and repairs due to ice storm damage on the
Clearwater Lake, Missouri, project.
New Madrid Harbor, Missouri.--The Committee has provided
$290,000 for maintenance dredging of the project at New Madrid
Harbor, Missouri.
Southeast Missouri Port, Mississippi River, Missouri.--The
Committee has provided $400,000 for maintenance dredging of the
Southeast Missouri Port, Mississippi River, Missouri, project.
Table Rock Lake, Missouri.--The Committee has provided an
additional $2,000,000 to address the maintenance backlog and
upgrade recreation areas on the Table Rock Lake, Missouri,
project.
Missouri National Recreation River, Nebraska.--The
Committee has provided $275,000 for bank stabilization along
the Missouri National Recreation River, Nebraska.
Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.--The Committee has provided
$3,200,000 for the Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey, project. The
additional funds above the budget request will enable the Corps
to repair the south jetty and replace the north inlet bulkhead.
Shrewsbury River, Main Channel, New Jersey.--The Committee
has provided $130,000 for maintenance dredging of the
Shrewsbury River, Main Channel, New Jersey, project.
Flushing Bay and Creek, New York.--The Committee has
provided an additional $1,000,000 to restore the channel to the
Federally authorized depth on the Flushing Bay and Creek, New
York, project.
Plattsburgh Harbor, New York.--The Committee has provided
$2,000,000 to repair the breakwater on the Plattsburgh Harbor,
New York, project.
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina.--The
Committee has provided an additional $2,609,000 to address the
critical dredging maintenance backlog along the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina.
Lockwoods Folly River, North Carolina.--The Committee has
provided an additional $1,000,000 for maintenance dredging on
the project at Lockwoods Folly River, North Carolina.
Masonboro Inlet and Connecting Channels, North Carolina.--
The Committee has provided an additional $700,000 for
maintenance dredging on the Masonboro Inlet and Connecting
Channels, North Carolina, project.
Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.--The Committee
has provided an additional $500,000 for maintenance and
upgrading of recreational facilities on the Garrison Dam, Lake
Sakakawea, North Dakota, project, and an additional $100,000
for mosquito control in Williston, North Dakota.
Hugo Lake, Oklahoma.--The Committee has provided an
additional $130,000 for land transfers on the Hugo Lake,
Oklahoma, project.
Wister Lake, Oklahoma.--The Committee has provided an
additional $70,000 for land transfers on the Wister Lake,
Oklahoma, project.
Columbia River and lower Willamette River below Vancouver
and Portland, Oregon.--The Committee has provided an additional
$3,000,000 for the East Astoria Boat Basin breakwater project.
Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon.--The Committee has provided
an additional $200,000 for a major maintenance report for the
north and south jetties for the project at Tillamook Bay and
Bar, Oregon.
Yaquina Bay and Harbor, Oregon.--The Committee has provided
an additional $100,000 to dredge the Newport South Beach Marina
and Harbor to its Federally authorized depth at Yaquina Bay and
Harbor, Oregon.
Tionesta Lake, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided an
additional $750,000 for upgrades of the recreation facility at
the Tionesta Lake, Pennsylvania project.
Murells Inlet, South Carolina.--The Committee has provided
$200,000 for maintenance dredging on the Murrells Inlet, South
Carolina, project.
Houston Ship Channel, Texas.--The Committee has provided an
additional $4,445,000 maintenance dredging on the Houston Ship
Channel, Texas, project.
Proctor Lake, Texas.--The Committee has provided an
additional $600,000 for the planning of land acquisition on the
Proctor Lake, Texas, project.
Trinity River and Tributaries, Texas.--The Committee has
provided an additional $1,000,000 for critical maintenance
dredging on the Trinity River and Tributaries, Texas, project.
Waco Lake, Texas.--The Committee understands the importance
of having a reliable water supply source to ensure the economic
viability of the central Texas region. The City of Waco has
partnered with the Corps of Engineers to complete a study that
was approved in 1984 to reallocate storage at Waco Lake, Texas,
for increasing the available water supply storage. However,
significant increases in project costs since completion of the
study have delayed project implementation. A portion of the
cost increase is due to the need to relocate existing
recreation facilities. The Committee understands that the
existing facilities are reaching the limits of their useful
life and would need to be rehabilitated or replaced in the near
future. To minimize further delays in implementing this much
needed project, the Committee has provided an additional
$1,500,000 to perform cultural resource mitigation and
recreation improvements. Notwithstanding the provisions of
Public Law 85-500, the costs for this work shall be
accomplished at Federal expense.
Whitney Lake, Texas.--The Committee has provided an
additional $573,000 to initiate plans and specifications for
the power house upgrade in compliance with the Major
Rehabilitation Report dated March 2001, submitted to the Chief
of Engineers.
Winter Harbor, Virginia.--The Committee has provided
$1,000,000 for maintenance dredging on the project at Winter
Harbor, Virginia.
Grays Harbor and Chehalis River, Washington.--The Committee
has provided an additional $3,800,000 for the rehabilitation of
the north jetty, to investigate improvements to the north
jetty, and to continue the analysis of the south jetty on the
Grays Harbor and Chehalis, Washington, project.
Mud Mountain Dam, Washington.--The Committee has provided
an additional $500,000 for the design of fish passage
facilities at the Mud Mountain Dam, White River, Washington,
project.
Bluestone Lake, West Virginia.--The Committee has provided
an additional $2,269,000 for continuing construction of the
multi-level release tower and debris removal at the Bluestone
Lake, West Virginia, project.
Fox River, Wisconsin.--The Committee has provided an
additional $5,000,000 for transfer of the lock system to the
State of Wisconsin.
Great Lakes Sediment Transport Models.--The Committee has
provided an additional $500,000 for the development of the
sediment transport model for the Maumee River, Ohio.
Dredged Material Recycling Program.--The Committee has
included language in the bill which directs the Corps of
Engineers to fully investigate the development of an upland
disposal site recycling program on the Black Warrior and
Tombigbee Rivers project and the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee
and Flint Rivers project. Many of the existing upland dredged
disposal on these and other projects are nearing capacity and a
program to recycle dredged material would enable necessary
maintenance dredging to continue while reducing the need to
develop new disposal sites in environmentally sensitive areas.
Inland Waterway Navigation Charts.--The Committee has
provided $4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to begin the
process of making inland waterway navigation chart date
available in electronic format. Electronic navigation chart
data would enable towboats and other vessels to navigate more
precisely, provide increased capability in poor visibility, and
aid in the training of vessel operators.
Regulatory Program
Appropriation, 2001................................... $124,725,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 128,000,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 128,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +3,275,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. ................
This appropriation provides for salaries and related costs
to administer laws pertaining to the regulation of navigable
waters and wetlands of the United States in accordance with the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the Clean Water Act of 1977,
and the Marine Protection Act of 1972.
For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $128,000,000, the same as the budget request
and $3,275,000 more than the amount appropriated in fiscal year
2001.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
Appropriation, 2001................................... $139,692,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 140,000,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 140,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +308,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. ................
The Committee recommendation for the Formerly Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) is $140,000,000, the
same as the budget request. In fiscal year 1998, Congress
transferred responsibility for cleanup of contaminated sites
under FUSRAP to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In
appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for
administration and execution of cleanup activities at eligible
sites where remediation had not been completed. It did not
intend to transfer ownership of and accountability for real
property interests that remain with the Department of Energy.
The Committee expects the Department to continue to provide the
institutional knowledge and expertise needed to best serve the
Nation and the affected communities in executing this program.
The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the
cleanup of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its
work for the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies.
The Committee intends for the Corps expertise be used in the
same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under FUSRAP,
and expects the Corps to continue programming and budgeting for
FUSRAP as part of the civil works program.
The Committee is concerned that many of the stakeholders
living near FUSRAP sites around the Nation are not fully aware
of when these FUSRAP sites will be fully remediated. To ensure
that such documentation is available to FUSRAP stakeholders,
the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to prepare a bi-
annual report which provides a brief summary on the status of
remediation efforts on-going at all FUSRAP sites. Copies of
this report should be made available by the Corps of Engineers
to stakeholders, including the appropriate local, state and
Federal officials.
General Expenses
Appropriation, 2001................................... $151,666,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 153,000,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 153,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +1,334,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. ................
This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office of
the Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain
research and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers.
The Committee recommendation for General Expenses is
$153,000,000, the same as the budget request and $1,334,000
above the fiscal year 2001 amount. The recommendation also
includes bill language prohibiting the use of funds to support
a congressional affairs office within the executive office of
the Chief of Engineers.
Corps of Engineering Hiring Practices.--The Committee
understands that Army Corps of Engineers' district offices do
not have authority to recruit and hire new applicants for
positions within Corps of Engineers, and that this policy may
impede the ability of the Corps to attract qualified candidates
from Hispanic and other minority groups. The needs of the Corps
of Engineers are different from those of the Army generally, as
Corps district offices serve the regions of the country in
which they are located, whereas other Army organizations serve
the nation as a whole. The scope and complexity of the Army's
centralized personnel management system for worldwide military
service and combat operations may not be meeting the Corps need
to hire from within the communities in which they operate in
order to effectively resolve regional water management issues
and to enhance relations with local communities. The
centralized Army personnel management system is not designed to
recruit personnel from local communities to meet Corps of
Engineers regional district needs. Therefore, the Committee
directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the
Appropriations Committees of Congress by September 1, 2001, on
his plans to address this problem and how a demonstration
program could be established in fiscal year 2002 to permit
Corps regional offices more flexibility to recruit and hire
locally, and to take advantage of untapped potential in
Hispanic and other minority communities.
General Provisions
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Sec. 101. The Committee has included language which amends
the authorization for the San Gabriel Basin Restoration,
California, program so that the San Gabriel Water Authority
shall receive credit for prior expenditures.
Sec. 102. The Committee has included language which
provides that the dredge McFARLAND may only be operated in a
ready reserve status for urgent dredging, emergencies, and in
support of national defense.
Sec. 103. The Committee has included language which directs
the Secretary of the Army to include an alternatives analysis
of a multipurpose Auburn Dam as part of the American River
watershed, California, long-term study.
Sec. 104. The Committee has included language directing the
Secretary of the Army to transfer property at Tuttle Creek
Lake, Kansas, to the Blue Township Fire District, Blue
Township, Kansas.
Sec. 105. The Committee includes language which directs the
Secretary of the Army to carry out shore protection projects in
accordance with the cost sharing provisions contained in
existing Project Cooperation Agreements.
Sec. 106. The Committee has included language which
provides that none of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used to revise the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual
if such revision provides for an increase in the springtime
water release program during the spring heavy rainfall and snow
melt period in States that have rivers draining into the
Missouri River below the Gavins Point Dam.
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project
Central Utah Project Completion Account
Appropriation, 2001................................... $39,862,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 36,228,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 36,228,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... -3,634,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. ................
The Central Utah Project Completion Act (Titles II--VI of
Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the Central
Utah Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District.
The Act also: authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish,
wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation;
establishes an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these
funds and of other contributions for mitigation and
conservation activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer funds in
that account. The Act further assigns responsibilities for
carrying out the Act to the Secretary of the Interior and
prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of
Reclamation.
The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2002 to carry
out the provisions of the Act is $36,228,000, the same as the
budget request, and $3,634,000 less than the amount
appropriated in fiscal year 2001.
Bureau of Reclamation
Water and Related Resources
Appropriation, 2001................................... $678,953,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 647,997,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 691,160,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +12,207,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. +43,163,000
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
Colorado River Front Work and Levee System, Arizona.--The
Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for the Bureau
of Reclamation to accelerate completion of design and National
Environmental Policy Act compliance for water management
reservoirs to be constructed along the All American Canal.
Tres Rios Wetlands Demonstration, Arizona.--The Committee
has provided $500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue
the Tres Rios research and demonstration project.
Central Valley Project, American River Division,
California.--The bill includes $3,500,000 for the Bureau of
Reclamation to reimburse the City of Folsom, California, for
costs associated with the replacement of the Natoma Pipeline
System, which is owned and operated by the Bureau of
Reclamation, and is the single water supply source for the
City.
Central Valley Project, East Side Division.--The Committee
has provided an additional $2,400,000 for water and sewer
system upgrades and a visitor capacity study at New Melones
Lake.
Central Valley Project, Miscellaneous Project Programs.--
Within the amounts provided for the Central Valley Project,
Miscellaneous Project Program, and the Central Valley Project
Restoration Fund, the Committee expects the Bureau of
Reclamation to completely fulfill its obligations under the San
Joaquin River Agreement, including the timely payment to non-
Federal parties to the Agreement.
Central Valley Project, Sacramento River Division,
California.--The Committee has provided $7,371,000 for the
Resources Management activity of the Sacramento River Division
of the Central Valley Project, $3,300,000 above the budget
request. Of the amount provided, $2,000,000 is for the Glenn-
Colusa Irrigation District (GCID) Fish Screen Improvement
Project; $1,000,000 is for detailed, site-specific
environmental assessment and permitting work associated with
Sites Reservoir, including an evaluation of both the GCID Main
Canal and the Tehama-Colusa Canal as a means to convey water to
the proposed reservoir; and $300,000 is for the Colusa Basin
Drainage District's Integrated Resources Management Plan for
critical flood control, conjunctive use, and waterfowl habitat
activities.
Groundwater Replenishment System Project, California.--The
Committee has included an additional $1,200,000 for the
Groundwater Replenishment System project. This project was
previously known as the Orange County Regional Water
Reclamation project.
Lake Tahoe Regional Wetlands Development, California.--The
Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Tahoe Airport Stream
restoration project and $1,500,000 for the project to restore
Third and Incline Creeks.
Los Angeles Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Project,
California.--The bill includes $740,000 to continue the Los
Angeles Area Water Reclamation and Reuse project.
Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Demonstration
Project, California.--The Committee has provided $400,000 for
the Bureau of Reclamation to continue work on the Mission Basin
Brackish Groundwater Desalting Demonstration project.
North San Diego County Area Water Recycling Project,
California.--The bill includes $3,000,000 to continue work on
the North San Diego County Area Water Recycling project.
Salton Sea Research Project, California.--The Committee has
provided $2,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue
environmental work related to the preferred alternative for the
restoration of the Salton Sea. In addition, the Committee has
provided $1,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue
the program to perform research and construct river reclamation
and wetlands projects to improve water quality in the Alamo
River and New River, Imperial County, California.
San Jose Water Reclamation and Reuse Program, California.--
The Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 for the San
Jose Water Reclamation and Reuse program.
Animas La-Plata Project, Colorado.--The bill includes
$16,000,000 for the Animas La-Plata project. The additional
funds above the budget request will enhance the Bureau of
Reclamation's ability to complete the project within the time
period established by the Colorado Ute Settlement Act
Amendments of 2000.
Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project,
Kansas.--The pilot project for the Equus Beds is complete. As
final reports are assembled, the Committee strongly encourages
the Bureau of Reclamation to work with affected communities and
the State of Kansas on design and engineering of the full-scale
project.
Fort Peck Dry Prairie Rural Water System, Montana.--The
Committee has provided $4,000,000 to continue the Fort Peck Dry
Prairie Rural Water System project in Montana.
Albuquerque Metro Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Project,
New Mexico.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the
continuation of the Albuquerque Metro Area Water Reclamation
and Reuse Project.
Deschutes Ecosystem Restoration Project, Oregon.--The
Committee has provided an additional $500,000 to facilitate
efforts to improve streamflows and improve water quality in the
Deschutes River Basin.
Deschutes Project, Oregon.--The Committee has provided an
additional $600,000 to continue work on the project to install
buried pipe in portions of the Tumalo Irrigation District's
Bend Feed Canal to conserve water lost to seepage.
Mid-Dakota Rural Water Project, South Dakota.--The bill
includes an additional $5,000,000 to accelerate construction on
the Mid-Dakota Water Rural Water project in South Dakota.
Mni-Wiconi Project, South Dakota.--The Committee has
provided an additional $5,000,000 to accelerate construction of
the Mni-Wiconi project in South Dakota.
El Paso Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, Texas.--The
Committee has provided $1,000,000 to facilitate construction of
the Central Portion of the El Paso Water Reclamation and Reuse
project.
Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, Washington.--
The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for the
Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement project in Washington.
Drought Emergency Assistance.--The Committee has provided
$2,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to establish a Weather
Damage Modification Program, including a regional weather
modification research program involving the states of Oklahoma,
Texas, and Kansas.
Wetlands Development.--Within the amount provided for the
Wetlands Development Program, the Committee has provided
$500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to undertake a project
to restore natural vegetation along the lower Colorado River in
the vicinity of Yuma, Arizona.
Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program Account
Appropriation, 2001................................... $9,348,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 7,495,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 7,495,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... -1,853,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.............................
Under the Small Reclamation Projects Act (43 U.S.C. 422a-
422l), loans and/or grants may be made to non-Federal
organizations for construction or rehabilitation and betterment
of small water resource projects. As required by the Federal
Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account records the subsidy
costs associated with the direct loans, as well as
administrative expenses of this program.
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
central valley project restoration fund
Appropriation, 2001................................... $38,360,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 55,039,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 55,039,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +16,679,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. ................
The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized
in Title 34 of Public Law 102-575, the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act. This Fund was established to provide funding
from project beneficiaries for habitat restoration, improvement
and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife restoration
activities in the Central Valley Project area of California.
Revenues are derived from payments by project beneficiaries and
from donations. Payments from project beneficiaries include
several required by the Act (Friant Division surcharges, higher
charges on water transferred to non-CVP users, and tiered water
prices) and, to the extent required in appropriations Acts,
additional annual mitigation and restoration payments.
For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has provided
$55,039,000, the same as the budget request.
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Fish Screen Improvement
Project.--In addition to the funds provided under the Central
Valley Project, Sacramento River Division, the Committee has
provided $2,000,000 from within funds made available through
the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund for the Bureau of
Reclamation to continue work on the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation
District Fish Screen Improvement Project.
Anadromous Fish Screen Program.--The Committee expects the
Bureau of Reclamation to use up to $12,000,000 for the
Anadromous Fish Screen program to continue work on the American
Basin Fish Screen and Habitat Improvement Project (Natomas
Mutual Water Company) as well as the fish screen projects being
undertaken by the Sutter Mutual Water Company and Reclamation
District 108.
San Joaquin River Restoration Program.--The Committee
intends that within the funds provided through the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund in fiscal year 2001, the
$5,000,000 made available to the San Joaquin River Restoration
Program remains available for that purpose until expended.
california bay-delta ecosystem restoration
Appropriation, 2001................................... ................
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. $20,000,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... ................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... ................
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. -20,000,000
The California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration account
funds the Federal share of ecosystem restoration and other
activities being developed for the San Francisco Bay/
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by a State and Federal partnership
(CALFED). Federal participation in this program was authorized
in the California Bay-Delta Environmental and Water Security
Act enacted in the fall of 1996. That Act authorized the
appropriation of $143,300,000 for ecosystem restoration
activities in each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000.
Attempts to reauthorize the program last year were
unsuccessful. Accordingly, no funds were provided in fiscal
year 2001.
The Committee remains very supportive of the efforts that
have been taken in the State of California to develop this
program, which will provide a safe, clean, and reliable water
system for millions of people while improving the environment.
However, for fiscal year 2002, the Committee has again
recommended no funding in the absence of authorizing
legislation for this multi-year, multi-billion dollar effort.
The Committee is aware that authorizing legislation has been
introduced in the House and the Senate and will reconsider
funding for the program as the bill moves through the
appropriations process.
policy and administration
Appropriation, 2001................................... $50,114,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 52,968,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 52,968,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +2,854,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. ................
The general administrative expenses program provides for
the executive direction and management of all Reclamation
activities, as performed by the Commissioner's offices in
Washington, DC, and Denver, Colorado, and in the five regional
offices. The Denver office and regional offices charge
individual projects or activities for direct beneficial
services and related administrative and technical costs. These
charges are covered under other appropriations.
For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has recommended
$52,968,000, the same as the budget request, and $2,854,000
above the fiscal year 2001 amount.
General Provisions
Department of the Interior
Sec. 201. The Committee has included language which
provides that none of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used by the Bureau of Reclamation to issue permits, either
directly or by making funds available to an entity under a
contract, for commercial rafting activities within the Auburn
State Recreation Area, California, until the requirements of
the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act are met.
Sec. 202. The Committee has included language which amends
the authorization for the American and Sacramento Rivers,
California, project.
TITLE III
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Funds recommended in Title III provide for Department of
Energy programs relating to: Energy Supply, Non-Defense
Environmental Management, Uranium Facilities Maintenance and
Remediation, Science, Nuclear Waste Disposal, Departmental
Administration, the Inspector General, the National Nuclear
Security Administration, Defense Environmental Management,
Other Defense Activities, Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, the
Power Marketing Administrations, and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommendation provides additional funding
for several Department of Energy programs: renewable energy
technologies, environmental cleanup activities, and nuclear
nonproliferation programs. However, due to overall funding
constraints, the Committee was forced to reduce other
Departmental programs in order to add funding to these critical
areas.
national energy policy
The President's National Energy Policy Development Group
released its National Energy Policy in May of 2001. The
National Energy Policy includes a number of recommendations
relevant to the Department of Energy, from increasing research
in certain energy technologies to finding solutions to
bottlenecks in the national transmission grid. The Committee
encourages the Secretary of Energy to proceed as quickly as
possible to complete the necessary reviews in order to
implement the recommendations of the National Energy Policy.
Unfortunately, the National Energy Policy was released too
late to have an effect on the Department's fiscal year 2002
budget request. If the Secretary needs to make changes to bring
fiscal year 2002 program funding into alignment with the
National Energy Policy, the Committee is receptive to making
the necessary adjustments through the appropriations process
and through fiscal year 2002 reprogrammings.
The Secretary should place priority on those actions that
can alleviate the electricity shortage that is especially acute
in the West. In particular, the Secretary should expedite
reviews of Path 15 in California and other transmission
constraints, the projected financing needs of the Bonneville
Power Administration, and projected needs of the other Federal
power marketing administrations.
The Committee wishes to emphasize that most of the
Department's programs are not designed to provide immediate
relief to the Nation's energy crisis. Instead, the Department's
energy supply programs consist primarily of research and
development into technologies intended to provide long-term
solutions to the Nation's energy needs. Near-term deployment of
available energy technologies is best accomplished through
incentives other than appropriations.
basic research for energy technologies
The Committee is concerned that the Department does not
have an adequate plan or policy that relates the basic research
being conducted by the Office of Science to the energy needs of
the country. While the Committee understands that basic
research can lead in many directions, there should be a focus
on the underlying needs of the Department's energy portfolio.
There appears to be minimal cooperation and coordination
between the Office of Science and other Departmental offices on
the fundamental research needed to improve energy technologies.
Each year the Committee provides funding for the Office of
Science to support basic research in energy programs. The
Committee directs the Department to identify ways in which
coordination can be improved and research conducted which is
mutually beneficial and to report to the Committee by January
15, 2002, on the Department's strategy for ensuring that the
basic research programs also focus on energy technology needs.
project management
The Department has established an Office of Engineering and
Construction Management (OECM) to strengthen its project
management capabilities. The Committee strongly supports this
effort, but continues to be concerned with the placement of
this Office in the Department's organizational structure. In
its recent report to Congress, the National Research Council
(NRC) reaffirmed its recommendation that the Office of
Engineering and Construction Management ``. . . should be at
the level of assistant secretary and report directly to the
Deputy Secretary.'' The NRC also noted that, ``The most
important unresolved issues are: (1) definition of the
authority and scope of OECM; (2) the provision of adequate
financial and staff resources to improve project management . .
.''
The Committee endorses the NRC recommendation that, ``. . .
the authority of OECM and the PMSOs be strengthened and that
the resources and personnel available to them be increased to
support their responsibilities.'' In that regard, the Committee
strongly urges the Department to elevate OECM to a level equal
to an Assistant Secretary with a direct reporting relationship
to the Deputy Secretary/Secretarial Acquisition Executive
authority. The Committee believes that the director of the
office should continue to be a career position rather than a
political appointment. Further, it fully expects that OECM's
existing personnel should continue in their current positions
in OECM's new location. The Department also should place the
facilities and infrastructure policy development and program
oversight responsibilities and budget under OECM.
