Todd Jacobson
NS&D Monitor
1/17/2014
Congressional appropriators nearly matched the Obama Administration’s $7.868 billion request for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s weapons program in the massive omnibus spending package that was passed by the House and Senate this week and is awaiting the President’s signature, but several funding maneuvers obscure cuts to the program. While the bill provides $7.781 billion for the NNSA’s weapons program, $87 million less than the Obama Administration requested for Fiscal Year 2014, appropriators moved $228 million in funding for Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response and $62 million for USEC’s American Centrifuge Project back to the weapons program after the Administration requested funding for the programs in its nonproliferation account. The maneuver buoys the top line funding level for the program, but eats up nearly $300 million in funding, resulting in several key cuts.
Still, funding for the weapons program was boosted by $874 million over sequester-impacted funding levels in FY 2013. “This agreement will not be viewed as perfect by everyone,” Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) said in a statement. “It required difficult choices, and nobody got everything they wanted. But this agreement is what we need now to move the country forward by funding the critical missions of our government and investing in America’s greatest assets—our people, our infrastructure, and the research and discoveries that will create jobs today and in the future.”
Nonproliferation Gets Funding Boost
While the weapons program was trimmed, funding for the NNSA’s nonproliferation account received a minor boost over the Administration’s budget request. The bill also provides $1.95 billion for the NNSA’s nonproliferation account, which amounts to $480 million less than was enacted in FY 2013, but with Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response funding and USEC money being moved out of the nonproliferation account, appropriators noted that the bill provides $70 million more than the Administration requested for similar activities. Appropriators provided $343.5 million in funding for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, a $23.5 million increase from the Administration’s request, and directed the Department of Energy to examine the root causes of cost increases for the MOX facility and the Waste Solidification Building. Funding for the agency’s Global Threat Reduction Initiative was increased by $17.6 million, from $424.5 million in the President’s budget request to $442.1 million, and the International Material Protection and Cooperation account was also increased by $50 million, from $369.6 million to $419.6 million.
Bill Cuts Funding for W78 Life Extension
At the top of the list of cuts to the weapons program is a $34.7 million cut to the Administration’s $72.7 million request for work on the W78 life extension program, which was to explore an interoperable warhead with the W88. NW&M Monitor reported last month that the Administration was planning to defer work on the interoperable warhead, and the decision in the bill reflects broad Congressional concern about the cost and technical feasibility of the interoperable warhead concept. Language in the bill, however, is carefully crafted to allow the agency to continue to pursue work on a standalone W78 refurbishment, if it chooses, and makes no mention of an interoperable warhead. “It could be simple and straight forward and a lot less expensive,” said one Congressional aide, who likened a potential simple W78 LEP to the refurbishment of the W76. “If they want to do that, they can pursue it.”
A B83, B61 Tradeoff
Bill language released last night also revealed a $40 million limit on funding for sustaining the B83 weapons system until the Nuclear Weapons Council certifies that the B83 will be retired by FY 2025 “or as soon as confidence in the B61-12 stockpile is gained.” According to a report accompanying the bill, “The certification is intended to hold the Administration to its current plan to retire the 883 gravity bomb by 2025, by which time the NNSA estimates it will establish confidence in the long term safety, security, and reliability of the B61-12 stockpile. However, the certification requirement recognizes that unforeseen technical issues may delay the date upon which confidence is established, and thus allows the NNSA to address that possibility.”
The provision was a tradeoff between House and Senate appropriators, who were divided over the future of the B61 refurbishment program. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chair of the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, is a staunch opponent of the program, and has raised questions about the rising price tag of the effort. According to the NNSA, the refurbishment is currently slated to cost approximately $8.3 billion, but a Pentagon estimate put the cost at more than $10 billion. The Senate cut $168 million from the Administration’s $537 million request for the program, but the omnibus bill reversed that cut, providing full funding for the program.
Rigorous Analysis of LEPs Required, Including B61
As another concession, language in the bill requires the Department of Energy to provide a rigorous analysis of alternatives for all major warhead refurbishment programs that enter the engineering phase of development. The study for the B61 is due by April 1. The analysis is required to include a full description of alternatives to the B61 that were considered by the agency, a cost-benefit analysis of the alternatives, a breakdown of critical technological risks in the program, a list of capital asset and infrastructure capabilities needed to support production and certification of each alternative, an analysis of the risks, costs and scheduling needs for any military requirement, and life-cycle cost estimates for the alternative selected. “For the B61012 life extension program, the life cycle cost estimate shall include an analysis of reduced life cycle costs for Option 3b, including cost savings from consolidating the different B61 variants,” the bill says. The Administration picked Option 3b as its path forward, which it has said is the cheapest alternative that meets military requirements.
The bill also trims $16 million in funding from the Administration’s $325 million request for work on the Uranium Processing Facility (see related story), which appropriators said is an “adjustment due to the Department of Energy’s recent decision to consider additional alternatives to meet the uranium infrastructure needs at Y -12 that might save costs and lead to a replacement facility for Building 9212 in a shorter period of time.”
Lab ‘Effectiveness’ Commission Provision Maintained
The bill also maintained a Senate-drafted provision that would create a broad-ranging Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories. The nine-member panel would be chosen by Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz from a list of 18 qualified officials picked by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. The commission is expected to have a broad mandate, as language in the bill tasks it to examine whether the national laboratories are properly aligned with DOE strategic goals, are not “unnecessarily redundant and duplicative,” effectively support current and future national security challenges, are sized correctly, and provide a benefit to other government agencies.
The commission is also expected to weigh in on whether there are “opportunities to more effectively and efficiently use the capabilities of the national laboratories, including consolidation and realignment, reducing overhead costs, reevaluating governance models using industrial and academic bench marks for comparison, and assessing the impact of DOE’s oversight and management approach.” The language suggests the panel should examine using other research, development and technology centers and universities as an alternative to the labs. The effectiveness of the Laboratory-Directed Research and Development programs at the labs is also expected to be analyzed. The commission’s report is due by Feb. 1, 2015.
Bill Calls for Study on Security Mgmt. Reform
The bill also includes language requiring DOE to commission a study on security management reform. The language calls for the study to be conducted by a “respected independent organization with expertise in defense and security matters, such as the Institute for Defense Analyses.” The scope of the review would include options for federalizing the Department’s protective forces “and provide recommendations on organizational models for securing the Department’s sites with Category I special nuclear materials that might improve security effectiveness and reduce cost,” according to the bill. The report is due 180 days after the bill is enacted.
The JASON Defense Advisory Group would also be tasked with examining using insensitive high explosives in all future life extension work. Language in the bill requires the panel to assess the “feasibility, certification risks, and other factors to be considered” in replacing conventional high explosives with insensitive high explosives, which are considered much safer. The bill requires the JASON group to complete its work by Oct. 30, and also requires the NNSA to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of using insensitive high explosives in all systems as well as report on the certification strategy needed to repurpose pits for such conversions.
