excerpt: senate energy and water 2012 nuclear weapons budget report

8/4/2019 Excerpt: Senate Energy and Water 2012 nuclear weapons budget report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/excerpt-senate-energy-and-water-2012-nuclear-weapons-budget-report 1/10

U:\2012REPT\10REPT\10REPT.020

101

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

(GROSS)

Appropriations, 2011 .Budget esti.m 8.te , 2012 _ - ..House a lluw lll'lC lll _ -' ..Camml1:tec 1IeCOmmend!!;thm "' " ..

~])o(lS Wlt j nr .l ud l! l 'e II C iR B ia n o f $ 81 .9 00 ,0 00 u nd er P ub li c Ln" " 112-10 .

1$250,139,000240,623,0(1)00,374,001'12a , 7 , . 623 ,OOO

(WSCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropria tions, 2011 _ ............. - $ 119,G01,O OO

l:!i:t~=::~.~~.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::n~:~:8~C om rn itt.e a rec omm en da tio .1 ) -111 ,883 ,000

NET APPROPRIATlON

A pp rop ria tioDB ; : 2011 . _ .Budget estima~, 2012 .House £Illow ance " ' " " _ .Comm.itteerelXlmmelll'latio.!l1 .

llJl\I'oR not Include teseissiou of $81,9001000 under Publie L nw 112-10.

·The Committee reeom.m.ends $237,628.0001 for Departro.ent Ad"

miIlistnltio:ll.- A n Independent .Review of DOE Oversight of National Labora-tori.es,-DOE accomplishes most of its activities through a networkof Government-owned, contractor-operated laboratories and facili-ties aerass the United States .. In providingar; appropriate level ofoversight of thee:eoontractor"operatedfacilitiea, DOE must , c a r e -fully balance the need to protect the Government's intellests wlillenot mredy burdening conttactors at ,depriv:icug them of theabilit-y tooper.ate most effectively a n d . efficiently. The Co!tllnld.tt.eenates thatthe National Laboratory Directors Council has expressed eeneernsabout overly burdensome oversight and 'operational requ. irements .The Committee directs the Secretary of Energy to eontractwith

NAPAlbr a study that assesses its p l 'OOeSSE:S for reviewing con-tractor perfonnanoo,including performance memes currently beingused by DOE Ior that purpose', as well as assesses the validity andapplicability of thefindiings and recommendations .'of the l'eeentLaboratory Directors' .report. The Committee has included$1,10010,000within the funds available to carry out this activity.NAPA shall submita lIeport to the Committee w.i th findings in. theabove areas and recommendadons for improvement no later than9 months after DOE has contracted with NAPA pursuant to thise li

reetive,

1$130,698;000128,740,000-48,009,000].26,740,0001

OF.FleE OF THE INSPECTOR. GENERAL

ApPJ:opriati.O'OII, 20 .11 " "" " , " " ,.. $42,7 64,000 'Budg . c t e s tima t e, 2012 , .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 4ll , 774,OOOHouse am oun t , , 41,774,000CoJlJJ l'1littee· J :l"£lJrnme:oda,tion 41,774,0001

The Committee reoommends $41,774,000 for the Office of the In-spector General.



U:\2012REPT\lOREPT\10REPT.021

102

WEAPONS AC T 1V IT 1F ..8

AP"EropriatioDS, 20l.1 __ _._ __ _ _._ _. l$6,9'46,398,000Budget estimate, 2012 __ __ _....... 27,629,7:1.6,000H oUDea llow an ce , ,.................. ......................... ........ 27 ,131 ,993,000Comrn i : tt ll e r ecommendn ti o .l l _ . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 , 190 ,000 ,000

'DoeR n o t i nc lu de J 'M c iS ll io n o f $ 5 O IOOO , () () ()u n de r P u bl lc L aw . 112 -10 .a Doc s DO t I nc lu d e p .I 'O p Il IV ! dI 1I 6C i e8 1 on o f * ,, 0, 33 2, 00 0 •