Consistent with NRC's recommendation for strengthening
available financial and staff resources, the Committee has
provided $7,600,000 for OECM in fiscal year 2002 and expects
the office to report directly to the Deputy Secretary.
facilities and infrastructure
The Committee is aware of the continuing decline in the
condition of the Department's facilities throughout the complex
and of the Department's inability to properly evaluate and
address the readiness and maintenance status of its facilities.
Many of its aged, deteriorated facilities and infrastructure
lack the functionality to provide adequate mission support.
Focus on breakdown maintenance at the Department, in lieu
of preventive maintenance programs and adequate capital
investments for facility upgrades, has resulted in increasing
deferred maintenance costs, further exacerbating the problem
and increasing the risks for mission failures. This absence of
adequate maintenance and capital investment has also resulted
in facility operating costs which are inordinately high. The
Committee is reluctant to continue funding costly mission-
critical repairs and facility upgrades that could have been
prevented or corrected at less cost. The Department must
develop an improved management system and allocation of
resources for its facilities and infrastructure.
The Committee is also aware that the Department has an
increasing number of excess facilities that require extensive
budgets for surveillance and maintenance. It is critical that
the Department address its long-term operations budget
requirements which must take into consideration approaches to
the re-engineering of its complex, priorities for
recapitalization, and removal of excess facilities.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to:
Contract with the National Research Council
to provide the Congress an evaluation of the steps the
Department is taking to improve its facility and
infrastructure management;
Provide by December 15, 2001, information
regarding the current and projected total budgets
required for facilities and infrastructure and the
process being established to determine priorities and
return-on-investments;
Initiate a Site Planning Pilot program to
demonstrate the reconfiguration of its facilities and
infrastructure to meet its mission and to address its
long-term operational costs and return on investments;
Initiate a Pilot Site Program that can be
used as a model for a cost-efficient maintenance
program addressing mission requirements and life cycle
costs;
Include in the fiscal year 2003 budget
request, for all construction projects and general
plant projects (GPP) initiated in fiscal year 2002 or
later, funds to eliminate excess facilities (based on
the greatest impact on long-term costs and risk) that
are at least equal to the square footage of the new
facilities which are being proposed;
Identify in the fiscal year 2003 budget
request all maintenance and infrastructure costs and
the adequacy of this funding to meet mission
requirements by site and program; and
Prepare Site Plans for each Department site
not slated for closure under the Environmental
Management program.
augmenting federal staff
The Committee continues to believe there is too much
reliance on support service contractors and other non-Federal
employees throughout the Department of Energy. The Department
reduced the number of management and operating (M&O) contractor
employees assigned to the Washington metropolitan area to 220
in fiscal year 2001. The Committee expects the Department not
to exceed this number in fiscal year 2002. However, at
Headquarters the Department also continues to rely extensively
on support service contractors for technical assistance and
oversight despite the large number of Federal employees also on
staff.
Report on M&O contractor employees.--The Department is to
provide a report to the Committee at the end of fiscal year
2001 on the use of M&O contractor employees assigned to the
Washington metropolitan area. The report is to identify all M&O
contractor employees who work in the Washington metropolitan
area, including the name of the employee, the name of the
contractor, the organization to which he or she is assigned,
the job title and a description of the tasks the employee is
performing, the annual cost of the employee to the Department,
the Headquarters program organization sponsoring each M&O
employee, the program account funding that employee, and the
length of time the employee has been detailed to the
Department. The report should also include detailed information
on the cost of maintaining each M&O office in the Washington
metropolitan area. This report is to include actual data for
the period October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2001, and is
due to the Committee on January 31, 2002.
Report on support service contractors.--The report is to
include for each support service contract at Headquarters: the
name of the contractor; the program organization (at the lowest
organization level possible) hiring the contractor; a
descriptive and detailed list of the tasks performed; the
number of contractor employees working on the contract; and the
annual cost of the contract. This report is to include actual
data for the period October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2001,
and is due to the Committee on January 31, 2002.
department of energy staffing
The Committee continues to be concerned with the staffing
levels in many Departmental organizations. Despite expectations
expressed by Congress during establishment of the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) in fiscal year 2001 that
the new organization should incorporate many organizational and
management efficiencies, there appear to be few changes in the
regular way of doing business. The result of the new
organization has been an increase in the number of field
offices and additional staff at Headquarters. The remainder of
the Department has also maintained the same staffing levels
despite the creation of the NNSA and its separation from most
of the Department's support organizations. This failure to
address organizational and management efficiencies that were
expected both in the NNSA and the remainder of the Department
is a disappointment. It was hoped that the Department and NNSA
would use this opportunity to revamp the operation of an agency
that is widely viewed as overly bureaucratic and process-
oriented.
To jump-start a process that should have been implemented
one year ago, the Committee directs the Department to prepare
an overall staffing plan that implements organizational and
management efficiencies throughout the Department and the NNSA
and that could lead to a reduction in overall staffing during
fiscal year 2003. Each program organization at Headquarters,
each support and administrative organization at Headquarters,
and each field office should be included in this review. If
legislation permitting early retirements or excepted civil
service hiring is required to implement this plan, the
Department should request this authority when submitting the
organization and staffing plan to the Committee. This plan is
due by January 31, 2002.
external regulation
The Department of Energy is currently self-regulating with
respect to nuclear safety and worker safety at most of its
facilities under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954. The Committee directs the Department to prepare an
implementation plan to transition to external regulation at the
Department's non-defense science laboratories. The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) would assume responsibility for
nuclear safety at the Department's non-defense science
laboratories and the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) would assume responsibility for worker
safety at these same sites. The Department is directed in
fiscal year 2002 to prepare a plan for implementation of
external regulation, with a proposed effective date for the
actual implementation of external regulation of October 1,
2002. This plan is due by March 31, 2002.
For planning purposes, external regulation will apply to
the five multiprogram national laboratories under the Office of
Science: Argonne National Laboratory; Brookhaven National
Laboratory; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Oak Ridge
National Laboratory; and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
External regulation shall also apply to the five single-purpose
laboratories under the Office of Science: Ames Laboratory,
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory; Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory; Stanford Linear Accelerator Center; and Thomas
Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. The requirement to
plan for the transition to external regulation is not
applicable to the nuclear weapons laboratories, plants, or test
facilities, nor to the Department's environmental remediation
sites or other laboratories and research facilities.
CONTRACTOR TRAVEL
The Committee has not included a statutory limitation on
contractor travel in fiscal year 2002. However, each program
organization within the Department is expected to ensure that
contractor travel is limited to critical mission functions and
that administrative travel to Washington is limited. The
Committee directs the Department to maintain a tracking system
that will allow for periodic reviews of contractor travel costs
and destinations.
INDEPENDENT CENTERS
The Department is directed to provide a report to the
Committee by January 15, 2002, on all independent centers
funded in fiscal year 2002. The report should identify all
independent centers at each laboratory or facility, the annual
cost, number of employees, and the source of funding; i.e.,
multiple programs, laboratory directed research and development
funds, and overhead accounts. The report should be at the level
of detail included in the fiscal year 2001 report to Congress.
All centers should be specifically identified in the fiscal
year 2003 budget submission.
BUDGET JUSTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
The fiscal year 2003 budget justifications submitted by the
Department should include the following: a section identifying
the last year that authorizing legislation was provided by
Congress for each program; funding within each construction
project data sheet for elimination of excess facilities at
least equal to the square footage of the new facilities being
requested; and funding to eliminate excess facilities at least
equal to the square footage of new facilities being constructed
as general plant projects (GPP). The Department should work
with the Committee on the specific information needed for each
requirement.
SALE OF LAND
The Department recently sold 182 acres of land in Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, for $54 per acre to a private development
company. The Department claimed that the Atomic Energy Act
provided the authority to sell land in the performance of a
programmatic function without regard to standard Federal
practices. It is not clear that the land was sold at fair
market value, and the Committee is concerned that the
Department did not act in the best interest of the Federal
government and the taxpayers. The Department is directed to
notify the Committee at least 60 days in advance of any
proposed sale of land which does not follow the standard
Federal practices for property sales and provide a detailed
explanation for the waiver of Federal practices for the sale of
the property.
REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES
The Committee requires the Department to promptly and fully
inform the Committee when a change in program execution and
funding is required during the fiscal year. To assist the
Department in this effort, the following guidance is provided
for programs and activities funded in the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act.
Definition.--A reprogramming includes the reallocation of
funds from one activity to another within an appropriation, or
any significant departure from a program, project, or activity
described in the agency's budget justification as presented to
and approved by Congress. For construction projects, a
reprogramming constitutes the reallocation of funds from one
construction project identified in the justifications to
another or a significant change in the scope of an approved
project.
Criteria for Reprogramming.--A reprogramming should be made
only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if
delay of the project or the activity until the next
appropriations year would result in a detrimental impact to an
agency program or priority. Reprogrammings may also be
considered if the Department can show that significant cost
savings can accrue by increasing funding for an activity. Mere
convenience or desire should not be factors for consideration.
Reprogrammings should not be employed to initiate new
programs or to change program, project, or activity allocations
specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the
Act or report. In cases where unforeseen events or conditions
are deemed to require such changes, proposals shall be
submitted in advance to the Committee and be fully explained
and justified.
Reporting and Approval Procedures.--The Committee has not
provided statutory language to define reprogramming guidelines,
but expects the Department to follow the spirit and the letter
of the guidance provided in this report. Consistent with prior
years, the Committee has not provided the Department with any
internal reprogramming flexibility in fiscal year 2002, unless
specifically identified in the House, Senate, or conference
reports. Any reallocation of new or prior year budget authority
or prior year deobligations must be submitted to the Committees
in writing and may not be implemented prior to approval by the
Committees on Appropriations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee's recommendations for Department of Energy
programs are described in the following sections. A detailed
funding table is included at the end of this title.
Energy Supply
Appropriation, 2001................................... $659,918,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 544,245,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 639,317,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... -20,601,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. +95,072,000
The Energy Supply account includes the following programs:
Renewable Energy Resources; Nuclear Energy; Environment, Safety
and Health (non-defense); and Technical Information Management.
As in fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends that the funds
for Energy Supply activities remain available until expended.
RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES
The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) in
March 2000 identified a number of deficiencies in the
management and organization of the Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy (EERE), including the absence of clear
goals and priorities, an integrated work program linked to
those goals and priorities, and milestones reflecting program
results. In fiscal year 2001, the Committee noted that ``[a]ll
of the renewable programs are requesting increases of 30 to 50
percent with no clear integration or explanation of why such
increases are warranted in all programs simultaneously.'' The
opposite situation exists in fiscal year 2002, where the
initial budget request proposed reductions of nearly 50 percent
in most renewable energy programs. A budget amendment of $39.1
million restored funding in some but not all of these renewable
energy programs. Again, there is no clear rationale provided to
explain the selective budget cuts, and no sense that the
Department is conducting an integrated program with a well-
defined scheme for measuring success. There is also no apparent
coordination between the budget request, which was submitted to
Congress in April 2001 and amended in early May 2001, and the
National Energy Policy, which was released shortly after
submission of the amended budget request.
The total Committee recommendation for renewable energy
resources is $376,817,000, an increase of $100,164,000 over the
amended budget request and $1,032,000 over fiscal year 2001
funding.
Metrics.--The objective of federal research on renewable
energy resources should be to develop significant quantities of
clean, reliable and affordable energy from renewable resources.
The Secretary of Energy reports that, from fiscal year 1977
through fiscal year 2001, the cumulative Federal investment by
the Department of Energy in renewable energy technologies
totals over $6.1 billion. The Committee is concerned that we
continue to expend federal research dollars on various
renewable technologies without a clear relation between the
money invested and the power generated. As the NAPA report
noted, there is within EERE an ``emphasis on process rather
than on product.'' The Department needs to develop a clear set
of metrics that can be used by the Congress and the
Administration to compare the effectiveness of the federal
investment in alternate energy sources. These metrics should
include the cumulative federal investment to date in each
technology, the current cost per kilowatt-hour generated, a
realistic assessment of likely future costs and performance
with additional research and development, the current total
amount of power generated in the United States by each source,
a realistic assessment of the potential future power generation
capacity available from each source, and an estimate of the
environmental advantages and disadvantages of each technology.
Past and present subsidies to each technology should be clearly
identified. The metrics should also indicate the progress of
each technology along the research, development and deployment
spectrum so that it is clear when a particular technology is
mature enough to hand off to the private sector, recognizing
the need to overcome various market barriers and infrastructure
gaps. The Department should submit the above-referenced metrics
as part of the detailed budget justification for Renewable
Energy Resources in the fiscal year 2003 budget request and in
subsequent budget requests.
Strategic Review.--The Committee is supportive of the
Department's recently announced strategic review of its
renewable energy programs. Such a review is consistent with the
need for reliable and quantifiable measures of success, as
outlined in the preceding paragraph, which can be used to guide
future funding decisions. Upon completion of this strategic
review, the Department should submit, if necessary, a
reprogramming request to align fiscal year 2002 spending on the
most cost-effective renewable energy technologies.
Renewable energy technologies
Renewable Energy Technologies include biomass/biofuels
energy systems, geothermal technology development, hydrogen
research, hydropower, solar energy, and wind energy systems.
Biomass/Biofuels Energy Systems.--The Committee
recommendation for biomass/biofuels energy systems is
$88,960,000, which is an increase of $7,005,000 over the
amended budget request and $2,000,000 over the fiscal year 2001
funding level. This amount includes $41,010,000 for power
systems and $47,950,000 for the transportation program.
The funds provided for power systems include: $2,000,000
for research and development on biopower from switchgrass;
$1,000,000 to support a cost-shared Agricultural Waste Methane
Power Generation Facility in California; $1,000,000 to support
a cost-shared agricultural mixed waste biorefinery in Alabama
using the thermal-depolymerization technology; and $1,000,000
to support the Black Belt Bioenergy Demonstration Project in
Alabama. The funds provided for the transportation program
include $1,000,000 for microcombustion research at the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory.
The control level for fiscal year 2002 is at the program
account level of biomass/biofuels energy systems.
Geothermal technology development.--The Committee provides
$27,000,000 for geothermal technology development, an increase
of $13,100,000 over the budget request and the same as the
fiscal year 2001 funding level. The Committee is particularly
concerned about preserving a strong knowledge base on
geothermal energy in the university community. The budget
request, however, proposed to reduce university research on
geothermal technologies by over 80 percent. Therefore, the
Committee recommendation includes sufficient funding in the
geothermal technology development account to maintain
university research on geothermal technologies at the fiscal
year 2001 funding level of $2,600,000. The Committee
recommendation also includes $2,000,000 in final funding for
the Lake County Basin geothermal project in California.
Hydrogen research.--The National Energy Policy of May 2001
noted the promise of hydrogen as a clean-burning, limitless
fuel of the future, and recommended continued research on next-
generation hydrogen technologies. Funding of $27,000,000 is
provided for hydrogen research, an increase of $119,000 over
the amended budget request and the same as fiscal year 2001
funding.
Hydropower.--A major focus of the Department's recent
research on hydropower has been on the development of more
environmentally friendly turbine designs that will reduce fish
mortality. While a worthwhile objective, such research is more
appropriately funded by turbine manufacturers and by the
federal agencies with responsibility for building and operating
federal hydropower facilities, principally the Army Corps of
Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the power marketing
administrations. The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for
hydropower research by the Department of Energy, $2,000,000
less than fiscal year 2001 and $1,989,000 less than the amended
budget request.
Solar Energy.--Solar energy technologies include:
concentrating solar power; photovoltaic energy systems; and
solar building technology research. The total Committee
recommendation for solar energy is $94,657,000, an increase of
$51,725,000 over the budget request and $1,132,000 over fiscal
year 2001.
The Committee recommends $7,932,000 for concentrating solar
power, an increase of $6,000,000 over the budget request and
$5,868,000 less than fiscal year 2001. Both solar troughs and
solar dish/Stirling engine technologies have the potential to
be more efficient than solar tower technology. Therefore,
$6,000,000 is provided to the Department for field testing of
these technologies, and $1,932,000 is provided to the national
laboratories for materials research, reliability testing, and
support.
Photovoltaic energy systems are funded at $81,775,000, an
increase of $6,000,000 over fiscal year 2001 and $42,775,000
over the budget request. The recommendation includes $8,700,000
for basic research/university programs and $18,500,000 for the
thin film partnership program. The Committee supports
cooperation with universities and industry to develop the
science and engineering base required to move photovoltaic
technology from the laboratory bench to the assembly line.
The Committee recommends $4,950,000 for solar building
technology research, an increase of $1,000,000 over fiscal year
2001 and $2,950,000 over the budget request.
The control level for fiscal year 2002 is at the solar
energy program account level.
Wind energy systems.--The Committee recommends $40,000,000
for wind energy systems, the same as in fiscal year 2001 and an
increase of $19,500,000 over the budget request. The Committee
supports the Department's current focus on developing the next
generation of wind turbines that will be able to generate
electricity at a competitive cost per kilowatt-hour in moderate
(i.e., Class 4) winds without the need for a continuing federal
subsidy. The Department is encouraged to work with private
turbine manufacturers and the utility industry to develop,
test, and bring such turbines to market at the earliest
opportunity.
Electric energy systems and storage
The electric energy systems and storage program is funded
at $60,000,000, $8,000,000 more than in fiscal year 2001 and
$8,254,000 more than the amended budget request. Under this
program, the Department conducts research and development on
advanced technologies for the generation, transmission,
storage, and distribution of electric power. The Committee
encourages the Department to continue its work to support the
timely deployment of distributed energy resources.
The Committee recommends $39,870,000 for high temperature
superconducting research and development, $3,051,000 more than
the amended budget request and $2,870,000 more than provided in
fiscal year 2001. For energy storage systems, the Committee
provides $7,130,000, $1,143,000 more than the budget request
and $1,130,000 more than fiscal year 2001. For transmission
reliability, the Committee recommends $13,000,000, an increase
of $4,000,000 over the funding level in fiscal year 2001 and an
increase of $4,060,000 over the budget request. Within the
funds available for transmission reliability, the Department
should initiate the field testing of advanced composite
conductors, which have the potential to increase the capacity
of existing transmission lines.
The control level for fiscal year 2002 is at the electric
energy systems and storage program account level.
Renewable support and implementation
The renewable support and implementation program includes
departmental energy management, international renewable energy,
the renewable energy production incentive (REPI), renewable
Indian energy resources, and renewable program support. The
Committee recommendation for renewable support and
implementation is $12,500,000, an increase of $2,950,000 over
the budget request and a decrease of $9,100,000 compared to the
fiscal year 2001 funding level. This recommendation provides
$2,500,000 for departmental energy management, $3,000,000 for
the international renewable energy program, $4,000,000 for the
renewable energy production incentive program, and $3,000,000
for renewable program support. Consistent with the budget
request, the Committee has provided no funding for renewable
Indian energy resources, with available funds directed to other
renewable energy work.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
The Committee recommendation for the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, is $5,000,000,
the same as the budget request and an increase of $1,000,000
over the fiscal year 2001 funding level. NREL is one of the
Department's newer laboratories, and it is essential that the
Department maintain this facility properly so that it does not
require a larger investment later in time, as is the case with
much of the infrastructure elsewhere in the DOE complex.
Program direction
The Committee notes with disapproval that the Department
requested a three percent increase for program direction at the
same time as it proposed a 36 percent reduction in the total
funding for Renewable Energy Resources. The program direction
funding, and the Federal staff supported by this funding,
should be proportional to the funding available for substantive
research and development work on renewable energy resources.
The Committee, therefore, recommends $18,700,000 for program
direction, the same as the fiscal year 2001 level and a
reduction of $500,000 from the budget request.
The Committee supports the Department's initiative to
improve the project management capabilities in the Golden Field
Office. Centralized project management by the federal staff in
Golden should offer efficiencies compared to the current
fragmented approach in which renewable energy projects are
managed by a variety of other field offices and laboratories.
However, the Committee does not believe that this initiative
requires additional funding and FTEs. Instead, the Department
should look first at retraining the existing federal workforce
in the Golden Field Office and then gradually shift more
project management responsibilities as their capabilities
improve.
NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS
The Department's programs support a wide variety of
applications of nuclear energy, from powering spacecraft to
treating cancer to developing reactor technologies that provide
20 percent of the Nation's electricity. The Committee
recommendation for nuclear energy programs is $224,130,000, an
increase of $1,008,000 over the budget request but a decrease
of $35,795,000 from the fiscal year 2001 funding level.
Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems.--The Committee
recommendation is $28,200,000, a reduction of $894,000 from the
budget request and $4,000,000 below the enacted level for
fiscal year 2001. The Committee acknowledges the importance of
maintaining the infrastructure and institutional knowledge base
necessary to provide radioisotope power systems for space and
national security missions. However, given the funding
constraints on the overall Department of Energy budget, the
Department should seek additional support for radioisotope
power systems from the user agencies.
Isotopes.--The amount provided for isotope support and
production is $22,683,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 from the
budget request and $2,032,000 compared to fiscal year 2001.
Funding for the Isotope Production Facility at Los Alamos
National Laboratory is $2,494,000, the same as the budget
request. With the use of offsetting collections of $9,000,000
in fiscal year 2002, the net appropriation for isotopes is
$16,177,000, $2,000,000 less than the budget request. The
recommendation includes $900,000 for alpha emitting isotopes,
the same level as provided in fiscal year 2001.
For the extraction of alpha emitting isotopes from excess
uranium 233 presently stored in Building 3019 at the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, the Department should submit a project
plan to the Committee by December 31, 2001, and include the
proposal as part of the fiscal year 2003 budget request. This
proposal should clearly identify all project costs, including
the costs for storage and final disposal of the excess uranium
233 and for decontamination and decommissioning of Building
3019. The Department's proposal should include a baseline
estimate for these activities, so that it can be determined
whether or not the extraction of alpha emitting isotopes would
increase the ultimate cleanup costs for the excess uranium 233
and for Building 3019. The Department's proposal should also
address the cost-effectiveness of acquiring the medically-
valuable isotopes from the Russian nuclear complex.
University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support.--The
Committee recommendation is $15,895,000, an increase of
$3,921,000 over the budget request and $3,895,000 over fiscal
year 2001. The Committee is concerned about the recent decline
in the number of graduates specializing in nuclear science and
engineering. One of the major impediments to the construction
of next-generation nuclear power plants in the United States
may not be the technology itself, but rather the lack of
skilled scientists and engineers who can design, license,
build, and operate these new reactor designs. The Committee,
therefore, provides additional funding for both the fuel to
support the university reactors and for the various grants and
fellowships that support nuclear science and engineering
education.
The Committee is aware that several universities are
currently deciding whether to continue operating their reactors
for teaching, research, and service. Past support for these
reactors has been inadequate in view of their importance in
forging the nation's nuclear technology capabilities. The
Committee directs DOE to work with the nuclear engineering
community, the nuclear medicine community, and the Nuclear
Energy Research Advisory Committee to provide, through a peer-
reviewed process, enhanced long-term support for key university
facilities, possibly including staff support and
instrumentation. The Department should submit a report to the
Committee by December 31, 2001, presenting the Department's
plan to accomplish this objective.
Research and Development.--The Committee strongly supports
continued research and development to make the current
generation of nuclear power plants safer and more efficient,
and to develop the next generation of reactors. The total
Committee recommendation for nuclear energy research and
development is $32,579,000, an increase of $5,500,000 over the
budget request and a decrease of $14,921,000 relative to fiscal
year 2001.
For the nuclear energy plant optimization (NEPO) program,
the Committee provides $5,000,000, the same amount as in fiscal
year 2001 and $500,000 more than the budget request. As
directed in fiscal year 2001, all NEPO projects should have
industry contributions that equal or exceed the Federal share.
