Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship
Congressional research reportDec 17, 2015
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Energy and Water Development:
FY2016 Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons
Stockpile Stewardship
(name redacted)
Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy
December 17, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R43948
FY2016 Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
Summary
The annual Energy and Water Development appropriations bill provides funding for civil works
projects of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation,
the Department of Energy (DOE), and several independent agencies.
The DOE budget includes funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a
separately organized agency within DOE. NNSA operates three programs: Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, which secures nuclear materials worldwide, conducts R&D into
nonproliferation and verification, and operates the Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident
Response Program; Naval Reactors, which “is responsible for all U.S. Navy nuclear propulsion
work”; and Weapons Activities.
The latter is the subject of this report. It operates the Stockpile Stewardship Program, which
maintains the U.S. nuclear gravity bombs and missile warheads and has science and infrastructure
programs that support that mission. (The Department of Defense [DOD] operates the bombers
and missiles that would deliver nuclear weapons; it is funded in the Department of Defense
appropriations bill.) The Armed Services Committees authorize funds for DOD and NNSA
programs. The FY2016 request proposed moving counterterrorism programs from Weapons
Activities to Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. On a basis comparable to the FY2016 budget
structure, the FY2015 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (H.R. 83/P.L.
113-235) provided $8,007.7 million for Weapons Activities. The FY2016 request was $8,846.9
million, a 10.5% increase over FY2015. The House Appropriations Committee recommended
providing $8,713.0 million for FY2016. The House passed H.R. 2028, Energy and Water
Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, by a vote of 240-177 on May 1.
The bill as passed by the House made no changes to the Weapons Activities section of the
committee bill. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported the bill on May 21. It
recommended providing $8,882.4 million. Congress provided 8,846.9 million for Weapons
Activities in the omnibus appropriations bill for FY2016 (H.R. 2029).
Weapons Activities has four main programs, each with a request of over $1 billion for FY2016, as
follows. FY2015-enacted amounts included below are comparable to the FY2016 budget
structure.
Directed Stockpile Work works directly on nuclear weapons. It includes life
extension programs, maintenance, and others. The FY2015-enacted amount was
$2,797.2 million; the FY2016 request was $3,187.3 million, a 13.9% increase.
H.R. 2028, as passed by the House, provided $3,354.3 million. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $3,039.5 million. The omnibus
appropriations bill provided $3,387.8 million.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Programs, which advances the
science, engineering, computation, and manufacturing that support Directed
Stockpile Work. The FY2015-enacted amount was $1,766.2 million; the FY2016
request was $1,776.6 million, a 0.6% increase. H.R. 2028, as passed by the
House, provided $1,774.2 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $1,766.3 million. The omnibus appropriations bill provided
$1,818.5 million.
Infrastructure and Safety (I&S), a budget category that NNSA proposed in its
FY2016 request, includes operations of facilities, recapitalization, maintenance,
safety operations, and other programs. The FY2015-enacted comparable amount
was $1,386.7 million; the FY2016 request was $1,466.1 million, a 5.7% increase.
Congressional Research Service
FY2016 Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
The House Appropriations Committee recommended consolidating I&S into
Infrastructure and Operations. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $1,466.1 million for I&S. The omnibus appropriations bill
accepted the House budget structure and consolidated I&S into Infrastructure and
Operations, as described next.
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) funds material recycle and
recovery, recapitalization of facilities, and construction of facilities. Prior to
FY2016, it also funded operations of the nuclear weapons complex. The FY2015enacted amount was $2,033.4 million; the FY2016 request was $1,054.5 million,
with the decrease due to transferring funds to I&S. The FY2015 comparable
request for RTBF was $688.0 million, so on a comparable basis FY2016 RTBF
increased by 53.3%. The House Appropriations Committee recommended
consolidating funding for RTBF, Infrastructure and Safety, and Site Stewardship
into a new category, Infrastructure and Operations (I&O), for which it
recommended $2,228.2 million. H.R. 2028, as passed by the House, accepted this
budget structure. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended keeping
I&S and Site Stewardship as separately funded categories, and providing
$1,021.1 million for I&O and $36.6 million for Site Stewardship. The omnibus
appropriations bill accepted the consolidated funding structure, and provided
$2,279.1 million for Infrastructure and Operations (I&O).