. The Committee recommends $7,190,000,000 for National NuclearSecurity Administration's [NNSA] Weapons Activities. The Oem-mittee recognizes the im l>Or t an t contributions that advanced eom-puting and experimental facilities have made in the last few years

to·the SUc ce !l B o f the stockpile Bt?wardsb ip P!o~~ and to increaseconfidence 1tt the safetyt security, and rehabl.lity C 1 f the nuclearweapons s~i1e, After investing billions of dollars over morethan. a decade, critical capabilities are in/. lace to respond to nu-clear weapoastssuea without undergroun . nuclear weapons test-ing. Petascale com.puting capabilities allow weapons scientists andengineers to conduct weapons simulatiOJlB with reasonable effi-ciency and resolution, Intlie past year, the Dual-Axis RadiographicHydrodynamic Test facility at Los Alamos National LaboratOry suc-cessfully completed four e;periments that resolved a long open sig-nificant finding investigation, improved the basis for the assess-ment of several stockpile systems, and provided data to better un-derstand multipoint safety options for possible 11$einfuture life ex-tension programs. The past year also marked the execution of theBaroIo series of subcritieal experiments at the Ula underground fa-c W t y at the Nevada. Na~onal SeCW'it! Site ..These exverim.ent8 .pto-vided data. on the behavior of plutonium driven by high explosives,which is critical to understanding primary Implosions, The Na-tional Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratoryalso a.uccesBfully comple,ted its. firat set of weapon-releve.ntlhysicSexperiments to help Validate eomputer modele that resolve one oftbe most critical areas of uncertainty in assessing nuclear weaponsperformance-

D IR EC T ED S TO C K.P IL E W O R K

The Committee recommends $1,804,882,000 for directed stockpilework.Life Extension Program..~.-Th.e Committee recommends

$437,039,000 fo r the Life Extension Program.861 Life E:xtension Program.-The Committeets concerned about

NNS~'8 plans ,to incor,P0rate new safety and s~ty features inthe life extension version of the B61. The BSl life extension pro-gram will be the most ambitious and extensive refurbishment o f aweapon system to date. Fo1' example, the B61 has three times asmany major components that must be replaced as the W76. Fur.

ther complicating matters is the ambitious timeframe fa·r replacingthese components before they Teach the end of their life and affectweapon reliability. In a May 2011 stud)"the Government Account-ability Office identified significant challenges in building the firstrefurbished weapon by 2017, including manufacturing critical ma-terials ~d co~~nts, meeting productio~ requirements, ens:uringthe quality of _ . ed products, and coordinating the production ofbomb components between NNSA and the Air Force. Adding to this



U:\20t2REPT\lOREPT\10REPI'.021

103

ambitiollilswpe .

of work, NNSA plansta incorporate untried. tech-nologies and design featu.res to iJ:lprove thesa£ezy and security ofthe nuclear stoekpile, The COmmI t t e e supports enhanced. surety ofweapon systems to avoid accidents. and. unauthorized use~. b1:1,~tshould. not CODle at ~he expeJl8e?f long-~r:m weapon !eliability.New safety and .secunty features should be mcorporated tilweaponsystems when feasible, but the IPrima:ry goal of a life. extension 1'I'ro-gram should be to increase confidence in warhead performancewithout und~ergronndnnclear testing.For these: reasons, t he ' Committee reeommands $180,000,000 fo.r

the B el life extension program, a reduction of $43,56 .2 ,000 . T.be

Committee directs that:-the JASON group of scientific advisers submit a classif'iedandunclassified assessment by February 1, 2012 to the House andSenate ApPl'opriatiOlls Committees tbat determines whetherpl'oposedfutrinsic nuc lear . warhead safety and securityfea-tures for t!be B6l bomb will affect the long-tel'll'l safety, secu-rity, reliability, and operation of the weapon., whether thosesurety features are justified when measured agalpst the plan-aible range of deploym,e.n:tS~OB and threats likely:to. con-frunt the tl.ltute B61 stockpile, and the! benefits outwelg'h thecosts of installing such features, and

-the Administrator of NNSA and the laboratory directors fromLos Alamos, Livermore, and Sandia cettifyto the House' andSenate Appropriations Com.mittees that the benefits of install~in g intrinsic safety and. security features outweigh the costaand there are no less Cdstly and. etrect:ive alternatives to suretythat can be accomplished without introducing intrinsic suretyfeatures in. the B6l by March 1, 2012.

