DOE/CF-0047
Volume 1

Department of Energy
FY 2011 Congressional
Budget Request

National Nuclear
Security Administration
Office of the Administrator
Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Naval Reactors
February 2010

Office of Chief Financial Officer

Volume 1

DOE/CF-0047
Volume 1

Department of Energy
FY 2011 Congressional
Budget Request

National Nuclear
Security Administration
Office of the Administrator
Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Naval Reactors
February 2010

Office of Chief Financial Officer
Printed with soy ink on recycled paper

Volume 1

Office of the Administrator

Weapons Activities

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

Naval Reactors

Office of the Administrator

Weapons Activities

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

Naval Reactors

Volume 1
Table of Contents

Page
Appropriation Account Summary.............................................................................................................3
NNSA Overview.......................................................................................................................................5
Office of the Administrator.....................................................................................................................19
Weapons Activities .................................................................................................................................41
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........................................................................................................323
Naval Reactors ......................................................................................................................................449
NNSA Site Funding Summary..............................................................................................................507
General Provisions ................................................................................................................................583

The Department of Energy’s Congressional Budget justification is available on the Office of Chief
Financial Officer, Office of Budget homepage at http://www.cfo.doe.gov/crorg/cf30.htm.
For the latest details on the Department of Energy’s implementation of the Recovery Act, please visit:
http://www.energy.gov/recovery
Department of Energy/
National Nuclear Security Administration

Page 1

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 2

Department of Energy
Appropriation Account Summary(dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring)
FY 2009
Current
Approp.

FY 2009
Current
Recovery

FY 2010
Current
Approp.

FY 2011
Congressional
RequestFY 2011 vs. FY 2010$%

Discretionary Summary By Appropriation
Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies
Appropriation Summary:
Energy Programs
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.................................................
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability...............................................
Nuclear energy...........................................................................................

2,156,865
134,629
791,444

16,771,907
4,495,712
0

2,242,500
171,982786,637

2,355,473
185,930
824,052+112,973+13,948+37,415

+5.0%
+8.1%
+4.8%

Fossil Energy Programs
Clean Coal Technology..........................................................................
Fossil Energy Research and Development.............................................
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves...............................................
Strategic Petroleum Reserve...................................................................
Strategic Petroleum Account..................................................................
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve....................................................
Total, Fossil Energy Programs...................................................................

0863,104
19,099226,586-21,586
9,800
1,097,003

0
3,398,607
00003,398,607

0672,383
23,627
243,823
0
11,300951,133

0586,583
23,614
138,8610
11,300760,358——-85,800-13-104,962————-190,775——-12.8%-0.1%-43.0%————-20.1%Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund...............................................................
Energy Information Administration...........................................................
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup.......................................................
Science.......................................................................................................
Energy Transformation Acceleration Fund................................................
Nuclear Waste Disposal.............................................................................
Departmental Administration.....................................................................
Inspector General.......................................................................................
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program...............
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program.....................................
Section 1705 Temporary Loan Guarantee Program..................................
Total, Energy Programs.................................................................................

535,503
110,595
261,819
4,813,470
8,700
145,390
155,326
51,9277,510,000
0017,772,671

390,000
0
483,000
1,632,918
388,856042,00015,00010,00003,960,000
31,588,000

573,850
110,595
254,673
4,903,710
098,400168,944
51,92720,0000010,334,351

730,498
128,833
225,163
5,121,437
299,9660
169,132
42,8509,998
500,000
0
11,353,690+156,648+18,238-29,510+217,727+299,966-98,400+188-9,077-10,002+500,000——+1,019,339+27.3%+16.5%-11.6%+4.4%
N/A-100.0%+0.1%-17.5%-50.0%
N/A
——
+9.9%

Atomic Energy Defense Activities
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Weapons Activities.................................................................................
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation..........................................................
Naval Reactors........................................................................................
Office of the Administrator....................................................................
Total, National Nuclear Security Administration.......................................

6,410,000
1,545,071
828,054439,190
9,222,315

0
0
0
0
0

6,384,431
2,136,709
945,133
410,754
9,877,027

7,008,835
2,687,167
1,070,486
448,267
11,214,755+624,404+550,458+125,353+37,513+1,337,728+9.8%+25.8%+13.3%+9.1%+13.5%

Environmental and Other Defense Activities:
Defense Environmental Cleanup............................................................
Other Defense Activities
Health, Safety and Security.................................................................
Legacy Management...........................................................................
Nuclear Energy....................................................................................
Defense Related Administrative Support............................................
Office of Hearings and Appeals..........................................................
Congressionally Directed Projects......................................................
Total, Other Defense Activities..............................................................
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal............................................................
Total, Environmental & Other Defense Activities.....................................
Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities......................................................

5,656,345

5,127,000

5,642,331

5,588,039-54,292-1.0%

446,471
185,981565,819
108,190
6,603
999
1,314,063
143,000
7,113,408
16,335,723

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,127,000
5,127,000

441,882
189,802
83,358122,9826,444
3,000
847,468
98,4006,588,199
16,465,226

464,211
188,626
88,200130,7286,444
0878,20906,466,248
17,681,003+22,329-1,176+4,842+7,746——-3,000+30,741-98,400-121,951+1,215,777

+5.1%
-0.6%
+5.8%
+6.3%
——
-100.0%+3.6%-100.0%
-1.9%
+7.4%

Power Marketing Administrations:Southeastern Power Administration...........................................................
Southwestern Power Administration..........................................................
Western area Power Administration..........................................................
Falcon & Amistad Operating & Maintenance Fund..................................
Colorado River Basins...............................................................................
Total, Power Marketing Administrations......................................................

7,420
28,414
218,346
2,959-23,000
234,13900
10,0000
0
10,000013,076109,181220-23,000
99,4770
12,699105,558
220-23,000
95,477——-377-3,623————-4,000

——
-2.9%
-3.3%
——
——
-4.0%

0

0

0

0

——

——

34,342,533-463,000-23,080

36,725,000
0026,899,054-463,000-28,886

29,130,170-696,700-29,822+2,231,116-233,700
-936

+8.3%
-50.5%-3.2%

033,856,453

0
36,725,000

189,384
26,596,552

0
28,403,648-189,384+1,807,096-100.0%+6.8%

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.......................................................
Subtotal, Energy And Water Development and Related
Agencies............................................................................................................
Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund Discretionary Payments...........................
Excess Fees and Recoveries, FERC..............................................................
Cost of Implementing Reclassificationof Receipts, PMAs.........................................................................................
Total, Discretionary Funding............................................................................

Appropriation Account Summary

Page 3

FY 2011 Congressional Budget Request

Page 4

National Nuclear Security Administration
Overview
Appropriation Summary
FY 2009 Actual
Appropriation
National Nuclear Security Administration
Office of the Administrator
Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation[non-add MOX Project funded in other appropriations]
Naval Reactors
Subtotal, NNSA
Transfer of prior year balances
Total, NNSA - OMB Scoring(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010 Current
Appropriation

439,190
6,410,000
1,545,071[278,879]
828,054
9,222,315-----9,222,315

420,754
6,384,431
2,136,709
N/A
945,133
9,887,027-10,000
9,877,027

FY 2011
Request448,267
7,008,835
2,687,167
N/A
1,070,486
11,214,755-----11,214,755

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is critical to ensuring the security of our nation.
The NNSA implements programs for three major national security endeavors: leveraging science tomaintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal of nuclear weapons and capabilities to deter any adversary
and guarantee that defense to our allies; accelerating and expanding our efforts here in the homeland andaround the world to reduce the global threat posed by nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation andunsecured or excess nuclear materials; and, providing safe and effective nuclear propulsion for theUnited States (U.S.) Navy.
The FY 2011-2015 President’s Request for the NNSA is a funding increase over the current
appropriations because NNSA is a key player in the implementation of the President's vision for our
nation’s nuclear security and non-proliferation goals. This vision is based on the reality that nuclear
security is not just about warheads and the size of the stockpile. The vision emphasizes that we must
increase our focus on global nuclear security, and transform the Cold War nuclear weapons complex
into a 21st century national security enterprise. We must ensure our evolving strategic posture places
the stewardship of our nuclear stockpile, nonproliferation programs, counterterrorism, missile defenses,
and the international arms control objectives into one comprehensive strategy that protects the American
people and our allies.
Outyear Appropriation Summary
NNSA Future-Years Nuclear Security Program
NNSA
Office of the Administrator
Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Naval Reactors
Total, NNSA

National Nuclear Security Administration/
Overview

FY 2011(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015

448,267
7,008,835
2,687,167
1,070,486
11,214,755

426,424
7,032,672
2,507,191
1,099,734
11,066,021

448,498
7,648,200
2,956,328
1,310,530
12,363,556

Page 5

430,726
7,082,146
2,715,191
1,171,178
11,399,241

435,069
7,400,966
2,833,243
1,226,017
11,895,295

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

The NNSA budget justification contains information for five years as required by Section 3253 of
P.L. 106-065, entitled Future-Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP). The FY 2011-2015 FYNSP
projects $57.9 billion for NNSA programs through 2015. While the funding necessary to support the
President’s commitment to secure vulnerable nuclear materials throughout the world is focused in thenear term, major longer term funding commitments are needed in other NNSA programs. The
Secretaries of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Energy (DOE) agree that it isnecessary to modernize the nuclear weapons infrastructure of the United States, and this will require theinvestments over the long term reflected in the FYNSP. Modernization of the infrastructure, including
major capital projects, is needed to ensure safe, secure, sustainable and cost-effective operations in
support of scientific and manufacturing activities. It is also necessary to bolster key scientific, technicaland manufacturing capabilities needed to ensure that the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile remains safe,
secure and effective while avoiding the requirement for new nuclear tests. Increased outyear resources
are also included for major new deliverables in support of the nuclear navy, including reactor plantdevelopment for the OHIO Class replacement submarine, core manufacturing for and refueling of thetechnology demonstration land-based prototype, and recapitalization of spent nuclear fuel infrastructure.
FY 2009 Budget Execution
FY 2009
Appropriation
Office of the
Administrator
Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation
Naval Reactors
Total, NNSA

(dollars in thousands)
Reprogramming
Supplemental
and Other
Total
Appropriation
Transfers
Adjustments

PY Balance/
GeneralReduction

Final
FY 2009439,190
6,380,000

00030,00000030,000439,190
6,410,000

1,493,768
828,054
9,141,012-11,418

55,000085,000

7,721
0
7,721

51,303081,303

1,545,071
828,054
9,222,315(dollars in thousands)
Reprogramming
Supplemental
and Other
Total
Appropriation
Transfers
Adjustments

Current
FY 2010-11,418

FY 2010 Budget Execution
FY 2010
Appropriation
Office of the
Administrator
Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation
Naval Reactors
Total, NNSAPY Balance/
GeneralReduction

420,754
6,426,531

0-42,100

0
0

0
0

0
-42,100

420,754
6,384,431

2,136,709
945,133
9,929,12700-42,100

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
-42,100

2,136,709
945,133
9,887,027

Preface
The NNSA was created by the Congress in 2000 to focus the management of the nation’s nuclear
defense through a single, separately organized and managed agency within the DOE. The NNSA
brought together three existing major program components related to nuclear weapons and the nuclear
deterrent: the U.S stockpile and associated infrastructure; the Administration’s efforts to reduce andprevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, materials, and expertise; and the responsibility to provide
cradle-to-grave support for the U.S. Navy fleet’s nuclear propulsion.
National Nuclear Security Administration/
Overview

Page 6

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

The NNSA is funded through four appropriations. The Weapons Activities appropriation funds mission
programs in five organizations, (Defense Programs, Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response(NCTIR), Infrastructure and Environment, Defense Nuclear Security (DNS), and Cyber Security, andhas 14 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Unit Programs. The Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation (DNN) appropriation funds one program with 5 GPRA Unit Programs. The Naval
Reactors appropriation supports all activities, including Program Direction, for that program, and is asingle GPRA Unit Program. The Office of the Administrator appropriation provides support for all
Federal NNSA employees in Headquarters and its field elements (except the Secure Transportation
Asset (STA) and Naval Reactors), and also provides for Information Technology for Federal employees
in Headquarters and field locations and is a single GPRA Unit Program.
MissionTo strengthen United States’ security through the military application of nuclear energy and by reducing
the global threat from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
Strategic Themes and Goals
 Broaden the NNSA's science, technology and engineering mission to meet both energy and national
security needs;
 Work with global partners to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world within four
years;
 Work towards a world with no nuclear weapons while ensuring that the U.S. stockpile remains safe,
secure and effective in the interim; Complete the transformation of the nation's Cold-War era weapons complex to a 21st century
national security enterprise, and Provide safe and effective nuclear propulsion for U.S. navy warships.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act)NNSA did not receive any Recovery Act funding.
Presidential Initiatives
The President has initiated bold steps to put an end to Cold War thinking to lead a new international
effort to enhance global security. In his April 5, 2009 speech given in Prague, Czech Republic,
President Obama charted a new course for the United States. The President’s goals of securing nuclear
material in four years and advancing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) provided clear
direction for the NNSA. Program work to address this direction is found in the requests for the Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation appropriation: International Materials Protection and Cooperation, and Global
Threat Reduction Initiative.
In addition, the Administration's Nuclear Posture Review is nearing completion. The United States willtake steps toward achieving a world without nuclear weapons. Until that goal is achieved, we will
maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to ourallies. Programs funded within the Weapons Activities appropriation support the nation's current andfuture defense posture, and its attendant nationwide infrastructure of science, technology andengineering capabilities. The President’s Request reflects an investment strategy consistent with thesechallenges by providing a strong basis for transitioning to a smaller but continued safe, secure andeffective nuclear stockpile without additional nuclear testing, strengthening the science, technology andengineering base, modernizing the physical infrastructure, and streamlining the enterprise’s physical andNational Nuclear Security Administration/
Overview

Page 7FY 2011 Congressional Budget

operational footprint. These investments will enable execution of a comprehensive nuclear defense
strategy based on current and projected global threats that relies less on nuclear weapons, yet enhances
national security by strengthening NNSA’s nuclear security programs. This improved NNSA capability
base will mitigate the concerns regarding ratification of the follow-on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Science Technology and Engineering
In his address to the National Academy of Sciences on April 27, 2009, President Obama stated, “Scienceis more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life
than it has ever been before…” It is an acknowledgement of this statement and the reality of today’ssecurity environment that the United States requires an agile and responsive national security science,technology and engineering (ST&E) enterprise to address the threats of today and the future. Sustaining
the national security ST&E capabilities within the NNSA is not in the sole interest of those responsible
for assessing and monitoring the nuclear weapons stockpile. While national ST&E investments are
instrumental in transitioning to a 21st century nuclear deterrent strategy, they are also key to a range ofnational security issues, tools, and solutions. NNSA and its laboratories have a unique national role intaking on complex projects requiring both breadth and depth of science as well as an ability to respondto rapidly changing priorities. The integration of the multi-disciplinary national security science andtechnology skills within the NNSA provides the versatility to address urgent national needs on
appropriate time scales. It is essential that planning of NNSA ST&E takes on a strategic perspective toensure agile and responsive capabilities. Transparency into these capabilities and the investments madein them is critical. The President has challenged agencies to identify science and technology innovationthat drive the economy, impact climate change and energy security, improve health care and life quality
and enhance U.S. national security. NNSA programs contribute to addressing many of these challenges.
Despite the classified nature of NNSA’s mission, many of the science and engineering activities are
unclassified and can, and in some cases already do, involve universities, industry and civilian agencies.
Specific actions are being initiated to improve the open communication and facilitate such cooperation.
One example is the Livermore Valley Open Campus with both Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories-California making some modifications of physical spaceon the government-owned property to provide for easier access by visiting scientists, particularly
researchers associated with transportations science (Combustion Research Facility operated by the
Office of Science) and high energy density physics (National Ignition Facility). Science, Technology
and Engineering funding is contained in the Weapons Activities appropriation in the Campaigns, and in
a new subprogram element, Science, Technology and Engineering Capabilities. The Nuclear
Counterterrorism Incident Response has an important R&D component. In the Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation appropriation, the research efforts are funded by the Nonproliferation and Verification
R&D program.
FY 2011 Program Changes
Weapons Activities Appropriation
NNSA is sensitive to the need to more fully reflect in the budget the wide range of activities funded bythis appropriation. In recent years, NNSA’s nuclear security enterprise has broadened the application of
NNSA's science, technology and engineering capabilities to the wider set of energy and national security
missions while still carrying on the historical responsibilities for stockpile stewardship, infrastructure,
emergency response and security.
National Nuclear Security Administration/
Overview

Page 8FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Although no change to the existing program budget structure within this appropriation is proposed inthis budget, we will address the current programs within the Weapons Activities appropriation in four
related components:
 Stockpile Support (Directed Stockpile Work, Readiness Campaign);
 Science, Technology and Engineering (Science Campaign, Engineering Campaign, Inertial
Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign, Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign,
Science, Technology and Engineering Capability); Infrastructure (Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities, Secure Transportation Asset, Facilities andInfrastructure Recapitalization Program, Site Stewardship), and,
 Security and Nuclear Counterterrorism (Defense Nuclear Security, Cyber Security, Nuclear
Counterterrorism Incident Response).
All components and programs are closely related in pursuit of NNSA's unique mission to leverage thebest science and technology to enhance national security. The added benefit is that the new approach
underpins the broader interagency discussions that the Department is having on the strategic role of thenational laboratories in support of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Security
Council, Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense and the Intelligence
Community.
Science, Technology and Engineering Capability
Within the Weapons Activities appropriation, the separate line created by the Congress in 2009 iscontinued through the FYNSP. This new GPRA unit provides a focal point for science, technology andengineering in NNSA, and facilitates a point of entry for the wider national security community into
NNSA's programs and facilities. Supplemental funding was provided in FY 2009, and there is a request
for continuing funding in FY 2011. Outyear funding requests are pending the completion of a numberof program plans including those required by the Congress for the supplemental appropriations andassociated with the 5-year MOU with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Future budget requests
will be considered in the FY 2012-2016 Programming cycle.
Functional Transfers
Two functional transfers are included in this budget request: Transfer of one Federal FTE and $204,900
in FY 2011 from Environmental Management (EM) to NNSA to support past functional transfers forLong Term Stewardship activities; and, transfer of $1,500,000 in FY 2011 from Naval Reactors to
Nuclear Energy for continued performance of Safeguards and Security Services at the Idaho National
Laboratory (INL).
NNSA Program Summaries
The President’s FY 2011 Budget Request for the NNSA is $11.2 billion, a 13.4 percent increase overFY 2010 appropriations. Outyear projections are consistent with this level to meet the requirements for
significant long term investments in the nuclear security enterprise deliverables, capabilities andinfrastructure.
Weapons Activities Appropriation
The request for this appropriation is $7.0 billion, an increase of 9.8 percent over the FY 2010
appropriated level. This level is sustained and increased in the later outyears. Increased funding isrequested for programs in direct support of the nuclear weapon stockpile, for scientific, technical andengineering activities related to maintenance assessment and certification capabilities for the stockpile,
National Nuclear Security Administration/
Overview

Page 9FY 2011 Congressional Budgetand for critical infrastructure improvements. The Security and Nuclear Counterterrorism component
decreases about 3 percent from the FY 2010 appropriated levels, attributable to continuing efficiencies
in the Defense Nuclear Security programs and budget.
This multi-year increase reflects the President’s commitment to maintain the safety, security andeffectiveness of the nuclear deterrent without underground nuclear testing, consistent with the principlesof the Stockpile Management Program outlined in Section 3113 (a)(2) of the National Defense
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2010 (50 U.S.C. 2524). The nuclear security requirements driving thisbudget request include improvements to the safety and security of the enduring stockpile; a strengthened
science, technology, and engineering (ST&E) base; and a recapitalized physical infrastructure. The
enterprise must also be responsive to an arguably more complex future national defense environment
than the singular Cold-War context within which the legacy deterrent was built.
The President’s Request provides funding necessary to protect and advance the scientific capabilities at
the U.S. national security laboratories — including the ability to design nuclear warheads as well as
development and engineering expertise and capabilities—through a stockpile stewardship program thatfully exercises these capabilities.
This budget request is responsive to FY 2010 Congressional direction to carry out a Stockpile
Management program in support of stockpile stewardship that provides for effective management of theweapons in the nuclear weapons stockpile. This program will strengthen the stockpile activities,
including life extension and surveillance; strengthen science, technology and engineering, including theworkforce; and modernize the aging infrastructure, especially special nuclear materials capabilities.
The Stockpile Support component of this appropriation includes Directed Stockpile Work and the
supporting Readiness Campaign. The President’s Request is $2.0 billion, an increase of 25.2 percent
over the FY 2010 appropriation. This provides for the Stockpile Management program, including
surveillance, maintenance, assembly, disassembly and dismantlement activities, and will fully support
the ongoing Life Extension Programs (LEP) for the W76 warhead and the refurbishment of the B61
bomb. The budget request will enhance surveillance efforts, and ensure that capabilities and capacity
are available so that future warhead life extension programs will allow for increased margin andenhanced warhead safety, security and control. The request will initiate a study in FY 2011 to evaluate
future options and approaches to maintaining the W78, consistent with the principles of the Stockpile
Management Program defined in Section 3113 (a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act of
Fiscal Year 2010 (50 U.S.C. 2524).
The Science, Technology and Engineering component of this appropriation includes the Science
Campaign, Engineering Campaign, Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign, Advanced
Simulation and Computing Campaign, and Science, Technology and Engineering Capability. The
President’s Request of $1.6 billion is an increase of 10.4 percent over FY 2010 appropriations that will
restore sufficient funds for the science and technology that support stockpile assessment andcertification in the absence of nuclear testing. Within this request, the ICF Ignition and High Yield
campaign is requested at $481.5 million. Construction of the National Ignition Facility was completed
in FY 2009, and the first ignition campaign spanning FY 2010 to FY 2011 will attempt to compress,
implode, and ignite a layered Deuterium-Tritium (DT) capsule with a ~1.3 megajoule energy pulse fromthe NIF. Regardless of the specific status of ignition, FY 2011 will present a very demanding agenda ofwork in the ignition effort. Results from the first ignition attempts in 2010 will be analyzed in detail,National Nuclear Security Administration/
Overview

Page 10

FY 2011 Congressional Budgetand the intensive process of tuning laser and target parameters for optimum performance will continue.
The NIF provides critical scientific data to support the stockpile without underground nuclear testing.
Computation and simulation underpin all of our science, technology and engineering, and are pervasive
throughout the activities in the nuclear security enterprise. The FY 2011 President’s Request of$616 million for the Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign, and the out-year funding profile,
will enable a stronger simulation program and inject a renewed scientific rigor back into the program.
Developing robust peer review among the national security laboratories as we move away from the test
base experience is essential to being able to maintain a stockpile without underground testing.
Comprehensive uncertainty quantification calculations in 3D will provide the confidence necessary to
make reliable progress toward the predictive capability necessary to address stockpile aging issues. In
the next decade, predictive capability and specific warhead simulation deliverables will demand evermore powerful and sophisticated simulation environments. This request will position the national
security laboratories to take advantage of future platform architectures to more efficiently steward thestockpile.
The Infrastructure/Construction component of the appropriation includes Readiness in Technical Baseand Facilities, Secure Transportation Asset, Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program, andSite Stewardship. The President’s Budget Request is $2.3 billion, a 4.8 percent increase over the
FY 2010 level. Creation and maintenance of supporting physical infrastructure for the nuclear security
enterprise is a high priority in the upcoming FYNSP. Along with the funding to support the ongoing
operations of the government-owned, contractor operated laboratories and manufacturing facilities, thePresident’s Request includes funding for major long term construction projects needed to restore criticalcapabilities in plutonium and uranium essential to the Stockpile Management program.
The President’s Request includes funding to complete the design and begin construction of the
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility Replacement (CMRR) nuclear facility at the Los Alamos
National Laboratory. This facility conducts plutonium research and development and provides
analytical capabilities in support of pit surveillance and production. Current planning would have thisfacility fully operational by 2022. A related project is requested to increase pit production capacity andcapability at the adjoining PF-4 facility that is part of the main plutonium facility at Los Alamos todemonstrate pit reuse by 2017 and production by 2018-2020. The budget request also includes funding
to complete the design and begin construction of the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) at the Y-12
National Security Complex to support production and surveillance of highly-enriched uranium
components. This facility is also planned to achieve full operations by 2022.
Maintaining and improving the current infrastructure is also an important priority for NNSA. The
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program is continuing to reduce the deferred maintenancebacklog as it proceeds toward its planned conclusion in 2013. Increased funding is provided for the Site
Stewardship program that integrates institutional/landlord functions for our sites, including regulatorydriven long-term Stewardship, Nuclear Materials Consolidation, and energy efficiency projects.
The Security and Nuclear Counterterrorism component of the appropriation includes Defense Nuclear
Security, Cyber Security, and Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response. The President’s request forthese programs is $1.1 billion, a slight 3.2 percent decrease from FY 2010 appropriated levels. The
decrease is driven by continuing to leverage efficiencies in the implementation of the Graded Security

National Nuclear Security Administration/
Overview

Page 11

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Protection Policy by the Defense Nuclear Security program. The Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident
Response activities within this component increase by 5 percent.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Appropriation
The request for this appropriation is $2.7 billion, an increase of 25.8 percent over the FY 2010
appropriation. The increase is driven by the imperative for U.S. leadership in nonproliferation initiatives
both here and abroad, including the consolidation of fissile materials disposition activities into thisaccount. In addition to the programs funded solely by the NNSA, our programs support the Departmentof Energy mission to protect our national security by preventing the spread of nuclear weapons andnuclear materials to terrorist organizations and rogue states. These efforts are implemented in partthrough the Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction,
formed at the G8 Kananaskis Summit in June 2002, and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear
Terrorism, launched in Rabat, Morocco, in October 2006.
The FY 2011 President’s Request reflects a shift in emphasis from work completed under the Bratislava
agreement to completing additional Second Line of Defense sites, including Megaports, sustainability of
MPC&A upgrades, and continued expansion of nuclear and radiological material removal. The Global
Threat Reduction Initiative increases by 68 percent in support of the President’s policy direction tosecure vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years. The Fissile Materials Disposition
program increases by 47 percent reflecting continuing domestic construction on the MOX Fuel
Fabrication Facility, and the design and construction of two major supporting facilities.
The NNSA’s nonproliferation programs seek to secure nuclear materials worldwide that could be used
for weapons and to convert such materials for peaceful applications. Within the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Research and Development activities, improved detection of nuclear material is being
achieved through instrument development and extensive cooperation among federal and international
agencies. These advanced detection techniques and analysis capabilities are a major part of the U.S.
capability to detect nuclear weapon tests and nuclear materials production processes to assure that
intelligence information and agreed material controls are adequate in the face of increasing efforts byadversaries to obtain these capabilities. Demonstration of improved detection techniques, relying onstate-of-the-art instrument advances to detect smaller and more specific types of material, in many cases
remotely, are uniquely contributed by NNSA. Novel verification technologies and methodologies andrealistic testing of detectors are also uniquely available from NNSA. Frequent interagency technicalmeetings and international comparisons, along with scientific peer review of each activity, guide these
specific research and development programs.
The FY 2011 President’s Budget Request has consolidated all of the funding requests for the Fissile
Materials Disposition activities within the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation appropriation. The current
funding for both the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility and Waste Solidification Building projects weremoved in the FY 2010 appropriation, and the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF) project
has been moved back to Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation starting in FY 2011. The DOE has decided
to pursue a proposed combination of the Office of Environmental Management Plutonium Preparation
Project and the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Project in a single project located in an existing K-Area
Facility at the Savannah River Site. This activity will be evaluated using the Department’s project
management order, DOE 413 and will move toward a Critical Decision 1 (approval of alternative
selection and cost range).

National Nuclear Security Administration/
Overview

Page 12FY 2011 Congressional Budget

The U.S. continues to work with the Russian Federation on plutonium disposition in Russia pursuant to
the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement reached in September 2000. Congress had
appropriated $200 million in a FY 1999 Supplemental Appropriation to support Russian plutonium
disposition activities; however, $207 million of this and other funding for this program was rescinded in
FY 2008 due to lack of progress in Russia. The FY 2011 Request includes $100 million of acommitment to provide $400 million to support plutonium disposition in Russia once a Protocol
amending the 2000 Agreement, related liability provisions, and a monitoring and inspection regime issigned. The balance of more than $2 billion in remaining cost associated with Russian plutonium
disposition would be borne by Russia and non-U.S. contributions, if available.
Naval Reactors Appropriation
The President’s Request for Naval Reactors is $1.1 billion, an increase of 13.3 percent over the FY 2010
appropriated level. The program supports the U.S. Navy's nuclear fleet, comprised of all of the Navy’s
submarines and aircraft carriers, including 52 attack submarines, 14 ballistic missile submarines,
4 guided missile submarines, and 11 aircraft carriers. These ships are relied on every day, all over theworld, to protect our national interests. Starting in FY 2010, there are major new missions for the
NNSA Naval Reactors program. A significant funding increase is requested for the OHIO Class
submarine replacement that will begin procurement in 2019. Two years prior, in 2017, reactor plantcomponents will be procured to allow for the long manufacturing spans and early need for thesecomponents in submarine construction; thus, the R&D and design is underway now. This design will
require a new fuel system and a new cladding material.
The land-based prototype (located at the Kesselring site in New York), which requires refueling in 2017,
continues to provide multiple benefits. It provides a cost-effective test platform for new technologies
and components before they are introduced for Fleet application, it allows for early fuel depletion andlearning from new core materials, and it provides a training platform for reactor plant operators. The
land-based prototype refueling will also provide key technical data for the OHIO Class submarine
replacement, since the reactor core work to support the refueling will also support the core
manufacturing development for the OHIO Class replacement.
The Expended Core Facility (located at the Naval Reactors Facility on the Idaho National Laboratory),is the central location for naval spent nuclear fuel receipt, inspection, dissection, packaging, and secure
dry storage, as well as detailed examination of spent cores and irradiated specimens. The existing
facility and related infrastructure is more then 50 years old, does not meet current standards, andrequires recapitalization. To ensure uninterrupted receipt of naval spent nuclear fuel without impact to
the Fleet and to minimize risks associated with an aging facility, construction is targeted to begin by
2015. The mission need statement for sustaining this capability long-term has been approved, andconceptual design and alternative analysis efforts are planned to begin in 2010.
Office of the Administrator Appropriation
This appropriation provides for the Federal staff and related support for the NNSA Headquarters andfield organizations. The President’s Request is $448.3 million for these activities. The Federal
personnel level for FY 2011 is projected at 1,970 Full Time Equivalents, essentially level with the
expectation for FY 2010.

National Nuclear Security Administration/
Overview

Page 13

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

NNSA Summary by Appropriation
FY 2009
Office of the Administrator
Office of the Administrator
Congressionally Directed Projects
Use of Prior Year Balances
Total, Office of the Administrator
Weapons Activities Appropriation
Defense Programs
Directed Stockpile Work
Science Campaign
Engineering Campaign
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
Readiness Campaign
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Secure Transportation Asset
Total, Defense Programs

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015415,878
23,3120439,190418,074
13,000-10,320
420,754448,26700448,267

426,42400426,424430,72600430,726

435,06900
435,069

448,49800448,498

1,590,152
316,690150,000
436,915556,125
160,620
1,674,406
214,439
5,099,347

1,505,859
295,646
150,000
457,915567,625
100,000
1,842,870
234,915
5,154,830

1,898,379
365,222
141,920
481,548615,748
112,092
1,848,970
248,045
5,711,924

1,900,736
397,460
149,737
480,451
622,940
81,697
1,872,546
251,272
5,756,839

1,999,470
418,823
134,996475,597
616,257
70,747
1,841,325
249,456
5,806,671

2,240,139
416,199
144,920
470,994
615,420
69,854
1,926,568
252,869
6,136,963

2,346,254
394,766
145,739484,812633,134
72,584
1,997,764
261,521
6,336,574

Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program
Site Stewardship
Environmental Projects and Operations
Safeguards and Security
Defense Nuclear Security
Cyber Security
Subtotal, Safeguards and Security
Science, Technology and Engineering Capability
Congressionally Directed Projects
Use of Prior Year Balances
Total, Weapons Activities

215,278
147,449
038,596

221,936
93,922
61,2880233,134
94,000105,478
0222,91494,000101,9290

222,508
94,000103,5360235,3000
174,0710237,9860
205,8020735,208
121,286
856,494
30,00022,8360
6,410,000

769,044
122,511
891,555
0
3,000-42,100
6,384,431

719,954
124,345844,299
20,0000
07,008,835

730,944
126,046
856,9900007,032,672

729,609125,822855,4310007,082,146

728,925
125,707854,6320007,400,966

740,649
127,189
867,8380007,648,200

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
No nproliferation and Verification Research and Development
No nproliferation and International Security
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production
Fissile Materials Dispo sition
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Congressionally Directed Projects
Use of Prior Year Balances
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

356,281150,000
460,592
141,299
41,774
404,640
1,903-11,418
1,545,071

317,300
187,202572,050
24,507
701,900
333,500250
02,136,709

351,568
155,930
590,11801,030,713
558,838002,687,167

315,941
161,083
570,7980859,375
599,994002,507,191

317,558
165,275
561,79001,010,642
659,926002,715,191

328,194
169,861
558,492
0789,558
987,138002,833,243

351,145
181,741
623,6700743,600
1,056,172
002,956,328

828,054828,054945,133
945,133

1,070,486
1,070,486

1,099,734
1,099,734

1,171,178
1,171,178

1,226,017
1,226,017

1,310,530
1,310,530

9,887,027 11,214,755 11,066,021 11,399,241-10,000
9,877,027

11,895,295

12,363,556

Naval Reactors
Naval Reactors
Total, Naval Reactors
Total, NNSA
Transfer of Prior Year Balances (Office of the Administrator)
Total, NNSA (OMB Scor ing)

National Nuclear Security Administration/
Overview

9,222,315

Page 14

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Site
Ames
ANL
BAPL
BNL
CH
GA
HQ
ID
INL
KAPL
KCP
KSO
LANL
LASO
LBNL
LLNL
LSO
NBL
NETL
NRL
NRLFO
NS
NTS
NVSO
OR
ORISE
ORNL
OSTI
PN
PNNL
PSO
PX
RL
RSL
SNL
SR
SR/MOX
SR/WGI
SRNL
SRS
SRSO
SSO
ST
UR/LLE
Y-12
YSO
PYBal
Grand Total

FY 2009
Omnibus236
45,501
418,700
39,13538,962
15,707355,401
1,237
212,786
302,800
456,1036,106
1,563,230
19,8746,541
1,121,277
18,564
1,150
3,359
6,027
0
755,064
288,259
105,937
215
13,819183,016631
10,905237,219
12,813
526,5671,463
01,165,794
34,1300
02,216
247,367
31,176
14,611
8,245
55,370866,573
39,647-11,418
9,222,315

Site Estimates(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2010
FY 2011
Approp
Total
OA
WA
NN
NR
435
0
0
420
0
420
53,527
02,412
63,835
066,247434,400000498,900
498,900
28,3500
1,876
38,165040,041
15,4040
14,23600
14,236
22,100022,5000022,500515,174
248,681356,596
18,712
24,086
648,075
1,299
0
1,364
0
0
1,364
186,457
0
9,945
133,456
93,400236,801
391,800000434,900
434,900
461,995
0532,9492,439
0535,388
5,881
7,078
0
0
0
7,078
1,488,040
0 1,636,838
233,537
0 1,870,375
19,80520,02100
020,021
5,717
0
0
5,506
0
5,506
1,077,345
0 1,051,070
108,755
0 1,159,825
18,91419,75900019,759
3,769
0
221
988
0
1,209
1,050
0
0
0
0
0
2,104
0
2,060
0
0
2,060
18,30000019,20019,200618,382
81,414265,055
235,8660582,335
265,159
0228,669
106,5700335,239
103,627
19,48578,4950097,980
240
0
0
223
0
223
15,6630
15,0073,473
018,480183,901
05,874
276,7170282,591
773
0
771
0
0
771
0
0
0
0
0
0
330,140
0
11,834
281,1850293,019
12,902
14,39600014,396
534,706
0532,317218
0532,535
1,385
0
1,418
0
0
1,418
0
0
0
9,464
0
9,464
1,124,875
0 1,141,953
187,275
0 1,329,228
134,35600217,4080
217,408494,23800465,7880465,78800080,000080,000
2,100
0
1,650
0
0
1,650
335,7820191,685
147,5290339,214
7,750
6,194
1,516
0
0
7,710
14,352
15,21700015,21700000059,939062,4770062,477907,2270832,343
53,073
0885,416
40,084
16,022
5,704
16,565
038,291-52,420—00009,887,027
448,267 7,008,835 2,687,167 1,070,486 11,214,755

National Nuclear Security Administration/
Overview

Page 15

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Indirect Costs and Other Items of Interest
Institutional General Plant Projects (IGPP)
Institutional General Plant Projects (IGPP) provide for minor new construction of a general institutional
nature at multi-program sites, funded out of Management and Operating Contractor indirect funds.
IGPPs benefit multi-program users (e.g., NNSA and Office of Science) at a site. The following areplanned IGPP funding projections:

Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Sandia National Laboratories
Total Site IGPP

(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
8,200
9,200
9,400
8,800
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,632
4,632
10,00010,000
1,400
5,400
5,520
4,280
4,500
870
8,300
17,112
18,332
20,27027,100
1,400
5,400
5,520

The three NNSA laboratories, LANL, LLNL and SNL, are funding general institutional projects that
support multiple programs.
Other Indirect
Facilities Maintenance and Repair
The Department’s Facilities Maintenance and Repair activities are tied to its programmatic missions,
goals, and objectives. Facilities Maintenance and Repair activities funded by NNSA are displayed
below.
Indirect-Funded Maintenance and Repair(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
6,307
6,669
6,571
8,864
8,954
10,915
10,933
11,323
12,639100,107
100,107
101,640
54,44954,44954,44954,135
51,77952,97000096,61392,142
94,086
1,757
1,647
1,701
22,18922,74423,267348,779
352,905
361,722

Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory
Kansas City Plant
Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Nevada Test Site
Pantex Plant
Sandia National Laboratories
Savannah River Site
Y-12 National Security Complex
Total, Indirect-Funded Maintenance and Repair

National Nuclear Security Administration/
Overview

Page 16

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetOutyear Indirect-Funded Maintenance and Repair(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
6,371
6,375
6,494
6,373
10,547
6,140
5,005
5,180
13,172
13,85911,814
11,562
103,107
106,920
109,562
111,11254,44954,44954,44972,34055,32656,54357,78759,059000
093,925
94,61495,75897,849
1,815
1,875
1,937
2,103
23,77924,302
24,83725,383362,491
365,077
367,643
390,961

Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory
Kansas City Plant
Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Nevada Test Site
Pantex Plant
Sandia National Laboratories
Savannah River Site
Y-12 National Security Complex
Total, Indirect-Funded Maintenance and Repair

Direct-Funded Maintenance and Repair(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
13,0799,030
9,592
25,96821,282
21,392
4,798
3,798
3,779
21,394
19,61021,00573,15570,054
72,663
28,83917,55728,16662,391
74,40362,831
21,2798,049
11,64730,47929,411
29,08016,99550,207
51,135271,189
310,381
331,498

Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory
Kansas City Plant
Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Nevada Test Site
Pantex Plant
Sandia National Laboratories
Savannah River Site
Y-12 National Security Complex
Total, Direct-Funded Maintenance and Repair

National Nuclear Security Administration/
Overview

Page 17

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetOutyear Direct-Funded Maintenance and Repair
FY 2012
14,602
25,111
3,981
21,43773,09729,28865,15424,96637,75251,302
346,690

Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory
Kansas City Plant
Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Nevada Test Site
Pantex Plant
Sandia National Laboratories
Savannah River Site
Y-12 National Security Complex
Total, Direct-Funded Maintenance and Repair

National Nuclear Security Administration/
Overview

Page 18(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
13,532
12,661
11,68914,826
11,67912,088
4,011
4,025
4,094
17,9404,055
4,145
73,44644,541
59,18729,596
17,484
17,335
68,106
48,87751,151
21,221
4,547
2,845
38,094
34,63135,21352,04012,006
12,270332,812
194,506
210,017

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Office of the
Administrator

Page 19

Office of the
Administrator

Page 20

Office of the Administrator
Proposed Appropriation Language
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Administrator in the National Nuclear Security
Administration, including official reception and representation expenses not to exceed $12,000,[$420,754,000] $448,267,000, to remain available until expended.
Explanation of Change
The FY 2011 Request provides escalation for a level NNSA Federal staff of 1,970 full time equivalents(FTEs). The escalation is largely a 4.7 percent increase in salary and benefits over FY 2010 levels, andadditionally reflects full funding by the Office of the Administrator of government site offices.

Office of the Administrator/
Appropriation Language

Page 21

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 22

Office of the Administrator
Overview
Appropriation Summary by Program(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual
FY 2010 Current
Appropriation
Appropriation *Office of the Administrator
Office of the Administrator
Congressionally Directed Projects
Use of Prior Year Balances
Total, Office of the Administrator
Transfer of Prior Year Balances
Total, OMB Scoring

415,878
23,3120439,190
439,190418,074
13,000-10,320
420,754-10,000
410,754

FY 2011
Request448,26700448,267
448,267* Note: In accordance with P.L. 111-85, $10,000,000 of Office of the Administrator prior year balances
have been transferred to Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup for cleanup efforts at the Argonne
National Laboratory.
Public Law Authorization:
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-85)
FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8)
National Nuclear Security Administration Act (P.L. 106-65), as amended
Outyear Appropriation Summary
FY 2012426,424

Office of the Administrator(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
430,726
435,069
448,498

MissionThe Office of the Administrator creates a well-managed, inclusive, responsive, and accountableorganization through the strategic management of human capital and acquisitions; enhanced costeffective utilization of information technology; and integration of budget and performance data.
Benefits
The Office of the Administrator provides the Federal personnel and resources necessary to plan,manage, and oversee the operation of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The
Nation benefits from having a highly educated and skilled cadre of Federal managers overseeing theoperations of the defense mission activities and performing many specialized duties including leading
Emergency Response teams, nuclear nonproliferation coordination, and safeguards and security
oversight.
Performance
The Office of the Administrator appropriation supports Secretarial Goal 3 - Security: Reduce nuclear
dangers and environmental risks. NNSA will provide a well-managed, inclusive, responsive andOffice of the Administrator/
Program Direction

Page 23

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

accountable organization through the strategic management of human capital; enhanced cost-effective
utilization of information technology; and greater integration of budget and performance data.

Office of the Administrator/
Program Direction

Page 24

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAnnual Performance Results and Targets(R = Results; T = Targets)
Performance Indicators

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Endpoint Target

R: 5.0%

T: 5.9%

T: 5.9%

T: 5.9%

T: 5.9%

T: 5.9%

T: 5.9%In keeping with OMB and DOE
expectations that administrative
costs be minimized, maintain the
Office of the Administrator Federal
administrative costs as a percentage
of total Weapons Activities andDefense Nuclear Nonproliferationaprogram costs at less than 6% .

T: 80%

T: 85%

T: 90%

T: 95%

T: 100%

T: 100%

By 2014, 100% of NNSA Federal
Project Directors will be certified at
the appropriate level though the
Project Management CareeraDevelopment Program.

T: N/A

T: N/A

T: N/A

T: N/A

T: N/A

T: N/A

By 2007, increase annual average
PART scores to 85%.

Secretarial Priority: Security: Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risks
GPRA Unit Program Number: 25, Office of the Administrator
N/A

N/A

Federal Administrative Costs:
Maintain the Office of the
Administrator Federal
administrative costs as apercentage of total Weapons
Activities and Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation program costs ataless than 6% (Efficiency)

N/A

PMCDP Certification:
Cumulative percent of active
NNSA projects managed by aFederal Project Director, certified
at the appropriate level through the
Project Management Career
Development Program (Long-term
Output) a

N/AAnnual average NNSA Program
score on the OMB Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART)assessment indicating progress inbudget performance integration andresults (Efficiency)

R: 82%

R: 84.3%

R: 85%

T: 80%

T: 85%

T: 85%a

T: 5.9%N/A

N/A

R: 76%
T: 4%

T: N/Ab

New measure developed for FY 2009.

b

Prior to FY 2008, the cumulative average NNSA PART score was used as the indicator of the overall health of the organization. This metric was replaced with two new
metrics that better depict the overall health of the organization.

Office of the Administrator/
Program Direction

Page 25

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Means and Strategies
The Office of the Administrator Program leverages Federal resources with contractual support to
optimize its mission achievement. The NNSA has implemented a disciplined planning, programming,and budgeting process to assure taxpayers that these programs are integrated and cost effective. The
program has an integrated headquarters and field administrative structure, and is forward looking in its
workforce planning initiatives. The program is also implementing information and acquisition
management tools and practices for improved job performance and efficiency. The NNSA uses creative
personnel practices to ensure the best talent is recruited, retained, and rewarded. All employees areaccountable to the NNSA Administrator for achieving their elements of the NNSA’s mission.
The Office of the Administrator budget is 72 percent Salaries and Benefits for NNSA Federal staff.
Budget components for Information Technology, Space and Occupancy, International Offices, Travel,
and Support Services, comprise the remaining 28 percent.
Validation and Verification
To validate and verify program performance, the NNSA conducts various internal and external reviews
and audits. The NNSA’s programmatic activities are subject to review by the Congress, theGovernment Accountability Office, the Department’s Inspector General, the National Security Council,
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, the Department’s Office of Engineering and Construction
Management, and the Department’s Office of Independent Oversight. Each year, numerous external
independent reviews are conducted of selected projects. Additionally, NNSA Headquarters senior
management and field managers conduct frequent, in-depth reviews of cost, schedule, and scope toensure projects are on-schedule and within budget.
The NNSA has established a comprehensive validation and verification process as part of its Planning,
Programming, Budgeting and Evaluation (PPBE) system. Long-term performance goals are
established/validated during the Planning Phase and linked to annual targets and detailed technicalmilestones. During the Programming Phase, budget and resource trade-offs and decisions are evaluatedbased on the impact to annual and long-term outcomes. These NNSA decisions are documented andused to develop the budget requests during the Budgeting Phase. Program and financial performance foreach measure is monitored and progress verified during the Execution and Evaluation Phase.
The NNSA validation and verification activities during the PPBE Execution and Evaluation Phase
include a set of tiered performance reviews to examine program management and corporate performanceagainst long-term goals. The NNSA Administrator reviews each NNSA program as part of the NNSA's
PPBE Evaluation process. These reviews, usually conducted annually, include the NNSA Management
Council and focus on both technical and financial information to identify issues, monitor program
progress, and make recommendations for corporate improvement. The focus of these reviews is toverify and validate that NNSA programs are on track to meet their long-term goals and annual targets.
The results of these reviews are reported quarterly in the Department’s performance tracking system andannually in the NNSA Administrator’s Annual Performance Report and the DOE Performance
Accountability Report (PAR). These documents present the progress that NNSA programs are making
toward achieving both annual targets and long-term goals, and help senior managers verify and validate
progress toward NNSA and Departmental commitments.

Office of the Administrator/
Program Direction

Page 26

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetSignificant Program Shifts
 Beginning in FY 2011, there is a transfer of 1 FTE from the Office of Environmental Management(EM) to NNSA for Long-term Stewardship (LTS) at the Service Center. This transfer reflects a pasttransfer of functions from EM to NNSA and future reductions in EM work with increases in NNSA
work (e.g., nuclear materials consolidation, Facility Deactivation and Demolition), specifically thetransfer of 1 FTE associated with the completion of legacy EM funded work at the Livermore,
Savannah River, and Pantex Site Offices. (FY 2011: +$204,900)
Major Outyear Priorities and Assumptions
 The outyear projections for the Office of the Administrator appropriation total $1,740,717,000(FY 2012 through FY 2015). This FYNSP level does not provide for true escalation in the outyears.
These adjustments are made in the budget year only to reflect the most precise estimate possible
based on staffing levels.
Department of Energy (DOE) Working Capital Fund (WCF) Support
The NNSA Office of the Administrator appropriation projected allocation of the DOE Working Capitalfund for FY 2011 is $23,098,000.
The DOE WCF Board has extended the policy for using program funding to finance WCF activities.
Beginning in FY 2011, NNSA programs will fund a pro rata share by Appropriation of certain DOE
Working Capital Fund activities. FY 2011 projected NNSA program allocations are as follows:
DOEnet ($482,000) for DOE telecommunications services; Financial Statement Audits ($4,514,000),previously budgeted by the DOE Office of Inspector General; Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)
Audits ($3,076,000) for procurement management; iManage ($3,121,000) for corporate systems that
support the DOE accounting, finance, procurement and budgeting processes; and Financial Control
Reporting Assessment ($1,502,000).
The NNSA’s total contribution to the WCF from both Program and Program Direction funds for
FY 2011 is projected at $35,942,000.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Support
The NNSA has established a program to target research opportunities for HBCU institutions to increase
their participation in national security-related research and to train and recruit qualified HBCU graduates
for employment within the nuclear security enterprise. The FY 2010 Energy and Water Development
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-85), included $13,000,000 in CongressionallyDirected projects in support of HBCU programs within the Office of the Administrator Appropriation.
In FY 2011, the Office of the Administrator appropriation requests approximately $4,677,051 to support
HBCU activities. Additionally, the Weapons Activities appropriation plans to provide up to $6,000,000;
the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation appropriation plans to provide up to $3,000,000; and the Naval
Reactors program plans to fund up to $1,000,000 of HBCU efforts in multiple research areas directly
supporting program activities.