Weapons Activities also includes several smaller programs, all of which are described in this
report: Secure Transportation Asset, Site Stewardship, Defense Nuclear Security, Information
Technology and Cybersecurity, and Legacy Contractor Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
FY2016 Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
Contents
Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Stockpile Stewardship and the Nuclear Weapons Complex...................................................... 1
Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration ............................................................................ 2
Reorganization of the Nuclear Security Enterprise ................................................................... 3
Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) ..................................................................................................... 4
Life Extension Programs (LEPs)............................................................................................... 4
Stockpile Systems ..................................................................................................................... 5
Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition (WDD).................................................................... 5
Stockpile Services ..................................................................................................................... 5
Nuclear Material Commodities ................................................................................................. 6
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) Programs ................................................ 6
Science Program........................................................................................................................ 7
Engineering Program ................................................................................................................ 7
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Program ................................................ 7
Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Program ............................................................ 8
Advanced Manufacturing Development ................................................................................... 8
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) ........................................................................ 9
Infrastructure and Safety ............................................................................................................... 10
Other Programs.............................................................................................................................. 10
Secure Transportation Asset .................................................................................................... 10
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response Program............................................................ 11
Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation Program ............................................................... 11
Site Stewardship ....................................................................................................................... 11
Defense Nuclear Security ........................................................................................................ 12
Information Technology and Cybersecurity ............................................................................ 12
Legacy Contractor Pensions .................................................................................................... 13
Tables
Table 1. Funding for Weapons Activities, FY2014-FY2016 ........................................................... 1
Table 2. Weapons Activities: FY2016 Request and FY2017-FY2020 Plan .................................... 2
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 13
Congressional Research Service
FY2016 Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
Overview
Stockpile Stewardship and the Nuclear Weapons Complex
Congress established the Stockpile Stewardship Program in the FY1994 National Defense
Authorization Act (P.L. 103-160). The goal of the program, as amended by the FY2010 National
Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 111-84, §3111), is to ensure “that the nuclear weapons stockpile
is safe, secure, and reliable without the use of underground nuclear weapons testing.” The
program is operated by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a separately
organized agency within DOE that Congress established in the FY2000 National Defense
Authorization Act (P.L. 106-65, Title XXXII). NNSA also manages two other programs, Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation and Naval Reactors.
Stockpile stewardship consists of all activities in NNSA’s Weapons Activities account. It consists
of four programs with funding of over $1 billion each and several smaller programs, all of which
are discussed in detail below. Table 1 presents Weapons Activities funding.
Table 1. Funding for Weapons Activities, FY2014-FY2016
($ millions)
FY2014
Current
Comparablea
FY2015
Enacted
Comparable
FY2016
Request
Senate
Approps.
Comm.
Omnibus
DSW
2542.1
2797.2
3187.3
3354.3
3039.5
3,387.8
RDT&E
Programs
1656.8
1766.2
1776.6
1774.2
1766.3
1,818.5
RTBF
636.4
688.0
1054.5
2228.2b
1021.1
—
I&S
1465.8
1386.7
1466.1
b
1466.1
—
I&O
---
---
---
---
---
2,279.1
Otherc
1324.5
1369.6
1362.6
1356.4
1589.4
1,363.5
Total
7625.7
8007.7
8846.9
8713.0
8882.4
8,846.9
Program
House
Sources: FY2016 NNSA Congressional Budget Request, House and Senate Appropriations Committee reports.
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. DSW: Directed Stockpile Work; RDT&E: Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation; RTBF: Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities; I&S: Infrastructure and
Safety.
a. The FY2016 budget request changed several NNSA budget categories. “Comparable” figures for
FY2014 and FY2015 allocate funds for those years according to the FY2016 budget structure.
b. The House Appropriations Committee recommended including Infrastructure and Safety within a new
category, Infrastructure and Operations (I&O), which was formerly RTBF. The omnibus appropriations
bill accepted this budget structure. I&O consolidates RTBF, Infrastructure and Safety, and Site
Stewardship.
c. For FY2014, FY2015, and FY2016 request, “Other” includes Secure Transportation Asset, Site
Stewardship, Defense Nuclear Security, Information Technology and Cybersecurity, Legacy Contractor
Pensions, and (for FY2014 only) Use of Prior Year Balances. For House, and for Senate for FY2014 and
FY2015, “Other” includes Secure Transportation Asset, Defense Nuclear Security, Information
Technology and Cybersecurity, and Legacy Contractor Pensions. For Senate Appropriations
Committee for FY2016, “Other” includes Secure Transportation Asset, Defense Nuclear Security,
Information Technology and Cybersecurity, Legacy Contractor Pensions, and Nuclear
Counterterrorism Incident Response.
Congressional Research Service
1
FY2016 Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
Table 2. Weapons Activities: FY2016 Request and FY2017-FY2020 Plan
($ millions, except bottom row $ billions)
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
DSW
3187.3
3322.0
3616.9
3689.0
3740.8
RDT&E Programs
1776.6
1825.0
1899.5
1948.9
1987.3
RTBF
1054.5
1121.4
1207.3
1285.0
1235.4
I&S
1466.1
1702.5
1477.9
1559.2
1607.0
Othera
1362.6
1311.6
1283.1
1235.7
1259.1
Total
8846.9
9282.3
9484.5
9717.7
9829.7
8.9
8.9-9.0
9.2-9.3
9.4-9.6
9.4-9.8
Nov. 2010 “1251
report” projection
Sources: FY2016 NNSA Congressional Budget Request for rows through Total; bottom row, U.S. White
House, “November 2010 Update to the National Defense Authorization Act of FY2010 Section 1251 Report:
New START Treaty Framework and Nuclear Force Structure Plans,” p. 9, http://www.lasg.org/CMRR/
Sect1251_update_17Nov2010.pdf.
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. DSW: Directed Stockpile Work; RDT&E: Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation; RTBF: Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities; I&S: Infrastructure and
Safety.
a. “Other” includes Secure Transportation Asset, Site Stewardship, Defense Nuclear Security, Information
Technology and Cybersecurity, and Legacy Contractor Pensions.
