[Senate Hearing 114-800]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:34 p.m. in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Alexander, Graham, Feinstein, and Udall.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
National Nuclear Security Administration
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL FRANK G. KLOTZ, U.S.
AIR FORCE (Retired), UNDER SECRETARY FOR
NUCLEAR SECURITY AND ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
BRIGADIER GENERAL STEPHEN L. DAVIS, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE,
PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR MILITARY
APPLICATIONS
ANNE HARRINGTON, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE
NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
ADMIRAL JAMES F. (FRANK) CALDWELL, JR., UNITED STATES NAVY,
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR OFFICE OF NAVAL
REACTORS
opening statement of senator lamar alexander
Senator Alexander. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development will please come to order.
As I was saying to Senator Feinstein, my co-chairman in
effect, both Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer were saying
yesterday that Senator McConnell hopes to begin the
appropriations process on the floor on April 18. Senator
Schumer said he intended to support having an appropriations
process, and the Democrats have all written Senator McConnell
saying they want one. It looks like everybody wants an
appropriations process this year, so we're hoping very much
that's possible. And Senator Feinstein and I will work with our
House committee chairs to try to make ours one of the first
bills that's available to the majority leader to bring to the
floor. We hope to do it in a bipartisan way. And if there are
controversial amendments, we hope those will be offered on the
floor of the Senate rather than in the committee.
This afternoon, we are having a hearing to review the
President's fiscal year 2017 budget request for the National
Nuclear Security Administration. Senator Feinstein and I will
each have an opening statement. I will then recognize each
Senator for up to 5 minutes for an opening statement,
alternating between the majority and the minority in the order
in which they arrived.
We will then turn to our witnesses for their testimony.
General Klotz will present testimony on behalf of the National
Nuclear Security Administration. And we'll include the full
written statements of all the witnesses in the record. After
General Klotz, Senators will then be recognized for 5 minutes
of questions each.
First, I would like to thank our witnesses for being here,
and also Senator Feinstein, an exceptional co-chairman of this
committee. We work together regardless of which party has the
majority and usually come up with a pretty good result for the
country.
Our witnesses today include Lieutenant General Frank Klotz,
Administrator of the NNSA (National Nuclear Security
Administration); Brigadier General S.L. Davis, Principal
Assistant Deputy Administrator for Military Applications; Ms.
Anne Harrington, Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation; and Admiral Frank Caldwell, Deputy
Administrator for Naval Reactors.
NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency within the Department of
Energy that's responsible for a vital mission, managing our
nuclear weapons stockpile, reducing global dangers posed by
weapons of mass destruction, and providing the Navy with safe
and effective nuclear power. This is the subcommittee's fourth
hearing this year on the President's budget request.
NNSA has an important national security mission, but faces
many challenges. We'll have to make some hard decisions on the
most important priorities.
The President's 2017 budget request is $12.9 billion, an
increase of 2.9 percent over the fiscal year 2016. The focus of
my questions today will be on four main areas: one, keeping
critical projects on time and on budget, that is a major
priority of Senator Feinstein and of mine; two, effectively
maintaining our nuclear weapons stockpile; three, supporting
our nuclear Navy; and four, maintaining our vital nuclear
workforce.
project oversight
NNSA is responsible for three of the largest construction
projects in the Federal Government: the Uranium Facility in
Tennessee, the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility in South Carolina;
and the Plutonium Facility in New Mexico. Combined, these
projects could cost more than $20 billion to build, and over
the past 4 years, Senator Feinstein and I have worked hard to
keep costs from skyrocketing. We want to make sure that hard-
earned taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and that these
projects are on time and on budget.
We have focused most of our oversight on the Uranium
Facility in Tennessee for the past 5 years. We asked for a Red
Team review headed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory Chief Thom
Mason to review the project, which recommended ways to get it
back on track. We said that the project had to be completed by
2025 with a cost of no greater than $6.5 billion and that the
design had to be at least 90 percent completed before we even
began construction of the nuclear facility. We urged the
Department to take aggressive steps to get costs under control
so we could meet these goals.
The facility is off to a good start, but there is a lot
more work to do. I am going to ask you more today about the
Uranium Facility, particularly about your schedule for
completing the design and when you anticipate construction can
begin.
I would also like to discuss the MOX Facility in South
Carolina. You have proposed that we stop construction of the
MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility and recommended that Congress
fund a different process called Dilute and Disposal. You've
said the Dilute and Disposal alternative will cost less,
actually a lot less, and get the material out of South Carolina
much sooner than if we continue to fund MOX.
General Klotz, I am particularly interested in your plan
for dealing with the 13 tons of plutonium that are currently in
South Carolina, and ask that you address this either in your
opening statement or questions.
effectively maintaining nuclear weapons
Another major part of your budget maintains our nuclear
weapons stockpile, and I want to make sure we're spending those
dollars effectively. The budget request includes $1.3 billion
to continue the four ongoing life extension programs, which fix
or replace components in weapons systems to make sure they're
safe and reliable. The work must be done, but life extension
programs are very expensive, so they need to be properly
managed. I will ask you about that today.
supporting our nuclear navy
Naval Reactors is responsible for all aspects of nuclear
power for our submarines and aircraft carriers. Naval Reactors
has a lot on its plate right now. They are designing a new
reactor core for the next class of submarines, refueling a
prototype reactor, and building a new spent fuel processing
facility. In addition, you have to support the day-to-day
operation of 73 submarines and 10 aircraft carriers, including
a total of 97 operating reactors. You have about the same
number of operating reactors that we have in the commercial
world.
The small nuclear reactors that Naval Reactors designs and
oversees have had an impeccable safety record for more than 60
years. There has, I believe, never been a reactor accident.
While life extension programs provide the opportunity to
maintain vital skills in many areas, now moving on to those,
they do not exercise all of the skills needed for a healthy
weapons program.
When I had the opportunity to talk to Admiral Caldwell
about the Naval Reactors program last week, he told me about
his technical base, the men and women who respond when our
ships are at sea. I would like to hear more today about that.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Lamar Alexander
We're here today to review the president's fiscal year 2017 budget
request for the National Nuclear Security Administration, a semi-
autonomous agency within the Department of Energy that is responsible
for managing our nuclear weapons stockpile, reducing global dangers
posed by weapons of mass destruction, and providing the Navy with safe
and effective nuclear power.
This is the Subcommittee's fourth hearing this year on the
president's budget request, and I look forward to hearing our
witnesses' testimony.
The National Nuclear Security Administration, or NNSA, has an
important national security mission, but faces many challenges. That's
why we need to do what we were sent here to do--to govern.
Like last year, we will have to make some hard decisions so we can
continue to fund the most important priorities.
The president's fiscal year 2017 budget request for the NNSA is
$12.9 billion, an increase of $357 million (or 2.9 percent) higher than
the fiscal year 2016 enacted level.
Today, I'd like to focus my questions on four main areas:
1) Keeping critical projects on time and on budget;
2) Effectively maintaining our nuclear weapons stockpile;
3) Supporting our nuclear Navy; and
4) Maintaining our vital nuclear workforce.
keeping critical projects on time and on budget
The NNSA is responsible for three of the largest construction
projects in the Federal government: the Uranium Processing Facility in
Tennessee; the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility in South Carolina; and the
Plutonium Facility in New Mexico.
Combined, these projects could cost more than $20 billion dollars
to build, and over the past 4 years, Senator Feinstein and I have
worked hard to keep costs from skyrocketing. We want to make sure hard-
earned taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and that these projects are on
time and on budget.
Senator Feinstein and I have focused much of our oversight on the
Uranium Processing Facility in Tennessee over the past 5 years.
We asked for a Red Team review of the project, which recommended
ways to get it back on track.
We said the project had to be completed by 2025 with a cost no
greater than $6.5 billion, and the design had to be at least 90 percent
completed before we began construction of the nuclear facilities. We
urged the Department to take aggressive steps to get costs under
control.
The Uranium Processing Facility is off to a good start, but there's
a lot more work to be done.
I'm going to ask you more today about the Uranium Processing
Facility, particularly about your schedule for completing the design
and when you anticipate construction can begin.
I'd also like to discuss the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility in South
Carolina. The NNSA has proposed that we stop construction of the MOX
Fuel Fabrication Facility and recommended that Congress fund a
different process, called Dilute and Disposal.
You have said that the Dilute and Disposal alternative will cost
less, and get the material out of South Carolina much sooner than it
would if we continue to fund MOX.
General Klotz, I am particularly interested in your plan for
dealing with the 13 tons of plutonium currently in South Carolina, and
ask that you address this in your opening statement.
effectively maintaining our nuclear weapons
Another major part of the NNSA's budget maintains our nuclear
weapons stockpile, and I want to make sure we are spending taxpayer
dollars effectively.
The budget request includes $1.3 billion to continue the four
ongoing life extension programs, which fix or replace components in
weapons systems to make sure they're safe and reliable.
This work must be done--but life extension programs are very
expensive, so they need to be properly managed.
I will ask you today whether you will be able to meet your
production deadlines on time and on budget.
supporting our nuclear navy
Naval Reactors is responsible for all aspects of nuclear power for
our submarines and aircraft carriers.
Naval Reactors has a lot on their plate right now--they are
designing a new reactor core for the next class of submarines,
refueling a prototype reactor, and building a new spent fuel processing
facility.
In addition, Naval Reactors supports the day-to-day operations of
73 submarines and 10 aircraft carriers--including a total of 97
operating reactors.
The small nuclear reactors that Naval Reactors designs and oversees
have had an impeccable safety record for more than 60 years; there has
never been a reactor accident.
maintaining our vital nuclear workforce
While life extension programs provide the opportunity to maintain
vital skills in many areas, they do not exercise all of the skills
needed for a healthy weapons program.
When I had the opportunity to talk to Admiral Caldwell about the
Naval Reactors program last week, he told me about his ``technical
base''--the men and women who respond when our nuclear ships at sea
have a problem.
I'd like to hear more from the witnesses today about the challenges
they face in maintaining the needed skills within their workforce, and
what they are doing to make sure they have the right skills to meet
their important missions.
Senator Alexander. With that, I would recognize Senator
Feinstein to make her opening statement.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
think you know how much I respect you. And to the panel, I want
to say welcome. And this is one of the best parts of working in
the Senate, that you can work with somebody you respect, that
you work out differences of opinion that he gives on some, I
give on some, and for some reason, it all works. I wish we
could do more of that.
So thank you, Senator Alexander.
As you said, NNSA's overall request is a 3 percent increase
in fiscal year 2016, but, and I want to talk about this for a
minute, the nonproliferation program sees a 7 percent decrease,
and I am a strong proponent of that program. Compared to 2010,
the fiscal year 2017 request for weapons is a $2.9 billion
increase. I think that's very difficult for me. The
nonproliferation program request is a $300 million decrease
from its peak in fiscal year 2012, General. The nonprogram is
down $500 million, while weapons program's budget continues to
climb. ``Why?'' I ask.
General, your appearance here today is 2 weeks before the
final Nuclear Security Summit, where 50 countries will gather
to discuss ways to further strengthen nuclear security measures
and cooperation. I think it was in Prague in 2009 that
President Obama committed to locking down all vulnerable
nuclear materials in 4 years. That time has passed. The
administration has made great strides toward that goal and has
further reduced the dangers of nuclear terrorism since that
time.