In addition, when NNSA completes its Pha se '6.216.2A study forthe B6l life extension program, the Committee Wr¢ct$ NNSA tosubmit to the Committee both a classified audunclassi6.ed. report90 days e.fter the completion of tbe study with:-a description of the safety and security features NNSA wouldadd to a refurbished BSl and '

-.a eeat and benefit analysis of installing theproposed featuresin the warhead. .

The coat and benefit analysis should. include:~the costs of science,teehnology, and engmeering to install newsafety and security features,

-the costs of assessing the impact. the n~w features may haveon the performance of the nu.clear explosive package at the na-tiona 1 laboratories,

-the extent to which the proposed safety and security fea:turesaddress specific safety and secm'ity concerns, and

-whyculTent safety and security features would not be suffi-cient.

Stockpile Systems.-The Comm i tte e r ec ommend s. $472,109,000.Of these funds, at lea.st$175,OOO,OOOshall be used for surveillanceactivities. The Committee commends NNSA for sustaining In-creased fundiu,g for surv-eillau,ce activities in the usee ] year 2012fI.equ.est.T.he Committee encourages. NN•.. SA to c.ontinue developingand using non-destructive evaluation technologies to economicallyobtain greater quantities of assessment data whUe retlucing war-



U:\2012REPT\10REPT\ lOREPT.021

104

head or component destruction. The Committee also recommends$26,000,000, .a decrease of $25,087,000 below the request, for theplanned W78 life extension program because of delays in comapleting the Phase ' 6.1 study.Weapon.s Dismantlement.-The Committee recommends

$56,710,000 as requested,Stockpile Service...~.-The Committee recommends $838,964,000.

Within these funds . at ~east $64,000,000 shall be used to Sllpportsurveillance activities. The, Committee understands tbat NNSAcompleted building the last W8S war reserve )lits in f iscal year2011a.o.d is preparing to transition to build the W87 pit. However,

the Conunit_tee is co~~rned a~utNNSA's. a,bility to maintB;in a I?~tmanufacturing capability dttt:tng thetraruntion. T h e COl'Dl'Wttee w -rects NNSA to provide a report to the Committee 90 daysafter ,en.-actment that:

-describes how NNSA will maintain a pit manufacturing capa-bility without manufacturing pits,

=-asaesses the costs of maintaini.y.g a pit manufacturing capa-bility w:ithout pit Jl,roouction, and

---.€valuates the costs of developing pit manufacturing capabilitiesfor future requirements.

~AIGNS

The Committee recommends $1,716,407,000 for NNSA Cam-paigns.Science Oampaign.-The Committee recommends $847,055,000.

Within these funds, at least $44,000,000 shall be used for pluto-.m u m and other physics experiments at Sandia's Z facility. TheCommittee commends Sandia National Laboratory for successfully~d safely ~~otnri.ngtwo p.lutonium experiments at the refur-bished Z facility, The Committee understands that these expen-ments yielded fundamentally new and surprising data about thebehavior of plutonium at high pres,sureand this new: data has be~none of the most valuable contributions to the stockpile stewardship

program. The Committee continues to strongly support the weap-ons physics activities at Sandia's Z facility that are critical to Sl\S-

WDing a safe, secure, and effective nuclear stockpile.N(J,Iunding shall be used to design, prepare, or execute a scaled

experimen.t. The Committee is concerned that a sealed experiment,which is a type of subcritical e?Q?eriment that uses plutonium pit-like designs, may not be needed for annual asseasmentsof the CUl'"

rent stockpile and a Dew program. for scaled eX}lsrimenw mayinterfere with achieving the Nuclear Posture ReVIeW'S goals andschedule. In addition, the Committee is concerned that NNSA doesnot have the diagnostic equipment at tbe Nevada National Security

Site to collect the necessary data for scaled experiments. Hundredsof' millions of dollars and several years may be needed to installnew radiographic capabilities to conduct scientifically meaningfuJscaled experiments. These eests .are n~t included. in budget projec~fOJ: future years and the Comnuttee IS concerned that adding thisadditional requirement will come at the expense of higher prior-ities. The Committee direets NNSA to wait until the JASON studygroup completes its review of scaled experiments before making adecision on whether to proceed with scaled experiments. IfNNSA