Most stewardship activities take place at the nuclear weapons complex (the “complex”), which
consists of three laboratories (Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM; Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, CA; and Sandia National Laboratories, NM and CA); four production sites
(Kansas City Plant, MO; Pantex Plant, TX; Savannah River Site, SC; and Y-12 National Security
Complex, TN); and the Nevada National Security Site (formerly Nevada Test Site). NNSA
manages and sets policy for the complex; contractors to NNSA operate the eight sites.
Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration
While the nuclear weapons complex currently consists of eight sites, it had many more personnel
and sites during the Cold War. Despite post-Cold War reductions, many in Congress have for
years wanted the complex to change further, in various ways: fewer personnel, greater efficiency,
smaller footprint at each site, increased security, and the like. After numerous exchanges between
DOE and the appropriating and authorizing committees, such issues still remain.
According to a White House document of May 2010, the President provided Congress with a
classified report (the “1251 report”) required by the FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act,
Section 1251, “on the comprehensive plan to: (1) maintain delivery platforms [that is, bombers,
missiles, and submarines that deliver nuclear weapons]; (2) sustain a safe, secure, and reliable
U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile; and (3) modernize the nuclear weapons complex.”1 According to
that document, “the Administration intends to invest $80 billion in the next decade to sustain and
modernize the nuclear weapons complex.” The Administration submitted a revised Section 1251
report in November 2010, projecting weapons stockpile and infrastructure costs for FY2011FY2020 at between $85.4 billion and $86.2 billion. The request for FY2015 was below the 1251
1
U.S. White House, “The New START Treaty—Maintaining a Strong Nuclear Deterrent,” fact sheet, May 13, 2010,
http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2010/May/20100514114003xjsnommis0.6300318.html.
Congressional Research Service
2
FY2016 Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
report figure; in contrast, the request for FY2016 is about at the 1251 report’s figure for that year,
and projections for FY2017-FY2020 are above the figures in the 1251 report, as Table 2 shows.
Reorganization of the Nuclear Security Enterprise
Along with reconfiguring the nuclear weapons complex, there have been concerns for decades
about the proper organization of the federal agency responsible for managing it. While the Army
managed the nuclear weapons program during World War II, Congress, in the Atomic Energy Act
of 1946, created the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) as an independent civilian agency to
manage that program. In the Energy Research and Development Act of 1974, Congress dissolved
the AEC and created the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Energy Research and
Development Administration (ERDA), which among other functions managed the nuclear
weapons program. That program was moved again by the Department of Energy Organization Act
of 1977, which dissolved ERDA and created DOE. In 2000, as noted above, Congress created
NNSA as a separately organized agency within DOE.2
In part, these reorganizations stem from long-standing concerns about the management of the
nuclear weapons complex. Many reports have been written over the past several decades to
address this issue. Most recently, in the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act, P.L. 112239, Congress established the Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear
Security Enterprise and directed the panel to make recommendations on “the most appropriate
governance structure, mission, and management of the nuclear security enterprise.” In its report to
Congress, the panel stated:
the panel finds that the existing governance structures and many of the practices of the
enterprise are inefficient and ineffective, thereby putting the entire enterprise at risk over
the long term. These problems have not occurred overnight; they are the result of decades
of neglect. This is in spite of the efforts of many capable and dedicated people who must
nonetheless function within the confines of a dysfunctional system.…
One unmistakable conclusion is that NNSA governance reform, at least as it has been
implemented, has failed to provide the effective, mission-focused enterprise that
Congress intended.3
The panel’s recommendations included strengthening presidential guidance and oversight of the
nuclear enterprise; establishing new congressional mechanisms for leadership and oversight of
the enterprise; replacing NNSA with a new Office of Nuclear Security within DOE, renamed to
the Department of Energy and Nuclear Security, with the Secretary responsible for the mission;
and building a culture of performance, accountability, and credibility.
Owing to concerns about cost growth and transparency, P.L. 113-235 contained several sections
relating to cost and oversight. Section 304 required construction of high-hazard nuclear facilities
to have independent oversight by the Office of Independent Enterprise Assessments “to ensure
the project is in compliance with nuclear safety requirements.” Section 305 required an
independent cost estimate for approving performance baseline and starting construction for
projects with total cost over $100 million. Section 308 required the Secretary of Energy to
provide an analysis of alternatives for each major warhead refurbishment program reaching the
2
For a history of the nuclear weapons program and related topics, 1939-2010, see U.S. Department of Energy, National
Nuclear Security Administration, “NNSA Timeline,” http://www.nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/ourhistory/timeline.
3
Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise, “A New Foundation for the
Nuclear Enterprise,” November 2014, pp. ix-x, http://cdn.knoxblogs.com/atomiccity/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2014/
12/Governance.pdf?_ga=1.83182294.1320535883.1415285934.
Congressional Research Service
3
FY2016 Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
development engineering stage. Similarly, in its FY2016 report on energy and water development
appropriations, S.Rept. 114-54, the Senate Appropriations Committee expressed its concern “with
the continued poor cost estimating by the Department, particularly within the NNSA,” and
directed the Secretary of Energy to “provide a report … that outlines the Department’s plan for
improving cost estimating for major projects and programs.”