I'll give you a few examples: removal of over 3,800
kilograms of plutonium and highly enriched uranium; removal of
42,000 high-priority radioactive sources, such as cesium and
kobalt, that can be used in a dirty bomb; conversion of 23
reactors from use of highly enriched uranium to low-enriched
uranium; and installation of more than 400 fixed and mobile
detectors in 43 countries. I congratulate you, and that's very
important to me. And yet, even with these accomplishments,
nuclear material is still obtainable and attractive to
criminals and terrorists.
A recent article by the Center for Public Integrity brings
some information on nuclear smuggling out of the shadows. There
have been 20 reported nuclear material interdictions in Europe
and Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union. In some cases,
smugglers were attempting to move significant quantities of
highly enriched uranium, and in others, it appears to just be
small samples with the promise of bigger things. It has been
openly reported that a cache of highly enriched uranium went
missing in Russia after the end of the Cold War. The
substantial success in securing border crossings around Russia
is helping to prevent this material from making its way to the
United States. The worsening economy in Russia, the rise of the
Islamic State in particular, and I deal with a lot of that on
the Intelligence Committee, and the fear that one group or
another gets some form of dirty bomb, and the chaos spreading
from the Middle East into Europe tells me now is not the time
to let down our guard on nuclear security.
But on the weapons side of NNSA, all I see is unrestrained
growth. I understand that the nuclear weapons complex needs to
improve its infrastructure. No problem. NNSA reports a $3.2
billion facility maintenance backlog, and the $400 million
increase in its fiscal year 2017 budget request is largely
dedicated to halting the growth of that maintenance back
deficit, as I understand, and obviously, I think we both
support that.
But the budget for nuclear weapons just seems to keep
growing. A 45 percent head--excuse me--increase since 2001. I
almost said ``hedge'' because I very much believe that it's
very wasteful to have a hedge at 3 to 1, and one day we have to
have the courage to do something about that. But there is more
to come. Warhead life extension programs, construction of the
Uranium Processing Facility, the Plutonium Facility, the
reactor for the Ohio-class replacement submarine, will all
demand higher spending levels in the next 5 to 10 years, and
this doesn't include projects for which NNSA has not budgeted
for, such as new component manufacturing facilities or new
science facilities.
According to your budget request, spending on weapons is
projected to grow another $1.3 billion over the next 5 years to
$10.5 billion. I'm really going to have a great deal of trouble
supporting that. By comparison, the nonproliferation spending
is projected to grow only $300 million. Importantly, that
assumes that MOX, funded out of nonproliferation, is stopped,
deemed to be too costly to continue to proceed with. So the
question comes, What is the alternative and that cost?
In the area of warheads and new facilities, NNSA's
management record, candidly, although I think it's better, does
not inspire confidence. Rather, the history of cost growth and
schedule slippages suggests that even more money will be
required than currently projected. So where does it end and how
much is enough? Outside of MOX, I don't see tough choices being
made. I just see more money for weapons and less money for
everything else.
Since it met its 2013 goals for locking down nuclear
materials, NNSA has pushed out the goals and milestones for
their nonproliferation efforts. For example, work in securing
4,400 radiological facilities that was to be completed by 2022
now won't be done until 2033, obviously extended by 10 years.
In some cases, the work has become more technically and
diplomatically difficult, and we understand that, but it's also
true that the nonprobudget has seen a steady decline since
2012.
Now, I don't believe we should or can sacrifice our ongoing
efforts in nuclear security on the altar of our nuclear weapons
stockpile. So I look forward to discussing this issue with you
and our witnesses today. And I hope I can count on you to take
a measured and reasonable approach to these matters.
So, General, thank you, and I welcome you.
Senator Alexander. Senator Udall, would you like to make an
opening statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM UDALL
Senator Udall. Yes, just briefly. And I don't think I'll
take all my time, but I just want to welcome and greet General
Klotz for being here.
I really enjoyed visiting with you in my office within the
last week or so about many of the big issues facing the NNSA
and the other witnesses here today, Deputy Administrator
Harrington, Brigadier General Davis, and Admiral Caldwell.
Thank you for being here and thank you for your service to the
country. I think it's terrifically important the work that you
do. And as you know, New Mexico's two national labs are a
critical part of the NNSA's infrastructure and provide
indispensable support for your mission to keep the Nation's
stockpile safe, reliable, and secure.
At Sandia National Laboratory, they've hired 35 percent of
their current staff in the last 5 years to support the life
extension projects that are going on there. And at Los Alamos,
the lab is embarking on plans to revitalize Cold War era
infrastructure. And I couldn't agree more with both the
chairman and the co-chairman that we need to keep our costs
under control, but we also need to do the job right. I don't
think there's any doubt about that.
I'm going to focus my questions today on when we talk about
cost control, the big project they're working on at Sandia is
the B61. The B61, the trend has been to keep it within budget
and to do it on time, and I'm wondering, what are the lessons
there? Because I think that we have done a good job in that
respect.
And then I would like to ask about how much NNSA budgets
need to increase to address the aging stockpile. You all know
that that's an issue that's out there. And then there is a GAO
report on the plutonium infrastructure strategy, and they
raised some issues there, and I'm going to ask about that and
where we're headed on that plutonium infrastructure strategy.
All of this costs money. We need to keep the budgets under
control, but as I said, we need to do it right. And I thank you
again for your service.
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Senator Udall.
At this time, we'll turn to General Klotz, who will present
testimony on behalf of the National Nuclear Security
Administration.
General Klotz.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL FRANK G. KLOTZ
General Klotz. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, Senator
Udall, thank you for the opportunity to present the President's
fiscal year 2017 budget request for the Department of Energy's
National Nuclear Security Administration. We value this
committee's leadership in national security as well as its
robust and abiding support for the missions and the people of
NNSA.
As you rightly pointed out, our budget request, which
comprises more than 40 percent of DOE's budget, is $12.9
billion, an increase of nearly $357 million, or 2.9 percent,
over the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The budget request
continues the administration's unwavering commitment to NNSA's
important and enduring missions. These missions are defined in
the NNSA's Strategic Vision, which we released last year and
which is available on our website, and they include to maintain
a safe, secure, and effective nuclear weapons stockpile without
nuclear explosive testing, to prevent, counter, and respond to
the threat of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism, and
to support the capability of our nuclear-powered Navy to
protect American and allied interests around the world.
To succeed, NNSA must maintain crosscutting capabilities
that enable each of our core missions. These crosscuts focus on
advancing science, technology, and engineering, supporting our
people in modernizing our infrastructure, and developing a
management culture focused on safety, on security, and on
efficiency, adopting the best practices in use across the
government as well as in the commercial world.
The budget materials and briefings that we have provided
describe NNSA's major accomplishments in 2015 as well as the
underlying rationale for our budget proposal for fiscal year
2017.
Let me just briefly highlight a few of the points here.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS STOCKPILE
First and foremost, the United States has maintained, as I
said, a safe, secure, and effective nuclear weapons stockpile
without nuclear explosive testing now for over 20 years. As a
result of the funding provided by this Congress and supported
by this subcommittee, and the significant improvements NNSA has
made in program management over the past 2 to 3 years, all of
our life extension programs, or LEPs, and major alterations are
on schedule and within budget.
NNSA's science and technology base also continues to yield
critical modeling and simulation data and to deploy
increasingly capable high-performance computing in support of
stockpile stewardship. Last year, for example, the National
Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory increased
its shot rate, its experiment rate, from 191 in 2014 to 356 in
2015, an 86 percent increase. Our budget request also supports
the recapitalization of NNSA's aging research and production
infrastructure, most notably at the facilities where we perform
our major uranium, plutonium, tritium, and other commodity
operations. Of significance, NNSA completed the first sub-
project for the Uranium Processing Facility at Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, on time and millions of dollars under budget.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
This year's request for the defense nuclear
nonproliferation account, as has already been pointed out, is
6.8 percent lower than the fiscal 2016 enacted level, for two
reasons. First, prior year carryover balances are available to
execute several programs in this mission space. And secondly,
we propose terminating the Mixed Oxide Fuel, or MOX,
Fabrication Facility project.
While the administration remains firmly committed to
disposing of surplus weapons grade plutonium, it is clear from
independent analyses that the MOX fuel approach is
unsustainable given the enormous costs involved. The already
proven Dilution and Disposal alternative would enable the
plutonium to be disposed of decades sooner than the MOX
approach and at less than half the cost and with far fewer
risks. In fact, 4.8 metric tons of plutonium have already been
diluted and disposed of in this manner, demonstrating beyond
doubt the feasibility of this approach.
The new approach will enable us to be more responsible
stewards of taxpayer dollars while upholding our commitment to
dispose of surplus weapons grade plutonium more quickly. That's
why the President's fiscal year 2017 budget request proposes
that the Department pursue the Dilution and Disposal approach
as the path forward and begin termination of the MOX project.
In addition, the Department could dispose of all the
surplus plutonium in South Carolina using the Dilute and
Dispose approach under its current authorizations, getting the
plutonium out of the State decades earlier than under the MOX
approach.
NAVAL REACTORS PROGRAM
The request for our third appropriations, the Naval
Reactors program keeps pace with mission needs and continues
NNSA's commitment to three major initiatives: the Ohio-class
reactor plant system development, the Land-Based S8G Prototype
refueling overhaul in upstate New York; and the spent fuel
handling recapitalization project in Idaho. And, of course,
Admiral Caldwell is far better prepared than I to answer any
questions that you may have in this area.
MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE
For each of these missions, NNSA is driving improvements in
management and governance. For all of our programs, we have
instituted rigorous analyses of alternatives, defined clear
lines of authority and accountability for Federal and contract
program management, improved cost and schedule performance, and
ensure that Federal project directors and contracting officers
have the appropriate skill mix and professional certifications
to effectively manage NNSA's work. Our budget request for
Federal salaries and expenses reflects an increasing emphasis
on improving program and project management across all of our
mission pillars.
So in closing, the nuclear security enterprise continues to
make significant process--progress. Through disciplined careful
planning, consistent funding, and your continued strong
support, we believe we can make smart investments to build on
that progress and to meet new challenges in the future.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today, and we look forward to addressing your questions.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Frank G. Klotz
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the President's
fiscal year 2017 budget request for the Department of Energy's (DOE)
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). It is a pleasure to be
here this afternoon. We value this Committee's strong support for the
nuclear security mission, and for the people and institutions that are
responsible for executing it.
The President's fiscal year 2017 budget request for NNSA is $12.9
billion, this is an increase of $357.5 million or 2.9 percent over the
fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The request is approximately 43 percent
of the DOE's total budget, and 67 percent of DOE's total 050 budget.
The NNSA has a unique and special responsibility to maintain a
safe, secure, and effective nuclear weapons stockpile for as long as
nuclear weapons exist; to prevent, counter, and respond to evolving and
emerging nuclear proliferation and terrorism threats; to provide
nuclear propulsion to our Navy as it protects American and Allied
interests around the world; and to support our outstanding NNSA Federal
workforce. By supporting overall growth, this budget request represents
a strong endorsement of NNSA's vital and enduring missions, and is
indicative of the Administration's unwavering commitment to a strong
national defense.
NNSA's missions are accomplished through the hard work and
innovative spirit of a highly talented Federal and Management and
Operating (M&O) workforce committed to public service. To provide this
team the tools they need to carry out their complex and challenging
task, both now and in the future, we must continue to modernize our
scientific, technical, and engineering capabilities and infrastructure.
In doing so, we are mindful of our obligation to continually improve
our business practices, and to be responsible stewards of the resources
that Congress and the American people have entrusted to us.