The Committee recommendation for the nuclear energy
research initiative (NERI) is $23,079,000, an increase of
$5,000,000 over the budget request and a decrease of
$11,921,000 compared to fiscal year 2001. In addition to
partnering with industry, the Department should ensure that
universities play a major role in the NERI program.
The Committee provides $4,500,000 for nuclear energy
technologies, the same as the budget request and $3,000,000
less than the fiscal year 2001 funding level. In addition to
its efforts on developing Generation IV reactor technologies,
the Department should take steps to facilitate the near-term
deployment of existing advanced reactor designs. However, the
Committee is not persuaded that the Federal government needs to
fund the licensing of advanced reactor designs. No funds are
made available for activities related to the deployment of
small modular reactors in remote locations.
Infrastructure.--The Committee provides a total of
$80,529,000, $750,000 less than the budget request and
$11,631,000 less than fiscal year 2001. This includes
$33,357,000 for ANL-West operations, $38,439,000 to implement
the permanent deactivation of the Fast Flux Test Facility
(FFTF), and $8,733,000 for Test Reactor Area (TRA) landlord
costs. No funds are provided for initiation of conceptual
design for a remote-handled facility for transuranic waste at
ANL-West. Included within the TRA landlord appropriation is
$500,000 for fire and life safety improvements and $950,000 for
the electrical utility upgrade.
Nuclear facilities management.--The Committee
recommendation is $30,250,000, a reduction of $207,000 from the
budget request and $4,600,000 from the fiscal year 2001 funding
level. The recommendation includes $4,200,000 for EBR-II
shutdown, $16,200,000 for the disposition of spent nuclear fuel
and legacy materials, and $9,850,000 for disposition
technology.
Program direction.--The Committee is concerned that the
Department proposes to increase program direction funding by
8.8 percent at the same time it proposes to reduce the total
program funding by 8.4 percent. Such a disproportionate
increase in program direction funding is not supportable.
Accordingly, the Committee recommendation for program direction
funding is $20,500,000, a reduction of $1,500,000 from fiscal
year 2001 and $4,562,000 from the budget request.
ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH
The Committee recommendation is $31,500,000, a reduction of
$4,000,000 from the budget request and $4,498,000 from fiscal
year 2001.
As directed in section 308 of the General Provisions part
of this Act, the Department is to prepare for the transition to
external regulation of nuclear safety and worker health and
safety for the non-defense science laboratories. The effective
date for the transition to external regulation of these
facilities will be October 1, 2002. The Department should
transfer $4,000,000 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
to cover NRC's costs to prepare for the transition to external
regulation. The Department should transfer $720,000 to the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), $120,000
for external regulation preparations and $600,000 for worker
health and safety at those sites transferred to non-Federal
entities and for the Department's non-nuclear facilities not
covered under the Atomic Energy Act.
The Department should plan on reducing its current
headquarters staffing levels by at least 10 percent upon the
implementation of external regulation in fiscal year 2003, and
should determine whether reductions in field staffing are
appropriate as well. The Department should also take steps to
reduce its reliance on support contractors for the environment,
safety, and health function.
The Committee supports the efforts of the Department and
its contractors on the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP).
Modeled after a successful OSHA program, VPP encourages the
Department's contractors to apply industry best practices for
health and safety.
TECHNICAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
The Committee recommendation for the Technical Information
Management program is $7,870,000, a reduction of $1,100,000
from the budget request and $730,000 from the enacted level for
fiscal year 2001. Funding for program support is $1,400,000,
and funding for program direction is $6,470,000. The Committee
is concerned that the Department is duplicating technical
information services that are already available from the
private sector. The Department should carefully review its
information services such as PubSCIENCE to be sure that such
efforts remain focused on appropriate scientific journals and
do not compete improperly with similar services available from
the private sector.
Non-Defense Environmental Management
Appropriation, 2001................................... $277,200,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 228,553,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 227,872,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... -49,328,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. -681,000
The Non-Defense Environmental Management program includes
funds to manage and clean up sites used for civilian, energy
research, and non-defense related activities. These past
activities resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste
contamination which requires remediation, stabilization, or
some other type of action. The major activities are: Site
Closure for cleanup projects to be completed by the end of
fiscal year 2006, and for which no further DOE mission is
anticipated; Site/Project Completion for cleanup projects that
will be completed by 2006, but where DOE programs will
continue; Post 2006 Completion for cleanup projects that will
extend beyond 2006; and Excess Facilities for final disposition
of excess contaminated facilities. The Committee recommendation
is $227,872,000, a decrease of $681,000 from the budget
request.
The fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill
contains additional funding of $11,950,000 for this program. An
additional $10,000,000 was provided for cleanup activities at
the Brookhaven National Laboratory and $1,950,000 to study
remediation options at the former Atlas Corporation's uranium
mill tailings site near Moab, Utah.
Site closure
The recommendation for site closure is $43,000,000, the
same as the budget request, which will maintain the Weldon
Spring Site cleanup for completion in 2002.
Site/project completion
The recommendation for site/project completion is
$64,119,000, the same as the budget request.
Post 2006 completion
The recommendation for post 2006 completion is
$115,753,000, a decrease of $4,300,000 from the budget request
of $120,053,000. Additional funding of $3,700,000 has been
provided to maintain the cleanup activities at the Energy
Technology Engineering Center in California consistent with
fiscal year 2001.
Atlas.--The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000
for stabilization activities at the Atlas uranium mill tailings
site in Moab, Utah. The budget requested no funding for this
activity. The Committee also provided funds in the fiscal year
2001 supplemental budget request to prepare a remediation plan
for the Atlas in Moab, Utah. The Department is required to
prepare this remediation plan, with the assistance of the
National Academy of Sciences, by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) before it
can proceed with site remediation.
West Valley.--The Committee recommendation for the West
Valley Demonstration Project in New York is $85,115,000, a
reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget request of
$95,115,000. This recommendation includes $38,000,000 for high-
level waste vitrification and tank heel high activity waste
processing and $3,000,000 for spent nuclear fuel, both funded
at the same level as the budget request. The amount for site
transition, decommissioning, and project completion is
$44,115,000, a reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget
request, but only $271,000 less than fiscal year 2001. The
Department is to spend these funds performing the most critical
activities necessary to maintain the West Valley site in a safe
and stable condition.
The Committee is concerned about the impasse in
negotiations between the Department and the State of New York
over a number of critical issues, including the scope of
Federal cleanup activities at the site, the duration of the
Federal presence at the site, non-Federal funding for
disposition of vitrified high level waste and spent nuclear
fuel, and the respective Federal and non-Federal cost shares.
The lack of agreement does not impede completion of
vitrification at West Valley, and the Department has indicated
that certain other decontamination and waste management
activities can proceed absent a final agreement with the State
of New York. However, some site transition, decommissioning,
and project completion activities are deferred pending
resolution of this impasse.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently completed an
analysis of the situation in a report entitled ``Nuclear Waste:
Agreement Among Agencies Responsible for the West Valley Site
is Critically Needed'' (GAO-01-314). This report identified the
lack of agreement between the Department of Energy and the
State of New York as the most significant impediment to
completing cleanup of the West Valley site. The GAO found the
differences between the Department and the State so serious
that agreement is unlikely without Congressional intervention.
The Department may submit a reprogramming request for
additional funds for remaining site transition,
decommissioning, and project completion activities only upon
successful conclusion of an agreement with the State of New
York. Such agreement must be consistent with the project scope
and cost-sharing requirements as defined in the West Valley
Demonstration Project Act of 1980, and with the terms of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, regarding the
disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. Any
proposal by the Department to exceed the constraints of
existing law must be transmitted in advance to the Committee
with an explanation of why such a proposal is in the Federal
interest. Offers made by the Department on behalf of the
Federal government may not be protected from Congressional
oversight by a confidentiality agreement.
Excess facilities
The environmental management program is responsible for
final disposition of excess contaminated facilities throughout
the Department. Funds are currently being expended only for
surveillance and maintenance of most excess facilities, and
these costs will continue until decontamination and
decommissioning (D&D) is completed. The Committee strongly
urges the Department to seek new, innovative, and less costly
ways to accomplish final D&D of these facilities.
The Committee has provided $5,000,000 for the excess
facility program, an increase of $3,619,000 over the budget
request. The budget requested only surveillance and maintenance
costs for the excess facilities transferred to the program in
fiscal year 2002. In addition to these surveillance and
maintenance costs, the recommendation includes $3,619,000 to
initiate a program to begin the actual D&D of excess facilities
already owned by the environmental management program. These
funds must be used to dispose of those facilities that will
provide the greatest impact on reducing long-term costs and
risk.
Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation
Appropriation, 2001................................... $392,502,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 363,425,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 393,425,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +923,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. +30,000,000
Congress created the Uranium Facilities Maintenance and
Remediation account in fiscal year 2001 to consolidate the
programs previously funded in two separate accounts: one set of
activities funded by the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund and managed by the Office of Environmental
Management, and the other set of related uranium activities
that had been managed by the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science,
and Technology. The consolidated Uranium Facilities Maintenance
and Remediation account is managed by the Office of
Environmental Management and includes two subaccounts, the
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund,
and Other Uranium Activities. The Committee recommendation is
$393,425,000, an increase of $30,000,000 over the budget
request and $923,000 more than fiscal year 2001.
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
Fund.--This fund was established by the Energy Policy Act of
1992 (P.L. 102-486) to carry out environmental remediation at
the nation's three gaseous diffusion plants, at the East
Tennessee Technology Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, at
Portsmouth, Ohio, and at Paducah, Kentucky. Title X of the 1992
Act also authorized use of a portion of the Fund to reimburse
private licensees for the Federal government's share of the
cost of cleaning up uranium and thorium processing sites.
The Committee recommends $272,641,000 for activities funded
from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
Fund, an increase of $20,000,000 over the budget request and a
reduction of $72,397,000 compared to fiscal year 2001. Funding
for the depleted uranium hexaflouride (DUF6) conversion
facilities is shifted to the Other Uranium Activities
subaccount, as it was appropriated in fiscal year 2001. The
Committee recommendation for the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund includes a portion of
the funds necessary to provide for winterization and cold
standby at the Portsmouth plant; the balance of the funds are
provided under Other Uranium Activities. The net increase over
the budget request, $30,000,000 in consideration of the shift
of DUF6 activities to Other Uranium Activities, is to be
divided with $10,000,000 to the Paducah site and $20,000,000 to
the East Tennessee Technology Park.
The Committee recommendation includes the requested amount,
$1,000,000, for uranium and thorium reimbursements as
authorized by Title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Because
of significantly increased funding for this activity in fiscal
year 2001, the Department indicates that the backlog of
reimbursements has been eliminated and $1,000,000 will be
sufficient for anticipated claims in fiscal year 2002.
Other Uranium Activities.--The Committee recommendation is
$120,784,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget
request. This $10,000,000 reflects the transfer of DUF6
activities from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund subaccount to the Other Uranium Activities
subaccount. In addition to funds for the DUF6 conversion
project at Portsmouth and Paducah, the Other Uranium Activities
subaccount includes maintenance of enrichment facilities and
inventories, financial liabilities arising prior to the
privatization of the United States Enrichment Corporation, and
the balance of the winterization and cold standby activities
for the Portsmouth plant. These are funded at the
Administration's requested levels: $99,000,000 for maintenance
of facilities and inventories, including the winterization/cold
standby work at Portsmouth; $11,784,000 for pre-existing
liabilities; and $10,000,000 for the DUF6 conversion facilities
(transferred from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund).
Science
Appropriation, 2001................................... $3,180,341,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 3,159,890,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 3,166,395,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... -13,946,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. +6,505,000
The Science account funds the Department's work on high
energy physics, nuclear physics, biological and environmental
sciences, basic energy sciences, advanced scientific computing,
energy research analyses, facilities support for the
multiprogram energy laboratories, fusion energy sciences,
safeguards and security, and program direction. The Committee
is very supportive of most of the research conducted by the
Department's Office of Science, but funding constraints
preclude significant increases this fiscal year. The Committee
recommendation is $3,166,395,000, an increase of $6,505,000
over the budget request and $13,946,000 less than the fiscal
year 2001 funding level.
High Energy Physics
The Committee recommends $716,100,000 for high energy
physics, the same as the budget request and $10,030,000 less
than fiscal year 2001.
Research and technology.--The Committee recommendation for
research and technology in high energy physics is $247,870,000,
the same as the budget request and $13,150,000 more than
provided in fiscal year 2001.
Facility operations.--The Committee recommends $456,830,000
for facility operations, the same as the budget request and
$2,180,000 less than fiscal year 2001. This amount includes
$244,739,000 for Fermilab and $125,078,000 for the Stanford
Linear Accelerator Center to provide for full operation of
these facilities.
Construction.--The Committee recommendation for
construction of the Neutrinos at the Main Injector project at
Fermilab is $11,400,000, the same as the budget request.
Nuclear Physics
The Committee recommendation for nuclear physics is
$361,510,000, $1,000,000 more than the budget request, but
$8,380,000 less than provided in fiscal year 2001. Additional
funds are provided for university research in nuclear physics.
Biological and Environmental Research
The Committee recommendation for biological and
environmental research is $445,880,000, an increase of
$2,910,000 over the budget request but $55,380,000 less than in
fiscal year 2001.
This amount includes $19,470,000, the same as the budget
request, to continue the Microbial Cell Project and to initiate
the Genomes to Life program. The National Institute for Global
Environmental Change (NIGEC), which is integrated throughout
the Environmental Processes subaccount, is funded at the
requested funding level of $8,763,000.
Joint Genome Institute.--The Committee recommendation
provides the requested amount for the Joint Genome Institute,
$57,200,000. The Committee encourages the Joint Genome
Institute to utilize its sequencing capacity to provide
sequences and draft sequences of the gene-rich regions of plant
and microbial organisms of economic importance to agriculture,
such as corn, wheat, and plant pathogens.
Construction.--The Committee recommendation includes
$11,405,000, an increase of $1,405,000 over the budget request,
to complete the construction of the Laboratory for Comparative
Functional Genomics at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The
total project cost for this facility is only $14,420,000. By
completing construction in two rather than three fiscal years,
this will enable beneficial occupancy of the new facility in
May 2003 instead of May 2004. This accelerated project
completion will save the costs of utilities and maintenance for
the old facility, plus the site usage fee at the Y-12 site,
yielding a total net savings to the Federal government of
approximately $800,000.
Basic Energy Sciences
The Committee recommendation for basic energy sciences is
$1,006,705,000, $2,000,000 more than the budget request and a
reduction of $6,665,000 from fiscal year 2001. For purposes of
reprogramming during fiscal year 2002, the Department may
allocate funding among all operating accounts within basic
energy sciences.
Spallation Neutron Source.--The Committee recommends the
requested amount for construction of the Spallation Neutron
Source (SNS), $276,300,000. This represents an increase of
$16,800,000 compared to fiscal year 2001. The Committee
appreciates the recent improvements made in the management of
this project, but cautions the Department to maintain a close
watch on the various components of the SNS being produced by
other national laboratories.
Intense Pulsed Neutrino Facility.--The Committee recognizes
the value of such a facility in conjunction with the Spallation
Neutron Source, but budget constraints preclude funding an
intense pulsed neutrino facility in fiscal year 2002.
Nanoscale Science Research.--The Committee supports the
creation of several regional nanoscale science research centers
consistent with the September 1999 recommendations of the
Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and
Technology of the National Science and Technology Council. The
Committee also supports the efforts of the Department to seek
the active involvement of the academic community in the
development of these centers. However, the Committee reminds
the Department that its efforts to involve universities must
reach broadly and openly rather than selectively. Consistent
with existing policies for current user facilities, discussions
regarding the characteristics and equipment to be provided in
these planned nanoscience user facilities should be open to all
U.S. universities via published notice, workshops, and other
formal mechanisms. The external users of the Department's
resources must be determined through the competitive peer-
review process. Any partnership arrangements between the
involved national laboratories and academic institutions, or
any other non-federal partners, must follow procedures to
ensure full and open competition, as required by section 309 of
this Act.
The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 to
initiate project engineering and design (PED) for three
nanoscale science research centers in fiscal year 2002. This is
a reduction of $1,000,000 from the budget request of
$4,000,000. Any additional centers should be requested as part
of the fiscal year 2003 budget request. The detailed budget
justification for fiscal year 2003 should also provide more
accurate cost estimates for the three centers receiving PED
funds in fiscal year 2002. The Committee expects the Department
to maintain tight cost and schedule controls on these three
facilities.
The additional $3,000,000 included over the budget request
is to be made available for university research in nanoscale
science and engineering.
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
(EPSCoR).--The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000
within available funds for EPSCoR, an increase of $2,315,000
over the budget request and $3,185,000 over fiscal year 2001.
Advanced Scientific Computing Research
The Committee recommendation is $163,050,000, the same as
the budget request and $6,950,000 less than the funding in
fiscal year 2001. The Committee is supportive of the objectives
of the Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program,
but is concerned that the effort not duplicate the work already
being done on the defense side of the Department in the
Advanced Scientific Computing Initiative (ASCI). The Department
should submit a report not later than December 31, 2001, that
specifically outlines the differences between the objectives
and current and proposed work activities of ASCR and ASCI. The
Department is also directed to maximize the involvement of
universities in the ASCR program, so that both the Department
and the academic community can share in the latest technology
developments in this field.
Energy Research Analyses
The Committee recommendation for energy research analyses
is $1,000,000, the same as the budget request and the fiscal
year 2001 funding level.
Multi-Program Energy Laboratories Facilities Support
The multi-program energy laboratories facilities support
program provides funding to support the infrastructure at the
five multi-program national laboratories under the direction of
the Office of Science. This program also provides funding for
landlord costs for the centralized Oak Ridge Operations Office.
The Committee recommendation is $30,175,000, the same as the
budget request but $3,755,000 less than in fiscal year 2001.
This amount includes the requested funds of $3,183,000 for
project engineering design for three new projects: Phase I of
the mechanical and control systems upgrade at Argonne National
Laboratory--East, laboratory systems upgrades at Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, and the research support center
at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (project 02-SC-001). Also
included is $18,613,000, the same as the budget request, for
various infrastructure improvement projects at the five multi-
program national laboratories (project MEL-001).
Fusion Energy Sciences
The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is
$248,495,000, $6,505,000 less than the fiscal year 2001 funding
level but the same as the amended budget request. The Committee
concurs with the National Energy Policy's assessment of the
potential for fusion energy, but funding constraints prevent
additional research funding at this time. The Committee has
also provided $25,000,000 in the inertial confinement fusion
program for high average power lasers which is complementary to
the work performed in fusion energy sciences.
Facilities and Infrastructure
The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for a new Facilities
and Infrastructure program to improve the facilities and
infrastructure at the Department's science laboratories. The
Administration's budget proposal included no funding for this
program. These funds should be used to reduce the backlog of
maintenance and infrastructure upgrades and dispose of excess
facilities.
The Committee is aware of the need for funding a facilities
and infrastructure program, but is concerned the Department
does not have in place a facilities management structure to
ensure the funds are used to address those items which will
have the greatest impact on reducing long-term costs and risk.
The Department is to provide a semi-annual report to the
Committee on the status of the facilities and infrastructure
program. The report should include the current priority list of
proposed facilities and infrastructure projects including cost
and schedule requirements. For each site, the report is to
include: a current ten-year site plan that demonstrates the
reconfiguration of its facilities and infrastructure to meet
its missions and to address its long-term operational costs and
return on investment; the current budget for all facilities and
infrastructure funding in this program as well as all funding
for maintenance and infrastructure upgrades funded through
other parts of the budget; and the current status of each
facilities and infrastructure project compared to the original
baseline cost, schedule, and scope.
The Committee directs that at least 25 percent of the
facilities and infrastructure funding be used to dispose of
excess facilities that will provide the greatest impact on
reducing long-term costs and risk. New and innovative
decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) practices must be
implemented to reduce costs and expedite site cleanups. There
are clearly savings to be realized throughout the complex as
evidenced by a recent contractor innovation at the Rocky Flats
site that reduced the cost of D&D for a building from an
estimated $3,500,000 using existing DOE practices and
procedures to approximately $700,000 using commercial
practices. Potential cost savings of this magnitude have also
been identified at other sites through the use of standard
commercial practices for D&D.
Safeguards and Security
Beginning in fiscal year 2001, the cost of safeguards and
security activities at the multi-program and single-purpose
science laboratories are now direct funded in the Science
appropriation. The Committee recommends $55,412,000, the same
as the budget request and $5,594,000 more than fiscal year
2001.
Program Direction
The Committee recommendation is $134,980,000, a reduction
of $4,265,000 from fiscal year 2001 and $7,405,000 less than
the amended budget request. The control level for fiscal year
2002 is at the program account level of program direction.
Nuclear Waste Disposal
Appropriation, 2001................................... $190,654,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 134,979,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 133,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... -57,654,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. -1,979,000
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended,
established the Federal government's responsibility for the
permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste, and established the statutory framework to
guide the selection and development of a site for a permanent
repository. This law also created the Nuclear Waste Fund to
finance the disposal of commercially generated spent nuclear
fuel through the collections of fees from the owners and
generators of such spent fuel. The costs for disposal of high-
level radioactive waste generated from the atomic energy
defense activities of the Department of Energy, and the spent
nuclear fuel generated by the Department of Defense, are funded
by the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal appropriation.
The Department was required by statute to accept commercial
spent nuclear fuel for disposal beginning on January 31, 1998,
and has entered into legally enforceable contracts with
utilities to execute that obligation. It is now anticipated
that the Department will submit the Site Recommendation to the
President in early fiscal year 2002. Assuming the President and
the Congress accept the Department's recommendation, the
Department will then submit a License Application to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission in fiscal year 2003. This will,
at best, lead to initial repository operations beginning in
2010, twelve years after the Department was supposed to begin
accepting spent nuclear fuel for disposal. During that time,
the liability of the Federal government for its failure to meet
its statutory and contractual obligation to accept commercial
spent fuel beginning in January 1998 will continue to grow. The
repository is also essential to the ability of the Department
to remove defense-related high level radioactive waste and
spent nuclear fuel from other sites in the DOE complex, and the
delay in repository completion may affect the government's
ability to meet legally enforceable cleanup milestones at those
sites.
The Committee is disappointed with the latest slippage in
the Department's schedule for submission of the Site
Recommendation from fiscal year 2001 into fiscal year 2002, and
the consequent delay in the License Application to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year
2003. Nevertheless, it is critical for the Department to
complete the site selection process in fiscal year 2002 so that
it can move forward expeditiously with the design, licensing,
and construction of the repository.
The Committee recommends $133,000,000 from the Nuclear
Waste Fund in fiscal year 2002. Combined with the appropriation
of $310,000,000 from the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
account, this provides a total of $443,000,000 for Nuclear
Waste Disposal activities in fiscal year 2002, a reduction of
$1,979,000 from the budget request. When coupled with the
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal appropriation, this represents a
total increase of $48,074,000 over the funding provided to the
Department for nuclear waste disposal in fiscal year 2001.
State and local government funds.--The Committee
recommendation includes $6,000,000 for the affected units of
local government and $2,500,000 for the State of Nevada to
conduct their respective external oversight responsibilities.
These are the same funding levels as provided in fiscal year
2001. After being reassured that prior problems with improper
use of Federal funds provided to the State of Nevada had been
corrected, the Committee restored funding to the State in
fiscal year 2001. These funds were provided through the
Department to the Nevada Division of Emergency Management, for
use in executing appropriate scientific and technical oversight
activities. The State is prohibited from using these external
oversight funds to pay the salaries and expenses of State
employees, nor can it use Federal funds to engage in lobbying
against the repository. Unfortunately, the Department has not
yet conducted an audit to confirm whether this new funding
arrangement is working as intended and is not repeating the
problems of past years. The Committee is aware of the State's
request for additional external oversight funding as the
critical site selection decision will be made in early fiscal
year 2002. The Committee is also aware that the State
legislature has approved the Governor's request for $4,000,000
in State funds for use in lobbying and litigation to block the
repository. In the absence of an independent audit to verify
that funding provided in fiscal year 2001 has been spent
properly by the State, the Committee recommends no increase in
State funding for fiscal year 2002. The Department is directed
to audit the Federal funds provided to Nevada at the earliest
opportunity to confirm that these funds have been used in a
manner consistent with Congressional guidance.