Directed Stockpile Work (DSW)
This program involves work directly on nuclear weapons in the stockpile, such as monitoring
their condition; maintaining them through repairs, refurbishment, life extension, and
modifications; conducting R&D in support of specific warheads; and dismantlement. The
FY2016 request was $3,187.3 million; the enacted amount, on a comparable basis, for FY2015
was $2,797.2 million. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $3,354.3 million for
FY2016. The House passed H.R. 2028, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2016, by a vote of 240-177, without amendments to the Weapons Activities
section of the bill as reported from committee. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $3,039.5 million for FY2016. Specific items under DSW include the following:
Life Extension Programs (LEPs)
These programs aim to extend the life of existing warheads through design, certification,
manufacture, and replacement of components. An LEP for the W76 warhead for the Trident II
submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) is ongoing, as is an LEP for the B61 mod 12. (A
“mod,” such as B61 mod 12 or B61-12, is a modification or version of a bomb or warhead type.)
For FY2016, the amounts requested by NNSA for LEPs are as follows. H.R. 2028, as passed by
the House, provided the requested amounts; the Senate Appropriations Committee likewise
recommended providing the requested amounts. The omnibus appropriations bill also approved
these amounts.
$244.0 million for the W76-1 LEP. The first production unit (FPU) was
completed in FY2008, with production scheduled to be completed by FY2019.
$643.3 million for the B61-12 LEP, with the FPU by the second quarter of
FY2020.
$220.2 million for the W88 Alt [Alteration] 370, to provide an arming-fuzingfiring system among other things, with the FPU in the first quarter of FY2020.
The House Appropriations Committee, noting a growth in scope of work planned
for the W88, directed NNSA to integrate the cost of certain other work to
refurbish this warhead into selected acquisition reports for the W88 LEP. In
contrast, the Senate Appropriations Committee, in commenting on the Alt 370,
noted that alterations are “much less intensive” than LEPs and stated that the
distinction between the two “is important, and should be maintained.” The
omnibus appropriations bill directed NNSA to “clearly account for all costs of
any major multi-year stockpile refurbishment activity with a total cost greater
than $1,000,000,000” and to “ensure a formal and comprehensive acquisition
management plan is in place to manage such efforts.”
$195.0 million for the W80-4, a cruise missile warhead LEP. FY2015 was the
first year for which NNSA requested funds for this warhead under the LEP
heading. The LEP would seek to use common components from other LEPs and
to improve warhead safety and security. The FPU is scheduled for FY2025. The
Congressional Research Service
4
FY2016 Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
House Appropriations Committee expressed its concern “that the NNSA has
already settled on two alternatives for the W80-4 that are more expensive than
the B61 life extension program … [and] has a history of spending large amounts
of funding to develop alternatives that are tabled in order to pursue a more
affordable option.” Accordingly, the committee directed NNSA to task an
independent group “to perform a red team assessment of the NNSA’s alternatives
selected for the W80-4 life extension program.” The omnibus appropriations bill
retained the request for this assessment.
The FY2016 budget request proposed suspending activities for an interoperable warhead
(W78/88-1) that could be used on land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and
SLBMs, and projected a 2030 FPU. Neither the House Appropriations Committee nor the Senate
Appropriations Committee commented on this change.
P.L. 113-235, the FY2015 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, had also
provided full funding for the B61 LEP, the W76 LEP, the W88 Alt 370, and the cruise missile
warhead life extension study. Regarding the latter, the Explanatory Statement noted a requirement
for NNSA to provide a report on military requirements, cost, and schedule at the start of a design
definition and cost study, should those activities be requested subsequently.
Stockpile Systems
This program involves routine maintenance, replacement of limited-life components,
surveillance, assessment, and the like for all weapon types in the stockpile. The FY2015 request
was $531.1 million, and P.L. 113-235 provided that amount. The FY2016 request was $482.4
million. The omnibus appropriations bill for FY2016 provided this amount.
Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition (WDD)
The number of warheads has fallen sharply since the end of the Cold War, and continues to
decline. WDD involves interim storage of warheads to be dismantled; dismantlement; and
disposition (i.e., storing or eliminating warhead components and materials). The FY2015 request
was $30.0 million, and P.L. 113-235 provided $50.0 million; the Explanatory Statement directed
NNSA to “report on the options available to avoid a dismantlement workload gap in the mid2020s while still meeting the 2022 dismantlement goal.” The FY2016 request was $48.0 million.
H.R. 2028, as passed by the House, provided the requested amount. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $52.0 million, and the omnibus appropriations bill provided this
amount.
Stockpile Services
This category includes Production Support; R&D Support; R&D Certification and Safety;
Management, Technology, and Production; and Plutonium Infrastructure Sustainment. NNSA
states, “Stockpile Services provides the foundation for the production capability and capacity
within the nuclear security enterprise. All enduring systems, LEPs, and dismantlements rely on
Stockpile Services to provide the base development, production and logistics capability needed to
meet program requirements. In addition, Stockpile Services funds research, development, and
production activities that support two or more weapons-types, and work that is not identified or
allocated to a specific weapon-type.” The FY2015 request was $1,108.5 million; P.L. 113-235
provided $1,034.5 million.