The fiscal year 2017 budget request also reflects the close working
partnership between NNSA and the Department of Defense (DoD). NNSA
works closely with DoD to meet military requirements, support our
Nation's nuclear deterrence capabilities and modernize the nuclear
security enterprise. I would also note, that as in previous years, DoD
is carrying in its fiscal year 2017 budget request separate funding in
fiscal year 2018 and beyond that will be reallocated annually to NNSA's
Weapons Activities and Naval Reactors.
I want to thank the committee for its support of the fiscal year
2016 budget request and look forward to your continuing support in
fiscal year 2017. We have made some tough decisions and tradeoffs to
meet both military commitments and nuclear security priorities. Without
congressional support, modernization of our nuclear enterprise,
implementation of our long-term stockpile sustainment strategy, and
sustainment of our nonproliferation and prevention and response
capabilities could be at risk. The program we have proposed is highly
integrated and interdependent across the four accounts.
Details of the fiscal year 2017 budget request for the NNSA follow:
weapons activities appropriation
For the Weapons Activities account, the fiscal year 2017 budget
request is $9.2 billion, an increase of $396.2 million, or 4.5 percent
above the fiscal year 2016 enacted levels. This account provides funds
for the Defense Programs portfolio, which is responsible for all
aspects of the stockpile stewardship, management, and responsiveness
programs; the enterprise-wide infrastructure sustainment activities
managed by our Office of Safety, Infrastructure, and Operations; NNSA's
physical and cybersecurity activities; and the secure transportation of
nuclear materials.
Maintaining the Stockpile
Last year, the work of the science-based Stockpile Stewardship
Program (SSP) allowed the Secretaries of Energy and Defense to certify
to the President for the 20th time that the American nuclear weapons
stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable, without the need for
underground explosive nuclear testing. This achievement is made
possible each year by essential investments in state-of-the-art
diagnostic tools, high performance computing platforms, and modern
facilities, which are staffed by NNSA's world-class scientists,
engineers, and technicians.
For Directed Stockpile Work (DSW), the fiscal year 2017 budget
request is $3.3 billion, a decrease of $57.3 million, or 1.7 percent
below the fiscal year 2016 enacted levels. These reductions will not
restrict NNSA's ability to annually assess system performance and
reliability or maintain the schedule for Life Extension Programs (LEP).
The major LEPs are a fundamental part of this account. The $222.9
million requested for the W76-1 warhead LEP directly supports the Navy
and will keep the LEP on schedule and on budget to complete production
in fiscal year 2019. We continue to make good progress on the B61-12
LEP, which will consolidate four variants of the B61 gravity bomb and
will improve the safety and security of the oldest weapon system in the
U.S. nuclear arsenal. With the $616.1 million requested, we will remain
on schedule to deliver the First Production Unit (FPU) in fiscal year
2020.
NNSA is responsible for the refurbishment of the nuclear explosives
package and new bomb electronics, while the Air Force will provide the
tail kit assembly under a separate acquisition program. When fielded,
the B61-12 bomb will support both Air Force strategic long-range
nuclear-capable bombers and dual-capable fighter aircraft, providing
extended deterrence to our allies and partners, and allow retirement of
the last megaton class weapon in the inventory, the B83 gravity bomb.
In July 2015, we began Phase 6.2 (Feasibility Study and Design
Options) for the W80-4 cruise missile warhead LEP. The fiscal year 2016
budget request included $195 million to accelerate the FPU by 2 years
to fiscal year 2025, a decision made by the Nuclear Weapons Council
(NWC) in late 2014. The fiscal year 2015 budget request included $10
million to start the program. We had initially planned a ramp-up of
Phase 6.2 study activities beginning in fiscal year 2016 to support the
NWC FPU decision. However, as a result of the fiscal year 2016
continuing resolution, we were unable to begin the planned ramp-up
activities until just recently. Furthermore, because of the delay in
receiving fiscal year 2016 funding, the program cannot execute the full
fiscal year 2016 enacted amount this year. As a result, a significant
amount of the program's fiscal year 2016 funding will carry over into
fiscal year 2017. Consequently, the fiscal year 2017 budget request is
$25.3 million over the fiscal year 2016 budget request, rather than
$117 million over the fiscal year 2016 budget request, as previously
projected. While this delayed start will affect planned technology
maturation activities in Phase 6.2A (Design Definition and Cost Study),
we still fully expect to meet the planned FPU date in fiscal year 2025
to support the Air Force Long Range Stand Off (LRSO) program.
In fiscal year 2015, the NWC approved additional scope for the W88
Alteration (ALT) 370 to meet an emerging requirement. NNSA is now
accelerating the new Conventional High Explosive (CHE) refresh work to
match the original ALT schedule. As a result, we are synchronizing the
full program to transition seamlessly to the Production Engineering
phase in February 2017. In preparation for that phase transition, NNSA
will publish a baseline cost report by the end of this fiscal year.
This budget request reflects these efforts and includes $281.1 million
in fiscal year 2017 to support the FPU in fiscal year 2020.
Also within DSW, the fiscal year 2017 budget request includes $1.3
billion for Stockpile Systems and Stockpile Services. These programs
sustain the stockpile pursuant to the direction given in the
President's Nuclear Weapon Stockpile Plan (NWSP). In doing so, the
programs deploy unique skills, equipment, testers, and logistics to
enable the daily operations of the nation's nuclear deterrent.
Specifically, these programs produce and replace limited life
components (LLCs) such as neutron generators and gas transfer systems,
conduct maintenance, surveillance, and evaluations to assess weapons
reliability, detect and anticipate potential weapons issues such as the
recent CHE refresh issue mentioned above, and compile and analyze
information during the Annual Assessment process.
The pursuit and application of technological advancements to
enhance safety and security while reducing life cycle costs of the
stockpile runs through all of these activities. The development of
Integrated Surety Architectures enhancing transportation safety and
security is an example of these efforts.
Within DSW, the fiscal year 2017 budget request also includes
$577.8 million for the Strategic Materials account to maintain NNSA's
ability to produce the nuclear and other materials needed to support
the enduring stockpile. This program includes Uranium Sustainment,
Plutonium Sustainment, Tritium Sustainment, Domestic Uranium Enrichment
(DUE), lithium and other strategic materials. Funding for Uranium
Sustainment will enable enriched uranium operations in Building 9212, a
Manhattan Project-era production facility at the Y-12 National Security
Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to end in fiscal year 2025, and allow
the bulk of this obsolete building to shut down. The sustainment and
modernization of enriched uranium capabilities and the acceleration of
Area 5 de-inventory will reduce safety and mission risks in the near
term.
Plutonium Sustainment funds replacement and refurbishment of
equipment and the critical skills needed to meet the pit production
requirements as outlined in the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for fiscal year 2015.
Tritium Sustainment ensures the Nation's capability and capacity to
provide the tritium necessary to meet national security requirements,
either through production at Tennessee Valley Authority nuclear power
plants or by recovering and recycling tritium from returned gas
transfer systems.
The DUE program continues its efforts to ensure that we have the
necessary supplies of enriched uranium for a variety of national
security needs.
The fiscal year 2017 budget request also includes $69 million for
Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition, an increase of $16.9 million,
32.7 percent above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level, which includes
funds to support the President's goal to accelerate the dismantlement
rate of previously retired weapons by 20 percent. This will enable NNSA
to dismantle the weapons retired prior to fiscal year 2009 by 2021,
rather than the original goal of 2022. It will also result in increased
Management and Operating staff at both the Pantex Plant in Amarillo,
Texas and the Y-12 National Security Complex.
For Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), the fiscal
year 2017 budget request is $1.9 billion, an increase of $36.2 million,
2 percent above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. This includes
$663.2 million for the Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Program,
an increase of $31 million for the Advanced Technology Development and
Mitigation (ATDM) subprogram that supports high performance computing
on the path to exascale, and $87.1 million for Advanced Manufacturing
Development (AMD), a decrease of $43 million. The decrease reflects a
realignment from technology development investments to address higher
NNSA priorities. The budget request focuses on continued investment in
advanced manufacturing opportunities and improving the manufacturing
processes for components that support multiple weapons to maximize the
benefits of these investments. Advanced Manufacturing invests in
technologies that will reduce the time and cost of current
manufacturing methods, replaces obsolete processes, and supports
manufacturing developments for future weapon upgrades. Additive
Manufacturing, also known as 3-D printing, aids in developing and
manufacturing components for stockpile and weapon technology
applications. The overall RDT&E request reflects small increases for
the Science Program ($442.0 million, an increase of $18.9 million) to
achieve two subcritical experiments per year before the end of the
FYNSP, and begin alterations to U1a tunnel complex at Nevada to prepare
for these experiments: Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High
Yield Program ($523.9 million, an increase of $11.9 million) and the
Engineering Program ($139.5 million, an increase of $8.1 million).
The Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield program has
spearheaded ongoing improvements in management and operational
efficiencies at NNSA's major high energy density (HED) facilities,
including the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory (LLNL) in California and the OMEGA facility at the
University of Rochester in New York. In fiscal year 2015, NIF markedly
improved its shot-rate efficiency with over 350 key experiments
performed (compared to 191 in fiscal year 2014) in support of the SSP.
This level of effort represents an 85 percent increase over the
previous year and an 18 percent increase over its goal for 2015.
NNSA has taken major steps in high performance computing to deliver
on its missions and play a leading role to support the President's
Executive Order on the National Strategic Computing Initiative (NSCI).
In 2015, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and Sandia National
Laboratories (SNL) received the first hardware delivery for NNSA's next
generation high performance computer, Trinity. This computer will
initially have eight times more applications performance than the Cielo
machine it is replacing. NNSA also continued its CORAL collaboration
with LLNL, the DOE Office of Science national laboratories at Oak Ridge
and Argonne, IBM, and other vendors. CORAL will help develop next
generation computing platforms to dramatically improve our ability to
run increasingly complex codes and will be a significant step on the
path to exascale computing.
NNSA collaborates with the DOE Office of Science while making these
much needed investments in exascale computing. The fiscal year 2017
budget request includes $95 million from NNSA for the development of
capable exascale systems.
Defense Programs also maintains the vitality of the broader
National Security Enterprise. An important aspect of this effort is
investing in Laboratory-, Site- and Plant-Directed Research and
Development (LDRD/PDRD). Independent reviews have consistently affirmed
the importance of the program to the long-term vitality of the labs.
LDRD/PDRD provides basic research funding to foster innovation and to
attract and retain young scientific and technical talent and is
critical to the long-term sustainment of our national laboratories.
Congressional support is essential to ensuring that we have both the
workforce and the new developments necessary to support the nation's
security into the future.
Improving Safety, Operations and Infrastructure
NNSA's ability to achieve its mission is dependent upon safe and
reliable infrastructure. The age and condition of NNSA's infrastructure
will, if not addressed, put the mission, the safety of our workers, the
public, and the environment at risk. More than half of NNSA's
facilities are over 40 years old while 30 percent of them date back to
the Manhattan Project era. The fiscal year 2017 budget request for
Infrastructure and Operations is $2.7 billion, an increase of $442.8
million, 19.4 percent above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. This
funding will help NNSA modernize and upgrade aging infrastructure and
address safety and programmatic risks through strategic investments in
both general purpose infrastructure and program-specific capabilities
that directly support our nuclear weapons and nonproliferation
programs.