U:\2012REPT\10REPT\10REPI'.021

105

decides to conduct scaled experiments, the Committee expects

NNSA to submit a plan e::q>laiuillgthe scientific value of scaled ex-~ents for stockpile stewardship and meeting th e goals ofthaNu c le a r P o stu re Rev i ew , the costs of deve lop i ng the capabilities fO fand condu~ scaled: ~ents, and the impact on otber .stock-pile stewardship activities under constrained. budgets If scaled 'ex-periments are pursued.. Engineering C(lmpaign.-The OmnmJttee recommends$143,078,000 as requested.'Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High-yield Cam-

paign,The Committee recommends $476,274,000 as requested.·Witbin thesefunda, at least $62,500 ,000 and $48,.000;000 shall be

tilled for inemal confinement fusion activities at the Universilty ofRocheaters Omega facil j ty and Sandia National Laboratory's Z fa-ciliity, respectively. The Committee encour~es NNSA to increasepulsed powetcapabillities at the Z facility by increasing availablecurrent and .attalnable pressures and radiation, especially for newradiographic: capabilities. The Committee also recommends. at least:$5,000,000811 requested .for the NaV'aJ[ Research Laboratory te eon-tiinue operating 1e&::I'acilities foc~sed o~ laser pl~s:m.a int..emctions.targetb.ydr ..c: lynamICB, and matenalS-1BBues w.bich are unpol'tantfor ignItion. :rhe Committee re~g;nizes and supports the importantwork of medium seale laser facilities such as Tndent at L os Alamos

National La.bot~~. c r y , Jupitar at Lawrence: Livermore National L~b-oratory, and Nike at, the Na.val Research Laberatory tc provideindependent peer review of experiments at larger scale facilities,such. as the National Ignition Facility, and ·helpresolve scientificbarriers to a c h iev in g ign iti '@ n . .The Committee recognizea the National Ignition Facility's impo:r-

tant contributian to resolving a critical stockpile .stewardship issuer.elated to radiation transport. Scientists used the National IgnitionF.acility to conduct non-ignition experiments, which do not !requireusing the full capabilityillf the facility, to achieve temperatures andpressures that ueeeded .any other facility a.nd address one of the

largest sources of uncertainty in calculating weapon performance.These experiments validated ph.y5iC8~based models and increasedNNSA'a confidence in assessing the safety, security, and reliabilityof the stockpile. Despite t .bis . succees , the CouJmittee remains con-cerned about NNSA's ability to achieve ignition-the primary pu.r~pose of constructing the facility-by tbe end of fisca1 year 20.12when the National Ignition Campaign ends and thefaciility should!t rnns i t iOD to reguJ!ar. ignition operations and pursues broad sci-entific applications. The CommiL t e e direets NNSA to establish anindependent advisory board by January 1, 2012 that can evaluateexperiments planned at the National Ignition Facility pre- and

post-ignition, identi(y potential weaknesaes with the experimentalplan, and r e c ommeed , i1neeessary,alternative approaches to ad-mess scientific and technical ch a l l e nge s . The Committee alsostrongly supports the ,advisory com.mittee"s role :wsettmga sua"tegie direction for inertial confinement fusion and high-energy den-sity physics research and detennining bow best to use current fa-cilities to advance this scientific field.. If the National Ignia.on Fa-ci li ty does not acllieve ignition by the end of'fiscal year 2012 usinga cryogeniclill.y layered deuterium and tritium target that produces



U:\2012REPT\ 10REPT\ lOREPl'. 021

106

a neutron )ield with a ~ greater. than 1, the Committee directsNNSA to submit a report by November 30, 2012 that (1) explainsthe scientific and technical barriers toachleving ignition, (2) thesteps NNS~ will take to achiev~ ignition wi~h a revised schedule,and (3) the Impact on the stockpile stewardship program.T h e O o n.tn .'l.ifte e co mm an d s NNSA for taking th e first steps m so -

liciting coIll]etitive bids for its full portfolio of target fabricaFioncontracts. The C01tUnIttee encourages NNSA to consider vanouscriteria when awarding contracts, $uc:h.as the extent to which thecontract spurs innovation, lowers costs, reduces teebntcal risk, andmainta.ill.s a competitive nrulti-vendor market to avoid relying onone contractor for all future target fabrication needs. The Com-mittee also encourages NNSA to take advantage of existing andpresently underotilized fabrication capabilitles to ~e~t increaseddemands for tlll'gets rather than. developing and building new in-