Congressional Research Service
5
FY2016 Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
The FY2016 request for Stockpile Services was $939.3 million. The FY2016 budget proposed
moving some programs that had been in Stockpile Services to a new account, Nuclear Material
Commodities, discussed below. The FY2015-enacted amount for Stockpile Services comparable
to the FY2016 budget structure (i.e., minus programs transferred to Nuclear Material
Commodities) was $762.4 million. For FY2016, H.R. 2028, as passed by the House, provided
$932.1 million for Stockpile Services. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$858.0 million for that program. The committee supported a higher rate of subcritical
experiments, which study how plutonium—in configurations that cannot go critical, hence
“subcritical”—behaves under pressures generated by a conventional explosion. These
experiments, the committee said, “provide the validation data for weapons simulation codes and
enhance the ability to predict the behavior of aging weapons.” The committee, noting that NNSA
conducts one such experiment every 18 months, directed NNSA to plan for two per year. The
omnibus appropriations bill provides $938.6 million for Stockpile Services.
Nuclear Material Commodities
This program, new for FY2016, “consolidates funding for key material and production
capabilities for plutonium, uranium, tritium, and enriched uranium for tritium production.” The
latter capability is Domestic Uranium Enrichment (DUE). These capabilities were previously a
part of Stockpile Services. The FY2016 request was $415.0 million; the comparable FY2015
amount was $376.7 million. For FY2016, the House Appropriations Committee recommended
$589.2 million and stated, “The recommendation further expands the request to specify funds for
the management of nuclear materials to other materials of strategic significance by including
funding requested for Material Recycling and Recovery, Storage, Nuclear Materials Integration,
and other planning efforts within Strategic Materials Sustainment.” It termed the enlarged
category “Strategic Materials.” The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $344.5
million. The omnibus appropriations bill, using the House budget structure and the title “Strategic
Materials,” provides $612.3 million for this program area. This includes $250 million for
Strategic Materials Sustainrnent, which, as the House had directed, consolidates funding for
activities needed to manage NNSA's inventory of strategic materials.
The FY2016 request included $100.0 million within Nuclear Materials Commodities for DUE.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $50.0 million for DUE and provided
reprogramming authority for another $50.0 million. The committee awaited a study on tritium
and low enriched uranium requirements and a preferred approach to meeting them, but saw little
value to operating a centrifuge demonstration project indefinitely if DOE “cannot identify a nearterm need to construct a national security train of centrifuges.” H.R. 2028, as passed by the
House, did not amend these provisions and provided the amount recommended by the House
Appropriations Committee. The Senate Appropriations Committee also recommended $50.0
million for DUE, with reprogramming authority for another $50.0 million. “The Committee
directs that the Department of Energy shall use these funds only to maintain existing centrifuges
and facilities associated with domestic enrichment capabilities and safeguard intellectual property
rights.” The omnibus appropriations bill accepted this funding level.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
(RDT&E) Programs
RDT&E includes five programs. According to NNSA, they “[focus] on RDT&E efforts to
develop and maintain critical capabilities, tools, and processes needed to support science based
Congressional Research Service
6
FY2016 Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
stockpile stewardship, refurbishment, and continued certification of the stockpile over the longterm in the absence of underground nuclear testing.” Many of these programs have significance
for policy decisions. For example, the Science Program’s goals include improving the ability to
assess warhead performance without nuclear testing, improving readiness to conduct nuclear tests
should the need arise, and maintaining the scientific infrastructure of the nuclear weapons
laboratories. Other programs fund large experimental facilities, such as the National Ignition
Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. RDT&E Programs was formerly named
Campaigns. The FY2016 request was $1,776.5 million. H.R. 2028, as passed by the House,
provided $1,774.2 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $1,766.3
million. The omnibus appropriations bill provides $1,818.5 million.
The programs are:
Science Program
This program “provides the expertise and confidence needed to maintain the nuclear stockpile,”
including identification of “future risks to the performance of the stockpile.” FY2015-enacted
funding was $412.1 million, of which P.L. 113-235 designated $21.0 million for designing new
radiography capabilities at U1a, the part of the Nevada National Security Site where certain
weapons-related experiments are conducted. The FY2016 request was $389.6 million; the House
Appropriations Committee recommended $412.9 million, which would, among other things,
provide funds “to better understand the properties of plutonium and to advance concepts for pit
reuse” and “to enhance U.S. capabilities to assess foreign state weapons activities.” The
recommendation did not include funding for new radiography capabilities: “The NNSA did not
provide a project data sheet with a multi-year funding plan as required by the Committee.” H.R.
2028, as passed by the House, provided the amount recommended by the House Appropriations
Committee. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the requested amount. The
omnibus appropriations bill provided $423 million for the science program, which includes $45.7
million for advanced radiography capabilities. The bill directs NNSA to provide an “estimate of
the cost to develop new radiography capabilities at U1a and detail the costs of any Major Items of
Equipment in its budget request.”
Engineering Program
This program “matur[es] advanced technologies to improve weapon surety; provid[es] the tools
for qualifying weapon components and certifying weapons without underground testing; and
support[s] annual stockpile assessments.” FY2015-enacted funding was $136.0 million; the
FY2016 request was $131.4 million. The omnibus appropriations bill provided the requested
funding for this program area.