To support critical programmatic activities, we are making
important strides in recapitalizing our aging infrastructure and
capabilities. In fiscal year 2015, NNSA funded new and continuing
projects to enhance or replace programmatic capabilities and address
the risks posed by the aging infrastructure. NNSA's investment in these
projects is vital to the revitalization of the NNSA enterprise. The
fiscal year 2017 budget request provides funding for more than 70
recapitalization projects. The request will also support general
purpose infrastructure and program-specific capabilities through Line
Item Construction projects. These projects include, for example, the
Uranium Processing Facility (UPF), the Chemistry and Metallurgy
Research Replacement (CMRR) project, the U1a Complex Enhancements
Project (UCEP) in support of the Enhanced Capabilities for Subcritical
Experiments (ECSE) portfolio, the Albuquerque Complex Project to
replace the current inadequate facilities, and a project to expand the
electrical distribution system at LLNL.
One of the most worrisome of the NNSA infrastructure challenges is
the excess facilities that pose risks to our workers, the environment,
and the mission. While many of these facilities will ultimately be
transferred to the DOE Office of Environmental Management for
disposition, NNSA is focusing on reducing the risk where it can. In
fiscal year 2015, NNSA successfully demolished our second non-process
contaminated building at Y-12 within the past two calendar years. The
fiscal year 2017 budget request supports a number of activities to
continue to address excess facilities. These activities include the
transition of the Kansas City Bannister Federal Complex to the private
sector for environmental remediation and redevelopment, risk reduction
activities at Alpha-5 and Beta-4 at Y-12--both of which are highly
process-contaminated--and disposition of more uncontaminated facilities
across the NNSA enterprise.
Our Secure Transportation Asset (STA) program provides safe, secure
movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear material, and weapon
components to meet projected DOE, DoD, and other customer requirements.
The fiscal year 2017 budget request of $282.7 million includes an
increase of $45.6 million, 19.2 percent above the fiscal year 2016
enacted levels, to continue asset modernization and workforce
capability initiatives. These initiatives include: (1) restoration of
Federal agent strength levels to meet the goal of 370; (2) the
Safeguards Transporter (SGT) Risk Reduction Initiatives to manage the
SGT beyond its design life; (3) development and testing of the selected
alternative for the SGT replacement, the Mobile Guardian Transporter
(MGT); and (4) replacement of vehicles and tractors.
The Office of Defense Nuclear Security (DNS) develops and
implements sound security programs to protect Special Nuclear Material
(SNM), people, information, and facilities throughout the nuclear
security enterprise. The fiscal year 2017 budget request is $670.1
million, a decrease of $12.8 million, or 1.9 percent below the fiscal
year 2016 the enacted level of $682.9 million due to one-time dedicated
increases in fiscal year 2016. After adjusting for an fiscal year 2016
one-time $30 million designated plus up and $13 million dedicated line
item construction amounts for each year, the remaining fiscal year 2017
operating request of $657.1 million is an increase of $17.2 million, or
2.7 percent above the fiscal year 2016 enacted operating level of
$639.9 million. The request manages risk among important competing
demands as NNSA continues to face the challenges associated with an
aging physical security infrastructure that must be effectively
addressed in the coming years. To this end, DNS is conducting a Site
Condition Review (SCR) of the physical security systems at all
locations to facilitate the development of an enterprise-wide security
systems upgrade and refresh strategy. This effort will identify and
manage current and future security improvements and upgrades on a 10-
year planning cycle and includes determining the condition of critical
security equipment and infrastructure. A final report of this effort
will provide DOE/NNSA leadership and Congressional stakeholders with
consolidated and up-to-date information to enable informed decisions
for fiscal planning and programming.
The SCR is being conducted within the context of important
organizational improvements and management strategies published in the
June 2015 Security Roadmap. The document establishes a clear vision and
path forward to correcting identified security issues and promoting
sustained performance within the NNSA security program. The Security
Roadmap is a multi-year effort that implements key recommendations for
improvement identified in past assessments; it includes a total of 57
strategic initiatives covering culture, process, infrastructure, and
workforce challenges. As of the end of 2015, DNS has completed six of
the initiatives and is currently working on another 20 initiatives. The
remaining 31 initiatives are pending formal initiation.
For Information Technology and Cybersecurity, the fiscal year 2017
budget request is $176.6 million, an increase of $19 million, or 12.1
percent above fiscal year 2016 enacted levels. This increase will fund
much needed improvement to the Information Technology and Cybersecurity
program, including Continuous Diagnostic and Mitigation (CDM),
Telecommunications Security, infrastructure upgrades for the Enterprise
Secure Computing Network (ESN), Public Key Infrastructure (PKI), Energy
Sciences Network (ESnet) program, and an increased Information
Technology budget. This cybersecurity program continuously monitors
enterprise wireless and security technologies (e.g., identity,
credential, and access management) to meet a wide range of security
challenges. In fiscal year 2017, NNSA plans to continue the
recapitalization of the Enterprise Secure Network, modernize the
cybersecurity infrastructure, implement the Identity Control and Access
Management project at NNSA Headquarters and site elements, and
implement all Committee on National Security Systems and PKI
capabilities.
defense nuclear nonproliferation appropriation
The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN), fiscal year 2017 budget
request is $1.8 billion, a decrease of $132.4 million, 6.8 percent
below the fiscal year 2016 enacted levels. This appropriation covers
NNSA's nuclear threat reduction mission. DNN addresses the entire
nuclear threat spectrum by helping to prevent the acquisition of
nuclear weapons or weapon-usable materials, technologies, and
expertise, countering efforts to acquire such weapons, materials, and
technologies, and responding to nuclear and radiological incidents. The
fiscal year 2017 budget request funds two mission areas under the DNN
appropriation: the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program and the
Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response (NCTIR) Program.
Nonproliferation Efforts
NNSA made significant progress in nuclear threat reduction in 2015.
Working with foreign partners, the Office of Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation removed approximately 170 kilograms of highly enriched
uranium (HEU) and plutonium from several civilian sites; successfully
down- blended additional HEU to achieve a cumulative total of 150
metric tons of U.S. excess, weapons-usable HEU (approximately 6,000
nuclear weapons worth of material); recovered more than 100,000 curies
of disused or orphaned radioactive material; ensured the United States
remains on track to fulfill the commitments made at the 2014 Nuclear
Security Summit; and supported the Secretary of Energy's efforts to
develop the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) by providing
scientific expertise and technical options to the United States
negotiating team.
The Material Management and Minimization (M\3\) program provides an
integrated approach to addressing the threat posed by nuclear materials
through a full cycle of materials management and minimization. The
primary objective of the program is to achieve permanent threat
reduction by minimizing and, when possible, eliminating weapons-usable
nuclear material around the world. The fiscal year 2017 budget request
is $341.1 million, an increase of $24.5 million, 7.7 percent above the
fiscal year 2016 enacted levels. This funding increase will accelerate
reactor conversions in Kazakhstan and in the United States, as well as
initiate the critical decision process to support the dilute and
dispose program for domestic plutonium disposition.
The Global Material Security (GMS) program works with partner
nations to increase the security of vulnerable nuclear and radiological
materials and improve their ability to detect, interdict, and
investigate illicit trafficking of these materials. The fiscal year
2017 budget request for this program is $337.1 million, a decrease of
$89.6 million, 21 percent below the fiscal year 2016 enacted level.
This decrease is possible because GMS is completing its work to protect
the remaining International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Category I
radiological sources in the United States to meet our 2014 Nuclear
Security Summit commitment, and because GMS is committed to reducing
its prior year carryover balances.
The Nonproliferation and Arms Control (NPAC) program supports the
nonproliferation and arms control regimes by developing and
implementing programs to strengthen international nuclear safeguards;
control the spread of nuclear and dual-use material, equipment,
technology and expertise; verify nuclear reductions and compliance with
nonproliferation and arms control treaties and agreements; and address
other nonproliferation and arms control challenges. The fiscal year
2017 budget request will fund safeguards and export control activities,
including efforts specifically in support of JCPOA implementation. This
funding also supports statutorily mandated activities such as technical
reviews of export licenses and interdiction cases, technical support
for the negotiation and implementation of civil nuclear cooperation
agreements (123 Agreements), and upgrades to the 10 CFR 810
authorization process. The fiscal year 2017 budget request for this
program is $124.7 million, a decrease of $5.5 million, 4.2 percent
below the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. This decrease primarily
reflects a return to baseline funding following the one-time increase
of $3.5 million by Congress in the fiscal year 2016 budget for
improvements in the export control process, as well as cost-savings in
export licensing activities achieved through operational efficiencies.
The DNN Research and Development (DNN R&D) program supports
innovative unilateral and multi-lateral technical capabilities to
detect, identify, and characterize (1) foreign nuclear weapons
programs, (2) illicit diversion of special nuclear materials, and (3)
nuclear detonations. To meet national and Departmental nuclear security
requirements, DNN R&D leverages the unique facilities and scientific
skills of DOE, academia, and industry to perform research, including
counterterrorism-related R&D. The fiscal year 2017 budget request for
this program is $393.9 million, a $25.4 million or 6.1 percent decrease
below fiscal year 2016 enacted levels. The decrease in funding reflects
projected savings resulting from a reduction in planned activities for
arms control-related R&D and a return to the baseline Nuclear
Detonation Detection (NDD) program after development of an initial
mitigation path for supply chain interruptions.
Nonproliferation Construction consolidates construction costs for
DNN projects. Currently, the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) is
the only project in this program; however, the fiscal year 2017 budget
request terminates the MOX project. The Department will complete pre-
conceptual design for the dilute and dispose approach to establish
Critical Decision-0 (CD-0), Approve Mission Need, and begin conceptual
design in late fiscal year 2017. The fiscal year 2017 budget request of
$270 million will be used to bring an orderly and safe closure of the
MFFF. The scope and costs will be refined in subsequent budget
submissions when the termination plan for the MFFF project is approved.
Nuclear Counterterrorism and Emergency Operations
DOE has adopted an enterprise-wide approach to strengthen overall
preparedness to respond to a broad spectrum of potential emergencies.
These emergencies include natural phenomena, such as adverse weather
events or earthquakes, and man-made events, such as accidents or acts
of terrorism. To better accomplish this mission, in November 2015, NNSA
reorganized the Office of Emergency Operations and the Office of
Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation.
Both of these organizations are supported under the Nuclear
Counterterrorism and Incident Response (NCTIR) Program. In fiscal year
2016, the NCTIR program transitioned to the DNN account in order to
align all NNSA funding to prevent, counter, and respond to nuclear
proliferation and terrorism. The fiscal year 2017 budget request
includes $271.9 million to support the NCTIR program, an increase of
$37.5 million, 16 percent above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level.
Within NCTIR, NNSA continues to work domestically and around the world
to prepare for and improve our ability to respond to radiological or
nuclear incidents.
Our counterterrorism and counterproliferation programs are part of
broader U.S. Government efforts assessing the threat of nuclear
terrorism and to develop technical countermeasures. The scientific
knowledge generated under this program ensures that NNSA's technical
expertise on nuclear threat devices, including improvised nuclear
devices (INDs), supports and informs broader U.S. Government nuclear
security policy and guides nuclear counterterrorism and
counterproliferation efforts, including interagency nuclear forensics
and DoD contingency planning.
NNSA's emergency response teams must deploy and respond with the
most up to date equipment. The current equipment is aging, increasing
maintenance expenses, and has started to impact NNSA's ability to
perform its emergency response mission. The Radiological Assistance
Program (RAP) remains the nation's premier first-response resource to
assess a radiological incident and advise decision-makers on necessary
steps to minimize hazards, but its effectiveness is beginning to be
compromised by obsolete equipment. To ensure that NNSA is able to
execute its radiological emergency response mission, RAP's equipment
must be recapitalized regularly. Additionally, NNSA is acquiring state-
of-the-art, secure, deployable communications systems that are
interoperable with our Federal Bureau of Investigation and DoD mission
partners, ensuring decision makers receive real-time technical
recommendations to mitigate nuclear terrorist threats.