frastructur,e- The CoIIlJll.ittee also urges NNSA to develop a long-term plan that assesses the demand for targets for inertial confine-ment. fuBiop fac}litiestbat support the stockpile :stewar~hip' pro-gram and Identifies ways to meet that demand WIthout slgruficantcost increases, .Advanced S.imulation and Computin.g.-The Committee rec-

ommends $625,000,000. High-performance computing underpinsNNSA's a~ili.ty to scientifically!esolv~ outstandmg w~~~ns per-

formance Issues, address material agmg and compatibility chal-lenges, conduct future life extension program. activities, and rapidlyaddress results from Significant FiRdings Investigations. A s thestockpile con t inues to age, NNSA will require a thousandfold im-

provement over today's modeling and simulation capability,.com~monly referred to as exascale, Therefore, of the funds provided, theCommittee recommends $36,000,000 as .requested for the exasealeinitiative.Readiness Campaign.-The Com.nrittee recommends

$125,000,000 for the Readiness Campaign, Within these funds, nomore than $60,000,000 shall be used for tritium production efforts.

R ~A DIN ESS IN T EC H NIC A l" B ASE A N D F AC IL IT IE S

The Committee recommends $2,170,546,000. The Committee isconcerned about the escalating costs for two new nuclear facilitiesto handle plutonium and uranium. The new cost estimates for tbeChemistry and Metallurgy Research ~alaceme:ot-Nuclear Facility.at L oa Alamos National Laboratory the Uranium ProcessingFacility at Y-12 are two to three times more .than previous esti-mates and constructions for these two facilities alone may exceed$12,OOOjOOO,OOOver the next decade. An independent Corps of En-gineers study that concluded tha.t the cost range for the Uranium

Processing Facility is between $6,500,000,000 and $7,500,t000,OOOonly adds to the Committee's concerns. Since completing life esten-sion progr~ to m.~tai.n ~e _safety, security, and. relia~mw ? fthe s to ck .p ll a rs the highest pnonty and fiscal constraints WI l l UJUltconstruction funding, the Committee directs NNSA to submit acontingency plan by February I, 2012 that would. identify the COD"

sequences to cost, scope, and schedule of delaying project imple-mentation and the impact of sequencing construction of these twomajor facilities on stockpile requirements.



U:\2012REPT\10REPT\ lOREPI'.021

107

The Coromittee supports NNSNs decision to reaeh the 90 percentengineering design stage before establishing a project baseline andinitiating construction of these two nuclear facilities. Initiating con-$truction before designs are largely colllple~ contributes to ~-ereases costs and schedule delays. The Committee also agrees WJ.thNNSN:s decision not to forward fund these projects until a projectbaseline has been established and Congress has a more completeunderstanding of the costs.The Committee encourages NNSA to develop a plan by the end

of fiscal year 2012-consistent with NNSA's ~ay 2011 strategicplan-to create an open, unclassified research and development

space known as the Livermore Valley Open Campus that would in·crease interllctiO;nB anq _partnerships between Lawrence Livermoreand. Sandia/California. National Laboratories as well as the privatesector and academia. This type of campus would help Livermoreand Sandia maintain leadership in science, technology, and engi-neering in a wide variety of areas, including high-performance com-puting, energy and environmentaleecurity, an.a.cyber security, andattract the workforce needed to fulfill the laboratories' NNSA mis-

sion.Acqu,isition. Strategy.-The Committee lS concerned the Depart-

ment took steps to implement a major new contracting strategy in

the absence of complete information, Spec if ica l ly , DOE was urgedto await a Governro.ent Accountability Office review of tb.e cost sav-ingB NNSA claimed it would achieve by combining the Manage-ment and Operations contracts at the Y-12 and Pantex productionplants. GA.O's p.rclirninary findings did not validate that these sav-inga were achievable and GAO has informed the Conunittee thatefticie.nci.es could be achieved through existing contracting mecba-?isms. ~II?~ever, NNSA has decided to proceed ~yway. Many crit-ical activities are a .t stake as NNSA begins to nnplemene the re-quirements of the Nuclear Posture Review and the New STARTTreaty, while a contract overhaul likely wi l l cause significant dis-ruption and put these activities at risk. While the Committeestrongly supports efforts to implement ad.:ministr~tive efficienciesat all NNSA sites, efficiencies will come about in large part whenNNSA improves its oversight of contracts. .R.egarci1esBof.the. outcome of the acquisition strategy, the Com-

mittee expects allefforls will. be taken to ensure a minimum of dis-ruption to work. associated wi t h . the Uranium Processing Facility tokeep this facility on time and on budget.Operations and Maintanance.-'rhe Conunittee recommends