Office of the Administrator/
Program Direction

Page 27

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Office of the Administrator
Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)
FY 2009
Actual

FY 2010
Appropriation

FY 2011
Request

Office of the Administrator
Headquarters
Office of the Administrator
Defense Programs
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Emergency Operations
Infrastructure and Environment
Management and Administration
Defense Nuclear Security
Future Leaders Program
Subtotal, Headquarters

78
173
212
89
38
96
22
57
765

84
178
259
99
42
102
28
60
852

84
178
259
99
42
102
28
60
852

NNSA Service Center
Livermore Site Office
Los Alamos Site Office
Sandia Site Office
Nevada Site Office
Pantex Site Office
Y-12 Site OfficeKansas City Site Office
Savannah River Site OfficeTotal, Office of the Administrator

458
93
109
83
90
77
81
39
36
1,831

491
97
111
84
98
81
81
42
33
1,970

491
97
111
84
98
81
81
42
33
1,970

Office of the Administrator/
Program Direction

Page 28

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Office of the Administrator
Funding by Site
(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
ActualAppropriation
NNSA Office of the Administrator
Office of the Administrator
Headquarters
NNSA Service Center
Livermore Site Office
Los Alamos Site Office
Sandia Site Office
Nevada Site Office
Pantex Site Office
Y-12 Site OfficeKansas City Site Office
Savannah River Site Office
Subtotal
Use of Prior Year Balances
Total, Office of the Administrator
Congressionally Directed Projects
NNSA Service Center
Total, Congressionally Directed Projects
Total, NNSA Office of the Administrator

FY 2010
Appropriation

FY 2011
Request$ Change% Change

230,987
74,99918,56419,084
14,611
17,54912,813
14,9726,106
6,193
415,8780415,878

235,076
74,203
18,914
18,78014,352
17,987
12,902
14,7125,881
5,267
418,074-10,320
407,754248,681
81,41419,75920,021
15,217
19,485
14,396
16,022
7,078
6,194
448,2670448,267+13,605+7,211+845+1,241+865+1,498+1,494+1,310+1,197+927+30,193+10,320+40,513

+5.8%
+9.7%
+4.5%
+6.6%
+6.0%
+8.3%
+11.6%+8.9%+20.4%+17.6%+7.2%-100.0%+9.9%

23,312
23,312
439,190

13,00013,000420,75400448,267-13,000-13,000
27,513-100.0%-100.0%+6.5%

Office of the Administrator
Funding by Object Class(dollars in thousands)

NNSA Office of the Administrator
Office of the Administrator
Salaries and Benefits
TravelSupport Services
Other Related Expenses
Space and Occupancy Costs/WCF
Information Technology
Other Related Expenses
Training
Subtotal, Other Related Expenses
Subtotal, Office of the Administrator
Use of Prior Year Balances
Total, Office of the Administrator
Congressionally Directed Projects
Other Related Expenses
Total, Congressionally Directed Projects
Total, NNSA Office of the Administrator

Office of the Administrator/
Program Direction

FY 2009
ActualAppropriation

FY 2010
Appropriation

282,096
15,41225,378306,644
14,912
21,678321,149
15,49523,256+14,505+583+1,578

+4.7%
+3.9%
+7.3%

38,93929,614
21,365
3,074
92,992415,8780415,878

36,00023,444
12,517
2,879
74,840418,074-10,320
407,754

44,621
26,231
14,3773,138
88,367448,2670448,267+8,621+2,787+1,860+259+13,527+30,193+10,320+40,513+23.9%+11.9%+14.9%+9.0%+18.1%+7.2%-100.0%+9.9%

23,312
23,312

13,00013,0000
0-13,000-13,000-100.0%-100.0%439,190

420,754448,267+27,513+6.5%

Page 29

FY 2011
Request$ Change% Change

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification

Salaries and Benefits

FY 2009(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010

FY 2011

282,096306,644

321,149

Provides support for a NNSA Federal staff level of 1,970 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) under the
NNSA’s Pay for Performance Demonstration Project. Funding includes annual cost of living
adjustments of 1.4 percent, performance based salary increases (up to 3 percent), promotions,performance awards, severance costs, health and retirement benefits, workman’s compensation
payments, and other payroll adjustments.
Provides Salaries and Benefits funding to support the Future Leaders Program (the sixth class of NNSA
interns is planned to come on board at the end of the 3rd quarter of FY 2010). The Future Leaders
Program funds the interns for two years, during which time they are not counted against a site’s
managed staffing targets. After the two years, the interns are absorbed into the staffing allocations at
the receiving locations.
Travel

15,412

14,912

15,495

Supports domestic and foreign travel necessary to conduct NNSA business. Domestic travel provides
management oversight, public outreach, and national security assistance and interface with the Site
Offices, the Service Center, Headquarters, the laboratories and plants, and local governments.
Domestic travel reflects efficiencies resulting from NNSA efforts to constrain travel expenses by
increasing utilization of the existing video teleconferencing capabilities, further reducing multiple
employees on trips, and assuring that travel is absolutely mission essential.
International travel is increasing consistent with the DNN mission growth. It is a key element of thenonproliferation work with international agencies and the former Soviet Union republics, and other
International partners. DNN travel accounts for 45 percent of the total NNSA travel request.
Support Services

25,37821,67823,256

Provides technical support for highly specialized analytical expertise required to address criticaltechnical program issues in nonproliferation and national security including areas of security, facility
representatives, environment, safety and health, and project management. (FY 2011: $8,177,759)
Administrative support includes the operation of mailrooms and maintenance of various databases in
addition to clerical support. (FY 2011: $12,495,925)
Funding requested provides management support for studies and reviews of NNSA corporate policies
and procedures concerning management operations and planning. (FY 2011: $2,582,128)

Office of the Administrator/
Program Direction

Page 30

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetOther Related Expenses

FY 2009(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010

FY 201192,992

74,84088,367

Information Technology
Provides Information Technology (IT) support for the NNSA Federal staff, including network
services, maintenance and equipment; help desk support; and user equipment and software,
including support for Department-wide systems such as the financial information reporting systems.
The IT request for FY 2011 is $26,230,526 the majority of which is provided to the DOE under the
Common Operating Environment (DOECOE) arrangement. Other support stays within NNSA for
application consolidation; replacing sunset technology; and support for implementation of NNSA’scapital planning and acquisition management programs associated with IT investments at NNSAManagement and Operating facilities.
Space and Occupancy/Working Capital Fund
Supports $44,621,139 in Space and Occupancy costs for Headquarters and the field including the
NNSA contribution to the Working Capital Fund and overall operations and maintenance of bothrented and federally owned space. The FY 2011 allocation for space and occupancy costs iscomprised of the following areas and associated funding estimates:•

Rental payments $20,128,936•

Facilities and maintenance $9,997,359•

Utilities $7,299,770•

Office space $4,537,376•

Supplies and materials $1,416,462•

Equipment maintenance $885,909•

Printing and production $355,327

A component of the Space and Occupancy funding level is for the Working Capital Fund (WCF)
located within Headquarters. The WCF provides a framework for managing certain common
administrative services within the Department. An underlying goal is to give program officecustomers the opportunity, incentive, and information to make cost-effective decisions regarding
their use of such services. The DOE WCF Board extended the policy for using program funding tofinance some WCF activities. Beginning in FY 2011, NNSA programs will fund a pro rata share
by Appropriation activities such as: DOEnet, Financial Statement Audits, Defense Contract Audit
Agency (DCAA) Audits, iManage, and Financial Control Reporting Assessment. The following
table outlines the specific funding levels funded by the Office of the Administrator Appropriation.

Office of the Administrator/
Program Direction

Page 31

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
ActualAppropriation
Supplies
562
Mail Services
401
Copying Service
446
Printing and Graphics
563
Building Occupancy
15,735
CIO Operations
3,224
Payroll and Personnel
1,513
Corporate Training Services
34
Project Management281
I-MANAGE
2,558Internal Control
1,373
Subtotal, WCF at HQ
26,690
WCF Paid by Other NNSA Appropriations
1,694
Total, WCF at HQ
28,384(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010

FY 2010
Appropriation
500
451
360
299
15,728
3,159
1,554
428
201
2,297
1,370
26,347
6,993
33,340FY 2011

FY 2011
Request
500
459
387
285
16,045
3,159
1,554
428
281
0
0
23,098
12,84435,942

International Program
Requests $5,478,477 in FY 2011 for operational costs associated with the international offices in
Moscow, Vienna, Tokyo, Kiev, Tbilisi, Astana, Islamabad, and Beijing; all critical to executing the
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs. The international office funding supports fulloperation of the mandatory entitlements for personnel, State Department Capital Security Cost
Sharing (CSCS) charges, and the State Department’s International Cooperative Administrative
Support Services (ICASS) charges.
Training
Supports necessary training and skills maintenance of the NNSA Federal staff of $3,138,414. Includes
training for the Future Leaders Program and corporate training managed by the NNSA Chief Learning
Officer.
The NNSA corporate training program ensures that all NNSA-wide training needs are met. Corporate
training provides funding for the Technical Qualification Program (TQP), leadership and supervisorydevelopment programs, retirement planning, and mandatory Equal Employment Opportunity andDiversity training. Corporate travel related to training is also funded.

Office of the Administrator/
Program Direction

Page 32

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010

FY 2011

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU)
Requests $4,677,051 for the HBCUs ($1,062,989) and the Massie Chairs of Excellence Program.
($3,614,062).
Permanent Change of Station (PCS)
Requests $2,000,000 in support of PCS moves for Federal personnel.
Security Investigations
Requests $1,000,000 for all Federal field security clearance investigations for the Service Center andSite Offices.
Miscellaneous Other
Requests $1,209,175 for activities required for NNSA’s Federal personnel, including minor
procurements; the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); Diversity program
conferences and sponsorships; Small Business Administration activities; interpreting services;
professional credentials; law library maintenance; NNSA Headquarters Going the Extra Mile
(GEM) award program; and other miscellaneous activities.
Reception and Representation
Requests $12,000 for official reception and representation expenses for NNSA activities.
Subtotal, Office of the Administrator

415,878

418,074

448,267

0-10,3200415,878

407,754448,267

Use of Prior Year Balance
Total, Office of Administrator

Office of the Administrator/
Program Direction

Page 33

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)


Salary and Benefits
Increase reflects +1.4 percent for the projected cost of living
adjustment; +3.3 percent for performance based salary
increases, promotions, awards, and benefit escalation.

TravelReflects increase to international travel for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation (DNN) mission growth, offset by domestic
travel efficiencies resulting from NNSA efforts to constrain
travel expenses by increasing utilization of the existing video
teleconferencing capabilities.



+583

Support Services
Increase reflects escalation and support service growth for
Nuclear Materials Consolidation support, DNN acquisitions,and increases to the Technical Qualifications program.

+14,505+1,578Other Related Expenses
Increase reflects the Office of the Administrator fully funding
all NNSA site office space requirements across the nuclear
security enterprise, additional funding for new building
maintenance and lease requirements at the Service Center,
NNSA international expansion under the DNN programs,
escalation primarily in information technology and space andoccupancy costs, and increased HBCU activities.

+13,527

FY 2010 Use of Prior Year Balances+10,320

Total Funding Change, Office of the Administrator+40,513

Office of the Administrator/
Program Direction

Page 34

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFunding Profile by Category(dollars in thousands/whole FTEs)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
Headquarters
Salaries and Benefits
TravelSupport Services
Other Related Expenses
Total, Headquarters

127,766
11,232
14,67577,314230,987

148,032
11,89812,55162,595
235,076

152,749
12,873
13,951
69,108248,681

Total, Full Time Equivalents

765

852

852

NNSA Service Center
Salaries and Benefits
TravelSupport Services
Other Related Expenses
Total, NNSA Service Center

59,119
1,822
5,592
8,466
74,99961,364
1,142
5,166
6,531
74,20365,274708
4,556
10,876
81,414

Total, Full Time Equivalents

458

491

491

Livermore Site Office
Salaries and Benefits
TravelSupport Services
Other Related Expenses
Total, Livermore Site Office

15,626
423
1,176
1,339
18,564

16,052
287
959
1,616
18,914

16,743
245
1,085
1,686
19,759Total, Full Time Equivalents

93

97

97

Los Alamos Site Office
Salaries and Benefits
TravelSupport Services
Other Related Expenses
Total, Los Alamos Site Office

17,712347
442
583
19,084

17,643275
372
490
18,78018,874232
397
518
20,021

Total, Full Time Equivalents

109

111

111

Sandia Site Office
Salaries and Benefits
TravelSupport Services
Other Related Expenses
Total, Sandia Site Office

12,708329
667
907
14,611

12,928209
563
652
14,352

13,573279
666
699
15,217

Total, Full Time Equivalents

83

84

84

Office of the Administrator/
Program Direction

Page 35

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFunding Profile by Category (continued)(dollars in thousands/whole FTEs)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
Nevada Site Office
Salaries and Benefits
TravelSupport Services
Other Related Expenses
Total, Nevada Site Office

14,289
364
869
2,027
17,54915,218
311
922
1,536
17,987

16,166
378
1,041
1,900
19,485

Total, Full Time Equivalents

90

98

98

Pantex Site Office
Salaries and Benefits
TravelSupport Services
Other Related Expenses
Total, Pantex Site Office

11,434242
555
582
12,813

12,119218
429
136
12,902

12,797175
557
867
14,396

Total, Full Time Equivalents

77

81

81

12,485
275
1,023
1,189
14,972

12,765
231
659
1,057
14,712

13,498
259
902
1,363
16,022

Total, Full Time Equivalents

81

81

81

Kansas City Site Office
Salaries and Benefits
TravelSupport Services
Other Related Expenses
Total, Kansas City Site Office

5,707
196
7
196
6,106

5,583
153
6
139
5,881

6,200
114
6
758
7,078

Total, Full Time Equivalents

39

42

42

5,250
182
372
389
6,193

4,940
188
51
88
5,267

5,275
232
95
592
6,194

36

33

33

Y-12 Site Office
Salaries and Benefits
TravelSupport Services
Other Related Expenses
Total, Y-12 Site Office

Savannah River Site Office
Salaries and Benefits
TravelSupport Services
Other Related Expenses
Total, Savannah River Site OfficeTotal, Full Time Equivalents

Office of the Administrator/
Program Direction

Page 36

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFunding Profile by Category (continued)(dollars in thousands/whole FTEs)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
Office of the Administrator
Salaries and Benefits
TravelSupport Services
Other Related Expenses
Total, Office of the Administrator
Total, Full Time Equivalents

Office of the Administrator/
Program Direction

Page 37

282,096
15,41225,37892,992415,878306,644
14,912
21,67874,840418,074

321,149
15,49523,25688,367448,267

1,831

1,970

1,970

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetSupport Services by Category

FY 2009(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010
FY 2011Administrative support

14,363

12,11912,496

Management support

2,411

2,149

2,582

Technical support
Other technical support
Security support
ES&H technical support
Project management support
Facility representative support
Subtotal, Technical support

2,853
2,672
1,037
1,904
138
8,604

1,958
2,606
859
1,877
110
7,410

2,478
2,470
748
2,092
390
8,178

Total, Support Services

25,37821,67823,256

Other Related Expenses by Category

FY 2009(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010
FY 2011

Training

3,074

2,879

3,138

Space and Occupancy Costs
Rental payments
Facilities and maintenanceUtilities
Office space
Internal Control
I-MANAGE
Supplies and materials
Equipment maintenance
Printing and production
Subtotal, Space and Occupancy Costs

17,147
5,883
6,213
3,025
1,373
2,558
1,400
711
629
38,93917,465
4,748
5,271
2,547
1,370
2,297
1,281
663
358
36,00020,129
9,997
7,300
4,537
0
0
1,417
886
355
44,621Other Expenses
International Offices
HBCU/HSIs
Transfer to Argonne National Lab
PCS moves
Other Services
Reception and representation
Subtotal, Other Expenses

3,345
4,368
10,000
1,919
1,721
12
21,365

3,490
4,145
0
2,678
2,192
12
12,517

5,479
4,677
0
2,000
2,209
12
14,377

Subtotal, Other Related Expenses

60,304

48,51758,998

Information Technology
Total, Other Related Expenses

29,614
92,992

23,444
74,84026,231
88,367

Office of the Administrator/
Program Direction

Page 38

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Congressional Directed Projects
Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 200923,312Congressionally Directed Projects

FY 2010
13,000FY 20110

Description
A research and education partnership program with Historically Black Colleges and Universities(HBCU) and the Massie Chairs of Excellence was initiated by the Congress through Congressionallydirected projects in the Office of the Administrator appropriation in FY 2005 and nearly every year
thereafter. The NNSA has established an effective program to target national security research
opportunities for these institutions to increase their participation in national security-related research andto train and recruit HBCU graduates for employment within the NNSA. The NNSA goal is a stable$10,000,000 annual effort.
In FY 2011, the Office of the Administrator appropriation will provide approximately $4,677,051 to
support HBCU activities. Additionally, the Weapons Activities appropriation plans to provide up to$6,000,000; the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation appropriation plans to provide up to $3,000,000; andthe Naval Reactors program plans to fund up to $1,000,000 of HBCU efforts in multiple research areas
directly supporting program activities.
HBCU Funding History
Office of the Administrator
Fiscal Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011

Congressionally Directed
22,3203,500
022,14023,312
13,0000

Other HBCU Activities
0
0
1,431
3,463
4,368
4,145
4,677

Note: Congressionally Directed in FY 2006 totalled $15,000,000 ($3,500,000 OA and$11,500,000 other NNSA appropriations).

Office of the Administrator/
Congressionally Directed Projects

Page 39

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009(non-add)
FY 2010
FY 2011
Congressionally Directed Projects• HBCU, ACE Program at Maricopa Community Colleges (AZ)

952

1,000

0

• HBCU, Morehouse College Energy Science Research and Education
Initiative (GA)

1,903

2,000

0

• HBCU, South Carolina Math and Science Initiative (SC)

9,991

10,0000• HBCU, Wilberforce (OH)

1,427

0

0

• HBCU, Central State (OH)

1,427

0

0

• HBCU, Educational Advancement Alliance Graduate Program (PA)

4,757

0

0

• HBCU, Marshall Fund Minority Energy Science Initiative (MD)

2,855

0

0

Total, Congressionally Directed Projects

23,312

13,0000Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Congressionally Directed Projects
Decrease reflects the Congressionally Directed projects in support of HBCU programsin the FY 2010 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act (P.L. 111-85). In FY 2011, the Office of the Administrator request plans to provide$4,677,051 ($3,614,062 for the Massie Chairs of Excellence and $1,062,989 for HBCU
activities); the Weapons Activities appropriation plans to provide up to $6,000,000; theDefense Nuclear Nonproliferation appropriation plans to provide up to $3,000,000; andthe Naval Reactors program plans to provide up to $1,000,000 for HBCU efforts.

-13,000

Total, Congressionally Directed Projects-13,000

Office of the Administrator/
Congressionally Directed Projects

Page 40

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Weapons Activities

Page 41

Weapons Activities

Page 42

Table of Contents

Page
Appropriation Language .........................................................................................................................45
Overview.................................................................................................................................................47
Directed Stockpile Work.........................................................................................................................59
Science Campaign...................................................................................................................................85
Engineering Campaign............................................................................................................................97
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign ........................................................109
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign.................................................................................125
Readiness Campaign.............................................................................................................................139
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities ..........................................................................................153
Secure Transportation Asset .................................................................................................................231
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response.......................................................................................243
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program.........................................................................257
Site Stewardship....................................................................................................................................267
Environmental Projects and Operations................................................................................................283
Safeguards and Security........................................................................................................................285
Defense Nuclear Security .....................................................................................................................287
Cyber Security ......................................................................................................................................305
Congressionally Directed Projects........................................................................................................321

Department of Energy/
Weapons Activities

Page 43

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 44

Weapons Activities
Proposed Appropriation Language
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant andcapital equipment and other incidental expenses necessary for Atomic Energy Defense Nuclear Security
Enterprise in carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101
et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any facility or for plant or
facility acquisition, construction, or expansion, the purchase of not to exceed one ambulance and one
aircraft; [$6,384,431,000] $7,008,835,000, to remain available until expended. [: Provided, That
$357,800,000 is provided to Stockpile Systems activities including $91,956,000 for the B61 Stockpile
Systems activities: Provided further, That upon completion of the Nuclear Posture Review andconfirmation of the requirement for the B61-12, the NNSA is authorized to reallocate an additional$15,000,000 within the Stockpile Systems activities to support the continuation of the B61-12 nonnuclear upgrade study, with notification to cognizant congressional committees within 15 days of theimplementation of this action: Provided further, That, of the amount appropriated in this paragraph,$3,000,000 shall be used for projects specified in the table that appears under the heading‘‘Congressionally Directed Weapons Activities Projects in the joint explanatory statement
accompanying the conference report on this Act.]
Explanation of Change
The FY 2011 Request provides an increase from the FY 2010 appropriation. Increases are provided forstockpile support, science, and infrastructure in support of Department of Defense requirements.

Weapons Activities Overview

Page 45

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 46

Weapons Activities
Overview
Appropriation Summary by Program(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual
Appropriation

FY 2010 Current
Appropriation

FY 2011
RequestWeapons Activities
Directed Stockpile Work
Science Campaign
Engineering Campaign

1,590,152
316,690150,000

1,505,859
295,646
150,000

1,898,379
365,222
141,920

Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
Readiness Campaign
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Secure Transportation Asset
Nuclear Counterrorism Incident Response
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program
Site Stewardship
Environmental Projects and Operations
Defense Nuclear Security
Cyber Security
Science, Technology and Engineering Capability
Congressionally Directed Projects
Use/Recission of Prior Year Balances
Total, Weapons Activities

436,915556,125
160,620
1,674,406
214,439
215,278
147,449
038,596735,208
121,286
30,00022,8360
6,410,000

457,915567,625
100,000
1,842,870
234,915
221,936
93,922
61,2880769,044
122,5110
3,000-42,100
6,384,431

481,548615,748
112,092
1,848,970
248,045
233,134
94,000105,478
0719,954
124,345
20,0000
07,008,835

Public Law Authorization:
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84)
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-85)
National Nuclear Security Administration Act, (P.L. 106-65), as amended

Weapons Activities Overview

Page 47

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetOutyear Appropriation Summary by Program
Weapons Activities
Directed Stockpile Work
Science Campaign
Engineering Campaign
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield
Campaign
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
Readiness Campaign
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Secure Transportation Asset
Nuclear Counterrorism Incident Response
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program
Site Stewardship
Defense Nuclear Security
Cyber Security
Total, Weapons Activities

FY 2012(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 20151,900,736
397,460
149,737

1,999,470
418,823
134,9962,240,139
416,199
144,920

2,346,254
394,766
145,739

480,451
622,940
81,697
1,872,546
251,272
222,91494,000101,929
730,944
126,046
7,032,672

475,597
616,257
70,747
1,841,325
249,456
222,508
94,000103,536
729,609125,822
7,082,146

470,994
615,420
69,854
1,926,568
252,869
235,3000
174,071
728,925
125,7077,400,966

484,812633,134
72,584
1,997,764
261,521237,9860
205,802740,649
127,189
7,648,200

Mission
The Weapons Activities appropriation maintains a nuclear security infrastructure of people, programs,
and facilities that provide specialized scientific, technical, and engineering capabilities for stewardshipof the nuclear weapons stockpile and other national security needs.
Benefits
Programs funded by the Weapons Activities appropriation benefit the nation by supporting a broad
range of national security priorities. The nuclear security enterprise ensures a robust, nationwide
infrastructure staffed by a highly specialized and trained scientific and technical workforce. The
facilities that make up the enterprise are committed to safe and secure operations, and good stewardshipof the environment. The nuclear security laboratories, plants and test sites serve not only as national
security assets, but as important educational and community resources as well. The nuclear security
enterprise’s infrastructure and workforce provide world-leading science, technology, and engineering
capabilities. While these are focused on nuclear weapons stewardship and maintenance of our nuclear
deterrent, they are strongly leveraged for broader national security mandates and scientific innovation.
Programs funded by the Weapons Activities appropriation are also integrated into the nation’s homeland
security structure through their support of safeguards and security and nuclear counterterrorism andincident response.
Performance
All of the programs within the Weapons Activities appropriation support Secretarial Goal 3 - Security:
Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risks. NNSA will: maintain the nuclear weapons
stockpile and dismantle excess nuclear weapons; transform the infrastructure of the nuclear security
enterprise; rebuild the science and technology capabilities of the enterprise to assure continued warhead
certification without underground nuclear testing; provide nuclear counterterrorism and emergency
response assets in support of homeland security; and maintain comprehensive security for facilities,
employees, and information assets.

Weapons Activities Overview

Page 48

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetIn addition, select programs within this appropriation support Secretarial Goals 1 - Innovation: Leadthe world in science, technology and engineering and Goal 2 - Energy: Build a competitive, lowcarbon economy and secure America’s energy future.
NNSA will leverage its nuclear security science, technology, and engineering capabilities to promotesolutions to Energy initiatives and support Innovation and education.
Means and Strategies
The Weapons Activities appropriation request represents a renewed path forward for sustaining thenation’s nuclear deterrent. This budget reflects a stockpile management program investment strategy
consistent with the challenge of (a) transitioning to a smaller nuclear stockpile that remains safe, secure,and effective without underground nuclear testing; (b) strengthening the NNSA science, technology, andengineering base; (c) modernizing the physical infrastructure; and (d) streamlining the enterprise’s
physical and operational footprint. These investments will strengthen the nation’s security while also
supporting a reduced reliance on nuclear weapons in the nation’s security posture.
The means and strategies to be employed encompass all major aspects of the deterrent: the stockpile
itself; the science, technology, and engineering base which underpins the nation’s ability to sustain thestockpile as safe, secure, and effective; and the production and laboratory physical infrastructure.
Technical issues within the stockpile will be identified and addressed because new weapons systems will
not be built. The stockpile management program will undertake life extension work on legacy weaponssystems to assure their effectiveness, while enhancing warhead safety and security, without requiring
additional underground nuclear tests.
The NNSA science, technology, and engineering (ST&E) capabilities will be strengthened to underwrite
the deterrent and continued attention will be given to attracting, training, and retaining a skilled,knowledgeable, and motivated workforce. As the stockpile decreases in size, the role of ST&E within
the future deterrent increases in importance.
The current production infrastructure was established during the Cold War, is 50-60 years of age, anddecades beyond its original design life. It will be recapitalized to be made more efficient and correctlysized and able to execute stockpile life extension activities, dismantlement of surplus weapons as thestockpile size decreases, surplus fissile materials management and disposition, and other nuclear security
needs.
Proposed funding will continue the Stockpile Stewardship Program as the essential capability needed toassure that the stockpile is maintained in a safe, secure, and effective condition. Over the past 15 years,
the nation has made significant investment in stockpile stewardship tools and capabilities, which allow
the nuclear weapons stockpile to be annually assessed and certified as safe, secure, and effective,
without requiring underground nuclear tests. While challenges remain, the growing knowledge andunderstanding of the stockpile enabled by these tools have reached a level of maturity that not only
replaces the need to conduct underground tests, but surpasses the benefits originally realized by previous
testing. The data collected from hundreds of previous nuclear tests, along with continued experimental
science, remain available to validate predictive simulations of weapons performance. Many of the gaps
are closing -- or are closed -- in understanding the key physics processes, and insights into system andcomponent aging are being realized. These insights will enable better preventative care for thestockpile.
Weapons Activities Overview

Page 49

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

The proposed stockpile management program emphasizes the following specific requirements to be met
by NNSA: Produce sufficient quantities of W76-1 warheads to meet Navy requirements;
 Complete a life extension of the B61 that meets all safety, security, use control, and reliability
objectives;
 Initiate a life extension study to explore the path forward for the W78, consistent with the principlesof the Stockpile Management Program defined in Section 3113 (a)(2) of the National Defense
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2010 (50 U.S.C. 2524);
 Modernize plutonium capabilities including the design and construction of the Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research Facility Replacement – Nuclear Facility;
 Modernize uranium capabilities with emphasis on the Uranium Processing Facility; and Sustain and strengthen the ST&E and surveillance base essential to supporting the stockpile.
The NNSA will conduct research and a wide range of tests, experiments, and computational simulations
to assess the continuing safety and reliability of the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. Overall,technical reviews by the weapons laboratories of the stockpile will encompass laboratory and flight tests
of materials, components, and warhead subsystems, as well as numerical simulations. Nuclear weapons
analyses will utilize data archived from past underground nuclear tests, along with laboratory
experiments that include dynamic experiments with plutonium and other materials.
Working through its nuclear security enterprise, the NNSA will make deliveries of limited life and othercomponents for nuclear weapons stockpile management and refurbishment, according to schedules
developed jointly by the NNSA and the Department of Defense (DoD). Dismantlement activities arealso carried out in support of this objective in concert with NNSA’s commitment to transition to asmaller stockpile that remains safe, secure, and effective.
The NNSA will continue activities that develop or mature critical capabilities needed to achieve nuclear
weapons stockpile certification, develop certification processes to replace aged components that can nolonger be reproduced, and develop modern surety technologies for insertion in the stockpile. The
Campaigns are forward-looking efforts with specific objectives and milestones, planned and executed byintegrated teams from the laboratories, the Nevada Test Site (NTS), and the production plants.
The NNSA will continue to oversee and maintain the physical plant infrastructure at the national
security laboratories, NTS, and production plants, according to applicable statutes, laws, agreements,and standards. The NNSA will continue to institutionalize responsible and accountable corporate
facilities management processes and incorporate best practices from industry and other organizations.
This includes implementation of a planning process that results in the submission of Ten-Year Site Plans(TYSPs) that establish the foundation for the strategic planning of the facilities and infrastructure of theenterprise.
The NNSA is a government-owned, contractor-operated enterprise, with the exception of the Secure
Transportation Asset (STA) program, which is government-owned and operated. The NNSA works
proactively with its contractors, external regulators, and host communities to assure that facilities andoperations are in compliance with all applicable statutes and agreements to preclude any adverse impact
to the environment, safety, and health of workers and the public and to address emergency management
issues while minimizing unscheduled disruption to program activities that could affect performance.
Weapons Activities Overview

Page 50

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

The NNSA will continue to meet transportation requirements resulting from dismantlement andmaintenance schedule for the nuclear weapons stockpile and the Secretarial initiative to consolidate thestorage of nuclear material. The continued investments in the recruitment and training of the federal
agent workforce and their vehicle and equipment requirements will maintain an effective mission
capacity.
The NNSA will also provide protection for NNSA personnel, facilities, nuclear weapons, andinformation from a wide-ranging set of threats, most notably from terrorism attacks in the United States.
An important aspect of this strategy is ensuring that sufficient information technology and information
management security safeguards are implemented throughout the NNSA nuclear security enterprise.
Some activities will be conducted in partnership with DoD, ranging from training in nuclear weapons
field maintenance to partnerships in research for science and technology for nuclear security. Stockpile
Stewardship activities are synergistic with work undertaken to support other national security missions
often referred to as ”work for others” activity, sponsored principally by the DoD and Department ofHomeland Security (DHS).
Validation and Verification
To validate and verify program performance, the NNSA will conduct various internal reviews andaudits. Each year, the NNSA programmatic activities are subject to continuing external independent
review by the Congress, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the Department’s Inspector
General, the National Security Council, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, the Department’s
Office of Engineering and Construction Management, the Department’s Office of Health, Safety andSecurity, and various scientific groups. Additionally, the NNSA Headquarters senior management andfield managers conduct frequent, in-depth reviews of cost, schedule, and scope to ensure projects aremaintained on schedule and within budget.
The NNSA Administrator reviews each NNSA program as part of the NNSA's PPBE Evaluation
process. These reviews, usually conducted annually, include the NNSA Management Council and focus
on both technical and financial information to identify issues, monitor program progress, and makerecommendations for corporate improvement. The focus of these reviews is to verify and validate that
NNSA programs are on track to meet their long-term goals and annual targets. Periodic program
reviews are also conducted (e.g., critical programs such as the Life Extension Programs are reviewed
monthly and quarterly program reviews are conducted for all programs). The focus of these reviews is
to verify and validate that programs are achieving technical programmatic milestones, within planned
scope, cost, and schedule that result in progress toward annual targets and long-term goals. Moredetailed program reviews are conducted by the program managers for weapons programs, with DoD
customers.
The results of all of these reviews are reflected quarterly in the DOE performance tracking system andannually in the NNSA Administrator's Annual Performance Report and DOE Performance andAccountability Report (PAR). Both of the latter documents help to measure the progress that the NNSA
programs are making toward achieving annual targets en-route to long-term goals. These documents areat a summary level to help senior managers verify and validate progress towards the NNSA and
Departmental commitments listed in the budget.
The NNSA performs validations of approximately 20 percent of its budget on an annual basis. A threePhase process was implemented in FY 2010 and was used to validate the FY 2011 Budget Formulation
Weapons Activities Overview

Page 51

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

process and estimate. This process consists of Phase I: Validation of the Need for the Program’s
Proposed Activities (Program Review), Phase II: Validation of the Budget Planning and Formulation
Process (Budget Planning and Formulation Process Review), and Phase III: Pricing Validation of
Selected Programs (Pricing Review). Budget validation efforts focus on determining consistency withNNSA strategic planning and program guidance, integration of planned activities/milestones withbudget estimates, and reasonableness of budget estimates. During the FY 2011 process, the Science
Campaign, Secure Transportation Asset, Cyber Security, Defense Nuclear Security, and Elimination of
Weapons-grade Plutonium Production programs participated in all three Phases.
Major Outyear Priorities and Assumptions
The outyear requirements for the Weapons Activities total $29,163,984,000 for FY 2012 throughFY 2015. The Secretaries of DoD and DOE agree that it is necessary to modernize the nuclear weapons
infrastructure of the United States, and this will require the investments over the long term reflected in
the FYNSP. Modernization of the infrastructure, including major capital projects, is needed to ensure
safe, secure, sustainable and cost-effective operations in support of scientific and manufacturing
activities. It is also necessary to bolster key scientific, technical and manufacturing capabilities needed
to ensure that the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile remains safe, secure and effective while avoiding therequirement for new nuclear tests.
Weapons Activities Appropriation
The request for this appropriation is $7,008,835,000, an increase of 9.8 percent over the FY 2010
appropriated level. This level is sustained and increased in the later outyears. Increased funding isrequested for programs in direct support of the nuclear weapons stockpile, for scientific, technical andengineering activities related to maintenance assessment and certification capabilities for the stockpile,and for critical infrastructure improvements. The stockpile management program is funded within thisappropriation.
Stockpile Support
Stockpile Support (Directed Stockpile Work, Readiness Campaign) is a key component of the stockpile
management program that ensures that we meet the commitments made by President Obama, in his
April 5, 2009 Prague speech, that “…the United States will maintain a safe, secure, and effective arsenal
to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies…”. The FY 2011-FY 2015 budget
proposal for Stockpile Support continues significant efforts to meet Administration and Secretarial
priorities for the enterprise with the following emphases:

Ensuring that the nation's nuclear weapons are safe, secure and reliable, without the use ofunderground nuclear testing; andDelivering nuclear weapons with improved safety and security features through the execution of Life
Extension Programs (LEPs) for key weapons systems; andMeeting DoD production requirements while strengthening management of the nuclear weapons
stockpile.

Weapons Activities Overview

Page 52

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
ActualAppropriation
Stockpile Support
Directed Stockpile Work
Readiness Campaign
Total, Stockpile Support

1,590,152
160,620
1,750,772

FY 2010
Current
Appropriation

FY 2011
Request1,505,859
100,000
1,605,859

1,898,379
112,092
2,010,471

FY 20121,900,736
81,697
1,982,433

FY 2013
1,999,470
70,7472,070,217

FY 20142,240,139
69,8542,309,993

FY 2015
2,346,254
72,584
2,418,838

This budget request is based on the following specific stockpile requirements:
 Produce sufficient quantities of W76-1 warheads to meet Navy requirements;
 Complete a nuclear and non-nuclear life extension of the B61 to meet all safety, security, use
control, and reliability objectives; Start an additional life extension study for the W78, consistent with the principles of the Stockpile
Management Program defined in Section 3113 (a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act of
Fiscal Year 2010 (50 U.S.C. 2524).
 Restores sufficient funds for warhead surveillance and for the science and technology that support
stockpile assessment and certification in the absence of nuclear testing.
Science, Technology, and Engineering (ST&E)
Science, Technology and Engineering (Science Campaign, Engineering Campaign, Inertial Confinement
Fusion and High Yield Campaign, Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign, Science,
Technology and Engineering Capability) request ensures that we keep the commitment made by
President Obama, in his April 27, 2009 address to the National Academy of Sciences, that “Science ismore essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it
has ever been before…” is the reality of today’s security environment that the United States requires anagile and responsive national security science, technology, and engineering funded enterprise to remain
protected from the threats of today and the future. Sustaining the national security ST&E capabilities
within the NNSA is important for more than the need to assess and monitor the nuclear weapons
stockpile. While national ST&E investments are instrumental in transitioning to a 21st century nuclear
deterrent strategy, they are also key to a range of national security issues, tools, and solutions. NNSA
and its laboratories have the unique capability to take on complex projects requiring both breadth anddepth of science as well as an ability to respond to rapidly changing priorities. The FY 2011-FY 2015
ST&E budget proposal meets Administration and Secretarial priorities for the enterprise with thefollowing emphases:

Sustaining the national security ST&E supported capabilities;
Strengthening nuclear weapons assessment and life extension through scheduled development of thepredictive capability framework;
Achieving scientific milestones essential to assess and certify the stockpile without undergroundtesting; andSupporting key national security issues by maintaining tools and capabilities to find solutions tocurrent and emerging national scientific problems.

Weapons Activities Overview

Page 53

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
ActualAppropriation
Science, Technology andEngineering
Science Campaign
Engineering Campaign
Inertial Confinement Fusion
Ignition and High Yield
Campaign
Advanced Simulation andComputing Campaign
Science, Technology andEngineering Capability
Total, Science, Technology andEngineering

FY 2010
Current
Appropriation

FY 2011
RequestFY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

316,690150,000

295,646
150,000

365,222
141,920

397,460
149,737

418,823
134,996

416,199
144,920394,766
145,739

436,915457,915

481,548

480,451475,597

470,994

484,812556,125567,625

615,748

622,940

616,257

615,420

633,134

30,0000

20,00000001,489,730

1,471,186

1,624,438

1,650,588

1,645,673

1,647,533

1,658,451

The integration of the multi-disciplinary national security science and technology skills within the
NNSA provides the nuclear security enterprise the versatility to address urgent national needs on
appropriate time scales. It is essential that planning of NNSA scientific, technology, and engineeringbase takes on a strategic perspective to ensure agile and responsive capabilities. Transparency into thesecapabilities and the investments made in them is critical. The Secretary challenged the Department to
identify science and technology innovations that drive the economy, impact climate change and energy
security, and enhance national security. NNSA programs contribute to addressing these challenges.
Despite the classified nature of NNSA’s mission, many of the science and engineering activities are
unclassified and can, and in some cases already do, involve universities, industry and civilian agencies.
Specific actions are being initiated to improve the open communication and facilitate such cooperation.
One example is the Livermore Valley Open Campus with both Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories-California modified physical space on the governmentowned property to provide for easier access by visiting scientists, particularly researchers associatedwith transportations science (Combustion Research Facility operated by the Office of Science) and highenergy density physics (National Ignition Facility).
NNSA ST&E supports several key national priorities. The Administration has made ratification of theComprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the aggressive pursuit of nonproliferation goals, including
securing dangerous nuclear materials world wide. Science and engineering advances are foundational
for achieving these goals. NNSA programs have, since 1992, assured confidence in the U.S. nuclear
deterrent without nuclear testing and provided high confidence assessments of the capabilities ofpotential adversaries to guard against technological surprise. NNSA-developed technologies support
treaty monitoring and verification as well as broader homeland security detection needs.
The science and engineering basis for assessing and certifying nuclear devices has systematic gaps thatare being closed by application of advanced computing, materials research, and foreseeable advances inhigh energy density physics including fusion ignition. A Predictive Capability Framework identifies
specific advances and expected time scales for resolution of questions regarding all aspects of theperformance of nuclear weapons. The ST&E activities within the nuclear security enterprise utilize thisframework and fund the detailed activities necessary to provide the experimental data, models andWeapons Activities Overview

Page 54

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

simulation capability, and certification methodologies to be used in concert with historical nuclear test
data to gain adequate confidence in the reliability, safety and security of our warheads without nuclear
tests. These capabilities are also applied to assess and counter increasingly more advanced threats fromadversaries and the possibility of attack or sabotage on nuclear facilities and processes. The same
capabilities for assessing our stockpile and detecting nuclear materials are central to assessing foreign or
improvised nuclear devices so that threats can be avoided, disabled or attributed. This field of nuclear
forensics and counterterrorism is increasingly enabled by NNSA’s science and engineering advances.
The applications of ST&E funded capabilities not only advance NNSA’s nuclear program, but are
increasing used to support related national security and economic goals. The technical approaches fornuclear analysis and security issues developed in NNSA are useful to other national security, scientific,
and economic programs. For example, stockpile analysis and assessment by the NNSA has driven
advances in computing power that have enabled U.S. leadership and demonstrated progress on complex
applied technical problems. These computational powers, and the techniques for its application, havebroad value that can be applied to analysis of a wide range of national energy issues. For example, theapproach taken for quantifying margins and uncertainty for establishing confidence bounds for systems
that are not amenable to statistical testing methods is applicable in many engineering analyses andcomplex problems. Fusion ignition, under development for investigations of nuclear explosion physics,
has potential for nuclear energy applications being analyzed within the Offices of Science and Nuclear
Energy. Other parts of the DOE and other agencies require access to the NNSA’s capabilities.
To enhance the application of NNSA’s capabilities to broad national security and economic goals,
NNSA is engaging with the other parts of DOE and other agencies in developing a strategy to makeavailable and support enhancements of NNSA capabilities. Through such joint planning the science andengineering activities within NNSA can be tuned to give value to a greater range of national interests.
Specific funding for joint activities is currently small and aimed at technical issues that clearly advance
program goals of all of the participants. The emphasis on growing cross-cutting projects will grow in
future years.
Infrastructure
The President’s FY 2011 Request for Infrastructure (Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities, Secure
Transportation Asset, Facilities and infrastructure Recapitalization Program, and Site Stewardship)
continues significant efforts to meet Administration and Secretarial priorities for Infrastructure with thefollowing emphases:Bringing the plutonium and uranium manufacturing infrastructure up to modern safety and security
standards;
Ensuring environmental compliance and energy and operational efficiency throughout the nuclear
security enterprise, while modernizing, streamlining, consolidating, and sustaining the stewardshipand vitality of the sites;
Consolidating environmental, nuclear materials integration, energy projects (to meet Executive
Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management),
facility deactivation and demolition, and waste management activities into Site Stewardship, andReducing the deferred maintenance backlog for critical facilities that will not be replaced.

Weapons Activities Overview

Page 55

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
ActualAppropriation
Infrastructure
Readiness in Technical Base andFacilities, Operations andMaintenanceReadiness in Technical Base andFacilities, Construction
Secure Transportation Asset
Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization
Site Stewardship
Environmental Projects andOperatios
Congressionally Directed
Proejcts
Use of Prior Year Balances
Total, Infrastructure

FY 2010
Current
Appropriation

FY 2011
RequestFY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

1,359,938

1,538,966

1,449,954

1,330,260

1,285,404

1,233,116

1,275,508

314,468
214,439

303,904
234,915

399,016
248,045542,286
251,272

555,921249,456

693,452
252,869

722,256
261,521

147,449
0

93,922
61,28894,000105,478

94,000101,929

94,000103,5360
174,0710
205,80238,596

0

0

0

0

0

0

22,83602,097,726

3,000-42,100
2,193,895

002,296,493

002,319,747

002,288,317

002,353,508

002,465,087

The FY 2011 budget provides increases for construction of replacement plutonium research and uranium
manufacturing facilities. Current plutonium research and uranium manufacturing facilities (CMR
facility at LANL and Building 9212 at Y-12 respectively) have significant safety concerns that havebeen identified by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board and others, and these facilities need to beclosed at the earliest feasible date. Until that time, continued operation requires stringent administrativeand safety control measures, which affect the efficiency and cost of operations.
To improve visibility of maintenance at its facilities, NNSA is implementing unique Budget andReporting codes within Weapons Activities, Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities. This additional
information will allow Program Managers and Site Office Managers to make more informed decisions
to ensure that maintenance is properly defined, captured, and adequately funded.
Security and Nuclear Counterterrorism
The President’s FY 2011 Request continues to meet Administration and Secretarial priorities for
Security and Nuclear Counterterrorism (Defense Nuclear Security, Cyber Security, and Nuclear
Counterterrorism Incident Response) with the following emphases:Defense Nuclear Security (DNS) will provide protection from a full spectrum of threats, mostnotably terrorism, for NNSA personnel, facilities, nuclear weapons through the use of protective
forces and physical protection systems;
Supporting Cyber Security revitalization, certification and accreditation, and education and training
initiatives, andProviding nuclear emergency response assets in support of homeland security, and continuing
Research and Development efforts for Render Safe, in addition to concentration in collaborativeroles in countering nuclear terrorism in support of national security.

Weapons Activities Overview

Page 56

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
ActualAppropriation
Security and Nuclear Counterterrorism
Defense Nuclear Security
735,208
Cyber Security
121,286
Nuclear Counterterrorism
Incident Response
215,278
Total, Security and Nuclear
Counterterrorism
1,071,772

FY 2010
Current
Appropriation

FY 2011
RequestFY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

769,044
122,511

719,954
124,345

730,944
126,046

729,609125,822728,925
125,707740,649
127,189

221,936

233,134

222,914

222,508

235,300

237,986

1,113,491

1,077,433

1,079,904

1,077,939

1,089,932

1,105,824

The President’s FY 2011 Request continues the FY 2010 approach to funding security costs. It provides
direct funding for the mission base program for Defense Nuclear Security. Although there is a decreasein the Defense Nuclear Security budget it continues to provide physical security protection from a full
spectrum of threats. The budget request is based on risk-informed decisions and is fully consistent with
the Department’s Graded Security Protection policy. Costs of routine security for Work for Others willcontinue to be provided via full cost recovery. Extraordinary security requirements for Work for Others
projects will be direct charged to those customers.
Cyber Security funding sustains NNSA’s information infrastructure and upgrades elements to counteremerging cyber threats from external and internal attacks using the latest available technology.
Increased support to the Technology Application Development program supports the implementation ofrisk mitigation processes complex-wide.
Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response funding supports emergency management andresponse activities that ensure a central point of contact and integrated response to emergencies
requiring DOE assistance, including the Nuclear Emergency Support Team, which responds to nuclear
terrorist threats. The budget increase is focused in the counterterrorism programs, and enables
specialized R&D for technical analysis, equipment, and procedures necessary to maintain the nation's
capabilities for research on non-stockpile nuclear weapons designs; e.g., Improvised Nuclear Devices orRadiological Dispersal Devices and the laboratory analysis of their aftermath as well as ensuring that wewill be able to meet the expectations of DoD in our role for worldwide render safe support.
Department of Energy (DOE) Working Capital Fund (WCF) Support
The DOE WCF Board has extended the policy for using program funding to finance WCF activities.
Beginning in FY 2011, NNSA programs will fund a pro rata share by Appropriation of certain DOE
Working Capital Fund activities. FY 2011 projected NNSA program allocations are as follows:
DOEnet ($482,000) for DOE telecommunications services; Financial Statement Audits ($4,514,000),previously budgeted by the DOE Office of Inspector General; Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)
Audits ($3,076,000) for procurement management; iManage ($3,121,000) for corporate systems that
support the DOE accounting, finance, procurement and budgeting processes; and Financial Control
Reporting Assessment ($1,502,000). The NNSA’s total contribution to the WCF from both Programand Program Direction funds for FY 2011 is projected at $35,942,000.
The NNSA Weapons Activities appropriation projected allocation of the DOE Working Capital Fund for
FY 2011 is $8,325,382.

Weapons Activities Overview

Page 57

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetHistorically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Support
The NNSA has established program to target research opportunities for HBCU institutions to increase
their participation in national security-related research and to train and recruit qualified HBCU graduates
for employment within the national security enterprise. The majority of the efforts directly support
program activities, and programs funded in the Weapons Activities appropriation plans to fund researchwith the HBCU totaling up to approximately $6,000,000 in FY 2011, in areas including engineering,material sciences, computational science, disaster modeling, and environmental sciences.