The Administration proposed changing the recipient of the
external oversight funds for the State of Nevada from the
Nevada Division of Emergency Management to the Nevada Office of
Science, Engineering and Technology. In the absence of any
justification from the Department for this change, and without
an audit or other evidence to show that the present recipient
(i.e., the Division of Emergency Management) is using the
fiscal year 2001 Federal funds improperly, the Committee does
not make the requested change in recipient.
Future program funding.--The Department has acknowledged
that the current funding arrangement will not provide
sufficient funds for design and construction of the repository.
The one mil fee paid by the consumers of electricity generated
by nuclear power yields annual collections in the $600 to $700
million range. With the improved operating efficiency of
reactors in recent years and the extension of several reactor
licenses, this collection is expected to exceed $700 million in
fiscal year 2001. The Nuclear Waste Fund presently has a
balance of over $10 billion from collections of this one mil
fee in prior years.
The balance in the Waste Fund and the annual revenue
generated by the one mil fee, coupled with the contribution
from the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal appropriation for
defense-generated waste and spent fuel, should provide more
than sufficient funds for the design, construction, and
operation of the repository. In recent years, an annual
appropriation of $300 to $400 million has been sufficient to
cover the expenses of the program for site characterization
work. Once the program moves out of the study phase and into
the design and construction phases, the annual funding
requirements will increase significantly, exceeding $1 billion
annually for several fiscal years. This will exceed the annual
collections from the one mil fee, requiring either a major
increase in the defense contribution or expenditure from the
balance in the Nuclear Waste Fund, which would be scored as a
new outlay. The Committee expects that the Department's budget
request for fiscal year 2003 will include a specific
legislative proposal to resolve future funding requirements for
this program.
Waste acceptance.--Because of concerns about the
Department's commitment to the timely removal of spent nuclear
fuel, the Committee in fiscal year 2001 directed the Department
to submit its plan for the fabrication and deployment of waste
acceptance capabilities. In January 2001, the Department
submitted a report entitled ``Plan for Transportation Cask
Fabrication and Deployment of Waste Acceptance Capability.''
This report merely confirms that the Department's strategy is
to defer any concrete actions on waste acceptance pending final
site selection. The Committee remains concerned that the
Department will not be ready to fulfill its waste acceptance
responsibilities consistent with the repository schedule,
particularly for spent fuel from reactors presently undergoing
decommissioning. The Committee recommendation includes
$1,800,000 within available funds to initiate the procurement
of one transportation cask for each of the six reactor sites
presently undergoing dismantlement and decommissioning. Such
procurement does not constitute a settlement or fulfillment of
the Secretary's obligation to take acceptance of spent nuclear
fuel.
Transportation planning and readiness.--The United States
has an exemplary safety record in shipping commercial and naval
spent nuclear fuel. Nevertheless, a major point of public
concern about the permanent repository is the perceived risk of
such shipments. As with waste acceptance, the Department has
opted to defer serious transportation planning until after
completion of the final site selection. With the site
recommendation now scheduled for completion in early fiscal
year 2002, the Department needs to take a more aggressive
approach in educating the public and working with state and
local governments to develop safe transportation routes to the
repository. One of the first steps should be to work with the
State of Nevada to specify the transportation modes and routes
that will avoid the Las Vegas metropolitan area. The Department
should use available funds in fiscal year 2002 to initiate the
selection of transportation routes in Nevada and other States,
in cooperation with the States, and to begin planning for
construction of a rail line to the repository site.
Alternatives to the repository.--The National Research
Council's Committee on Disposition of High-Level Radioactive
Waste Through Geological Isolation recently completed a report
entitled ``Disposition of High-Level Waste and Spent Nuclear
Fuel: The Continuing Societal and Technical Challenges.'' The
National Research Council found that ``geological disposition
and surface storage are the only options that the committee
found to be feasible now or in the foreseeable future . . . ''.
The National Research Council also makes clear that neither
reprocessing nor transmutation of spent nuclear fuel, while
having the potential to reduce the total volume of radioactive
wastes and especially the volume of long-lived radionuclides,
eliminates the need for a repository. Not only does the
accelerator transmutation of waste approach still require a
repository, but the National Research Council cites data
provided by the Department of Energy showing that transmutation
will cost significantly more and take longer than the current
geologic repository program. The West Valley Demonstration
Project, now estimated to cost $4.5 billion and take 40 more
years to clean up, is testimony to the fact that spent fuel
reprocessing is not without its own environmental impacts and
waste streams. Accordingly, the Committee does not provide any
funds in this bill for the Department to pursue these so-called
alternatives to the repository.
Departmental Administration
Gross Appropriation
Appropriation, 2001................................... $225,942,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 221,618,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 209,611,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... -16,331,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. -12,007,000
Miscellaneous Revenues
Appropriation, 2001................................... -$151,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. -137,810,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... -137,810,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +13,190,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. ................
The Committee recommendation for Departmental
Administration is $209,611,000, a decrease of $12,007,000 from
the budget request of $221,618,000. Funding recommended for
Departmental Administration provides for general management and
program support functions benefiting all elements of the
Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security
Administration. The account funds a wide array of activities
not directly associated with program execution. Funding for
many offices has been reduced due to funding constraints and
the availability of prior year carryover balances.
The Committee has provided bill language allowing the
Department to transfer funds previously appropriated for Year
2000 (Y2K) activities to the Departmental Administration
account. In conjunction with Y2K conversion efforts begun in
late 1998, the Department initiated full-scale modernization of
its core financial systems under the on-going Business
Management Information System (BMIS). BMIS is replacing out-of-
date financial and budgeting systems and requires substantially
greater federal support to assure operational reliability by
2003. Balances remaining from funds made available in the
Departmental Administration, Defense Environmental Restoration
and Waste Management, and Defense Facilities Closure Projects
accounts, estimated to total $1,480,000, are transferred to and
merged with the funding in this account. These funds, which
otherwise would expire on September 30, 2001, will remain
available until expended for the Federal costs associated with
the success of these continuing information technology
enhancement activities.
Engineering and Project Management.--The Committee
recommendation includes a separate account for the personnel
and activities of the Office of Engineering and Construction
Management in line with the recommendation that the Office be
provided greater authority within the Department's
organizational structure. Funding for the facilities and
infrastructure group has also been transferred to this office.
The Committee recommendation of $7,600,000 does not include the
budget proposal to fund central project management activities
through a tax on other organizations.
Working Capital Fund.--The Department is using a charge-
back program similar to a working capital fund which charges
benefiting programs and organizations with administrative and
housekeeping activities traditionally funded in a central
account. The Committee continues to support this, but wants to
reiterate its expectations that: no salaries or other expenses
of Federal employees may be charged to the fund; Departmental
representation on the Board establishing the policies should be
broad-based and include smaller organizations; the pricing
policies used must be sound and defensible and not include
added factors for administrative costs; the advanced payments
at any time may be no more than the amount minimally required
to adequately cover outstanding commitments and other
reasonable activities; and a defined process must be
established to dispose of excess advance payments (accumulated
credits). Additionally, it is the Committee's expectation that
the fund manager will ensure that the fund will neither be
managed in a manner to produce a profit nor allow the program
customers to use the fund as a vehicle for maintaining
unencumbered funds.
The working capital fund should be audited periodically by
the Department's Inspector General to ensure the integrity of
the accounts, and the Committee expects to be apprised of any
recommendations to improve the charge-back system.
Use of Prior Year Deobligations and Construction Project
Reserves.--Throughout the fiscal year, funds often become
available as projects are completed and contracts closed out
throughout all of the Department's appropriation accounts.
These funds become available for reuse and are retained by the
Controller as either prior year deobligations or transferred to
construction project reserve accounts. During fiscal year 2002,
these funds are not available for reallocation within the
Department unless approved by Congress as part of a
reprogramming or specifically identified in the budget request.
Cost of Work for Others.--The recommendation for the cost
of work for others program is $71,837,000, the same as the
budget request. The Committee recognizes that funds received
from reimbursable activities may be used to fund general
purpose capital equipment which is used in support of those
activities.
Revenues.--The recommendation for revenues is $137,810,000,
the same as the budget request.
Transfer from Other Defense Activities.--For many years,
full funding for all corporate and administrative activities of
the Department has been provided in the energy portion of this
bill despite the fact that over 70 percent of the Department's
funding is provided in the national security programs.
Consistent with the budget request, the Committee has
distributed these costs more equitably in fiscal year 2002 and
provided $25,000,000 from national security programs.
Office of Inspector General
Appropriation, 2001................................... $31,430,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 31,430,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 32,430,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +1,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. +1,000,000
The Office of Inspector General performs agency-wide audit,
inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct
management and administrative deficiencies that create
conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste
and mismanagement. The audit function provides financial and
performance audits of programs and operations. The inspection
function provides independent inspections and analyses of the
effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of programs and
operations. The investigative function provides for the
detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities
involving programs, personnel, and operations. During fiscal
year 2001, the Department has received payments exceeding $10
million from Inspector General investigations which resulted in
settlements in favor of the Government.
The Committee recommendation is $32,430,000, an increase of
$1,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee is aware that
additional duties assigned to the Office of the Inspector
General by Congress have not been fully funded in prior years.
This funding increase addresses that concern.
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the
Department of Energy include the National Nuclear Security
Administration which consists of Weapons Activities, Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the
Administrator; Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management; Defense Facilities Closure Projects; Defense
Environmental Management Privatization; Other Defense
Activities; and Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal. Descriptions of
each of these accounts are provided below.
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
The Department of Energy is responsible for enhancing U.S.
national security through the military application of nuclear
technology and reducing the global danger from the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous
agency within the Department, carries out these
responsibilities. Established in March 2000 pursuant to Title
32 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2000 (Public Law 106-65), NNSA is responsible for the
management and operation of the Nation's nuclear weapons, naval
reactors, and nuclear nonproliferation activities. Three
offices within the NNSA carry out the Department's national
security mission: the Office of Defense Programs, the Office of
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and the Office of Naval
Reactors.
Weapons Activities
Appropriation, 2001................................... $5,006,153,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 5,300,025,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 5,123,888,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +117,735,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. -176,137,000
The goal of the Weapons Activities program is to maintain
confidence in the safety, security, reliability and performance
of the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. The program seeks to
maintain and refurbish nuclear weapons to sustain confidence in
their safety and reliability indefinitely under the nuclear
testing moratorium and arms reduction treaties. The Committee's
recommendation for Weapons Activities is $5,123,888,000, a
decrease of $176,137,000 from the budget request of
$5,300,025,000, but an increase of $117,735,000 over fiscal
year 2001.
The fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill
contains additional funding of $140,000,000 for weapons
activities. An additional $54,000,000 was provided for directed
stockpile work, $9,000,000 for campaigns, and $47,000,000 for
readiness in technical base and facilities. In addition,
$30,000,000 was provided to establish a new program, Facilities
and Infrastructure, to reduce maintenance backlogs and dispose
of excess facilities.
Strategic Review.--The Administration is currently
conducting a review of the Nation's nuclear weapons strategy,
but the results of this review are not yet known. The Committee
is aware that the outcome of this review could significantly
change the weapons activities funding requirements for fiscal
year 2002 and will make appropriate adjustments as needed
during the appropriations process.
Reprogramming Authority.--The Committee recommends limited
reprogramming authority within weapons activities for the
production plants to provide flexibility to achieve cost
savings and programmatic efficiencies during the year. In
fiscal year 2002, each plant may transfer between programs up
to $5,000,000 or 10 percent of the funding, whichever is lower,
if it can be shown that cost savings and efficiencies will
result. This reprogramming authority is not to be used to cover
cost overruns and schedule slips for any project or program.
This reprogramming authority may not be used to initiate new
programs or programs specifically denied, limited, or increased
by Congress in the Act or report. The Committees on
Appropriations in the House and Senate must be notified within
30 days of the use of this reprogramming authority.
DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK
Directed Stockpile Work includes all activities that
directly support weapons in the nuclear stockpile, including
maintenance, research, development, engineering, and
certification activities. The Committee recommendation is
$1,043,791,000, the same as the budget request, and an increase
of $133,188,000 over fiscal year 2001.
CAMPAIGNS
Campaigns are focused efforts involving the three weapons
laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, the weapons production
plants, and selected external organizations to address critical
capabilities needed to achieve program objectives. Campaigns
have definitive milestones, specific work plans, and specific
end dates. The Committee recommendation is $1,945,413,000, a
decrease of $51,000,000 from the budget request of
$1,996,413,000.
Inertial Confinement Fusion.--The Committee recommends
$492,943,000 for the inertial confinement fusion program, an
increase of $25,000,000 over the budget request of
$467,943,000. The recommendation includes $25,000,000 to
continue development of high average power lasers and
supporting science and technology. The Committee is
disappointed that the Department has not yet supported this
activity despite recommendations by the Fusion Energy Science
Advisory Committee and the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board
and the continuing progress of the research. The Committee
recommendation also includes the budget request of $10,000,000
for the Naval Research Laboratory and $33,450,000 for the
University of Rochester.
The Department is also directed to initiate a study to
determine the programmatic need for a Petawatt laser facility.
The Committee recommendation provides $245,000,000 for
construction of the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the same
as the budget request. While the Department has stated that the
NIF is back on track, a recent General Accounting Office (GAO)
follow-up review of NIF expressed some continuing concerns. GAO
notes that, while past internal reviewers have concluded that
NIF's milestones are challenging but doable, most major
performance milestones will not occur until 2004, and some
reviewers have recommended that more near-term milestones be
added to assess laser performance. Other issues that GAO
believes continue to place NIF at risk are: persistent DOE
oversight problems (i.e., the same people have performed
oversight since 1999 when NIF's cost and schedule grew
unnoticed); the NIF project does not manage about $700 million
in research and development that directly support NIF; and NIF
still lacks an independent external review process. The
Committee expects the Department to address these concerns in
an expeditious manner.
Advanced simulation and computing.--The Committee
recommendation for the Advanced Simulation and Computing
program is $638,032,000, a reduction of $100,000,000 from the
budget request of $738,032,000. The Committee has consistently
supported this program, but believes that recent events could
require a modification to the proposed program strategy. While
the Department's schedule for a 100 trillion operations per
second (100 TeraOPS) computer has slipped beyond the original
date of 2004, a private company has begun an effort to increase
computing capability with the goal of achieving 100 TeraOPS by
2004. In addition, the Committee is funding the Advanced
Scientific Computing Research program at a level in excess of
$160,000,000 in the DOE non-defense laboratories. The
Department must ensure that the current program strategy takes
into full account these changes which have occurred since the
program was initiated in 1996.
Pit manufacturing and certification.--The Committee
recommendation for pit manufacturing readiness is $128,545,000,
the same as the budget request. The Department is currently
unable to demonstrate that it has a viable plan to manufacture
and certify pits on the schedule dictated by national security
needs. The Department's management and the national
laboratory's execution of this project have been quite
deficient--the project is years behind schedule and hundreds of
millions of dollars over the original cost estimate. The NNSA
has established a separate project office to oversee pit
manufacturing and certification. The Committee will base its
judgment on the success of the NNSA on how well this project
succeeds. At this time the proposed certification date is years
away and does not meet national security requirements for a new
pit. The Department is directed to submit to the Committee a
comprehensive report on the status of this project on a
quarterly basis beginning October 1, 2001.
Secondary readiness.--The Committee has provided an
additional $24,000,000 in secondary readiness for the Y-12
Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. These additional funds are for
direct support to the stockpile life extension program,
demonstration of technologies for the Special Materials Complex
facility, and modernization planning.
READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES
The Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities program
supports the physical and operational infrastructure at the
laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, and the production plants.
The Committee recommendation is $1,481,988,000, an increase of
$35,000,000 over the budget request of $1,446,988,000.
Additional funding of $25,000,000 has been provided for the
Pantex plant in Texas and $10,000,000 for the Y-12 Plant in
Tennessee to meet facility needs.
Construction projects.--Funding of $9,500,000 has been
provided for Project 02-D-101, the Microsystems and Engineering
Sciences Applications (MESA) Complex at Sandia National
Laboratories, an increase of $7,500,000 over the budget
request. Funding of $7,500,000 for infrastructure activities
has been transferred to the MESA line item construction project
from Project 01-D-103, Project Engineering and Design (PE&D).
The budget request of $45,5379,000 for Project 01-D-103, PE&D,
has been reduced accordingly to $37,879,000. In its fiscal year
2003 budget request for MESA, the Department is directed to
revise the project data sheet to include the cost of disposing
of excess facilities that are equal to or greater than the new
space that will be created by this project.
Underground Nuclear Testing.--The Department of Energy was
slow to provide detailed justification for its supplemental
appropriations funding request for fiscal year 2001 to the
Committee. The information it provided to the Committee was
informal and on an ad-hoc rather than a formal basis. After the
Committee had made its funding recommendations for the bill,
DOE submitted formal justification material to justify its
request. The formal material mentions funding to increase the
state of readiness of underground nuclear testing.
If the Nation were to decide to invest funds to restore
underground nuclear testing to a higher level than presently,
this could only be done: (1) once the Secretary of Defense
concluded his strategic review; (2) once the President made a
recommendation to the Congress; (3) once it was approved by the
Armed Services Committees of the House and the Senate; and (4)
only if it were subsequently approved by Congress. None of
these activities has occurred. It is not the Committee's intent
to provide funding in this Act, the supplemental appropriations
Act for fiscal year 2001, or any prior Act for activities to
increase the readiness for underground nuclear testing. None of
the funds in such Acts may be used for that purpose.
FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
The Committee has provided $17,000,000 for the Facilities
and Infrastructure program to address the serious shortfall in
maintenance throughout the nuclear weapons complex. The
Administration's budget proposal included no funding for this
program. These funds should be used to reduce the backlog of
maintenance and infrastructure upgrades and dispose of excess
facilities. Funding of $30,000,000 was also provided in the
fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill.
The Committee is aware of the need for funding a facilities
and infrastructure program, but is concerned the Department
does not have in place a facilities management structure to
ensure the funds are used to address those items which will
have the greatest impact on reducing long-term costs and risk.
The Department is to provide a semi-annual report to the
Committee on the status of the facilities and infrastructure
program. The report should include the current priority list of
proposed facilities and infrastructure projects including cost
and schedule requirements. For each site, the report is to
include: a current ten-year site plan that demonstrates the
reconfiguration of its facilities and infrastructure to meet
its missions and to address its long-term operational costs and
return on investment; the current budget for all facilities and
infrastructure funding in this program as well as all funding
for maintenance and infrastructure upgrades funded through
other parts of the budget; and the current status of each
facilities and infrastructure project compared to the original
baseline cost, schedule, and scope.
The Committee directs that at least 25 percent of the
facilities and infrastructure funding be used to dispose of
excess facilities that will provide the greatest impact on
reducing long-term costs and risk. New and innovative
decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) practices must be
implemented to reduce costs and expedite site cleanups. There
are clearly savings to be realized throughout the complex as
evidenced by a recent contractor innovation at the Rocky Flats
site that reduced the cost of D&D for a building from an
estimated $3,500,000 using existing DOE practices and
procedures to approximately $700,000 using commercial
practices. Potential cost savings of this magnitude have also
been identified at other sites through the use of standard
commercial practices for D&D.
SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET
The Secure Transportation Asset program provides for the
safe, secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear
materials, and non-nuclear weapon components between military
locations and nuclear weapons complex facilities within the
United States. The Committee recommendation is $121,800,000,
the same as the budget request.
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
This program provides for all safeguards and security
requirements at NNSA landlord sites. The Committee
recommendation is $448,881,000, the same as the budget request,
but an increase of nearly 14 percent over fiscal year 2001.
Physical safeguards and security measures are only part of the
solution to address security concerns throughout the weapons
complex. With program needs going unmet and infrastructure
deteriorating, the Committee strongly encourages the NNSA to
review these growing costs and seek smarter and more efficient
ways to meet security needs.
PROGRAM DIRECTION
The Committee recommendation of $250,000,000 for program
direction is a reduction of $21,137,000 from the budget request
of $271,137,000, and $566,000 below fiscal year 2001. Congress
assumed that creation of the NNSA would lead to efficiencies
and streamlined management. However, the result has been an
increase in staff at Headquarters and in the field. The
conference report to accompany the Fiscal Year 2001 National
Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 106-398) decreased program
direction funding for fiscal year 2001 because the conferees
believed the Office of Defense Programs to be overstaffed. The
conferees urged the Department to eliminate duplicative efforts
and streamline management control and directed the Department
to reorganize and realign headquarters and field offices roles
and responsibilities. The Committee expects the NNSA to address
this issue during fiscal year 2002 and seek additional
efficiencies throughout the Headquarters and field
organizations during fiscal year 2003.
FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS
The recommendation includes an adjustment of $184,985,000.
This consists of a $28,985,000 security charge for reimbursable
work as included in the budget request and a general reduction
of $156,000,000.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Appropriation, 2001................................... $872,273,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 773,700,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 845,341,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... -26,932,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. +71,641,000
The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account includes
funding for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and
Development, Arms Control, International Materials Protection,
Control, and Accounting, Russian Transition Assistance, HEU
Transparency Implementation, International Nuclear Safety,
Fissile Materials Disposition, and Program Direction.
Descriptions of each of these programs are provided below.
The Department requested $7,000 for official reception and
representation expenses in this account. The Committee
recommendation transfers this funding and combines it with the
request of $5,000 for official reception and representation
expenses in the Office of the Administrator for a total of
$12,000.
NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The nonproliferation and verification research and
development program conducts applied research, development,
testing, and evaluation of science and technology for
strengthening the United States response to threats to national
security and to world peace posed by the proliferation of
nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials. Activities
center on the design and production of operational sensor
systems needed for proliferation detection, treaty
verification, nuclear warhead dismantlement initiatives, and
intelligence activities.
The Committee recommendation is $216,102,000, an increase
of $10,000,000 over the budget request of $206,102,000. The
recommendation provides an additional $10,000,000 for ground-
based systems for treaty monitoring which was reduced from
$22,510,000 in fiscal year 2001 to $12,510,900 in the budget
request.
Competitive Research.--Concerns have been raised repeatedly
that there should be more opportunity for open competition in
certain areas of the nonproliferation and verification research
and development program. A report by an outside group
established by the Department to review the Office of
Nonproliferation Research and Engineering included a similar
recommendation. The Committee expects the Department to act in
good faith on the recommendations provided by the external
review group and directs the Department to continue a free and
open competitive process for 25 percent of its research and
development activities during fiscal year 2002 for ground-based
systems treaty monitoring. The competitive process should be
open to all Federal and non-Federal entities.
ARMS CONTROL
The Committee recommendation has restructured the Arms
Control program to provide more visibility for program
activities. The arms control and nonproliferation program seeks
to detect, prevent, and reverse the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction materials, technology, and expertise. The
major functional areas of the program include: policy analysis;
reduced enrichment research and test reactor (RERTR);
international safeguards; export control operations; treaty
agreements; New Independent States (NIS) nonproliferation; and
international security.
The Committee recommendation for Arms Control is
$75,741,000, a reduction of $25,759,000 from the budget request
of $101,500,000. Funding of $4,000,000 included in the Arms
Control program for Second Line of Defense activities has been
transferred to the International Materials Protection, Control
and Accounting program. Funding of $28,759,000 included in the
budget request in the NIS nonproliferation program for the
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) and the Nuclear
Cities Initiative (NCI) programs has been transferred to a new
program, ``Russian Transition Assistance.'' Within Arms
Control, total funding of $15,945,000, an increase of
$7,000,000 over the budget request, has been provided to
maintain the schedule for completing the spent fuel activities
in Kazakhstan.
NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS WITH RUSSIA
The Department of Energy funds many nonproliferation
programs with Russia. These programs help secure Russian
nuclear weapons materials, prevent the outflow of scientific
expertise from Russia, eliminate excess nuclear weapons
materials, and help downsize the Russian nuclear weapons
complex.