The Office of Emergency Operations is now aligned to focus on its
core Department-wide all- hazards and complex-wide emergency management
mission. The fiscal year 2017 budget request for this office is $34.7
million, an increase of $9.6 million, or 38 percent above the fiscal
year 2016 enacted level. This will improve the emergency management
system through an enterprise-wide approach that effectively increases
the Department's all-hazards emergency preparedness and response
capability during complex, cascading, or enduring incidents, and more
effectively calls upon and leverages the assets, resources, and skills
across the DOE complex. The Emergency Operations Center (EOC) will
continue to be the 24/7/365 single-point-of-contact for Departmental
and interagency notifications regarding situations requiring
centralized management such as, national emergencies, heightened
international tension, Departmental emergencies, natural disasters, or
acts of terrorism. The program also manages the Emergency
Communications Network, and Continuity Programs for all of DOE,
including NNSA. The Office of Emergency Operations will continue to
work within the DOE to develop plans to replace the existing EOC and to
improve the Department's capabilities to respond to emergencies.
naval reactors appropriation
Advancing Naval Nuclear Propulsion
NNSA supports the U.S. Navy's ability to protect and defend
American interests across the globe. The Naval Reactors Program remains
at the forefront of technological developments in naval nuclear
propulsion and ensures a commanding edge in warfighting capabilities by
advancing new technologies and improvements in naval reactor
performance and reliability.
In 2015, Naval Reactors enabled U.S. nuclear powered warships to
operate for another year safely and effectively, steaming more than two
million miles in support of national security missions. Initial reactor
start-up was achieved in the lead reactor plant of pre-commissioning
unit (PCU) Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), the first new design aircraft
carrier propulsion plant in 40 years. This historic milestone
represents the culmination of almost 20 years of dedicated and
sustained effort by Naval Reactors and its field activities, our
Department of Energy laboratories, nuclear industrial base suppliers,
the Navy design team and the nuclear shipbuilders. This is the first
step in fully testing the integrated operations of the propulsion
plant, culminating in sea trials this spring. Finally, we continued our
reactor plant design and reactor core manufacturing development efforts
in support of the new design Ohio-class Replacement reactor plant,
including the life-of-ship core.
The Naval Reactors fiscal year 2017 budget request is $1.42
billion, an increase of $45 million, 3.2 percent above the fiscal year
2016 enacted level. In addition to supporting today's operational
fleet, the requested funding will enable Naval Reactors to deliver
tomorrow's fleet by funding three national priority projects, and
recruiting and retaining a highly skilled work force committed to the
Navy and the nation. The projects include (1) continuing design of the
new reactor plant for the replacement of the Ohio-class SSBN, which
will feature a life-of-ship core and electric drive; (2) refueling a
Research and Training Reactor in New York to facilitate Ohio-class
Replacement reactor development efforts and provide 20 more years of
live reactor based training for fleet operators; and (3) building a new
spent fuel handling facility in Idaho that will facilitate long term,
reliable processing and packaging of spent nuclear fuel from aircraft
carriers and submarines.
Naval Reactors has requested funding in fiscal year 2017 to support
these projects, and to fund necessary reactor technology development,
equipment, construction, maintenance, and modernization of critical
infrastructure and facilities. By employing a small but high-performing
technical base, the teams at our four Program sites--the Bettis Atomic
Power Laboratory in Pittsburgh, the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory and
Kesselring Site in greater Albany, and our spent nuclear fuel
facilities in Idaho--we can perform the research and development,
analysis, engineering and testing needed to support today's fleet at
sea and develop future nuclear- powered warships. Importantly, our labs
perform the technical evaluations that enable Naval Reactors to
thoroughly assess emergent issues and deliver timely responses that
ensure nuclear safety and maximize operational flexibility. This
technical base supports more than 15,000 nuclear-trained Navy sailors,
who safely maintain and operate the 98 nuclear propulsion plants in the
fleet 24 hours per day, 365 days per year around the globe. It will
also facilitate delivery, as directed by Congress, of our conceptual
plan for potential naval application of low enriched uranium.
nnsa federal salaries and expenses appropriation
The NNSA Federal Salaries and Expenses (FSE) fiscal year 2017
budget request is $412.8 million, an increase of $49.1 million, 13.5
percent above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The fiscal year 2017
budget request provides funding for 1,715 full-time equivalents (FTE)
and support expenses needed to meet mission requirements. We are
actively engaged in hiring to that number in a thoughtful and strategic
manner. The fiscal year 2017 budget request will support 1,715 FTEs, an
increase of 60 FTEs (25 above the authorized 1,690) above the
anticipated number of FTEs in fiscal year 2016, and request an
additional 25 for a total of 1,740 FTEs in fiscal year 2018 and the
outyears. The exact number of FTEs will be determined following a
detailed staffing review. It also provides for a 1.3 percent cost of
living increase and a 5.5 percent increase for benefit escalation. In
addition, the request provides funding for additional Federal
Background Investigations for security clearances and provides
additional funding to the Department's Working Capital Fund, primarily
for Office of Personnel Management (OPM) credit monitoring and the
Department's accounting systems (iMANAGE).
In fiscal year 2017, NNSA will continue its efforts to meet current
and future workforce needs by analyzing how evolving missions are
affecting job requirements. Reshaping of the workforce over the next
several years will be essential, including identifying the right
staffing size and skill sets and implementing professional development
plans now and in the future. NNSA will also continue to streamline its
operations, particularly in travel and support services, to provide a
lean and efficient organization.
management and performance
To enhance our ability to carry out our mission and execute this
budget request, we will continue to focus on improving our project
management and cost estimating capabilities. In keeping with the
Secretary of Energy's increased focus on Management and Performance,
NNSA is committed to managing its operations, contracts and costs in an
effective and efficient manner. The NNSA's Office of Acquisition and
Project Management (APM) is driving continued improvement in contract
and project management practices. APM is leading NNSA's effort to
institute rigorous analyses of alternatives, provide clear lines of
authority and accountability for Federal and contractor program and
project management, improve cost and schedule performance, and ensure
Federal Project Directors and Contracting Officers with the appropriate
skill mix and professional certifications are managing NNSA's work.
NNSA participates in the Secretary of Energy's Project Management Risk
Committee as a means to institutionalize and share best practices
across the Department. NNSA established the Office of Project
Assessments, reporting directly to the Principal Deputy Administrator,
ensuring senior leadership visibility and accountability throughout the
Enterprise for project performance. This office generated $33 million
in cost avoidances as a result of their independent project peer
reviews.
Since 2011, NNSA has delivered approximately $1.4 billion in
projects, a portion of NNSAs total project portfolio, $70 million (or 5
percent) under original budget. Significant examples in the last year
include the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) Site Readiness
Subproject, which delivered $20 million under budget; Y-12's Nuclear
Facility Risk Reduction Project, which delivered $6 million under
budget and 11 months ahead of schedule; and LANL's Transuranic Waste
Facility Project, which is on track to complete $3 million under
budget. Using the Department's best practices, the UPF and Chemistry
and Metallurgy Research Replacement Facility Projects were restructured
into smaller more manageable subprojects, significantly reducing
project delivery risk.
NNSA is committed to encouraging competition and increasing the
universe of qualified contractors, by streamlining its major
acquisition processes. The most significant example was the competitive
award of the Kansas City National Security Campus M&O contract, awarded
without protest, saving taxpayers $150 million and increasing the use
of small businesses. As an affirmation of the quality of NNSA's
acquisition management team, only four out of 103 competitive
procurements were protested, with NNSA winning all protests. Finally,
NNSA exceeded its small business goal by over 20 percent, awarding $233
million to small business in fiscal year 2015.
NNSA will continue to focus on delivering timely, best-value
acquisition solutions for all of our programs and projects. NNSA will
use a tailored approach to contract structures and incentives that is
appropriate for the unique missions and risks at each site. Our M&O
contractors are responsible for disparate activities, ranging from
research and development to industrial production. Accordingly, we will
work to develop the right incentives for each circumstance and for each
of our contracts.
cost estimating and program evaluation
The Office of Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation (CEPE)
continues to develop its capabilities to provide trusted independent
cost and resource analysis of NNSA's programs and projects. As detailed
in its implementation plan, the number of CEPE Federal staff will grow
from a target of 15 in fiscal year 2016 to 18 in fiscal year 2017. CEPE
will conduct independent cost estimates on the B61-12 LEP and W88 Alt
370 in fiscal year 2016 and the W80-4 LEP in fiscal year 2017. CEPE is
also institutionalizing best practices for analysis of alternatives and
leads the corporate process to build the NNSA budget.
conclusion
The NNSA performs vital activities at home and throughout the world
in support of the nuclear security mission. Its success in addressing
21st century challenges hinges upon the technology, capabilities, and
infrastructure entrusted to the organization.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
______
Prepared Statement of Admiral James F. Caldwell
A strong Navy is crucial to the security of the United States. Navy
warships are deployed around the world every hour of every day to
provide a credible ``forward presence.'' With over 45 percent of the
Navy's major combatants being nuclear powered, including 10 aircraft
carriers, 14 ballistic missile submarines, 55 attack submarines, and 4
guided missile submarines--it is vital that these ships are ready when
and where our Nation needs them. In addition to supporting these
nuclear powered combatants, Naval Reactors has also safely maintained
and operated two nuclear powered land-based prototypes--both over 38
years old--to conduct research and development and two Moored Training
Ships--both over 51 years old--the oldest operating pressurized water
reactors (PWRs) in the world. These land-based prototypes, Moored
Training Ships, and Naval Nuclear Power Training Command train over
3000 sailors per year to operate our naval nuclear propulsion plants.
Our ballistic missile submarine force remains on patrol, marking
over 60 years of peacekeeping capability through strategic deterrence.
The Navy had 34 submarine deployments and 26 strategic deterrent
patrols during 2015. In addition, at any given time, there were always
at least 56 of 71 submarines deployed or on stand-by to deploy within a
few days. Our carriers, USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) and USS Theodore
Roosevelt (CVN 71) completed successful deployments to the Central
Command area of responsibility, and the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76)
turned over with the USS George Washington (CVN 73) to serve as the
forward-deployed carrier in Japan.
This past year, we also saw the christening of the attack submarine
PCU Illinois (SSN 786) and keel laying for the PCU Colorado (SSN 788)
and PCU Indiana (SSN 789), our fifteenth and sixteenth Virginia-class
submarines. We've also added another attack submarine to our force by
commissioning USS John Warner (SSN 785), and began a program that
delivers two Virginia-class submarines annually. In 2015, we laid the
keel for the second Ford-Class CVN, PCU John F. Kennedy (CVN 79). We
currently have 12 submarines and one next generation aircraft carrier
in various phases of construction at our shipyards. Initial reactor
start-up was achieved in the lead reactor plant of PCU Gerald R. Ford
(CVN 78), the first new design aircraft carrier propulsion plant in 40
years. This historic milestone represents the culmination of almost 20
years of dedicated and sustained effort by Naval Reactors and its field
activities, our Department of Energy laboratories, nuclear industrial
base suppliers, the Navy design team and the nuclear shipbuilders. This
is the first step in fully testing the integrated operations of the
propulsion plant, culminating in sea trials this spring. Finally, we
continued our reactor plant design and reactor core manufacturing
development efforts to support of the new design Ohio-class Replacement
reactor plant, including the life-of-ship core.