$1,1555,278,000 for the Readiness in Technical Base aO.dFacilitiesOperations and Maintenance account. Of these funds:Operations of FCLCilities.-The Committee recommends

$1~11 ,OOO,OOO.rrogrom. Readine88.-The Committee recommends the requested

amount of $69,170,000.Material Recycle and Recovery.-The Committee recommends

$80,000,000.Containers.-The Commit.tee recommends the requested amount

of $28,979,000 as requested.St"orage.-The Committee recommends tb.e requested amount of

$30,289,000.



U:\2012REPT\ 10REPI'\ 10REPl'.021

108

COl'l$truction.-The Committee recommends $.1>51,108,000.Project 12-D-:JOl; TRU Wasil! Facilitf£s, Los Alamos, New Mex·ico.-The Committee recommends $9,881,000 as requested to beginconstruction of a new tranauranic waste faciJity to meet regu lat.oryrequirements of the State of New Mexico.

Project I1-D-801, TA-65 Reinves tmen. t Project, L o B A lam os. N ewMet:ico.-The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to begin the sec-ond phase of this effort to mitigate safety risks to workers identi-fied by the Defense Nuclear. Facilities Safety Board. NNSA hag 00-

obligated funds that can be used to fund additional upgrades to thefa.cili ty.

Project lQ....D-501, Nuclear Fa,ciliiy Risk Reduct ion, Y-12, OakRidge, Tenne8Bee.-The Committee. recommends $35,287,000 as re-

quested to upgrade equipment and infrastructure in buildings 9212and 9204-2E for continued safe uranium operations until the DewUranium Processing Facility is operational,Project 09-D-404, Test Capa.bi.lities R euitalization Phase 11,

Sandia Na.tional Laboratories, Albuquerque, New MEl3;icQ.-Thecommittee recommends $25,168,000 R E i requested to refurbish non-nuclear capabilities, such as rocket sled tracks and mechanicalshock facilitdes, to tea t waaponscomponents needed for the BS1and future life extension programs.

Project OB-D-802j High Explosive Pressing Facility, Pantex Plant,Arn.ariUo, Texa.s.-The Committee reconunends $66,960,000 as re-quested to build a new facility to make high explosive hemispheresfor nuclear weapons that is more reliable and can meet the pro-jected w o rklo ad fo r life extension prog rams ,

Project 07-D-140, P ro je ct E n gin e erin g an d D esig n [P ED ], VenousLocaiion.s.-The Committee recommends $3,518,000 as requestedto complete design work on the Transuranic Waste FacilitiesProject at Los Alamos National Laboratory,Project 06-D-141, PED, Uranium. Process Facility, Y-12, Oak

Ridgt!, Tennes6ee.-The Committee recommends $160,194,000 as

requested.Project 04-,0-125 Chemistry and Me.tallurgy Facility ReplCt .cement

Project, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamo«, New Mex-ioo.-The Committee recommends $240,000,000. Within thesefunds, $35,000,000 is to complete equipment installation at the Ra-diological Laboratory, $125,000,000 is for design activities to reach'90 percent design maturity by the end of the fiscal year,$40,000,000 is for long-lead procuremsnts, and $40,000,000 is forsite preparation,

S EOURE T RANS POR TA T I O N A . . C l S . E T

The Committee recommendation for the Secure TransportationAsset program is $251,272,000, the same as the budget request.

NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM mCIDENT RESPONSE

T he Committee recommends full f 'un.d.ing of the nuclear counter-terrorism incident response program. T he Committee provides$222,147,000 as requested.