In January of this year, ``A Report Card on the Department
of Energy's Nonproliferation Programs with Russia'' was
released by the Russian Task Force co-chaired by Howard Baker
and Lloyd Cutler. The Committee has reviewed this report and
supports the major recommendation which states that, ``The
President, in consultation with Congress and in cooperation
with the Russian Federation, should quickly formulate a
strategic plan to secure and/or neutralize in the next eight or
ten years all nuclear weapons-usable material located in Russia
and prevent the outflow from Russia of scientific expertise
that could be used for nuclear or other weapons of mass
destruction.'' The Task Force further notes that, ``While
emphasizing that enhanced efforts are needed from the U.S., the
Task Force underscores that enhanced efforts are also required
from Russia. Ultimately, Russia will be responsible for
securing its remaining nuclear arsenal.'' Within available
funding, the Committee has sought to support the
recommendations of this Task Force.
Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Agreement.--Several external
reviews have urged that excess quantities of Russian Highly
Enriched Uranium (HEU) be reduced as quickly as possible.
Excess Russian HEU is currently being managed under the
auspices of the HEU Purchase Agreement established in 1994.
This agreement authorized the U.S. to purchase 500 metric tons
of Russian HEU that was to be converted to low enriched uranium
for commercial uses over 20 years at a cost of $12 billion.
While more than 110 metric tons of HEU have been down-blended,
implementation of the HEU Purchase Agreement has been slower
and more difficult than anticipated. The Committee strongly
urges the Department to work with the United States Enrichment
Corporation (USEC) to explore ways to accelerate the current
purchase agreement.
With the continued downsizing of the Russian nuclear
weapons stockpile, more HEU is becoming available. The
Administration is urged to expand the amount of HEU purchases
included in the original agreement, which covers less than half
of Russia's total HEU stockpile. The Committee is aware of the
concerns that additional purchases could adversely impact the
world market for uranium. The Administration should explore
options such as securing a second U.S. executive agent for the
purchase; down-blending the material but leaving it in Russia
until it can be sold onto international markets without adverse
impacts; and working with the international community to
purchase additional blended-down Russian HEU. The Committee
understands that much of the Russian funding for its nuclear
weapons complex conversion programs comes from the HEU purchase
agreement, so any increase in purchases should also ensure that
the additional revenue is used for these conversion
initiatives.
Limitation on Russian Program Funds.--The Department is
still not adequately addressing the concern that too much of
the money for Russian programs is being spent in the U.S. at
the Department's own national laboratories rather than going to
the facilities in Russia. The Department's contracting
mechanisms are resulting in excess funds going to pay
laboratories for contract administration and oversight that
would be better performed by Federal personnel. The
Department's national laboratories should be used to provide
technical oversight and programmatic guidance in those areas
where they have special expertise.
The Committee directs that not more than 25 percent of the
funding for Russian programs may be spent in the United States.
The Department is not adequately reviewing the types of
administrative and programmatic guidance that are needed for
these programs and choosing the proper contractual mechanism.
This leads to excessive costs for administration and less
funding going to Russia. The Department should report to the
Committee by December 15, 2001, on the steps being taken to
meet the 25 percent limitation.
INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS PROTECTION, CONTROL AND ACCOUNTING
The International Materials Protection, Control and
Accounting (MPC&A) activities are designed to work
cooperatively with Russia to secure weapons and weapons-usable
nuclear material. The focus is to improve the physical security
at facilities that possess or process significant quantities of
nuclear weapons-usable that are of proliferation concern.
Activities include installing monitoring equipment,
inventorying nuclear material, improving the Russian security
culture, and establishing a security infrastructure.
The Committee recommendation is $190,000,000, an increase
of $51,200,000 over the budget request of $138,800,000, and
$16,144,000 over fiscal year 2001. Funding of $4,000,000 is
provided for the Second Line of Defense program which was
transferred from the Arms Control program. The Committee has
provided a significant increase in funding for fiscal year
2002. This increase should be targeted toward projects to
consolidate materials and reduce the number of buildings and
facilities holding nuclear materials. The Committee also
directs the Department to increase the level of program funding
that goes to employing Russian workers and purchasing Russian-
made equipment and reduce the amount of funding that is spent
in the United States.
RUSSIAN TRANSITION ASSISTANCE
The Committee has transferred the Initiatives for
Proliferation Prevention (IPP) and the Nuclear Cities
Initiative (NCI) programs from Arms Control and established a
new program, ``Russian Transition Assistance.'' The Committee
recommendation is $40,000,000 for projects to employ Russian
weapons scientists and downsize the Russian weapons complex.
The Committee recommendation provides $30,000,000 for IPP and
$10,000,000 for NCI.
A recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report suggested
several areas of improvement for the NCI program and
recommended combining the NCI and IPP programs since they share
a common goal--employing Russian weapons scientists in
nonmilitary work--and, in many cases, are implementing similar
types of projects. At this time, the Committee has maintained
the two separate programs, but expects the Department to
provide a single program manager responsible for both. The
program manager should also ensure close coordination with
other Federal agencies that direct money to scientists working
in closed cities, such as the State Department's International
Science and Technology Center.
Management of the IPP program has improved considerably in
recent years, while the NCI program appears to be suffering the
same problems that IPP has overcome. The NCI program could be
strengthened significantly by using the same standards,
applications, and approval procedures already in place in the
IPP program. While the Committee believes that non-
proliferation projects should continue to take place within the
closed cities, such projects should be guided by an emphasis on
private sector involvement using the commercialization
principles inherent in the IPP program.
To ensure that the appropriate amount of funding goes to
facilities in Russia and the NIS, the Committee directs that
not more than 25 percent of the funds be spent at the
Department of Energy laboratories and that these funds be used
by the laboratories only for technical validation of projects.
The Committee also recommends that the Department direct the
United States Industry Coalition (USIC) to assume
responsibility for all business-related activities including
structuring contracts and intellectual property rights
arrangements.
A near-term measure of success for this program will be the
number of technologies that are commercialized, the number of
jobs created in Russia, and the amount that the Russian weapons
complex is downsized. The ultimate measure of success will be
elimination of U.S. aid to support these commercialization
ventures. The Committee expects the program to increase the
amount of cost sharing required from U.S. industry
participants, and directs the Department to establish a
revolving fund to support the program, and ultimately,
eliminate Federal government funding of projects.
The Department is directed to report to the Committee by
January 15, 2002, on the level of coordination with other
Federal agencies and the implementation of the GAO
recommendations to: evaluate all ongoing NCI projects;
establish quantifiable goals and milestones for jobs creation
and downsizing the weapons complex; and strengthen efforts to
reduce national laboratories' costs to implement the program.
The report should also address whether the two programs should
be consolidated into a single effort and whether cost savings
and other programmatic and administrative efficiencies would be
possible through consolidation.
HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM TRANSPARENCY IMPLEMENTATION
The highly enriched uranium (HEU) transparency
implementation program is responsible for ensuring that the
nonproliferation aspects of the February 1993 agreement between
the United States and the Russian Federation are met. This
agreement covers the purchase over 20 years of low enriched
uranium (LEU) derived from at least 500 metric tons of HEU
removed from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons. Under the
agreement, conversion of HEU components into LEU is performed
in Russian facilities. The purpose of the program is to put
into place those measures agreed to by both sides that permit
the U.S. to have confidence that the Russian side is abiding by
the agreement.
The Committee recommendation is $13,950,000, the same as
the budget request.
INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY
The international nuclear safety program is designed to
reduce the threats posed by the operation of unsafe and aging
Soviet-designed nuclear power plants in Russia and the Newly
Independent States. The Committee recommendation for this
program is $10,000,000, a reduction of $3,800,000 from the
budget request of $13,800,000, due to funding constraints. The
Committee expects U.S. participation in this program to be
completed by 2005.
From within available funds, $1,500,000 is to be used to
transfer and implement the proven U.S.-developed Mechanical
Stress Improvement Process technology requested by the Russian
Federation. The Department is to provide a status report on the
progress of this project by March 31, 2002.
The Committee directs the Department to provide an annual
report showing the status of each of the Soviet-designed
reactors, the work to be accomplished, the total estimated cost
for each reactor, the cost of completing the upgrades to each
of the reactors, the schedule by fiscal year for accomplishing
this work, and the cost of each task by fiscal year. In
addition, the report should provide summary tables of total
annual resources expended and planned at: each reactor and each
project/activity receiving funding outside explicit reactors
for fiscal years 1993-2005, which total to the annual amount
provided and projected to complete the program. The report
should include a strategic plan outlining the most urgent and
pressing safety priorities that remain and need to be addressed
in order to close out the program by 2005.
FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION
The fissile materials disposition program is responsible
for the technical and management activities to assess, plan and
direct efforts to provide for the safe, secure, environmentally
sound long-term storage of all weapons-usable fissile materials
and the disposition of fissile materials declared surplus to
national defense needs. The Committee recommendation is
$290,089,000, the same as the budget request, and an increase
of $40,640,000 over fiscal year 2001. Funding of $130,089,000,
the same as the budget request, is provided for U.S. surplus
materials disposition and $57,000,000, the same as the budget
request, for the Russian plutonium disposition program. The
U.S. portion of the fissile materials disposition program is
not to be counted in the 25 percent limitation on funds for
Russian programs to be spent in the U.S.
The Department's budget request for fissile materials
disposition is insufficient to proceed with the simultaneous
design and construction of three key plutonium disposition
facilities. To accommodate the shortfall, DOE proposes to move
ahead with the development of a mixed oxide (MOX) Fuel
Fabrication Facility while delaying work on the other two U.S.
facilities until closer to the time when they are needed. At
the same time, DOE is examining various technical alternatives
to make greater use of existing facilities at Savannah River to
reduce the costs of plutonium disposition.
The Department's approach is understandable in light of the
fact that irradiating MOX fuel in nuclear reactors is key to
working with Russia to dispose of stocks of surplus Russian
plutonium. However, the Committee wants to remind DOE that it
is essential to provide an unambiguous and timely pathway out
of Savannah River for plutonium brought there from other sites
for disposition. Should unanticipated problems make proceeding
with the irradiation of MOX fuel infeasible, the Department
should proceed promptly with immobilization to dispose of
surplus U.S. plutonium. Only in this manner does the Committee
believe that DOE can honor commitments to South Carolina, avoid
billions of dollars in long-term storage costs, and assure that
Savannah River does not become the de facto dumping ground for
stockpiles of surplus U.S. weapons plutonium.
PROGRAM DIRECTION
The Committee recommendation of $51,459,000 for program
direction is the same as the budget request.
Naval Reactors
Appropriation, 2001................................... $688,645,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 688,045,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 688,045,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... -600,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. ................
The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects
of naval nuclear propulsion--from technology development
through reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal.
The program provides for the design, development, testing, and
evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and
reactor cores. These efforts are critical to the continued
success of over 97 reactors in operating nuclear-powered
submarines and surface ships and to development of the next
generation reactor.
The Committee recommendation is $688,045,000, the same as
the budget request.
Office of the Administrator
Appropriation, 2001................................... $9,978,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 15,000,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 10,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +22,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. -5,000,000
The Office of the Administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) provides corporate planning and
oversight for Defense Programs, Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors, including the NNSA field
offices in New Mexico, Nevada, and California. The Committee
recommendation is $10,000,000, a reduction of $5,000,000 from
the budget request, and $22,000 more than fiscal year 2001.
The Committee recommendation provides $12,000 for official
reception and representation expenses for the NNSA. This
combines the request of $7,000 included in the Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation account with the $5,000 requested in this
account.
Environmental and Other Defense Activities
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
Appropriation, 2001................................... $4,963,533,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 4,548,708,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 5,174,539,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +211,006,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. +625,831,000
The Environmental Management program is responsible for
identifying and reducing risks and managing waste at sites
where the Department carried out nuclear energy or weapons
research and production activities which resulted in
radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination requiring
remediation, stabilization, or some other type of cleanup
action. Environmental management activities are budgeted under
the following appropriation accounts: Defense Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management; Defense Facilities Closure
Projects; Defense Environmental Management Privatization; Non-
Defense Environmental Management; and Uranium Facilities
Maintenance and Remediation.
The fiscal year 2002 budget request for environmental
management activities was not adequate to maintain cleanup
progress at each of the Department's sites. While the Committee
strongly supports the Secretary's internal review of these
programs, certain on-going cleanup projects must be funded.
The Committee's recommendation for Defense Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management is $5,174,778,000, an increase
of $625,831,000 over the budget request of $4,548,708,000.
Additional funding of $100,000,000 was provided in the fiscal
year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill to support a variety
of cleanup activities in this account. Details of the
recommended funding levels follow.
GENERAL
The Secretary has ordered a top-to-bottom review of the
environmental management programs. The Committee supports this
effort and hopes to realize significant cost savings and
program efficiencies from new and innovative cleanup strategies
throughout the complex.
Low level waste disposal costs.--The Department expects to
generate 10.6 million cubic meters of low level radioactive
waste (LLW) and mixed low level waste (MLLW) needing disposal;
of this amount, only 1.2 million cubic meters is projected for
disposal at commercial facilities. The Committee is concerned
that the Department is relying too heavily on the use of
Federal on-site and off-site disposal cells, effectively
inhibiting the development of a viable and competitive
commercial disposal industry. Commercial off-site disposal
facilities may offer the Department the lowest overall life-
cycle cost for disposal of this waste, particularly if the
Department can foster some competition for its disposal
business. The General Accounting Office (GAO), in its report
entitled ``Nuclear Cleanup: DOE Should Reevaluate Waste
Disposal Options Before Building New Facilities,'' (GAO-01-441,
May 2001), investigated three sites which had decided to build
on-site disposal facilities. The GAO found that the Department
had not used the latest estimates of waste volumes and
transportation costs when deciding between on-site and off-site
disposal. The Committee is further concerned that the
Department has implemented a rate structure for the disposal of
low-level waste and mixed low-level waste disposal at the
Nevada Test Site (NTS) which understates the true life-cycle
cost of disposal at NTS, thus making a fair comparison with
commercial disposal alternatives impossible.
The Committee expects the Department, where cost-effective,
to use existing Federal contracts for the disposal of low-level
and mixed low-level waste at commercial off-site disposal
sites. The Department is directed to prepare an objective
analysis of the life-cycle costs of LLW and MLLW disposal for
the various Federal and commercial disposal options. This cost
analysis should include the specific costs (on a unit volume of
waste basis) for: preparation of the waste; packaging of the
waste for transport; transportation of the waste to the
disposal site; actual disposal of the waste at the disposal
site; long-term closure and stewardship costs at the disposal
site; and the means and timing (as measured in cost of money)
for payments for disposal. The Department is directed to submit
a report to the Committee by February 1, 2002, with the
detailed cost data as specified above.
Project Changes.--The Department is directed to provide a
report by January 30, 2002, showing the initial funding
allocation by site for each individual project. After that
date, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations must be
notified of any change that increases or decreases funding for
any project by more than 25 percent. The Department should work
with the Committee to establish the level of detail required in
the initial report.
Reprogramming Authority.--The Committee continues to
support the need for some flexibility to meet changing funding
requirements at former defense sites which are undergoing
remedial cleanup activities. In fiscal year 2002, each site
manager may transfer up to $5,000,000 between Defense
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management program
activities such as site/project completion, post-2006
completion, and construction projects to reduce health or
safety risks or to gain cost savings as long as no program or
project is increased or decreased by more than $5,000,000 once
during the fiscal year. This reprogramming authority may not be
used to initiate new programs or programs specifically denied,
limited, or increased by Congress in the Act or report. The
Committees on Appropriations in the House and Senate must be
notified within thirty days of the use of this reprogramming
authority.
Economic development.--None of the environmental management
funds are available for economic development activities.
SITE/PROJECT COMPLETION
The site/project completion account provides funding for
projects that will be completed by fiscal year 2006 at sites or
facilities where a DOE mission will continue beyond the year
2006. This account focuses management attention on completing
specific environmental projects at sites where the Department
anticipates continuing missions, and distinguishes these
projects from the long-term cleanup activities such as those
associated with high level waste streams.
The Committee recommendation for site/project completion
activities is $1,041,996,000, an increase of $130,010,000 over
the budget request of $911,986,000. Additional funding of
$95,000,000 is provided for the Idaho site to support
activities necessary to meet deadlines for shipping waste out
of the State; $20,000,000 for the Savannah River Site for
plutonium packaging and stabilization activities and
restoration of infrastructure funding; and $34,300,000 for the
Hanford site to support the River Corridor Initiative. Funding
for Project 01-D-414, Project Engineering and Design, has been
reduced by $3,500,000, and Project 92-D-140, F&H Canyon Exhaust
Upgrades, has been reduced by $15,790,000 due to deferral and
elimination of some activities.
The Committee is extremely concerned that projects
previously scheduled for completion by 2006 are slipping beyond
that date. The Department should be very careful not to
underestimate the strong interest of the Committee that site/
project cleanups remain on schedule. The Department must
demonstrate that it is capable of completing projects on
schedule and within cost. It appears that the Department is
much too quick to slip the schedule rather than pursue creative
solutions to maintain the schedule within cost. Problems that
arise during the course of project execution must be dealt with
quickly to ensure project completion. During fiscal year 2002,
the Department is to notify the Committee in writing of any
project that slips beyond 2006 and provide a detailed
explanation of the cause of the delay as well as proposed
solutions for getting the project back on schedule for 2006
completion.
POST 2006 COMPLETION
Environmental Management projects currently projected to
require funding beyond fiscal year 2006 are funded in the Post
2006 completion account. This includes a significant number of
projects at the largest DOE sites--the Hanford site in
Washington; the Savannah River site in South Carolina; the Oak
Ridge Reservation in Tennessee; and the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Idaho--as well as
the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the Nevada
Test Site, and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New
Mexico. A variety of multi-site activities are also funded in
this account.
The Committee recommendation for Post 2006 Completion is
$3,393,472,000, an increase of $473,271,000 over the budget
request of $2,920,201,000. Additional funding is provided to
support current cleanup schedules and fiscal year 2001 levels
of funding at the following sites: $109,290,000 for Savannah
River; $105,200,000 for Hanford; $16,700,000 for Idaho; and
$12,600,000 for the Waste Isolation Pilot Project in New
Mexico.
From within available funds for the Savannah River Site,
funding of $8,000,000 has been provided for the Savannah River
Ecology Laboratory, an increase of $2,000,000 over the budget
request of $6,000,000.
Funding of $8,481,000 has been provided for the Hazardous
Waste Worker Training Program, an increase of $7,481,000 over
the budget request, and the same as fiscal year 2001.
Consistent with the recommendations contained in the GAO
report on low-level waste disposal, the Department should
perform an updated cost comparison of on-site versus off-site
disposal costs before committing to construction of a new
CERCLA waste disposal cell at the Idaho National Engineering
and Environmental Laboratory.
For the Office of River Protection, an additional
$56,000,000 is provided for tank farm operations. Additional
funding of $165,000,000 has been provided for Project 01-D-416,
the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant, for a total of $665,000,000
in fiscal year 2002. This funding is necessary to maintain the
current schedule for operations.
Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund Contribution.--The Committee
recommendation includes the budget request of $420,000,000 for
the defense contribution to the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund as authorized in
Public Law 102-486, the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
Health Effects Studies.--The Committee recommendation does
not include any funding for worker and public health effects
studies.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
The Office of Science and Technology conducts a national
program that provides a full range of resources and
capabilities--from basic research through development, and
demonstration, and technical and deployment assistance--that
are needed to deliver scientific and technological solutions to
cleanup and long-term environmental stewardship problems. The
Committee recommendation for science and technology is
$226,850,000, an increase of $30,850,000 over the budget
request of $196,000,000.
One-year funding agreements.--It is a continuing source of
frustration to the Committee that the Department signs
agreements with universities and other entities committing to
five years of funding at a specified level and then fails to
request funding in the budget to support these agreements. This
leads to much frustration among the entities which believe that
the agreement was a legitimate contract and the Committee which
receives numerous requests to add funds to meet these
commitments. The Committee has no role in making these
agreements and should not be put in the position each year to
correct the failures of the Department. Thus, the Department is
directed to sign no funding agreement with any entity that
commits more than one year of funding for science and
technology activities.
Technology deployment.--The Committee urges the Department
to make every effort to seek alternative cost-effective cleanup
technologies from outside the Department in cleaning up its
legacy waste. The Committee is aware that the international
agreement with AEA Technology has been very successful in
bringing cheaper and more efficient technologies to bear on the
Department's cleanup problems and urges the Department to renew
this agreement. The budget request included $2,000,000 for this
agreement in fiscal year 2002, but the Committee has provided
$4,000,000, the same as fiscal year 2001.
Environmental management science program.--The Committee is
disappointed that the Department was again unable to provide
funding for new grants in fiscal year 2002. This is a
collaborative program between the Department's Office of
Environmental Management and the Office of Science that
identifies long-term, basic science research needs and targets
the research and development toward critical cleanup problems.
This program has been given high marks by the National Research
Council and the Department's Environmental Management Advisory
Board. The Committee believes it is critical to provide
continuity of funding for this research program and has
provided $5,000,000 for the next round of new and innovative
research grants in fiscal year 2002.
Idaho validation and verification program.--The Committee
has provided $20,000,000 for basic research activities at the
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. The
Department had requested no funds to continue this program.
University Research Program in Robotics.--The Committee has
provided $4,350,000 for the university research program in
robotics, an increase of $1,850,000 over the budget request of
$2,500,000 and the same as fiscal year 2001.
Florida International University.--Funding of $5,000,000
has been provided for the Department's cooperative agreement
with the Florida International University to support
environmental cleanup technologies. This is an increase of
$2,500,000 over the budget request and the same as fiscal year
2001.
EXCESS FACILITIES
The environmental management program is responsible for
final disposition of excess contaminated facilities throughout
the Department. Funds are currently being expended for
surveillance and maintenance of these excess facilities, and
these costs will continue until decontamination and
decommissioning (D&D) is completed.
The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for the excess
facilities program, an increase of $8,700,000 over the budget
request. The budget requested only surveillance and maintenance
costs of $1,300,000 for the excess facilities transferred to
the program in fiscal year 2002. In addition to these
surveillance and maintenance costs, the recommendation includes
$8,700,000 to initiate a program to begin the actual D&D of
excess facilities already owned by the environmental management
program. These funds should be used to dispose of those
facilities that will provide the greatest impact on reducing
long-term costs and risk.
The Committee directs the Department to implement new D&D
practices to reduce costs and expedite site cleanups. There are
clearly savings to be realized throughout the complex as
evidenced by a recent contractor innovation at the Rocky Flats
site that reduced the cost of D&D for a building from an
estimate of $3,500,000 using existing DOE practices and
procedures to approximately $700,000 using commercial
practices. Potential cost savings of this magnitude have also
been identified at other sites through the use of standard
commercial practices. The Department is to keep the Committee
informed of the D&D projects that are to be performed and the
cost of each project.
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
The safeguards and security program ensures appropriate
levels of protection against unauthorized access, theft,
diversion, or destruction of Departmental assets and hostile
acts that may impact national security or the health and safety
of DOE and contractor employees. The Committee recommendation
for the safeguards and security program is $205,621,000, the
same as the budget request.
PROGRAM DIRECTION
The Committee recommends $355,761,000 for program
direction, the same as the budget request. However, within this
amount, the Committee has reduced salaries and benefits by
$3,000,000 and provided funding only for the current on-board
staff. No additional funding is provided for staff increases
proposed at any site; increased site staffing needs must be met
from within current staffing levels. In reviewing site staffing
levels, there appear to be many discrepancies in the size of
the Federal staff, the amount of contractor funding at the
site, and the complexity of the cleanup. The Department is
urged to see if there are greater efficiencies that can be made
particularly at sites slated for closure.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP).--
The Committee expects the Department to fulfill its
responsibilities at FUSRAP sites, exclusive of the remedial
actions to be performed by the Corps.
FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS
The recommendation for Defense Environmental Restoration
and Waste Management includes the following funding
adjustments; prior year balances of $36,770,000 and a security
charge for reimbursable work of $5,391,000 as requested in the
budget, and a general reduction of $17,000,000.
Defense Facilities Closure Projects
Appropriation, 2001................................... $1,080,331,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 1,050,538,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 1,092,878,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +12,547,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. +42,340,000
The Defense Facilities Closure Projects account includes
funding for sites which have established a goal of completing
cleanup by the end of fiscal year 2006. After completion of
cleanup, no further Departmental mission is envisioned, except
for limited long-term surveillance and maintenance, and the
sites may be available for some alternative use. Sites in this
account include the Rocky Flats Closure Project in Colorado,
and several sites in Ohio--Ashtabula, Columbus, Fernald, and
Miamisburg.
This account is intended to highlight those sites where
cleanup can be accelerated and substantial savings achieved by
reducing long-term program costs and ongoing support costs. The
Committee strongly supports this program, and the
recommendation for fiscal year 2002 funding is $1,092,878,000,
an increase of $42,340,000 over the budget request. Additional
funding of $21,000,000 was provided in the fiscal year 2001
supplemental appropriations bill to support the Ohio closure
sites. Fiscal year 2002 funding for each closure site is
discussed below.
rocky flats closure project
The Department has prepared a baseline schedule showing
closure of the Rocky Flats Site in Colorado by 2006. The
Committee is aware that, to meet the 2006 deadline, stable
funding will be required over several years, and critical path
work activities must be successfully completed, not only at
Rocky Flats, but at other sites throughout the Department's
complex. The Department must ensure that complex-wide policy
and funding issues are addressed as they relate to the closure
of the Rocky Flats Site. The development of the Rocky Flats
Integrated Closure Project Baseline is an important step in
meeting this commitment. It is only through successful site
closures that funds will be made available to support expensive
future cleanup projects like the vitrification plants needed at
Hanford and Idaho.
The Committee has provided fiscal year 2002 funding of
$620,504,000, a reduction of $8,073,000 from the budget
request. Funding for some safeguards and security activities
was incorrectly included in the Rocky Flats project and has
been transferred to the safeguards and security account.
ohio sites
The Committee is aware that each of the Ohio cleanup sites
is in danger of slipping beyond the 2006 closure date. While it
is not surprising that cleanups are encountering some
unexpected conditions, it is very discouraging that the Federal
program managers and contractors appear to be unable to
maintain the schedules--rather than meeting challenges with
innovations, the solution always seems to be increase the cost
and slip the schedule. The Committee has consistently provided
the funding requested by the Department to maintain these
projects on a 2006 closure schedule and has provided additional
funding in fiscal year 2002 to maintain constant funding
levels.
The Committee expects the Department to aggressively review
the baseline closure plans for each Ohio cleanup site and take
all steps necessary to meet the 2006 closure date. If during
fiscal year 2002, it appears that any of these projects will
not meet the 2006 closure date, the Department is to notify the
Committee immediately, reduce site funding to the minimum
necessary to maintain safe surveillance and maintenance
conditions, and submit a reprogramming to remove the site from
the Defense Facilities Closure Project account.
The Committee recommendation is $418,399,000 for the four
Ohio sites, an increase of $52,061,000 over the budget request,
in an attempt to maintain funding at the fiscal year 2001
levels. Funding for the Ashtabula site is $16,000,000, an
increase of $6,279,000 over the budget request of $9,721,000.
Funding for the Columbus Environmental Management Project is
$16,100,000, an increase of $6,000,000 over the budget request
of $10,100,000.
Fernald.--The Fernald site in Ohio is now operating under a
recent contract modification that assumes closure of the site
by 2010. Cleanup at the site has been slowed by the failure of
several projects; however, there are contract incentives for
closing the site by 2006. Additional funding of $20,000,000 has
been provided in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental
appropriations bill to support this accelerated closure
schedule. The Committee expects the Department and the
contractor to demonstrate during fiscal year 2002 that the site
schedule can actually be accelerated to 2006. Significant cost
savings can be achieved with early closure, and the Committee
strongly supports this approach. The Committee recommendation
for the Fernald site is $295,299,000, an increase of
$10,000,000 over the budget request.
Mound.--The Committee is very concerned with the delays in
the cleanup of the Mound site in Miamisburg, Ohio. Cleanup of
the site is continuing to slip and now appears to extend
significantly beyond fiscal year 2006. The Committee expects
the Department to develop a baseline closure plan that supports
the 2006 closure date. There are clearly many steps that can be
taken at this site to accelerate cleanup activities and reduce
managerial, bureaucratic, and worker inefficiencies while still
protecting the health and safety of the workers and the
community. The Committee strongly encourages the Department to
explore alternative approaches to the cleanup that are truly
innovative and will restore the schedule and reduce overall
costs. The Committee also believes the Department should
consider other health and safety regulatory oversight processes
that could reduce costs and accelerate cleanup of the site. The
Committee understands that increased resources over current
levels may be needed to meet the 2006 closure date, but will
not consider additional funding until the Department
demonstrates that substantial changes have been made to current
operations to ensure successful cleanup by 2006. The Committee
recommends $91,000,000, an increase of $20,061,000 over the
budget request of $70,939,000, and consistent with fiscal year
2001 funding levels. Additional funding of $1,000,000 has been
provided in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations
bill to support the closure activities.
safeguards and security
The safeguards and security program ensures appropriate
levels of protection against unauthorized access, theft,
diversion, or destruction of Departmental assets and hostile
acts that may impact national security or the health and safety
of DOE and contractor employees. The Committee recommendation
for the safeguards and security program is $53,975,000, an
increase of $8,073,000 over the budget request. This funding
for safeguards and security activities, incorrectly included in
the Rocky Flats project, has been transferred to this account.
Defense Environmental Management Privatization
Appropriation, 2001................................... $65,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 141,537,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 143,208,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +78,208,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. +1,671,000
The Committee recommendation for the Defense Environmental
Management Privatization program is $143,208,000, an increase
of $1,671,000 over the budget request. The recommendation
includes $52,000,000 for the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment
Project at Idaho, an increase of $12,000,000 over the budget
request of $40,000,000. Additional funding of $27,472,000 has
been provided in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental
appropriations bill to support this project.
Funding for two new projects has been provided in fiscal
year 2002: $3,000,000 for the Paducah Disposal Facility, a
reduction of $10,329,000 from the budget request, and
$2,000,000 for the Portsmouth Disposal Facility, the same as
the budget request. In light of the recent General Accounting
Office report on low-level waste disposal practices at the
Department, the Committee directs the Department to perform a
detailed cost and risk assessment to compare on-site versus
off-site disposal to determine whether off-site disposal at a
commercial facility would be more cost-effective in view of
long-term stewardship costs and risks before proceeding with
either of these projects.
Consistent with the budget request, $49,332,000 has been
provided for Spent Nuclear Fuel Dry Storage at Idaho,
$26,050,000 for the Environmental Management/Waste Treatment
Facility at Oak Ridge, and $10,826,000 for the Transuranic
Waste Treatment Facility at Oak Ridge.
Other Defense Activities
Appropriation, 2001................................... $582,466,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 527,614,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 487,464,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... -95,002,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. -40,150,000
This account provides funding for Security and Emergency
Operations; Intelligence; Counterintelligence; Independent
Oversight and Performance Assurance; Environment, Safety and
Health (Defense); Worker and Community Transition; National
Security Programs Administrative Support; and the Office of
Hearings and Appeals. Descriptions of each of these programs
are provided below.
SECURITY AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS
Security and emergency operations provides a domestic
safeguards and security program for protection of nuclear
weapons, nuclear materials, nuclear facilities, and classified
and unclassified information, including cyber systems, against
sabotage, espionage, terrorist activities, or any loss or
unauthorized disclosure that could endanger the national
security or disrupt operations. The Committee recommendation
for security and emergency operations is $249,927,000, a
reduction of $19,323,000 from the budget request of
$269,250,000.
The Department's safeguards and security programs seem to
careen from one incident to another--alleged loss of nuclear
weapons secrets, misplaced computer hard drives with classified
information, and alleged discriminatory actions toward
visitors. The Department of Energy spends over $1 billion
annually on safeguards and security activities, but none of
these security incidents were caused by lack of funding. The
Committee urges the new Administration to review the underlying
basis for each of the Department's security practices to
determine if current procedures result in excessive costs
without commensurate protection for employees, facilities, and
national security programs.
Public access to DOE facilities.--The Committee is
concerned about the practice used by the Department of Energy
to require identification of citizenship as a security
screening tool. The Committee notes that the Department of
Defense, whose security needs are no less important than those
of the Department of Energy, does not use this procedure at the
Pentagon. The Department of Energy's practice to require
identification of citizenship for entry into its facilities,
even for unclassified visits in non-secure areas, fosters the
perception of racial profiling no matter how well intended. In
a recent alarming incident, admittance to DOE headquarters was
refused to a Chinese-American Member of Congress, who was
participating in a DOE celebration of Asian Pacific American
Heritage Month. The Congressman was asked three times if he was
an American, and two guards refused to accept his congressional
identification for admittance or that of an Asian American aide
who accompanied him. The Committee directs that the Secretary
of Energy review security procedures for access to DOE
facilities to determine whether the use of identification of
citizenship is a proper, effective, and sensitive method and is
consistent with procedures at other Federal facilities where
classified information is kept. The Secretary shall report his
findings to the Appropriations Committees of Congress by
September 1, 2001.
Nuclear Safeguards and Security.--The nuclear safeguards
and security program provides policy, programmatic direction,
and training for the protection of the Department's nuclear
weapons, nuclear materials, classified information, and
facilities. The Committee recommendation is $108,000,000, a
reduction of $13,188,000 from the budget request of
$121,188,000. Funding for outside contractor assistance has
been reduced. The Committee has also included $2,000,000 to
continue the procurement of security locks that meet the
Federal specifications for containers that hold sensitive
classified material.
Security Investigations.--The security investigations
program funds background investigations for Department of
Energy and contractor personnel who, in the performance of
their official duties, require access to restricted data,
national security information, or special nuclear material. The
Committee recommendation is $44,927,000, the same as the budget
request.
Corporate Management Information Program.--The Committee
recommendation is $20,000,000, the same as the budget request.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation is
$77,000,000 for program direction, a decrease of $6,135,000
from the budget request of $83,135,000. With a Headquarters
staff of 329 Federal employees, the Committee believes that
funding for technical assistance and expertise from outside
contractors should be reduced.
OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE
The intelligence program provides information and technical
analyses on international arms proliferation, foreign nuclear
programs, and other energy related matters to policy makers in
the Department and other U.S. Government agencies. The focus of
the Department's intelligence analysis and reporting is on
emerging proliferant nations, nuclear technology transfers,
foreign nuclear materials production, and proliferation
implications of the breakup of the Former Soviet Union. The
Committee recommendation is $36,059,000, a reduction of
$4,785,000 from the budget request, and the same as fiscal year
2001.
OFFICE OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
The Office of Counterintelligence seeks to develop and
implement an effective counterintelligence program throughout
the Department of Energy. The goal of the program is to
identify, neutralize, and deter foreign government or
industrial intelligence threats directed at the Department's
facilities, personnel, information, and technologies. The
Committee recommendation is $45,200,000, a reduction of
$1,189,000 from the budget request, and the same as fiscal year
2001.
INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE
The Office of Independent Oversight and Performance
Assurance is the focal point for independent evaluation of
safeguards, security, emergency management, and cyber security.
The Committee recommendation is $14,904,000, the same as the
budget request, and $33,000 below fiscal year 2001.
ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH (DEFENSE)
The Office of Environment, Safety and Health develops
programs and policies to protect the workers and the public,
conducts independent oversight of performance, and funds health
effects studies. The Committee recommendation is $105,293,000,
a decrease of $9,307,000 from the budget request of
$114,600,000.
Oversight.--Funding for additional contractor support for
oversight activities has been reduced by $3,369,000 to
$6,000,000. With a Headquarters staff of almost 300 Federal
employees, the Committee believes that outside technical
assistance can be significantly reduced.
Health Effects Studies.--The recommendation for health
effects studies is $50,000,000, a decrease of $3,438,000 from
the budget request of $53,438,000. The Department funds several
programs for occupational medicine, public health studies, and
epidemiologic monitoring. The Committee expects the Department
to review all these activities to achieve efficiencies through
consolidation.
Marshall Islands.--For over 40 years, the DOE has provided
a Congressionally-mandated program of medical monitoring to the
residents of Rongelap and Utrik atolls in the Marshall Islands
who were exposed to high levels of radioactive fallout from a
U.S. nuclear test, Castle Bravo, that occurred on March 1,
1954. The program managed by the Pacific Heath Research
Institute of Honolulu through a cooperative agreement currently
provides care for the remaining 123 of the original 253
individuals who enrolled in the program in 1954.
The U.S. government is currently renegotiating its
diplomatic, defense and economic relationship with the
Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). In
those negotiations, the Committee believes it is time for the
U.S. government to provide a single, combined package of
assistance to support the medical and public health
infrastructure needs of the Marshall Islands. This support
should be managed by the U.S. Public Health Service, the
Federal agency that has the greatest experience in providing
public health care in the U.S. and abroad.
DOE's radiological monitoring, dose assessment and
mitigation strategy research will conclude by 2006 and will
complete over 30 years of scientific effort to thoroughly
characterize the extent and nature of radiological
contamination from U.S. atmospheric testing in the northern
atolls of Bikini, Enewetak, Rongelap and Utrik. With completion
of this task, the responsibility for the use of these
assessments and mitigation strategies now falls to the RMI
government in making decisions regarding resettlement and land
use in the northern atolls. The Committee directs the
Department to transition the environmental monitoring program
to a program of direct support to the RMI. This will allow the
RMI to conduct its own assessments and reach its own
conclusions about which mitigation strategies to use in making
resettlement and land use decisions.
The Committee recommendation for the Marshall Islands is
$6,300,000, the same as the budget request.
Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF).--Through the
RERF program, the United States has supported studies for more
than 50 years on the health effects of radiation on the
survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings. The
Committee recommendation is $13,500,000, the same as the budget
request.
Energy Employees Compensation Initiative.--Title 36 of the
National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-398)
established the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program to provide benefits to DOE contractor
workers made ill as a result of exposures from nuclear weapons
production. The Department is responsible for establishing
procedures to assist workers in filing compensation claims. The
Committee recommendation is $15,000,000, the same as the budget
request.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation for
program direction is $20,793,000, a reduction of $2,500,000
from the budget request. This amount of funding will support
employees currently on board through fiscal year 2002.
WORKER AND COMMUNITY TRANSITION
The Committee's recommendation for the worker and community
transition program is $21,900,000, a reduction of $2,546,000
from the budget request of $24,446,000, due to funding
constraints. Funding has been restored to many programs which
the Department had proposed to reduce so there should be no
significant contractor reductions requiring additional funds in
fiscal year 2002. The Committee has provided $900,000 for
infrastructure improvements at the former Pinellas weapons
plant. The Committee expects the Department to adequately fund
and fulfill the commitment that was made to the Miamisburg
Mound Community Improvement Corporation, and to grant priority
to those communities which received no funds in fiscal year
2001. The Committee directs that none of the funds provided for
this program be used for additional severance payments and
benefits for Federal employees.
The worker and community transition program was established
to mitigate the impacts on workers and communities of
contractor workforce reductions as a result of the end of the
Cold War. Funds are provided for enhanced severance payments to
employees at former defense sites, and for assisting community
planning for defense conversion through Federal grants.
However, the cost of this program has not been insignificant.
Through fiscal year 2000, enhanced severance payments and
benefits to workers and grants to communities have totaled more
than $1 billion.
Program direction.--The Office of Worker and Community
Transition currently has 19 employees at Headquarters. The
budget proposed to reduce the staff to 18 employees, but
provided $207,000 for additional support service contractor
assistance to offset the reduction. The Committee
recommendation of $2,900,000 for program direction, a reduction
of $300,000 from the budget request, allows the staff
reduction, but does not provide the additional support service.
NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
The Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000 to
provide administrative support for national security programs.
This will fund Departmental activities performed by offices
such as the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, the General Counsel,
Chief Financial Officer, Human Resources, Congressional
Affairs, and Public Affairs, which support the activities of
the National Nuclear Security Administration.
OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is responsible for
all of the Department's adjudicatory processes, other than
those administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The Committee recommendation is $2,893,000, the same as the
budget request.
FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS
The Committee recommendation for funding adjustments is
$13,712,000, an increase of $3,000,000 over the budget request.
Adjustments include the use of $13,000,000 in prior year
balances which is an increase of $3,000,000 over the budget
request, and a reduction of $712,000 for a security charge for
reimbursable work as proposed in the budget.
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
Appropriation, 2001................................... $199,725,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 310,000,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 310,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +110,275,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. ................
Since passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as
amended, the Nuclear Waste Fund has incurred costs for
activities related to disposal of high-level waste generated
from the atomic energy defense activities of the Department of
Energy. At the end of fiscal year 2000, the balance owed by the
Federal government to the Nuclear Waste Fund was $1,385,000,000
(including principal and interest). The Defense Nuclear Waste
Disposal appropriation was established to ensure payment of the
Federal government's contribution to the nuclear waste
repository program. Through fiscal year 2000, a total of
$1,216,400,000 has been appropriated to support the nuclear
waste repository activities attributable to atomic energy
defense activities.
The Committee recommendation is $310,000,000, the same as
the budget request. Eliminating the outstanding balance owed by
the Federal government will require a significant increase in
the amount paid each year and could require as much as
$500,000,000 annually in future years. Since shipment of
defense high level waste to the repository is contingent upon
full payment of the balance owed at the time the repository is
opened, the Committee believes it is prudent to address this
funding shortfall sooner rather than later.
Power Marketing Administrations
Management of the Federal power marketing functions was
transferred from the Department of the Interior to the
Department of Energy by the Department of Energy Organization
Act (P.L. 95-91). These functions include the power marketing
activities authorized under section 5 of the Flood Control Act
of 1944 and all other functions of the Bonneville Power
Administration, the Southeastern Power Administration, the
Southwestern Power Administration, and the power marketing
functions of the Bureau of Reclamation that have been
transferred to the Western Area Power Administration.
All power marketing administrations except the Bonneville
Power Administration are funded annually with appropriated
funds. Revenues collected from power sales and transmission
services are deposited in the Treasury to offset expenditures.
The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2002 includes the
Administration proposal to fund purchase power and wheeling
from power revenues for the Southeastern Power Administration,
the Southwestern Power Administration, and the Western Area
Power Administration.
Operations of the Bonneville Power Administration are self-
financed under the authority of the Federal Columbia River
Transmission System Act (P.L. 93-454). Under this Act, the
Bonneville Power Administration is authorized to use its
revenues to finance the costs of its operations, maintenance,
and capital construction, and to sell bonds to the Treasury if
necessary to finance any additional capital program
requirements.
Bonneville Power Administration
The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of
Energy's marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific
Northwest. Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square
mile service area in the Columbia River drainage basin.
Bonneville markets the power from Federal hydropower projects
in the Northwest, as well as power from non-Federal generating
facilities in the region. Bonneville also exchanges and markets
surplus power with Canada and California.
Borrowing Authority.--Bonneville Power Administration has
available $3,750,000,000 in permanent borrowing authority,
authorized by the Transmission System Act (P.L. 93-454). For
fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommendation includes an
estimate of use of $374,500,000 of authorized borrowing
authority, the same as the budget request and $50,000,000 more
than fiscal year 2001. This borrowing authority is available
for capital investments in power systems (including fish and
wildlife measures), transmission systems, and capital
equipment. With this borrowing authority, Bonneville forecasts
that it will have a total of $834,000,000 in borrowing
available in fiscal year 2002.
The Committee is aware that Bonneville has recently
proposed a $2 billion increase in its borrowing authority to
address infrastructure needs arising from an anticipated
increase in generation from a variety of sources in the
Bonneville service area. The Committee does not at this time
have enough information to support such an increase. Consistent
with the recommendation contained in the National Energy
Policy, the Secretary of Energy has already been tasked to
examine the national grid, identify transmission bottlenecks,
and identify measures to remove such bottlenecks. The National
Energy Policy also recommends a review of Bonneville's capital
and financing requirements to determine if additional Federal
financing or an increase in borrowing authority is warranted.
Bonneville's proposal for increased borrowing authority must be
considered within the context of all of the Administration's
proposed actions for the power marketing administrations and in
view of the combined impact on the various regions of the
country.
Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration
Appropriation, 2001................................... $3,891,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 4,891,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 4,891,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +1,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. ................
The Southeastern Power Administration markets the
hydroelectric power produced at 23 Corps of Engineers projects
in eleven states in the Southeast. Southeastern does not own or
operate any transmission facilities, so it contracts to
``wheel'' its power using the existing transmission facilities
of area utilities.
The Committee recommendation for the Southeastern Power
Administration is $4,891,000, the same as the budget request
and a $1,000,000 increase over fiscal year 2001. The total
program level for Southeastern in fiscal year 2002 is
$39,354,000, with $34,463,000 for purchase power and wheeling
and $4,891,000 for program direction. The purchase power and
wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $34,463,000,
leaving a net appropriation of $4,891,000. The offsetting
collections total of $34,463,000 includes $26,463,000 made
available in Public Law 106-377 for use in fiscal year 2002,
plus an additional $8,000,000 provided in this Act.
Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration
Appropriation, 2001................................... $28,038,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 28,038,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 28,038,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... ................
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. ................
The Southwestern Power Administration markets the
hydroelectric power produced at 24 Corps of Engineers projects
in the six-state area of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri,
Oklahoma and Texas. Southwestern operates and maintains 1,380
miles of transmission lines, with the supporting substations
and communications sites. Southwestern gives preference in the
sale of its power to publicly and cooperatively owned
utilities.
The Committee recommendation for the Southwestern Power
Administration is $28,038,000, the same as the budget request
and the fiscal year 2001 funding level. The total program level
for Southwestern in fiscal year 2002 is $29,838,000, including
$3,339,000 for operating expenses, $1,800,000 for purchase
power and wheeling, $18,668,000 for program direction, and
$6,031,000 for construction. The offset of $1,800,000 from
collections for purchase power and wheeling yields a net
appropriation of $28,038,000. The offsetting collections total
of $1,800,000 includes $288,000 made available in Public Law
106-377 for use in fiscal year 2002, plus an additional
$1,512,000 provided in this Act.
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area
Power Administration
Appropriation, 2001................................... $165,465,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 169,465,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 172,165,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +6,700,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. +2,700,000
The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for
marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International
Boundary and Water Commission. Western also operates and
maintains a system of transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles
long. Western provides electricity to 15 Central and Western
states over a service area of 1.3 million square miles.
The Committee recommendation for the Western Area Power
Administration is $172,165,000, an increase of $2,700,000 over
the budget request and $6,700,000 more than the fiscal year
2001 funding level. The total program level for Western in
fiscal year 2002 is $358,289,000, which includes $18,764,000
for construction and rehabilitation, $37,796,000 for system
operation and maintenance, $186,124,000 for purchase power and
wheeling, $114,378,000 for program direction, and $1,227,000
for Utah mitigation and conservation. Offsetting collections
for purchase power and wheeling total $186,124,000, leaving a
net appropriation of $172,165,000. The offsetting collections
total of $186,124,000 includes $33,500,000 made available in
Public Law 106-377 for use in fiscal year 2002, plus an
additional $152,624,000 provided in this Act.
The amount for construction and rehabilitation includes
$2,700,000 to fund high priority portions of the South of
Phoenix portion of the Parker-Davis Project transmission
system. The Federal share of the upfront costs is to be
recovered through the transmission rates of the Parker-Davis
Project. Western should pursue additional funds from those
utilities requiring additional transmission capacity, and the
Committee expects that any funding received will be used to
offset future appropriations requirements.
Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund
Appropriation, 2001................................... $2,663,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 2,663,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 2,663,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... ................
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. ................
Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam are two international water
projects located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and
Mexico. Power generated by hydroelectric facilities at these
two dams is sold to public utilities through the Western Area
Power Administration. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act
for Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 created the Falcon and Amistad
Operating and Maintenance Fund to defray the costs of
operation, maintenance, and emergency activities. The Fund is
administered by the Western Area Power Administration for use
by the Commissioner of the U.S. Section of the International
Boundary and Water Commission.
The Committee recommendation is $2,663,000, the same as the
budget request and as the fiscal year 2001 funding level.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
salaries and expenses
Appropriation, 2001................................... $175,200,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 181,155,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 181,155,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +5,955,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. ................
revenues applied
Appropriation, 2001................................... -$175,200,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. -181,155,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... -181,155,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... -5,955,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. ................
The Committee recommendation is $181,155,000, the same as
the budget request and an increase of $5,955,000 over the
fiscal year 2001 funding level. Revenues for FERC are
established at a rate equal to the budget authority, resulting
in a net appropriation of $0.
The Committee understands that the Commission is
establishing precedent in implementing the stranded cost
provisions of Order 888 in the context of ``retail turned
wholesale'' customers. The Committee urges the Commission to
stand by its commitment to full cost recovery and directs that
the Commission, in this context, use a methodology that
contains a recovery period sufficient to ensure the recovery of
all generating asset investments included in states approved
rates used to serve the departing customers.
The Committee has included language in the bill which
prohibits the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from using
the funds provided in this or any other Act to complete the
remaining reviews and issue further authorizations to proceed
with the Gulfstream Natural Gas Project.
committee recommendation
The Committee's detailed funding recommendations for
programs in Title III are contained in the following table.
General Provisions
department of energy
Contract Competition.--Section 301 provides that none of
the funds in this Act may be used to award a management and
operating contract, or award a significant extension or
expansion to an existing management and operating contract,
unless such contract is awarded using competitive procedures,
or the Secretary of Energy grants, on a case-by-case basis, a
waiver to allow for such a deviation. At least 60 days before
such action, the Secretary of Energy must submit to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report notifying the
Committees of the waiver and setting forth, in detail, the
reasons for the waiver. Section 301 does not preclude
extensions of a contract awarded using competitive procedures.
The Committee's concerns regarding the Department's
contracting procedures result from the Department's history of
having management and operating contracts which have never been
bid competitively, in some cases for over four decades.
Ensuring competition for these situations in particular, and
establishing competition as the norm for the Department's
contracting, is imperative. However, the Committee is aware
that there may be circumstances where the existing contract has
been competed in the past few years; the existing contractor
has been doing a good job; the mission at a specific site has
been scheduled to end in a limited amount of time; or the time
required for a full competitive procurement would result in
significant delays to an ongoing project. In those instances
where it is clearly in the taxpayers' interest, the Committee
would not object to a contract extension.
Limitation on Benefits for Federal Employees.--Section 302
provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to
prepare or implement workforce restructuring plans or provide
enhanced severance payments and other benefits and community
assistance grants for Federal employees of the Department of
Energy under section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization
Act of Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 102-484. The Committee has
provided no funds to implement workforce restructuring plans
which would provide benefits to Federal employees of the
Department of Energy which are not available to other Federal
employees of the United States Government.
Limitation on Funding for Section 3161 Benefits.--Section
303 provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to
augment the $21,900,000 made available for obligation in this
Act for severance payments and other benefits and community
assistance grants authorized under the provisions of section
3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year
1993, Public Law 102-484.
Limitation on Initiation of Requests for Proposals.--
Section 304 provides that none of the funds in this Act may be
used to initiate requests for proposals or expressions of
interest for new programs which have not yet been presented to
Congress in the annual budget submission, and which have not
yet been approved and funded by Congress.
Transfer and Merger of Unexpended Balances.--Section 305
permits the transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior
appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this
bill.
Limitation on Bonneville Power Administration.--Section 306
provides that none of the funds provided in this or any other
Act may be used by the Administrator of the Bonneville Power
Administration to perform energy efficiency services outside
the legally defined Bonneville service territory.
Limitation on Funds Used for LDRD.--Section 307 provides
that none of the funds appropriated by Congress in any
appropriation act other than Energy and Water Development
appropriations acts may be used for Department of Energy
laboratory directed research and development (LDRD).
The Department of Energy's laboratory directed research and
development program allows laboratory directors to divert up to
six percent of funds they receive to other projects at the
laboratories at the sole discretion of the laboratory
directors. The Department, however, has implemented the program
in a manner which extends this policy to the funds received
from other Federal agencies. The Committee is concerned that
the Department of Energy through this policy has inadvertently
allowed its laboratory directors to divert funds from the
purpose for which they were appropriated in other
Appropriations Acts, unwittingly violating the statutory
language of those acts. The Committee is particularly concerned
about funds that Congress has provided or added in defense
appropriations acts for national missile defense and classified
programs, which were provided for specific high-priority
national security purposes to meet specific objectives.
Diversion of these funds to unrelated laboratory directed
research does not contribute to the purpose for which Congress
appropriated the funds, but rather detracts from it. The
Committee, therefore, recommends section 307 which limits the
Department of Energy's laboratory directed research and
development program to the funds provided by the Congress for
the Department of Energy in this bill and ensures the integrity
of funds provided to other Federal agencies in other
appropriations bills.
External Regulation of Science Laboratories.--The
Department of Energy (DOE) is currently self-regulating with
respect to nuclear safety and worker safety at most of its
facilities under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954. Section 308 directs the DOE to prepare an implementation
plan to transition to external regulation of DOE's non-defense
science laboratories. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
would assume responsibility for nuclear safety at DOE's non-
defense science laboratories, and the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) would assume responsibility for
worker safety at these same sites. The Department is directed
in fiscal year 2002 only to prepare a plan for implementation
of external regulation, with a proposed effective date for the
actual implementation of external regulation being October 1,
2002.
For purposes of the implementation plan required by this
section, external regulation will apply to the five
multiprogram national laboratories under the Office of Science:
Argonne National Laboratory; Brookhaven National Laboratory;
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Oak Ridge National
Laboratory; and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. External
regulation shall also apply to the five single-purpose
laboratories under the Office of Science: Ames Laboratory,
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory; Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory; Stanford Linear Accelerator Center; and Thomas
Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. The requirement to
plan for the transition to external regulation is not
applicable to the nuclear weapons laboratories, plants, or test
facilities, or to the Department's environmental remediation
sites or other laboratories and research facilities.
The Department's external regulation implementation plan is
to be prepared in consultation with the agencies that will
assume regulatory responsibility from the Department, the NRC
and OSHA. The Department should transfer $4,000,000 to the NRC
and $120,000 to OSHA, from within the funds appropriated in
fiscal year 2002 for Environment, Safety, and Health to cover
their respective costs to prepare for the transition to
external regulation, to coordinate with each other and with
DOE, to conduct site visits as necessary and to assist DOE in
the preparation of the external regulation implementation plan.
Note that the transfer to OSHA for external regulation planning
is in addition to the $600,000 transferred to OSHA for worker
health and safety at those sites transferred to non-Federal
entities and for the Department's non-nuclear facilities not
covered under the Atomic Energy Act.
The Department should complete the external regulation
implementation plan by March 31, 2001, and should submit the
completed plan to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the
House Science Committee, the House Education and Workforce
Committee, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and the
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The
implementation plan should address the specific details on how
external regulation will be implemented at the named Science
laboratories, including the estimated staffing and funding
requirements for NRC and OSHA as they assume their additional
regulatory responsibilities, and the corresponding reduction in
staffing and funding for DOE as it loses this regulatory
responsibility. The implementation plan should identify any
specific facilities or class of facilities for which external
regulation cannot be reasonably implemented on October 1, 2002,
and make recommendations on how to address nuclear and worker
safety at those facilities. The implementation plan should
address the modifications needed to existing management and
operating contracts to reflect the change in federal regulatory
oversight. The Committee expects that the NRC will, upon the
effective date for external regulation, assume regulatory
responsibility for regulating nuclear safety at accelerators in
the named DOE Science laboratories. The responsibility for
regulating accelerators located on Federal facilities is not to
be delegated to the NRC Agreement States. The implementation
plan should identify any statutory changes needed and propose
the necessary legislative language. The Committee expects the
NRC and the OSHA to enter into a memorandum of understanding
prior to the effective transition date of October 1, 2002, to
define the respective responsibilities of the two agencies at
the named DOE laboratories.
User Facilities.--The Committee is very supportive of the
Department's efforts to involve universities in the
Department's research efforts. User facilities were created by
Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486) in
order to make the Department's unique energy research
capabilities available broadly to universities, industry,
private laboratories, other Federal laboratories, and others.
The Department has adopted the user facility concept and
extended it successfully to other DOE programs, including the
National Nuclear Security Administration. The Department's
laboratories and research instruments represent a valuable
asset to the Nation, as well as a major investment of public
funding. As such, the Department must make certain that
universities, as well as other potential users, have an equal
opportunity to take advantage of the Department's unique
research facilities.
This Committee believes the Department already has in place
procedures to ensure that the Department's research funds are
distributed through a competitive, peer-reviewed process. The
Committee also believes that similar competitive, peer-reviewed
procedures are in place with respect to research conducted at
DOE facilities using non-DOE funds. This section addresses
several related parts of the process. When the Department makes
a user facility available to universities and other potential
users, it must provide notice of such availability in a manner
that notifies the potential user community to the greatest
extent practicable. The Department should publish its notices
in the Commerce Business Daily as well as the appropriate
scientific and technical journals, and should make use of
workshops and other mechanisms to provide broad public notice.
Similarly, when the Department seeks the input of universities
and other potential users regarding significant changes to an
existing user facility, or seeks their input regarding the
features needed in a proposed new user facility, the Department
must provide broad notice. The Committee is concerned that some
of the initial outreach for the proposed nanoscale science
research centers was conducted with select universities; other
interested universities may not have been aware of the
opportunity to provide input to DOE on these planned user
facilities.
In certain instances other than management and operating
contracts, the Department may choose to enter into a
partnership arrangement with a university or other potential
users to assist in the establishment or operation of a user
facility. In such instances, this section requires the
Department to conduct a full and open competition to select
such a partner or partners. The opportunity to partner with one
of the Department's national laboratories in the operation of a
user facility is a valuable albeit limited opportunity. As
such, the Department must take steps to ensure that potential
partners have an equal chance to compete for that opportunity.
For purposes of this section, the term ``user facility''
includes, but is not limited to: a user facility as described
in section 2203(a)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42
U.S.C. 13503(a)(2)); a National Nuclear Security Administration
Defense Programs Technology Deployment Center/User Facility;
and any other Department facility designated by the Department
as a user facility. Note that the Department may not
redesignate a facility as something other than a user facility
in order to avoid the notice and competition requirements of
this section. Whenever the Department opens its research
facilities to outside users, it must do so on a fair and equal
basis.
Language not included by the Committee.--The Administration
requested language authorizing intelligence activities of the
Department of Energy and amending the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. The Committee
recommendation does not include this proposed legislation.
TITLE IV
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission
Appropriation, 2001................................... $66,254,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 66,290,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 71,290,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +5,036,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. +5,000,000
The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional
economic development agency established in 1965. It is composed
of the Governors of the thirteen Appalachian states and a
Federal Co-Chairman who is appointed by the President. The
Committee recommendation is $71,290,000, an increase of
$5,000,000 over the budget request. Funding of $5,000,000 has
been provided for a child development research center at the
University of Alabama.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, 2001................................... $18,459,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 18,500,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 18,500,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +41,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. ................
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by
the Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. The
Board, composed of five members appointed by the President,
provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy
regarding public health and safety issues at the Department's
defense nuclear facilities. The Board is responsible for
reviewing and evaluating the content and implementation of the
standards relating to the design, construction, operation, and
decommissioning of defense nuclear facilities of the Department
of Energy.
The Committee recommendation is $18,500,000, the same as
the budget request.
Delta Regional Authority
Appropriation, 2001................................... $19,956,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 19,992,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... ................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... -19,956,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. -19,992,000
The Committee recommends no funding for the Delta Regional
Authority in fiscal year 2002. The Delta Regional Authority was
established by Congress in fiscal year 2001, but it has not yet
been organized. Prior year funds of at least $17,000,000 will
be carried over from fiscal year 2001 and will be available for
expenditure in fiscal year 2002.
Denali Commission
Appropriation, 2001................................... $29,934,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 29,939,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... ................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... -29,934,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. -29,939,000
The Committee has recommended no funding for the Denali
Commission in fiscal year 2002 due to funding constraints.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
gross appropriation
Appropriation, 2001................................... $481,825,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 506,900,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 516,900,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +35,075,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. +10,000,000
revenues
Appropriation, 2001................................... -$447,958,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. -463,248,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... -473,520,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... -25,562,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. -10,272,000
net appropriation
Appropriation, 2001................................... $33,867,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 43,652,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 43,380,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +9,513,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. -272,000
Nuclear energy received a strong endorsement in the
National Energy Policy of May 2001, and serious industry
interest has emerged in building a new generation of nuclear
power plants in the United States to meet the nation's
electricity demands. Industry has recently indicated intent to
submit at least one early site permit application to the
Nuclear Energy Commission (NRC) in fiscal year 2002, and
several firms have already initiated preliminary discussions
with the NRC regarding new reactor designs. The NRC needs to
ensure that its regulatory infrastructure can be responsive to
these potential new applications, some of which may involve new
technologies not previously licensed by the NRC. Because these
industry initiatives emerged only recently, the NRC's budget
request does not include sufficient resources for these new
activities. The NRC estimates that it may need an additional
$15,000,000 to $18,000,000 in budget authority to be ready for
these new activities. The Committee provides $10,000,000 in
additional budget authority to the NRC so that it can
adequately prepare for and respond to these new reactor
initiatives without jeopardizing the safety of operating
facilities and without impeding ongoing initiatives on license
renewals, power uprates, and moving toward a more risk-informed
regulatory environment. The remaining $5,000,000 to $8,000,000
should be realized through implementing internal efficiencies
in the NRC.
The Committee recommendation for the NRC is $516,900,000,
an increase in budget authority of $10,000,000 over the budget
request and $35,075,000 over fiscal year 2001. This amount is
offset by estimated revenues of $473,530,000, resulting in a
net appropriation of $43,380,000. The recommendation includes
$23,650,000 to be made available from the Nuclear Waste Fund to
support the Department of Energy's effort to develop a
permanent geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-
level waste.
Fee Recovery.--Pursuant to the agreement reached in fiscal
year 2001, the NRC is required to recover 96 percent of its
budget authority, less the appropriation from the Nuclear Waste
Fund, by assessing license and annual fees.
Monthly report.--The Committee directs the Commission to
continue to provide monthly reports on the status of its
licensing and other regulatory activities.
Repository licensing regulations.--As the Department of
Energy nears a determination on the suitability of Yucca
Mountain as the site for the Nation's permanent geologic
repository, the Committee believes that it is important that
every effort be made to support the Department's schedule for
the final Site Recommendation. The Environmental Protection
Agency recently issued its final radiation standards for the
Yucca Mountain repository. The next step will be for the NRC to
conform its repository licensing regulations (10 C.F.R. part
963) to the newly-issued radiation standard. The NRC is to
issue these regulations later this summer, and the Committee
expects the NRC to adhere to this schedule. Timely issuance of
these NRC regulations will allow the Department of Energy to
promulgate its own siting guidelines shortly thereafter.
Office of Inspector General
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2001................................... $5,500,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 6,180,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 6,180,000
Comparisons:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +680,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. ................
REVENUES
Appropriation, 2001................................... -$5,390,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. -5,933,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... -5,933,000
Comparisons:
Appropriation, 2001............................... -543,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. ................
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2001................................... $110,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 247,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 247,000
Comparisons:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +137,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. ................
By law, 96 percent of the budget authority appropriated to
the Inspector General of the NRC must be recovered through the
assessment of license and annual fees. The Committee recommends
an appropriation of $6,180,000, the same as the budget request
and an increase of $680,000 over fiscal year 2001. The revenue
estimate is $5,933,000, resulting in a net appropriation for
the NRC Inspector General of $247,000.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Appropriation, 2001................................... $2,894,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................. 3,100,000
Recommended, 2002..................................... 3,100,000
Comparisons:
Appropriation, 2001............................... +206,000
Budget Estimate, 2002............................. ................
The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established by
the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to
provide independent technical oversight of the Department of
Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The role of the
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board becomes especially
critical as the Department approaches issuance of the final
site recommendation for the repository site.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,100,000 for
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the same as the
budget request and an increase of $206,000 from fiscal year
2001 funding.
TITLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Committee recommendation includes several general
provisions pertaining to specific programs and activities
funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill.
Prohibition on Lobbying.--Section 501 provides that none of
the funds appropriated by this Act may be used in any way,
directly or indirectly, to influence congressional action on
any legislation or appropriation matters pending before
Congress, other than to communicate to Members of Congress as
described in section 1913 of Title 18, United States Code.
Buy American.--Section 502 requires that American-made
equipment and goods be purchased to the greatest extent
practicable.
Drainage of the San Luis Unit.--Section 503 provides
language clarifying the funding requirements for the San Luis
Unit.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS
The following items are included in accordance with various
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
Constitutional Authority
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives states that:
Each report of a committee on a public bill or public
joint resolution shall contain the following: (1) A
statement citing the specific powers granted to
Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed
by the bill or joint resolution.
The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to
report this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I
of the Constitution of the United States of America which
states:
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in
consequence of Appropriations made by law * * *
Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to
this specific power granted by the Constitution.
Comparison With Budget Resolution
Clause 3(c)2 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with
section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill
providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing
how that authority compares with the reports submitted under
section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from
the Committee's section 302(a) allocation. This information
follows:
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302(b) allocation This bill
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Budget
authority Outlays authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary............................... 23,704 23,959 23,704 23,927
Mandatory................................... ............... ............... ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure
authorizes funding:
The Committee on Appropriations considers program
performance, including a program's success in developing and
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing
funding recommendations.
Five-Year Outlay Projections
In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains
five-year projections associated with the budget authority in
the accompanying bill:
Millions
Budget Authority........................................ 23,704
Outlays:
2002................................................ 15,420
2003................................................ 7,163
2004................................................ 1,073
2005................................................ 25
2006 and beyond..................................... 16
Assistance to State and Local Governments
In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the financial assistance to
State and local governments is as follows:
Millions
Budget authority........................................ 74
Fiscal year 2002 outlays resulting therefrom............ 12
Transfer of Funds
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is submitted describing
the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.
Under Title II, Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related
Resources:
* * * of which $10,649,000 shall be available for
transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and
$32,442,000 shall be available for transfer to the
Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund; of which
such amounts as may be necessary may be advanced to the
Colorado River Dam Fund; * * *
* * * Provided, That such transfers may be increased
or decreased within the overall appropriations under
this heading: * * *
Under Title III, Departmental Administration:
* * * That of the funds provided to the Department of
Energy under title III of Public Law 105-277 for
activities related to achieving Year 2000 conversion of
Federal information technology systems and related
expenses, remaining balances, estimated to be
$1,480,000, may be transferred to this account, and
shall remain available until expended, for continuation
of information technology enhancement activities.
Under Title III, General Provisions:
Sec. 305. The unexpended balances of prior
appropriations provided for activities in this Act may
be transferred to appropriation accounts for such
activities established pursuant to this title. Balances
so transferred may be merged with funds in the
applicable established accounts and thereafter may be
accounted for as one fund for the same time period as
originally enacted.
Changes in the Application of Existing Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following statements are
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the
accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the
application of existing law.
Title I--Corps of Engineers
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Investigations, providing for detailed studies and
plans and specifications of projects prior to construction.
Language is also included under General Investigations which
directs the Secretary of the Army to use funds to continue
preconstruction engineering and design of the Murrieta Creek,
California, project; directs the Secretary of the Army to use a
certain report as the basis for the Rock Creek-Keefer Slough,
California, project; and provides that the Southwest Valley
Flood Reduction Study in New Mexico shall include an evaluation
of flood damage reduction measures that would otherwise be
excluded from the feasibility analysis based on certain
restrictive policies.
Language has been included under Construction, General,
permitting the use of funds from the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and which provides
that $15,000,000 of the funds appropriated shall be deposited
in the San Gabriel Restoration Fund. Language is also provided
under Construction, General, which directs the Secretary of the
Army to modify the Carr Creek Lake, Kentucky, project at full
Federal expense, which directs the Secretary of the Army to
undertake design deficiency repairs to the Bois Brule Levee and
Drainage District, Missouri, project, and which directs the
Secretary of the Army to increase the level of protection for
the Bois Brule Levee and Drainage District, Missouri, project.
Language is also included which directs the Secretary of the
Army to construct the locally preferred plan for the Middlesex
Borough element of the Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-
Basin, New Jersey, project.
Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance,
General, stating the following:
* * * including such sums as may be necessary for the
maintenance of harbor channels provided by a State,
municipality or other public agency, outside of harbor
lines, and serving essential needs of general commerce
and navigation; * * *
Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance,
General, providing for construction, operation, and maintenance
of outdoor recreation facilities and permitting the use of
funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Language is also
included under Operation and Maintenance, General, which
directs the Secretary of the Army to perform cultural resource
mitigation and recreation improvements at Waco Lake, Texas;
which directs the Secretary of the Army to grade the basin
Hansen Dam in California; and which directs the Secretary of
the Army to investigate the development of an upland disposal
recycling program.
Language has been included under the Regulatory Program
regarding the regulation of navigable waters and wetlands.
Language has been included under General Expenses regarding
support of the Humphreys Engineer Support Center Activity, the
Institute for Water Resources and headquarters support
functions at the USACE Finance Center. Language is also
included under General Expenses prohibiting the use of other
title I funds for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and the
division offices. Language is also included prohibiting the use
of funds to support an office of congressional affairs within
the executive office of the Chief of Engineers.
Language has been included under Administrative Provision
providing that funds are available for purchase and hire of
motor vehicles.
Language is included under General Provisions as follows:
Sec. 101. The Committee has included language which amends
the authorization for the San Gabriel Basin Restoration,
California, program so that the San Gabriel Water Authority
shall receive credit for prior expenditures.
Sec. 102. The Committee has included language which
provides that the dredge McFARLAND may only be operated in a
ready reserve status for urgent dredging, emergencies, and in
support of national defense.
Sec. 103. The Committee has included language which directs
the Secretary of the Army to include an alternatives analysis
of a multipurpose Auburn Dam as part of the American River
watershed, California, long-term study.
Sec. 104. The Committee has included language directing the
Secretary of the Army to transfer property at Tuttle Creek
Lake, Kansas, to the Blue Township Fire District, Blue
Township, Kansas.
Sec. 105. The Committee has included language which directs
the Secretary of the Army to carry out shore protection
projects in accordance with the cost sharing provisions
contained in existing Project Cooperation Agreements.
Sec. 106. The Committee has included language which
provides that none of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used to revise the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual
if such revision provides for an increase in the springtime
water release program during the spring heavy rainfall and snow
melt period in States that have rivers draining into the
Missouri River below the Gavins Point Dam.
title ii--department of interior
Language has been included under Water and Related
Resources providing that funds are available for fulfilling
Federal responsibilities to Native Americans and for grants to
and cooperative agreements with state and local governments and
Indian tribes. Language is included under Water and Related
Resources providing that such sums as necessary may be advanced
to the Colorado River Dam Fund. Language is included under
Water and Related Resources which permits fund transfers within
the overall appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin
Fund and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund.
Language is provided under Water and Related Resources
providing that funds may be used for activities under Public
Law 106-163. Language is included under Water and Related
Resources providing that funds may be used for work carried out
by the Youth Conservation Corps. Language is included under
Water and Related Resources providing that funds may be derived
from the Reclamation Fund or the special fee account
established by 16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i). Language is included under
Water and Related Resources which provides that funds
contributed by non-Federal entities shall be available for
expenditure. Language is included providing that funds advanced
for operation and maintenance of reclamation facilities are to
be credited to the Water and Related Resources account.
Language is also included permitting the use of funds available
for the Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program for site
remediation on a non-reimbursable basis. Language is included
under Water and Related Resources amending the Reclamation
States Emergency Drought Relief Act.