The firm support of this subcommittee last year enabled safe
operation of the fleet, Naval Reactors mandatory oversight, and
continued progress on key projects. Naval Reactors' budget request for
fiscal year 2017 will continue this work. The funding request is for
$1.420 billion, an increase of $45 million (3 percent) over the fiscal
year 2016 enacted funding level. In addition to supporting today's
operational fleet, the requested funding will enable Naval Reactors to
deliver tomorrow's fleet by funding three national priority projects
and recruiting and retaining a highly skilled work force committed to
the Navy and the nation. The projects are:
--Continuing to design the new reactor plant for the replacement of
the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine, which will feature
a life-of-ship core and electric drive;
--Refueling a Research and Training Reactor in New York, to
facilitate Ohio-class Replacement reactor development efforts
and provide 20 more years of live reactor based training for
the fleet operators; and
--Building a new spent fuel handling facility in Idaho that will
facilitate long term, reliable processing and packaging of
spent nuclear fuel from aircraft carriers and submarines.
Naval Reactors has requested funding in fiscal year 2017 to support
these projects, and to fund necessary reactor technology development,
equipment, construction, maintenance, and modernization of critical
infrastructure and facilities. By employing a small but high-performing
technical base, the teams at our four Program sites--the Bettis Atomic
Power Laboratory in Pittsburgh, the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory and
Kesselring Site in greater Albany, and our spent nuclear fuel
facilities in Idaho--we can perform the research and development,
analysis, engineering and testing needed to support today's fleet at
sea and develop future nuclear-powered warships. Importantly, our labs
perform the technical evaluations that enable Naval Reactors to
thoroughly assess emergent issues and deliver timely responses that
ensure nuclear safety and maximize operational flexibility. This
technical base supports more than 15,000 nuclear-trained Navy sailors,
who safely maintain and operate the 97 nuclear propulsion plants in the
fleet 24 hours per day, 365 days per year around the globe. It will
also facilitate delivery, as directed by Congress, of our conceptual
plan for potential naval application of low enriched uranium.
The requested increase in funding is also required to support the
planned ramp up of design efforts for the new reactor plant for the
Ohio-class SSBN Replacement--the Navy's number one acquisition
priority. Providing unparalleled stealth, endurance, and mobility, our
ballistic missile submarine force has delivered more than 60 years of
continuous at-sea deterrence, and continues to be the most survivable
leg of the nuclear triad. Ohio-class Replacement SSBN activity this
year includes reactor plant design and component development to support
procurement of long lead components starting in fiscal year 2019.
Progress in these areas in fiscal year 2017 maintains schedule
alignment with the Navy as the program moves forward to construction
start in fiscal year 2021 while retiring technical risk and targeting
cost reduction.
Related to Ohio-class Replacement and the Program's training needs,
the fiscal year 2017 budget request will support the land-based
prototype refueling overhaul at the Kesselring Site in upstate New
York. In fiscal year 2017, Naval Reactors will continue the core
manufacturing work needed for the refueling overhaul, which will also
enable timely construction of the life-of-ship core for Ohio-class
Replacement. Further, plant service-life engineering design will be
completed in fiscal year 2017 to ensure that the land-based prototype
overhaul, performed concurrently with refueling, supports 20 additional
years of research, development and training.
The Naval Reactors fiscal year 2017 budget request also contains
funds to continue the Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project.
After many years of funding reductions, Naval Reactors greatly
appreciates Congressional support for this much needed project in
fiscal year 2016, where we received the full request of $86 million.
Congressional support in 2016 enabled progress, design, and planning
for site preparations and long lead material procurements in fiscal
year 2017. We will use the $100 million requested in fiscal year 2017
to finalize key facility and equipment requirements and advance
facility design to support establishing the Performance Baseline in
fiscal year 2018 and the start of construction in fiscal year 2019.
Continued Congressional support will help ensure that the facility in
Idaho is ready to receive spent nuclear fuel from the fleet in fiscal
year 2025. Because the new facility's capabilities are required to
support aircraft carrier refuelings and defuelings, any delay to the
project schedule would require procurement of additional shipping
containers to temporarily store naval spent nuclear fuel at a cost of
approximately $150 million for each year the project is delayed.
At the requested funding level, Naval Reactors can safely maintain
and oversee the nuclear-powered fleet. Naval Reactors can also continue
to advance the Ohio-class Replacement and Land-based Prototype
Refueling Overhaul, continue progress on the Spent Fuel Handling
Recapitalization Project, and meet our environmental responsibilities.
Naval Reactors is committed to executing our projects on time and
on budget, and continuing the search for the safest and most cost
effective way to support the nuclear fleet. I respectfully urge your
support for aligning funding allocations with the fiscal year 2017
budget request.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, General Klotz.
We will now begin a round of questions.
URANIUM PROCESSING FACILITY
I want to ask about the big construction projects. And let
me take just a minute on the Uranium Facility before I go to
MOX. When do you expect the design to be 90 percent complete?
General Klotz. We expect the design for the project to be
90 percent complete at the--towards the end of next year, 2017.
Senator Alexander. So that means you would expect to begin
construction of the Uranium Facility toward the end of 2017?
General Klotz. We might not actually begin construction at
that time. I would have to give you a specific time in terms of
which we actually begin construction, but as you know, because,
as you rightly pointed out, we meet routinely with you,
Senator, and with Senator Feinstein, to go over that. And, in
fact, our staffs are working to schedule, as soon as we get
past the budget hearings, a discussion on that. But as you
know, we have broken the overall project up into several sub-
projects, one of which the site rating sub-project, as I
mentioned in the opening statement, was completed last year,
February of last year, for $65 million, which was $20 million
under the budget.
Senator Alexander. Well, I congratulate you on that, and I
think it's important to point out that over the last 5 years
that project has gone from skyrocketing out of control to a
managed process. Are you on a path that you believe is on time
and on budget, meaning no more than $6.5 billion by 2025?
General Klotz. Yes, sir. As recommended by the Red Team,
chaired by Dr. Thom Mason, the director of Oak National
Laboratory, we are implementing every one of the
recommendations in that, and we are going to deliver that
facility at $6.5 billion by 2025.
MIXED OXIDE FUEL FABRICATION FACILITY
Senator Alexander. Since we're talking about billions,
let's go to MOX. You said the Dilute and Dispose procedure
could be less than half the cost of the current MOX procedure.
What kind of dollars are we talking about?
General Klotz. We have conducted several reviews over the
past year, one by another Red Team chaired by Dr. Mason, of Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, and two congressionally mandated
independent assessments by The Aerospace Corporation.
Consistently these reviews have concluded that the projected
life-cycle cost of the MOX fuel approach for plutonium
disposition will be in the range of $30 to $50 billion, and
possibly even higher, and will require approximately $800
million to $1 billion annually for decades to come for the life
of the MOX fuel program.
Senator Alexander. And the cost of the alternative
proposal?
General Klotz. Half or better.
Senator Alexander. So we're talking about, according to
those figures, saving a half billion dollars a year?
General Klotz. Yes, sir. Or as the Secretary testified just
a week ago at this very same place, perhaps maybe even more.
Senator Alexander. How much excess plutonium is covered
under the agreement with Russia?
General Klotz. Sir, 34 metric tons.
Senator Alexander. And how much excess plutonium is
actually in South Carolina?
General Klotz. Approximately 13 metric tons.
Senator Alexander. Can all of those 13 tons in South
Carolina be sent to WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant), that
is, in New Mexico, under current law?
General Klotz. Yes, sir, that is correct. And, in fact, in
December of just last year, DOE issued its preferred
alternative for disposing of 6 metric tons at Savannah River,
not under the Plutonium Management Disposition Agreement that
you were referring to, by diluting it and disposing of it at
WIPP. And we are now in the process of finalizing a record of
decision, announcing the decision to prepare 6 metric tons for
eventual disposal at WIPP, and we can also, under existing
statutory authorities, we can put the other 7 metric tons that
are at Savannah River into WIPP.
Senator Alexander. So there are 13 tons of plutonium in
South Carolina.
General Klotz. That is correct.
Senator Alexander. Six of them, six of those tons, have
nothing to do with the Russian agreement.
General Klotz. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. Seven do.
General Klotz. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. And you're going to take--which tons go
first to New Mexico?
General Klotz. The six that are not part of the agreement.
Senator Alexander. And under existing agreements, there is
room in the New Mexico facility for all 13 tons.
General Klotz. That is correct, sir.
Senator Alexander. You have previously stated that nearly 5
tons of plutonium have already been disposed of at WIPP using
the same process you plan to use for the 6 tons in South
Carolina that have nothing to do with the Russian agreement. So
is the process of disposing of plutonium by Dilute and Dispose
well understood? Are you comfortable with it? Is it a competent
process?
General Klotz. Yes, sir. As I said, we have done it before.
We understand how to do that process, and it's very well
understood.
Senator Alexander. How long will it take to complete the
disposal of the 6 tons of material in South Carolina that are
not part of the Russian agreement?
General Klotz. Well, we'll have to do some things to speed
up our capability of doing that. Right now, DOE plans to ramp
up operations at Savannah River to dilute a small quantity,
perhaps 150 kilograms per year of plutonium, over the next 2 to
3 years. We would also further increase throughput to
approximately half a metric ton per year for a relatively small
amount of funding, say, $5 million over 3 years.
Additionally, NNSA has already begun design work with money
that was appropriated in the 2016 appropriations bill for two
additional glove boxes that will increase our ability to dilute
to over 1 metric ton a year, and we expect these glove boxes to
be in place during the mid-2020s. So that's when we can really
seriously begin moving the 6 metric tons to WIPP.
By comparison, the MOX approach, if we followed that, the
first metric ton of plutonium would not be processed until the
2040s, and only if Congress can begin funding the project now
at about $1 billion a year.
Senator Alexander. Well, my time is up, but to summarize,
you have testified that in your opinion and based on
independent studies, that Congress might spend more than a half
billion dollars more pursuing the MOX facility as opposed to
Dilute and Dispose, so it's about half the cost or better. And,
finally, you've said you could get all 13 tons that are now in
South Carolina of plutonium, only 7 of which have anything to
do with the Russian agreement, that you can get them out of
South Carolina and into the WIPP facility much faster than you
could using the current MOX procedure, and that under current
authorities, you have permission--you wouldn't have to change
the law in order to send those 13 tons to WIPP. Am I correct?
General Klotz. Yes, sir. That's all correct.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
And thanks to my colleagues for letting me go over a little
bit.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NUCLEAR CRUISE MISSILE
General Klotz, I recently met with Admiral Haney, the head
of Strategic Command, regarding the new nuclear cruise missile
and its refurbished warhead. I came away unconvinced of the
need for this weapon. The so-called improvements to this weapon
seem to be designed candidly to make it more usable, to help us
fight and win a limited nuclear war. I find that a shocking
concept. I think this is really unthinkable, especially when we
hold conventional weapons superiority, which can meet
adversaries' efforts to escalate a conflict. So maybe you can
succeed where Admiral Haney did not.
Let me ask you this question, Why do we need a new nuclear
cruise missile?
General Klotz. Well, thank you very much for the question,
Senator, and let me just state at the outset, defining the--but
I will answer your question--defining the military requirements
is the responsibility of the Department of Defense, which
obviously includes the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, and the Commander of Strategic Command.
Senator Feinstein. Don't bucket your view.