Weapons Activities Overview

Page 58

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetDirected Stockpile Work
Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2009 Actual
Appropriation(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010 Current
Appropriation

FY 2011
RequestDirected Stockpile Work
Life Extension Programs
B61 Life Extension Program
W76 Life Extension Program
Subtotal, Life Extension Programs

1,854
203,189
205,0430223,196
223,1960249,463
249,463

Stockpile Systems
B61 Stockpile Systems
W62 Stockpile Systems
W76 Stockpile Systems
W78 Stockpile Systems
W80 Stockpile Systems
B83 Stockpile Systems
W87 Stockpile Systems
W88 Stockpile Systems
Subtotal, Stockpile Systems

90,204
1,500
63,21940,34730,712
26,93840,94943,928337,797

91,956
056,554
48,311
27,39833,502
48,13951,940357,800

317,136
064,52185,89834,19339,34962,60345,666649,366

Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition
99-D-141-01 Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility-SRS
99-D-141-02 Waste Solidification Building-SRS
Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition
Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility-O&M
Subtotal, Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition

24,88340,00052,69569,351
186,9290096,100096,1000
058,0250
58,025308,806
35,049169,403
192,072
155,0530860,383
1,590,152

300,037
37,071
166,523
183,223
0
141,909828,763
1,505,859

309,761
38,582
209,053
193,811
0
190,318
941,525
1,898,379

Stockpile Services
Production Support
Research & Development Support
Research & Development Certification and Safety
Management, Technology, and Production
Plutonium Capability
Plutonium Sustainment
Subtotal, Stockpile Services
Total, Directed Stockpile Work

Weapon Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work

Page 59

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetOutyear Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2012
Directed Stockpile Work
Life Extension Programs
W76 Life Extension Program
Subtotal, Life Extension Programs
Stockpile Systems
B61 Stockpile Systems
W76 Stockpile Systems
W78 Stockpile Systems
W80 Stockpile Systems
B83 Stockpile Systems
W87 Stockpile Systems
W88 Stockpile Systems
Subtotal, Stockpile Systems
Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition
Stockpile Services
Production Support
Research & Development Support
Research & Development Certification and Safety
Management, Technology, and Production
Plutonium Sustainment
Subtotal, Stockpile Services
Total, Directed Stockpile Work(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015

255,000
255,000

255,000
255,000

255,000
255,000

255,000
255,000

337,851
56,418104,964
31,627
37,16067,754
61,229697,003

394,027
58,312
156,340
34,56638,29464,92465,094
811,557

437,518
55,396
346,923
35,974
42,621
51,89869,7771,040,107

512,296
54,038345,359
36,62142,05950,43368,6481,109,454

53,32748,446

58,10260,089288,22735,044
207,133
202,020
162,982
895,406
1,900,736

271,067
34,667
213,923
196,676
168,134
884,467
1,999,470

265,429
35,497
214,632
198,660
172,712886,930
2,240,139

274,50936,711
222,777
205,454
182,260
921,7112,346,254

MissionThe Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) program contributes to national security by enhancing the safety
and security and ensuring the reliability of the Nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile for a continued
effective deterrent, without underground nuclear testing. DSW provides nuclear warheads and bombs
for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), to the Department of Defense (DoD) inaccordance with the President’s Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan (NWSP). The NWSP directs thenumber and type of weapons for the DoD and NNSA to maintain.
The Nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile consists of warheads and bombs whose average age isapproximately 25 years. A stockpile management program is needed to ensure that all weapons in thestockpile are safe, secure, and effective. Its components must include stockpile stewardship, enhanced
surveillance and assessment, and life extensions that are executed after evaluating a spectrum of possible
options. DSW supports many of these stockpile management program requirements. DSW provides
evidence of the health of the nuclear weapons stockpile through its bi-annual weapons reliability reports
to the DoD and the Annual Assessment to the President. In addition, DSW supports nonproliferation
goals and international commitments to eliminate nuclear materials available for military use throughthe dismantlement and disposition of retired weapons and weapons components.

Weapon Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work

Page 60

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

DSW also interfaces with other mission areas including Campaigns to provide the necessary tools andcapabilities to assess the reliability and performance of the Nation’s aging stockpile. These include:
Science, Engineering, Inertial Confinement Fusion, Readiness, and Advanced Simulation andComputing Campaigns. Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) supports DSW
infrastructure sustainment and facility modifications. The Secure Transportation Asset supports DSW
through the movement of weapons and components.
DSW works with Defense Nuclear Security to ensure that personnel, facilities, and nuclear weapons
remain protected from a full spectrum of threats. Similarly, the Cyber Security program implements a
flexible, comprehensive, and risk-based approach to protecting the NNSA information and information
assets. The crosscutting mission of DSW increases the need for mature programmatic interrelationships
beyond those within the Weapons Activities appropriation, including: Nonproliferation, Nuclear
Energy, Environmental Management, and Homeland Security.
These other programs leverage technical capabilities such as those maintained within the materials
processing enterprises of plutonium, uranium, and tritium sustainment. Specifically within DSW, thePlutonium Sustainment Program integrates with the overarching plutonium program plans, campaigns,
facilities, and the technical base (personnel and skills) and provides a means to maintain the necessary
capability required for mission success.
DSW sustains and retains the technical skills and infrastructure critical to the Nation’s ability to workwith plutonium material across a range of applications. The skills and infrastructure historically retainedby the weapons program serve other national missions, such as Pu-238 Heat Source production for the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Advanced Nuclear Fuels development, production ofparts and shapes for scientific experimental purposes, nuclear forensics support, weapons dismantlement
demonstration related to mixed oxide (MOX) feed for plutonium disposition, and support tointernational standards.
DSW derives its nuclear weapons stockpile requirements from the President’s NWSP. The NWSP isdeveloped through the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC), jointly convened by DOE and DoD todevelop recommendations to the President. It drives ongoing maintenance activities, warhead life
extension needs, stockpile surveillance and assessment, and research and development (R&D) of newtechnologies needed to support the current and future stockpiles. DSW will, in coordination with the
DoD: (1) provide unique people skills, equipment, testers, and logistics support to perform nuclear
weapons operations; (2) produce and replace limited life components; (3) conduct scheduled weapons
maintenance; (4) conduct surveillance and evaluations to assess weapons reliability and to
detect/anticipate potential weapons issues; (5) quantify margins and uncertainties in order to better
assess and certify the nuclear stockpile; (6) develop options for enhanced safety, security, andeffectiveness for insertion into Life Extension Programs (LEPs)/modifications/alterations; (7) efficiently
extend the life of existing weapons systems through authorized modifications to correct technical issues
and enhance safety, security, and effectiveness; (8) provide for dismantlement and disposition of
weapons and components for systems retired from the stockpile, and (9) sustain the plutonium
infrastructure to meet enduring national requirements unique to this special nuclear material.
Benefits
Within DSW, four major activities make unique contributions to the Government Performance andResults Act (GPRA) Unit Program Number 26 and to the stockpile management program: (1) LEPs;
Weapon Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work

Page 61

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

(2) Stockpile Systems; (3) Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition; and (4) Stockpile Services, which
includes Production Support; R&D Support; R&D Certification and Safety; Management, Technology
and Production (MTP); and Plutonium Sustainment. Obligations and costs are reported at lower levels,(e.g., R&D and Stockpile Management for each weapon type, and discrete categories under Stockpile
Services.)
Life Extension Programs extend the stockpile lifetime of a warhead and the warhead components andenable the Nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile and supporting nuclear security enterprise to respond to
threats of the 21st century without developing new weapons systems. Activities including R&D andproduction work are required to ensure weapons continue to meet national security requirements. LEPs
not only extend the life of a warhead, but provide the opportunity to further enhance surety by installingenhanced safety and security features.
Stockpile Systems directly execute sustainment activities for the active stockpile. Specifically, weaponsspecific R&D assessment and certification activities, weapons component qualification, limited life
component exchange activities, surveillance activities, maintenance, feasibility and safety studies, andmilitary liaison work for the B61, W76, W78, W80, B83, W87, and W88 weapons systems. Stockpile
evaluation provides the basis for the NNSA assessment through stockpile stewardship in the absence of
nuclear testing. In addition, Stockpile Systems includes limited weapons refurbishments below therequirements for separate reporting as a life extension program, and life extension studies prior toapproval of full-scale engineering development.
Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition (WDD) activities enable the elimination of retired weapons
and weapons components and reduces the security and maintenance burden of legacy warheads andbombs. WDD includes the dismantlement and disposition of retired weapons, weapons components,and supporting functions. Plutonium components removed from weapons get placed, and remain instorage pending final disposition decisions (e.g., processing into oxides for the fabrication of MOX
fuel). Success of the WDD program relies heavily on the Secure Transportation Asset, Production
Support, and RTBF to provide the base capability for all WDD activities.
Stockpile Services provides the foundation for all DSW operations. Specifically, base capabilities
underlying: R&D and production support for multiple warheads and bombs; certification and safety
efforts, quality engineering and plant management, technology, maintenance and/or replacement of
weapons related equipment, and production services. Stockpile Services also includes the funding
associated with Plutonium Sustainment to achieve and maintain a cost-effective plutonium capability.
The success of all DSW activities relies on Stockpile Services to enable sustainment of the DSW
programs by providing base capabilities.
Planning and Scheduling
The DSW Implementation Plans contain cost, scope, and schedule for work activities. More detailed
classified schedules are contained in site R&D and production documents. The Production and Planning
Directive (P&PD) delineates current stockpile maintenance, refurbishment, and life extension efforts.
These requirements are further promulgated to the national security enterprise through individual
weapons Program Control Documents (PCDs) and the Master Nuclear Schedule (MNS).

Weapon Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work

Page 62

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Weapons Systems Cost Data
A classified annex, which contains the Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) for the W76 LEP,
supplements the Weapons Activities portion of the budget.

Weapon Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work

Page 63

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAnnual Performance Results and Targets(R = Results; T = Target)
Performance Indicators

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Endpoint Target

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

Annually, maintain 100% of thewarheads in the stockpile as safe,
secure, reliable, and available to the
President for deployment.

T: 95%(100%)

T: 95%(100%)

T: 95%(100%)

T: 95%(100%)

T: 95%(100%)

T: 95%(100%)

Annually, complete at least 95% of
all scheduled maintenance activity(100% of prior-year non-completed
items).

T: 52%

T: 56%

T: 61%

T: 65%

T: 69%

T: 69%

By 2021, complete NWC-approved
W-76-1 LEP.

T: N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

By 2009, complete NWC-approved
B61-7/11 LEP.

T: 1.0%

T: 1.0%

T:1.0%

T : 1.0%

T : 1.0%

T : 1.0%

By 2010, reduce the projected
W76-1 LEP warhead production
costs per warhead from establishedvalidated baseline by 1.0%.

Secretarial Goal: Security: Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risks
GPRA Unit Program Number: 26, Directed Stockpile Work
Annual Warheads Certification:
Annual percentage of warheads in
the Stockpile that is safe, secure,reliable, and available to the
President for deployment. (Annual
Outcome)R: 100%

R: 100%

R : 100%

R: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%Stockpile Maintenance: Annual
percentage of items supporting theEnduring Stockpile Maintenancecompleted (Annual percentage ofprior-year non-completed items
completed). (Annual Output)

R: 84%(100%)

R: 95%(100%)

R: 95%(100%)

R: 95%(100%)

T: 95%(100%)

T: 95%(100%)

T: 95%(100%)

T: 95%(100%)

W76-1 Life Extension Program(LEP): Cumulative percentage ofprogress in completing Nuclear
Weapons Council (NWC)approved W76-1 Life Extension
Program (LEP) activity. (Longterm Output)

R: 34%

R: 38%

R: 44%

R: 48%

T: 34%

T: 39%

T: 44%

T: 48%

B61-7/11 LEP: Cumulative
percentage of progress incompleting NWC-approved B617/11 LEP activity. (Long-term
Output)R: 37%

R: 70%

R: 90%

R: 100%

T: 40%

T: 70%

T: 90%

T: 100%LEP Production Costs:
Cumulative percent reduction inprojected W76 warhead production
costs per warhead from establishedvalidated baseline, as computed
and reported annually by the W76
LEP Cost Control Board.
(Efficiency)

R:
Baseline

R: 0.39%

R: 0.78%

R: .8%

T: 0.50%

T: 1.0%

T: 1.0%Weapon Activities/
Directed Stockpile WorkT:
Baseline

Page 64

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009 Accomplishments
Life Extension Programs
 Delivered B61-7/11 LEP units to the Air Force on time having completed 100 percent of planned
retrofits for FY 2009 at Pantex and 100 percent of production activity at Y-12 for the program.
 Completed W76-1 DoD Design Review and Acceptance Group.
 Completed W76-1 SS-21 Authorization activities for disassemblies and inspections (D&I) andassembly operations in a 5kV environment at Pantex.
 Achieved W76-1/Mk4A telemetered Joint Test Assembly (JTA1) First Production Unit (FPU).
 Received W76-1 Phase 6.6 Authorization.
Stockpile Systems
 Within all Systems (B61, W76, W78, W80, B83, W87, W88):
o Delivered all scheduled Limited Life Components (LLC) and alteration kits to the DoD;o Produced 933 reservoirs at Kansas City Plant (KCP);o Filled 825 reservoirs at Savannah River Site (SRS);o Produced 356 neutron generators at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL);o Shipped 1524 Group Ten kits to DoD used in field maintenance;o Shipped 793 Alt 900 kits for reservoir removal;
o Completed all Annual Assessment Reports and Laboratory Director letters; ando Completed sufficient requirements for assessment of the stockpile without nuclear testing.
 Initiated B61 Phase 6.2/2A Refurbishment Study and successfully achieved joint DoD and NNSA
approval of Integrated Phase Gate A (Source Requirements).
 Exceeded B61-3/4 Alt 356 production quantities of new spin rocket motors by 12 percent andcompleted 100 percent of planned spin rocket motor retrofits for B61-7/11 ALT 358.
 Completed W78 Extended Range Flight Test.
 Completed W87 JTA4 First Production Unit and First Flight Test.
 Completed Nuclear Explosive Safety Study and Reauthorization of W88 SS-21 Bay operations.
 Completed rebuilds of four W88s as a result of the Cell Operations Restart Project.
 Achieved approval of W88 SS-21 Cell Hazard Analysis Report.
 Complete Seamless Safety for the 21st Century (SS-21) process implementation and Nuclear
Explosive Safety (NES) authorization, improving safety for the disassembly of the W76-0/Mk4 at
Pantex, providing improved safety for electro-static discharge (ESD) scenarios (5kV environment).
 Delivered four Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) W88/Mk5 Type 126 pits to Pantex.
Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition
 Completed scheduled Canned Subassembly (CSA) dismantlement quantities at Y-12.
 Exceeded scheduled weapons dismantlement quantities at Pantex.
 Completed scheduled disposition of weapons parts at KCP and Pantex.
 Completed scheduled SS-21 activities for the W84.
 Developed shipping options for the B83 components going to Y-12.
 Completed Heritage Program scheduled activities (museum reviews and resolved technical issues).
 Refurbished all required museum items.
 Issued 219 museum inspection reports to eliminate the previous backlog and remain current onreporting.

Weapons Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work

Page 65

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Stockpile Services
 Met scheduled Surveillance requirements:o Completed 90 percent of Pantex surveillance plan (50 assembly/disassembly, 24 JTAs, 19 testbed builds);
o Successfully conducted computer tomography of two anomalous Pits;o Completed 100 percent of scheduled Pit Non-Destructive Laser Gas Samplings at Pantex for the
W76 and the W78;
o Conducted 96 percent of planned Joint Flight Tests with the DoD (27 JTAs tested);o Conducted 66 percent of annual test-bed evaluations (21) at Sandia despite 8 month explosive
safety stand down of test facilities;o Completed 97 percent of planned CSA destructive (7) and non-destructive (23) evaluations at
Y-12; ando Completed 100 percent of planned gas transfer system (GTS) evaluations (28) at SRS.
 Conducted 66 percent of planned Pit Destructive Evaluations (4) at LANL and LLNL.
 Completed Product Realization Integrated Digital Enterprise (PRIDE) key deliverables:o System of Record (SOR) declared for the Weapons Information System stockpile data base-removing the application from an antiquated IBM mainframe computer and placing it on moresecure and efficient Sun V880 clustered servers;
o Delivered the Quality Evaluation Requirements Tracking System (QERTS) (first application to
become operational within NNSA's new Enterprise Secure Network (ESN);o Established Sigma 15 classified system network capability at Pantex;
o Delivered replacement Master Nuclear Schedule LLC application; ando Delivered a classified commonly-configured, enterprise-wide model-based mechanical computer
aided design production capability.
 Tonopah Test Range (TTR) Operations restarted after explosive safety stand down.
 The Requirements Modernization and Integration (RMI) project completed NNSA supplemental
directive (Defense Programs Business Requirements and Processes Manual, NAM 452.3-1)
replacing the NNSA Supplemental Directive 56XB, REV 2, Nuclear Weapons Development andProduction.
 Established RMI Content Lead Teams streamlining and converting paper based requirements
documents into web based requirements:o Completed 29 RMI Gate 1 reviews enable conversion of paper requirements into web based
requirements and processes.
 Completed 25 RMI Gate 2 reviews enable the formal enterprise-wide review and edit resolution of
the converted content from Gate 1.
 Completed production of 5 War Reserve W88 pits.
 Completed design for a new machining lathe with multiple process capabilities.
 Completed equipment upgrades on plutonium welding and gauging equipment.
 Demonstrated new casting process which can provide for reduced costs in wastes and increased
efficiency.
Major Outyear Priorities and Assumptions
The outyear requirements for DSW total $8,486,599,000 for FY 2012 through FY 2015. DSW willcontinue to provide a safe, secure, and effective stockpile by providing major deliverables including:
W76 LEP full production; complete B61 Spin Rocket Motor Refurbishment in FY 2012; and, explore
life extension options for the W78, consistent with the principles of the Stockpile Management Program
Weapons Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work

Page 66

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

defined in Section 3113 (a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2010
(50 U.S.C. 2524). DSW, if authorized, will continue Phase 6.3 engineering development activities tocomplete refurbishment of the non-nuclear components of the B61 and execute the nuclear
refurbishment scope. If a life extension for the B61 is approved and directed by the NWC, funding
requested currently in the outyears under the B61 Stockpile Systems will then be transferred andrequested as a life extension under the Life Extension Program activity. Stockpile assessment andsustainment activities, as well as enterprise capabilities sustainment, must continue in order to annuallyassess the stockpile and meet international obligations. These activities and capabilities provide theimproved confidence in the safety, security, and effectiveness of the stockpile without the need to
conduct underground nuclear tests. In addition, DSW will continue the reduction of nuclear weapons
through the dismantlement and disposition of retired weapons.

Weapons Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work

Page 67

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification
FY 2009
205,043

Life Extension Program (LEP)(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010
FY 2011
223,196
249,463

Life extension is a major stockpile management program activity NNSA developed to extend the expected
stockpile lifetime of legacy weapons systems for 20 to 30 years. The NNSA, in conjunction with the
DoD, executes a LEP following the procedural guidelines of the Phase 6.x process. The Phase 6.x process
results in Nuclear Weapons Council recommendations to the President to develop and field replacementsfor only those components that will extend the life of legacy systems and enhance their safety andsecurity. The President will seek Congressional authorization to expend resources to implement his
decisions regarding the options developed during Phases 6.1 (concept assessment) and 6.2 (feasibility andoption development). LEP activities include the research, development, and production work required toensure that weapons systems will continue to meet national security requirements for additional decades
into the future or until “global zero” is achieved.


B61 Life Extension Program

1,854

0

0

The refurbishment designated as Alteration (ALT) 357 was completed in FY 2009 with therefurbishment of the B61 Modifications 7 and 11 Canned Subassemblies (CSA). This program also
replaced associated seals, foam supports, cables and connectors, the group X kit (e.g., washers,
o-rings, etc.), and limited life components. This budget element did not include any work associatedwith the current B61 life extension study.
In FY 2011, there are no programmatic activities associated with the ALT 357.


W76 Life Extension Program

203,189

223,196

249,463

The W76 LEP will extend the life of the W76 for an additional 30 years. The first production unit
(FPU) was completed in FY 2008. The NNSA completes the reentry body assembly and delivery
components to the DoD for integration into the Trident II D5 Strategic Weapon System. It is part of
the Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) force.
In FY 2011, the program will execute the Annual Assessment and certification process and theimproved manufacturability of the components. Production plants continue War Reserve production
and life extension activities by providing materials including the nuclear explosive package; theArming, Fuzing, and Firing system; 2X Acorn gas transfer system; and associated cables, elastomers,
valves, pads, cushions, foam supports, telemetries, and miscellaneous parts. This funding request
supports production rates and schedules to meet the current deliverables, in the FY 2009
Requirements and Planning Document signed by the Nuclear Weapons Council, after agreement with
the Navy, and in support of the Presidential Stockpile Directive. The disassembly of W76-0 for the
LEP feedstock will continue.
The LEP workload will include: providing laboratory and management support to the Project
Officer’s Group (POG) and DoD Safety Studies; supporting resolution of Significant Finding
Investigations (SFIs); submission of data for surveillance cycle reports; Seamless Safety -21 (SS-21)
Weapons Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work

Page 68

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011maintenance activities at Pantex; disassembling and inspecting the Retrofit Evaluation System Test(REST) and stockpile surveillance flight and laboratory samples; conducting component laboratory
tests and flight tests for REST; and stockpile evaluation supported by producing Joint Test
Assemblies and test beds. Additionally, the National Laboratories will provide production liaison
support at the plants including systems design support for production of piece parts and final
assembly by the production plants, support the disassembly of W76-0 for the LEP, initiate necessary
production definition changes to improve manufacturability and reuse, and disposition instructions for
production and disassembly issues.
The W76 LEP funding will also support trained and cleared personnel, materials, and tooling in orderto start scale-up to full production by the end of FY 2013, and with engineering support from the sites
to enable manufacturing and productivity improvements. The production rate within the five year
window is a function of the weapons age and not the stockpile size. Requirements for FY 2017 andbeyond are dependent upon stockpile size.
Stockpile Systems

337,797

357,800

649,366

Weapons surveillance activities are a priority and will be increased in FY 2011 to ensure earlyknowledge and understanding relative to status of each weapon system and provide increased availabilityof data to aid in that understanding. Stockpile Systems, directly executes sustainment activities for theactive stockpile. Specifically, weapons-specific R&D, assessment and certification activities, weapons
component qualification, limited life component exchange activities, surveillance activities, maintenance,
feasibility and safety studies, and military liaison work for the B61, W76, W78, W80, B83, W87, andW88 weapons systems. Stockpile evaluation provides the basis for the Annual Assessment andcertification through stockpile stewardship which replaced nuclear testing. In addition, Stockpile
Systems includes limited weapons refurbishments below the threshold for separate reporting as a life
extension program, and life extension studies prior to approval of full-scale engineering development.
Stockpile system funded activities and testing provide critical state-of-health data for Public Law
107-314 “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003” which mandated Annual
Assessment to certify the stockpile without underground testing by establishing a credible baseline of thehealth of a weapon system.


B61 Stockpile Systems

90,204

91,956317,136

The B61 aircraft delivered gravity bombs are the oldest weapons in the enduring stockpile. The B61
family includes five modifications with two distinct categories. The strategic category includes the
B61 Modifications -7 and -11, with Modification-11 being the only active earth penetrating weapon.
The non-strategic category includes the B61 Modifications -3, -4, and -10 supporting our extended
nuclear commitment. The B61 Stockpile Systems activities have been separated into two
subcategories: (1) System Sustainment and (2) Life Extension Study. A detailed description of work
activities included in each subcategory and associated funding levels are provided below.

Weapons Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work

Page 69

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010
FY 2011

FY 2009•

B61 System Sustainment

90,20459,45665,495In FY 2011, activities are prioritized as follows: (1) all necessary maintenance and limited life
component exchanges to keep active stockpile bombs operationally deployed per NWSP
requirements; (2) stockpile evaluation activities including disassembly and inspections, systemlevel laboratory and joint flight testing, material and component evaluations, and significant
finding investigations; funding levels will be managed by prioritizing component, material andevaluation testing; (3) laboratory assessment and certification activities including analysis andtesting supporting annual Weapons Reliability and Annual Assessment Reports, laboratory andmanagement support for Project officers Group (POG) and DoD safety studies, laboratory
support for trainer refurbishments; support will be managed by prioritizing funding for new
studies, analysis and hydrodynamic testing; and (4) on-going retrofits kits, container
procurements for field component exchanges, and Kansas City Responsive Infrastructure
Manufacturing and Sourcing (KCRIMS) pre-builds. This request supports execution of corestockpile stewardship activities, including verification, laboratory, and component surveillance
testing; restores component testing of nuclear subsystems, non-nuclear components and initialdevelopment of replacement JTA instrumentation to address the approaching instrumentation
end-of-life.
•0

B61 Phase 6.2/6.2A Study

32,500251,641In FY 2011, funding supports a life extension study of the nuclear and non-nuclear components
scope, including implementation of enhanced surety, extended service life and modification
consolidation. This life extension study in coordination with the B61 Project Officers Group will
publish a Phase 6.2A Report and Weapons Design and Cost Report. This report will document
the conceptual designs, program costs and schedules associated with the nuclear and non-nuclear
refurbishment scope, including development of concepts and costs to replace arming and fuzing
components (e.g., neutron generator, power supplies, radars and programmer) to address nearterm end-of-life and sustainment concerns on the B61 bomb family. The study will evaluate
options for improving safety and use control features and ensures compatibility and integration
with modern aircraft such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
Completion of the study will also provide options and a path forward to enable LANL and SNL
participation in development of detailed designs to extend the life of the nuclear explosive
package which may include an extension of the B61 nuclear primary’s life (reusing the existing
B61 nuclear pit), potential implementation of multipoint safety, and reuse or remanufacture of thecanned subassembly (CSA) and for a complete life extension of the B61 -3, -4, -7, and -10, if
directed by the Nuclear Weapons Council.


W62 Stockpile Systems

1,500

0

0

The W62 is a warhead used in the Air Force’s Mk-12 re-entry vehicle on the Minuteman III
intercontinental ballistic missile. Activities will be captured in the Weapons Dismantlement andDisposition budget for safety assessment work.

Weapons Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work

Page 70

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
W76 Stockpile Systems
63,21956,55464,521
The W76-0 is the warhead integrated into the Trident II D5 Strategic Weapon System. It is part of theSubmarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) force. The W76-0/Mk4 is completed by NNSA as a
Reentry Body Assembly and delivered to the DoD.
In FY 2011, activities include: providing laboratory and management support to the DoD Project
Officer Group and Safety Studies; laboratory and component surveillance testing; conducting limited
life component exchange activities; performing evaluation of Significant Finding Investigations (SFI);
closure of one critical SFI necessary to attain critical technical data to complete the Annual
Assessment; submitting available data for surveillance cycle reports certifying no need for testing;conducting integrated experiments; supporting the Annual Assessment and certification process;conducting disassembly and inspection of laboratory tests; conducting half of the core stockpile
stewardship activities including material, component, and system level testing and all flight test
samples; performing all flight tests including producing Type 2Fs; conducting SS-21 maintenanceactivities at Pantex; and, continuing production of 2011X reservoir and MC4380A neutron generator.
W78 Stockpile Systems
40,34748,31185,898The W78 is a warhead integrated into the Air Force’s Mk12A re-entry vehicle deployed on the
Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM). It is part of the ICBM force. The W78
Stockpile Systems activities have been separated into two subcategories: (1) System Sustainment and(2) Life Extension Study. A detailed description of work activities included in each subcategory andassociated funding levels are provided below.
40,34748,311
59,898• W78 System Sustainment
The FY 2011 request supports execution of core stockpile stewardship management activities
including: laboratory and component surveillance testing; production of the MC 4381 neutron
generator; LF7B gas transfer system reservoir; and increased limited life component exchange
activities to support Air Force requirements. In addition, the program will conduct systemlaboratory tests, flight tests and complete weapons reliability reporting, and Annual Assessment
and certification activities. This funding will also support production of the required additional
MC4381 neutron generators to meet operationally deployed units.
00
26,000• W78 Life Extension StudyIn FY 2011, additional funding enables a life extension study for the W78, consistent with theprinciples of the Stockpile Management Program defined in Section 3113 (a)(2) of the National
Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2010 (50 U.S.C. 2524). The study will address thenuclear explosives package as well as aging, enhanced surety improvements, increase reliabilityalignment, extending service life, and alignment with major DoD component (fuze) acquisition
program.

Weapons Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work

Page 71

FY 2011 Congressional Budget









(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
W80 Stockpile Systems
30,712
27,39834,193
The W80 is a warhead used in the Air Launched Cruise Missile deployed by the Air Force and the
Tomahawk Land Attack Missile-Nuclear (TLAM-N) deployed by the Navy.
In FY 2011, this activity will include: limited life component production and surveillance activities,
including Disassembly and Inspections, Joint Test Assembly and laboratory test bed assembly builds,
laboratory testing, and nuclear and non-nuclear component and material testing for the W80 efforts
that support weapons reliability reporting, and the Annual Assessment and certification process.
B83 Stockpile Systems
26,93833,502
39,349The B83 is an aircraft delivered, strategic gravity bomb deployed by the Air Force.
The FY 2011 funded activities include: (1) component testing of nuclear subsystems, non-nuclear
components and initial system integration activities for future Gas Transfer System and neutron
generator replacements required to address approaching end-of-life; (2) necessary maintenance andlimited life component exchanges to keep active stockpile bombs operational; (3) stockpile evaluation
activities including disassembly and inspection, system-level laboratory and joint flight testing,material and component evaluations, and significant finding investigations; required component
testing will be managed by prioritizing funding; (4) laboratory assessment and certification activities
including analysis and testing supporting annual Weapons Reliability and Annual Assessment
Reports, laboratory and management support for POG and DoD safety studies, laboratory support for
DoD H1347 bomb hand carts and trainer refurbishments; adjusting support for new studies, analysis
and hydrodynamic testing; (5) initiation of development activities to replace the B83 gas transfer
system and neutron generator; and (6) KCRIMS requalification activities.
W87 Stockpile Systems
40,94948,13962,603
The W87 is a warhead integrated into the Air Force’s Mk21 re-entry vehicle deployed on the
Minuteman III ICBM. It is part of the ICBM force.
In FY 2011, programmatic activities include; laboratory and component surveillance of the W87;
supporting the Annual Assessment process; providing laboratory and management support to the POG
and DoD Safety Studies; limited life component exchange activities; supporting resolution of SFIs;
conducting core stockpile stewardship activities including material, component, and system leveltesting; limited production of MC3600A environmental sensing devices, and MC4633 lightning
arrestor connectors in support of surveillance rebuilds; design and testing in support of the neutron
generator First Production Unit; production of joint test assemblies and test beds; and providing range
support and data collection of W87 stockpile flight tests. In addition, these funds are essential tocomplete design and pre-production efforts for the new NG first production unit scheduled for 2012,and production of firing sets to accomplish repairs and rebuilds of warheads currently at Pantex.
W88 Stockpile Systems
43,92851,94045,666
The W88 is integrated into the Trident II D5 Strategic Weapon System. It is part of the Submarine
Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) force. The W88/Mk5 is completed by NNSA as Reentry Body
Assembly and delivered to the DoD.

Weapons Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work

Page 72

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011In FY 2011, activities include: required laboratory test, and closure of one critical Significant Finding
Investigation necessary to attain critical technical data to complete the Annual Assessment; laboratory
and management support to the POG and DoD Safety Studies; conducting limited life component
exchange activities; submitting available data for surveillance cycle reports; conducting integrated
experiments pursuant to the approved plan, as revised; supporting the Annual Assessment andcertification process; conducting disassembly and inspection of laboratory tests; conducting half of thecore stockpile stewardship activities including material, component, and system level testing of all
flight test samples; performing all flight tests including producing Joint Test Assemblies; conducting
SS-21 maintenance activities at Pantex; continuing production of 4T reservoir and forging
procurements; and rebuild of W88/Mk5 warheads.
Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition
186,929
96,10058,025•52,695Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition

96,10058,025Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition (WDD) is a critical element of NNSA’s integrated effort totransform the enterprise and the stockpile. The WDD program element includes activities that
support or perform tasks to reduce the quantity of retired weapons or retired weapons components,
including interim storage, surveillance, complete disposition of retired weapons and weapons
components, and the international commitment to disposition special nuclear material declared as
excess to national security needs. Specific activities include weapons dismantlement,characterization of components, disposition of retired warhead system components, and surveillanceof selected components from retired warheads. Other supporting activities specific to retired
warheads include: conducting hazard assessments; issuing safety analysis reports; conducting
laboratory and production plant safety studies; procuring shipping and storage equipment; andsupporting the Tri-laboratory office efforts on dismantlement activities. In addition, for WDD to be
successful, supporting programs must receive balanced funding: including Production Support for
shipping, receiving, and equipment maintenance; RTBF for infrastructure sustainment and containers;
and Secure Transportation Assets for movement of weapons and components.
In FY 2011, dismantlement activities include maintaining the throughput of weapons dismantlements
at Pantex and CSA disassembly at Y-12. At Pantex, the WDD program plans include activity for
portions of the B53, B61, W80, and B83. Other activities at Pantex include funding to support
flexibility to use multi-shift operations to ensure maximum throughput and utilization of resources.
Activities at Y-12 include continued Component/CSA disassembly and disposition to reduce thefootprint for Enriched Uranium storage and processing. The WDD will continue to support
associated component disposition. The funding reflects resources required to complete thedismantlement workload consistent with the dismantlement schedules submitted to Congress. The
WDD program element will maintain associated component disposition, and when the scope exceeds
the base capability provided by RTBF, support the recycling, recovery and storage of nuclear
material. Negotiated component characterization and disposition activities will operate at adjusted
rates necessary to prevent storage problems across the enterprise in 2015 and beyond.

Weapons Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work

Page 73

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009• Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility –O&M•

Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility(PDCF) Other Projects Costs (OPC)(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010
FY 201169,3510044,35600

In FY 2010, PDCF was moved to RTBF, and is included in Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation’s(DNN) Fissile Materials Disposition (FMD) Program in FY 2011.
•

Supporting Activities

24,99500Surplus Plutonium Storage andTransportation

22,00000In FY 2010, this activity was moved to RTBF and is included in the DNN/FMD Program in
FY 2011.


National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

500

0

0

In FY 2010, this activity was moved to RTBF and is included in the DNN/FMD Program in
FY 2011.
Common Technologies and Integration

2,495

0

0

In FY 2010, this activity was moved to RTBF and is included in the DNN/FMD Program in
FY 2011.
•

Construction
99-D-141-01, Pit Disassembly andConversion Facility (PDCF)

64,8830024,88300

In FY 2010, PDCF was moved to RTBF and is included in the DNN/FMD Program in
FY 2011.


99-D-141-02 Waste Solidification Building(WSB)

40,00000860,383

828,763941,525In FY 2010, WSB was moved to DNN/FMD.
Stockpile Services

Stockpile Services provides the foundation for the production capability and capacity within the nuclear
security enterprise. All enduring systems, LEPs, and dismantlements rely on Stockpile Services toprovide the base development, production and logistics capability needed to meet program requirements.
In addition, Stockpile Services funds research, development and production activities that support two or
more weapons-types, and work that is not identified or allocated to a specific weapon-type.

Weapons Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work

Page 74

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009•

Production Support

308,806(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010
FY 2011300,037

309,761

Production Support includes those activities that enable production by providing the capacity tosupport each internal site-specific production activity including, site-specific personnel and routine
functional activities associated with maintaining the basic site capability and work capacity to meetcurrent production requirements. While modernizing the production capabilities to improve
efficiency and prepare to meet established future requirements.
In FY 2011, work scope includes Production Management in support of the KCRIMS, an initiative to
move the Kansas City Plant to a smaller, more efficient production facility. Ongoing activities focus
on: sustaining and modernizing engineering and manufacturing operations; quality supervision andcontrol; tool, gauge, and test equipment procurement, maintenance, and inspection; purchasing,shipping, and material support; increasing production efficiency; and developing and maintaining
electronic product-flow information systems. Collectively, these activities directly support
implementation of systems engineering concepts, production integration, cost-effective plant
manufacturing operational improvements, and improved activity-based costing.
•Research and Development (R&D) Support

35,04937,071

38,582R&D Support includes ongoing activities that directly support the internal design laboratory sitespecific R&D activities, including stockpile studies and programmatic work that provides thenecessary administrative or organizational infrastructure.
In FY 2011, activities include: R&D infrastructure support at a specific laboratory, providing the
program management of DSW programs and integration of DSW, Campaigns, and RTBF
requirements, and support of quality assurance programs for multiple systems.
•

169,403

R&D Certification and Safety

166,523

209,053

R&D Certification and Safety provides the core competencies and capabilities for R&D efforts notdirectly attributable to a single specific warhead system. These activities conducted at designlaboratories and the Nevada Test Site (NTS) include the basic research required for developing
neutron generators and gas transfer systems, surveillance, and base capability for conductinghydrodynamic experiments. An experimental program for plutonium and sub-critical experiments is
also included.
In FY 2011, activities include: performing nuclear safety R&D studies and weapons effects studies;
preparing and providing the infrastructure for conducting hydrodynamic tests in support of enduring
stockpile systems; continuing to support neutron generator development (electronic and small
generator types); designing gas transfer systems; continuing to develop digital and analog arming andfiring subsystems; hardware qualification; system certification and required computer modeling andsimulation activities; continuing stockpile primary, secondary, chemistry, and materials systems

Weapons Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work

Page 75

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011analysis; annual assessments, development/introduction of modern surety features in support of life
extension programs and support of subcritical and other experiments at NTS.
•

192,072

Management, Technology, and Production

183,223

193,811

Management, Technology, and Production (MTP) activities are those activities that sustain andimprove stockpile management, develop and deliver weapons use control technologies, andproduction of weapons components for use in multiple weapons systems. Additionally, MTP
includes those activities that benefit the nuclear security enterprise as a whole, as opposed to
Production Support activities that support internal site-specific production only.
In FY 2011, MTP will: improve safety and use control technologies; conduct use control andindependent assessments; and procure and deliver multi-use weapons components, material, andsupport equipment. Moreover, MTP will: continue to implement the stockpile Surveillance
Transformation Project of the adjusted surveillance testing and advanced diagnostics deployment andgravity weapons flight testing to continue the evaluation of aging weapons to discover problems
earlier; implement and maintain enterprise-wide integrated product-realization digital information
systems for DSW for design, engineering, manufacturing and quality control releases; deploy new
diagnostics delivered by the Enhanced Surveillance Campaign; maintain access to and archive
technical knowledge, engineering practices, weapons design, safety, and operating procedure
information; and support and conduct activities that deploy, maintain, and evaluate stockpile multiuse components, instrumentation, and ancillary equipment.
•

155,053

Plutonium Capability

00141,909

190,318

Plutonium Capability was renamed as Plutonium Sustainment in FY 2010.
•

0

Plutonium Sustainment

The Plutonium Sustainment program maintains the plutonium technical base skills which support
activities encompassing all capabilities requiring the use and handling of plutonium. In FY 2011,
funding assures a plutonium capability, provides the capacity to build up to 10 pits per year,
completes the authorized W88 pit build; provides for preventive maintenance and upgrades of key
equipment in the areas of metal preparation and welding to support programs requiring plutonium
metal; provides the capability to manufacture parts and components for tests, science, and theenduring stockpile; continues the development of technology and manufacturing processes
associated with pit types other than the W88; supports the reconstitution of the capability to produce
power sources; and provides the necessary foundation to support implementing nuclear weapons
safety improvements in life extension programs and/or increased capacity for new production
requirements in support of maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile.

Weapons Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work

Page 76

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
Plutonium Sustainment also supports a share of plutonium facilities at LANL that are not supported
by RTBF. This funding is essential for supporting infrastructure investments to ensure both nearterm availability of facilities as well as to ensure long term viability of the plutonium infrastructure
as a national asset.
Total, Directed Stockpile Work

Weapons Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work1,590,152

Page 77

1,505,859

1,898,379

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Life Extension Programs (LEP)

W76 Life Extension Program
The increase will fund requirements for personnel, materials, and tooling inorder to continue scale-up to full production by the end of FY 2013 to meet the
NNSA commitment to the DoD. Scale-up activities include engineering support
from the sites to enable manufacturing and productivity improvements. The
success and scheduled deliverables for the W76 LEP are contingent upon stable
funding as reflected in the FY 2012-2015 funding profile.

Total, Life Extension Programs+26,267+26,267

Stockpile Systems


B61 Stockpile Systems
The increase addresses two key B61 program needs: (1) to restore funding to
execute necessary core stockpile stewardship activities, including component
testing of nuclear subsystems, non-nuclear components and initial developmentof replacement JTA instrumentation to address the approaching instrumentation
end of life; and (2) to enable funding of both the nuclear and non-nuclear life
extension scope for the B61 system.



The FY 2011 B61 funding allows implementation of the nuclear scope, including
implementation of design concepts to enhance surety, extended service life, andconsolidation of B61 modifications. This increase will enable the study toprovide options and a path forward for LANL and SNL participation indevelopment of life extension designs for the nuclear explosive package,
potential implementation of multipoint safety, and reuse or remanufacture of thecanned subassembly (CSA) to extend service life and consolidating B61
Modifications -3, -4, -7, and -10. The FY 2011 request also provides additional
funding for a complete life extension of the non-nuclear components including
component and system designs to improve safety, use control and aircraftcompatibility. The increase in funding is needed in FY 2011 to meet theschedule directed by the Nuclear Weapons Council and will ensure continued
support for our extended nuclear deterrence commitment.

+225,180

W76 Stockpile Systems
The increase will enable the completion of additional surveillance requirements
in FY 2011; including one additional required laboratory test and closure of one
critical Significant Finding Investigations (SFI) necessary to attain criticaltechnical data to complete the Annual Assessment.

+7,967

Weapons Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work

Page 78

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)

W78 Stockpile Systems
The increase in funding will fund the production of the required additional
MC4381 neutron generators to meet operationally deployed quantities andcommences a W78 life extension study focusing on the enhanced surety to meetnational security requirements, increase reliability, and extend service life.
Furthermore, the funds enable the restoration of W78 System laboratory testingwith a consideration for a potential component testing of nuclear and nonnuclear subsystems and components and neutron generator production.
W80 Stockpile Systems
In FY 2011, the increase will restore surveillance activities, including
Disassembly and Inspections, Joint Test Assembly and Laboratory test bed
assembly builds, laboratory testing, and nuclear and non-nuclear component andmaterial testing.

+5,847

W87 Stockpile Systems
This increase funds the completion of a partial Canned Subassembly
Qualification Evaluation and shelf life testing at Y-12. In addition funding
supports W87 laboratory and component surveillance. The increase supports
design and pre-production efforts for the new neutron generator first production
unit scheduled for 2012, and production of limited firing set builds at KCP toaccomplish rebuilds of warheads currently at Pantex.

+6,795

B83 Stockpile Systems
In FY 2011, the increase restores component testing of nuclear subsystems, nonnuclear components and initial system integration activities for future Gas
Transfer System and neutron generator replacements required to addressapproaching end-of-life.

+37,587+14,464

W88 Stockpile Systems
The decrease reflects the current production and surveillance schedule for the
W88.
Total, Stockpile Systems

Weapons Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work

Page 79-6,274+291,566

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition
 Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition (WDD)
The decrease in funding reflects a reduction in weapons and Component/Canned
Subassembly (CSA) dismantlements, associated component disposition, andsome weapon specific support for the recycling, recovery and storage of nuclear
material that is a by-product of weapons dismantlements. The decrease also
reflects a return to baseline funding after a one-time Congressional increase in
FY 2010.
Total, Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition-38,075-38,075

Stockpile Services


Production Support
The increase is mostly attributed to Environmental, Safety, and Health activities
that support multiple production lines, and decision support software, analyses
and reports needed for improved production efficiency.
 Research and Development Support
Increased funding supports efforts to prepare R&D for the Kansas City Plant’stransition to a new facility as described in the KCRIMS transformation plan andprovide required laboratory support to the production plants.
 Research & Development Certification and Safety
Increase funding supports efforts for additional activities for subcriticalexperiments to accomplish plutonium equation-of-state work at NTS, provide
base hydrodynamic capabilities for multiple and single weapon hydrodynamic
experiments, this is required to maintain hydrodynamic equipment and personnel
available to perform the hydrodynamic experiments. Additionally, this willallow a quicker technology maturation to support future life extension programsin the area of safety, security and use control and will allow quicker component
development that would include neutron generators, gas transfer systems, power
supplies and control systems.
 Management, Technology, and Production
Increased funding supports additional component testing and test equipment
procurement, an increase in limited life component (LLC) material acquisitionand procurement, and capital equipment expenditures.

Weapons Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work

Page 80+9,724+1,511+42,530+10,588

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
 Plutonium Sustainment
The increase restores the capability to build up to 10 pits per year in the
Plutonium Facility-4 (PF-4) at LANL. The increase will permit the completionof W88 pit production requirement, enable a power source production mission
and position PF-4 to meet any future Life Extension Program requirements. Thechange will also enhance the flexibility of the PF-4 operating space to makemaximize use of the existing footprint.
Total, Stockpile Services+48,409+112,762

Total Funding Change, Directed Stockpile Work+392,520

Weapons Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work

Page 81

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Capital Operating Expenses and Construction Summary
Capital Operating Expensesa(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
2,038
2,083
2,129
39,27040,13441,01741,30842,217
43,146

General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

Outyear Capital Operating Expenses
FY 2012General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

2,176
41,91944,095(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 20142,224
42,48144,705FY 20152,273
43,78446,0572,323
44,74747,070FY 2011

UnappropriatedBalance

Construction Projectsb(dollars in thousands)
Total
Estimated
Cost
(TEC)
99-D-141-01, Pit Disassembly Conversion
Facility
99-D-141-02, Waste Solidification
Building
Total, Construction

Prior Year
Appropriations

FY 2009

TBD

247,275

24,88300

TBD

244,33159,74940,00064,883000017,582

FY 2010aFunds are appropriated for Operations and Maintenance, including operating expenses, capital equipment and general plant
projects. The program no longer budgets separately for capital equipment and general plant projects, therefore FY 2010 and
FY 2011 funding reflects estimates based on actual FY 2009 obligations.

b

FY 2010 funds for PDCF were requested under the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities Program and WSB funds
were requested under the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/Fissile Materials Disposition Program. FY 2011 funds for PDCF
and WSB are requested under the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/Fissile Materials Disposition Program.