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Program
This program is developing tools to create extremely high temperatures and pressures in the
laboratory—approaching those of a nuclear explosion—to support weapons-related research and
attract scientific talent to the Stockpile Stewardship Program. The centerpiece of this campaign is
the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the world’s largest laser. NIF is intended to produce
“ignition,” the point at which a nuclear fusion reaction generates more energy than is used by the
lasers to create the reaction. While achieving ignition has been delayed, NIF has nonetheless
proven to be of value to stockpile stewardship at energy levels that do not reach ignition. NIF was
Congressional Research Service
7
FY2016 Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
controversial in Congress for many years, but controversy waned as the program progressed. NIF
was dedicated in May 2009.4 The FY2015-enacted amount was $512.9 million; the Explanatory
Statement to P.L. 113-235 directed NNSA to provide “an assessment on whether the likelihood of
achieving ignition at the NIF has increased since December 2012 and the level of confidence that
the NNSA will achieve ignition at the NIF by December 2015.” The FY2016 request was $502.5
million; H.R. 2028, as passed by the House, provided $511.1 million. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $511.1 million. It supported “ongoing efforts at NIF to operate more
efficiently and expand the base of academic users in order to help attract top talent to stockpile
stewardship.” The omnibus appropriations bill provides $511.1 million for this program area and
specifies, that within this total, $329 million will be used for NIF.
Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Program
This program develops computation-based models of nuclear weapons that integrate data from
other campaigns, past test data, laboratory experiments, etc., to create what NNSA calls “the
computational surrogate for nuclear testing to determine weapon behavior.” ASC also supports
nonproliferation, emergency response, and nuclear forensics. Some analysts doubt that simulation
can be relied upon to provide the confidence needed to certify the safety, security, and reliability
of warheads, and advocate a return to testing. The FY2015-enacted amount was $598.0 million,
of which $50.0 million was for the exascale initiative, which is intended to further increase
computing capability. The FY2016 request was $623.0 million; H.R. 2028, as passed by the
House, provided $605.0 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the
requested amount. Within that amount, it recommended at least $64.0 million, the amount in the
NNSA budget request, for activities associated with the exascale initiative. Exascale computers
would perform at least 1 billion (1018) calculations per second, much faster than current
supercomputers. The omnibus appropriations bill approved the requested amount.
Advanced Manufacturing Development
Through FY2015, this program was the Readiness Campaign. It had several subprograms, but the
entire FY2015 request was for the Nonnuclear Readiness subprogram, which “develops
capabilities to manufacture components used for Directed Stockpile Work.” The House
Appropriations Committee recommended no funds for this campaign. Instead, it recommended
establishing an Advanced Manufacturing Campaign “to develop, demonstrate, and utilize
advanced technologies that are needed to enhance the NNSA’s secure manufacturing capabilities
and ensure timely support for the production of nuclear weapons and other critical national
security components.” The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $70.0 million. P.L.
113-235 provided no funds for the Readiness Campaign; instead, it provided $107.2 million (the
enacted amount) for Advanced Manufacturing Development, the subprograms of which are
additive manufacturing, component manufacturing development, and process technology
development. The Explanatory Statement directed NNSA to provide “a ten-year strategic plan for
using additive manufacturing to reduce costs at NNSA production facilities while meeting
stringent qualification requirements.” The FY2016 request, $130.1 million, was for Advanced
Manufacturing Development, with the three subprograms listed in P.L. 113-235. The request
included no funds for additive manufacturing (AM). The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $113.8 million, including $16.0 million for AM. The committee expressed concern
4
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “Dedication of World’s Largest Laser Marks the Dawn of a New Era,”
press release, May 29, 2009, https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2009/NR-09-05-05.html.
Congressional Research Service
8
FY2016 Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
that the budget request, by applying development of AM capabilities “holistically across the
enterprise ... reduces transparency into how well and how fast the NNSA is developing these
advanced production technologies.” H.R. 2028, as passed by the House, provided the amount
recommended by the House Appropriations Committee. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $111.2 million, with no funds for AM. The omnibus appropriations bill provides
$130 million, the requested amount.
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF)
This program used to fund infrastructure and operations at nuclear weapons complex sites.
However, beginning in FY2016, its main funding elements were material recycle and recovery,
recapitalization of facilities, and construction of facilities. The latter included two controversial
and expensive projects, the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) at the Y-12 National Security
Complex (TN) and the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) Project, which
deals with plutonium, at Los Alamos National Laboratory (NM). Both have been significantly
revised over the past several years due to cost growth and schedule slippage. The FY2016 budget
structure transferred certain functions from RTBF to Infrastructure and Safety, described below.
Of the FY2015 appropriation, the amount comparable to FY2016 RTBF was $688.0 million; the
Explanatory Statement directed NNSA to provide “a ten-year strategic plan that would reduce the
deferred maintenance backlog below fiscal year 2014 baseline levels and dispose of unneeded
facilities.” The FY2016 request was $1,054.5 million.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended consolidating funding for RTBF,
Infrastructure and Safety, and Site Stewardship into a new category, Infrastructure and Operations
(I&O), for which it recommended $2,228.2 million. Its goal was to eliminate duplication. It “does
not support changing the budget structure each year to conform to internal organizational
changes.” I&O, as recommended by the committee, included, among other things, Operation of
Facilities, Maintenance and Repair of Facilities, and Recapitalization. H.R. 2028, as passed by the
House, provided the amount recommended by the House Appropriations Committee and did not
amend the committee’s recommendation on consolidation.