Language has been included under the Bureau of Reclamation
Loan Program providing that funds may be derived from the
Reclamation Fund.
Language has been included under the Central Valley Project
Restoration Fund directing the Bureau of Reclamation to assess
and collect the full amount of additional mitigation and
restoration payments authorized by section 3407(d) of Public
Law 102-575.
Language has been included under Policy and Administration
providing that funds may be derived from the Reclamation Fund
and providing that no part of any other appropriation in the
Act may be used for activities budgeted as policy and
administration expenses.
Language has been provided under General Provisions in
section 201 which provides that none of the funds appropriated
in this Act may be used by the Bureau of Reclamation to issue
permits, either directly or by making funds available to an
entity under a contract, for commercial rafting activities
within the Auburn State Recreation Area, California, until the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act are met. The Committee has
included language in section 202 which amends the authorization
for the American and Sacramento Rivers, California, project.
title iii--department of energy
Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal
providing that funds appropriated to the State of Nevada shall
be made solely to the Nevada Division of Emergency Management
for oversight activities.
Language has been included under Departmental
Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and consistent
with the authorization in Public Law 95-238, to permit the
Department of Energy to use revenues to offset appropriations.
The appropriations language for this account reflects the total
estimated program funding to be reduced as revenues are
received. This language has been carried in prior
appropriations Acts.
Language has been included under Departmental
Administration providing that notwithstanding the provisions of
the Anti-Deficiency Act, such additional amounts as necessary
to cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for
others, as long as such increases are offset by revenue
increases of the same or greater amounts.
Language has been included under Departmental
Administration providing not to exceed $35,000 for official
reception and representation expenses.
Language has been included under the Office of the
Administrator providing not to exceed $12,000 for official
reception and representation expenses.
Language has been included under the Bonneville Power
Administration account providing not to exceed $1,500 for
official reception and representation expenses, and precluding
any new direct loan obligations.
Language has been included under Southeastern Power
Administration providing that, not withstanding the provisions
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power
and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as
offsetting collections and remain available until expended for
the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling
expenditures.
Language has been included under Southwestern Power
Administration to permit Southwestern to utilize
reimbursements, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and to provide
not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and representation
expenses. This language has been carried in previous
appropriations Acts.
Language has been included under Southwestern Power
Administration providing that, not withstanding the provisions
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power
and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as
offsetting collections and remain available until expended for
the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling
expenditures.
Language has been included under the Construction,
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power
Administration account providing $1,227,000 for deposit into
the Utah Reclamation mitigation and Conservation Account
pursuant to Title IV of the Reclamation Projects Act of 1992,
and not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and
representation expenses.
Language has been included under Construction,
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power
Administration providing that, not withstanding the provisions
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power
and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as
offsetting collections and remain available until expended for
the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling
expenditures.
Language has been included under the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor
vehicles, to provide official reception and representation
expenses, and to permit the use of revenues collected to reduce
the appropriation as revenues are received. This language has
been included in previous appropriation acts.
Language has been included under the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission to prohibit the Commission from using
funds appropriated in this or any other Act to complete the
reamining reviews and issue further authorizations to proceed
with the Gulfstream Natural Gas Project.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, providing that management and operating
contracts must be awarded using competitive procedures unless
Congress is notified 60 days in advance.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare
workforce restructuring plans or to provide enhanced severance
payments and other benefits for Department of Energy employees
under section 3161 of Public Law 102-484.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to augment the
funding provided for section 3161 of Public Law 102-484.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare or
initiate requests for proposals for programs which have not yet
been funded by Congress.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, providing that unexpended balances of prior
appropriations may be transferred and merged with new
appropriation accounts established in this Act.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, prohibiting the Administrator of the
Bonneville Power Administration to enter into any agreement to
perform energy efficiency services outside the legally defined
Bonneville service territory.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, prohibiting the use of laboratory directed
research and development from programs and/or funds that were
appropriated by Congress in other than Energy and Water
Development Appropriations acts.
Language has been included that directs the Secretary of
Energy to submit a plan to Congress containing an
implementation plan for transferring from the Department of
Energy the regulatory authority over nuclear safety and worker
safety at the Department's science laboratories.
Language has been included requiring the Department of
Energy to ensure public notice when it makes a national user
facility available to universities and other potential users or
seeks input regarding significant characteristics or equipment
in a national user facility or a proposed national user
facility, and requiring competition when the Department
partners with a university or other entity for the
establishment or operation of a user facility.
title iv--independent agencies
Language has been included under the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission allowing the purchase of promotional items for use
in recruiting new employees. Language is also included to
permit the NRC to utilize revenues collected to offset
appropriations, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302. This language
has been carried in previous appropriations Acts.
Language has been included under the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Office of Inspector General, to utilize revenues
collected to offset appropriations, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C.
3302. This language has been carried in previous appropriations
Acts.
Title V--General Provisions
Language has been included under General Provisions
prohibiting the use of funds in this Act to influence
congressional action on any legislation or appropriation
matters pending before Congress.
Language has been included under General Provisions
requiring, to the greatest extent practicable, that all
equipment and products purchased should be American-made, and
prohibiting contracts with persons falsely labeling products as
``Made in America.''
Language has been included under General Provisions
prohibiting the use of funds to determine the point of
discharge for the interceptor drain for the San Luis Unit until
development by the Secretary of Interior and the State of
California of a plan to minimize the impact of drainage waters,
and directing the Secretary of Interior to classify the costs
of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup program and San Joaquin
Valley Drainage Program as reimbursable or nonreimbursable.
Compliance with Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule)
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
The accompanying bill would amend section 110(3)(B)(ii) of
Division B, title I of Public Law 106-554 as follows:
(ii) Non-Federal Responsibility.--The San Gabriel Basin
Water Quality Authority shall be responsible for providing the
non-Federal amount required by clause (i). The State of
California, local government agencies, and private entities may
provide all or any portion of such amount: Provided, That the
Secretary shall credit the San Gabriel Water Quality Authority
with the value of all prior expenditures by the non-Federal
interests that are compatible with the purposes of this Act.
The accompanying bill would amend section 301 of Public Law
102-250, Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of
1991, as follows:
Except as otherwise provided in section 2243 of this title
(relating to temperature control devices at Shasta Dam,
California), there is authorized to be appropriated not more
than $90,000,000 in total for fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994,
1995, 1996, 1999, 2000, [and 2001] 2001 and 2002.
The accompanying bill would amend section 101(a)(6)(C) of
the Water Resources Development Act as follows:
[(C) Makeup of Water Shortages Caused By Flood Control
Operation.--The Secretary of the Interior shall enter into, or
modify, such agreements with the Sacramento Area Flood Control
Agency regarding the operation of Folsom Dam and reservoir as
may be necessary in order that, notwithstanding any prior
agreement or provision of law, 100 percent of the water needed
to make up for any water shortage caused by variable flood
control operation during any year at Folsom Dam and resulting
in a significant impact on recreation at Folsom Reservoir shall
be replaced, to the extent the water is available for purchase,
by the Secretary of the Interior.]
(C) Makeup of Water Shortages Caused By Flood Control
Operation.--The Secretary of the Interior shall enter into, or
modify, such agreements with the Sacramento Area Flood Control
Agency regarding the operation of Folsom Dam and Reservoir, as
may be necessary, in order that, notwithstanding any prior
agreement or provision of law, 100 percent of the water needed
to make up for any water shortage caused by variable flood
control operation during any year at Folsom Dam and resulting
in a significant impact to the environment or to recreation
shall be replaced, to the extent that water is available, as
determined by the Secretary of the Interior, with 100 percent
of the cost of such available water borne by the Sacramento
Area Flood Control Agency.
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table lists the
appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not
authorized by law:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations
Last year of Authorization in last year Appropriations
Agency/program authorization level of in this bill
authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corps of Engineers:
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) 140,000
Program......................................
Department of Energy:
Energy Supply:
Biomass/Biofuels.......................... 1993 (\2\) (\4\) 88,960
Geothermal Energy......................... 1993 23,000 (\4\) 27,000
Hydrogen.................................. 2001 40,000 27,000 27,000
Hydropower................................ 1982 11,700 (\4\) 3,000
Solar Energy.............................. 1993 (\2\) (\4\) 94,657
Wind Energy Systems....................... 1993 (\2\) (\4\) 40,000
Electric energy systems & electric storage 1994 (\3\) (\4\) 60,000
systems..................................
Renewable Energy Production Incentive..... 1995 (\7\) (\4\) 4,000
International Renewable Energy Program.... 1996 (\3\) (\4\) 3,000
Departmental Energy Management............ 1984 (\3\) (\4\) 2,500
Renewable Program Support................. 1984 (\3\) (\4\) 3,000
National Renewable Energy Laboratory...... 1984 (\3\) (\4\) 5,000
Program Direction......................... 1984 (\3\) (\4\) 18,700
Nuclear Energy:
Advanced Radioisotope Power System........ 1992 (\2\) (\4\) 28,200
Isotopes.................................. 1974 (\2\) (\4\) 16,177
University Reactor Fuel Assistance and 1974 (\2\) (\4\) 15,895
Support..................................
Research and Development.................. 1994 (\7\) (\4\) 32,579
Infrastructure............................ 1974 (\2\) (\4\) 80,259
Nuclear Facilities Management............. 1974 (\2\) (\4\) 30,250
Program Direction......................... 1992 (\2\) (\4\) 20,500
Environment, Safety and Health................ 1974 (\2\) (\4\) 31,500
Technical Information Management.............. 1981 (\2\) (\4\) 7,870
Non-Defense Environmental Management.............. 1984 (\5\) (\5\) 227,872
West Valley Demonstration Project............. 1981 5,000 5,000 85,115
Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation:
Other Uranium Activities...................... 1974 (\2\) (\4\) 120,784
Science........................................... 1984 500,000 635,417 3,166,395
High Energy Physics........................... 1984 (\3\) 477,947 716,100
Nuclear Physics............................... 1984 (\3\) 155,220 361,510
Biological and Environmental Research......... 1994 (\3\) 388,298 445,880
Basic Energy Sciences......................... 1994 (\3\) 743,590 1,006,705
Advanced Scientific Computing Research........ 1996 169,000 111,068 163,050
Energy Research Analysis...................... 1994 (\3\) 3,507 1,000
Multiprogram Energy Laboratories.............. 1994 (\3\) 39,327 30,175
Fusion Energy Sciences........................ 1994 380,000 322,277 248,495
Facilities and Infrastructure................. (\6\) (\6\) (\6\) 10,000
Program Direction............................. 1984 (\2\) (\4\) 134,980
Nuclear Waste Disposal............................ (\8\) (\2\) 190,654 133,000
Departmental Administration....................... 1984 246,963 185,682 209,611
Office of the Inspector General................... 1984 (\2\) 14,670 32,430
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Weapons Activities............................ 2001 4,840,289 5,006,153 5,123,888
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.............. 2001 877,467 872,273 845,341
Naval Reactors................................ 2001 694,600 688,645 688,045
Office of the NNSA Administrator.............. 2001 10,000 9,978 10,000
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste 2001 5,973,692 4,963,533 5,174,539
Management.......................................
Defense Facilities Closure Projects............... 2001 (\9\) 1,080,331 1,092,878
Defense Environmental Management Privatization.... 2001 (\10\) 65,000 143,208
Other Defense Activities.......................... 2001 523,822 582,466 487,464
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal.................... 2001 112,000 199,725 310,000
Power Marketing Administrations:
Southeastern Power Administration............. 1984 24,240 39,463 39,354
Southwestern Power Administration............. 1984 40,254 29,288 29,838
Western Area Power Administration............. 1984 259,700 237,037 358,289
Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance 1995 (\2\) 2,663 2,663
Fund.........................................
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.............. 1984 275,000 175,200 181,155
Independent Agencies:
Appalachian Regional Commission............... 2001 70,000 66,254 71,290
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board....... 2001 18,500 18,459 18,500
Nuclear Regulatory Commission................. 1985 460,000 448,200 516,900
Nuclear Regulatory Commission--Office of 1985 (\11\) (\11\) 6,180
Inspector General............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Program was initiated in 1972 and has never received a separate authorization.
\2\ No amount specified.
\3\ Authorized level provided for multiple programs with no separate program allowances.
\4\ Funding for these activities was spread throughout multiple programs with no individual amount specified.
\5\ Funding for these activities was spread throughout many programs with no amount specified. The last year of
authorization was 1984. In 1989, cleanup activities were merged into the non-defense environmental management
appropriation account. There has not been a separate authorization for this account.
\6\ New program in FY 2002.
\7\ Such sums as necessary.
\8\ Overall program authorized in 1982 and 1987, but without any authorization of appropriations.
\9\ Authorization for defense facilities closure projects included within overall Defense Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management authorization of $5,973,692,000.
\10\ Net authorization of $0 (authorization of $90,092,000 for FY2001 less $90,092,000 in prior year balances).
\11\ The first separate appropriation for the Office of Inspector General in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
was in FY 1990. Prior to that, the NRC-IG was included within the overall authorization and appropriation for
the NRC.
Full Committee Votes
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of
the Rules of the House of Representatives, the results of each
rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report,
together with the names of those voting for and those voting
against, are printed below:
There were no rollcall votes.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
overview
The Majority fully cooperated with the Minority to develop
this bill. It fairly represents the views of both. It is a
bipartisan bill that Democrats can and will support.
It is not a perfect bill since it overemphasizes funding
for nuclear weapons and does not contain sufficient funding to
address the nation's energy crisis. But given the constraints
that are imposed on the Committee by the Majority's budget
resolution, which preclude the Committee from fully addressing
the nation's energy and water needs in this bill, it is
nonetheless a reasonable and prudent response to the
Administration's budget proposals. The Administration proposed
unwarranted reductions to water programs, non-proliferation of
nuclear materials in Russia, renewable energy technologies, and
environmental cleanup of nuclear weapons production sites. This
bill rejects that approach, and instead restores funding to
these important programs near the funding levels appropriated
by Congress last year.
We commend the Majority for working with Democrats to
fashion another bipartisan appropriations bill this year. We
appreciate the many courtesies the Majority showed us as the
bill was being developed, and the professionalism of the
Majority staff.
response to the national energy crisis
The major weakness of this bill is that it contains no
significant increase in funding to address the nation's energy
crisis or the President's recent National Energy Policy. It
does not take a number of simple and straightforward steps that
could be critical in boosting the near term availability of
electrical power, protecting consumers from the extreme price
gouging occurring in some segments of the industry and
insulating the American economy from further damage from rising
energy prices. It also does not invest a sufficient amount in
developing renewable energy alternatives to fossil fuels.
That is deeply disturbing since the recent House-passed
Supplemental Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001 and this
bill are the best and--perhaps only--legislative vehicles that
can put resources in place quickly to mitigate the national
energy crisis. The Majority has missed the key opportunity to
respond to the national energy crisis by failing to properly
address these issues in the appropriations bills.
the energy problem
The problems facing Americans today are in some respects
quite different from those the country faced last fall when
Appropriations were enacted for the current fiscal year. With
gasoline prices up as much as 50 cents a gallon over the last
year, a typical two car family can expect to pay about $600 a
year more to the oil companies and see a similar increase in
heating and electrical costs. This is about a thousand or so
dollars per household that won't be available for replacing the
family car, buying new clothes or saving for college education.
As a result many businesses are suffering and the whole economy
has gotten softer.
While higher energy prices have affected households in
every part of the United States, the impact on the West Coast
has been much more severe. Many Americans in other parts of the
United States are still not aware of how serious the situation
is in the West and how much it may impact the overall national
economy. Because more than one in eight Americans live in the
three West Coast states and because so much of our export
oriented and high tech industries are concentrated in those
states, serious economic disruptions on the coast are certain
to have a big impact on the economies of virtually all of the
47 other states.
Fluctuations in the cost of energy have played a major role
in the performance of the American economy since the early
1970s. Rising fuel prices have contributed to at least three
recessions over the last three decades and falling fuel prices
have caused dislocations and bankruptcies in our own energy
producing states and wreaked serious havoc with the entire
international financial system.
The current situation differs from those of the past in
that it is caused not only by an imbalance between the demand
and supply of fossil fuels but also by serious emerging
structural problems in the industries that generate and
transmit electricity. While California and the West Coast
provide the most obvious examples of these problems they are
not strictly West Coast problems.
The deregulation and restructuring of the electrical
utility industry that began more than a decade ago has left
investors with considerable uncertainty as to how far
deregulation will eventually go and how competitive the market
for electricity will be. As a result there has beenlittle
growth in capacity for either generating or transmitting electrical
power even though the economy has grown at a remarkable pace for most
of that same period. As demand for electricity began to approach the
capacity to generate it some producers came to realize that by
withholding output they could force significantly higher prices in the
newly deregulated environment. As a result, consumers are faced with a
market that is neither competitive nor regulated.
Western States
There are three fundamental reasons that this problem is
more severe in California and on the West Coast. First,
California's attempt at deregulation was particularly inept.
Wholesale prices were unleashed while retail prices remained
regulated. That worked only as long as the price of the oil and
natural gas used for generating electricity continued to fall.
Once oil and gas prices began to rise, retail suppliers were
caught in an untenable squeeze and consumers were given no
incentive to conserve.
Second, the national power grid has never had significant
capacity to transmit electricity from east of the Rockies to
California and the West Coast. As a result, there is much less
competition in the wholesale electricity market in the West
than in other parts of the country.
Third, the West has relied more heavily on hydroelectric
power than most other parts of the country. Hydroelectric power
is dependent on rainfall and the Pacific Northwest where most
of the dams are located has been suffering from a severe
drought.
The combination of these factors has produced not only
dramatic increases in the price of electricity but also in
blackouts that jeopardize production and profitability in a
wide array of industries. Producers are typically charging
between 10 and 30 times the historical rate for electricity and
in some instances they have been able to charge as much as 129
times the historical rate. Typical homeowners in many parts of
the state have seen their monthly electricity bills go from
$100 to more than $800. In some communities more than half of
all small businesses are either in bankruptcy or in the process
of applying for bankruptcy protection. A significant number of
larger employers have actually shut down operations. In total,
electricity costs in California have gone from $7 billion a
year to around $70 billion. Even in a state with a trillion
dollar a year economy, that is a huge diversion of GDP from
other sectors of the economy to the utility companies.
That means that states like Wisconsin that produce capital
goods have seen their California markets evaporate and now have
surplus inventories. States like Michigan, Ohio and Missouri
are seeing layoffs in the automobile industry. Sales are off in
the publishing, recording and household products industries
largely because of the bite the electricity market in
California is taking out of that state's ability to grow and
consume products from other parts of the United States.
What can be done?
The United States faces both short-term and long-term
problems with respect to energy. Under existing technologies
our growing economy requires more and more energy, makes us
more and more dependent on oil from the Persian Gulf, and
therefore inevitably more vulnerable to political disruptions
in that part of the world. At the same time it increases air
and water pollution and jeopardizes the global climate. Finding
ways to reduce our consumption of energy will help control
prices, improve the quality of our air and water and reduce the
vulnerability of our economy to events in Southwest Asia.
Finding alternative forms of energy will also help achieve all
three of those objectives. Those activities require the kind of
long term and high-risk investments that the private sector is
not likely to undertake and they should be funded in our
regular appropriation bills as the high priority investments
which any sensible assessment of our economic and security
needs indicate they deserve.
The Democrats on the Committee have recently proposed
initiatives dealing with separate portions of the energy
crisis. These include temporary cost-of-service price limits in
Western states; $350 million for national electric power grid
improvement loans; and $125 million for national hydroelectric
power improvement loans. None of them were considered for
inclusion in this bill.
Alternative renewable energy sources
The Department of Energy leads the national research effort
to develop clean, competitive, and reliable renewable energy
and power delivery technologies for the 21st century.
The combination of environmental concerns, current and
potential constraints of large system power transmission and
distribution systems, and technological advances are all
causing distributed and hybrid systems and technologies such as
combined heat and power system, fuel cells,photovoltaics, wind
turbines, geothermal, and biomass systems to gradually augment and
eventually replace conventional large-scale power generating
technologies. This is the best way to reduce pollutant and greenhouse
gas emissions from power generation within the United States in the
long term.
Although regulated utilities traditionally invested in
power generation R&D, increased competitive pressures from the
ongoing restructuring of the U.S. electric power industry has
forced utilities and other companies to reduce or eliminate
their R&D budgets. This makes federal R&D essential. This bill
fails to make investments that are needed to address the
national energy crisis in the near term by getting R&D out of
the lab and into use:
The bill includes no funds for the ``Million Solar
Roofs'' initiative, which is a bipartisan cost-shared
partnership between the Department of Energy and states
and local communities to get solar technology out of
the labs and into practical applications;
The bill includes no funds for the ``Wind Powering
America'' initiative, which is a bipartisan cost-shared
partnership between the Department of Energy and states
and local communities to deploy advanced wind turbine
technology'
The bill includes no funds for ``Geopowering the
West'', which is a bipartisan cost-shared partnership
between the Department of Energy and states and local
communities to deploy geothermal power generation
projects;
The bill contains very little for distributed energy
resources, an area that the Department of Energy has
recently concluded offers potentially high payoff in
the future by reducing energy loss over long
transmission distances.
The bill also fails to start increased investments in R&D
that are needed to address the national energy crisis in the
far term to meet goals set by the Department of Energy to:
Triple installed U.S. electricity generation capacity
of non-hydroelectric renewable energy resources by
2015;
Overcome barriers to distributed power to achieve a
20 percent market penetration of new generation
capacity by 2012;
Maintain the high reliability of the Nation's
transmission and distribution systems during a period
of increased consumer demand for electricity, while
enduring numerous constraints on siting and building
new transmission and distribution systems; and
To launch an ethanol industry by having (A) at least
one ethanol production facility using agricultural and/
or municipal solid wastes operational or under
construction by 2004 and (B) a demonstration at a
commercial facility in 2005 using an energy crop or
closely related biomass to demonstrate a tenfold cost
reduction for converting biomass to ethanol.
These are the things the Majority should have properly
funded in this bill for fiscal year 2002 if they believe the
President when he says there is an energy crisis.
auburn dam
This bill contains legislation on Auburn Dam that should
not be adopted because it is not good public policy.
Section 103 of the bill directs the Army Corps of Engineers
to include a multi-purpose detention dam in Auburn, California
as part of the Final Supplemental Plan Formulation Report for
the American River Watershed which is currently estimated to be
published in August, 2001. Ongoing studies underway by the
Corps of Engineers are limited only to flood control aspects of
the American River. The Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers
testified to the Committee earlier this year that ``Our belief
is that carrying through the study as it is presently designed
is probably the best way to go at this time.''
This provision would delay the report and prevent
Sacramento, California from securing additional flood
protection for up to 14 additional years. Sacramento has been
identified by the Corps of Engineers as the city with the least
amount of flood protection for a city of its size in the
nation. Over half a million people and more than $40 billion in
property and infrastructure would be impacted by a flood in
Sacremento, which is the capitol to the world's sixth largest
economy.
Current estimates of the cost of a multipurpose Auburn dam
are roughly $2.5 billion. Construction of the dam was halted in
the mid-1970s after a regional earthquake revealed multiple
fault lines near the construction site. Auburn dam no longer
enjoys support from local, state, or federal agencies. Its
construction would do major environmental damage to a pristine
part of California.
The bill contains other legislative provisions, relating to
the use of water within the region and to recreational rafting,
that are aimed at putting roadblocks in place to pressure
certain groups to support the Auburn dam project. These
provisions are also improper, and should be removed from the
bill.
conclusion
It is a shame that this appropriations bill contains
nothing of substance to address the immediate needs of American
citizens who face a national energy crisis according to the
President. The citizens in Western States will endure more
hardship as the summer unfolds. Democrats offer national
initiatives for real near-term solutions that could be
implemented quickly on a bipartisan basis. It is unfortunate
that Republicans reject such proposals, and instead have
produced this appropriations bill that fails to respond to the
national energy crisis in any meaningful way.
David R. Obey.