Weapons Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

Page 82

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetMajor Items of Equipment (TEC $2 million or greater)(dollars in thousands)
Total
Total
Estimated
Project
Cost
Prior Year
Major Item of Equipment Cost (TPC) (TEC) Appropriations FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

Completion
Date

SNM Vehicle, Y-12
National Security Complex

6,419

5,419

0

0

1,800

3,619

2012

6 New Ovens #1, Y-12
National Security Complex

5,954

5,302

1,050

3,225

1,027

0

2011

6 New Ovens #2, Y-12
National Security Complex

5,979

5,327

1,030

3,175

942

180

2011

QE Environmental
Chamber, Y-12 National
Security Complex

3,234

2,722

876

1,008

500

338

2011

Gas Mass Spectrometer, Y12 National Security
Complex

2,200

2,100

2,100

0

0

0

2010

LTTD Oven, Y-12
National Security Complex

3,511

3,011

0

0

500

2,511

2013

Dismantlement Lathe #3, Y12 National Security
Complex

4,700

4,200

0

0

2,200

2,000

2011

24,600

8,681

2,077

1,933

2,236

2,434

2012

9,341

9,205

11,082

Electro Refining System
LANL
Total Major Items ofEquipment

Weapons Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

Page 83

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 84

Science Campaign
Funding Profile by Subprogram(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Current
Appropriation
Appropriation
Science Campaign
Advanced Certification
Primary Assessment Technologies
Dynamic Plutonium Experiments
Dynamic Materials Properties
Advanced Radiography
Secondary Assessment Technologies
Test ReadinessTotal, Science Campaign

19,40080,181
23,022
83,231
28,53576,913
5,408
316,690

19,40083,181086,61728,535
77,913
0295,646

FY 2011
Request76,97285,7230
96,984
23,59481,9490
365,222

Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2012
Science Campaign
Advanced Certification
Primary Assessment Technologies
Dynamic Materials Properties
Advanced Radiography
Secondary Assessment Technologies
Total, Science Campaign

104,704
86,253
97,114
27,13282,257397,460(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014
129,481
85,24895,98026,816
81,298418,823

129,978
84,327
94,945
26,52880,421
416,199

FY 2015
98,90887,16598,14427,421
83,128394,766

MissionThe Science Campaign develops improved scientific capabilities and experimental infrastructure toassess the safety, security, reliability, and performance of the nuclear explosives package (NEP) portionof weapons without reliance on further underground testing. It focuses efforts around the developmentof fundamental knowledge gained through improved experimental capabilities needed to assess the ageaware behavior of the primary and secondary components of the NEP. The development of thiscapability is needed to predict performance of the NEP under natural aging or life extension changes.
The capability is driven by improvements in our science and technology base to continually address andreduce uncertainties, and to provide an objective quantitative measure of confidence in weapons
performance. In FY 2010, the responsibility for the maintenance of infrastructure and physical assets ofTest Readiness at the Nevada Test Site (NTS), transferred to the Readiness in Technical Base andFacilities (RTBF) program. However, the Science Campaign continues to provide the capabilities fortest readiness exercised through the Science Campaign experiments and assessments.
Within the nuclear security enterprise, the Science Campaign focuses scientific and technical efforts todevelop and maintain critical capabilities that will sustain the stockpile for the long-term. The Science
Campaign deliverables support: (1) annual legacy stockpile assessments; (2) certification statements forLife Extension Programs and potential future weapon modifications; (3) reduced response times forresolving stockpile issues (e.g., Significant Findings Investigations); (4) ability to certify warhead
replacement components; and (5) along with Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Campaign,
Weapons Activities/
Science Campaign

Page 85

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

the development of improved predictive capability that is important to the Quantification of Margins andUncertainties (QMU).
The Science Campaign improves the understanding of important phenomena, provides confidence that
failure modes and margins are properly identified, and reduces uncertainties in predictive capabilities.
Another important aspect of the Science Campaign is to ensure that peer-reviewed academic research is
supported in disciplines that are of special interest to the stockpile stewardship program. Topical areas
include materials under dynamic conditions, low-energy nuclear science, and high-energy-density
science. These disciplines form the core disciplines needed by the future stewards of our nuclear
stockpile.
The Science Campaign integrates budget and performance by setting Campaign performance targets andnational level milestones for primary and secondary predictive capability underpinning stockpile
assessments and certifications that reflect national program priorities. The QMU is a developing
methodology that is applied to stockpile assessment issues and communicates assessments within acommon framework. Margins and uncertainties can be used to define the goals and success criteria of
the science efforts. As experience is gained in the development and application of QMU, the results are
increasingly being used to identify technical areas requiring improvement and to prioritize resources.
The Science Campaign and ASC have principal responsibility for the continued development of the
QMU methodology and improved predictive capability, while Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) applies
these tools to stockpile assessments.
Benefits
Within the Science Campaign, the Primary Assessment Technologies, Academic Alliances, Dynamic
Material Properties, Advanced Radiography, Secondary Assessment Technologies, and Advanced
Certification subprograms each make unique contributions to the Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA) Unit Program Number 27.
The Advanced Certification subprogram integrates certain scientific and technological advances fromthe stockpile stewardship programs, along with input from continuing studies and workshops, in orderto: (1) improve the weapons certification process; (2) refine computational tools and methods;(3) promote the advancement of the physical understanding of surety mechanisms; (4) ensure further
exploration of failure modes; (5) conduct manufacturing process assessments; and (6) provide for studyof strategic system-level requirements. In FY 2011, an increase is requested to utilize the major
stockpile stewardship experimental capabilities (DARHT, Nevada Test Site, etc.) for advanced
certification goals.
The Primary Assessment Technologies subprogram, in conjunction with the ASC Campaign, develops
the tools, methods, and knowledge required to certify the nuclear safety and nuclear performance of any
primary to required levels of accuracy without nuclear testing.
The Dynamic Materials Properties subprogram now includes the scope of work associated with
sub-critical experiments at NTS. It focuses on utilizing these experiments as well as the traditional
scope of material science laboratory experiments to foster the development of detailed understanding
and accurate modeling of the properties and behavior of materials used within the nuclear explosives
package.
Weapons Activities/
Science Campaign

Page 86

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

The Advanced Radiography subprogram develops advanced imaging technologies for three-dimensional
imagery of imploding mock primaries and simplified experimental geometries with sufficient spatial andtemporal resolution to experimentally validate computer simulations of the implosion process andassociated physics phenomena so as to tie these results to prior data obtained from full-scale
underground nuclear tests. This subprogram also develops pulsed power technologies for dual-use
relevant to radiography and equation-of-state (EOS) platform for dynamic material property mission.
The Secondary Assessment Technologies subprogram develops the tools, methods, and knowledge
required to certify the nuclear performance of secondaries without nuclear testing.
The Science Campaign provides experimental data to validate the models in the ASC simulation codes,
as well as numerical methodologies to use in the codes. These physical data and methodologies lendconfidence to calculations performed to meet DSW commitments to understand the impact of aging on
weapons systems, close Significant Finding Investigations (SFIs), and to perform annual assessments
and certifications, as required. The pace of work under the Science Campaign is timed to support a
milestone, shared with the ASC Campaign, to release substantially improved simulation codes forprimaries and secondaries. This shared code-release milestone will require the incorporation of
improved physics models, which require the experimental validation provided by the Science Campaign.
These improved physics models include validated models for plutonium EOS and constitutive
properties, use of the Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test (DARHT) Facility 2nd axis as avalidation tool for mock primaries, and the use of the High Energy Density Physics (HEDP) facilities.
The Science Campaign supports scientific research activities in partnership with other national andinternational sponsors. During FY 2009, the Science Campaign pursued various collaborations, such aswith the Office of Science Basic Energy Sciences for the application of the Advanced Photon Source(APS) and the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) for stockpile relevant science. This approach has
and will continue to extend our responsive science capability without requiring major investments in
new facilities.

Weapons Activities/
Science Campaign

Page 87

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAnnual Performance Results and Targets(R = Results; T = Target)
Performance Indicators

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Endpoint Target

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

By 2008, complete development of
70% QMU methodology to apply
quantitative measures of confidence
in the performance, safety, andreliability of the nuclear weapons
stockpile.

T: 60%

T: 63%

T: 66%

T: 69%

T: 72%

T: 75%

By 2020, use modern physics
models in assessment calculations toreplace the major empiricalparameters affecting weapon
performance.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

By 2008, complete the DARHT
facility to provide data required tocertify the safety and reliability of
the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Sustain a 24- to 36-monthunderground nuclear test readinessthrough 2009.

Secretarial Goal: Security: Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risks
GPRA Unit Program Number: 27, Science Campaign
Quantification of Margins andUncertainties (QMU):
Cumulative percentage of progressin development of the QMU
methodology to provide
quantitative measures ofconfidence in the performance,
safety, and reliability of the U.S.
nuclear weapons stockpile. (Longterm Outcome)

R: 40%

R: 55%

R : 70%

T: 40%

T: 55%

T: 70%First Principles Physics Models:Cumulative percentage of progressin replacing key empiricalparameters in the nuclear explosive
package assessment with firstprinciples physics models assessedby validation with experiment.
(Long-term Outcome)N/A

R: 36%

R: 46%

R: 46%

T: 36%

T: 42%

T: 50%

Dual-Axis Radiographic
Hydrodynamic Test Facility(DARHT): Cumulative percentage
of progress towards completing the
DARHT to provide data required tocertify the safety and reliability of
the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.
(Long-term Outcome)

R: 70%

R: 95%

R: 100%N/A

T: 60%

T: 80%

T: 100%

Test Readiness: Readiness,measured in months, to conduct anunderground nuclear test as
established by current NNSA
policy. (Long-term Outcome)

R:24

R:24-36

R: 24-36

R: 24-36

T:24

T:24-36

T: 24-36

T:24-36abaJoint Performance Indicator with the Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign began in FY 2010.

b

The Test Readiness-related activities were moved from the Science Campaign to RTBF in FY 2010.

Weapons Activities/
Science Campaign

Page 88

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Endpoint Target

Hydrodynamic Testing: Annual
percentage of hydrodynamic tests
completed in accordance with the
National Hydrodynamics Plan, tosupport the assessment of nuclear
performance. (Annual Output)

R: 75%

R: 75%

R : 75%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

T: 75%

T: 75%

T: 75%

Annually, complete at least 75% of
all scheduled hydrodynamic tests inaccordance with the National
Hydrodynamics Plan.

JASPER Facility Experiments:
Annual average cost per test,
expressed in terms of thousands ofdollars, of obtaining plutonium
experimental data on the Joint
Actinide Shock Physics
Experimental Research (JASPER)
facility to support primarycertification models. (Efficiency)

R : $308K

R: $360K

R: $340K

R: $340K

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

T : $380K

T: $360K

T: $340K

T: $340K

By 2009 reduce the annual average
cost of obtaining plutonium
experimental data on JASPER to$340K (80% of the 2004 baseline
cost of $425K).

Stockpile Stewardship Science:
Annual investment, as measured bytotal Science Campaign budget, perrefereed journal publication or final
formal internal report.
a(Efficiency)

N/A

N/A

N/A

R: $1M

T: $970K

T: $940K

T: 910K

T: 880K

T:$850K

T:$820K

By 2015, decrease the annual
investment per refereed journal
publication or formal final internalreport by 18% relative to FY 2009.

Extreme Temperature andPressure Conditions: Cumulative
percentage of progress towards
creating and measuring extreme
temperature and pressure
conditions for the FY 2013
stockpile stewardship requirement.
(Long-term Outcome)

R: 70%

R: 70%

R: 75%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

T: 70%

T: 70%

T: 75%

By 2008, create and measure 75% of
the extreme conditions so HighEnergy Density Physics facilities
can be used to provide stockpile
stewardship data.

Key Extreme Experiments:
Cumulative percentage of progress
towards achievement of key
extreme experimental conditions ofmatter needed for predictive
capability for nuclear weapons
performance. (Long-term
Outcome)N/A

R: 13%

R: 18%

R: 25%

T: 35%

T: 55%

T: 75%

T: 85%

T: 90%

T: 100%

T: 13%

T: 18%

T: 25%

Performance Indicatorsa

T: $1M

By 2015, achieve a greater thanunity value of the average of theratio of achieved conditions toneeded conditions.

New efficiency measure added in FY 2010, to replace successfully accomplished previous measure.

Weapons Activities/
Science Campaign

Page 89

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009 Accomplishments
Primary Assessment Technology
 2 PHOENIX shots were conducted at NTS.
 Full Toss experiment was performed at NTS with a large suite of measurements and studies.
 Proton radiography at Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) was used to develop
instability data.
 FY 2009 Congressional increase initiated or accelerated projects to obtain plutonium nuclear andhydrodynamic data at NTS and the Laboratories.
Dynamic Materials Properties
 EOS data of mixtures was obtained from Z experiments at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL).
 Plutonium aging data was obtained and analyzed as input to the FY 2009 pit lifetime assessments.
 Completed preliminary Diamond EOS.
 Inserted new physics model into baseline codes.
 Measured infrared reflectivity (IR) of shocked tin samples above and below the solid-liquid phaseboundary through Dynamic Shock Experiments at the Special Technologies Laboratory (STL).
 Accelerated flyer plate to over 100,000 mph on Z Facility and performed EOS studies to 20 Mbar.
 Employed new preheating technology at Sandia Dynamic Integrated Compression Experimental(DICE) facility for phase boundary measurements.
Advanced Radiography
 Conducted four major proton radiography (pRad) experiments at LANSCE.
 Applied image metrics to hydrodynamic and nuclear data to help evaluate new models.
Secondary Assessment Technologies
 Executed the first National Ignition Facility (NIF) experiments for stockpile stewardship mission.
 Demonstrated the ability to calculate system output with Uncertainty Quantification withinpredefined ranges of data.
 Demonstrated a new compact x-ray source on Z for use as an above ground experiments (AGEX)
platform driver in support of the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
Test Readiness Completed Full Toss experiments.
Advanced Certification
 Completed design of Surety hydro tests.
 Demonstrated the quantitative effect of model form uncertainty on prediction uncertainty.
 Accomplished a Complete Catalog of Observed Failures at NTS and the First Generation of
Mechanisms, Metrics and Thresholds.
Major Outyear Priorities and Assumptions
The outyear requirements for the Science Campaign total $1,627,248,000 for 2012 through FY 2015.
The Science Campaign will improve predictive capability sufficient for NEPs in the current stockpile by
FY 2020. The major steps on this path include: fundamental multi-phase Pu EOS and constitutive
properties models for primary implosions by FY 2012; models for full primary operation by FY 2015;
and models of full secondary performance by FY 2018. The FY 2011 increase to Advanced
Weapons Activities/
Science Campaign

Page 90

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Certification includes the accomplishment of additional experiments at the Nevada Test Site, DARHT
and other experimental facilities that contribute to analysis and modeling of failure modes and marginto-failure. The additional efforts will also be extended to regimes that are relevant to analysis ofproliferant technical capability and other factors of broader national nuclear security interest.
The Science Campaign is planning future integrated activities to answer key questions on time scalesconsistent with transformation of the nuclear security enterprise. NNSA is reviewing several
outstanding high-level issues, such as: LANSCE refurbishment; the challenging program related toinitial conditions for boost (2015); a critical decision point for whether to execute DynEx (scheduled for2015); continuation of JASPER and other operations at NTS; the requirement to maintain test readinesscapabilities as directed by Congress; activities affected by transformation across the nuclear security
enterprise (high explosives research across the complex; plutonium R&D activities in Superblock at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL); and managing the balance between research andmanufacturing activities at TA-55).

Weapons Activities/
Science Campaign

Page 91

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
Advanced Certification

19,400FY 2010
19,400FY 201176,972The Advanced Certification Campaign will eliminate systemic gaps in the NNSA certification
process through the application of stockpile stewardship campaign work products. It will
integrate the scientific and technological advances from stockpile stewardship with input fromcontinuing studies in order to: improve the weapons certification process; refine computational
tools and methods; advance the physical understanding of surety mechanisms; understand failuremodes; assess new manufacturing processes; and study system requirements. The focus is onlarge changes, or aggregations of smaller changes in the future stockpile, as opposed to theindividual small changes already assessed by the current programs. Advanced Certification will
fill the gaps not presently covered under the existing stockpile program. Advanced Certification
will develop a rigorous connection between performance effects resulting from changes in suchareas as pit modification (including pit re-use), component, or manufacturing changes. Specificactivities will include modeling and experiments that address failure modes, as well as thedevelopment of a rigorous, peer-reviewed linkage of system level requirements to the associatedcertification needs for the weapons lifecycle under all relevant conditions. The increase supports
the use of DARHT hydrodynamic experiments to examine options for modernized surety. Also
supported is the analysis of failure modes and margin-to-failure, including stockpile, nonstockpile, and potential proliferant designs. Experiments will be conducted at DARHT and the
Nevada Test Site. This effort supports intelligence community issues and involves close
coordination with other government agencies in national security. Failure mode analysis isfundamental to stewardship and the extension to other designs will contribute to counter-terrorism
and counter-proliferation assessments.
Primary Assessment Technologies

80,181

83,18185,723

Primary Assessment Technologies (PAT) will commence the performance of experiments on the
DARHT 2nd Axis that will acquire multiple images of an imploding system. This data
complements data obtained through experiments to be performed at LLNL’s Site 300, and proton
radiography experiments at LANSCE. These experiments will be used along with data collectedfrom past underground tests to understand and reduce the uncertainties on the empirically definedparameters that are typically used in legacy weapon performance models. The NNSA has a goal
to eliminate one such parameter and to replace it with physics-based models by 2015. The
resulting improvements to our models will be used to improve the scientific basis for NNSA
annual assessments and address stockpile issues. NNSA will also continue with plannedexperiments on the PHOENIX. The evaluation of aging effects on the predicted certifiable service
lifetime of pits will continue with contributions from Primary Assessment Technologies andDSW. Our current state of understanding of the boost process will be documented by both LLNL
and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in a set of classified, peer-reviewed reports which
will subsequently be published in the archival classified weapons physics journal - Defense
Research Review (DRR). Finally, the primary assessment plan will be updated to reflect thesignificant progress over the past two years achieved by the Campaign.
Weapons Activities/
Science Campaign

Page 92

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

Primary Assessment Technologies also funds the Stewardship Science Academic Alliances(SSAA) and the High Energy Density Plasmas (HEDP) Joint Program. The SSAA programprovides financial assistance to approximately 40 academic institutions in two areas of uniquerelevance to weapon science; low energy nuclear science and materials under extreme conditions.
The HEDLP Joint Program supports high-energy density laboratory plasma science.
Dynamic Plutonium Experiments

23,0220086,617

96,984In FY 2010, all activities were consolidated under Dynamic Materials Properties.
Dynamic Materials Properties

83,231

Dynamic Materials Properties develops the fundamental knowledge and physics-based models
that describe and predict the behaviors of weapon materials in environments of extreme conditionsof temperature, stress, strain, and strain rates. Dynamic Materials Properties will have theresponsibility for developing the aging and process-aware fundamental plutonium multi-phase
EOS and its constitutive properties. These experiments will be conducted at Inertial Confinement
Fusion (ICF) facilities, as well as at DOE/Science synchrotron radiation national user facilities. It
may also include the establishment of a dedicated beam line to perform dynamic compression
experiments on a sector of the Advanced Photon Source (APS) at the Argonne National
Laboratory. A series of tests will be executed on various Large Bore Powder Gun (LBPG)
samples in different pressure regimes and with different loading characteristics to provide
information important to the improvement of EOS models. FY 2011 efforts will continue with
proton radiography experiments at LANSCE and collaborative experiments with the United
Kingdom.
Other major milestones will include conducting the first isentropic compression experiments to
5 Mbar on Z, completing nuclear cross section measurements on Pu-239 at LANSCE, andcompleting high fidelity simulations of shock initiation of high explosives at the grain scale by
LLNL.
Dynamic Materials Properties also funds the SSAA and the HEDP Joint Program. The SSAA
program provides financial assistance to approximately 40 academic institutions in two areas ofunique relevance to weapons science; low energy nuclear science and materials under extreme
conditions. The HEDLP Joint Program supports high-energy density laboratory plasma science.
Advanced Radiography

28,53528,53523,594

Advanced Radiography will be transforming the methods used by the enterprise to perform
radiographic and dynamic materials experiments. The majority of the work will be accomplishedat DARHT, Site 300, Sandia Area IV, and pRad at LANSCE. Containment of explosively-driven
experiments will be a continuing focus and will enable these experiments to have a minimal
impact on the environment. The development of radiographic requirements andWeapons Activities/
Science Campaign

Page 93

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011advances in the analysis and use of radiographic information will be pursued. In FY 2011, thissubprogram will continue to support the early stages of development of pulsed-power
technologies, advanced compact radiography capabilities and the continued refinement andutilization of the pRad facility at LANSCE.
Secondary Assessment Technologies

76,913

77,913

81,949The highest priority for Secondary Assessment Technologies is the implementation of a better
physics-based energy model. The work will be further refined by performing experiments thru
FY 2012 and is expected to lead to a revision of the model by FY 2015. Ongoing experiments
will focus on additional secondary performance issues with an improved physics model for these
additional issues implemented by 2020. Many experiments that support model development rely
on availability of the ICF facilities, NIF, Z, and OMEGA facilities and a significant effort goes
toward target fabrication. Secondary assessment also supports improved tools for modeling of
weapon outputs.
Secondary Assessment Technologies also funds the SSAA and the HEDP Joint Program. The
SSAA program provides financial assistance to approximately 40 academic institutions in twoareas of unique relevance to weapons science; low energy nuclear science and materials under
extreme conditions. The HEDLP Joint Program supports high-energy density laboratory plasma
science.
Test Readiness

5,408

0

0

The responsibility for the maintenance of infrastructure and physical assets at the NTS transferredto the RTBF program in FY 2010.
Total, Science Campaign

Weapons Activities/
Science Campaign

316,690

Page 94

295,646

365,222

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Advanced Certification
Recent external studies have pointed out the need for scientific efforts that help
resolve issues fundamental to modern primary performance. The requested
increase funds hydrodynamic experiments at DARHT and the Nevada Test Site to
examine options for modernized surety. Also supported is the analysis of failuremodes and margin-to-failure, including stockpile, non-stockpile, and potential
proliferant designs. Data regarding specific materials will be obtained using thetools developed through the other science sub-campaigns in order to reduceremaining uncertainties. This effort also supports Intelligence community issues
and involves close coordination with other government agencies in national
security. Failure mode analysis is fundamental to stewardship and the extension toother designs will contribute to counterterrorism and counter-proliferationassessments.

+57,572

Primary Assessment Technologies
The increase in funding will accelerate the pace of LANSCE diagnostic
development for accurate nuclear cross-section measurement. Increase also funds
enhanced development of thermonuclear burn models, and partially restoresfunding to academic programs.

+2,542

Dynamic Materials Properties
The increase will fund the acceleration of experiments at JASPER at the Nevada
Test Site, and restore funding to academic programs.

+10,367

Advanced Radiography
The decrease reflects a reduction to the pace of pulsed power technology andradiographic diagnostic development as DARHT second axis enters an operationalmode.

-4,941

Secondary Assessment Technology
The increase funds diagnostics and targets for experiments on NIF and Z.

+4,036

Total Funding Change, Science Campaign+69,576

Weapons Activities/
Science Campaign

Page 95

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Capital Operating Expenses and Construction Summary
Capital Operating Expensesad(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
0
0
0
1,027
1,050
1,073

General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

1,027

1,050

1,073

Outyear Capital Operating Expenses(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
0
0
0
0
1,097
1,121
1,146
1,171

FY 2012General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

1,097

1,121

1,146

1,171

a

Funds are appropriated for Operations and Maintenance, including operating expenses, capital equipment and general plant
projects. The program no longer budgets separately for capital equipment and general plant projects, therefore FY 2010 and
FY 2011 funding shown reflects estimates based on actual FY 2009 obligations.
Weapons Activities/
Science Campaign
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

Page 96

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Engineering Campaign
Funding Profile by Subprogram(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Current
Appropriation
Appropriation
Engineering Campaign
Enhanced Surety
Weapon Systems Engineering Assessment Technology
Nuclear Survivability
Enhanced Surveillance
Total, Engineering Campaign

46,111
16,593
21,10066,196150,000

42,00018,00021,00069,000150,000

FY 2011
Request42,42913,53019,786
66,175
141,920

Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2012Engineering Campaign
Enhanced Surety
Weapon Systems Engineering Assessment Technology
Nuclear Survivability
Enhanced Surveillance
Total, Engineering Campaign

44,01916,533
20,62768,558
149,737(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 201443,69915,19918,55057,548
134,996

48,851
19,73010,33466,005
144,920

FY 2015
50,523
20,404
10,68764,125
145,739

MissionThe goal for the Engineering Campaign is to develop capabilities to assess and improve the safety,
reliability, and performance of the nuclear explosive package and non-nuclear engineering components
throughout a nuclear weapon’s lifetime without further underground testing. Additionally, the purpose
is to increase our ability to predict the response and have confidence in the design of all components andsubsystems to external stimuli (large thermal, mechanical, and combined forces and extremely highradiation fields); the effects of aging; and to develop essential engineering capabilities andinfrastructure.
The Engineering Campaign provides the nuclear security enterprise with modern tools and capabilities
in engineering sciences and technologies to ensure the safety, security, reliability and performance of thecurrent and future U.S. nuclear weapon stockpile without further underground testing, and provides asustained basis for stockpile certification and assessments throughout the lifecycle of each weapon.
Specific Campaign objectives are enabled by the improved capability for weapon design andengineering assessment including:Incorporation of enhanced surety features, independent of any threat scenario, meeting therequirements of National Security Presidential Directive 28 (NSPD-28).
Quantification of margins and uncertainties (QMU), using state-of-the-art design and assessment
tools that rely on Advanced Simulation and Computing codes and experimental facilities acquired insupport of the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
Predictive capability for the effect of aging on performance and lifetime assessments.

Weapons Activities/
Engineering Campaign

Page 97

FY 2011 Congressional Budget






Consolidation of Category I/II Special Nuclear Material (SNM) is supported by providing alternative
capabilities and tools.
Qualification Alternatives to the Sandia Pulse Reactor (QASPR) project to evaluate threats orvulnerabilities more responsively than traditional radiation testing.
Establishment of responsive lifecycle engineering at demonstrated lower costs.
World class staff and program in engineering science research & development (R&D).

Benefits
The Engineering Campaign is comprised of four focused subprograms. Each subprogram is a uniquecontributor to Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Unit Program Number 28, and each
subprogram’s contributions are summarized below:
Enhanced Surety – Provides the most modern surety (safety, security, and use control) by developing
advanced initiation, use-denial, and power management options and integrated surety solutions forconsideration in scheduled stockpile refurbishments, life extension programs (LEPs), and future
stockpile strategies.
Weapon Systems Engineering Assessment Technology – Provides the scientific understanding,experimental capability, diagnostic development and data required to develop and validate engineeringcomputational models; and develop assessment methodology for weapon design, manufacturing,
qualification, and certification that are needed by the Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) R&D program tomaintain the legacy stockpile, refurbish weapons and transform the stockpile, as required.
Nuclear Survivability – Provides the tools and technologies needed to design and qualify components
and subsystems to meet requirements for radiation, space, and other hostile environments; develops
radiation-hardening approaches and hardened components; and modernizes tools for weapon outputs.
Enhanced Surveillance – Provides component and material lifetime assessments to support weapon
replacement or refurbishment decisions and the Annual Assessment process, and develops advanced
diagnostics and predictive capabilities for early detection and assessment of stockpile aging concerns,
and for cost effective surveillance transformation.
The Engineering Campaign activities are closely integrated with DSW, Advanced Simulation andComputing (ASC), Readiness, and Science Campaigns, and Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities(RTBF). For instance, DSW provides the requirements for modeling and simulation capability andestablishes the corresponding schedule for Engineering Campaign deliverables that support LEPs.
Related to the interface with DSW, many of the scientific models recommended for development or
improvement by the ASC Campaign come as input from engineering research within the Engineering
Campaign. The ASC Campaign also provides the validation and verification (V&V) requirements, forthe advanced codes, so that the Engineering Campaign can properly design and conduct the required
experiment to validate the computational models. The engineering science basis for enhanced
surveillance and nuclear survivability assessments depends on aging and relevant changes in material
properties data provided by the Dynamic Materials Properties subprogram of the Science Campaign.
Along with baseline data, related test and analysis methods; the Science Campaign input includes
margin/uncertainty criteria and sensitivities of performance material properties used to develop aging
models and lifetime assessment tools. Integration of the Engineering Campaign and RTBF is vital to
Weapons Activities/
Engineering Campaign

Page 98

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

ensure that the proper investment is made in experimental and computational infrastructure needed tomeet the Campaign’s milestones. Examples of these facilities include the Test Capability Revitalization,
the Ion Beam Laboratory, and the Microsystems and Engineering Sciences Applications facility.

Weapons Activities/
Engineering Campaign

Page 99

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAnnual Performance Results and Targets(R = Results; T = Target)
Performance Indicators

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

MESA project construction wascompleted May 2008 and thecontract closeout was completedaAugust 2008.

T: 41%

T: 47%

T:53%

T: 59%

T: 64%

T: 70%

By 2020, complete the developmentof threat-insensitive technologies
that meet the safety and security
requirements and goals of NSPD-28
and the safety acceptance criteria
established by the DOE and theb
DoD.

T: 57%

T: 62%

T: 64%

T: 68%

T: 71%

T: 75%

By 2022, complete the aging models
and assessments, diagnostics, andtools needed to achieve sciencebased lifetime predictions andstockpile surveillancectransformation .

Endpoint Target

Secretarial Goal: Security: Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risks
GPRA Unit Program Number: 28, Engineering Campaign
Microsystems and Engineering
Sciences Applications (MESA):
Cumulative percentage of the
MESA facility project completed(total project cost), while
maintaining a Cost Performance
Index of 0.9-1.15. (Efficiency)

R: 88%

R: 95%

R : 100%

T: 65%

T: 75%

T: 100%Enhanced Surety: Cumulative
percentage of progress towards an
improved initiation system to meetdetonation safety requirements for
future alterations or modifications
to stockpiled weapons, measured
by the number of milestones, in theimplementation plan, completed.
(Long-term Output)

R: 70%

R: 70%

R: 75%

R: 35%

T: 65%

T: 70%

T: 75%

T: 35%

Enhanced Surveillance:
Cumulative percentage of progress
towards completion of aging
models and assessments,
diagnostics, and tools needed forscience-based lifetime predictionsof specific weapon components
and for transformation to morepredictive stockpile surveillance,measured by the number ofmilestones, in the implementation
plan, completed. (Long-term
Output)R: 32%

R: 40%

R: 47%

R: 53%

T: 32%

T: 40%

T: 47%

T: 53%aRebaselined in 2007 for 2009 completion, based on current results to date, priorities, and available resources. Project closeout achieved early, in 2008 vs. 2009.

b

The scope for the Enhanced Surety Subprogram was redefined in 2008 to include additional features anticipated to be required for weapon systems with a first
production unit (FPU) date of 2020. Therefore, the annual targets for FY 2009 and beyond were recomputed and the endpoint target changed to 2020.
c

The Endpoint Target for the Enhanced Surveillance Subprogram was redefined in 2009 from a 2020 to a 2022 completion, hence the annual targets for FY 2009 andbeyond were recomputed.

Weapons Activities/
Engineering Campaign

Page 100

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Endpoint Target

Weapon Systems Engineering
Assessment Technology:
Cumulative percentage of progress
towards system engineering
methodology for assessing andpredicting the effects of large
thermal, mechanical, and combinedforces on nuclear weapons for
future alterations or modifications,
measured by the number ofexperimental data sets, in theimplementation plan, completed.
a(Long-term Output)

R: 37%

R: 45%

R: 53%

R: 54%

T: 61%

T: 68%

T: 74%

T: 79%

T: 85%

T: 90%

T: 37%

T: 45%

T: 53%

T: 54%

By 2017, complete the developmentof system engineering methodology
for assessing and predicting theeffects of large thermal, mechanical,
and combined forces on nuclear
weapons for future alterations ormodifications to stockpiledbweapons.

Nuclear Survivability:
Cumulative percentage ofcompletion of design andqualification tools for meeting
requirements for survivability inintense radiation environments
needed for future alterations ormodifications to replace theexisting proof-testing approach thatuses significant amounts of highly
enriched uranium, measured by the
number of milestones, in theimplementation plan, completed.
(Long-term Output)

R: 27%

R: 40%

R : 48%

R: 56%

T: 65%

T: 63%

T: 66%

T:68%

T: 70%

T: 72%

T: 27%

T: 40%

T: 48%

T: 56%

By 2020, complete the replacementof relevant design and assessment
technologies for weapon
components allowing future
alterations or modifications to meetrequirements for survivability incintense radiation environments.

Performance Indicatorsa

In 2006, during the OMB PART evaluation, this performance indicator was redefined and rebaselined. As a result, the Engineering Campaign extended the endpoint
target and recomputed annual targets for FY 2007 and beyond; and FY 2005-2006 results are recomputed against new baseline targets.
b

In 2009, this Endpoint Target was adjusted from 2014 to 2017 to reflect the reduction in scope resulting from the FY 2010 to FY 2011 budget decrement.

c

In 2009, this Endpoint Target was adjusted from 2014 to 2020 to reflect the reduction in scope resulting from the FY 2010 to FY2011 budget decrement.

Weapons Activities/
Engineering Campaign

Page 101

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetPerformance Indicators
Ion Beam Laboratory:
Cumulative percentage of the Ion
Beam Laboratory (IBL) projectcompleted (total project cost),
while maintaining a Cost
Performance Index of 0.9-1.15.
(Efficiency)

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

N/A

N/A

N/A

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

R: 38.3%

T: 62%

T: 86%

T: 95

T: 100%

N/A

N/A

T: 31%

Endpoint Target
By 2013, complete 100% of the IBL
project while maintaining a Cost
Performance Index of 0.9-1.15.
(IBL line item construction fundingacompleted in FY 2010).

a

The IBL efficiency measure was introduced in 2009. Although the scope and funding has been shifted to the RTBF program, the Engineering Campaign will continue tobe the program sponsor, and will continue to report against this performance measure.
Weapons Activities/
Engineering Campaign

Page 102

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009 Accomplishments
Enhanced Surety
 Demonstrated all of the components of an advanced initiation system.
 Demonstrated highest priority surety sensor technologies against a subset of relevant Stockpile-toTarget-Sequence (STS) environments.
 Filled a tritium prototype unit at Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL), which records
weekly validating data in support of advanced power technology development.
 Completed a feasibility study exploring fast initiation of new energetic materials and system power
and response time requirements.
 Conducted parametric material studies on Multi-Point Safety (MPS) options at Los Alamos National
Laboratory (LANL) and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) through collaboration
with the United Kingdom in efforts to bracket technologies supporting NSPD-28.
 Demonstrated system implementation of verifiable execution on a single prototype unit.
Weapon Systems Engineering Assessment Technology
 Completed initial development and demonstration of the 6-DOF (Degrees-of-Freedom) vibration test
capability for component testing utilizing a DSW relevant configuration.
 Completed initial validation experiments of spatial correlation of wall pressure fluctuations in asupersonic turbulent boundary layer, relevant to Re-entry Vehicles/Re-entry Bodies (RV/RB).
 Characterized the as-built stress state of a high-fidelity high explosive system.
Nuclear Survivability
 Modeled and calculated appropriate scenarios for the two specific threats (NWM21-4 andNWM21-6) for the W87 Nuclear Explosive Package (NEP).
 Assessed QMU techniques and methods used by DSW and determined their applicability to themethods and procedures used in assessing the survivability of U.S. nuclear weapon systems.
 Installed and began using the INRAD test stand in the Plutonium Facility.
 Reviewed system thermal response to neutron environment study.
 Completed and documented the QASPR silicon circuit prototype exercise.
 Further development and utilization of techniques to measure impulse generation in materials due to
x-ray deposition.
Enhanced Surveillance Provided input for the annual certification on component and material aging for each weapon
system.
 Demonstrated new capabilities for the next system tester (W78 and W87) at the Weapons
Evaluation Test Laboratory.
 Completed the development of a W78 firing set structural dynamic model to be used for
identifying transfer functions needed for mechanical margin and robustness testing.
 The maturation of built-in self test hardware is proceeding to the desired Technical Readiness
Level – 6 (TRL-6) sufficient for LEP consideration.
 Improved component aging models for Canned Sub-Assemblies (CSA), polymers, high explosives(HE), and initiation systems were developed or used to support lifetime assessments and developed
initial framework for inputting aging signatures into quantitative predictive models for assessing
uncertainties.
Weapons Activities/
Engineering Campaign

Page 103

FY 2011 Congressional Budget












Updated and completed, the component lifetime, aging, compatibility, and reuse assessments for
the CSA, metals, polymers, and ceramic materials in non-nuclear components, mechanical safe
and arming devices, getters, silicone elastomers and polyurethane for NEPs, firesets,
environmental sensing devices (ESDs), lightning arrestor components (LACs), use control,
polymers, diagnostics, O-rings, materials and electronic interfaces.
Completed Qualified Engineering Release (QER) of Off-line Solid Phase Micro Extraction (SPME)
and transferred the diagnostics to core surveillance.
Evaluated Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) ProFiler for surveillance of silicone pad andcushion.
Demonstrated development of the enhanced onionskin test for HE.
Completed Acoustic Resonance Spectroscopy (ARS) testing and analysis for potential
implementation by core surveillance.
Documented software utilization and improvements for application to computed tomographyefforts in core surveillance.
Documented development and fabrication of Schlieren diagnostic including additional hardware
selection and procurement.
Developed methods for ultrasonic inspection of W80 and W78 reservoirs to TRL-7.
Completed installation at Pantex of 1-2 mil Computed Tomography hardware for evaluating pits.

Major Outyear Priorities and Assumptions
The outyear requirements for the Engineering Campaign total $575,392,000 for FY 2012 throughFY 2015. Decreases through this period are due to the reallocation of funding to support other priorities
within the Stockpile Stewardship Program. In addition, completion of QASPR, which was originallyscheduled for FY 2014, may be extended due to budget priorities. Priority will be given to surety andsurveillance activities to support future LEPs, alterations, and modifications.
Outyear priorities will also include the accomplishment of technologies and tools in support of nuclear
survivability efforts related to alterations/modifications and LEPs. The nuclear survivability of weapons
requires R&D efforts in developing and qualifying technologies and associated tools and materials toensure designs are in place when required. The Engineering Campaign will continue to transformsurveillance, including the methodology for detecting aging signatures through advanced diagnostics.

Weapons Activities/
Engineering Campaign

Page 104

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification(dollars in thousands)

Enhanced Surety

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

46,11142,00042,429Enhanced Surety pursues a multi-technology approach to develop viable technology options for
insertion meeting weapon system designers’ specifications during stockpile alterations, modifications,and replacements. This approach is also applicable to other future envisioned refurbishments andstockpile improvement projects needed, meeting both NNSA and Department of Defense (DoD)
requirements. Multi-technology development and integration opens the design space and offers
opportunity for synergistic improvements to other weapon components.
In FY 2011, the focus is on four multi-site development efforts. SNL, along with the SRNL, willcontinue to mature power management options with the intent to deliver a near-term viable option for
LEPs. Prototypical hardware production of security sensor technologies will be transferred from SNL
to the Kansas City Plant. LANL will, with SNL, continue to mature integrated surety solutions, which
integrates external surety elements with the weapon, thus allowing the weapon to have the capability
to better react to external activities addressing current threat scenarios. Development of MPS options
for the next insertion opportunity will continue at LANL and LLNL through enhanced collaborations
with the United Kingdom incorporating system integration through SNL.
Weapon Systems Engineering Assessment Technology

16,59318,00013,530

The Weapon Systems Engineering Assessment Technology (WSEAT) subprogram uses engineeringcomputational models in collaboration with the ASC Campaign to predict weapon system response to
three STS environments: normal, abnormal, and hostile. The activity also supports manufacturing thedevelopment of critical components and subsystems; e.g., neutron generators, gas transfer systems,
and microsystems. The subprogram objective is to establish the capability to predict engineering
margins by integrating numerical simulations with experimental data. Validated computational tools
are required to explore the operational parameter space of the nuclear weapons stockpile. Explorationof operational parameter space identifies failure modes and boundaries, thus establishing engineering
margins.
In FY 2011, the subprogram will focus on producing data sets for model validation in support ofcurrent weapon alterations and modifications and legacy stockpile support. Combined efforts between
the ASC Campaign Verification and Validation, and Physics and Engineering Models programs is a
key principle of WSEAT, and provides validated modeling and simulation capability for multi-scale
and multi-physics problems encountered in qualification and certification activities. Work willcontinue at a decelerated rate on non-intrusive instrumentation and high explosive structural property
measurements supporting model development for improved assessments of structural response, andmargins for insensitive high explosive main charge materials.

Weapons Activities/
Engineering Campaign

Page 105

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

Nuclear Survivability
21,10021,00019,786
The tools and technologies developed by the Nuclear Survivability subprogram are required to assesschanges made to the stockpile through scheduled refurbishments; weapon replacement activities;
surveillance discoveries; natural aging; or the introduction of new materials, technologies, or designs.
The scope of the subprogram includes developing scientific models for understanding radiation
effects; generating experimental data to validate computational tools; understanding radiationhardened design strategies; evaluating new and evolving stockpile candidate technologies for radiation
hardness capabilities in a generalized, weapon-relevant configuration; studying radiation hardening
aging phenomena for the long-term stockpile; and improving laboratory radiation sources anddiagnostics to support code validation and hardware qualification experiments. In conjunction with
the DoD, the subprogram also develops the tools to calculate the output and performance of modern
weapons needed to define some of the most stressing and damaging nuclear environments. This
computational capability is critical to the DoD threat assessments and effectiveness assessments as
required by the Atomic Energy Act. These improvements in modeling are transformational and willallow quicker response in analyzing both threats and warhead survivability issues.
In FY 2011, planned activities include continued development of tools and technologies to support
QASPR. These tools will support alterations/modifications to the enduring stockpile (or future
strategic systems) and will assist in the development of scientific models for understanding radiation
effects phenomenology and generating experimental data to validate computational tools. In
addition, the subprogram will develop technologies and tools required to support the next reentry
system LEP and/or AF&F replacement per the P&PD. Similarly, major R&D efforts are required forsystem generated electromagnetic pulse phenomena design and qualification tools; technology
development for hardening materials; as well as development of qualification tools for thosematerials in areas of thermomechanical shock, thermostructural response, and impulse generation;and circuit response predictive capabilities.
Enhanced Surveillance

66,19669,00066,175The decrease reflects a manageable curtailment in the development of certain stockpile surveillance
diagnostics, non-destructive techniques, component and material evaluation methods, joint test
assembly technology, and embedded evaluation sensors and instrumentation. Additionally, someaging and lifetime studies will be re-scoped to protect the quality of information necessary to support
ongoing LEP activities.
Total, Engineering Campaign

Weapons Activities/
Engineering Campaign

150,000

Page 106

150,000

141,920

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Enhanced Surety
The slight increase reflects an initiative to continue technology development andmaturation at a pace to meet the next viable insertion opportunity.

+429

Weapon Systems Engineering Assessment Technology
The decrease reflects a manageable reduction in scope consistent with program
priorities within the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Efforts will focus on
producing data sets for model validation in support of current weapon alterations
and modifications and legacy stockpile support. Some lower priority experiments
and studies will be executed at a reduced rate and/or delayed to future years.

-4,470

Nuclear Survivability
The decrease reflects a deceleration of continued efforts within the QASPR
program. Specifically, within the fiscal year, technology thrusts will continue toshift from a legacy material based methodology to an assessment of 21st century
semiconductor materials. As legacy material efforts approach completion, themethodology of QASPR will be applied to material evaluations aimed at answering
questions of practicality in continuing exploration of non-legacy materials in
FY 2011 and beyond. Efforts targeted for non-legacy materials will be decelerated.

-1,214

Enhanced Surveillance
The decrease reflects a manageable curtailment in the development of certain
stockpile surveillance diagnostics, non-destructive techniques, component andmaterial evaluation methods, joint test assembly technology, and embedded
evaluation sensors and instrumentation. Additionally, some aging and lifetime
studies will have less rigor, impacting the quality of information available to makedecisions on reuse and replacement of components for LEPs.

-2,825

Total Funding Change, Engineering Campaign-8,080Weapons Activities/
Engineering Campaign

Page 107

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Capital Operating Expenses and Construction Summary
Capital Operating Expensesa(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
0
0
0
5,763
5,890
6,020

General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

5,763

5,890

6,020

Outyear Capital Operating Expenses(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
0
0
0
0
6,152
6,287
6,425
6,566

General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

6,152

6,287

6,425

6,566

a

Since funds are appropriated for Operations and Maintenance, which includes operating expenses, capital equipment andgeneral plant projects, the program no longer budgets separately for capital equipment and general plant projects. FY 2010
and FY 2011 funding shown reflects estimates based on actual FY 2009 obligations.

Weapons Activities/
Engineering Campaign
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

Page 108

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign
Funding Profile by Subprogram(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Current
Appropriation
Appropriation
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign
IgnitionNIF Diagnostics, Cryogenics, and Experimental Support
Pulsed Power Inertial Confinement Fusion
Joint Program in High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas
Facility Operations and Target Production
NIF Assembly and Installation Program
Total, Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield
Campaign

FY 2011
Request100,535
66,201
8,652
3,053
203,282
55,192

106,734
72,2525,000
4,000
269,9290

109,506
102,649
5,000
4,000
260,3930436,915457,915

481,548

Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2012
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield
Campaign
Ignition
Support of Other Stockpile Programs
NIF Diagnostics, Cryogenics, and Experimental Support
Pulsed Power Inertial Confinement Fusion
Joint Program in High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas
Facility Operations and Target Production
Total, Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield
Campaign(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015

110,222
17,24074,1045,000
4,000
269,885

74,41039,637
83,8785,000
4,000
268,672

71,47935,52282,921
5,000
4,000
272,072

73,88649,154
76,1175,000
4,000
276,655

480,451475,597

470,994

484,812

MissionThe Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) Campaign provides an important component of the scientific andtechnical understanding required to assess the safety, security, and reliability of the Nation's nuclear
weapons without nuclear testing. The program provides this capability through the development and useof advanced experimental tools, including state-of-the-art laser and pulsed power facilities. Sciencebased weapons assessments and certification requires that these advanced experimental tools have thecapability to create and study matter under extreme conditions that approach the high-energy density(HED) environments found in a nuclear explosion.
Virtually all of the energy from a nuclear weapon is generated while in the high energy density (HED)
state. High-energy density physics (HEDP) experiments on ICF facilities are required to validate theadvanced theoretical models that are used to assess and certify the stockpile without nuclear testing.
The National Ignition Facility (NIF) will extend HEDP experiments to include access to thermonuclear
burn conditions in the laboratory, a unique and unprecedented scientific achievement.

Weapons Activities/
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition
and High Yield Campaign

Page 109

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

The ICF Campaign, a vital component of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA)
responsive infrastructure, supports NNSA’s Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) through threestrategic objectives:Achieve thermonuclear ignition in the laboratory and develop it as a routine scientific tool to support
stockpile stewardship.
Develop advanced capabilities including facilities, diagnostics, and experimental methods that canaccess the HED regimes of extreme temperature, pressure, and density required to assess the nuclear
stockpile.
Maintain the U.S. preeminence in HED science and support broader national science goals.

The importance of laboratory thermonuclear ignition to the national nuclear weapons program was oneof the earliest motivations of the ICF program. A major focus of the ICF Campaign over the past decade
has been the construction of the National Ignition Facility (NIF), which is required to achieve theprincipal program objective: to achieve thermonuclear ignition experiments in the laboratory. The NIF,
located at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), is a 192 beam, high-energy, highpower laser system capable of delivering up to 1.8 megajoules of energy in a single pulse with a few
nanoseconds duration. The NIF construction project was completed in March 2009 and provides NNSA
extraordinary opportunities for significant scientific progress and discovery in the areas ofthermonuclear ignition and matter under extreme HED conditions. Creating laboratory conditions of
extreme densities and temperatures relevant to HED phenomena occurring in nuclear detonation is oneof the most challenging requirements for science-based weapons certification.
Other advanced HED experimental capabilities within the ICF Campaign include the pulsed power
Z-machine at the Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) and the OMEGA Laser Facility at the Universityof Rochester’s Laboratory for Laser Energetics (LLE). Both facilities have recently undergone
significant improvements. The Z-machine was refurbished and upgraded to provide more shot capacity
and higher current. The new performance levels of the Z-machine are required for important weaponsmaterials measurements. At LLE, a high-energy, short pulse capability was added to the existing
60 beam, 30 kilojoule OMEGA laser system. The OMEGA Extended Performance (EP) can produce
high energy x-rays which are required for the advanced radiography capability needed in many weapons
physics experiments. The combined capability is referred to as the OMEGA Laser Facility.
The National Ignition Campaign (NIC) is a multi-site integrated effort which focuses on achieving
thermonuclear burn in the laboratory. Through FY 2012, the entire effort in Ignition and NIF Diagnostic
Development subprograms is devoted to the NIC and about 75 percent of Facility Operations and Target
Production. This includes all ignition experimental activity at NIF and the preparatory activity at
OMEGA and ignition target development and fabrication. The partners in the NIC include LLNL, LLE,
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), SNL, and General Atomics (GA). The NIC has two primaryobjectives: (1) Perform the first ignition experimental campaign on the NIF beginning in FY 2010, and;(2) Transition the NIF from project completion to routine facility operations by the end of FY 2012.
Because of the importance of the NIC and its specific focused goal of ignition, NNSA designated it as
an Enhanced Management Program requiring adherence to a rigorous set of project management
standards including a formal execution plan. The execution plan describes the multi-year NIC scope,
Weapons Activities/
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition
and High Yield Campaign

Page 110

FY 2011 Congressional Budgetschedule, and budget baseline. Reporting on a large number of milestones, earned value reporting, and aformal change control process are among the management tools used to track progress against the NIC
baseline. The NIC Execution Plan was submitted to Congress in late FY 2005 and progress reports on
the status of the NIC technical programs to achieve ignition are provided to Congress quarterly.
A new JASON review of NIC was conducted in 2009 to assess progress since its previous review in2005 and to evaluate preparations for the first ignition experiments in FY 2010. The 2009 review
concluded that impressive, steady progress has been made but substantial scientific and technicalchallenges remain.
Early experimental work at NIF will continue to focus on assessing uncertainties in the physics
understanding of ignition and adjusting or “tuning” the important parameters (e.g., laser beam pointing)to achieve the best set of ignition conditions. Early experiments will provide information such as: thecoupling efficiency of the laser energy to the target; the timing of the shocks used to compress and heat
the fuel; and the ablation rate and symmetry of the capsule as the implosion proceeds. The first ignition
campaign began in late FY 2010 and will be followed by two additional campaigns (in FY 2011 andearly FY 2012) that will vary the important parameters and obtain data to validate physics models in theburning plasma regime. This will further the understanding of ignition and allow a reproducible ignition
platform to be optimized for SSP applications.
The ICF program is now utilizing experience acquired in the initial phase of NIF operation to constantly
refine its plan for the FY 2011 and FY 2012 campaigns and the logistics required to implement those
campaigns. The ICF program is planning for a very intense unprecedented level of campaign activity in
FY 2011. Rapid reconfiguration of the laser in response to the results of tuning experiments will present
a challenging operational task. This combined with the continuing installation and upgrade ofdiagnostics indicates the need for some increase in manpower.
For the SSP, ignition and thermonuclear burn will allow routine access to physical regimes hitherto
unavailable in the laboratory. In addition, the demonstration of thermonuclear ignition will be of major
importance for the Department of Energy’s (DOE) energy and fundamental science missions.
Benefits
Within the ICF Campaign, there are 6 subprograms, each of which makes a unique contribution toGovernment Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Unit Program Number 29.


