Increase Comes At Expense of Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
Todd Jacobson
NS&D Monitor
3/04/2014
Forced to prioritize between National Nuclear Security Administration programs in its Fiscal Year 2015 budget request, the Obama Administration sent a clear signal that it would support the agency’s weapons program today, drawing criticism from nonproliferation advocates. The Administration requested $8.31 billion for the NNSA’s weapons program, an increase of $533.9 million over FY 2014 enacted levels, while asking for $1.55 billion for the agency’s nonproliferation account, a cut of $398.4 million. While a large portion of the nonproliferation funding cut comes from the Administration’s decision to place the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility project in “cold standby” (see related story), each of the nonproliferation program’s top four accounts saw decreases in the FY 2015 budget request when compared to FY 2014 enacted levels. “There has been some pain,” NNSA Administrator Bruce Held told reporters, acknowledging the tradeoffs between weapons and nonproliferation funding.
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz also addressed the issue, admitting that Nonproliferation “is not such a great story to be honest. It’s frankly disappointing. We have a substantial reduction this year but this is what happens with the capped budget and the very tough choices we had to make.”
Weapons Increase ‘Not Easy to Come By’
Moniz also acknowledged that the 7 percent increase for the agency’s weapons program was “not easy to come by” in the current budget environment, but he said there was agreement among the Department of Defense, National Security Council, Office of Management and Budget and DOE that funding efforts to maintain and modernize the stockpile and weapons complex was a priority. “Even if it involves a little stretching out here or there, we must commit to the so-called ‘3+2′ strategy as a way to continue a safe and reliable stockpile while reducing the number and types of weapons as we go forward in what is really going to be a 20-year journey from where we are,” Moniz said, adding: “It was unanimous that we had to make this investment in order to stick to this program in all of its areas. The life extension program, the rebuilding of infrastructure, the continuation of the science and engineering base that will be need for certification in the long term, that’s what we’re doing there and it’s a major commitment.”
Budget Details to Come Later This Week
While the Administration released top-line budget numbers, detailed budget numbers are expected to be unveiled later this week. The $533.9 million increase for the NNSA’s weapons account is largely targeted for the agency’s Directed Stockpile Work, which supports modernization and maintenance of the stockpile, where the Administration’s ‘3+2′ strategy is implemented. And much of the strategy is supported. The Administration requested $259 million for the W76 refurbishment, mostly matching FY 2014 funding, and $643 million for the B61 refurbishment—a $106 million increase over FY 2014 funding as engineering activity on the warhead life extension program are ramped up. The Administration also requested $165 million for the W88 ALT 370 arming, fuzing and firing set program, and $9.1 million for a study on refurbishing the cruise missile warhead that will begin this summer, though it acknowledged that the First Production Unit for the warhead is being delayed by three years to 2027.
No funding is included for the W78/W88-1 refurbishment, or interoperable warhead, as it is being deferred by five years, as previously reported by NS&D Monitor. “That was both because of budget need but also because of technical possibilities,” NNSA Defense Programs chief Don Cook said. “Surveillance results annually have said the W78 and W88 are aging gracefully, so to speak, so we could really concentrate on the W76, the B61, the W88 ALT 370, and the initial study for the [cruise missile warhead] replacement. The part of the deterrent that most needs attention is the air leg. That’s both the B61 and the LRSO [cruise missile warhead].”
In a statement, Union of Concerned Scientists senior analyst Stephen Young suggested that the “stretching out” of the ‘3+2′ program represented a more practical approach to maintaining the stockpile. “This budget shows at least some signs of realism about what the NNSA can do. Plans for major work on five different warheads simultaneously are gone. The question is, how did such ambitious ideas ever pass muster in the first place?”
$335 Million Requested for UPF
The Administration is also requesting $335 million for work on the Uranium Processing Facility, a $9 million increase from FY 2014, despite a likely course change on the project. A Red Team led by Oak Ridge National Laboratory Director Thom Mason is examining alternatives to the project, and NNSA officials said yesterday it is likely that a modular approach modeled after the plutonium sustainment work at Los Alamos National Laboratory is the most likely path forward. The NNSA had been planning to build a standalone facility to replace uranium processing activities at the 9212 complex, but formed the Red Team when it became clear in recent months that the approach would not be affordable.
NNSA Acquisition and Project Management chief Bob Raines said despite the examination of alternatives, much of the work planned for UPF could still happen in FY 2015. “There were many items we were going to do this year that are early on technology development and design which regardless of the Red Team’s findings we would need to do,” Raines said, noting that there are six technologies that need to be matured that will still need to happen. “There is still design to take care of, and items that regardless of how we would it, work that needs to happen, like seismic studies and safety basis analyses.”
MOX Not Only Nonprolif. Casualty
While MOX took the biggest hit in the NNSA’s nonproliferation account, it was hardly alone. The funding request for the agency’s International Material Protection and Cooperation account was reduced to $311.1 million, down $214.9 million from FY 2014 enacted levels, and the agency’s Global Threat Reduction Initiative was cut by $108.6 million—from $442.1 million in FY 2014 to $333.5 million in the FY 2015 request. Nonproliferation Verification Research and Development was also cut by $38 million, from $398.8 million in FY 2014 to $360.8 million in FY 2015.
NNSA nonproliferation chief Anne Harrington said the biggest cut, in the International Material Protection and Cooperation account, was due to work to renegotiate the details of a threat reduction umbrella agreement with Russia after the expiration of the Cooperative Threat Reduction umbrella agreement last year. That has forced some physical security upgrades at Russian facilities to be put on hold, Harrington said. “We are actively in the process of negotiating those changes to the agreements but obviously the current situation between Russia and the Ukraine and what decisions the White House and the President make on the future of our engagement with Russia is to be determined,” Harrington said.
Budget documents also indicated that the $108.6 million cut in GTRI funding was due to the expected completion of a “major milestone” in early FY 2015 on the development of a domestic non-HEU-based supply of molybdenum-99 and the completion of other nuclear removal efforts. Still, budget documents indicate that 125 kilograms of nuclear materials is expected to be removed from other countries and four HEU-fueled reactors will be shutdown or converted to use low-enriched uranium.
Harrington said nuclear security remained a priority for the Administration, even with the completion of a four-year effort to secure vulnerable material around the world, but nonproliferation experts criticized the decision to cut funding for major nonproliferation programs. “The mammoth increases for weapons programs continue to come at the direct expense of threat reduction and nonproliferation programs—and not just the deeply flawed and unaffordable MOX program,” said Kingston Reif, the Director of Nuclear Non-Proliferation at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. “The budget requests for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, the International Materials Protection and Cooperation program, and Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development all get cratered not only relative to last year’s enacted level, but also relative to the out year projections in last year’s budget request. This is unacceptable and belies the Administration’s claim that preventing nuclear terrorism is one of its top national security priorities.”
