Todd Jacobson
NS&D Monitor
4/11/2014
The National Nuclear Security Administration’s strategy for maintaining and modernizing the nation’s nuclear deterrent can’t absorb any more cuts or schedule delays, acting NNSA Administrator Bruce Held told a Senate panel this week. The Administration has requested $8.3 billion for NNSA weapons work in Fiscal Year 2015, a $533.9 million increase from FY 2014, and testifying before the Senate Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Held suggested that anything less than the request would have a dire effect on the agency’s “3+2” modernization strategy. “If more budgetary constraints are applied, we will break the ‘3+2’ strategy,” Held said. “That will have implications for our nuclear deterrent, and it will also have implications for our ability to reduce the size of the stockpile.”
The NNSA has already had to adjust the strategy due to budget constraints, delaying work on an interoperable warhead for five years and pushing back work on a cruise missile warhead for three years. It has also pushed back the First Production Unit for the B61 refurbishment until 2020, deferred work on the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility in favor of a scaled-back plan to modernize Los Alamos National Laboratory’s plutonium capabilities in favor, and is poised to scale back the Uranium Processing Facility as well. Any more funding cuts would “put the nation in a very difficult position,” Held said, noting that the current plan “still meets … mission requirements but we’re rock bottom at this point” for what it could absorb in terms of funding. “An area of increasing concern for me is nuclear safety, our infrastructure,” Held said. “Our enriched uranium in Oak Ridge is 70 years old. We can’t wait till the year 2038 to get new facilities; the same thing with plutonium. So nuclear safety is an increasing concern of NNSA.”
NWC Identifies Funding as Major Risk
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) also referenced a recent letter from Nuclear Weapons Council Chairman Frank Kendall to Congress, which hasn’t been publicly released, that suggests the NNSA’s modernization plan is “fragile,” he said. “As you are aware, several risks have been identified that may affect realization of this strategy and NNSA’s ability to execute the SSMP [Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan] as written, including a shortfall in out-year funding and the failure to achieve assumed savings through management efficiencies and workforce prioritization actions,” Vitter said, reading part of the letter..
Vitter noted that funding for NNSA weapons activities is about $2 billion less than the funding plan promised during debate on the New START Treaty in 2010, which was key to getting some Republicans to vote for the treaty. “We have just not come close to those specific commitments ever since then,” Vitter said. “We’re falling far behind. Even a half-billion-dollar increase in weapons activities for FY 2015 will not close that gap.” He noted that the funding issues have had a real impact on the modernization program. “It’s not just dollars. It’s not just numbers. It means real impact and delay” on five programs, referring to the interoperable warhead, cruise missile warhead and the B61 refurbishment as well as the completion of the W76 refurbishment—which was delayed from FY 2017 until FY 2019—and the W88 Alt 370, which Vitter suggested was likely to be delayed. “This wasn’t the 19th century when we talked about this,” Vitter said. “It was a few years ago. We knew the budget environment was tough. Nothing has fundamentally changed. We knew this was a very tough environment, so I don’t think there’s been any fundamental shift.”
Vitter Questions Pit Capabilities Delay
Vitter also questioned a decision to delay the establishment of a capability at Los Alamos to produce 30 pits per year from 2021 until 2026, which he said limits the flexibility of the weapons complex’s ability to increase production if necessary. That decision also delays the goal of reaching a capacity to produce 50 to 80 pits per year. “We have less cushion, less ability to surge, less ability to react to changes around the world,” Vitter said. “And I would suggest recent events with Russia, for instance, suggest that changes around the world may be more the norm than the exception.”
Held said the 30 pit per year requirement was tied to the interoperable warhead (IW-1), and when that was delayed due to budget constraints and information that the W78 and W88 warheads that it would replace were aging well, the pit requirement could also be delayed. “We are not sacrificing anything in nuclear deterrence,” Held said. “Because of the more graceful aging of the weapons, the urgency of the IW-1 is not as urgent. And the reduced urgency of the IW-1 reduces the urgency of the 50 to 80. It doesn’t eliminate the 50 to 80 requirement, but we have a little bit more time to get there.”
Lab Directors Reflect on Budget Situation
Testifying at a separate hearing before the Senate Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee April 9, the directors of the NNSA’s three nuclear weapons laboratories also suggested that recent budget cuts have created a delicate situation as they look to meet mission requirements and maintain the science and technology base at the institutions. “I believe the work at our laboratories is fragile,” Los Alamos Director Charlie McMillan said. “Because of severe budget constraints over the last two years there is no longer management flexibility, at least at my lab, to address further funding shortfalls, balance risks and meet mission requirements.”
He said funding at the lab has been reduced in recent budget guidance for facility upkeep and maintenance, security, and in the science, technology and engineering base. “Any reduction in facility budgets undermines mission capabilities, especially to sites such as Los Alamos, where infrastructure continues to age and in some cases dates back to the beginning of the Cold War,” McMillan said. “Current requirements in the area of physical, cyber and information security are outstripping our funding allocations and necessitate more prudent management decisions that balance risk and available funding.”
Hommert: Modernization Creating Imbalance at Labs
Sandia National Laboratories Director Paul Hommert also said there was a growing imbalance at his lab as well. “The resources required to execute modernization, which is the clear priority, is causing us to reduce efforts in other areas that increase long-term risk,” he said, noting that surveillance work, advanced and exploratory technology development and infrastructure recapitalization were taking hits. “Two examples of areas that can mitigate these risks are increased programmatic flexibility inside a budget top line and support for synergistic work we do for other national security missions,” he said. “For my laboratory, these broader efforts have often been a means to further advance technology for the weapons program of the type you’re looking at in that component.”
Hommert also noted that the B61 refurbishment was currently on schedule to meet an early 2020 First Production Unit deadline and within its budget, which the NNSA has estimated is $8.2 billion. He even said the lab has realized $120 million in savings over the life of the program, which he said will help offset any cost increases associated with the delay of the FPU. But he said the biggest risk to the project remains funding. “If you look at our budgets today in sort of constant dollars and what’s on our plate, there’s actually more on the plate and less overall,” he said. “We got it. We’re working to that. And I’m confident that we can execute without significant cost growth, if we hold the schedules.”