The Ignition subprogram includes advanced theoretical modeling, systems engineering, target andexperiment design, and experiments on ICF facilities.

The Support of Other Stockpile Programs subprogram develops experimental capabilities in the
HED regime and applies these tools and methodologies to resolve important stockpile questions.
This is a vital area of collaboration between the ICF and Science Campaigns.



The NIF Diagnostics, Cryogenics, and Experimental Support subprogram supports specialized
technologies needed for the first ignition experiments and for the execution of other HED
experiments on the NIF. Efforts include the design, development, and engineering of a complex

Weapons Activities/
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition
and High Yield Campaign

Page 111

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

array of diagnostic and measurement systems. This subprogram also includes design andconstruction of the NIF cryogenic target system.


The Pulsed Power Inertial Confinement Fusion subprogram supports the assessment of
Z-pinches for achieving fusion ignition and high yield, developing diagnostics for use at NIF, Z, andother HEDP facilities, and provides for materials measurements for ICF target design.



The Joint Program in High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas (HEDLP) subprogram funds joint
activities with the Office of Science to steward the study of laboratory HED plasma physics. Boththe HED physics activities within the Stockpile Stewardship Academic Alliances and the National
Laser User Facility (NLUF) program at LLE, previously funded under the University Grants/OtherICF Support budget category, are now funded within the Joint Program. The NNSA portion of thejoint program is funded via both the ICF and the Science Campaigns.



The Facility Operations and Target Production subprogram supports experimental operations at NIF,OMEGA, and Z, as well as activities in target research, development, and fabrication.

In concert with the Science Campaign, the ICF Campaign provides experimental data required tovalidate weapons-relevant physics models that form the basis of weapons simulation design codes.
These codes along with the advanced, high-performance computing platforms developed within the
Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Campaign are used within the SSP for the required annual
assessment and certification of the U.S. nuclear stockpile. Coordination of the efforts of the Science,
ICF, and ASC Campaigns is achieved, in part, through the Predictive Capability Framework (PCF)
planning to prioritize and schedule major activities. The data, analysis methodologies, models andsimulation codes developed by the Defense Programs’ science effort also lend confidence to and support
the analysis performed to meet Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) commitments. These commitments
include understanding the impact of aging weapons systems, closing Significant Findings Investigations(SFIs) identified from surveillance or other sources, and certifying refurbished devices resulting fromlife extension programs (LEPs).
In addition to supporting NNSA’s national security mission, ICF capabilities also serve DOE’s missions
to develop advanced energy systems (Office of Fusion Energy Sciences) and to further our
understanding of fundamental science (Office of Basic Energy Sciences).

Weapons Activities/
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition
and High Yield Campaign

Page 112

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAnnual Performance Results and Targets(R = Results; T = Target)
Performance Indicators

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Endpoint Target

T: 100%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

By 2010, complete first attempt todemonstrate ignition on the NIF.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

By 2009, complete NIF
construction.

T: 100%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

By 2010, complete fabrication ofcryogenics and diagnostics
equipment to support ignition
experiments on the NIF.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

By 2009, increase ICF facility
availability to 200 total days per
year.

Secretarial Goal: Security: Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risks
GPRA Unit Program Number: 29, Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign
Demonstrate Ignition at National
Ignition Facility: Cumulative
percentage of progress towards
demonstrating ignition (simulating
fusion conditions in a nuclear
explosion) at the National Ignition
Facility (NIF) to increase
confidence in modeling nuclear
weapons performance. (Long-term
Outcome)R: 71%

R: 80%

R : 86%

R: 93%

T: 73%

T: 80%

T: 86%

T: 93%

National Ignition Facility (NIF)
Construction: Cumulative
percentage of construction
completed on the 192-laser beam
NIF. (Long-term Output)

R: 88%

R: 94%

R : 99%

R: 100%

T: 87%

T: 94%

T: 98%

T: 100%National Ignition Facility (NIF)
Equipment Fabricated:
Cumulative percentage ofequipment fabricated to support
ignition experiments at NIF.
(Long-term Output)

R: 45%

R: 63%

R : 82%

R: 95%

T: 45%

T: 63%

T: 82%

T: 95%

Stockpile Stewardship
Experiments at ICF Facilities:
Annual number of days available toconduct stockpile stewardshipexperiments, totaled for all ICF
afacilities. (Annual Output)

R: 691

R: 403

R : 558

R: 500

T: 400

T: 270

T: 240

T: 200aFluctuations in numbers resulted from termination of Nike Operations at NRL in 2009, refurbishment of ZR at SNL in 2007 (no shots), and availability of NIF beginningin 2010. The goal to increase ICF facilities availability to 200 was achieved in FY 2009.

Weapons Activities/
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition
and High Yield Campaign

Page 113

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetPerformance Indicators

FY 2006
Resultsa

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

R: 0

R : 10.59

R: 8.17

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

By 2009, reduce the operationalcrew preparation time per Z facility
experiment to 9.5 hours. (2004
Baseline equivalent of 11ahours/experiment).

Endpoint Target

Z Facility Experiments: Annual
average hours per experimentrequired by the operational crew toprepare the Z facility for an
experiment. (Efficiency)

R: 10.3
T: 11

T:11

T: 11

T: 9.5

Nuclear Explosive Package
Assessment: Cumulative
percentage of progress in replacing
key empirical parameters in the
nuclear explosive package
assessment with first principles
physics models assessed byvalidation with experiment. (Longb
term Outcome)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

T : 60%

T: 63%

T: 66%

T:69%

T:72%

T:75%

By 2020, use modern physics
models in assessment calculations toreplace the major empiricalparameters affecting energy balance,
boost initial conditions, amount ofboost, secondary performance, andweapons output. (Share with
Science Campaign.)

Predictive Capability for Nuclear
Weapons Performance:
Cumulative percentage of progress
towards achievement of key
extreme experimental condition ofmatter needed for predictive
capability for nuclear weapons
performance. (Long-termcOutcome)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

T : 35%

T: 55%

T: 75%

T: 85%

T: 90%

T: 100%

By 2015, achieve greater than unity
value of the average of the ratio ofachieved conditions to needed
conditions. (Share with Science
Campaign)

Cost Reduction: Cumulative
percentage of operating cost
reduction from 2009, adjusted for
inflation, utility costs, andlaboratory indirect costs, all ICF
cfacilities combined. (Efficiency)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

T : 1%

T: 2%

T: 3%

T: 4%

T: 5%

T: 6%

By 2019, achieve a 10% cost
reduction in combined ICF facilities.

a

Additional radiation safety procedures required revision of annual and endpoint targets by +2 hours in 2006. Facility did not operate in 2007 due to major refurbishment.

b

Joint Performance Indicator with Science Campaign developed during 2008 OMB PART Review.

c

New efficiency measure developed during OMB PART Review in 2008.

Weapons Activities/
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition
and High Yield Campaign

Page 114

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Endpoint Target

High Particle and Radiation
Environments: Annual
percentage of shots/experimental
implosions in which the facility
and diagnostics meet the minimum
requirements for obtaining data inhigh particle and radiationaenvironments. (Annual Output)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

T: 30%

T: 40%

T: 50%

T: 60%

T: 70%

T: 72%

By 2017, 95% of the shots
conducted annually will meet theminimum data requirements.

Z-Materials: Annual percentage
of data points that are provided byexperimental capabilities meeting
the requirements of model
development for measuring
properties of high-Z materials
under weapons-relevant conditions.
c(Annual Output)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

T: 30%

T: 45%

T: 60%

By 2016, 100% of the data points forhigh-Z material will meet the model
development requirements.

Fusion Ignition Shots: Annual
percentage of fusion ignition shotsthat are provided by experimental
capabilities meeting the yield andyield variation requirements
consistent with weapons physics
models and uncertainty analyses.
a(Annual Output)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

T: 50%

T: 70%

T: 80%

By 2015, 80% of the shots will meetthe yield and yield variation
requirements.

Experimental Capabilities:
Annual percentage of data points
that are provided by experimental
capabilities meeting the model
development and validation
requirements to understanddegradation of ignition yield due tohydrodynamics effects. (Annuala
Output)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

T: 30%

T: 40%

By 2017, 100% of the data points
will meet the model development
and validation requirements.

Performance Indicatorsa

New Performance Indicator developed during OMB PART Review in 2008.

Weapons Activities/
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition
and High Yield Campaign

Page 115

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009 Accomplishments
National Ignition Campaign
 Precise measurement of power balance on eight NIF beams at Target Chamber Center showed that
the NIF meets the power balance requirements for ignition pulse shapes.
 Ninety-six continuous phase plates that shape the beam spot for optimal illumination of the ignition
target were installed.
 The Ignition Target Alignment System was installed and commissioned.
Diagnostic installation
 Other activity focused on installing and commissioning diagnostics and other equipment required forthe first NIC experiments, including: Dante soft x-ray spectrometer, FFLEX hard x-ray
spectrometer, Full Aperture Backscatter System (FABS), and the Near Backscatter Imager (NBI).
The first of a suite of Neutron Time-of-Flight (NTOF) detectors that will measure the neutron yield,bang timea, and down-scattered neutron spectrum, was installed on the NIF target chamber.6
Preliminary NIC experiments
 The initial NIC experiments on the NIF focused on measuring the temperature in a hohlraum similar
to the one that will be used to drive ignition targets. Initial tests of hohlraum performance haveyielded drive temperatures greater than 300 electron volts which demonstrates extremely
encouraging progress toward ignition requirements.
Ignition Diagnostic Development
 On the OMEGA Laser Facility at LLE, cryogenic implosion experiments produced the highest
neutron yields to date in these implosions. The first short pulse x-ray radiograph of an imploding
cryogenic deuterium target was obtained. Radiographic images showed the evolution of the shell
compression near peak burn along with the core self emission which provides important validationof some diagnostic methods that will be applied in actual ignition experiments at NIF.
 A Magnetic Recoil Spectrometer (MRS), developed through collaboration between the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and LLE, measured the down-scattered neutron
spectrum from the implosion of a cryogenic deuterium-tritium (DT) target on OMEGA. The downscattered neutron spectrum is used to determine the compressed fuel's areal density.
 LANL scientists fielded a gamma ray detector on OMEGA that will be used to measure the time offusion burn on the NIF. A liquid scintillator based neutron time-of-flight detector demonstrated
detection of the down-scattered neutron signal without residual afterglow from the primary neutron
signal from a cryogenic DT target implosion on OMEGA. This validates the use of NTOF detectors
for down-scattered neutron measurements on the NIF. The technique that will be used on NIF forconvergent shock timing was validated on OMEGA.
Target Development and Production
 The cryogenic ignition target production capability was fully qualified, demonstrating high precision
targets meeting the point design specifications in quantities consistent with the experimentalaBang time, a term commonly used within the ICF community, is generally defined as the time interval from the beginningof the driver generated pulse to the time of maximum neutron generation.

Weapons Activities/
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition
and High Yield Campaign

FY 2011 Congressional Budget
Page 116schedule. Cryogenic layers meeting ignition requirements were formed using a cryogenic mixture ofhydrogen and tritium.
Ignition Planning and Review
 A JASON review of the NIC was conducted in January 2009. The review provided an assessment of
the progress of the NIC and its readiness to perform the crucial ignition experiments in
FY 2010. The review concluded that impressive, steady progress has been made but suggested that
substantial scientific and technical challenges remain.
NIF Project The NIF was completed in accordance with its approved baseline on March 27, 2009. All Project
Completion Criteria have been met.
 The NIF performed a 192-beamline shot in March, 2009 that produced a record 1.1 megajoules ofultraviolet (3ω) light. Target shots in July 2009 delivered more than 600 kilojoules (kJ) (3ω) to
hohlraum targets similar to those that will be used in the first ignition experiments.
OMEGA Laser Facility A multi-institutional team captured a radiograph of a shock wave propagating in a solid Aluminumtarget. The shock wave was generated by one of OMEGA EP’s long pulse ultraviolet beams and the
x-ray source was generated by a high energy short pulse delivered by a second OMEGA EP
beamline interacting with a Samarium target.
 The first OMEGA Laser Facility User's Group Workshop was held at LLE with 100 scientists fromtwenty-nine universities and laboratories, 4 countries, and NNSA attending. The workshop
facilitated communication among the users and with the facility and provided feedback on ways toimprove operations and capabilities for users. This workshop was an important component of the
ICF Program's plan to evolve all its facilities into national user capabilities.
 As of the third quarter of FY 2009, the OMEGA Laser Facility performed 1,140 target shots withhigh availability and effectiveness. Users included scientists from LANL, LLE, LLNL, SNL andvarious universities, as well as the Atomic Weapons Establishment (United Kingdom) andCommissariat a L’energie atomique, CEA (France).
Z Facility
 Full capability of the refurbished Z-machine has been demonstrated; for example the maximum
current was increased from 18 to 26 mega-amperes. The refurbishment of Z has improved shot-toshot reproducibility (within +/- 0.5 percent for the current pulse shape), provided more precise
current shaping, and a longer, variable pulse length. The operation of Z has been demonstrated at
the rate consistent with 220 shots per year.
 Advanced ICF pulsed power concepts have been tested in experiments that produced significant
neutron yieldsa. Isentropic compression experiments at Z have been used to measure the equationof-state of beryllium (Be) and diamond in parameter ranges required by ICF target design and havealso been used to demonstrate magnetic drive pressures of 6 megabar (Mbar). Magnetically

Weapons Activities/
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition
and High Yield Campaign

FY 2011 Congressional Budget
Page 117

accelerated flyer plates have been used to perform equation-of-state studies in sapphire to pressuresof 20.7 Mbar. 7
SNL, in collaboration with LANL, completed an important Stockpile Stewardship experiment on the
refurbished Z-machine obtaining pressure-density data for tantalum at pressures up to 4 Mbar. The
refurbished Z also provided data on the strength of beryllium, an important material used in both ICF
capsules and other defense applications. The melt phase of diamond was studied with accuracies of
one percent.

Other ICF Accomplishments:
 The Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) demonstrated operation of the Electra electron beam
amplifier at 90,000 shots continuous operation for 2.5 Hz and 50,000 shots at 5 Hz. The total shotswith Electra have now exceeded 1 million. Electra is an important prototype for the pump of a laserthat could be used in an Inertial Fusion Energy (IFE) Experiment.
 LLNL operated the front-end laser on their diode-pumped, solid-state Mercury laser system in anautonomous mode (computer-controlled and diagnosed) for over 15 million shots.
Joint Program in High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas (HEDLP) In FY 2008, the joint program issued a solicitation that supports academic and national laboratory
research in HEDP. Over 135 proposals were received indicating a strong interest in the field. In
FY 2009, 24 proposals were selected for initial funding.
Major Outyear Priorities and Assumptions
The outyear requirements for the ICF Campaign total $1,911,854,000 for FY 2012 through FY 2015.
The achievement of ignition and thermonuclear burn and its application to the major unresolved issue in
weapons physics will remain the highest priority within the ICF Campaign. Once NIC has successfully
achieved ignition and thermonuclear burn in the laboratory subsequent experiments will be designed toprovide a reproducible ignition platform that can be exploited by the SSP to address important weapons
physics questions.
After the completion of NIC at the end of FY 2012, NIF will be capable of supporting routine operations
for ignition and other HED experiments in support of SSP. Capabilities will include: certified datasystems supporting experimental operations; optics and targets management systems; target production
capability for the baseline ignition platform and some HED targets for SSP experiments; a second
operational cryogenic target positioner; an initial set of radiation-hardened diagnostics; and a third set ofcontinuous phase plates. In FY 2013 and beyond, the ICF Program will pursue an increasingly broader
range of HED experiments (both ignition and non-ignition) required by the weapons certification
process. This will include work in materials dynamics, plutonium equation-of-state and constitutive
properties, hydrodynamics, x-ray opacities, and understanding the boost process. Pursuit of this agendaof vital weapons deliverables will require an increasingly sophisticated array of diagnostics, including avariety of measurement systems that can operate in the ignition or near-ignition environment. This inturn will require major investment to be shared by ICF, the Science Campaign, and other parts of theweapons community.
a

The neutrons are a product of fusion, thus the number of neutrons produced serves as an index of efficiency of fusion.

Weapons Activities/
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition
and High Yield Campaign

FY 2011 Congressional Budget
Page 118

The ICF Campaign will continue to provide some funding for the operations of its HED physics
capabilities (facilities and technical expertise) to support emerging and future needs of the NNSA’s
national security mission. These needs may include advanced ignition concepts (such as fast ignition orvarious forms of direct drive) or other HED capabilities. This modest commitment to the basic scienceof HED may expand in response to various priorities, such as energy initiatives. Following theachievement of thermonuclear ignition, the Department anticipates that the relative importance of thesepotential missions and the role of the various ICF Campaign program elements and facilities supportingthese missions will be reevaluated and modified to meet national needs and priorities.

Weapons Activities/
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition
and High Yield Campaign

FY 2011 Congressional Budget
Page 119

Detailed Justification

FY 2009(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010

FY 2011

Ignition
100,535
106,734
109,506
This subprogram is the central focus of the effort to produce thermonuclear fusion in the laboratory andto utilize ignition to address key weapons issues. The effort performs detailed theoretical designs (inboth 2 and 3 dimensions) of the complete performance of ignition targets. Ignition target design is partof a very close coupling of ICF with the Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign (ASC) andthe Science Campaign. In close collaboration with the Science Campaign, this subprogram also
includes experimental design, the development of specific, experimental methods focused on achieving
ignition and systems engineering improvements.
Regardless of the specific status of ignition, FY 2011 will present a very demanding agenda of work in
the ignition effort. Results from the first ignition attempts in 2010 will be analyzed in detail, and theintensive process of tuning laser and target parameters for optimum performance will continue. There
will also be a need for continual reevaluation of the diagnostic measurement systems, including
possible plans for upgrades, re-calibration, and other adjustments.
The first ignition campaign (spanning FY 2010 to FY 2011) will attempt to compress, implode, andignite a layered DT capsule with a ~1.3 megajoule energy pulse from the NIF.
An important component of work in ignition will be continual support experiments at OMEGA.
Crucial operations such as re-calibration, tuning, and adjustment of diagnostics and experimental
techniques will occur there.
This ignition subprogram will also closely collaborate with the Science Campaign effort to perform
vital HED (non-ignition) weapons physics experiments on the NIF and OMEGA in FY 2011.
NIF Diagnostics, Cryogenics andExperimental Support
66,201
72,252
102,649
This subprogram supports specialized technologies needed for the first ignition experiments and for the
execution of other HED experiments on the NIF. This effort includes the design, development, andengineering of a complex array of diagnostic and measurement systems. These systems provide thevital data generated in ignition experiments and include the associated information technology
subsystems needed for data acquisition, storage, retrieval, visualization, and analysis. The data
generated will be utilized to tune the ignition process and to provide key information required by theweapons SSP.
The intensive activity in ignition during FY 2011 will be mirrored in a very active period of
installation, calibration, and utilization of the diagnostic systems. Coordination of this activity withignition target experiments will represent a major logistics and systems planning effort. Additionally, aWeapons Activities/
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition
and High Yield Campaign

FY 2011 Congressional Budget
Page 120(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011significant portion of the effort in this subprogram during FY 2011 will be in the design ofexperiments, and diagnostics aimed at utilizing ignition conditions to answer specific Weapons
Program SSP questions.
The NIF Diagnostics, Cryogenics and Experimental Support subprogram also includes design andconstruction of the NIF cryogenic target system. This very complex experimental system is required to
produce a precise frozen layer of DT nuclear fuel on the inner wall of an ignition capsule. This layer isrequired for ignition to occur.
Other activities performed in the Experimental Support subprogram include: (1) the development andactivation of optical systems required to produce the optical spatial beam smoothing needed in ignition
experiments and subsequent campaigns; (2) integration and experimental commissioning of the NIF
target area; and (3) installation and qualification of both the tritium handling system and the personnel
and environmental protection systems.
Pulsed Power Inertial Confinement Fusion

8,652

5,000

5,000

This subprogram funds computational target design, experiments, and experimental infrastructure toassess pulsed power as a means to achieve thermonuclear fusion in the laboratory. The program also
advances the science and technology of megajoule-class pulsed power systems to improve efficiency,
reliability, precision and repetition rate, and to reduce costs. In addition, experiments in pulsed power
advance fundamental research in high-energy-density plasmas, laboratory astrophysics, and planetaryscience. In FY 2011, activities will focus on utilizing the new diagnostics (neutron and x-ray imaging)to demonstrate consistent fusion conditions that can be utilized in variety of applications.
Joint Program in High Energy Density
Laboratory Plasmas

3,053

4,000

4,000

High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas (HEDLP) is a joint program with the Office of Science tosupport basic high energy density physics research. This subprogram provides support for external
users at the University of Rochester OMEGA facility as well as a joint solicitation for HEDLP research
to be performed at universities and DOE laboratories. For FY 2011, NNSA will contribute funding
from the ICF and Science Campaigns.
Facility Operations and Target Production
203,282
269,929
260,393
This subprogram supports operations of ICF facilities including NIF, OMEGA, and Z, in a safe andsecure manner. It also supports target and sample fabrication, including the very sophisticated targets
required for ignition. As mentioned in the descriptions of the Ignition and the NIF Diagnostics,
Cryogenics and Experimental Support subprograms, FY 2011 will be dominated by intense activity inthe pursuit of ignition and its development for specific weapons applications. Coordination of ignition
experiments, diagnostic installation and upgrades, and continued refinement of the laser itself will be amajor challenge.
Weapons Activities/
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition
and High Yield Campaign

FY 2011 Congressional Budget
Page 121(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011More than 300 shots are being planned on the NIF in FY 2011, and there will be a continuing strong
requirement for SSP work on the OMEGA and Z facilities. Accomplishment of the full agenda of
weapons SSP deliverables is possible only with these 3 facilities working in concert.
Other activities carried out in the Facilities Operations and Target Production subprogram include:(1) support for shot directors and operational staff; (2) engineering sustainment; and (3) support staff
for the final optics inspections system and its associated optics conditioning, initiation and mitigation
processes to increase the lifetime of optics exposed to ultraviolet light.
NIF Assembly and Installation Program

55,19200This funding element supported the activities associated with integration, planning, assembly,
installation, and activation of the NIF. The NIF Assembly and Installation Program also provided thestaffing, training, and procedures for the NIF operations; work essential to deliver a facility ready fortransition from construction project to fully capable experimental facility. Following projectcompletion in FY 2009, this effort was transferred to the Facility Operations and Target Production
subprogram in FY 2010.
Total, Inertial Confinement Fusion
Ignition and High Yield Campaign

436,915

Weapons Activities/
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition
and High Yield Campaign

457,915

481,548

FY 2011 Congressional Budget
Page 122

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Ignition
Funding supports the intense increase in ignition activity involving real-time
experimental data analysis theoretical interpretation. There will be asignificant increase in design activity related to the upgrade of diagnostics asignition is approached.

+2,772

NIF Diagnostics, Cryogenics, and Experimental Support
Supports the significant increase in experimental activity as data at or near
ignition is produced. The increase in resources is essential for re-calibrating,refining, and upgrading diagnostic systems that are exposed to anincreasingly severe flux of gamma rays and neutrons. Also supports the
final refinements of the cryogenic system as the first ice layered targets are
imploded and finally, the increase supports logistic activity associated withinstallation, calibration, and utilization of the diagnostic systems all incoordination with an intense period of ignition experimentation.
Additionally, the funding increase supports the initiation of a dedicatedeffort in ignition-based weapons physics experiments. The majority ofresources will be devoted to the design of diagnostics that are capable offunctioning in the harsh (radiation and particle) environment created byigniting plasmas. This effort will provide direct coupling between theignition effort and other portions of the Weapons Program.

+30,397

Facility Operations and Target Production
In FY 2011, the request reduces operations in weapons physics at Omega
and Z while maintaining ignition experiments.

-9,536

Total Funding Change, Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High
Yield Campaign+23,633

Weapons Activities/
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition
and High Yield Campaign

FY 2011 Congressional Budget
Page 123

Capital Operating Expenses and Construction Summary
Capital Operating Expensesa(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
400
409
418
12,21812,487
12,762
12,61812,896
13,180General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

Outyear Capital Operating Expenses(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
427
436
446
456
13,043
13,33013,623
13,923General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

13,47013,766

14,06914,379aFunds are appropriated for Operations and Maintenance, which includes operating expenses, capital equipment and generalplant projects. The program no longer budgets separately for capital equipment and general plant projects. FY 2010 and
FY 2011 funding shown reflects estimates based on actual FY 2009 obligations.
Weapons Activities/
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition
and High Yield Campaign
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

Page 124

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
Funding Schedule by Subprogram(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Current
Appropriation
Appropriation
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
Integrated Codes
Physics and Engineering Models
Verification and Validation
Computational Systems and Software Environment
Facility Operations and User Support
Total, Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign

138,917
49,28450,184
156,733
161,007556,125

140,882
61,18950,882
159,022
155,650
567,625

FY 2011
Request165,947
62,79854,781
175,833
156,389615,748

Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2012Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
Integrated Codes
Physics and Engineering Models
Verification and Validation
Computational Systems and Software Environment
Facility Operations and User Support
Total, Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign

167,327
66,541
54,168
175,833
159,071622,940(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014
163,752
65,01952,879
175,833
158,774
616,257

163,887
64,62652,300175,833
158,774
615,420

FY 2015
168,143
66,43853,835
180,912
163,806
633,134

MissionThe goal of the Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Campaign is to provide leading edge, highend simulation capabilities to meet weapons assessment and certification requirements including
weapon codes, weapons science, computing platforms, and supporting infrastructure. The ASC
Campaign serves as the computational surrogate for nuclear testing to determine weapon behavior.
As such, ASC simulations are central to our national security. Our ability to model the extraordinary
complexity of nuclear weapons systems is essential to establishing confidence in the performance of ouraging stockpile. The ASC tools enable comprehensive understanding of the entire weapons lifecycle,
from design to safe processes for dismantlement. The ASC simulations play an essential role insimulating device performance to ensure that systems in the stockpile meet all specifications in the“stockpile-to-target sequence.” In the absence of testing, only through ASC simulations can the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) determine the effects of changes to current systems,
as well as calculate confidence levels of future untested systems.
The ASC tools are also used to address areas of national security beyond the U.S. nuclear stockpile.
Through coordination with other government agencies, ASC plays an important role in supporting
nonproliferation, emergency response, nuclear forensics and attribution activities. Resources have beenused to characterize special nuclear material (SNM) and devices. The ASC simulation capabilities havebeen used by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to assess various mitigation strategies, and theresults have been published in peer-reviewed journals. There is a growing effort to enhance the
Weapons Activities/
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign

Page 125

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

capabilities of these tools, such as the identification of a perpetrator or supporting state through forensic
analysis of post-explosion radionuclide debris.
Benefits
The ASC Campaign is comprised of five subprograms that support activities in the areas of weapon
codes, weapon science, computational infrastructure, and computing center operations. Each
subprogram is a unique contributor to Governmental Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Unit
Program Number 30.
The ASC Program’s primary customer is Directed Stockpile Work (DSW). ASC codes and computing
infrastructure are the means by which DSW work such as design, analysis, baselining, and Significant
Findings Investigations (SFI) closure are performed. Stockpile work, science and simulation are boundtogether through the Predictive Capability Framework. In the context of simulation, predictive
capability can best be understood in contrast to Baseline models that were based on the underground test
results and which employed sophisticated approaches to interpolation within the underground data or
minimal extrapolation. A predictive capability enables accurate simulations of device behavior outside
the parameter space spanned by the underground test data. Historically, the codes were carefully
calibrated to give results consistent with the diagnostics fielded in Nevada. As long as the calculated
configurations were close to the as-tested regime, one could be confident in the results. When aging or
flaws in the as-built reality are added into the mix, the simulations must depart from the parameter spacespanned by the baseline. Then we must have recourse to models and numerical representations of thephysics and engineering that capture reality. We must be able to simulate behavior, to predict responses
and performance outside the range of the test data, the last of which were collected in 1992.
As an example of how ASC, the Campaigns and DSW work in a collaborative fashion to tackle
problems of the national security enterprise (NSE) was when a significant fraction of the Red Storm
compute time in FY 2008 was instrumental in planning a Navy operation to destroy an errant satellite,
which posed a terrestrial threat if allowed to reenter the Earth’s atmosphere in an uncontrolled manner.
ASC provided the computational simulation technology and compute resources. The Engineering
Campaign provided phenomenology experiments and diagnostics for sub-scale validation tests.
DSW/STA funded the test hardware. Critical contributions from each of these programs resulted in a
successful proof of concept, with rapid design and fabrication of prototype hardware. Conceptual design
and testing of this hardware is now underway.
The Predictive Capability Framework (PCF) is an integrated roadmap that reflects the responsive
scientific capabilities needed to deliver a predictive capability to the nuclear security enterprise.
Participants of the PCF include Defense Science, ASC, Engineering, DSW Research & Development,
and Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign. The PCF identifies a list of longterm integrated goals and links the progress in the predictive capabilities to the progress in the fiveenabling capabilities, four of which (theory/model capabilities, code/algorithm capabilities,
computational facilities, and Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties (QMU) and Verification &Validation (V&V) capabilities) are developed by the ASC program. With the pending completion ofmajor new experimental facilities and entry into peta-scale high performance computing, the PCF
represents a new phase of science-based stockpile stewardship – one better aligned to the challenges ofan aging and changing stockpile.
Weapons Activities/
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign

Page 126

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Additionally, the ASC program and the Office of Science recognize their common interests incomputing and the need to begin exploration into the path toward exascale computing. Federal program
managers have commissioned a Federal executive board and laboratory steering committee to develop acommon plan on what it will take to achieve exascale computing by the end of the decade. Like theNSE laboratories, the Office of Science laboratories are key players in developing tools to make highperformance computing systems more usable and efficient. Therefore, the two organizations seek toform two institutes, the Institute for Advanced Architectures with Sandia and Oak Ridge, and the ABLE
(Argonne, Berkeley, Livermore Exascale) Institute to capitalize on the expertise across the complex inadvanced systems and computational sciences. The ASC program is also engaged in the SciDAC(Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing) program to capitalize on the Office of Science
investments in new science advanced by academia and other laboratories.

Weapons Activities/
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign

Page 127

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAnnual Performance Results and Targets(R = Results; T = Target)
Performance Indicators

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Endpoint Target

T: 85%

T: 90%

T: 95%

T: 100%

N/A

N/A

By 2013, ASC-developed modern codes
are used for all simulations on ASC
platforms. Adoption of Modern ASC
Codes will enable a responsive
simulation capability for the nuclear
security enterprise. This measure ismeant to show how quickly ASC codes
are being adopted by the user
community in place of legacy codes.

T: 30%

T: 35%

T: 40%

T: 45%

T: 50%

T: 55%

By 2024, several major calibration
knobs affecting weapons performance
simulation have been replaced byscience-based, predictive
phenomenological models. Reduced
reliance on calibration will ensure thedevelopment of robust ASC simulation
tools, These tools are intended to enable
the understanding of the complex
behaviors and effect of nuclear
weapons, now and into the future,
without nuclear testing.

T: 60%

T: 65%

T: 70%

T: 80%

T:85%

T:100%

By 2015, ASC codes will be theprincipal tools for resolution of all SFIs.
This demonstrates how valuable the
ASC tools are for meeting the needs ofthe weapon designer’s analysts by
documenting the impact on closing
SFIs.

Secretarial Goal: Security: Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risks
GPRA Unit Program Number: 30, Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
Adoption of ASC Modern
Codes: The cumulative
percentage of simulation runs thatutilize modern ASC-developed
codes on ASC computing
platforms as measured against the
total of legacy and ASC codesused for stockpile stewardshipaactivities. (Long-term Outcome)R: 50%

Reduced Reliance on
Calibration: The cumulative
percentage reduction in the use ofcalibration “knobs” tosuccessfully simulate nuclear
weapons performance. (Longaterm Outcome)

R: 2%

ASC Impact on SFI Closure:
The cumulative percentage of
nuclear weapon Significant
Finding Investigations (SFIs)
resolved through the use ofmodern (non-legacy) ASC codes,
measured against all codes used
for SFI resolution. (Long-termaOutcome)R: 10%

R: 63%

R: 72%

R: 80%

T : 63%

T: 72%

T: 80%

R: 8%

R: 16%

R: 25%

T : 8%

T: 16%

T: 25%

R: 25%

R: 37%

R: 50%

T : 25%

T: 37%

T: 50%

Weapons Activities/
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign

Page 128

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetPerformance Indicators
Code Efficiency: The cumulative
percentage of simulation
turnaround time reduced while
using modern ASC codes.
a(Efficiency)

FY 2006
Results
R: 6%

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Endpoint Target

R: 7%

R: 13%

R: 13%

T: 15%

T: 20%

T: 27%

T: 34%

T: 42%

T: 50%

T : 7%

T: 13%

T: 13%

By 2015, achieve a 50% reduction in
turnaround time, as measured by aseries of benchmark calculations, forthe most heavily used ASC codes. To
show code efficiency by demonstratingthat simulation time decreases as the
ASC codes mature.

Weapons Activities/
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign

Page 129

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009 Accomplishments
Predictive Capability
 There has been a consistent annual increase in the cumulative percentage of simulation runs thatutilize modern ASC-developed codes on our computing platforms as measured against the total of
legacy codes used for stockpile stewardship activities. Current target is for 80 percent of these
problems to be run with modern codes.
 An ASC tri-lab team completed a multiyear effort to identify and develop verification test problems
to assess the numerical performance of models and algorithms implemented in ASC codes todemonstrate whether the numerical results of the discretization algorithms in physics andengineering simulation codes provide correct solutions of the corresponding continuum equations.
 Large, fully resolved simulations of turbulence mixing have exercised the ASC Program’s scientificand computational science capabilities, revealing new and unexpected physics in the study of
mixing.
Simulation for the Stockpile
 The ASC program’s Red Storm supercomputer at SNL was instrumental in planning a Navy
operation to destroy an errant satellite, which posed a terrestrial threat if allowed to reenter Earth’s
atmosphere in an uncontrolled manner.
 The Los Alamos forensics team successfully identified a device in a blind nuclear forensics exercise
organized by Nuclear Weapons Incidence Response’s Office of Emergency Response and the
Defense Threat Reduction Agency in October 2008. This success was enabled by use of validated
Los Alamos ASC codes and new metrics to guide identification of the device technology.
 Sandia’s SIERRA software was used to simulate the first ever T-bone crash at 55mph involving two
Safe Guards Tractor/Armored Trailer vehicles. This study leveraged ASC computers and codes tostudy a broader class of National Security applications beyond traditional weapons performanceassessments.
High-Performance Computer Platforms
 DAWN, the initial delivery system of the Sequoia contract, was delivered to Livermore on
March 27. The equipment for this 500 teraflop BlueGene/P system was fully delivered, installed,
configured, and executed via a synthetic workload all in well under 3 months.
 The ROADRUNNER petascale machine was delivered to LANL in 2008, becoming the firstsupercomputer capable of sustained 1 petaFLOPS performance. In 2009, 10 Open Science projects
were chosen from 29 proposals to use Roadrunner during system and code stabilization phase.
ASC Collaborations
 ASC and the Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program in the Office of Science
are currently working out a research, development and engineering collaboration to usher in
Exascale computing at the end of the new decade.
 ASC established the NNSA Alliance for Computing at Extreme Scale (ACES) institute between
LANL and SNL, devoted to providing high performance capability computing assets required by
NNSA’s stockpile stewardship mission. SNL and ORNL are also collaborating through the Institutefor Advanced Architectures and Algorithms (IAA), aimed at maintaining our global leadership in
Science and Technology, and future competitiveness.

Weapons Activities/
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign

Page 130

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetMajor Out-year Priorities and Assumptions
The outyear projections for the Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Campaign total$2,487,751,000 for FY 2012 through FY 2015. Simulation is pervasive throughout the nuclear weapons
enterprise. ASC will continue to support annual assessments, certification, and SFI resolution throughprovision of simulation codes and high-performance computing resources. Replacement of older
institutional models with more physics-based representations will take place. The laboratories willcontinue incorporation of verification and validation activities into software development and simulationthat will move the existing culture toward an environment that considers Quantification of Margins andUncertainties. Final deliveries of existing platforms procurements will take place.
The out-year funding profile will enable a stronger simulation program and inject a renewed scientificrigor back into the program essential to supporting the implementation of the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty (CTBT). Developing robust peer review among the national security laboratories as we moveaway from the test base is essential to the continued pursuit of CTBT. Comprehensive uncertainty
quantification calculations in 3D will provide the confidence necessary to make reliable progress toward
the predictive capability necessary to address stockpile aging issues. In the next decade, predictive
capability and DSW simulation deliverables will demand ever more powerful and sophisticatedsimulation environments. This request will position the national security laboratories to take advantage
of future platform architectures to more efficiently steward the stockpile.

Weapons Activities/
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign

Page 131

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification(dollars in thousands)

Integrated Codes (IC)FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

138,917140,882

165,947

This subprogram primarily addresses the improvement of weapons system simulations to predict, with
reduced uncertainties, the behavior of devices in the stockpile. It also enables analysis and design for
future warhead modifications and stockpile options. The products of this subprogram are the largescale integrated simulation codes that are needed for Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP)
maintenance, the Life Extension Program (LEP), Significant Finding Investigation (SFI) closure, and ahost of related requirements, including dismantlements. Specifics include the maintenance of thelegacy codes; continued research into engineering code applications and manufacturing process codes;
investigation and development of future non-nuclear replacement components; algorithms,
computational methods and software architectures; advancement of key basic research initiatives; andexplorations into emerging code technologies and methodologies. This subprogram also includes
university partnerships that foster continued collaborations such as the Predictive Science Academic
Alliances Program (PSAAP) and Computational Science Graduate Fellowship (CSGF) Program. The
functional and performance requirements of this subprogram are established by designers, analysts,
and code developers. It also relies upon the Physics and Engineering Models subprogram for thedevelopment of new models to be implemented into the modern codes. The subprogram also engages
the Verification and Validation (V&V) subprogram in assessing the degree of reliability and level of
uncertainty associated with the outputs from the codes.
The FY 2011 activities include the following: develop coupled multi-physics capabilities for device
simulation based on scientific representation of device behavior with a reduced reliance on calibration
to underground test data; produce more accurate numerical methods for treating complex geometries
in 2-D and 3-D computer codes; develop the capability to simulate effects of replacement components
and analyze various Stockpile-to-Target Sequence scenarios and modifications; accelerate code
performance through more powerful numerical algorithms and improved approximations; maintaininteractions with academic colleagues in computer science, computational mathematics, andengineering; conduct basic research relevant to the ASC Campaign in computer science, scientificcomputing, and computational mathematics; and continued support of the CSGF program.
The request supports the code development at the level needed for robust peer review as we move tosupport the implementation of the Comprehensive Test Ban. The request assures viable programs at
both physics labs to fully support peer review for refurbishments, SFIs, modifications, and annual
assessments as deemed necessary by the Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). It also positions the codedevelopers to efficiently and effectively execute the ASC Code strategy for a rich, sustainable
portfolio of simulations codes for the Complex.
The age of our stockpiled weapons and the dearth of designers with test experience in the NSE makeit a National imperative that we maintain the technical expertise, apply scientific rigor to the codedevelopment process, and understand the physical processes that are being modeled.

Weapons Activities/
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign

Page 132

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)

Physics and Engineering Models (PEM)

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 201149,284

61,18962,798This subprogram develops microscopic and macroscopic models of physics and material properties,
improved numerical approximations of transport, and models for the behavior of other criticalphenomena. This subprogram is charged with the development, initial validation, and incorporation of
new models into the Integrated Codes. Therefore, it is essential that there be a close interdependence
between these two subprograms. There is also extensive integration with the experimental programsof the SSP, mostly funded and led by the Science Campaign.
The FY 2011 activities include: develop and implement the Equation of State and constitutive models
for materials within nuclear devices; improve understanding of phase diagrams and the dynamic
response of materials; continue physics-based modeling for plutonium aging; explore fundamental
chemistry models of high explosives; improve representation of corrosion, polymer degradation, andthermal-mechanical fatigue of weapons electronics; improve models of melting and decomposition offoams and polymers in safety-critical components; support of the Stockpile-to-Target-Sequencerequirements by improving models of microelectronic and photonic materials in hostile environments.
The request supports a model development portfolio for scientific exploration in key areas towards
achieving predictive simulation capability including: plutonium aging, nuclear physics, atomic
physics, equation of state, materials, high explosives, mix and burn, engineering performance.
Verification and Validation (V&V)

50,18450,88254,781This subprogram provides a rigorous, defensible, scientifically based measure of confidence andprogress in predictive simulation capabilities. The V&V subprogram applies systematic measurement,
documentation, and demonstration of the ability of the codes and the underlying models in various
operational states and functional regimes to predict behavior. V&V is developing and implementing
Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) methodologies as part of the foundation to the QMU process of
weapons assessment and certification. V&V also drives software engineering practices to improve thequality, robustness, reliability, and maintainability of the codes that evaluate and address the uniquecomplexities of the stockpile.
In FY 2011, V&V will focus on UQ assessments that include: integral V&V assessment; catalog of
Top Adjustable Parameters in Weapons Physics Simulations; expansion of the Primary Metric Project
test suites to include more relevant Nevada Test Site events; and development of first events of theSecondary Calculational Assessment Methodology Project.
In light of the QMU methodology put forth by the NNSA to be applied to annual assessments, wemust have a healthy V&V program to perform UQ. More generally, as nuclear test data is becoming
less relevant with an aging stockpile and as weapons designers with test experience leave thecomplex, it becomes increasingly important that the codes of the complex are verified and validated
so future generations of designers are comfortable relying on these foundational tools.

Weapons Activities/
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign

Page 133

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)

Computational Systems and Software Environment(CSSE)FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

156,733

159,022

175,833CSSE builds integrated, balanced and scalable computational capabilities to meet the predictive
simulation requirements of the NNSA. It strives to provide users of ASC computing resources a stable
and seamless computing environment for all ASC-deployed platforms. The complex and diverse
demands of the ASC performance and analysis codes and the scale of the required simulations require
the ASC Campaign to be far in advance of the mainstream high-performance computing community.
To achieve its predictive capability goals, the ASC Campaign must continue to invest in andconsequently influence the evolution of computational environments. The CSSE provides the stability
that ensures productive system use and protects the large investment in simulation codes.
A balanced and stable computational infrastructure is a key enabling technology for delivering therequired computing capabilities. Along with the powerful capability, capacity and advanced systems
that the campaign fields, the supporting software infrastructure that is deployed on these platforms
include many critical components, from system software and tools, to Input/Output (I/O), storage andnetworking, post-processing visualization and data analysis tools, to common computing
environments. The immediate focus areas include moving toward a more standard user environment
and improving its usability, deploying more capacity computational platforms, planning for anddeveloping peta-scale computing capability, and making strategic investments to meet program
requirements at an acceptable cost.
The FY 2011 activities include continuing acquisition of Sequoia at LLNL and Zia at LANL (withSNL) and beginning acquisition of capacity systems through TLCC II. Maintenance will continue on
LANL’s Roadrunner and the Sequoia Initial Delivery (ID) system at LLNL. ASC will continue tooperate high-performance capacity computing scalable units to meet growing demands especially inthe area of modern (QMU-based) weapons certification and assessment. CSSE will also maintain acommon, usable, and robust application-development and execution environment for ASC-scale
applications and platforms; produce an end-to-end, high-performance I/O, networking-and-storagearchive infrastructure encompassing ASC Campaign platforms and operating systems, large-scale
simulations, and data-exploration capabilities. ASC will provide a reliable, available, and secureenvironment for distance computing through system monitoring and analysis, modeling andsimulation, and technology infusion. Development and deployment will continue on highperformance tools and technologies to support visual and interactive exploration of massive andcomplex data. The Campaign will provide system management of the ASC Campaign computers andtheir necessary networks and archival storage systems. This includes the deployment of effective data
management, extraction, delivery, and archiving, as well as efficient remote or collaborative scientific
data exploitation. Continued development and deployment of scalable data manipulation andrendering systems that leverage inexpensive, high performance commodity graphics hardware willcontinue. Additionally, ASC will stimulate research and development efforts through advanced
architectures that explore alternative computer designs, promising dramatic improvements inperformance, scalability, reliability, packaging, and cost.

Weapons Activities/
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign

Page 134

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

The request will permit the acquisition of 25 percent to 30 percent more computational resources tobe applied to capability class problems, jobs that use a major portion of the system. Similarly,
demand for capacity class resources, those problems which require smaller jobs but a higher numberof runs, has exceeded planned capacity platform acquisitions. The request will be used to procure an
additional 15 percent to 20 percent more computing resource capacity.
Facility Operations and User Support

161,007

155,650

156,389

This subprogram provides necessary physical facility and operational support for reliable production
computing and storage environments as well as a suite of services enabling effective use of ASC TriLaboratory computing resources. Facility operations include planning, integration and deployment,
continuing product support, software license and maintenance fees, procurement of operational
equipment and media, quality and reliability activities and collaborations. Facility Operations also
covers physical space, power and other utility infrastructure, and Local Area Network/Wide Area
Networking for local and remote access, as well as requisite system administration, cyber-security andoperations services for ongoing support and addressing system problems.
The scope of the User Support function includes planning, development, integration and deployment,
continuing product support, and quality and reliability activities collaborations. Projects andtechnologies include computer center hotline and help-desk services, account management, web-based
system documentation, system status information tools, user training, trouble-ticketing systems, andapplication analyst support.
The FY 2011 activities maintain continuous and reliable operation and support of production
computing systems and all required infrastructure to operate these systems on a 24-hour a day, 7-day a
week basis, with an emphasis on providing efficient production quality stable systems. Facility
Operations operate laboratory ASC computers and support integration of new systems ensuring thatthe physical plant has sufficient resources, such as space, power, and cooling, to support futurecomputing systems. User Support provides the authentication and authorization services used byapplications for the purposes of remote access and data movement across ASC-related locations. ASC
will also develop and maintain a wide-area infrastructure (e.g., links and services) that enable remote
access to ASC applications, data, and computing resources, to support computational needs at theplants permitting distant users to operate on remote computing resources as if they were local. The
subprogram will provide analysis and software environment development, support for ASC laboratorycomputers and provide user services and helpdesks for ASC laboratory computers.
Total, Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign

Weapons Activities/
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign

Page 135

556,125567,625

615,748

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Integrated Codes
The increase funds code development for robust peer review as we move awayfrom the test base. This is necessary to assure viable programs at both physics
labs to support adequate peer review.

+25,065

Physics and Engineering Models
The increase supports a model development portfolio for scientific exploration in
key areas - including plutonium aging, nuclear physics, atomic physics, equationof state, materials, high explosives, mix and burn, engineering performance towards achieving predictive simulation capability.

+1,609Verification and Validation (V&V)
The increase will address uncertainty quantification (UQ) and individually
addressing the key factors contributing to simulation uncertainties.

+3,899Computational Systems and Software Environment
The increase supports capability and capacity computing to restore predictive
simulation and computing capabilities necessary for viable, stockpile programs at
both physics laboratories.

+16,811

Facility Operations and User Support
The slight funding increase will ensure continued reliable operation and supportof production computing systems and all required infrastructure to operate thesesystems on a 24-hour a day, 7-day a week basis, with an emphasis on providing
efficient production quality stable systems.

+739

Total Funding Change, Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign+48,123

Weapons Activities/
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign

Page 136

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Capital Operating Expenses and Construction Summary
Capital Operating Expensesb(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
4,388
4,485
4,584

General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

47,39551,78348,43852,92349,50454,088Outyear Capital Operating Expenses(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
4,685
4,788
4,893
5,001
50,59351,706
52,84454,007

General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

Weapons Activities/
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

55,278Page 137

56,49457,73759,008FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 138

Readiness Campaign
Funding Profile by Subprogram(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Current
Appropriation
Appropriation
Readiness Campaign
Stockpile ReadinessHigh Explosives and Weapon Operations
Nonnuclear Readiness
Tritium Readiness
Advanced Design and Production Technologies
Total, Readiness Campaign

27,8698,581
32,54570,40921,216160,620

5,746
4,608
12,701
68,246
8,699
100,000

FY 2011
Request18,941
3,000
21,86450,187
18,100112,092

Outyear Funding Profile by Subprograma
FY 2012
Readiness Campaign
Tritium ReadinessTotal, Readiness Campaign

81,697
81,697(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 201470,74770,747

69,85469,854

FY 2015
72,584
72,584

MissionThe Readiness Campaign selects and matures production technologies critical to component
manufacturing to meet the Planning and Production Directive schedule and war reserve requirements.
Technologies apply to materials, manufacturing, acquisition, and inspection and testing for replacement
components inserted in a nuclear bomb and ballistic missile weapons in the field and returned forrefurbishment and for joint test assemblies. Production technology maturation is required in order tomanufacture reliable components using non-legacy materials and for new weapon features for enhanced
surety. The Readiness Campaign is dedicated to investing in technologies that will be used in more than
one application to conserve development resources and reduce production uncertainty.
The Readiness Campaign capabilities are integral to completing weapons system component design andmanufacturing. Successful completion of Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) milestones for war reserve
production relies upon the timely introduction of production capabilities funded under the ReadinessCampaign. To coordinate the timed delivery of new manufacturing capabilities with first use scheduled
weapon activities, Readiness Campaign program managers integrate planning and prioritization during
two annual planning meetings, as well as during numerous ad hoc meetings throughout the planning
year. The Readiness Campaign, the Engineering Campaign, the Advanced Simulation and Computing
Campaign, and the Science Campaign coordinate investments and bring advanced technology to the
nuclear enterprise. The Readiness Campaign considers Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities(RTBF) schedules in order to select technologies and coordinate insertion of production capabilities toreduce facility operation costs.
The Readiness Campaign relies upon the materials management organization responsible forestablishing the life cycle management of accountable nuclear materials by identifying, assessing, andaPlanning for non-Tritium Readiness subprograms activities in the outyears is currently under review.

