Yucca Mountain and High-level WasteRep. John Shimkus (R-IL), along with 109 other co-sponsors, was able to pass the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018 (
H.R. 3053) in the House by an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote of 340-72. Immediately upon its passage, Senate leadership made it clear that the bill will not move forward in the Senate. Of course, Rep. Shimkus predicted the Senate wouldn't touch the bill this year as Nevada Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) faces a tight reelection race. So, if the bill is to move
forward in the Senate, it will occur after the midterm elections this fall.
Is MOX Dead? The Administration Takes Another Run at It (Is this year 4 or 5 NNSA has tried to end MOX?)
South Carolina legislators, in a jointly-issued statement, blasted the DOE/NNSA’s decision to abandon the multibillion-dollar program that "is now more than halfway complete" in pursuit of a 'dilute-and-dispose'
alternative.
"DOE says it now wants to pursue 'dilute and dispose' but that plan was already considered and rejected," said the statement issued by U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott and U.S. Reps. Joe Wilson and Jeff Duncan. "DOE plans to press ahead even though 'dilute and dispose' has not been fully vetted. This could lead to the permanent orphaning of at least 34 metric tons of weapons grade plutonium,
enough for thousands of warheads."
"The legal challenges to move from MOX in South Carolina to 'dilute and dispose' in New Mexico will be enormous," the lawmakers said. "The Department of Energy’s reputation for the handling and oversight of large-scale projects like MOX were considered suspect. But given what can only be called a debacle, DOE is going to be challenged like never before."
NNSA Tying the Termination of MOX to a New Mission (Have we seen this before?)
In an email to ECA, NNSA Stated: "In response to Section 3141 of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), DOE/NNSA has completed an independent plutonium pit production engineering assessment (EA) and workforce analysis (WA) in order to support pre-conceptual design activities for a preferred alternative to meet
pit production requirements of no fewer than 80 war reserve pits per year in 2030….For the purposes of fulfilling the existing statutory requirement, the NNSA Administrator, in consultation with the Deputy Secretary of Energy, has recommended a two-pronged approach to meet 80 pits per year in 2030, as directed by the Nuclear Weapons Council. This two-pronged approach – with 50 pits per year produced at Savannah River and at least 30 pits per year at Los
Alamos – is the best way to manage the cost, schedule, and risk of such a vital undertaking. By maintaining Los Alamos as the Nation’s Plutonium Center of Excellence for Research and Development, this recommended alternative improves the resiliency, flexibility, and redundancy of our Nuclear Security Enterprise by not relying on a single production site."
NDAA Passes the House Armed Services
Committee
The House Armed Services Committee approved the FY19 NDAA on a bipartisan vote of 60 to 1. Key issues related to NNSA, DOE's Office of Environmental Management (EM), and other DOE defense missions are included in the bill. Highlights of the bill include EM cleanup, Nuclear Energy, and Legacy Management funding all at the Presidents requested amounts.
NNSA saw an increase and Chairman
Thornberry highlighted his key concern in the Chairman’s summary: The bill identified that once again NNSA needs to make "critical investments to modernize America’s nuclear deterrent and align it with modern threats." Chairman Thornberry states, "Critics in the nuclear disarmament community falsely claim that the cost to maintain a robust deterrent is not worth the security it provides to the country." Chairman Thornberry also noted that under Secretary Mattis’ plan,
spending to operate and restore the nuclear deterrent will never exceed 7 percent of defense spending - a reasonable expenditure when one considers that deterrence is the cornerstone of America’s security.
The Chairman’s Proposal builds on the recommendations of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces and: 1) Supports the Nuclear Posture Review’s recommendation to pursue a
lower-yield ballistic missile warhead to strengthen deterrence; and 2) Supports the President’s budget request to restore the nuclear arsenal and adds $325 million for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s nuclear weapons activities and defense nuclear nonproliferation program, including efforts to modernize the nuclear weapons stockpile and address NNSA’s aging facilities and other infrastructure.
NNSA Nominee Hearing
NNSA Defense Programs nominee Charles Verdon had his hearing before
the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 10. Some of the key questions and answers are set forth below:
Q: "What are the major challenges confronting the next Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs of NNSA?"
A: "I believe the major challenges include ensuring NNSA and the Office of Defense Programs maintain the unique
expertise and capabilities to support current and future stockpile requirements, preparing the nuclear weapons complex to address the national security challenges of the 21st century, and securing the necessary resources to do so. Further, much of NNSA’s infrastructure is decades old. Modernizing NNSA’s aging infrastructure must remain a long-term priority to ensure we are able meet NNSA mission requirements."
Q:
"In 2015, then-Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz wrote in a letter to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regarding NNSA’s budget allocation for the next five years that 'an additional $5.2 billion over FY 2018-2021 [was] needed to establish a viable and sustainable program portfolio' and that '[f]ailure to address these requirements in the near term will put the NNSA budget in an untenable position beginning in FY 2018.' He added that, uncorrected, the budget proposal would
'lack credibility.' More recently, the 2018 NPR noted the presence of 'significant infrastructure funding shortfalls [at NNSA] over the next five years' that will need to be addressed in order to meet the needs of the nuclear enterprise. NNSA received an approximately 8% increase in funding in the fiscal year 2019 request over the fiscal year 2018 request, and expects to receive another similar increase in fiscal year 2020. Do you believe these increases are sufficient to meet the funding
shortfalls identified by the NPR, former Secretary Moniz, and many others previously?"
A: "The work-scope of NNSA has increased and the nuclear security enterprise is the busiest it has been in decades. While additional funding to meet added work-scope may be necessary, if confirmed, I will assess what resources may be required to meet NNSA’s increasing mission requirements."
Q: "If so, what are the specific areas in NNSA’s Office of Defense Programs that will need to be supported at higher levels in the out-years?"
A: "If confirmed, I will take a deeper look and more fully assess the current allocation of resources and work to make any necessary adjustments."
Q: "The capacity for plutonium pit production is essential for maintaining U.S. nuclear capabilities, as well as for the Stockpile Stewardship Program. The entire pit production capacity in the United States currently resides at Plutonium Facility 4 (PF-4) at Los Alamos National Laboratory, which is aging and too small to support the pit production milestones established by the Nuclear Weapons Council and codified by section 4219 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C.
2538a). As the 2018 NPR stated, 'the United States does not have a sustained plutonium pit manufacturing capability needed to avoid stockpile age-out, support life extension programs, and prepare for future uncertainty.' Over the last 20 years, NNSA has started and stopped multiple projects intended to recapitalize this capacity, including the Modern Pit Facility and the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) project. After CMRR-NF was cancelled in 2014
following more than $400 million of design work, the Defense Department’s Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) conducted a business case analysis that pointed to modular buildings as a promising way forward for pit production. Yet the Plutonium Modular Approach Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) conducted by NNSA over the last two years did not give full consideration to modules as an alternative. The AoA also indicated that none of the options considered were likely to meet the
2030 milestone set by the Nuclear Weapons Council and Congress. Are you concerned that NNSA may be unable, under any of the fully analyzed alternatives, to meet the pit production milestones set by the Nuclear Weapons Council?"
A: "It is imperative for the nuclear security enterprise to meet pit production requirements. If confirmed, I will ensure NNSA works to meet the Nuclear Weapons Council’s pit
production requirements. The ability to produce components for the nuclear weapons stockpile is essential to the Nation’s deterrent, and the ability to produce plutonium pits is critical."