U:\2012REPT\ 10REPT\ 10REPT.021

109

F A CIL IT IE S A N D lN F RA ST R UC T U RE R EC A PIT A L IZ A TIO N

The Committee recommends $96,380,000 for Facilities and Infra-structure Recapitalization activities, consistent with the budget re-quest. The Committee is concerned about an increasing backlog ofdeferred maintenance costs within NNSA's nuclear weapons lab-oratories and production facilities. Baaed OJ) a March 2011 NNSAassessment, deferred maintenance costs are expected to increase by$70,000,000 a year. The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitaliza-tion Program has 'only reduced some of'the backlog in deferredmaintenance and this progr,am will end in fiscal year 2013. To in-crease transparency in NN"SA's effor.t.s to sustain existing physical

infra$tructure~ the Committee directs NNSA to identify funds formaintenance aDd operations by site as separate line items underthe Readiness in Technical Base and FaCilities Account startingwith the fiscal year 2014 budget submission. The sites irlcludethethree national seeu.rity labs, the Y~12 National Security Complex,the Kansas City Plant, the Savannah River Site, and th.e Nevada.National Security Site. The budget justification shall include an ex-planation of how NNSA plans to manage deferred maintenancecosts, including ways NNSA will stabilize defe:r.red maintenance formission, critical facilities and dispose of excess capacity. Further,the budget shall include total deferred maintenance backlog and

how much NNSA is spending ateach site each year to reduce de-ferred maintenance. The Committee recommends usittg the Officeof Science's Science Laboratories Infrastructure budget informationon deferred maintenance as a model. Further, the Committee isconcerned by a recent Government Accountability Office findingthat NNSA does not have accurate, reliable, or complete data onthe condition and replacement value of its almost 3,000 weaponsactivities facilities. T he Committee directs NNSA to develop stand-ardized practices for assessing the c on ditio n ,o f its facilities and re-view the sites' methodologies for. determining replacement value toensure consistency. accuracy, and completeness through the CO'!1 l-

plex.SITE STEWAROSfUP

The Committee recommends $90,000,000. The Committee sup-ports NNSA's efforts to conaolidate and dispose of NNSA specialnuclear material that is no longer required. for the nuclear weaponsmission.

BAFEGUAIIDS AND SECURIT'l

The Committee recommendation for the Safeguards and SecurityProgram is $828,366,000.

Defense Nuclear Security Opertuions and Ma,intelUlnce.-TheCommittee recommends $701,752,000. The Commi t t e e supportNNSA's efforts to reduce costs related to securing nattenal labora-tories and production sites while still maintaining effective physicalsecurity measures at each site. The Committee encourages NNSAto continue €IIiminating unnecessary costs While still protecting fa-cilities'assets and resources against theft, sabotage, and othercriminal acts, .



U;\2012REPT\10REPT\10REPl',021

110

Con8truction.-The Committee tecommenri<l,$11,752,OOO as re-quested. . .Project 08-D-701 Nuclear Materials Safeguard.,; and Security Up.

grade:;; Project Phase II, L o . . < : Alam.os, New Mexico.-The Committeerecommends the ftlguested level of $11,752,000 for this project.Cybersecurit,y.-The Committee recommends the full request of

$126,614,000.

S C IE N C E, T F .c H NO L Q GY. A ND ENGINEER ING CAPAB I L I TY

' Th .e Committee r e commenda $10,000,000 for Science, Techno logy ,and Engineering Capability. activ;ities. The. Co~tte.e supports

NNSA'e efforts to levarage Its science, engmeenng, and techno-logical expertise to work with the Defense Threat Reduction Agen-cy and intelligence agencies to improve the Nation'acounterter-rorumcapabillties. The CoJllDlittee also supports activities to buildand sustain analytical capabilities at Los Alamos, Sandia, andLivermore to assess the nuclear and biological weapons capabilitiesof foreign adversaries to support the intelligenceoommunity.. TheCommittee notes that $30,000,000 was provided in the. 2009 ~p-plemental Appropriations Act to help build the technical capabili~ties for nuclear and biological weapo n s assessments. The' Com-mittee is concerned, however, that DOE's Office of Intelligence is

not fully utilizing these newly constituted capabilities and sus-taining the human talent needed to address national securityissues. The Committee encourages DOE's Office of Intelligence tofurther develop the analytical capabilities needed to fully utilizethese improved scientific, technical, and engineering capabilities atthe national security labs.

excerpt: senate energy and water 2012 nuclear weapons budget report

Documents