Weapons Activities/
Readiness Campaign

Page 139

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

prioritizing material needs and availability for use in meeting strategic defense goals. Materials
management identifies shortfalls as well as efficiencies and productivity improvements in material
processing capabilities that are required to support material feed requirements. The ReadinessCampaign program, through its interaction with the materials management organization, addresses
deployment of technology development investments needed for such requirements.
Benefits
Within the Readiness Campaign, there are five subprograms: Stockpile Readiness, High Explosives andWeapon Operations, Nonnuclear Readiness, Tritium Readiness, and Advanced Design and Production
Technologies; each make unique contributions to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
Unit Program Number 32, the stockpile, and the nuclear security enterprise. Collectively, these five
subprograms provide key technology-based capabilities needed to manufacture weapons and sustain the
manufacturing infrastructure.
Stockpile Readiness develops and deploys manufacturing capabilities and special processes forcomponents containing special materials and advanced component qualification and acceptance.
High Explosives and Weapon Operations develops, enhances, and deploys capabilities for the
production of high explosive and other energetic components, the requalification of weapons
components for assembly, and the assembly and disassembly of war reserve nuclear weapons.
Nonnuclear Readiness develops and deploys new capabilities to manufacture electrical, electronic,
electromechanical and other nonnuclear components that synchronize and initiate weapon detonation
when required, while preventing unauthorized and inadvertent activation to enhance weapon surety.
Tritium Readiness reestablished and operates the tritium production capability to sustain the nuclear
weapons stockpile. The Tritium Readiness sub-program funds all of the activities, including Tritium
Extraction Facility costs, associated with the production of tritium to meet all defense program demands
for tritium including production, research and development, and required reserves. The subprogram
continues testing and design development and tritium release management activities to increase
production capacity to planned levels.
Advanced Design and Production Technologies develops enterprise-wide technology-based capabilities
that underpin a responsive and agile production complex, applies component manufacturing materials
and techniques across multiple systems, and provides foundational support to ongoing production
operations. Foundational support includes activities for final product acceptance, in-process monitoringfor quality control, establishing integrated manufacture-to-design and vendor qualification systems, andenterprise resource planning-type systems for production sites.

Weapons Activities/
Readiness Campaign

Page 140

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAnnual Performance Results and Targets(R = Results; T = Target)
Performance Indicators

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

T: 25

T: 27

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

By 2011, deploy 27 critical
immediate and urgent capabilities
to support Directed Stockpile Work
nuclear weapons refurbishment
deliverables.

T: 0

T: 1

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Deploy at least one new capability
to a stockpile program every otheryear that reduces cycle time by atleast 35% until FY 2011.

T: 1,200

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

By 2011, complete irradiation of
1,200 Tritium-Producing Burnable
Rods (to provide tritium for nuclear
weapons.)

Endpoint Target

Secretarial Goal: Security: Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risks
GPRA Unit Program Number: .32, Readiness Campaign
Critical Capabilities Deployed:
Cumulative number of critical
immediate and urgent capabilities
deployed to support our Directed
Stockpile Work (DSW) customer's
nuclear weapon refurbishment needs
derived from the Production Readiness
Assessment Plan. (Long-term Output)

R: 16

R: 20

R: 22

R: 24

T: 15

T: 20

T: 22

T: 24

Reduce Cycle Times: The number ofcapabilities deployed every other year
to stockpile programs that will reduce
cycle times at least by 35% (against
baselined agility and efficiency).
(Annual Outcome)

N/A

R: 1

R: 0

R: 1

T: 1

T: 0

T: 1

Tritium Production: Cumulative
number of Tritium-Producing Burnable
Absorber Rods irradiated in TennesseeValley Authority reactors to provide
the capability of collecting new tritium
to replace inventory for the nuclear
weapons stockpile. (Long-term
Output)R: 240

R: 480

R: 720

R:960

T: 240

T: 480

T: 720

T: 960Tritium Extraction Facility (TEF):
Cumulative percentage of Tritium
Extraction Facility (TEF) projectcompleted (total project cost), while
maintaining a Cost Performance Indexof 0.9 - 1.15. (Efficiency)

R: 97%

R: 100%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

T: 96%

T: 100%

By 2007, complete 100% of TEF
project, while maintaining a Cost
Performance Index of 0.9-1.15.
(TEF line item construction
funding completed in 2006.)

Percentage of Investment:
Percentage of annual investment in the
ADAPT, Stockpile Readiness,

N/A

N/A

Baseline

R: 2.5%

T: 2.5%

T: 2.5%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Through 2011, on an annual basis,
at least 2.5% of the annual
investment in the Production

T: 960a

T: 2.5%aIrradiation of TPBARs occurs every 18 months, or 1.5 years, in approximately October or March. For FY 2010, the irradiation cycle started in September of 2009 andwill then complete in March of 2011. Thus there is no increment to the number of TPBARs irradiated.

Weapons Activities/
Readiness Campaign

Page 141

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetPerformance Indicators

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

Nonnuclear Readiness, and High
Explosive and Weapons Operations
subprograms in development ofcapabilities that forecast within three
years of production deployment
operational cost savings of at least two
times the development and deployment
cost compared to pre-deployment
operations. (Efficiency)

Weapons Activities/
Readiness Campaign

Page 142

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Endpoint Target
Subprograms ADAPT, SR, HEWO,& NNR will yield cost savings
equaling at least twice thedevelopment and deployment costs,
after three years of operation.

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009 Accomplishments
Stockpile Readiness Deployed infrared Debonding equipment for safer, lower exposure, and up to three-times fasterseparation of adhesively bonded parts for reuse.
 Developed lithium manufacturing capability for direct material manufacturing and component reuse.
 Installed, tested, and deployed explosion-proof environmental chamber for more accurate test resultswith higher reliability than the legacy equipment.
High Explosives and Weapon Operations
 Demonstrated enhanced formulation capabilities to easily reproduce booster and detonator grade
materials using computational fluid dynamics to characterize the flow field and effects of specificvariables on the product granulation.
 Deployed an Advanced Inventory and Materials Management system using radio frequency
identification (RFID) tags to track tooling in a limited area application in real time between threeplant locations. Deploying the RF ID system will result in cost savings of up to $50,000 per year byeliminating errors associated with manual entry of tooling moves and eliminating searches formissing tooling and classified tooling that is due for calibration.
Nonnuclear Readiness Specialized ceramic capacitors for a compact fireset achieving a 15 percent increase in the energy
density for use in lower profile fireset housings freeing space for enhanced surety features.
 Contracted with a just-in-time supplier of electronic parts advancing requirements for avoidance ofcounterfeit parts, considered for an enterprise wide consolidated solution to purchasing electronics to
reduce costs and mitigate the risk of counterfeit parts.
 Automated continuous Gas Monitor calibration process to replace a 4-week manual calibration
cycle; required active units reduced three-fold and personnel safety risk reduced by better
monitoring and higher equipment availability.
 Designed and prequalified micro-modular telemetry hardware to reduce the design to fly time (andcost) for all future weapon telemetry systems.
Tritium Readiness Extracted tritium at the TEF from 240 Cycle 8 TPBARs.
 Completed irradiation of 368 MK 9.2 design Tritium Producing Burnable Absorber Rods (TPBARs)
in Tennessee Valley Authorities (TVA) Watts Bar during Cycle 9.
 Fabricated 240 MK 9.2 design TPBARs and delivered to TVA’s Watts Bar reactor for Cycle 10.
 Completed in-reactor irradiation tests at Idaho National Laboratory’s Advanced Test Reactor to
examine the oxidation rates of alternative TPBAR liner materials and determine in-reactor
permeation reduction factor performance for coated cladding.
Advanced Design and Production Technologies
 Added the B83 and W76 to the B53 and the W84 on the list of supported weapon systems entered in
the Collaborative Authorization for the Safety-Basis Total Lifecycle Environment (CASTLE).
CASTLE implements cross-site Safety-basis standardizations and enforced data consistency, whichfacilitates Nuclear Weapon Operations Safety-basis development in a collaborative, multidisciplinary team environment and streamlines development of the Hazard Analysis Report (HAR)
for the Authorization Basis.
Weapons Activities/
Readiness Campaign

Page 143

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAdvanced technology of the chip slapper detonators to enable detonator miniaturization. The
process reduces flow time (fewer operations and less human touch time) and costs.
Propagated from the W88 Joint Test Assembly achievement in FY 2008, achieved Qualification
Engineering Releases (QER) for the PT4188 Joint Test Assembly (JTA) tester on telemetries for five
JTA programs; W78, W87, W76-1, and W88; and is on track to achieve qualification for W80 inJuly 2009. Once the W80 qualification is done, the Telemetry Tester Design Department at Pantex
will have achieved four QERs in the period of one year, which normally is developed and qualified
in a one to two year time period. Using modular concepts, reuse strategies, and TestWorks
principles, the Telemetry Tester Design Department has successfully accelerated the testerdevelopment process to support JTA flight test schedules.

Major Outyear Priorities and Assumptions
The outyear funding for the Tritium Readiness Subprogram totals $294,882,000 for FY 2012 throughFY 2015. The Tritium Readiness subprogram will produce tritium to meet inventory requirements, aswell as continue development to increase the allowable production rate from each nuclear reactor. In
FY 2012, there are a number of multi-year TPBAR component contract awards (approximately$19,000,000), which were previously awarded in FY 2009. In FY 2013, the program can exercise acontract option for five years of TPBAR transportation services (approximately $17,000,000). The
previous option was exercised in FY 2008.
While there is no outyear funding for non-Tritium subprograms, the plans for technology maturation for
production capabilities such as those traditionally developed and deployed by the Readiness Campaign
are currently being reviewed to plan support for these activities. The outyear funding plan for the
Tritium Readiness subprogram is being developed based on analysis of ongoing work and status ofcontracts for manufacturing, irradiation, transportation, and extraction.

Weapons Activities/
Readiness Campaign

Page 144

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
Stockpile Readiness

27,8695,746

18,941The Stockpile Readiness subprogram ensures the availability of future manufacturing capabilities forthe production of weapon components containing special materials.
In FY 2011, the Stockpile Readiness subprogram will complete work on improved component testing
to provide substitute materials for joint test assembly use (all weapons), eliminating hazardous
materials for increased safety, and reducing costs. It will advance manufacturing technologies in order
to meet planned production schedules for the systems that use lithium parts. It will complete
manufacturing parameter studies to document the fogbank manufacturing process impacting yield andschedules for the W76-1 production run, the W78 and future systems that will require that material. It
will provide design and process technology technical expertise for the production and testing of gas
transfer system reservoirs and system technology improvements for tritium processing to meet thelimited life component production schedules for units scheduled to be shipped to the field in FY 2011
to meet Department of Defense commitments. The subprogram will begin work on: 1) establishing
the electronic bomb book technology for first use in support of the W76-1 Life Extension Program(LEP) production and subsequent use future weapons systems scheduled by the Production and
Planning Directive; and, 2) alternate configuration technology for lithium parts to reduce footprint,
surveillance, and disposal costs for parts and reduce the impact of storage constraints on weapons
operations.
High Explosives and Weapon Operations

8,581

4,608

3,000

The High Explosives and Weapon Operations subprogram deploys technology enhancements forexisting capabilities, and develops and deploys new capabilities for high explosive and other energetic
component production, component requalification, nuclear weapon assembly and disassembly,
material and War Reserve component logistics and inventory control, and special nuclear materialinterim storage and staging.
In FY 2011, the High Explosives and Weapon Operations subprogram will fund the work scope forestablishing acquisition specifications and inspection technologies to meet design agency requirements
for insensitive high explosive components.
Nonnuclear Readiness

32,545

12,701

21,864The Nonnuclear Readiness subprogram develops and deploys product development and production
capabilities required to support nonnuclear product requirements. Nonnuclear functions range from
weapon command and control to examining performance during deployment simulations, including
weapon structural features, neutron generators, tritium reservoirs, detonators and component testers.
In FY 2011, the Nonnuclear Readiness subprogram will deliver: 1) new neutron generator testers
required to maintain production of limited life components scheduled by the military for insertion into
weapons in the field and in refurbishment. Testers are designed for higher efficiency and lower
Weapons Activities/
Readiness Campaign

Page 145

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011maintenance, reducing overall costs and increasing reliability; 2) new electronic and mechanical(including detonators, strong links, etc.) testers, and 3) final process for acquisition of vendormanufactured and commercial-off-the-shelf parts assuring high quality, scheduled delivery, anddependable reliability to maintain component production to meet Department of Defense schedules forpart replacements in field and refurbished weapons.
The subprogram will complete electronic neutron generator production technology development thatwill replace ferro-electric neutron generator in selected weapons to increase weapons response
reliability over the life of the weapon. It will continue plastic and mechanical component production
development requested by DoD to increase reliability over the lifetime of the weapon. Plastic
component production accommodates lifetime extension features for refurbished weapons.
Mechanical component production development focuses on smaller components to allow introductionof surety advancements within the limited weapon spaces available.
Tritium Readiness

70,40968,24650,187

The Tritium Readiness subprogram operates the Departmental capability for producing tritium tomaintain the national inventory needed for the nuclear weapons stockpile. Irradiation of TritiumProducing Burnable Absorber Rods (TPBARs) in the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) Watts Bar
nuclear reactor began in October 2003. Plans are being initiated to bring additional production
capacity on line using TVA’s Sequoyah Unit #1 and #2 reactors to meet tritium production
requirements specified in the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan signed annually by the President.
In FY 2011, the Tritium Readiness subprogram will fabricate and deliver the next load of TPBARs forirradiation at TVA's Watts Bar nuclear reactor for Cycle 11. The Tritium Extraction Facility (TEF)
will continue in Responsive Operations mode to conserve costs and will extract the second batch ofrods from Cycle 9. Rods from Cycle 10 will be consolidated into a shipping container and trucked to
the TEF. Preparations will continue at TVA for starting TPBARs in Sequoyah Unit 1 the following
year, including fabrication of TPBARs and testing of handling equipment. Sample fixtures will befabricated in preparation for insertion in the Idaho National Laboratory Advanced Test Reactor in
FY 2012 to gain increased understanding of pellet performance in an irradiation environment.
Lithium pellet production will begin FY 2011 following the qualification of a new lithium powder andproduction process in FY 2010.
Advanced Design and Production Technologies

21,216

8,699

18,100The Advanced Design and Production Technologies subprogram includes funding to select, mature,develop, integrate, and demonstrate cost-effective, new technology and enhanced design-throughproduction-based capabilities needed by Directed Stockpile Work and RTBF programs. The
technology supports the current legacy weapons and associated activities that drive transformation for
the national security enterprise and for the weapons stockpile.
In FY 2011, the Advanced Design and Production Technologies subprogram will deliver advanced
initiation system production technology that addresses desired Department of Defense surety features.
The subprogram will continue development work for the Collaborative Authorization for the SafetyWeapons Activities/
Readiness Campaign

Page 146

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011basis Total Lifecycle Environment to further the nuclear security enterprise ability to respond toauthorization basis questions and operations changes quickly during disassembly and assembly
operations at Pantex and Y-12. This has a demonstrable return on investments. The subprogram will
begin work on standard designs for nondestructive evaluation test objects for the nuclear security
enterprise-wide use to increase accuracy and decrease cost of component inspection and acceptance,with application to surveillance activities. As this work is not planned to continue in FY 2012 or
beyond, plans will be optimized to deliver usable modules to the nuclear security.
The subprogram will continue development of common standards and approaches for digitalradiography, common component testing standards, and advanced nondestructive evaluation capability
for the nuclear explosive package part geometry to replace obsolescing film radiography and toincrease accurate comparison to design requirements, decrease rework, and reduce cost and waste
associated with destructive testing.
Total, Readiness Campaign

Weapons Activities/
Readiness Campaign

160,620

Page 147

100,000

112,092

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Stockpile Readiness
The increase provides for lithium part production manufacturing advances at the
Y-12 National Security Center that are integral for meeting current production
schedule; to expedite completion of the electronic bomb book technology forfirst use in W76 LEP production; and to deploy advanced alternate technology
for lithium parts configuration for storage efficiency and consolidation.
Funding increased to ensure technical capabilities remain at the Savannah Riversite to develop and deploy design and process technology for production andtesting of gas transfer system reservoirs. Gas transfer systems are limited life
components and thus are produced on an ongoing basis to maintain replacement
schedules in the field and for life extension program production.

+13,195

High Explosives and Weapon Operations
Funding slightly reduced to support DSW B61 scope and higher priority projects
in Nonnuclear Readiness, Stockpile Readiness, and Advanced Design and
Production Technologies subprograms.

-1,608

Nonnuclear Readiness
Funding increased to begin plastic component production development andmechanical component production development to support weapons systems
refurbishment. Development of parts using advanced plastic materials will
provide desired military features and increased reliability over the weapon
lifetime. Increased reliability translates into less weapon maintenance and fewer
field refurbishments over the life of the weapon, which in turn reduces stockpile
costs. The focus in developing production methods for mechanical components
is on making smaller components than currently produced. Smaller components
allow addition of surety advancements within the limited available weapon
spaces adding desired military features that increase stockpile surety.

+9,163

Tritium ReadinessThis decrease in funding is due to the cyclical nature of the fixed-pricecontracting approach taken by the program for the manufacture and irradiation oftritium producing burnable absorber rods and other materials. There are no
major procurements expected during FY 2011.

Weapons Activities/
Readiness Campaign

Page 148-18,059

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Advanced Design and Production Technologies
Funding in this subprogram has increased to advance development work for the
Collaborative Authorization for the Safety-basis Total Life Cycle Environment(CASTLE). The CASTLE project will reduce the cycle time for changes
required during weapons operations at Pantex, resulting in lower costs andincreased safety confidence. The increase will also provide for development ofcommon standards and approaches for digital radiography. Advanced digitalradiography development will ensure that digital-based component certification
has the same or better integrity as film-based at high energies before
obsolescence. In addition, the increase will assist the nuclear security enterprise
to complete development of common component testing standards and advanced
nondestructive evaluation capability for the nuclear explosive package partgeometry. Proving that nondestructive evaluation provides at least as accurate
and reliable data set as destructive evaluation will reduce certification cycle timeand eliminate the cost of destroying and disposing of multiple produced units.

+9,401

Total Funding Change, Readiness Campaign+12,092

Weapons Activities/
Readiness Campaign

Page 149

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Capital Operating Expenses and Construction Summary
Capital Operating Expensesa(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011275
281
287
11,08911,333
11,582

General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

11,364

11,614

11,869Outyear Capital Operating Expenses(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
293
299
306
313
11,837
12,097
12,363
12,635General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

12,13012,396

12,66912,948aSince funds are appropriated for Operations and Maintenance, which includes operating expenses, capital equipment andgeneral plant projects. The program no longer budgets separately for capital equipment and general plant projects. FY 2010
and FY 2011 funding shown reflects estimates based on actual FY 2009 obligations.

Weapons Activities/
Readiness Campaign
Capital Operating Equipment
and Construction Summary

Page 150

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetMajor Items of Equipment (TEC $2 million or greater)

Major Item of Equipment

Total
Project
Cost(TPC)(dollars in thousands)
Total
PriorEstimated
Year
Cost
Appro(TEC)
priations FY 2009

Other
Project
Cost

FY 2010

FY 2011

Completion
Date

Microwave Deployment,
Y-12 National Security
Complex

17,7210

14,628

1,697

5,934

2,335

797

FY 2012Multi-axis Orbital
Machining Center,Y-12 National Security
Complex

3,786

0

3,441

2,500

-438

0

0

FY 2009

Coordinate Measuring
Machine # 3, Y-12
National
Security Complex

5,510

0

5,210

5,700

0

-490

0

FY 2010

5,496

1,845

797

Total Major Items
of Equipment

Weapons Activities/
Readiness Campaign
Capital Operating Equipment
and Construction Summary

Page 151

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 152

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Funding Profile by Subprogram(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Current
Appropriation
Appropriation
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Operations of Facilities
Kansas City Plant
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Nevada Test Site
Pantex
Sandia National Laboratory
Savannah River Site
Y-12 National Security Complex
Institutional Site Support
Subtotal, Operations of Facilities
Program Readiness
Material Recycle and Recovery
Containers
Storage
Subtotal, Operations and MaintenanceConstruction
Total, Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

89,87182,605289,169
92,203
101,230
123,992
92,762
235,397
56,102
1,163,331
71,62670,334
22,696
31,951
1,359,938
314,468
1,674,406

156,056
86,670311,776
79,583
131,602104,133
128,580
229,774
120,129
1,348,303
73,021
69,542
23,392
24,7081,538,966
303,904
1,842,870

FY 2011
Request186,10280,106
318,464
80,077
121,254
117,369
92,722
220,927
40,9701,257,991
69,30970,42927,992
24,233
1,449,954
399,016
1,848,970

Outyear Funding Schedule by Subprogram
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Operations of Facilities
Program Readiness
Material Recycle and Recovery
Containers
Storage
Subtotal, Operations and MaintenanceConstruction
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

FY 2012(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015

1,178,512
48,492
61,67822,043
19,5351,330,260
542,286
1,872,546

1,129,208
47,99863,673
23,10021,425
1,285,404
555,921
1,841,325

1,097,791
65,71365,55423,757
22,693
1,275,508
722,256
1,997,764

1,061,276
63,541
63,38622,971
21,942
1,233,116
693,452
1,926,568

MissionThe goal of the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) program is to operate and maintain
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) program facilities in a safe, secure, efficient, reliable,
and compliant condition, including facility operating costs (e.g., utilities, equipment, facility personnel,
training, and salaries); facility and equipment maintenance costs (e.g., staff, tools, and replacement
parts); and environmental, safety, and health (ES&H) costs; and plan, prioritize, and construct state-ofthe-art facilities, infrastructure, and scientific tools within approved baseline costs and schedule. The
Weapons Activities/
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

Page 153

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

RTBF program provides unique contributions to the Government Performance and Results Act Unit
Program Number 33.
Benefits
The RTBF program achieves this goal so that NNSA program facilities are operationally ready to
execute nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship tasks on time in support of DSW and the Campaigns.
Work scope and costs include program contractor facility operations; facility and equipment
maintenance; ES&H activities; the capability to recover and recycle plutonium, highly-enricheduranium, and tritium to support a safe and reliable nuclear stockpile; and specialized storage andcontainers sufficient to support the requirements of the weapons stockpile.
To support program requirements and efficient operations, RTBF is funding specific projects andemergent priority maintenance activities in mission critical and mission dependent facilities through theInstitutional Site Support (ISS) subprogram. ISS projects focus on sustaining facilities and modern
equipment that support programmatic missions while reducing operating costs. ISS projects will also
fund selected projects to prepare for facility consolidation and foot print reduction activities.
The RTBF program provides resources for NNSA program facilities to maintain readiness to execute
nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship tasks on time, as identified by DSW and the Campaigns. RTBF
Operations of Facilities maintains mission critical and mission dependent infrastructure to sustain thestockpile for the long term and keep the facilities and capabilities in a safe, secure, and reliable state ofreadiness. The RTBF Construction Program plays a critical role in revitalizing the nuclear weapons
manufacturing and research and development infrastructure.
The RTBF program is closely aligned with other program elements within Weapons Activities,
including the Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP), Campaigns, and the
Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) Program. RTBF partners with FIRP to restore nuclear security
enterprise facilities and infrastructure to the right condition, consistent with mission requirements.
RTBF funds current operations and maintenance of the complex and makes capital investments tosustain the complex into the future. RTBF ensures appropriate levels of maintenance are performed fordesignated mission critical and mission dependent facilities. RTBF partners with DSW and theCampaigns by having the necessary facilities and capabilities in place to assure DSW program work canbe accomplished.
The RTBF Construction Program is important to the future operations of the nuclear weapons
manufacturing and research and development infrastructure. Construction investments support designand construction of facilities that support the nuclear security enterprise, improving the responsivenessand/or functionality of the infrastructure and its technology base. In FY 2011, RTBF Operations ofFacilities subprogram will continue to execute the necessary work scope to allow continued safe
operation and reduce operational risks at Building 9212 at Y-12 and the Chemistry and Metallurgy
Research (CMR) Facility at LANL.
The revised Department of Energy (DOE) Order 413.3A “Program and Project Management for
Acquisition of Capital Assets” requires External Independent Reviews (EIR) for Capital Asset Projects
greater than $100,000,000. Examples of EIR costs include conducting Performance Baseline EIRs prior
to Critical Decision-2 (CD-2) to validate cost and schedule baseline estimates and conducting
Weapons Activities/
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

Page 154

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetConstruction/Execution Readiness EIRs, which are performed for all Major System projects prior to
Critical Decision-3 (CD-3). In addition, projects less than the $100,000,000 threshold will be subjected
to an Independent Project Review (IPR). Beginning in FY 2009, EIRs are funded within the Office ofManagement (Engineering and Construction Management) to ensure the “external” and “independent”
nature of EIR audits on project performance baselines. Funds appropriated under RTBF operating
accounts, Project Engineering and Design projects, and construction projects may be used to provide
assessments of the planning and execution of the associated RTBF projects.
The FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161) directs the Department to manage all
projects in excess of $100,000,000 total cost in full compliance with DOE Order 413.3A. The NNSA
RTBF Program is in compliance with the requirements of the DOE Order 413.3A.

Weapons Activities/
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

Page 155

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAnnual Performance Results and Targets(R = Results; T = Targets)
Performance Indicators

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Endpoint Target

T: 95%

T: 95%

T: 95%

T: 95%

T: 95%

T: 95%

Annually, missioncritical and mission
dependent facilities areavailable at least 95%
of scheduled days.

T: 5%

T: 5%

T: 5%

T: 5%

T: 5%

T: 5%

Annually, maintain the
mission-criticalfacilities andinfrastructure at an
FCI level of 5% or
less.

Secretarial Goal: Security: Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risks
GPRA Unit Program Number: 33, Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Mission-Essential
Facilities: Enable NNSA
missions by providing
operational facilities tosupport nuclear weapon
dismantlement, life
extension, surveillance, andresearch and development
activities, as measured by thepercent of scheduled versus
planned days mission-criticaland mission-dependentfacilities are available
without missing key
deliverables. (Annual
Outcome)R: 98.1%

R: 99%

R: 98%

R: 95%

T: 90%

T: 90%

T: 95%

T: 95%

Facility Condition Index(FCI) for Mission Critical
Facilities: Annual NNSA
complex-wide aggregate
Facility Condition Index(FCI), as measured bydeferred maintenance costs
per replacement plant value,
for all mission-criticalfacilities and infrastructure.
a(Annual Outcome).

R: 6.7%

R: 6.5%

R: 4.26%

R: 3.37%

T: 7.4%

T: 6.8%

T: 5%

T: 5%

a

Measure was developed in FY 2007 from prior single measure to reflect change in facility designation (mission essential to mission critical and mission dependent).

Weapons Activities/
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

Page 156

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Endpoint Target

FCI for Mission Dependent
Not Critical Facilities:
Annual NNSA complexwide aggregate Facility
Condition Index, as
measured by deferred
maintenance costs per
replacement plant value, forall mission-dependent, notcritical facilities andainfrastructure.

N/A

N/A

R: 8.92%

R: 6.91%

T: 8.60%

T: 8.45%

T: 8.3%

T: 8.15%

T: 8.0%

T: 8.0%

T: 8.25%

T: 8.75%

By 2014, improve
mission dependent, notcritical facilities andinfrastructure to an
FCI level of 8% orless, then maintain at
this level annually.

Major Construction
Projects: Executeconstruction projects withinapproved costs andschedules, as measured by
the total percentage of
projects with total estimatedcost (TEC) greater than
$20M with a schedule
performance index (ratio of
actual work performed toscheduled work) and a cost
performance index (ratio of
actual cost of work
performed to budgeted costof work) between 0.9-1.15.
(Efficiency)

R: 90%

R: 100%

R: 67%

R: 74%

T: 90%

T: 90%

T: 90%

T: 90%

T: 90%

T: 90%

T: 75%

T: 80%

T: 85%

T: 90%By FY 2009, annuallyachieve 90% of
baselined construction
projects with TEC
greater than $20M
with actual SPI andCPI of 0.9-1.15 asmeasured against
approved baseline
definitions.

Performance IndicatorsaMeasure was developed in FY 2007 from prior single measure to reflect change in facility designation (mission essential to mission critical and mission dependent).

Weapons Activities/
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

Page 157

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009 Accomplishments Exceeded corporate facility availability goals to support DSW and Campaign activities as RTBF
facilities were available 97.5 percent of scheduled days.
 Exceeded the industry “best in class” target of 5 percent Facility Condition Index (FCI) for missioncritical facilities resulting in increased operational effectiveness and efficiency.
 Provided transportation container support for DSW and NNSA missions to support Life Extension
Program (LEP) and Stockpile Stewardship programs.
 Established the baseline and started acquisition and installation of equipment for the Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research Replacement Radiological Utility/Office Building (RLUOB) at LANL.
 Completed the Tritium Facility Modernization Project at LLNL.
 Closed Wing 4 of CMR at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
 Downgraded 9201-5 and 9404-4 at Y-12 from a Category II nuclear facility to a chemicallyhazardous facility.
 Packaged 63 percent and shipped 55 percent of Category I/II materials from LLNL in support ofnuclear material de-inventory goals.
 Received Certificate of Compliance for the new 9978 container that provides NNSA the ability toship plutonium and other actinides in this Department of Transportation 6M Specification
replacement container.
 Completed the Safety Analysis Report for Packaging (SARP) for a new Type A(F) container with
the Office of Environmental Management.
 Developed the technical basis necessary to justify a joint agreement between the US and France torefurbish and jointly fund and operate criticality experiment facilities to meet two broad technicalneeds: fissionable solution and horizontal split table critical experiments.
 Successfully restarted the water-moderated critical experiment at Sandia National Laboratories in
Albuquerque. This provides important integral measurements to support burn-up credit studies andprovide integral data for 7 percent enriched (U-235) nuclear fuel.
Major Outyear Priorities and Assumptions
The outyear projections for RTBF are $7,638,203,000 for FY 2012 through FY 2015. The trend in thefive-year period is increasing, mostly in construction funding, to support the investment needed toaddress the continued aging of the NNSA complex, which continues to be a challenge due to escalating
requirements and costs associated with nuclear facility safety and compliance. To address thesechallenges, the RTBF program will reduce operational cost at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
through the de-inventory of Category I and II nuclear materials, and assure the minimum set of scientificcapabilities exist at Nevada Test Site to support the Stockpile Stewardship Program. In addition, RTBF
intends to manage available infrastructure support resources to prioritize and fund selected projects andmaintenance activities that will consolidate program activities, reduce program footprint, andreplace/refurbish process equipment as needed to support priority program work.

Weapons Activities/
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

Page 158

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

Operations of Facilities
1,163,331 1,348,303
1,257,991
Operates and maintains NNSA-owned programmatic capabilities in a state of readiness, ensuring eachcapability (workforce and facility) is operationally ready to execute programmatic tasks identified inCampaigns and DSW. Operates the program infrastructure and facilities in a safe, secure, reliable, and“ready for operations” manner. Facility-specific activities include, but are not limited to, maintenance;
utilities; environment, safety and health; implementation plan actions to address safety issues; andimplementation of rules, such as the Beryllium Rule 10CFR850, Chronic Beryllium Disease
Prevention Program (CBDPP); and maintenance of the Authorization Basis (AB) for each facility per
10CFR830. Infrastructure-support activities include facility-related costs that are not associated withthe ongoing operations of facilities, such as conceptual design reports; other project-related costs forline items; National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activities; institutional capital equipment andgeneral plant projects; and facility startup, standby, and decommissioning and decontamination(D&D), which includes costs associated with maintaining facilities in a standby status for possible
further use or D&D. Maintains current and future operations with a smaller workforce, growing
maintenance needs, and increasing regulatory requirements. Provides new and upgraded facilities andcapabilities. Seeks cost efficiencies through the consolidation of facilities and functions. Develops anintegrated maintenance program that includes routine maintenance, capital renewal, and extraordinary
maintenance items that are impacting cost and performance.
Across the complex over $350,000,000 is spent annually on maintenance. This does not include thebuy down of deferred maintenance accomplished through line item construction projects, general plant
projects, expense funded projects, or capital equipment purchases and the Facility Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program. Consistent with Departmental guidance, NNSA has prioritized all programfacilities into three categories: mission critical, mission dependent and non-mission dependent.
Aligned with program requirements, Defense Programs has established a graded scale for more
stringent maintenance expectations in mission critical facilities. The industry accepted standard
maintenance metric is Facility Condition Index (FCI), which tracks deferred maintenance as apercentage of Replacement Plant Value. Funding is prioritized to meet or exceed the NNSA goal of
maintaining the FCI for mission critical facilities at 5 percent. Based on current planning, the NNSA
goal for mission dependent facilities is 8.45 percent in FY 2011, with expectations to drive the goal for
mission dependent facilities to 8 percent by FY 2014. The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is
utilized to plan and track maintenance across the Complex, and, depending upon the site, maintenancefunding may be direct, indirect, or a combination of both. Costs for each site are reported quarterly to
NNSA/DOE through the Integrated Facility and Infrastructure (IFI) Report. A budget and reportingcode has been established to track direct funding and costs for maintenance activity.


Kansas City Plant (KCP)

89,871

156,056

186,102

Operates and maintains the KCP in a state of readiness, prepared to execute programmatic tasks
identified in the DSW and Campaigns programs. Funding includes costs for Facilities
Management, Maintenance, Utilities, ES&H, Capital Equipment, General Plant Projects (GPP),
and Expense-funded projects. FY 2011 funding will support continued operation and required
maintenance costs at the current facility and continued transition into a new facility with minimum
Weapons Activities/
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

Page 159

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011disruptions as laid out in the Kansas City Responsive Infrastructure Manufacturing and Sourcing(KCRIMS) transformation plan. This is resulting in a short-term increase to the Operations ofFacilities budget while we transition to the new facility and provide minimum required support tothe current facility. Funding for KCRIMS supports long lead procurements, critical capitalpurchases and unique facility upgrades for utility and interior requirements. In anticipation of themove to a new facility, the RTBF program has allowed the deferred maintenance at KCP to grow.
Also in FY 2011, efforts will continue on execution of the comprehensive project plan to establish
a Kansas City based Supply Chain Management Center to gain efficiencies and savings fromconsolidation of procurement systems, supplier management, and contracting agreements.


Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)

82,60586,67080,106

Operates and maintains the LLNL facilities in a state of readiness and keeps the facilities andcapabilities safe and secure in order to minimally support the DSW and Campaign programs.
Activities include: newly generated waste, building and building system maintenance; utilities;
maintenance of programmatic equipment; ES&H; actions to address safety issues; andimplementation of nuclear safety rules. The maintenance program is indirectly funded and costs
are reported quarterly through the IFI Report. Also included is infrastructure support and minor
RTBF activities not specifically allocated to a facility or facility group.


Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)

289,169

311,776

318,464

Operates and maintains the LANL facilities in a state of readiness to ensure that mission-essential
capabilities in critical nuclear facilities and other facilities and infrastructure are available toconduct the scientific, computational, engineering, and manufacturing activities of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program in a safe, secure, compliant, and cost effective manner. Direct-fundedfacilities include: the Engineering, Manufacturing Systems and Methods Shops, Tritium, Dynamic
Experimentation, LANSCE, Waste Management, Nuclear Materials Technology (TA-55),
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR), and Beryllium Technology. Work scope includes
conventional facility management, infrastructure and utilities, and operation and maintenance ofspecial equipment. Also supporting solid waste risk reduction activities, TA-55 Seismic and Fire
Safety Engineering, CMR Risk Mitigation and Consolidation and Radioactive Liquid Waste
Facility System upgrade/replacement. In cases where replacement facilities are planned, such as
the CMR, the program is allowing deferred maintenance to grow. The maintenance program isfunded through both indirect and direct mechanisms and costs are reported quarterly through the
IFI Report.
Also supported are the development and implementation of Authorization Basis (AB)modifications needed to reduce the risk and extend the life of the CMR until the CMR
Replacement facility is operational. Operations of Facilities also funds general infrastructure
support activities such as Other Project Costs for Line Items, General Plant Projects, and AB
activities. Funding is also included for the Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes for Los Alamos County(approximately $225,000) and the Los Alamos Pueblo Project (approximately $800,000 per year).

Weapons Activities/
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

Page 160

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

CMR Hazard Reduction activities will be funded in FY 2011 to continue to reduce hazards andmaintain the facility until the mission work can be transferred to the Chemistry and Metallurgy
Research Replacement (CMRR) Facility.
In FY 2011, funding for the Advanced Recovery and Integrated Extraction System (ARIES) work
scope, and activities associated with the feed stock for the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication
Facility are transferred to the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Appropriation.


Nevada Test Site (NTS)

92,20379,58380,077

Funding preserves support for critical missions and programs by operating the Device Assembly
Facility (DAF) (including Critical Experiment Facility (CEF) enduring operations), Nuclear
Counter Terrorism activities at NTS, U1a Complex, and the Joint Actinide Shock Physics
Experimental Research (JASPER) Facility. Funding is also provided to maintain the remainder of
the NTS site in a min-safe operating condition. Work scope includes conventional facility
management, infrastructure and utilities, and operation and maintenance for special nuclear
material handling and test equipment.
Pantex Plant

101,230

131,602121,254

Operates and maintains the Pantex Plant in a state of readiness, prepared to execute programmatic
tasks identified in the DSW and Campaign programs. Allows the Pantex Plant to function
effectively by providing for facility management and significant staff support to engage in plantand maintenance engineering, facility utilization analysis, modification and upgrade analysis, andfacilities planning and condition determinations. Also provides for maintenance activities,
including preventative, predictive, corrective, and general maintenance. The maintenance programis direct funded and costs are reported quarterly through the IFI Report. Provides for utilities costs
for the utilities management program, utility-related engineering, an energy-savings program, andoperation and distribution of utility services. Work activities include: the collection and treatmentof wastewater; steam distribution and condensate return; electrical distribution; natural gas
distribution; compressed air; and water production, treatment, distribution to support domestic,
industrial, and fire protection needs; AB documentation; safety and health assurance including
Radiation Safety, Nuclear Explosive Safety, Occupational Medicine, Industrial Hygiene, andIndustrial Safety; emergency management and environmental protection, waste management, andwaste minimization activities.
Other Project Costs associated with line item projects include research and development,
Conceptual Design Plans and Reports, Design Criteria, Project Execution Plans, NEPA
documentation, Construction Project Data Sheets, maintenance procedures to support facility
startup, initial operator training, commissioning costs, operational readiness reviews, and readinessassessments. FY 2011 also transfers funds for the ARIES work scope and activities associatedwith the feed stock for MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility to the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Appropriation.

Weapons Activities/
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

Page 161

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)

Sandia National Laboratories (SNL)FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

123,992

104,133

117,369

Operates and maintains the SNL facilities and capabilities in a safe, secure, reliable, state ofreadiness. The dominant cost driver for these capabilities/facilities is the staff required to keep the
mission critical capabilities operational. RTBF Operations of Facilities funds Major
Environmental Test facilities as defined by the NNSA’s Record of Decision (including theelectromechanical, abnormal and normal environments), Microelectronics Development
Laboratory, Tech Area IV Accelerators, Tech Area V Nuclear Reactor facilities, Electromagnetic
Test Facilities, Materials Characterization Laboratories, and Waste Management Activities. The
work scope includes capital equipment needed by the mission critical capabilities, specific facility
infrastructure needs, conventional facility management and operation, and maintenance of mission
critical equipment at these facilities. The maintenance program is primarily indirectly funded andcosts are reported quarterly through the IFI Report. Site Waste Management Activities are also
indirectly funded.
Funding in FY 2011 also supports the Tonopah Test Range (TTR) in Nevada providing uniquecapabilities to air drop nuclear bomb test units. These capabilities allow TTR to support DSW's
ability to perform surveillance testing on nuclear bombs and their compatibility with U.S. Air
Force bombers and fighters and funds the Primary Standards Laboratory (PSL) in New Mexico toprovide unique measurement and calibration sources for nuclear weapons facilities nationwide,
many of which are unavailable through any other source. PSL supports the ability of many sites
across the nuclear weapons enterprise to calibrate and operate unique weapon monitors anddetectors.


Savannah River Site (SRS)

92,762

128,580

92,722

Operates and maintains the NNSA related portion of SRS in a state of readiness, prepared to
execute programmatic tasks identified in the DSW and Campaigns programs including facilities
management and support activities that maintain the facilities and infrastructure for mission
operations. Preventive, predictive, and corrective maintenance of process and infrastructure
equipment and facilities are performed. The maintenance program is funded through both indirect
and direct mechanisms and costs are reported quarterly through the IFI Report. ES&H activities
are conducted to ensure the well being of SRS workers, the public, and the environment.
Contracted costs of providing utilities to the Tritium Extraction Facility, establishing a startup of
an unloading line to establish unloading capabilities for new systems, and high priority Capital
Equipment and GPP are also included. Capital Equipment and GPP that meet base maintenanceand infrastructure needs are planned and executed to maintain the safety, utility, and capability ofthe process facilities.
In FY 2011, the request reflects the transfer of Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF)
OPCs to the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Appropriation. In addition, FY 2011 specificactivities will focus on costs associated with high priority Capital Equipment and GPP and toaddress single point failures in the tritium stripper systems.

Weapons Activities/
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

Page 162

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)

Y-12 National Security Complex

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

235,397229,774

220,927

Funds operation and maintenance of Y-12 mission facilities in a state of readiness, in which eachfacility is operationally ready to execute programmatic tasks within multiple mission elements.
Provides for management of the thirteen production and production support facilities and related
facility systems, including newly generated waste. These facilities are operated to ensurecompliance with ES&H requirements and DOE orders, and to ensure the availability of the
facilities for all Defense Programs programmatic objectives. An Authorization Basis (AB) is
maintained for each facility, including development of AB documentation to meet therequirements of 10CFR830 Nuclear Safety Rule, annual updates of AB documentation, andunreviewed safety question determinations as applicable.
The Building 9212 Production Facility has implemented the Integrated Work Plan (IWP) process
to manage the work scope within the available resources and funding levels. The IWP process is amanagement tool that integrates multiple systems in order to prioritize the total work scope using auniform method and quantifies and manages overall risk within the facility. A Facility Risk
Review (FRR) has been completed for Building 9212. The FRR identified the risks associatedwith the operation of the facility and processes that must be mitigated in the interim until the new
Uranium Processing Facility Project is available to ensure continued operation of metal production
to support DSW missions including Life Extension Programs. The Operation of Facilities willcontinue to fund maintenance and associated activities to mitigate the risk of continued operations
in Building 9212. The deferred maintenance will continue to grow in cases where replacement
facilities are planned or constructed, such as the construction of the Highly Enriched Uranium
Materials Facility. The maintenance program is funded through both indirect and direct
mechanisms and costs are reported quarterly through the IFI Report.
Institutional Site Support (ISS)56,102

120,129

40,970Supports corporate activities across the nuclear security enterprise including, but not limited to:planning, coordinating, program management and performance monitoring, occurrence reporting
systems, quality assurance working groups, system engineering, program risk management,
enterprise modeling, independent and internal technical reviews and assessments and activities.
Examples of assessments and reviews include analyses of evolving production requirements andforecasting of nuclear material supply and demand. Funding is also provided for specific projects
to meet changing programmatic requirements while improving operational efficiency, reducing
active footprint, and lowering operating costs. Specific projects for FY 2011 are competitively
selected during the execution year to achieve program goals, and are representative of the types ofactivities that need to be accomplished to address maintenance needs, to sustain facilities, andprovide modern equipment that support programmatic missions while reducing operating costs.
ISS will also fund selected projects to prepare for facility consolidation and footprint reduction
activities. ISS also includes funding held at Headquarters for contractor support and othercorporate activities.
In FY 2011, ISS will fund the storage and security costs of Sodium Debris Material at Idaho
National Laboratory until the Qualification Alternatives to the Sandia Pulsed Reactor is complete.

Weapons Activities/
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

Page 163

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

Program Readiness
71,62673,021
69,309Program Readiness implements a multi-year strategy to provide capabilities (skilled worker expertise,advanced technologies, and innovative approaches) that support the Campaigns and DSW aspects ofStockpile Stewardship. These crosscutting investments address needs beyond any single facility,
campaign, or nuclear system and are essential to achieving the objectives of Stockpile Stewardship.
Since FY 2010, Program Readiness has funded Test Readiness activities to ensure that an undergroundnuclear test can be executed as directed by Presidential Directive.


The Nevada Test Site Program Readiness activities sustain resources to meet the certification of
the nuclear stockpile as well as Test Readiness. A broad range of activities are supported fromaddressing the Nevada State Regulatory environmental compliance issues that resulted from yearsof nuclear testing activities in Nevada to geologic studies performed by the US Geological Survey
Department that are required to field high-hazard experiments by the National Laboratories.



The Pantex and Kansas City Program Readiness supports the training, development, and technicalapprenticeship of new associates for critical skills, along with the technical resource pipeline andproduction assurance required to sustain critical production and engineering capabilities in supportof DSW.

The Sandia Program Readiness provides the capabilities needed for integrated and engineered
Nuclear Warhead Certification. These include people readiness that nurtures world class and peerreviewed critical nuclear weapons expertise and technology readiness that develops and matures
the science, technology, engineering, modeling, simulation, and skills needed to certify all nonnuclear materials, components, and mechanisms through the warhead lifecycle.

Program Readiness also supports the Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP). The NCSP
provides sustainable expert leadership, direction, and the technical infrastructure necessary todevelop, maintain and disseminate the essential technical tools, training and data required tosupport safe, efficient fissionable material operations within DOE. The NCSP is a continually
improving, adaptable, and transparent program that communicates and collaborates globally, suchas with the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), to incorporate technology, practices andprograms responsive to the technical needs of those responsible for developing, implementing, andmaintaining nuclear criticality safety throughout the DOE.
Material Recycle and Recovery (MRR)
70,33469,54270,429Provides for recycling and the recovery of plutonium, enriched uranium, and tritium from fabrication
and assembly operations, limited life components, and dismantlement of weapons and components.
Supports the implementation of new or improved processes for fabrication and recovery operations,material stabilization, conversion, and storage. MRR supports the process of recycling and purifying
materials to meet specifications for safe, secure, and environmentally acceptable storage, and to meetthe directive schedule for tritium reservoir refills. MRR is principally accomplished at Y-12, LANL,
and the SRS Tritium Facility.

Weapons Activities/
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

Page 164

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

At LANL, activities include response to material stabilization/decontamination/repackaging,
nuclear materials information management, the Special Recovery Line, a small amount of genericcriticality safety support, and nuclear materials planning and reporting.

At the SRS Tritium Extraction Facility, activities include recovery and purification of tritium,
deuterium, and helium-3 gases from reservoir recycle gas, hydride storage vessels, and facility
effluent cleanup systems. Gas mixtures are enriched to support the LEP and Stockpile Services
goals.

At Y-12, activities include Purification and Conversion to UO3, Acid Removal and Waste
processing, Conversion of Enriched Uranium Oxide to Metal Buttons, Material Transport andStorage, Processing Enriched Uranium Chips and Scraps, Chemical Conversion of Lithium, andSalvage Operations and Filter Teardown. All of these activities are required to provide materials
needed for Stockpile Stewardship and to ensure safe and secure handling of materials on-site. In
addition, MRR includes: the Central Scrap Management Office that manages the receipt, storage,
and shipment of enriched uranium scrap; the Precious Metals Business Center, which provides a
cost effective service to many users within the DOE complex; and deactivation of Building 9206.