The House Appropriations Committee expressed its concern about requests for construction
funding.
The Committee is concerned that there is little accountability for advancing construction
projects at the early design stages and that advance funds are being requested to initiate
new construction without providing the cost and schedule projections for which the
NNSA is accountable. Without this information, the Committee cannot determine
whether the projects requested are affordable and are being managed appropriately so that
it may approve new start authority. … The Committee will consider a request to initiate a
new construction start when the Department is prepared to provide an accurate multi-year
cost and schedule estimate with its budget request.
As part of construction funding, the committee recommended the amounts requested for UPF and
CMRR, $$430.0 million and $155.6 million, respectively. H.R. 2028, as passed by the House,
provided the amounts recommended by the committee.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $1,021.1 billion for RTBF.5 It
recommended the requested amounts for UPF and CMRR, in the latter case “to maximize the use
5
The committee referred to this program as “Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities” in the text of its report and
“Infrastructure and Operations (formerly RTBF)” in the associated table. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
9
FY2016 Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
of the newly constructed Radiological Laboratory Utility Office Building [RLUOB] and reuse
laboratory space in PF–4 to transition plutonium capabilities out of the aging Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research [CMR] building by 2019.”6 As was noted above, the omnibus appropriations
bill adopts the budget structure outlined in the House version of the bill. Within the Infrastructure
and Operations budget area, it provides $430 million for UPF and $155.6 million for CMRR. It
also directs NNSA to submit the results of the Department’s Independent Cost Review of the UPF
project and a multiyear funding profile with the FY2017 budget request.
Infrastructure and Safety
Infrastructure and Safety (I&S), a new program in the FY2016 budget request, included parts of
RTBF and another program, Site Stewardship, described below. “The mission is to maintain,
operate, and modernize” NNSA’s infrastructure. It has five elements: Operations of Facilities,
Safety Operations, Maintenance, Recapitalization, and Line Item Construction. According to
NNSA, “Together these elements provide a comprehensive approach to arresting the declining
state of NNSA infrastructure.” The FY2016 request was $1,466.1 million; the comparable
FY2015-enacted funding was $1,386.7 million. While NNSA states that “construction
investments will replace obsolete and unreliable facilities and infrastructure,” NNSA requested
the bulk of FY2016 construction funds, $660.2 million, under RTBF, compared with $42.9
million for I&S construction. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $660.1 million
for the funds requested under RTBF construction. As noted in the previous paragraph, the
committee recommended consolidating I&S into I&O. H.R. 2028, as passed by the House,
provided the amount recommended by the committee and did not amend the consolidation
provision. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the requested amount for I&S.
The omnibus appropriations bill followed the House lead and appropriated $2,279.1 million for
Infrastructure and Operations.
Other Programs
Weapons Activities has several smaller programs, including the following:
Secure Transportation Asset
This program provides for safe and secure transport of nuclear weapons, components, and
materials. It includes special vehicles for this purpose, communications and other supporting
infrastructure, and threat response. The FY2015 comparable enacted amount was $219.0 million;
the FY2016 request was $251.6 million. The House Appropriations Committee recommended
$232.0 million, and stated, “The budget request included a significant ramp up in the size of the
federal workforce, but the NNSA has not provided any information to justify such an increase and
reductions in the planned transport of mixed oxide feedstock will reduce requirements.” H.R.
2028, as passed by the House, provided the amount recommended by the committee. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $219.0 million. Like the House, it expressed concern
over justification: “The budget request proposes a nearly 15% increase in funding for STA
(...continued)
Appropriations. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2016, S.Rept. 114-54, May 21, 2015, pp. 99, 119.
6
Brackets in original. PF-4 is the main plutonium building at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Congressional Research Service
10
FY2016 Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
[Secure Transportation Asset], but does not provide adequate justification for the increase.” The
omnibus appropriations bill provides $237.1 million for this program area.
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response Program
This program “responds to and mitigates nuclear and radiological incidents worldwide and has a
lead role in defending the Nation from the threat of nuclear terrorism.” For FY2014, NNSA
proposed transferring this program to Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation “to align all NNSA
funding for reducing global nuclear dangers in one appropriation.” Congress rejected this
approach; P.L. 113-76 provided $228.2 million and retained the program in Weapons Activities.
For FY2015, NNSA requested $173.4 million, and the House provided $202.9 million. Among
other things, the bill provided $25.0 million for certain emergency response-related R&D that had
been traditionally funded in Weapons Activities; the Administration requested no funds in the
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response Program for this R&D. The Senate Appropriations
Committee draft recommended providing the requested amount. P.L. 113-235 provided $177.9
million, of which $142.6 million “is for emergency response activities to fully support the ninth
stabilization city”—an additional city that would receive counterterrorism training and
equipment.
The Administration requested no funds for this program for FY2016 in Weapons Activities.
Instead, NNSA proposed to “merge the Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response (NCTIR)
and the Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation (CTCP) Programs to eliminate confusion
about NNSA nuclear counterterrorism programs and activities, change the NCTIR name to
Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response Program, and move to the Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation (DNN) appropriation.” H.R. 2028, as passed by the House, provided no funds
for FY2016 for this program under Weapons Activities. In contrast, the Senate Appropriations
Committee provided $234.4 million for NCTIR under Weapons Activities, the amount NNSA had
requested for it in the DNN account. The omnibus appropriations bill followed the budget
structure of the request and funded this program under the DNN account.
Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation Program
This program “sustain[s] and exercise[s] the U.S. Government’s ability to understand nuclear
terrorism and to counter nuclear device proliferation.” It conducts “national and international
outreach to strengthen nuclear counterterrorism capabilities” and is “a key nexus to coordinate
and integrate other nuclear technical counterterrorism efforts existing within the Federal
government.” FY2015 was the first year for which NNSA requested funding, $76.9 million, for
this program in Weapons Activities. The House Appropriations Committee recommended no
funding for this program under Weapons Activities, maintaining that it and similar programs
should be located in DNN instead of Weapons Activities. The Senate Appropriations Committee
draft recommended providing $70.0 million. P.L. 113-235 provided $46.1 million.
As just noted, NNSA, in its FY2016 request, proposed moving this and another program to DNN.
H.R. 2028, as passed by the House, provided no funds for FY2016 for this program under
Weapons Activities. Similarly, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended no funds for
it under Weapons Activities.
Site Stewardship
This program has two subprograms. Nuclear Materials Integration funds “stabilization,
consolidation, packaging and disposition of nuclear materials,” and maintains a system to track
Congressional Research Service
11
FY2016 Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
and account for nuclear materials at DOE sites and sites licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. The Minority Serving Institution Partnership “funds research and education
enhancements at under-represented colleges and universities in order to increase the number of
people with the needed skills and talent to support NNSA’s enduring technical workforce.” For
FY2016, NNSA proposed to move part of this program to Infrastructure and Safety. The FY2016
request for the remaining Site Stewardship program was $36.6 million; the comparable amount
for FY2015 was $27.8 million. The House Appropriations Committee recommended no funds for
this program under Site Stewardship; instead, as noted, it recommended including this program in
Infrastructure and Operations. H.R. 2028, as passed by the House, provided no funds for this
program under Site Stewardship and did not amend the committee’s recommendation on
consolidation. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $36.6 million, the amount
requested, for Site Stewardship. The omnibus appropriations bill followed the House budget
structure and funded this program under the I&O account.
Defense Nuclear Security
This program provides operations, maintenance, and construction funds for protective forces,
physical security systems, personnel security, and the like. Its “core mission is to develop and
implement security programs, including protection, control and accountability of materials, as
well as the physical security of all NNSA facilities.” The FY2016 request was $632.9 million; the
comparable amount for FY2015 was $636.1 million. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $682.9 million, with the funding above the request intended “to replace security
cameras and meet shortfalls anticipated in funding for protective forces at Y-12 and other NNSA
sites.” The committee also recommended $35.0 million to start a Security Improvements Program
“that is intended to address the backlog of security projects that must be performed over the next
several years. The NNSA has identified over $2,000,000,000 in security infrastructure upgrades
that are needed, but the NNSA has not adequately prioritized these upgrades in its budget
request.” It also expressed concern that NNSA terminated a Security Improvements Program at
Y-12 before completing the planned work. H.R. 2028, as passed by the House, provided the
amounts that the committee recommended. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$657.9 million, with the increase “to meet shortfalls anticipated for the protective forces at Y–12
and other NNSA sites, and the need to replace vital security infrastructure.” Further, “The
Committee is concerned that the NNSA terminated the Y–12 Security Improvements Project
without completing the full scope of work planned.” The omnibus appropriations bill provides
$682.9 million for Defense Nuclear Security and directed that $30 million should be used for the
Security Improvements Program that will address the backlog of security projects, as directed in
the House report.
Information Technology and Cybersecurity
This program “is focused on the development of a suite of IT initiatives that provide a state-ofthe-art technology infrastructure for enabling the nuclear security mission and future nuclear
security enterprise shared services.” Elements include cybersecurity, enterprise secure computing,
and Federal Unclassified Information Technology. The latter will provide “commodity computing
infrastructure” to support a “shift from a traditional, costly desktop support model to a cloudprovisioned virtualized desktop-based solution.” The FY2016 request was $157.6 million; the
comparable amount for FY2015 was $179.6 million. The omnibus appropriations bill provides
the requested amount.
Congressional Research Service
12
FY2016 Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
Legacy Contractor Pensions
For many decades, the University of California (UC) operated Los Alamos and Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratories. Laboratory employees, as UC employees, could participate in
the UC pension plan. When the operation of the two labs was privatized, the contracts between
DOE and the new laboratory operators included provisions that mirrored the pension that lab staff
who were UC employees when the labs were privatized would have received had the labs
remained with UC. These pensions were larger than those provided to employees hired after
privatization. To make up the difference, NNSA paid into the pension plan for the UC employees.
For Weapons Activities, the FY2016 request was $283.9 million; the comparable enacted amount
for FY2015 was $307.1 million. For FY2016, H.R. 2028, as passed by the House, provided the
requested amount. (NNSA requested an additional amount for Legacy Contractor Pensions under
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.) The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the
requested amount, and the omnibus appropriations bill provided this amount. NNSA projects that
requests for this program will decline, falling to $87.4 million in FY2019 and FY2020.
Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Congressional Research Service
13
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.