General Klotz. But we accept the responsibility for
building the warhead that goes in it. But let me just say since
when I was in uniform, I had command of Air Force Global Strike
Command, and, therefore, of the cruise missiles that the Air
Force and the Department of Defense are proposing to replace.
My sense at the time, and still is the case, is that the
existing cruise missile, the air-launched cruise missile, is
getting rather long in the tooth with the issues that are
associated with an aging weapons system. It was first deployed
in 1982, and, therefore, it is well past its service life.
In the meantime, as you know from your work on the
Intelligence Committee, there has been an increase in the
sophistication and capabilities, as well as proliferation, of
sophisticated air missile defenses around the world. Therefore,
the ability of the cruise missile to pose the deterrent--the
capabilities necessary to deter is under question. Therefore, I
think just based on the aging and the changing nature of the
threat, we need to replace a system which we've had, again,
for--since the early 1980s with an updated variant.
I guess I didn't convince you any more than Admiral Haney
did.
Senator Feinstein. I'm trying to figure out how to say it
so that it's polite.
[Laughter.]
Senator Feinstein. No, you didn't convince me because this
just ratchets up warfare and ratchets up deaths, and, you know,
even if you go to a low kiloton, 6 or 7, it's a huge weapon.
And I thought there was a certain morality that we should have
with respect to these weapons. And if it's really mutual
deterrence, I don't see how this does anything other than it's
like the drone. The drone has been invented. It's been armed.
Now every country wants one. So they get more and more
sophisticated. To do this with nuclear weapons I think is
awful. And when I talked when I came here--now, I'm probably
the only one here that was a child when those weapons went off,
and as the chairman has heard me say before, I was in San
Francisco, across the Pacific from where it happened, a small
kid, it made a profound difference to me. You know, I remember
jumping under the desks, I remember the exploding--Barry
Goldwater's campaign of the daisy that exploded with one, and I
saw bodies, I saw what happened to people.
I know a little bit about the sophistication of our
weapons, not as much as you do, but I think there is a very
definite morality in what we have. And I talk to people, well,
the size is a deterrent. This is not a deterrent. All this
means is that others will be doing the same thing. I don't want
North Korea with a 6-kiloton nuclear cruise missile.
And somehow I think we lose our moral authority when we
build new nuclear weapons. I don't see any way--you know,
there's a certain moral code any way I can vote to support
this, and I want you to know it. If you have anything you would
like to say, I would love to hear it.
General Klotz. Well, first of all, Senator, I obviously
respect your opinion, but I think on this, we have a
fundamental disagreement. In my view, the moral approach is to
develop a deterrent capability which poses the prospect to any
potential adversary that they should never use nuclear weapons
against the United States or those of our allies across the
globe. We maintain the capability of having a deterrent by
having systems which cannot be negated, defeated, nullified by
any adversary, either by offensive attack or by defensive
capabilities that they may have. And so as we're faced with the
prospect of potential adversaries having vastly improved
conventional--vastly improved missile and air defenses, then we
need to make sure that----
Senator Feinstein. Do you admit, Admiral, that we have very
big conventional weapons?
General Klotz. Yes, I do.
Senator Feinstein. The biggest in the world?
General Klotz. And Air Force Global Strike Command, which I
used to command, had responsibility for one of those.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Isn't that enough?
General Klotz. In a world armed with nuclear weapons,
regrettably so, I think that in order to deter nuclear attack
or the threat of nuclear attack against us or allies, we need a
corresponding nuclear deterrent. That's my belief.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Well, let me go to--can I do one
other question quickly?
Senator Alexander. Sure.
Senator Feinstein. What is the cost of the 3 to 1 hedge?
Staff has tried to get those numbers, but have been unable to.
I would like to ask that you provide it.
General Klotz. We will provide that.
[The information follows:]
The U.S. nuclear stockpile is made up of warheads in three
categories--deployed warheads, logistics spares, and hedge. The
deployed warheads are warheads located at operational bases, and must
be fully maintained in a ready-to-use status at all times. Logistics
spares are warheads retained (by DoD or DOE) to facilitate the
logistics of warhead surveillance, maintenance, and refurbishment to
ensure the required number of warheads in the other categories is
maintained. Hedge warheads mitigate the risk of technical failure of
any single weapon type or delivery system at a given time.
The number and type of warheads in the hedge depends on a number of
factors, including the size and composition of the U.S. stockpile and
the status of life extension efforts. Additional warheads of a type
being refurbished may be retained temporarily (unrefurbished) as risk
mitigation for a potential technical issue in the newly refurbished
warheads.
By far the largest cost of maintaining this hedge is the cost of
refurbishing the warheads that will be retained over the longer term as
part of the hedge. Based on current life extension program (LEP)
estimates and projections of the future size and composition of the
stockpile (as reflected in the Nuclear Weapons Council's current
Requirements Planning Document), over the next 25 years the cost of
refurbishing warheads for inclusion in the hedge is approximately $3.5-
$5.6 billion in fiscal year 2016 dollars (or 11-22 percent of the cost
of LEPs for the warheads that would comprise the hedge at that time).
Strategies that reduce the number of hedge warheads in future stockpile
configurations (such as our current 3+2 strategy) will keep this
refurbishment cost from rising above this level.
The cost, if any, for specific surveillance and assessment of the
hedge would be small since the warheads in the hedge are the same as
those being surveilled and assessed in the other stockpile categories.
Some small costs may associated with maintenance of hedge warheads
when included in work scope associated with non-hedge counterparts,
such as an alteration or modification. In this way they retain
technical parity with warheads in other categories.
It is expected that the size of the hedge can be reduced as we
implement a 3+2 strategy for the stockpile, with three ballistic
missile warheads and two others, one for the LRSO and another for
gravity bombs. This strategy will allow the U.S. to minimize the size
of the stockpile, consistent with our commitments under the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty, while adequately hedging against technical
risk.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Senator Graham, is your schedule such
that I can go to Senator Udall since he's been here?
Senator Graham. Absolutely. He can go first.
Senator Alexander. All right.
Senator Udall, why don't you go ahead since you came early?
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION BUDGET
Before we get into some of the details on the upcoming
budget, I would like to step back and take a look at the
overall funding picture. How does this budget compare to the
NNSA's budget request in the year of the previous
administration, fiscal year 2008? Where are we in terms of up,
down, on that?
General Klotz. Well, I think a good round number for how
much the overall NNSA budget has increased since then is about
40 percent.
Senator Udall. 40 percent----
General Klotz. Maybe closer to 37 percent.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS STOCKPILE
Senator Udall. Okay. And my understanding is that there is
an incredible amount of scientific and technical work that
needs to be done in future years as the stockpile ages and
needs further work to keep it safe, secure, and reliable. Do
you expect future NNSA budgets to need to increase further to
continue to address the aging stockpile?
General Klotz. Yes, sir, we do. And in our budget
submission for this year, we included our projections for the
future years' nuclear security program out through the year
fiscal year 2021, and it shows an increase in all of the budget
lines each of those years except for 1 year for Naval Reactors.
And I will say right up front that there will probably be
some additional costs which we will add there because one of
the things we have done, and part of the management
improvements, is to be much more rigorous about how we do
analysis of alternatives, define mission requirements, and do
independent cost reviews, and some of the things that are--we
know we're going to have to pay for in the so-called outyears,
we still have to baseline those and come in with the costs.
CMR FACILITY
Senator Udall. Now, I would like to move on to the work to
replace the aging CMR Facility at Los Alamos. The GAO report,
which was released this month, highlighted the plutonium
infrastructure strategy, and I'm quoting from them now,
``Uncertain and possibly underestimated,'' and that, ``This
uncertainty is due to the fact that NNSA has not yet determined
the number of additional modular buildings that may be
required,'' at the Los Alamos Lab. Where are we on this issue?
Where do you see this going at this point in terms of the
demands that are on you from various agencies?
General Klotz. Well, thank you for that question. In fact,
that is one of the lines in our future years' budget that will
change as time goes through. And, you know, I agree with the
GAO's assessment, but one of the reasons why that's the case is
the GAO has been very clear in reports over the past decade or
so that the NNSA and the DOE need to do a better job in terms
of defining requirements, holding to those requirements, doing
analysis of--rigorous analysis of alternatives cost
estimations. So we need to do that process with the modules. We
are beginning the analysis of alternatives of how we create the
additional space at Los Alamos that we need to carry out the
congressional mandate to produce--or demonstrate a capability
to produce war reserve plutonium pits in the years ahead. So
until we have that and until we can baseline the cost of that,
we won't know for certain what the costs are.
There's a tendency in Washington, both on the executive
side and I would dare say on the congressional side as well, to
ask for a number very, very early on in a project. I think
until you have done that kind of analysis, any number you have
is a guess. We would like to be more precise and more accurate
in terms of providing what we think the costs will be.
Senator Udall. And the budget includes funding for the
initial design and development of a trusted strategic radiation
hardened advanced microelectronics capability, which Sandia
plays an important role supporting through the Trusted Foundry
at the Microsystems and Engineering Science Applications,
what's called the MESA Complex. Do you agree that the core
competency on microsystems design at Sandia is an important
national security asset?
General Klotz. Absolutely. And, in fact, our only facility
for producing radiation hardened microelectronics that can
operate in a nuclear environment is MESA, the Microsystems
Engineering Science Applications at Sandia National Laboratory.
It, too, is another facility which has been around for a while
and is a little long in the tooth, but more importantly, the
technology in this area continues to evolve. Sandia is still
producing chips using 6-inch silicon wafers. Industry has
already moved on to 8-inch and projected to go even further. So
there are things we need to do to the facility to sustain it.
There are things we need to do to the capabilities within MESA
to make sure that we can continue to provide this vital
capability.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, General.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Senator Udall.
Senator Graham.
EXCESS PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION
Senator Graham. Thank you, General. The agreement with the
Russians covers how much plutonium?
General Klotz. 34 metric tons.
Senator Graham. Where is the 34 metric tons located?
General Klotz. 7 of those metric tons are at Savannah River
now. The remainder is primarily in storage at Pantex near
Amarillo, Texas.
Senator Graham. So when you talk to Senator Alexander about
13 tons at the Savannah River site, 6 of it was not covered by
the agreement. Is that correct?
General Klotz. That's correct. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. So what are we going to do with the
material in Texas?
General Klotz. The material in Texas would ultimately be
slated for being turned into--being processed in a way that it
could be diluted and then ultimately disposed of ----
Senator Graham. Where is that going to be done at?
General Klotz. We expect it would be done in Savannah
River.
Senator Graham. Do you require any legal changes to get it
to the WIPP program?
General Klotz. We do not require--we have statutory,
sufficient statutory, authority to dispose of all 13 metric
tons that are currently at Savannah River.
Senator Graham. That's not my question. Does the statutory
authority cover the 21 tons in Texas?
General Klotz. We expect that we would probably have to do
some work on statutory authorities associated with that.
Senator Graham. Do you expect probably maybe?
General Klotz. Probably.
Senator Graham. No, absolutely you would.
General Klotz. Absolutely.
Senator Graham. Good. Do you have any agreement with the
Russians to change course?
General Klotz. We do not have an agreement with the
Russians to change course, but, as you know, there is a
provision within the agreement to--for the parties to----
Senator Graham. Where are we at in that agreement?
General Klotz. As the Secretary has testified just a week
ago----
Senator Graham. So what do the Russians say?
General Klotz. The Russians are saying when you have a
solid way forward--first of all, they have--the technical
people I have talked with indicate an understanding of why we
would want to do this and the technical aspects of it.
Basically they've said----
Senator Graham. So what do the Russians want in return?