For FY 2011, ongoing activities such as uranium stabilization, decontamination, and repackaging, andtritium recycling in support of LEPs and the limited life program will continue. Recycling andrecovery activities will be supported by DSW when the scope exceeds the base capability provided by
the MRR program.
Containers

22,69623,392

27,992

Provides for shipping container research and development, design, certification, re-certification, test
and evaluation, production and procurement, fielding and maintenance, decontamination and disposal,
and off-site transportation authorization of shipping containers for nuclear materials and components
supporting both the nuclear weapons program and nuclear materials consolidation. New container
systems are developed to improve safety, security, ability to be maintained, meet updated regulatory
requirements, and accept a broader array of contents to minimize the number of specialized containersthat have to be maintained. These efforts will include efficiencies provided by close coordination ofplanning and operations with users/customers. Supports nuclear material consolidation, andde-inventory activities to ensure needed transportation containers are certified and available toaccommodate proposed material movements. This includes supporting the de-inventory of LLNL
Category I and II nuclear materials through the certification and supply of containers. DSW also
provides support for container activity when weapon system scope exceeds the level initially identified
by the container subprogram.
Storage

31,951

24,70824,233

Provides for effective storage and management of national security and surplus pits, Highly Enriched
Uranium (HEU), and other weapons and nuclear materials. Funding includes the cost of receipt,
storage, and inventory of nuclear materials, non-nuclear materials, HEU, enriched lithium, andcomponents from dismantled warheads. Provides programmatic planning for nuclear material
Weapons Activities/
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

Page 165

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011requirements, including analysis, forecasting, and reporting functions, as well as emergent analyses ofnuclear materials as designated by the NNSA and others.


At Pantex, activities include long-term storage of special nuclear materials, which involves
planning, engineering, design, and start-up activities; processing and repackaging materials forsafe storage; storage activities for the strategic reserve; national security inventory thermalmonitoring and characterizations; disposition of legacy materials; and nuclear materials
management, including planning, assessment, and forecasting nuclear material requirements. Pit
Disassembly and Inspection Surveillance includes surveillance activities associated with pits instorage. Activities include weight and leak testing, visual inspections, and radiography.

At the Y-12, activities include the overall management and storage of uranium, lithium, and othernuclear and weapons materials, including the nation’s strategic reserve of HEU. In addition, theY-12 Nuclear Materials Management, Storage, and Disposition program provides programmatic
guidance and support of these materials and services throughout the Nuclear Security Enterprise.
This program also provides the long-term planning and analysis of materials required for the Y-12
manufacturing strategy in support of the nuclear weapons stockpile.

For FY 2011, the Storage program will continue to provide effective storage and management of
national security and surplus pits, HEU, and other weapons and nuclear materials. The Nuclear
Materials Integration subprogram under Site Stewardship will also be supported by having therequisite facilities available so they can execute their responsibility.
Construction

314,468

303,904

399,016

The RTBF Construction subprogram plays a critical role in revitalizing the nuclear weapons
manufacturing and research and development infrastructure. Investments from this program will
improve the responsiveness and/or utility of the infrastructure and its technology base. The
subprogram is focused on two primary objectives: (1) identification, planning, and prioritization of
the projects required to support the weapons programs, and (2) development and execution of theseprojects within approved cost and schedule baselines.
The RTBF Construction budget request includes significant increases for the Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) Facility and Uranium Processing Facility (UPF)
consistent with the commitment to the replacement of plutonium research and uranium manufacturing
facilities.
The Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) Facility at LANL will relocate andconsolidate mission-critical analytical chemistry, material characterization, and actinide research anddevelopment activities that directly support Stockpile Stewardship and other programs. The projectwill involve completion and startup of the Radiological Utility/Office Building (RLUOB) withassociated equipment and will establish a baseline for the CMRR Nuclear Facility and begin
construction at a date determined by the baseline plan.

Weapons Activities/
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

Page 166

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

The Uranium Processing Facility Project (UPF) at the Y-12 Complex will replace deteriorating
50-year-old facilities that do not meet current standards, are increasingly expensive to maintain, andare technologically obsolete. When complete, the UPF will allow a substantial reduction in thefootprint of the secure area of the site and associated maintenance and security costs. The UPF will
support the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile, down blending of enriched uranium in support ofnonproliferation, and provide uranium as feedstock for fuel for naval reactors. In FY 2011, funding
will be used for long lead procurement of equipment with delivery lead times over 24 months and willallow for site preparation work consisting of excavation of the building foundation and preparation of
the surrounding area for full construction start in FY 2012.
The Transuranic (TRU) Waste Facility Project at LANL, will allow the site to comply with an Orderof Consent with the State of New Mexico which requires the cleanup and vacating of TechnicalArea 54. The TRU Waste Facility will receive, process, and ship wastes to the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant (WIPP). The facility will support all operations at LANL that generate TRU waste.
The TA-55 Reinvestment Project Phase II at LANL is a follow-on project to Phase I. The project
consists of refurbishment/replacement of major facility and infrastructure systems at the LANL
Plutonium Facility which are nearing the end of their service life and require increased maintenance,
are out of compliance with current regulations, and/or are at increased risk of causing facility
shutdown.
The Test Capabilities Revitalization –II project (09-D-404) at Sandia National Laboratory is presently
being reevaluated.
The Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility Upgrade (RLWTF) at LANL replaces a system thatis over 40 years old with diminishing reliability. The facility will support laboratory operations at
12 technical areas, 63 buildings, and 1,800 sources of radioactive liquid waste.
The High Explosive Pressing Facility (HEPF) at Pantex will replace the current facility which isnearing the end of service life. The new facility will improves safety, quality, and efficiency ofmaterial movement. The existing aged facilities, infrastructure, and equipment are in poor conditionand continue to fail creating significant risk in the current and future capability to produce highexplosive hemispheres in sufficient quantities to support mission requirements.
Total, Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

Weapons Activities/
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

1,674,406

1,842,870

1,848,970

Page 167

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Operations of Facilities

Kansas City Plant (KCP)
This increase supports activities above base operations and required
maintenance at KCP associated with the Kansas City Responsive Infrastructure
Manufacturing and Sourcing (KCRIMS) transformation project and the Supply
Change Management Center. Increased funding for KCRIMS supports longlead procurements, critical capital purchases and unique facility upgrades forutility and interior requirements. These efforts are critical to the ability of the
NNSA to exit Kansas City Plant (at the Bannister complex) and transition into asmaller, more efficient Greenfield facility.



Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
The decrease results from operational savings through the de-inventory of
LLNL Category I and II nuclear materials.

+30,046-6,564

Los Alamos National Laboratory
The increase in funding is for solid waste risk reduction activities, seismic andfire safety engineering at TA-55, consolidation and mitigation of CMR risk andother project costs for the RLWTF, all of which are partially offset by thetransfer of funding from RTBF to Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation for the
Advanced Recovery and Integrated Extraction Systems (ARIES) work scope.

+6,688

 Nevada Test Site
Maintains funding for physical and operational infrastructure in order to operate
essential experimental facilities. The slight increase reflects additional funding
for the operation of the Critical Experiment Facility in DAF.


Pantex Plant
The decrease results from the transfer of funding from RTBF to Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation for ARIES work scope.



+13,236

Savannah River Site
The decrease is due to the transfer of PDCF OPCs to Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation.

-10,348

Sandia National Laboratories
The increase reflects support of the capability to air drop nuclear bomb test
units at TTR and support PSL’s capability to provide unique measurement andcalibration sources for nuclear weapons facilities nationwide.



+494

-35,858

Y-12 National Security Complex
The decrease adjusts funding to meet operational levels in support of current
Production and Planning Directive (P&PD) workload.

Weapons Activities/
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities-8,847

Page 168

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Institutional Site Support
The decrease is primarily associated with the nonrecurring request in FY 2010
for direct support of management and operating contractor pension costs. The
request also reflects minor shifts in programmatic priority.

-79,159

Total, Operations of Facilities-90,312Program Readiness
The decrease reflects minor shifts in programmatic priorities associated with test
readiness funding.

-3,712

Material Recycle and Recovery
Provides for ongoing activities including the stabilization and decontamination of
plutonium, uranium, and tritium from fabrication and assembly operations.

+887

Containers
The increase reflects increased work scope associated with off-site transportation
shipping containers for nuclear materials and components supporting both thenuclear weapons program and nuclear materials consolidation.

+4,600Storage
The decrease reflects the transition to operations at HEUMF at Y-12. Repackaging
of material has been completed and is being moved into HEUMF.

-475

Construction
The increase in FY 2011 funding will support several key Construction projects at
the identified sites.
At LANL, the funding will support the continued design of the Radioactive Liquid
Waste Treatment Facility Upgrade, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Replacement (CMRR) Facility, TA-55 Reinvestment Project Phase II and design of
the Transuranic (TRU) Waste Facility Project. The CMRR project will involve
completion and startup of the Radiological Utility/Office Building (RLUOB) withassociated equipment and will establish a baseline for the CMRR Nuclear Facility
and begin construction at a date determined by the baseline plan.
At Y-12, the funding will support the long lead procurement of equipment withdelivery lead times over 24 months for the Uranium Processing Facility Project(UPF) and allow for site preparation work consisting of excavation of the building
foundation and preparation of the surrounding area for full construction start in
FY 2012.

Weapons Activities/
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

Page 169

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)At Pantex, funding will support the High Explosive Pressing Facility (HEPF).
The increase is also offset by a decrease reflected in the transfer of the PDCF
project from RTBF to the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation’s Fissile Materials
Disposition Program and the remaining projects are consistent with theconstruction project profiles for ongoing projects.

+95,112

Total Funding Change, Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities+6,100Weapons Activities/
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

Page 170

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Capital Operating Expenses and Construction Summary
Capital Operating Expensesa(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
18,35918,763
19,17639,86340,74041,63658,22259,50360,812

General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

Outyear Capital Operating Expenses(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
19,59820,02920,47042,55243,44844,445General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

62,15063,47764,915FY 2015
20,92045,423
66,343aSince funds are appropriated for Operations and Maintenance, which includes operating expenses, capital equipment andgeneral plant projects, we no longer budget separately for capital equipment and general plant projects. FY 2010 and
FY 2011 funding shown reflects estimates based on actual FY 2009 obligations.

Weapons Activities/
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

Page 171

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetConstruction Projectsa b(dollars in thousands)
Total
Estimated
Cost (TEC)
11-D-801, TA-55
Reinvestment
Project, Phase 2,
LANL
10-D-501, Nuclear
Facility Risk
Reduction (NFRR),
Y-12
09-D-404, Test
Capabilities
Revitalization-II,
SNL
09-D-007, LANSCERefurbishment,
LANL
08-D-806, Ion Beam
Laboratory
Refurbishment, SNLc

08-D-804, TA-55
Reinvestment
Project, Phase I,
LANL
08-D-802, High
Explosive Pressing
Facility, PX d
08-D-801, High
Pressure Fire Loop,
PX
07-D-220,
Radioactive Liquid
Waste Treatment
Facility Upgrade,
LANL

Prior Year
Appropriations

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

UnappropriatedBalance

TBD

0

0

0

20,000

TBD

TBD

0

0

12,5000

TBD

37,700

0

3,104

3,200

0

TBD

TBD

0

19,30020,0000

TBD

34,813

0

6,100

0

0

0

13,548

5,885

7,663

0

0

0

133,920

15,00827,386030,00061,526

40,716

6,866

1,940

31,91000

TBD

26,162

14,170

0

0

TBD

a

The TEC estimate is for design only for the PED projects included in 07-D-140 and 06-D-140.

b

These represent construction TEC estimates. Design TEC estimates are reported in the appropriate PED project.

c

FY 2008 ($9,911) funds appropriated for project 08-D-806, Ion Beam Laboratory Refurbishment, SNL were appropriatedunder Engineering Campaign. Prior year funds ($18,813) were transferred from 01-D-108, MESA, SNL as a result of the
FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8) and the total of $28,724 is not included in the construction total.

dAll prior year uncosted funds for 08-D-802, High Explosive Pressing Facility, PX were used as a use of prior-year balance
offset as a result of P.L. 111-85.

Weapons Activities/
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

Page 172

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
Total
Estimated
Cost (TEC)
07-D-140, Project
Engineering &Design, VL
06-D-402, NTS
Replace Fire
Stations No. 1 andNo. 2, NTS
06-D-141,
PED/Construction,
Uranium Processing
Facility, Y-12 a
06-D-140, Project
Engineering &Design, VL a
05-D-402,
Beryllium
Capability Project,
04-D-128,
Criticality
Experiments Facility(formerly TA-18
Mission Relocation
Project),
04-D-125,
Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research
Facility
Replacement(CMRR), LANL
99-D-141-01, Pit
Disassembly andConversion Facilityb(PDCF), SRS
Total,
Construction

Prior Year
Appropriations

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

UnappropriatedBalance

TBD

2,452

7,223

0

5,000

TBD

36,744

26,211

9,060

1,473

0

0

TBD

0

0

94,000115,016

TBD

192,92970,508106,421

12,0004,000

023,58018,715

4,865

0

0

0

81,26969,727

10,042

1,500

0

0

TBD

231,638

97,19497,000225,000

TBD

TBD

255,558

24,88330,3210

TBD

314,468

303,904

399,016________________
a

Funding for the Uranium Processing Facility, Y-12 in FY 2010 and beyond was separated into 06-D-141 as a result of
P.L. 111-85.

b

FY 2008 ($22,447) and FY 2009 ($24,883) funds appropriated for project 99-D-140-01, Pit Disassembly and Conversion
Facility, SRS were appropriated under Directed Stockpile Work as a result of the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act(P.L. 110-161) and are not included in the construction total. FY 2011 funds are requested under the Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation/Fissile Materials Disposition Program.

Weapons Activities/
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

Page 173

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetOutyear Construction Projects
FY 2012
14-D-XXX, Mission Consolidation, Various
12-D-XXX, TRU Waste Facility, LANL
11-D-801, TA-55 Reinvestment Phase II, LANL
10-D-501, Nuclear Facility Risk Reduction (NFRR), Y-12
08-D-802, High Explosive Pressing Facility
07-D-220, Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility
Upgrade, LANL
06-D-141, PED/Construction, Uranium Processing Facility,
UPF
04-D-125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility
Replacement (CMRR), LANL
Total, Construction

Weapons Activities/
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

06,500
19,64035,38730,359(dollars in thousands
FY 2013
FY 20140
31,86012,34971,151
20,221
20,46817,90900
0FY 2015
19,77640,00042,4800040,00015,4550

0105,400

189,987

270,012

320,000

305,000
542,286

300,000
555,921299,961
693,452

300,000
722,256

Page 174

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

11-D-801, TA-55 Reinvestment Project – Phase II (TRP II)
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico
Project Data Sheet (PDS) is for Construction
1. Significant Changes
The most recent DOE O 413.3A approved Critical Decision (CD) for the TA-55 Reinvestment Project(TRP), Phase II is CD-2A, Approve Performance Baseline for Air Dryers and Glovebox Group 1.
CD-2A was approved on November 24, 2009 with a TPC of $19,470,000 and a CD-4A date of
May 2013. CD-1, Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range for all seven subprojects in TRP II,
was approved on July 15, 2008 with a preliminary cost range of $75,400,000 to $99,900,000 and a
preliminary CD-4 date of FY 2016.
A Federal Project Director at the appropriate level has been assigned to this project.
This PDS is new for Construction.
The Project anticipates approval of the project baseline for CD-2B, Confinement Doors and Glovebox
Group 2, in the 3Q FY 2010. The Project anticipates establishing a performance baseline for theremaining subprojects (CD-2C) by the 3Q FY 2011. This phased critical decision approach andschedule is consistent with tailoring strategy that has been approved by the NNSA Acquisition
Executive.
2. Design, Construction, and D&D Schedule(fiscal quarter or date)

FY 2010
FY 2011CD-0
3/23/2005
3/23/2005

CD-1
7/25/2008
7/25/2008

PED
Complete
TBD
3QFY2012

CD-2
3QFY2009
TBD

CD-3
TBD
TBD

CD-4
TBD
TBD

D&D
Start
N/A
N/A

D&D
Complete
N/A
N/A

CD-4
3QFY2013

D&D
Start
N/A

D&D
Complete
N/A

CD-4
TBD

D&D
Start
N/A

D&D
Complete
N/A

Air Dryers and Glovebox Group 1(fiscal quarter or date)

FY 2011CD-0
3/23/2005

CD-1
7/25/2008

PED
Complete
3QFY2012

CD-2
11/24/2009

CD-3
1QFY2010

Glovebox 2 and Confinement Doors(fiscal quarter or date)

FY 2011CD-0
3/23/2005

CD-1
7/25/2008

PED
Complete
3QFY2012

CD-2
3QFY2010

CD-3
TBD

Glovebox 3, Exhaust Stack, Uninterruptible Power Supply, Criticality Alarm System, and Vault
Water Tanks(fiscal quarter or date)

FY 2011CD-0
3/23/2005

CD-1
7/25/2008

PED
Complete
3QFY2012

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
11-D-801, TA-55 Reinvestment Project II, LANL

CD-2
3QFY2011
Page 175

CD-3
TBD

CD-4
TBD

D&D
Start
N/A

D&D
Complete
N/A

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

CD-0 – Approve Mission Need
CD-1 – Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range
CD-2 – Approve Performance Baseline
CD-3 – Approve Start of Construction
CD-4 – Approve Start of Operations or Project Closeout
D&D Start – Start of Demolition & Decontamination (D&D) work
D&D Complete –Completion of D&D work
3. Baseline and Validation Statusa

FY 2010
FY 2011

TEC,
PED
12,77913,684TEC,
Construction
TBD
TBD(dollars in thousands)
OPC
TEC,
Except
Total
D&D
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

OPC,
D&D
N/A
N/A

OPC, Total
TBD
TBD

TPC
TBD
TBD

(dollars in thousands)
OPC
TEC,
ExceptD&D
Total
19,030
440

OPC,
D&D
N/A

OPC, Total
440

TPC
19,470Air Dryers and Glovebox Group 1

FY 2011

TEC,
PED
3,700

TEC,
Construction
15,3304. Project Description, Justification, and Scope
The LANL Plutonium Facility (PF-4) major facility and infrastructure systems are aging andapproaching the end of their service life, and, as a consequence, are beginning to require excessive
maintenance. As a result, the facility is experiencing increased operating costs and reduced system
reliability. Compliance with safety and regulatory requirements is critical to mission essential
operations, and thus becoming more costly and cumbersome to maintain due to the physical conditionsof facility support systems and equipment.
This project will enhance safety and enable cost effective operations so that the facility can continue tosupport critical Defense Programs missions and activities. The TA-55 Reinvestment Project Team
identified 20 subprojects at the pre-conceptual stage for upgrades and modernization. The subprojects
were selected utilizing a risk-based prioritization process that considered the current condition of theequipment, risk of failure to the worker, the environment and the public, and risk of failure toprogrammatic and facility operations.
During Conceptual Design, the project continued to refine the prioritization method and subprojects.
Defense Program’s Infrastructure Revitalization combined with available/anticipated funding has led todevelopment of a phased acquisition strategy for the TRP project. To meet mission need objectives
within the budgetary availability and strategic context, the TRP project is proposed for execution as
three separate, distinct capital line item projects, TRP I, TRP II, and TRP III.
a

A performance baseline has only been established for the Air Dryers and Glovebox Group 1 portion of the project for$19,470,000.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
11-D-801, TA-55 Reinvestment Project II, LANL

Page 176

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetTRP II Overall Scope: Consists of seven (7) subprojects:
1. Replace existing Uninterruptible Power Supply with nuclear grade equipment and relocate from
Building PF-4 to Building PF-8 to allow simpler maintenance and proper exhaust and tominimize mixed waste generation.
2. Refurbish four existing air dryers and provide a cross connect between the 300 and 400 area
dryers so the 400 dryer can back up the 300 dryer. Modern controls will also be provided.
3. Replace eight existing PF-4 confinement doors to address operability and leak rate issues.
4. Replace 20 existing detectors and circuits with new and expandable detectors and electronics.
5. Replace two Pu238 water storage tanks and associated cooling systems. Relocation out of thevault to a space next to the vault will also be conducted.
6. Seismically brace and qualify approximately 210 glovebox stands in PF-4 to meet safety
requirements.
7. Replace two existing PF-4 exhaust stacks so that exhaust measuring equipment meets industry
standards.
The order in which these subprojects will be accomplished is subject to change, depending on thecondition of existing systems. For instance, if the water tanks are found in the future to be in imminent
danger of failure, there replacement would be accelerated.
Air Dryers and Glovebox Group 1 Scope:
All work mitigates nuclear safety risks called to the Department’s attention by the DNFSB in its
Recommendation 2009-2, Los Alamos National Laboratory Plutonium Facility Seismic Safety.”
Air Dryers – Replace and refurbishment air dryers in non-safety systems to ensure the reliability of
production processes in PF-4.
Glovebox Group 1 – Install internal and external bracing to approximately 11 higher priority gloveboxes
to ensure gloveboxes remain intact and do not topple during a seismic event. Installation of seismic
bracing will require removal and reinstallation of significant amounts of interfering piping, cables,
ventilation lines, and other systems supporting glovebox operation. The labor hours and costs of thework in Group 1 will be tracked and the information used to increase the accuracy of the performancebaselines for glovebox work in later phases.
The project is being conducted in accordance with the project management requirements in
DOE O 413.3A, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, and all
appropriate project management requirements have been met.
Funds appropriated for this construction project may be used to provide independent assessments of theplanning and execution of this line item project.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
11-D-801, TA-55 Reinvestment Project II, LANL

Page 177

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

5. Financial Schedule

Appropriations
Total Estimated Cost (TEC)PED
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
Total, PED (06-D-140-02)(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

1,439a
8,245
4,000
0
0
13,684

1,439
8,245
4,000
0
0
13,684

24
3,406
4,900
4,154
1,200
13,684

Construction
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
Total, Construction

20,00019,64020,221
20,46842,480
TBD
TBD

20,00019,64020,221
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

16,00019,64022,221
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

TEC
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
Total, TEC

1,439
8,245
4,000
20,00019,64020,221
20,46842,480
TBD
TBD

1,439
8,245
4,000
20,00019,64020,221
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

24
3,406
4,900
20,154
20,84022,221
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

854
1,919
980
1,343
582
410
3,300
2,800
2,600
TBD

854
1,919
980
1,343
582
410
3,300
2,800
2,600
TBD

854
1,919
980
1,343
582
410
3,300
2,800
2,600
TBD

Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&D
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014a

FY 2008 PED includes $360,000 that was transferred from TA-55 Reinvestment Project Phase I. Funding for both PED
projects were appropriated under the same project line within Project 06-D-140.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
11-D-801, TA-55 Reinvestment Project II, LANL

Page 178

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2015
Total, OPC except D&D

Appropriations
TBD
TBD

D&D
FY2010Total, D&D(dollars in thousands)
Obligations
TBD
TBD

Costs
TBD
TBD

NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA

854
1,919
980
1,343
582
410
3,300
2,800
2,600
TBD
TBD
TBD

854
1,919
980
1,343
582
410
3,300
2,800
2,600
TBD
TBD
TBD

854
1,919
980
1,343
582
410
3,300
2,800
2,600
TBD
TBD
TBD

854
1,919
980
2,782
8,827
4,410
23,30022,44022,821
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

854
1,919
980
2,782
8,827
4,410
23,30022,44022,821
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

854
1,919
980
1,367
3,988
5,310
23,454
23,64024,821
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

OPC
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
Total, OPC
Total Project Cost (TPC)FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
Total, TPC

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
11-D-801, TA-55 Reinvestment Project II, LANL

Page 179

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

6. Details of Project Cost Estimate(dollars in thousands)
Previous
Original
Total
Validated
Current Total
Estimate
Estimate
Baseline
Total Estimated Cost (TEC)
Design (PED)
DesignContingency
Total, PED (06-D-140)

13,684

N/A
N/A
N/A

TBD
TBD
TBD

Construction
Site Preparation
Equipment
Other Construction
Contingency
Total, Construction

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

Total, TEC
Contingency, TEC

TBD
TBD

N/A
N/A

TBD
TBD

OPC except D&D
Conceptual Planning
Conceptual Design
Start-UpContingency
Total, OPC except D&D

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

D&D
D&D
Contingency
Total, D&D

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

TBD
TBD
TBD

Total, OPC
Contingency, OPC

TBD
TBD

N/A
N/A

TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD
TBD

N/A
N/A
N/A

TBD
TBD
TBD

11,6192,065

Other Project Cost (OPC)

Total, TPC
Total, Contingency
Total

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
11-D-801, TA-55 Reinvestment Project II, LANL

Page 180

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

7. Schedule of Total Project Costs

FY 2011

Prior Years
TEC
9,684
OPC
5,678
TPC
15,362

FY 2010
4,000
410
4,410

FY 201120,0003,300
23,300(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015 Outyears
19,64020,221
20,46842,480
TBD
2,800
2,600
TBD
TBD
TBD
22,44022,821
20,46842,480
TBD

Total
TBD
TBD
TBD

8. Related Operations and Maintenance Funding Requirements
Start of Operation or Beneficial Occupancy (fiscal quarter or date)
Expected Useful Life (number of years)
Expected Future Start of D&D of this capital asset (fiscal quarter)

TBD
25
TBD

(Related Funding requirements)(dollars in thousands)
Annual Costs
Life Cycle Costs
Current
Previous
Current
Previous
Total
Total
Total
Total
Estimate Estimate
Estimate Estimate
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Operations
MaintenanceTotal, Operations & Maintenance

9. Required D&D Information
As the project is an investment in the infrastructure systems of an existing facility, construction anddemolition activities are minimal and are directly related to replacement and upgrade of these systems
Area
Area of new construction
Area of existing facility(s) being replaced
Area of additional D&D space to meet the “one-for-one” requirement

Square Feet
1,200
N/A
1,200

Name(s) and site location(s) of existing facility(s) to be replaced: Uninterruptible Power Supply isplanned to be relocated immediately outside of the existing structure (this represents the 1,200 squarefeet).
10. Acquisition Approach
Design and Construction Management will be implemented by the Los Alamos National Security
through the LANL Management and Operating Contract. The TRP Acquisition Strategy is based on
tailored procurement strategies for each subproject in order to mitigate risks. TRP Subprojects will be
implemented via LANL-issued final design/construction contracts based on detailed performancerequirements/specifications developed during the preliminary design phase.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
11-D-801, TA-55 Reinvestment Project II, LANL

Page 181

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 182

08-D-802, High Explosive Pressing Facility
Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas
Project Data Sheet (PDS) is for Construction
1. Significant Changes
The most recent DOE 0 413.3A approved Critical Decision (CD) is CD-3, Approve Start ofConstruction, for the High Explosive Pressing Facility (HEPF), approved on May 15, 2008. Baseline
Change Proposal 12A (BCP-12A) was approved by the DOE Acting Deputy Secretary on January 9,
2009, setting the Total Project Cost at $116,038,000 and the CD-4 date at May 2014.
In April 2009 NNSA deferred the construction phase of the project, but the project must be restarted in
FY 2011 because of increasing evidence of the deterioration of existing facilities. Delaying constructionof the HEPF project has created significant risk in the future capability to produce nuclear weapon
primaries in sufficient quantities to support mission requirements. The existing aged facilities,
infrastructure, and equipment are in poor condition and continue to fail. Pressing operations were downfrom April 6, 2009 to August 21, 2009 due to equipment failures. Deferred maintenance continues togrow in existing facilities. Facility systems have exceeded their design life (roofs, electrical, HVAC/
mechanical systems, etc.) and are failing. A major failure of the press, support equipment, or facility
systems could jeopardize stockpile requirements.
As a result of the construction deferment, the construction contract will have to be rebid in FY 2011.
The cost is projected to increase to approximately $138,212,000, and the CD-4 date is projected tochange December 2016. Additional funding beyond what appears in this data sheet in FY 2012 and/or
2013 will be required for project completion, based on actual construction bids in FY 2011. The projectwill reassess its baseline to support requesting additional funds in the FY 2012 President’s Budget
Request to replace the lost prior year balances included in the FY 2010 appropriation and to coveradditional costs due to the delay.
A Federal Project Director at the appropriate level has been assigned to this project.
This PDS is an update of the FY 2009 PDS.
2. Design, Construction, and D&D Schedule(fiscal quarter or date)

FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2011CD-0
8/8/2003
8/8/2003
8/8/2003

CD-1
7/19/2005
7/19/2005
7/19/2005

PED
Complete
3QFY2007
4QFY2008
3QFY2009

CD-2
11/21/2006
11/21/2006
11/21/2006

CD-3
4QFY2008
4QFY2008
5/15/2008

CD-4
2QFY2011
3QFY2012
1QFY2017

D&D Start
N/A
N/A
N/A

D&D
Complete
N/A
N/A
N/A

CD-0 – Approve Mission Need
CD-1 – Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range
CD-2 – Approve Performance Baseline
CD-3 – Approve Start of Construction
CD-4 – Approve Start of Operations or Project Closeout
Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
08-D-802, HE Pressing Facility, PX

Page 183

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

D&D Start – Start of Demolition & Decontamination (D&D) work
D&D Complete – Completion of D&D work
3. Baseline and Validation Status

FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2011

TEC,
PED
8,146
8,146
7,948a

TEC,
Construction
68,14072,334125,972(dollars in thousands)
TEC, Total
OPC
Except D&D
76,286
4,292
80,4804,507
133,920
4,292

OPC,
D&D
N/A
N/A
N/A

OPC, Total

TPC

4,292
4,507
4,292

80,57884,987138,212b

4. Project Description, Justification, and Scope
This project will provide a new high explosive (HE) main charge pressing facility with capability andcapacity to meet the needs of changing weapon complexity, projected workload, and the Life Extension
Program activities in the future including the W76, W78, and W88 Programs.
The facility improves safety, quality and efficiency of material movement. It reduces personnel
restrictions and eliminates human reliability program (HRP) requirements by its location outside theProtected Area. Benefits also include reduced administrative safety controls through improved
engineering controls, and reduced maintenance downtime.
The new facility will be located in the Limited Area of the Pantex Plant, and replaces existing operations
in buildings 12-17, 12-21A and 12-63. The facility will be designed to produce main charge pressing
hemispheres to meet future capacity requirements and will consist of approximately 45,000 square feetof space. Proposed areas include the main pressing facility, a magazine storage area, and a connecting
ramp.
The project is being conducted in accordance with the project management requirements in
DOE O 413.3A, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, and all
appropriate project management requirements have been met.
Funds appropriated under this data sheet may be used to provide independent assessments of theplanning and execution of this project.

a

PED reduced due to the loss of all uncosted project funds included in the FY 2010 use of prior year balances offset.

bThis PDS increases the TPC to $138,212,000 based on the delay of construction start from FY 2009 to FY 2011.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
08-D-802, HE Pressing Facility, PX

Page 184

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

5. Financial Schedule
Appropriations(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

Total Estimated Cost (TEC)PED
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
Total, PED (PED 04-D-103.2)

1,200
1,488
1,980
3,280a
0
0
7,948

1,200
1,488
1,980
3,280
0
0
7,948

0
330
2,184
3,055
1,755
624
7,948

Construction
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Total, Construction

613b
0c
0
30,00030,3590000060,972613
0030,00030,3590000060,972577
36
020,70030,400
9,259
0
0
0
0
60,972TEC
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Total, TEC

1,200
1,488
1,980
3,280
613
0
0
30,00030,35900000
68,920

1,200
1,488
1,980
3,280
613
0
0
30,00030,35900000
68,920

0
330
2,184
3,055
2,332
660
0
20,70030,400
9,259
0
0
0
0
68,920a

Original appropriation was $3,478,000 and was reduced by $197,613 as a use of prior year balance offset in the FY 2010
appropriation.

b

Original appropriation was $15,008,000 and was reduced to $613,387 to satisfy the use of prior year balance offset in the
FY 2010 appropriation.

cOriginal appropriation was $27,386,000 and was reduced to $0 as a use of prior year balance offset in the FY 2010
appropriation.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
08-D-802, HE Pressing Facility, PX

Page 185

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Appropriations(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&D
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Total, OPC Except D&D

860
281
158
200
150
20
0
170
300
300
500
500
553
300
4,292

860
281
158
200
150
20
0
170
300
300
500
500
553
300
4,292

860
281
158
200
150
20
0
170
300
300
500
500
553
300
4,292

0

0

0

Total OPC
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Total, OPC

860
281
158
200
150
20
0
170
300
300
500
500
553
300
4,292

860
281
158
200
150
20
0
170
300
300
500
500
553
300
4,292

860
281
158
200
150
20
0
170
300
300
500
500
553
300
4,292

Total Project Cost (TPC)FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015

2,060
1,769
2,138
3,480
763
20
0
30,17030,659
300
500
500

2,060
1,769
2,138
3,480
763
20
0
30,17030,659
300
500
500

860
611
2,342
3,255
2,482
680
0
20,87030,700
9,559
500
500

D&D

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
08-D-802, HE Pressing Facility, PX

Page 186

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Appropriations
FY 2016
FY 2017
Total, TPC(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

553
300
73,212

Costs

553
300
73,212553
300
73,212

6. Details of Project Cost Estimate(dollars in thousands)
Current Previous Original
Total
Total Validated
Estimate Estimate Baseline
Total Estimated Cost (TEC)
Design (PED)
DesignContingency
Total, PED

7,948
0
7,948

7,144
1,002
8,146

7,122
1,024
8,146

Construction
Site Preparation
Equipment
Other Construction
Contingency
Total, Construction

800
0a112,384
12,788125,972

0
6,589
58,087
7,658
72,3340
7,816
51,5798,745
68,140Total, TEC
Contingency, TEC

133,920
12,78880,4808,660

76,286
9,769

1,166
355
123
1,631
1,017
4,292

1,166
998
161
1,700
482
4,507

1,166
998
161
1,485
482
4,292

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

4,292
1,017

4,507
482

4,292
482

138,212
13,80584,9879,142

80,578
10,251Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&D
Conceptual Planning
Conceptual Design
Other
Start-UpContingency
Total, OPC except D&D
D&D
D&D
Contingency
Total, D&D
Total, OPC
Contingency, OPC

Total, TPC
Total, Contingency

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
08-D-802, HE Pressing Facility, PX

Page 187

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

7. Schedule of Total Project Costs

FY 2009
Performance
Baselie
FY 2010

FY 2011

TEC
OPC
TPC
TEC
OPC
TPC
TEC
OPC
TPC

Prior Years
51,387
1,809
53,19650,5401,669
52,2098,561
1,669
10,230FY 2010
17,028440
17,46800
0
0
00

FY 2011
0
1,800
1,800
0
0
0
30,000170
30,170(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014
0
0
0
243
0
0
243
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,359
0
0
300
300
500
30,659300
500

FY 2015
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
500
500

Outyears
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
853
853

Total
68,415
4,292
72,70750,5401,669
52,20968,920
4,292
73,212

8. Related Operations and Maintenance Funding Requirements
Start of Operation or Beneficial Occupancy (fiscal quarter or date)
Expected Useful Life (number of years)
Expected Future Start of D&D of this capital asset (fiscal quarter)

1QFY2017
30
N/A(Related Funding requirements)

Operations
MaintenanceTotal, Operations & Maintenance(dollars in thousands)
Annual Costs
Life Cycle Costs
Current Previous Current Previous
Total
Total
Total
Total
Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
400
400
460
460
1,400
1,400
1,460
1,460

9. Required D&D Information
Area
Area of new construction
Area of existing operations (s) being replaced
Area of additional D&D space to meet the “one-for-one” requirement

Square Feet
45,0006,727
N/A

Name(s) and site location(s) of existing facility(s) to be replaced: N/A
10. Acquisition Approach
Various alternatives were considered to include a Federally led and managed construction or utilizing
the current Management and Operating contractor, B&W Pantex, LLC. It was determined that, due tothe specialized functionality associated with this project, B&W Pantex, LLC will be responsible for Title
I, II, and III design & construction services.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
08-D-802, HE Pressing Facility, PX

Page 188

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

07-D-140 Project Engineering and Design, RTBF
Various Locations
Project Data Sheet (PDS) is for PED multiple projects
1. Significant Changes
The most recent DOE O 413.3A approved Critical Decision (CD) for the Transuranic (TRU) Waste
Facility Project is CD-0 (Approve Mission Need) that was approved on February 7, 2006, with Total
Project Cost (TPC) range of $20,000,000 to $60,000,000.
A Federal Project Director at the appropriate level has been assigned to the TRU Waste Facility project.
This PDS is an update of the FY 2009 PED PDS. This PDS requests funding in FY 2011 that was notshown in the previous PDS for the reasons discussed below.
The TRU Waste Facility Project is proposed to be built at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The
project team had submitted the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit to the State of
New Mexico Environmental Division in August 2007 to avoid delaying start of the construction.
However, the request was not approved and the state requested more detailed design information which
was not possible to provide because the project was still in the conceptual phase. The next time the state
accepts RCRA permit requests is in FY 2010. As a result, construction cannot be initiated until the
RCRA permit is approved. This will delay the construction start potentially to FY 2012 or later. The
PED funds previously appropriated in FY 2008 and 2009 will be available to begin preliminary design
work in FY 2010. The planned appropriations for line items funds have been delayed in order to ensurethat the planned capability is aligned with out year program requirements for solid waste. In FY 2009 a
programmatic study was completed to validate the need for the capability and ensure program
requirement alignment. Agreements on the planning assumptions and final project requirements will bereached by the 3rd quarter of FY 2010 resulting in any FY 2012 additional PED requests that are
required. Therefore, the total PED requirements and FY 2012 requests are presented as TBD. The
future design activities will be executed to support both the availability of funding and out year
capability alignment.
2. Design, Construction, and D&D Schedule(fiscal quarter or date)

FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011CD-0
02/07/2006a
02/07/2006
02/07/2006
02/07/2006
02/07/2006

CD-1
2QFY 2007
2QFY 2007
1Q FY 2008
1Q FY 2009
3Q FY 2010

PED
Complete
4Q FY 2008
4Q FY 2008
4Q FY 2009
TBD
TBD

CD-2
Various
Various
TBD
TBDb
TBD

CD-3
Various
Various
TBD
TBD
TBD

CD-4
Various
Various
TBD
TBD
TBD

a

Pertains to the TRU Waste CD-0 date only.

b

Schedules are to be determined. Preliminary CD-4 schedule range is 4Q FY 2016 to 4Q FY 2017.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
07-D-140, Project Engineering and Design, VL

D&D
Start
Various
Various
TBD
TBD
TBD

D&D
Complete
Various
Various
TBD
TBD
TBD

FY 2011 Congressional Budget
Page 189

CD-0 – Approve Mission Need
CD-1 – Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range
CD-2 – Approve Performance Baseline
CD-3 – Approve Start of Construction
CD-4 – Approve Start of Operations or Project Closeout
D&D Start – Start of Demolition & Decontamination (D&D) work
D&D Complete – Completion of D&D work
3. Baseline and Validation Status

FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011

TEC,
PED
TBD
7,477
7,477
9,898
19,898TBD

TEC,
Construction
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

(dollars in thousands)
OPC
TEC, Total
Except D&D
TBD
NA
7,477
NA
7,477
NA
9,898
NA
19,898
NA
TBD
NA

OPC,
D&D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

OPC, Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

TPC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

4. Project Description, Justification, and Scope
This project provides for Architect-Engineering (A-E) services for National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) construction projects, allowing designated projects to proceed from conceptual
design into preliminary design and final design. The design effort will be sufficient to assure project
feasibility, define the scope, provide detailed estimates of construction costs based on the approved
design and working drawings and specifications, and provide construction schedules, including
procurements. The designs will be extensive enough to establish performance baselines and to support
construction or long-lead procurements in the fiscal year in which line item construction funding isrequested and appropriated.
Conceptual design studies are prepared for each project using Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
funds prior to receiving design funding under a PED line item. These conceptual design studies define
the scope of the project and produce a rough cost estimate and schedule.
The FY 2007 PED design projects are described below. While not anticipated, some changes may occur
due to continuing conceptual design studies or developments occurring after submission of this data
sheet. These changes will be reflected in subsequent years. Preliminary estimates for the cost of
preliminary and final design and engineering efforts for each subproject are provided. The final TEC
and the Total Project Cost (TPC) for the project described below will be validated and the Performance
Baseline will be established at Critical Decision 2 (CD-2), following completion of preliminary design.
Funds appropriated under this data sheet may be used to provide independent assessments of theplanning and execution of this project.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
07-D-140, Project Engineering and Design, VL

FY 2011 Congressional Budget
Page 190

07-01: Consolidate and Renovate Computing Facilities, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City

A-E Work
Initiated
2Q FY 2007

Fiscal Quarter
A-E Work
PhysicalCompleted
Construction
Start
1Q FY 2007
2Q FY 2008

Fiscal Year
2007

PhysicalConstruction
Complete
2Q FY 2011

Appropriations ($000)

Total Estimated
Cost (DesignOnly) ($000)
1,977

Obligations ($000)
0Preliminary Full
Total EstimatedProjection($000)
22,200 – 27,000
Costs ($000)

00This project has been cancelled.
07-02: TRU Waste Facility, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Fiscal Quarter
A-E Work
Initiated

A-E Work
Completed

PhysicalConstruction Start

PhysicalConstruction
Complete

3Q FY 2010

TBD

TBD

TBD

Fiscal Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

Appropriations

Total
Estimated
Cost (DesignOnly) ($000)

Preliminary Full
Total Estimated
Cost Projection($000)TBD

TBD

Obligations
0
2,452a
7,223
0
5,000
TBDb

Costs
0
0
0
9,312
5,363
0

0
0
0
5,586
5,312
3,777

The Department of Energy (DOE) signed an Order of Consent (“Consent Order”) with the State of
New Mexico, effective March 1, 2005. The Consent Order requires DOE to complete a “fence-tofence” cleanup of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) by December 29, 2015. “Fence-to-fence”
means removal and/or remediation of contaminants that reside in the environment at LANL. As part of
the Consent Order, the State of New Mexico has identified four Material Disposal Areas (MDAs) in
TA-54. The current set of TRU waste storage and process facilities resides in MDA G. MDA G will
undergo a phased closure, consistent with the Consent Order, to be completed by December 29, 2015. It
will not be feasible, practical, or realistic to attempt to keep the TRU facilities operational in the midst of
Area G closure activities. Therefore, the TRU waste management capability must be reconstituted,aOriginal FY 2008 appropriation was $2,474,000. This was reduced by $22,091 as a result of a mandatory rescission in the
FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161).

b

Agreements on the planning assumptions and final project requirements will be reached by the 3rd quarter of FY 2010
resulting in any FY 2012 additional PED requests that are required. Therefore, the total PED requirements and FY 2012
requests are presented as TBD. The future design activities will be executed to support both the availability of funding andout year capability alignment.
Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
07-D-140, Project Engineering and Design, VL

FY 2011 Congressional Budget
Page 191

commissioned, and in operation at a location outside of the closure boundaries, before the corrective
actions to close MDA G begins. Closure of MDA G is scheduled to start in FY 2012 and must becompleted by December 29, 2015.
The project is being conducted in accordance with the project management requirements in DOE
O 413.3A, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, and all appropriate
project management requirements have been met or will be met.
Funds appropriated under this data sheet may be used to provide independent assessments of theplanning and execution of this project.
5. Financial Schedule
Appropriations(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

Total Estimated Cost (TEC)PED
FY 2007a
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
Total, PED
Construction
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
Total, ConstructionTEC
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
Total, TEC

02,452bc
7,223
0
5,000
TBD
TBD

0
0
0
9,312
5,363
TBD
TBD

0
0
0
5,586
5,312
3,777
TBD

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

0
2,452
7,223
0
5,000
TBD
TBD

0
0
0
9,312
5,363
TBD
TBD

0
0
0
5,586
5,312
3,777
TBD

a

No funds were allocated to this PED Line Item, during the year-long continuing resolution.

b

These PED funds are entirely for the TRU Waste Facility Project at LANL.

c

Original FY 2008 appropriation was $2,474,000. This was reduced by $22,091 as a result of a mandatory rescission in the
FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161).