General Klotz. Well, when they--when you are ready to go
forward----
Senator Graham. So let's see if I got this. We're going to
change the entire program, then we're going to go to the
Russians and see if they're okay with it? Is that the plan?
General Klotz. I--that is the----
Senator Graham. That's the plan. That's a lousy plan. That
is absolutely the dumbest friggin' plan I could think of, to
change course and hope the Russians would agree and not know
what they're going to charge you for it. Now, other than that,
things are going great.
Now, in 2001, we made a decision about MOX, to reject the
dual strategy. 2014, or 2010, I guess it was, we signed an
agreement with the Russians that we're going to MOX out 34
metric tons. In 2016, we got a building, $5 billion worth, 90
percent, 70 percent complete, and we're going to stop and start
all over again. Is that the plan?
General Klotz. Well, you know, we don't agree that it's 70,
80, 90 percent.
Senator Graham. Well, you can come and look at the damn
thing.
General Klotz. I have.
Senator Graham. Okay. Is it big?
General Klotz. It is big.
Senator Graham. Well, it cost $5 billion, I can promise you
that. And I think it's 70 percent. What are we going to do with
the building?
General Klotz. We would have to see what--what--if we----
Senator Graham. Have you talked to anybody from New Mexico
about their view of taking all this material?
General Klotz. As the Secretary told you last week, he has
informally approached----
Senator Graham. Well, have you----
General Klotz. Have I personally? I have talked----
Senator Graham. Excuse me. We've informally talked to New
Mexico. We now admit that you absolutely have to have a
statutory change to cover the 21 metric tons. We're talking
informally to the Russians. We're going to change the entire
scope of the program and hope they agree with it. Is that
pretty much where we're at? And we have no clue what we're
going to do with this building.
Thank you.
Senator Alexander. General Klotz, I've got some questions
on another subject. This--the MOX subject is one that Senator
Feinstein and I, Senator Graham, as well as Senator McCain and
Senator Reed, are going to continue to address in the next few
weeks.
INTERIM STORAGE OF USED NUCLEAR FUEL
Let me ask you and maybe Admiral Caldwell and maybe Ms.
Harrington, the interim storage for used Navy fuel, building a
new storage site for used fuel, but Admiral Klotz, that's
temporary storage, right?
Admiral Caldwell. Sir, I think that question is directed to
me, sir.
Senator Alexander. Okay, sir. That's temporary.
Admiral Caldwell. The fuel that we're storing in Idaho is
stored for interim----
Senator Alexander. That means temporary.
Admiral Caldwell. Yes, sir; it does.
Senator Alexander. So you'll need somewhere to put it, an
additional site. Would that fuel be eligible for Yucca
Mountain?
Admiral Caldwell. Yes, sir; it would be. The fuel we have
out there today is packaged for interim storage, and it's
packed in steel containers with concrete overpacks. Those steel
containers are designed to last up to 10,000 years in the
environment that we did the calculations for. And then the
overpacks are designed to last at least 100 years.
Senator Alexander. Yeah. But to reiterate, your site is a
site for temporary storage.
Admiral Caldwell. That's correct, sir.
Senator Alexander. And it needs a permanent repository such
as Yucca Mountain.
Admiral Caldwell. That's absolutely correct, sir.
Senator Alexander. Yeah. Senator Feinstein and I are
working on as many paths as we can toward places for safe
storage of used nuclear fuel.
General Klotz, you proposed work on a separate repository
for defense waste separate from Yucca Mountain, they would only
be able to accept waste from our defense sites, which doesn't
include used fuel from commercial power reactors like the
reactors that are closed in California with what we call
stranded fuel. This would have to be built with funds that
could be used for life extension programs or other
infrastructure. Why would we build a separate repository for
defense waste? Why wouldn't we just put all that stuff in Yucca
Mountain?
General Klotz. Senator, I know the proposal, but to be
perfectly honest, that is a project, a program, which resides
elsewhere within the Department of Energy, not within NNSA. So
I would have to get back to you on any specifics as far as----
Senator Alexander. But if we spent money on a separate
defense waste repository, it would have to come out of some of
your funds----
General Klotz. It would depend on which--again, whether
it's 050 money or not, and I just don't have the granularity of
knowledge to respond to that.
LOW-ENRICHED URANIUM NAVAL CORES
Senator Alexander. Let me ask one of you on a different
question. You've done some good work on the last several years
converting research reactor fuel from highly enriched uranium
to low-enriched uranium, and you're down now I think to about
six high-performance reactors that are still fueled with highly
enriched uranium. Why don't you spend your time and money
developing a way to have low-enriched fuel for the Navy vessels
instead of worrying about the last six high-performance
reactors?
Admiral Caldwell. Sir, thanks for the question. Low-
enriched uranium, from a military standpoint, there is no
advantage to using that in a naval reactor plant. We use highly
enriched uranium today, we've used it for decades, because it
allows us to put the energy that we need to into a reactor core
so that we can operate those ships for conceivably the life of
the ship or for very long periods of time.
The reason why one might consider pursuing a low-enriched
uranium naval core would be for the United States to be able to
take a leadership role in development of low-enriched uranium
and to be able to do that from a nonproliferation standpoint.
The other reason why one could consider it is because we
need to sustain the workforce, the highly skilled workforce,
that does this work for naval nuclear propulsion plants. That
workforce is heavily taxed right now with the development of
the Ohio replacement. Once that work tapers off, we're going to
need some work to keep that workforce active and viable for
future reactor plants.
So where we are today is we are continuing our work on
highly enriched uranium. If I was to go to low-enriched
uranium, it would require me to refuel ships more frequently
than I do today. It would require us to take ships offline and
remove them from the operational availability. To give you some
example of that, we're developing the Ohio Replacement to last
for 42 years without refueling. A low-enriched uranium core
would require at least one refueling. The Ford reactor plant
for the new carrier is designed to have one refueling. A low-
enriched uranium core might take two or more, at the cost of
maybe $1 billion apiece. With the Ohio Replacement program,
the fact that we don't refuel it saves the Nation $40 billion
total ownership cost for that class of submarine.
So from a military standpoint, we want to have the ships
operating more, we want to have--reduce the time that they're
in the yards. If you use low-enriched uranium, we would have to
deal with even more waste, we would have to deal with different
types of waste, because the waste generated from low-enriched
uranium is different from highly enriched uranium. And,
additionally, the Navy might have to go purchase more ships to
make up for the lost operational availability. So from a
military standpoint, highly enriched uranium does what we need
it to do.
Now, that all said, we were asked to develop a conceptual
plan for developing a low-enriched uranium core for naval use.
We have a draft report that's working its way through the Navy
and through the Department of Energy; we're coordinating that.
It lays out a program that would take 10 to 15 years at the
cost of $1 billion to simply develop a low-enriched uranium
core. Beyond that, it would take another 10 years to deploy
that core, actually build it. So you're talking about
technology that would take 25 years or so before it would come
to fruition. Success could not be guaranteed, but if the
conceptual plan lays out a plan to go look at that for
consideration in a carrier plant, a larger plant, where you can
put more fuel in it, probably not viable for a submarine plant,
which is small.
So that conceptual plant is working its way through.
Success could not be guaranteed. It costs a substantial amount
of money. And if I was directed to go do that kind of work, I
would need money above and beyond what I have today to support
today's Navy.
Senator Alexander. Thank you. I get the impression you
think the idea of low-enriched uranium fuel for the Navy
vessels isn't such a hot idea.
Admiral Caldwell. I think there is some value in being able
to sustain my workforce, so let me amplify that.
Senator Alexander. Yeah, well, my time is about up, but I
think that was a good complete answer----
Admiral Caldwell. There is one aspect of this, though, sir.
To go to low-enriched uranium, I have to develop an advanced
fuel system. That advanced fuel system could have benefit for a
low-enriched uranium core or a highly enriched uranium core. So
there could be some benefit in going down the path to sustain
my workforce and expand the technology that we have.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Admiral.
Senator Feinstein, I don't have any other questions, so
I'll let you ask whatever you would like.
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE
Senator Feinstein. I have one because I mentioned in my
opening remarks that $3.2 billion in deferred maintenance of
facilities, a huge sum, I don't think I need to say that,
actually. So, General Klotz, in your plans, to what extent is
NNSA looking at alternative approaches for addressing the
problem, such as reducing the number of facilities or
consolidating functions?
General Klotz. Thank you very much. You're right, we have a
very substantial backlog of deferred maintenance. Again,
referring to my previous military career, I found that the
first dollar usually goes to the pointy edge of the spear, or
for the men and women who carry the spear, and then every year
a decision is made to accept risk on facilities and
infrastructures, and, you know, defer it one more year. Well,
one more year becomes two more years, becomes 10 more years,
and then ultimately you get to a tipping point in terms of our
facilities, and I think that's where we are in NNSA and in
other parts of the deal, in the laboratories that are out there
with some facilities dating back to the Manhattan Project that
you referred to earlier.
So Secretary Moniz laid down a--threw down the gauge a
couple years ago and said that he wanted to arrest the halt in
the growth of deferred maintenance for the Department of Energy
as a whole, including NNSA. So with the fiscal year 2016 budget
that thankfully you all enacted at the end of last year, we've
essentially halted it at the 3 point I think 7, is what I would
say, $3.7 billion level, and with 2017, we actually start to go
down.
Now, we're exploring alternative ways of financing new
facilities to get out of these old facilities that include
using third-party financing. We have an enormous successful
example of that in the Kansas City National Security Campus,
which we reduced, got out of an old building that dated back to
World War II, reduced our footprint from 3 million down to 1
million square feet. We've asked for money in this budget to
demolish that particular facility.
So we're serious about looking for, whether it's a capital
construction project or a third-party financing or an operating
lease approach to do that, we're looking for new facilities to
get our people in, and at the same time, to reduce the
footprint and to demolish the buildings that are there now.
The one problem we do have with demolishing some of our
buildings is if they are contaminated, we have to go through a
very long tedious and expensive process of cleaning up the
contamination before we can turn it over to that part of DOE
that does the demolition.
Senator Feinstein. Well, let me--what are your estimates?
How--the $3.2 billion in deferred maintenance, did you have
specific plans for meeting that, or are you just going to
ignore it?
General Klotz. No, we have a specific plan, and we'd be
happy to share that plan for you in terms of----
Senator Feinstein. I would appreciate it.
General Klotz. Yes, ma'am. I'd be delighted to do it.
Senator Feinstein. And your staff.
General Klotz. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Feinstein. That would be just fine.
General Klotz. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. That's it, I think, unless we
want to debate a nuclear cruise missile more, which I don't
think you do.
[Laughter.]
General Klotz. I'd love to come up and just sit down with
you in your office and pursue that further.
Senator Feinstein. Sure. I'd be happy to, actually.
Senator Alexander. I might come watch.
[Laughter.]
General Klotz. I'll invite Admiral Haney to come over.
Senator Alexander. It would be better than the Republican
debates.
[Laughter.]
Senator Alexander. Probably more informative.
Senator Feinstein. I don't belittle people.
Senator Alexander. No, no, no, you don't. I'm not getting
into this with--I'm sorry--I'm sorry I even brought it up.
The hearing record will remain open for 10 days. Members
may submit additional information or questions for the record
within that time. The subcommittee requests all responses to
questions for the record be provided within 30 days.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
I want to thank General Klotz, Admiral Caldwell, Ms.
Harrington, and General Davis, I want to thank all four of you
for being here and thank you for the work you do for our
country. We'll look forward to following up with you.
The committee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., Wednesday, March 16, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]