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
07-D-140, Project Engineering and Design, VL

FY 2011 Congressional Budget
Page 192

Appropriations(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&D
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
Total, OPC except D&D

NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA

D&D
FY 2009
Total, D&D

NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA

OPC
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
Total, OPC

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
2,452
7,223
0
5,000
TBD
TBD

NA
NA
0
0
9,312
5,363
TBD
TBD

NA
NA
0
0
5,586
5,312
3,777
TBD

Total Project Cost (TPC)FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
Total, TPC

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
07-D-140, Project Engineering and Design, VL

FY 2011 Congressional Budget
Page 193

6. Details of Project Cost Estimate(dollars in thousands)
Current
Previous
Original
Total
Total
Validated
Estimate Estimate
Baseline
Total Estimated Cost (TEC)
Design (PED)
DesignContingency
Total, PED

TBD
TBD
TBD

8,432
1,466
9,898

NA
NA
NA

Construction
Site Preparation
Equipment
Other Construction
Contingency
Total, Construction

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

Total, TEC
Contingency, TEC

TBD
TBD

9,898
1,466

NA
NA

OPC except D&D
Conceptual Planning
Conceptual Design
Start-UpContingency
Total, OPC except D&D

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

D&D
D&D
Contingency
Total, D&D

NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA

Total, OPC
Contingency, OPC

NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA

Other Project Cost (OPC)

Total, TPC
Total, Contingency

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
07-D-140, Project Engineering and Design, VL

FY 2011 Congressional Budget
Page 194

7. Schedule of Total Project Costs

FY 2010

FY 2011

TEC
OPC
TPC
TEC
OPC
TPC

Prior Years
9,898
0
9,898
9,675
0
9,675

FY 2010
0
0
0
0
0
0

FY 2011
0
0
0
5,000
0
5,000

(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

FY 2015
0
0
0
0
0
0

Outyears
0
0
0
0
0
0

Total
9,898
0
9,898
14,6750
14,675

8. Related Operations and Maintenance Funding Requirements
Start of Operation or Beneficial Occupancy (fiscal quarter or date)

NA

Expected Useful Life (number of years)
Expected Future Start of D&D of this capital asset (fiscal quarter)

NA
NA(Related Funding requirements)(dollars in thousands)
Annual Costs
Life Cycle Costs
Current
Previous
Current
Previous
Total
Total
Total
Total
Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

Operations
MaintenanceTotal, Operations & Maintenance

9. Required D&D Information
Area

Square Feet

Area of new construction
Area of existing facility(s) being replaced
Area of additional D&D space to meet the “one-for-one” requirement

NA
NA
NA

Name(s) and site location(s) of existing facility(s) to be replaced: Not applicable for PED.
10. Acquisition Approach
Not applicable for PED.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
07-D-140, Project Engineering and Design, VL

FY 2011 Congressional Budget
Page 195

Page 196

06-D-140, Project Engineering and Design (PED), Various Locations
Project Data Sheet (PDS) is for PED (multiple projects)
1. Significant Changes
The most recent DOE O 413.3A approved Critical Decision (CD) for the Radioactive Liquid Waste
Treatment Facility Upgrade (RLWTF) Project is CD-2A, Approval of Performance Baseline for the
Zero Liquid Discharge subproject. CD-2A was approved on 11/22/2006 with a total project cost (TPC)of $9,579,000 and CD-4 of September 2012. CD-1 for the RLWTF project was approved on 6/5/2006
with a preliminary cost range of $82,000,000 to $104,000,000. An internal reprogramming occurred in
FY 2009 which increased the RLWTF PED by $4,900,000.
The TA-55 Radiography Facility Project has been cancelled and all funds have been realigned to theRadioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility Project.
The most recent DOE O 413.3A approved CD for the TA-55 Reinvestment Project (TRP) Phase I is
CD-3, Approval of Construction Start, on March 6, 2009 with a TPC of $21,478,000 and CD-4 ofSeptember 2010. A Federal Project Director at the appropriate level has been assigned to the TRP I
Project.
The most recent DOE O 413.3A approved CD for the TA-55 Reinvestment Project (TRP) Phase II is
CD-2A, Approval of Performance Baseline for Air Dryers and Glovebox Group 1. CD-2A wasapproved on November 24, 2009, with a TPC of $19,500,000 and a CD-4A date of October 2013. A
Federal Project Director at the appropriate level has been assigned to the TRP II Project.
The Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) Project was previously appropriated in this PDS. However,Congress directed in the FY 2010 Conference Report accompanying P.L. 111-85 that the project beseparated out as its own data sheet. All future PED requests for the UPF Project are now contained in
the data sheet 06-D-141.
This PDS is an update of the FY 2009 internal reprogramming notification PDS.
2. Design, Construction, and D&D Schedule(fiscal quarter or date)
CD-0
Various
Various
Various
Various

FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2009
Reprogramming Various
FY 2010
Various
FY 2011
Variousa

CD-1
1QFY2006
1QFY2006
1QFY2006
1QFY2006

PED
Complete
3QFY2009
3QFY2009
3QFY2009
2QFY2012

CD-2
Various
Various
Various
Various

CD-3
Various
Various
Various
Various

CD-4
Various
Various
Various
Various

D&D Start
Various
Various
Various
Various

D&D
Complete
Various
Various
Various
Various

1QFY2006
1QFY2006
1QFY2006

2QFY2013
2QFY2013
2QFY2012a

Various
Various
Various

Various
Various
Various

Various
Various
Various

Various
Various
Various

Various
Various
Various

Reflects removal of UPF PED (06-D-140-05) from this PDS.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
06-D-140, Project Engineering and Design – RTBF

Page 197

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

CD-0 – Approve Mission Need
CD-1 – Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range
CD-2 – Approve Performance Baseline
CD-3 – Approve Start of Construction
CD-4 – Approve Start of Operations or Project Closeout
D&D Start – Start of Demolition & Decontamination (D&D) work
D&D Complete – Completion of D&D work
3. Baseline and Validation Statusa
TEC,
PED
92,213
108,795
TBD
343,619

FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2009
Reprogramming 365,551
FY 2010
342,855
FY 2011
192,929

TEC,
Construction
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

(dollars in thousands)
OPC
TEC, Total
Except D&D
92,213
N/A
108,795
N/A
TBD
N/A
343,619
N/A

OPC,
D&D
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

OPC, Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

TPC
92,213
108,795
TBD
343,619

365,551
342,855
192,929b

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

365,551
342,855
192,929

N/A
N/A
N/A

4. Project Description, Justification, and Scope
This project provides for Architect-Engineering (A-E) services for Readiness in Technical Base andFacilities (RTBF) construction projects, allowing designated projects to proceed from conceptual design
into preliminary design and final design. The design effort will be sufficient to assure project feasibility,
define the scope, provide detailed estimates of construction costs based on the approved design andworking drawings and specifications, and provide construction schedules, including procurements. The
designs will be extensive enough to establish performance baselines and to support construction or longlead procurements in the fiscal year in which line item construction funding is requested andappropriated.
Conceptual design studies are prepared for each project using Operations and Maintenance funds prior
to receiving design funding under a PED line item. These conceptual design studies define the scope of
the project and produce a rough cost estimate and schedule.
FY 2006 PED design projects are described below. Some changes have occurred due to continuing
conceptual design studies or developments occurring after submission of this data sheet. These changes
have been reflected in subsequent years. Preliminary estimates for the cost of preliminary and final
design and engineering efforts for each subproject are provided, as well as very preliminary estimates of
the total estimated cost (TEC), including physical construction, of each subproject. The final TEC andthe TPC for each project described below will be validated and the Performance Baseline will beestablished at CD-2, following completion of preliminary design.
a

The TEC is for design only for the subprojects currently included in this data sheet.

b

Reflects removal of all future UPF PED (06-D-140-05) from this PDS.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
06-D-140, Project Engineering and Design – RTBF

Page 198

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

TA-55 Reinvestment (TRP) Phase I has an approved baseline. The remaining projects listed in this data
sheet do not have an approved performance baseline; therefore, all costs and schedule are preliminary
until CD-2 is approved.
The project is being conducted in accordance with the project management requirements in DOE
O 413.3A, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, and all appropriate
project management requirements have been met.
Funds appropriated under this data sheet may be used to provide independent assessments of theplanning and execution of these projects.
5. Financial Schedule
Appropriations(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

Total Estimated Cost (TEC)PED
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
Total, PED

12,37916,57741,552
106,421
12,0004,000
0192,929

10,00014,60040,562
111,767
11,0005,000
0192,929362
8,441
39,05892,08039,634
12,154
1,200
192,929

TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD

TEC (PED)
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
Total TEC (PED)
Other Project Cost (OPC)

12,37916,57741,552
106,421
12,0004,000
0192,929

10,00014,60040,562
111,767
11,0005,000
0192,929362
8,441
39,05892,08039,634
12,154
1,200
192,929

Total, OPC except D&D

TBD

TBD

TBD

Construction
FY
Total, Construction

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
06-D-140, Project Engineering and Design – RTBF

Page 199

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Appropriations(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

D&D
Total, D&D

TBD

TBD

TBD

OPC
Total, OPC

TBD

TBD

TBD

Total Project Cost (TPC)
Total, TPC

TBD

TBD

TBD

06-01: TA-55 Radiography Facility, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)
Fiscal Quarter
A-E Work
Initiated

A-E Work
Completed

PhysicalConstruction
Start

TBD

TBD

TBD

Fiscal Year
2006
2007a
2008b

Appropriations
000

PhysicalConstruction
Complete

Total
Estimated
Cost (Design
Only ($000)

Preliminary Full
Total Estimated
Cost Projection($000)

TBD

6,336

29,000-47,000

Obligations
0
0
0

Costs
0
0
0

The TA-55 Radiography Project has been cancelled. Funds have been reprogrammed to subproject 0603, Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility Project.

aOf the total funds appropriated in FY 2006 for this project 06-D-140, the entire $141,130 or 1 percent rescission included in
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2006 (P.L. 109-148) was applied against subproject 06-01, TA-55 Radiography
Facility.

b

Of the $2,500,000 funds appropriated in FY 2008 for 06-D-140.01, a reduction of $1,510,000 was included in theConsolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 against subproject 06-01, TA-55 Radiography Facility.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
06-D-140, Project Engineering and Design – RTBF

Page 200

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

06-02: TA-55 Reinvestment Project Phases I and II, LANL
TA-55 Reinvestment Phase I
Fiscal Quarter
A-E Work
Initiated

A-E Work
Completed

PhysicalConstruction
Start

3QFY2006

4QFY2009

3QFY2009

Fiscal Year

Appropriations

2006
2007
2008
2009
Total

2,000
1,500
540
0
4,040aPhysicalConstruction
Complete

Total
Estimated
Cost (Design
Only ($000)

Preliminary Full
Total Estimated
Cost Projection($000)

1QFY2011

4,400

21,478

Obligations

Costs

2,000
1,500
540
0
4,040

0
1,744
1,743
553
4,040

TA-55 Reinvestment Phase II
Fiscal Quarter
A-E Work
Initiated

A-E Work
Completed

PhysicalConstruction
Start

4QFY2008

1QFY2012

TBD

Fiscal Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

Appropriations
1,439a
8,245
4,000
0
0

Total

13,684

PhysicalConstruction
Complete

Total
Estimated
Cost (Design
Only ($000)

Preliminary Full
Total Estimated
Cost Projection($000)

TBD

14,524$75.4M – $99.9M

Obligations
1,439
8,245
4,000
0
0

Costs
24
3,406
4,900
4,154
1,200

13,684

13,684

A phased acquisition strategy has been developed for the TRP project. The TRP project is proposed forexecution as three separate, distinct capital line item projects, TRP I, TRP II, and TRP III. The PED
funding requested above supports the first two phases of TRP. PED funding for the TRP III project tobe considered in the future under a separate data sheet.
The TA-55 Reinvestment Project is intended to provide for selective replacement and upgrades of major
facility and infrastructure systems to NNSA's key nuclear weapons research and development facility,
the Plutonium Facility (PF-4) and related structures, located at LANL's TA-55. The objective of theTA-55 Reinvestment Project is to extend the useful life of PF-4 and the safety systems that support its
critical operations to assure continued capability to reliably support Defense Programs missions for ana$360,000 was transferred from TA-55 Reinvestment Project Phase I to Reinvestment Project Phase II.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
06-D-140, Project Engineering and Design – RTBF

Page 201

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

additional 25 years. The project will ensure the vitality and readiness of the NNSA nuclear security
enterprise to meet the threat of the 21st century.
The PF-4's major facility and infrastructure systems are aging and approaching the end of their service
life, and, as a consequence, are beginning to require excessive maintenance. As a result, the facility isexperiencing increased operating costs and reduced system reliability. Compliance with safety andregulatory requirements is critical to mission essential operations, and thus becoming more costly andcumbersome to maintain due to the physical conditions of facility support systems and equipment. This
project will enhance safety and enable cost effective operations so that the facility can continue tosupport critical Defense Programs missions and activities.
The scope of this project includes upgrading, replacing, and retrofitting TA-55 facility and infrastructure
systems such as mechanical (heating ventilation and air conditioning; high efficiency particulate air),electrical (standby and emergency power), and utility systems (process gasses and liquids, piping),
safety, facility monitoring and control, structural components, architectural (i.e., coatings), and othersystems and components, as candidate options. The candidate systems and scope have been defined by
the facility and program management staff with engagement by the LANL facility maintenanceorganization through a prioritized, risk-based selection process during the pre-conceptual phase that has
been refined during conceptual design.
06-03: Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility Upgrade, LANL
Fiscal Quarter
A-E Work
Initiated

A-E Work
Completed

PhysicalConstruction
Start

3QFY2006

TBD

TBD

PhysicalConstruction
Complete

Total
Estimated
Cost (Design
Onlya ($000)

Preliminary Full
Total Estimated
Cost Projection($000)

TBD

35,00058,000-80,000ba

The PED funds will be used to execute preliminary and final design for the Nuclear Facility and preliminary design for the
Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD). The final design of the ZLD will be executed using line item funding based on thedesign/build acquisition strategy.

b

The TEC and Total Project Cost TPC for this project are based on conceptual design estimate range and are consistent withprevious budget requests. The final cost estimate developed with the final design will be used to establish the performancebaseline at CD-2.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
06-D-140, Project Engineering and Design – RTBF

Page 202

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Fiscal Year

Appropriations

Obligations

Costs

2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011

a

5,379
10,077b990c
7,554d
8,000
4,000

3,000
8,100
0
12,900
7,000
5,000

362
6,020
3,341
8,937
9,340
8,000

Total

36,00036,00036,000

The radioactive liquid waste (RLW) treatment and disposal capability at Los Alamos National
Laboratory supports 15 technical areas, 63 buildings, and 1,800 sources of RLW. This capability must
be continuously available to receive and treat liquid waste generated from Stockpile Stewardship
activities. LANL has a 50-year mission need for facilities and processes that can accept, store, and treat
RLW in support of this long-term mission.
Significant portions of the RLW system are over 40 years old and their reliability is significantly
diminishing. The recent transuranic storage tank failure demonstrated the inability of RLW components
to remain in service beyond their design life. The treatment facility is in need of significant upgrades inorder to comply with current codes and standards including International Building Code, seismic
design/construction codes and the National Electric Code (NEC). Recent authorization basis decisions
regarding connected facilities at TA-50, where the treatment facility is located, have highlighted theneed for enhanced seismic conformance. Continuous workarounds are required to keep systems runningand excessive corrosion threatens system availability. Degraded and outdated facility systems pose
elevated risk to workers.
This project will re-capitalize, at a minimum, the following RLW treatment capabilities at LANL andreduce the liquid discharge to Mortandad Canyon to zero: Transuranic (TRU) waste treatment, Low-level waste (LLW) treatment, Secondary waste treatment,
 RLW discharge system/(ZLD), and TRU influent storage.

aOriginal FY 2006 appropriation was $3,000,000. At the discretion of the Program Secretarial Officer, $1,859,000 wastransferred from 06-01 and $520,000 was transferred from 06-04.

b

Original FY 2007 appropriation was $8,100,000. At the discretion of the Program Secretarial Officer, $1,977,000 wastransferred from 06-01.

cOriginal FY 2008 appropriation was $0. At the discretion of the Program Secretarial Officer, $990,000 was transferredfrom 06-01.

dOriginal FY 2009 appropriation was $0. $2,654,000 was realigned from 06-D-140-05, PED UPF, in FY 2009. An internal
reprogramming realigned $4,900,000 from 07-D-220, RLWTF to 06-D-140-03, PED RLWTF in FY 2009.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
06-D-140, Project Engineering and Design – RTBF

Page 203

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

06-05, Uranium Processing Facility, Y-12 National Security Complex
Fiscal Quarter
A-E Work
Initiated

A-E Work
Completed

PhysicalConstruction
Start

2QFY2006

2QFY2014

TBD

Appropriations
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total

5,000
5,000
38,58390,622a0
139,205

PhysicalConstruction
Complete

Total
Estimated
Cost (Design
Only ($000)

Preliminary Cost
Range($000)

TBD

311,627$1,400,000-3,500,000(dollars in thousands)
Obligations
5,000
5,000
38,58390,6220139,205

Costs
0
677
33,95079,18425,394
139,205

All future PED funding requests for the UPF subproject have moved to 06-D-141 as directed by
Congress in the FY 2010 Conference Report accompanying P.L. 111-85.
6. Details of Project Cost Estimate(dollars in thousands)
Current Previous Original
Total
Total Validated
Estimate Estimate Baseline
Total Estimated Cost (TEC)
Design (PED)
DesignContingency
Total, PED

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

Construction
Site Preparation
Equipment
Other Construction
Contingency
Total, Construction

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Total, TEC
Contingency, TEC

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&D
Conceptual Planning
Conceptual Design
Start-Upa

Original FY 2009 appropriation was $93,276,000. $2,654,000 was realigned to 06-D-140-03, PED RLWTF, in FY 2009.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
06-D-140, Project Engineering and Design – RTBF

Page 204

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Contingency
Total, OPC except D&D(dollars in thousands)
Current Previous Original
Total
Total Validated
Estimate Estimate Baseline
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

D&D
D&D
Contingency
Total, D&D

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

Total, OPC
Contingency, OPC

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

Total, TPC
Total, Contingency

7. Schedule of Total Project Costsa

FY 2010

FY 2011

TEC
O PC
TPC
TEC
O PC
TPC

(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014
50,00012,728

Prior Years
172,029

FY 201070,678FY 2011
55,216

172,029
176,929

70,67812,00055,2164,000

50,000012,7280176,929

12,000

4,000

0

0

FY 2015

Outyears

0
0

0

0

0

0

0

Total
360,6510360,651
192,929
0
192,929

8. Related Operations and Maintenance Funding Requirements
Start of Operation or Beneficial Occupancy (fiscal quarter or date)
Expected Useful Life (number of years)
Expected Future Start of D&D of this capital asset (fiscal quarter)

Various
Various
N/A(Related Funding requirements)

Operations
MaintenanceTotal, Operations & Maintenance(dollars in thousands)
Annual Costs
Life Cycle Costs
Current Previous Current Previous
Total
Total
Total
Total
Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

___________________a

FY 2011 row reflects removal of all future PED funding requests for 06-D-140-05, UPF Project from this PDS.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
06-D-140, Project Engineering and Design – RTBF

Page 205

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

9. Required D&D Information
Area
Area of new construction
Area of existing facility(s) being replaced
Area of additional D&D space to meet the “one-for-one” requirement

Square Feet
N/A
N/A
N/A

Name(s) and site location(s) of existing facility(s) to be replaced: N/A
10. Acquisition Approach
Not applicable for PED.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
06-D-140, Project Engineering and Design – RTBF

Page 206

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

06-D-141, Uranium Processing Facility, Y-12 National Security Complex,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Project Data Sheet (PDS) is for Preliminary Engineering and Design (PED) and Construction
1. Significant Changes
The most recent DOE O 413.3A approved Critical Decision (CD) is CD-1, Approve Alternative
Selection and Cost Range. CD-1 was approved on 07/25/2007 with a cost range of $1,400,000,000 to$3,500,000,000 and a CD-4 of September 2018.
This PDS combines both design and construction funding for the UPF project.
This request reduces the schedule risk by allowing early start of site preparation. With these funds the
project will be able to excavate the foundation, prepare the surrounding area for work and be positioned
to initiate full construction in FY 2012.
A Federal Project Director at the appropriate level has been assigned to this project.
This project data sheet is new for FY 2011; however, it continues the efforts started under 06-D-140,
Project Engineering & Design, VL. In FY 2010, Congress directed that PED for the UPF project beseparated from the other PED projects in the previous data sheet, 06-D-140 to improve oversight of thisproject.
2. Design, Construction, and D&D Schedule(fiscal quarter or date)

FY 2011CD-0
12/17/04

CD-1
07/25/07

PED Complete
2QFY2014

CD-2
TBD

CD-3
TBD

CD-4
TBD

D&D Start
TBD

D&D
Complete
TBD

CD-0 – Approve Mission Need
CD-1 – Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range
CD-2 – Approve Performance Baseline
CD-3 – Approve Start of Construction
CD-4 – Approve Start of Operations or Project Closeout
D&D Start – Start of Demolition & Decontamination (D&D) work
D&D Complete –Completion of D&D work

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction
06-D-141 Uranium Processing Facility, Y-12

FY 2011 Congressional Budget
Page 207

3. Baseline and Validation Status

TEC,
PED
FY 2011308,627(dollars in thousands)
TEC,
OPC
OPC,
Construction TEC, Total Except D&D
D&D
935,000 –1,124,00 276,000 1,604,000
1,928,000
472,000
TBD

OPC, Total
TBD

TPC
1,400,000 –
3,500,000

4. Project Description, Justification, and Scope
Project Description
The Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) is a major system acquisition that was selected in the Record ofDecision for the Complex Transformation Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
to ensure the long-term viability, safety, and security of the Enriched Uranium (EU) capability at the
Y-12 National Security Complex. The UPF will provide new facilities and equipment to consolidate all
EU operations at Y-12 into a single, modern facility with state-of-the-art technologies and safeguards
and security concepts and strategies. The goals and objectives of UPF are:

Ensure the long-term capability and improving the reliability of EU operations through consolidationof facilities;

Replace deteriorating, end-of-life facilities with a modern manufacturing facility;

Significantly improve the health and safety posture for workers and the public by replacing
administrative controls with engineered controls to manage the risks related to worker safety,
criticality safety, fire protection, and environmental compliance;Accomplish essential upgrades to security at Y-12 necessary to carry out mission-critical activities
and implement the Graded Security Protection Policy, andAllow the Y-12 site to accomplish a 90 percent reduction in its high-security footprint.

Justification
The UPF is needed to ensure the long-term viability, safety, and security of the EU capability at Y-12 in
Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The UPF will support the Nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile, down blending of
EU in support of nonproliferation, and provide uranium as feedstock for fuel for naval reactors.
Currently these capabilities reside in aged and “genuinely decrepit” facilities as noted by the Perry
Commission. There is substantial risk that the existing facilities will continue to age to the point ofsignificant impact to Defense Programs, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors
programs. The impacts could result in loss of the U.S. capability to maintain the nuclear weapons
stockpile through life extension programs, shutdown of the U.S. Navy nuclear powered fleet due to lackof EU fuel feedstock materials, and impact to the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program’s ability to
reduce the enrichment level of foreign research reactors through supply of lower enrichment fuels
manufactured at Y-12. The risk of inadvertent or accidental shutdown of the existing facilities is high.
Due to the increasing risk a planned shutdown may be necessary prior to completion and startup of a
replacement facility, i.e., the UPF.
Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction
06-D-141 Uranium Processing Facility, Y-12

FY 2011 Congressional Budget
Page 208

The UPF will reduce annual operating cost for Y-12 in excess of $200,000,000 per year through theconsolidation of facilities, reduced transfer of materials, reduction in emissions and waste management,
reduction in protective forces required for security, and efficiency gains resulting from the reduction of
the Protected Area footprint. The UPF will also save approximately $3,200,000,000 (net present value
dollars) over the life of the project.
Scope
The UPF will consolidate all Category I and II EU operations into a single, modern facility with state-ofthe-art technologies and safeguards and security concepts and strategies. UPF will include facilities andequipment required to accomplish the following EU processing operations
Disassembly and dismantlement of returned weapons subassemblies;

Assembly of subassemblies from refurbished and new components;

Quality evaluation to assess future reliability of weapons systems in the stockpile;Product certification (dimensional inspection, physical testing, and radiography);

EU metalworking, and

Chemical processing including conversion of scrap and salvage EU to metal, stable, or disposable
forms.

The EU processing operations will be housed in a multi-story, reinforced concrete building. The
primary building will be seismically designed to protect the building and its contents as required by theapplicable safety analysis. A combination of reinforced concrete, concrete masonry units and metal studand gypsum board walls will be used for interior partitions. The building provides space for EU
processing systems and will also house supporting and administrative areas.
The existing site Perimeter Intrusion Detection and Alarm System (PIDAS) or similar system will be
extended to enclose UPF within the same Protected Area as the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials
Facility (HEUMF). Additional portals will be included to permit access to the facility. Access andalarm systems will be provided as required to meet the site security requirements.
A Fire Water tie in line to the HEUMF will also be provided. Systems will be provided to accommodate
the transfer of nuclear and non-nuclear materials between UPF and other Y-12 facilities.
The project will be conducted in accordance with the project management requirements in DOE
O 413.3A, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, and all appropriate
project management requirements have been met.
Funds appropriated under this data sheet may be used to provide independent assessments of theplanning and execution of this project.
Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction
06-D-141 Uranium Processing Facility, Y-12

FY 2011 Congressional Budget
Page 209

FY 2011 activities include preliminary and final design activities for the facility and associated services
and equipment. As part of the project planning activities to be conducted, the project is considering theoption of awarding multiple CD-2 and CD-3 packages in FY 2011 for smaller, more manageable,
projects in order to ensure commitments for cost and schedule are met. These activities may include
long-lead procurement of a number of specialty systems and components which involve equipment
manufacturer design, in order to meet the construction schedule and installation as well as for readinesstesting prior to start of operations. Also, early start of site preparation and site utilities may be sought toprepare the surrounding area for work and position the project to undertake full construction activities in
FY 2012. No funding will be used for these purposes until a limited project performance baseline has
been validated and the appropriate milestone in accordance with DOE O 413.3A has been approved.
5. Financial Schedule(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Appropriations

Costs

Total Estimated Cost (TEC)PEDa
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
Total, PED

5,000
5,000
38,58390,622
94,000155,0162,928
0
0351,149

5,000
5,000
38,58390,622
94,000155,0162,928
0
0351,149

0
677
33,95075,00090,00073,491
26,78730,376
20,868351,149

Construction
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Total, Construction

0
102,472
189,987
270,012
320,000
TBD
TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

TEC
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012

5,000
5,000
38,58390,622
94,000115,016
105,400

5,000
5,000
38,58390,622
94,000
TBD
TBD

0
677
33,95075,00090,000
TBD
TBDa

PED for FY 2006 – FY 2009 was appropriated under 06-D-140, Project Engineering & Design, VL.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction
06-D-141 Uranium Processing Facility, Y-12

FY 2011 Congressional Budget
Page 210

FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Total, TEC

Appropriations
189,987
270,012
320,000
TBD
TBD
TBD

(dollars in thousands)
Obligations
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

Costs
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

OPC, except D&D
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Total, OPC

12,113
7,809
10,082
11,73014,00019,29624,179
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

12,113
7,809
10,082
11,73014,000
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

12,113
7,809
10,082
11,73014,000
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

Total Project Cost (TPC)FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Total, TPC

12,11312,80915,08250,313
104,622
113,296
139,195
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

12,11312,80915,08250,313
104,622
113,296
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

12,113
7,809
10,75945,68093,184
129,374
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction
06-D-141 Uranium Processing Facility, Y-12

FY 2011 Congressional Budget
Page 211

6. Details of Project Cost Estimate(dollars in thousands)
Current Previous Original
Total
Total Validated
Estimate Estimate Baseline
Total Estimated Cost (TEC)
Design (PED)
DesignContingency
Total, PED

286,149
65,000351,149

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

Construction
Site Preparation
Equipment
Other Construction
Contingency
Total, Construction

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Total, TEC
Contingency, TEC

TBD
TBD

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

OPC except D&D
Conceptual Planning
Conceptual Design
Start-UpContingency
Total, OPC except D&D

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

D&D
D&D
Contingency
Total, D&D

TBD
TBD
TBD

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

Total, OPC
Contingency, OPC

TBD
TBD

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

TBD
TBD

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

Other Project Cost (OPC)

Total, TPC
Total, Contingency

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction
06-D-141 Uranium Processing Facility, Y-12

FY 2011 Congressional Budget
Page 212

7. Schedule of Total Project Costs

FY 2011

Prior Years
TEC
139,205
OPC
55,734TPC
194,939

FY 201094,00019,296113,296

FY 2011
115,016
24,179139,195(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Outyears
105,400
189,987
270,012
320,000
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

Total
TBD
TBD
TBD

8. Related Operations and Maintenance Funding requirements
Start of Operation or Beneficial Occupancy (fiscal quarter)
Expected Useful Life (number of years)
Expected Future start of D&D for new construction (fiscal quarter)

TBD
50
TBD

(Related Funding requirements)

Operations
MaintenanceTotal, Operations & Maintenance

Life cycle costs (2018-2068)
Current estimate
Prior Estimate
6,900,000
N/A
1,600,000
N/A
8,500,000
N/A

Annual Costs
Current estimate
Prior Estimate
138,000
N/A
32,000N/A
170,000
N/A

9. Required D&D Information
Area
Area of new construction
Area of existing facility(s) being replaced
Area of additional D&D space to meet the “1.5 to 1” requirement

Square Feet
400,0000
600,000

The construction of UPF will add approximately 400,000 square feet of new facilities to the Y-12
footprint and will replace functions in all or parts of the following facilities within the Y-12 Complex.
 Areas of Building 9212 that house EU casting and EU chemical processing operations, Areas of Building 9215 and 9998 that house EU metal working, EU machining operations andinspection, and Building 9204-2E which houses Assembly, Disassembly/ Dismantlement, Quality
Evaluation and Product Certification operations.
The final decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) and demolition of these areas are notconsidered a part of the UPF project.
The D&D of Building 9212 is included in the Integrated Facility Disposition Project (IFDP) which iscurrently being proposed by the Environmental Management (EM) Program, DOE Oak Ridge
Operations Office, Y-12 and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to dispose of legacy facilities atboth Y-12 and the ORNL. Building 9215 and 9998 will not become immediately or completely excess
Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction
06-D-141 Uranium Processing Facility, Y-12

FY 2011 Congressional Budget
Page 213

and available for demolition since it also contains depleted uranium manufacturing facilities; ongoingmodernization plans for Y-12 are considering further consolidation of non-Special Nuclear Material(SNM) manufacturing functions and determine the potential for the demolition of Buildings 9215 and9998 as well as the possible reuse of Building 9204-2E. Accordingly, NNSA does not intend toprovide funding for the UPF D&D within the Integrated Construction Program Plan (ICPP).
The project will meet the requirement to eliminate facilities of an equivalent size (NNSA policy
modified the offset requirement factor to 1.5 starting in FY 2009) of UPF as required by the FY 2002
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill conference Report (107-258) by using Y-12’s“banked excess.” At the end of FY 2008 Y-12’s confirmed “banked excess” balance which wasreported February 9, 2009, is 954,841 square feet. At the time UPF construction is complete, thebalance of Y-12’s “banked excess” available to offset the footprint added by UPF is projected to be inexcess of one million square feet.
10. Acquisition Approach
The Management and Operating (M&O) contractor for Y-12 under the leadership and direction of the
Y-12 Site Office Federal Project Director and the Federal Integrated Project Team will be responsible
for the execution of the project. The Office of Defense Programs is the responsible NNSA organization.
The UPF will be executed under a design-bid-build project delivery system in which the design will be
performed by one or more Architect-Engineers (A-E’s) and construction will be performed by multiple
fixed-price Construction Contractors (CC’s). Both the A-E’s and CC’s will be subcontracted throughthe M&O contractor.
To the extent practical, subcontracts for Title I & II design services, and Title III engineering services
will be competitively bid, cost-type subcontracts that are awarded on the basis of best value-based to
the Government.
To the extent practical, all construction work and procurements will be accomplished undercompetitively bid, fixed-price subcontracts. The CC’s will be responsible for execution of all
construction including site preparation, building construction, equipment installation and contractor
acceptance testing.
The M&O contractor will provide project management, administer the A-E and CC subcontracts, act as
the design authority for UPF systems, provide designated Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) forcode interpretations, provide technical support to NNSA for the preparation and review of NEPA
documentation, prepare construction and operating permit applications, provide technical andoperational support to, and oversight of the A-E and CC manager, and be responsible for allcommissioning and start-up activities. The M&O contractor may also do limited design andprocurement of unique or specialty type equipment. The M&O contractor will provide maintenancesupport to the CC as required to accomplish tie-ins to existing plant systems and will provide health andsafety oversight of the CC and his subcontractors.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction
06-D-141 Uranium Processing Facility, Y-12

FY 2011 Congressional Budget
Page 214

04-D-125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building Replacement (CMRR) Project, Los
Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico
Project Data Sheet (PDS) is for Construction
1. Significant Changes
The CMRR project will construct two principal structures in three project phases. The first phaseprovides funding to construct the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office Building (RLUOB). The
second phase, the RLUOB Equipment Installation (REI) effort, procures and installs the Special Facility
Equipment (SFE) for the RLUOB. The third phase constructs the Nuclear Facility (NF). The FY 2011
data sheet is restructured to present the budget, costs, baselines and activities for each of the three phases
more clearly.
RLUOB: The most recent DOE O 413.3A approved Critical Decision (CD) is CD-3, Approve Start ofConstruction on October 21, 2005 with a TPC of $164,000,000 and a CD-4 date of February 28, 2010.
Construction of the building structure and related systems has been successfully completed.
REI: The most recent DOE O 413.3A approved CD is CD-2/3, Approve Performance Baseline and Startof Construction on July 17, 2009 with a TPC of $199,400,000 and a CD-4 date of April 30, 2013. This
phase of the project is currently underway.
NF: The most recent DOE O 413.3A approved CD is CD-1, Approve Alternative Selection and Cost
Range. CD-1 was approved on May 18, 2005. After advancement of the design effort, changes in theassumptions for site seismic data, incorporation of lessons learned from previous nuclear projects innuclear quality assurance construction, resolution of safety concerns identified by the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board, and incorporation of commercial data on material costs and estimated escalation
assumptions, the current preliminary cost estimate is over $2,000,000,000 and estimated start ofoperations by FY 2022.
A Federal Project Director at the appropriate level has been assigned to this project.
This PDS is an update of the FY 2010 PDS.
2. Design, Construction, and D&D Schedule(fiscal quarter or date)

FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008CD-0
7/16/2002
7/16/2002
7/16/2002
7/16/2002
7/16/2002

CD-1
1QFY2004
3QFY2004
2QFY2005
9/30/2005
9/30/2005

PED
Complete
3QFY2006
3QFY2007
1QFY20072QFY20072QFY2009

CD-2

4QFY2005
1QFY2006
10/21/2005

CD-3
2QFY2004
3QFY2005
1QFY2006
1QFY2006
1QFY2006

CD-4
1QFY2011
3QFY2012
4QFY2010
1QFY2013
1QFY2013

D&D Start
N/A
N/A
N/A
TBD
TBD

D&D
Completea
N/A
N/A
N/A
TBD
TBD

a

CMR D&D will not be initiated until final start-up of CMRR Nuclear Facility operations, currently projected to occur noearlier than FY 2020. Inclusion of CMR D&D in the FY 2011 budget request is premature. Approval of CD-0 provides
formal recognition by DOE/NNSA of the requirement for D&D of the existing CMR Building.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
04-D-125, CMR Building Replacement
Project, LANL

Page 215

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

(fiscal quarter or date)

FY 2009
FY 2010CD-0
7/16/2002
7/16/2002

PED
Complete
3QFY2010
3QFY2011

CD-1
9/30/2005
9/30/2005

CD-2
TBD
TBD

CD-4
TBD
TBD

D&D Start
TBD
TBD

D&D
Completea
TBD
TBD

CD-4
2/28/2010

D&D Start
TBD

D&D
Complete
TBD

CD-4
4/30/2013

D&D Start
TBD

D&D
Complete
TBD

CD-4
TBD

D&D Start
TBD

D&D
Complete
TBD

CD-3
TBD
TBD

RLUOB Facility(fiscal quarter or date)

FY 2011CD-0
7/16/2002

PED
Complete
N/A

CD-1
5/18/2005

CD-2
10/21/2005

CD-3
10/21/2005

RLUOB Equipment Installation(fiscal quarter or date)

FY 2011CD-0
7/16/2002

CD-1
5/18/2005

PED
Complete
12/19/2007

CD-1
5/18/2005

PED
Complete
12/19/2007

CD-2
7/17/2009CD-3
7/17/2009

Nuclear Facility(fiscal quarter or date)

FY 2011CD-0
7/16/2002

CD-2
TBD

CD-3
TBD

CD-1 – Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range
CD-2 – Approve Performance Baseline
CD-3 – Approve Start of Construction
CD-4 – Approve Start of Operations or Project Closeout
D&D Start – Start of Demolition & Decontamination (D&D) work
D&D Complete – Completion of D&D work
3. Baseline and Validation Status(dollars in thousands)

FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010

TEC,
PED
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
65,939TBD
65,138

TEC, Final
Design/Construction
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
672,158
TBD
TBD

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
04-D-125, CMR Building Replacement
Project, LANL

TEC, Total
500,000
500,000
750,000
738,097
738,097
TBD
TBD

OPC
Except D&D
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
TBD
TBD

Page 216

OPC,
D&D
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
TBD
TBD

OPC, Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
TBD
TBD

TPC
600,000
600,000
850,000
838,097
838,097
TBD
TBD

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

RLOUB Facility(dollars in thousands)

FY 2011

TEC,
PED
N/A

TEC, Final
Design/Construction
159,130

TEC, Total
159,130

OPC
Except D&D
4,870

OPC,
D&D
TBD

OPC, Total
TBD

TPC
164,000

OPC,
D&D
TBD

OPC, Total
TBD

TPC
199,400

OPC,
D&D
TBD

OPC, Total
TBD

TPC
TBD

RLUOB Equipment Installation(dollars in thousands)

FY 2011

TEC,
PED
N/A

TEC, Final
Design/Construction
152,900

TEC, Total
152,900

OPC
Except D&D
46,500

Nuclear Facility(dollars in thousands)

FY 2011

TEC,
PED
65,138

TEC, Final
Design/Construction
TBD

TEC, Total
TBD

OPC
Except D&D
TBD

4. Project Description, Justification, and Scope
Project Description
The CMRR Project seeks to relocate and consolidate mission critical analytical chemistry, material
characterization (AC/MC), and actinide research and development (R&D) capabilities, as well as
providing SNM storage and large vessel handling capabilities to ensure continuous national security
mission support capabilities at LANL.
Justification
In January 1999, the NNSA approved a strategy for managing risks at the CMR Building. This strategy
recognized that the 50-year-old CMR Facility could not continue its mission support at an acceptablelevel of risk to public and worker health and safety without operational restrictions. In addition, thestrategy committed NNSA and LANL to manage the existing CMR Building to a planned end of life,
then projected to be in the 2010 timeframe, and to develop long-term facility and site plans to replace
and relocate CMR capabilities elsewhere at LANL as necessary to maintain support of national security
missions. CMR capabilities are currently substantially restricted; additionally, in order to reduce costs
and risks in operating the aging CMR facility, wing consolidation has occurred. These operational
restrictions preclude the full implementation of the level of operations DOE/NNSA requires as
documented through the Record of Decision for the 2008 LANL Site-Wide Environmental Impact
Statement, and in the 2008 Complex Transformation Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement. The CMRR project will relocate mission-critical CMR capabilities at LANL to TechnicalArea (TA)-55 near the existing Plutonium Facility (Building PF-4). The CMRR Project will also
provide for SNM storage capabilities in order to sustain national security missions at LANL, and reducerisks to the public and workers as described in the November 2003 Final Environmental Impact
Statement for CMRR and approved in the February 2004 CMRR EIS Record of Decision.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
04-D-125, CMR Building Replacement
Project, LANL

Page 217

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

ScopeThe CMRR project consists of designing, constructing and achieving operational readiness for two
discrete facilities to meet the national security missions assigned to LANL.
RLUOB: Construction of a facility to house laboratory space of approximately 19,500 net square
feet capable of handling radiological (<8.4g Pu239 equivalent) quantities of Special Nuclear Materials(SNM); a utility building sized to provide utility services (including chilled and hot water, potable
hot/cold water, compressed air, and process gases) for all CMRR facility elements; office space for
CMRR workers located outside of perimeter security protection systems; and space for centralized
TA-55 training activities. The RLUOB becomes fully functional and operational after thecompletion of the equipment installation effort for this facility in the REI phase.



REI: Equipment installation includes gloveboxes, hoods, AC/MC instrumentation, security andcommunication hardware, and final facility tie-ins and operational readiness/turnover activities. The
performance baseline for the RLUOB Equipment Installation effort was approved on July 17, 2009.
Funding for the design, procurement, and installation/construction of the RLUOB equipment
installation portion is supported through this data sheet.



NF: Consists of the design, construction, and operational readiness of approximately 22,500 net
square feet of Hazard Category II, Security Category I nuclear laboratory space for analyticalchemistry/material characterization and actinide research & development operations. Additionally,
this facility will include SNM Storage and space to accommodate large vessel handling. Initial siteutilities and construction support activities and all associated Special Facilities Equipment (SFE) for
the NF, which includes gloveboxes, hoods, and materials transfer system, will be addressed in thebaseline for the NF. The CMRR NF capabilities support virtually all nuclear programs at LANL,
including pit certification and surveillance, pit manufacturing, and waste operations. Additionally,
the CMRR NF will operate in an integrated fashion with the existing PF-4 facility to incorporate
production efficiencies and minimize operating costs. The opportunity to improve performance inboth the engineering and construction activities will continue to be evaluated to optimize cost andschedule performance.

In FY 2011, funding will be used for RLUOB equipment fabrication, installation, testing, andacceptance. This work will be physically completed by the end of FY 2012, with a transition tooperations by 2Q FY 2013.
In FY 2011, funds will also be used to advance the final design of the NF. Safety concerns for the NF
previously identified by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) were certified as
resolved by the two agencies (DNFSB and the NNSA) on September 14, 2009. To enable completion of
dedicated NF design, design engineering and analysis will continue for a select number of safety
components by manufacturers. Since the NF requires such a large effort, in FY 2011 within this Project
Data Sheet, the project team is exploring options of segmenting some of the work into smaller, moremanageable, projects with their own CD-2, TPC and CD-4 dates. These activities may include
procurement/modification of site utilities, construction support infrastructure, and soil improvement
work. No funding will be used for these purposes until a project performance baseline has beenvalidated and the appropriate milestone in accordance with DOE O 413.3A has been approved for thesesmaller projects.
Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
04-D-125, CMR Building Replacement
Project, LANL

Page 218

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

The project is being conducted in accordance with the project management requirements in DOE
O 413.3A, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, and all appropriate
project management requirements are being met.
Funds appropriated for this project may be used to provide independent assessments and other direct
support determined necessary by the FPD for the planning and execution of this project.
5. Financial Schedule
RLUOB Facility
Appropriations(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

TEC
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
Total, TEC

9,941
39,68454,45041,933
13,12200
159,130049,62554,45041,933
13,12200
159,1300015,93329,36450,08558,3485,400
159,130

OPCa
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
Total, OPC

0
4,870
0
4,870

0
4,870
0
4,870

1,153
2,455
1,262
4,870

9,941
39,68454,45041,933
13,1224,870
0164,000

049,62554,45041,933
13,1224,870
0164,00000
15,93329,364
51,23860,803
6,662
164,000

Total Project Cost (TPC)FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
Total, TPC

a

OPCs for CMRR were not segregated by project phase until FY 2009. Aggregate OPCs for earlier years are reported with
the NF.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
04-D-125, CMR Building Replacement
Project, LANL

Page 219

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

RLUOB Equipment Installation (REI)(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Appropriations
Total Estimated Cost (TEC)
PED
Total, PED (PED 03-D-103-01)

Costs

0
0

0
0

0
0

Final Design
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
Total, Final Design (TEC 04-D-125)
Total, Design

11,4892,009
013,49813,498

11,4892,009
013,49813,498

2,959
9,410
1,129
13,49813,498Construction
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
Total, Construction (TEC 04-D-125)

19,604
4,998
40,00059,00015,800139,402

19,604
4,998
40,00059,00015,800139,402

0
3,941
60,00055,461
20,000139,402TEC
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
Total, TEC

11,48921,613
4,998
40,00059,00015,800152,900

11,48921,613
4,998
40,00059,00015,800152,900

2,959
9,410
5,070
60,00055,461
20,000152,900

Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&Da
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
Total, OPC except D&D

3,079
10,70014,10014,123
4,498
46,5003,079
10,70014,10014,123
4,498
46,5005,602
8,177
14,10014,123
4,498
46,500

TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD

D&D
Total, D&D

aOPCs for CMRR were not segregated by project phase until FY 2009. Aggregate OPCs for earlier years are reported with
the NF.
Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
04-D-125, CMR Building Replacement
Project, LANL

Page 220

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Appropriations(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

OPC
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
Total, OPC

3,079
10,70014,10014,123
4,498
46,5003,079
10,70014,10014,123
4,498
46,5005,602
8,177
14,10014,123
4,498
46,500Total Project Cost (TPC)FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
Total, TPC

11,48921,613
8,077
50,70073,10029,923
4,498
199,400

11,48921,613
8,077
50,70073,10029,923
4,498
199,400

2,959
9,410
10,672
68,17769,561
34,123
4,498
199,400

Nuclear Facility
Appropriations
Total Estimated Cost (TEC)PED
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
Total, PED (PED 03-D-103-01)(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

9,500
13,567
27,91014,16100065,1380
23,067
27,91014,16100065,1380
1,848
19,147
27,213
15,079-329
2,180
65,138

Final Design
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
Total, Final Design (TEC 04-D-125)
Total, Design

39,40692,19657,000166,000
102,800
60,000
TBD
TBD

39,40692,19657,000166,000
102,800
60,000
TBD
TBD

15,45445,97275,000104,500
102,800
112,375
TBD
TBD

Construction
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Total, Construction (TEC 04-D-125)0
186,400
240,000
299,961
300,000
TBD
TBD
TBD

0
186,400
240,000
299,961
300,000
TBD
TBD
TBD

0
155,200
187,625300,000
300,000
TBD
TBD
TBD

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
04-D-125, CMR Building Replacement
Project, LANL

Page 221

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Appropriations
TEC
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Total, TEC(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

9,500
13,567
27,91014,16139,40692,19657,000166,000
289,200
300,000
299,961
300,000
TBD
TBD
TBD

0
23,067
27,91014,16139,40692,19657,000166,000
289,200
300,000
299,961
300,000
TBD
TBD
TBD

0
1,848
19,147
27,21330,53345,643
77,180104,500
258,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
TBD
TBD
TBD

1,665
12,174
7,214
7,164
1,400
4,865
0
52
1,200
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
TBD
TBD
TBD

1,665
12,174
7,214
7,164
1,400
4,865
0
52
1,200
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
TBD
TBD
TBD

1,665
12,174
7,214
7,164
1,064
1,408
1,105
1,018
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,550
TBD
TBD
TBD

D&D
Total, D&D

TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD

OPC
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011

1,665
12,174
7,214
7,164
1,400
4,865
0
52
1,200
2,500

1,665
12,174
7,214
7,164
1,400
4,865
0
52
1,200
2,500

1,665
12,174
7,214
7,164
1,064
1,408
1,105
1,018
2,000
2,500

Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&D
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Total, OPC except D&D

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
04-D-125, CMR Building Replacement
Project, LANL

Page 222

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Total, OPC
Total Project Cost (TPC)FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Total, TPC

Appropriations
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
TBD
TBD
TBD

(dollars in thousands)
Obligations
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
TBD
TBD
TBD

1,665
12,174
16,714
20,731
29,31019,02639,40692,24858,200168,500
292,200
303,500
303,961
304,500
TBD
TBD
TBD

1,665
12,174
7,214
30,231
29,31019,02639,40692,24858,200168,500
292,200
303,500
303,961
304,500
TBD
TBD
TBD

Costs
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,550
TBD
TBD
TBD

1,665
12,174
7,214
9,012
20,211
28,621
31,63846,661
79,180107,000
261,000
303,500
304,000
304,550
TBD
TBD
TBD

Overall Project
Appropriations(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

Total Estimated Cost (TEC)PEDa
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
Total, PED (PED 03-D-103-01)

9,500
13,567
27,91014,16100065,1380
23,067
27,91014,16100065,1380
1,848
19,147
27,213
15,079-329
2,180
65,138

Final Design & Construction(TEC 04-D-125)
FY 2004
FY 2005

9,941
39,684049,62500a

CMRR SFE and NF have completed preliminary design using PED funds included 03-D-103. Design beyond preliminary
will be completed using TEC funds included in 04-D-125.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
04-D-125, CMR Building Replacement
Project, LANL

Page 223

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Appropriations
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Total, Final Design & Construction(TEC 04-D-125)
TEC
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Total, TEC(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

54,45053,422
74,141
97,19497,000225,000
305,000
300,000
299,961
300,000
TBD
TBD
TBD

54,45053,422
74,141
97,19497,000225,000
305,000
300,000
299,961
300,000
TBD
TBD
TBD

15,93332,32374,949109,390
140,400
159,961
278,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
TBD
TBD
TBD

19,441
53,251
82,36067,58374,141
97,19497,000225,000
305,000
300,000
299,961
300,000
TBD
TBD
TBD

0
72,69282,36067,58374,141
97,19497,000225,000
305,000
300,000
299,961
300,000
TBD
TBD
TBD

0
1,848
35,08059,53690,028109,061
142,580
159,961
278,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
TBD
TBD
TBD

1,665
12,174
7,214
7,164
1,400
4,865
0
8,001
11,90016,60017,123
7,998

1,665
12,174
7,214
7,164
1,400
4,865
0
8,001
11,90016,60017,123
7,998

1,665
12,174
7,214
7,164
1,064
1,408
2,258
9,075
11,43916,60017,123
7,998

Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&D
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
04-D-125, CMR Building Replacement
Project, LANL

Page 224

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Appropriations
4,000
4,500
TBD
TBD
TBD

(dollars in thousands)
Appropriations
4,000
4,500
TBD
TBD
TBD

Appropriations
4,000
4,550
TBD
TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD

OPC
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Total, OPC except D&D

1,665
12,174
7,214
7,164
1,400
4,865
0
8,001
11,90016,60017,123
7,998
4,000
4,500
TBD
TBD
TBD

1,665
12,174
7,214
7,164
1,400
4,865
0
8,001
11,90016,60017,123
7,998
4,000
4,500
TBD
TBD
TBD

1,665
12,174
7,214
7,164
1,064
1,408
2,258
9,075
11,43916,60017,123
7,998
4,000
4,550
TBD
TBD
TBD

Total Project Cost (TPC)FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
Total, TPC

1,665
12,17426,65560,41583,76072,44874,141
105,195
108,900
241,600
322,123
257,998
303,961
304,500
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

1,665
12,174
7,214
79,856
83,76072,44874,141
105,195
108,900
241,600
322,123
257,998
303,961
304,500
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

1,665
12,174
7,214
9,012
36,14460,94492,286
118,136
154,019
176,561
295,123
307,998
304,000
304,550
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Total, OPC except D&D
D&Da
Total, D&D

aSection 9 provides preliminary pre-conceptual cost and schedule information for CMR D&D.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
04-D-125, CMR Building Replacement
Project, LANL

Page 225

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

6. Details of Project Cost Estimate(dollars in thousands)
Current Previous Original
Total
Total Validated
Estimate Estimate Baseline
Total Estimated Cost (TEC)
Design (PED & TEC)
DesignContingency
Total, Design (PED 03-D-103, TEC 04-D-125)

465,276
80,000545,276

TBD
TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD
TBD

Construction
Site Preparation
Equipment
Other Construction
Contingency
Total, Construction

300,000
235,000
1,606,823
702,000
2,843,823

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

Total, PED & TEC (PED 03-D-103, TEC 04-D-125)
Contingency, TEC

3,389,099
782,000

TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD

5,000
26,497
280,404
94,000405,901

TBD
24,895
TBD
TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

D&D
D&D
Contingency
Total, D&D

TBD
TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD
TBD

Total, OPC
Contingency, OPC

TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD

Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&D
Conceptual Planning
Conceptual Design
Start-UpContingency
Total, OPC except D&D

Total, TPC
Total, Contingency

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
04-D-125, CMR Building Replacement
Project, LANL

Page 226

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

7. Schedule of Total Project Costs

FY 2005
RLOUB
Baseline
FY 2009
REI
Baseline
FY 2010RLOUB
FY 2010REIFY 2010NF
FY 2011RLOUB
FY 2011REIFY 2011
NF

TEC
OPC
TPC
TEC
OPC
TPC
TEC
OPC
TPC
TEC
OPC
TPC
TEC
OPC
TPC
TEC
OPC
TPC
TEC
OPC
TPC
TEC
OPC
TPC

(dollars in thousands)
Prior Years FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Outyears
Total
159,130
159,130
4,068
802
4,870
163,198
802
0
0
0
0
0
0
164,000
38,10040,00059,00015,800152,900
5,602
11,90012,10012,4004,498
46,50043,702
51,90071,10028,2004,498
00
0199,400
159,130
159,130
4,068
802
4,870
163,198
802
0
0
0
0
0
0
164,000
38,10040,00059,00015,800152,900
5,602
11,90012,10012,4004,498
46,50043,702
51,90071,10028,2004,498
00
0199,400
131,600
57,500129,000
289,200
300,000
300,000
300,000 1,504,631 3,011,931
34,481
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,550
300,500
354,531
166,081
59,500131,500
292,200
303,500
304,000
304,550 1,805,131 3,366,462
159,130
159,130
4,068
802
4,870
163,198
802
0
0
0
0
0
0
164,000
38,10040,00059,00015,800152,900
5,602
11,90012,10012,4004,498
46,50043,702
51,90071,10028,2004,498
00
0199,400
131,600
57,500166,000
289,200
300,000
300,000
300,000 1,532,769 3,077,069
34,481
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,550
300,500
354,531
166,081
59,500168,500
292,200
303,500
304,000
304,550 1,833,269 3,431,600

Note: NF data above are pre-baseline planning figures
8. Related Operations and Maintenance Funding Requirements
Start of Operation or Beneficial Occupancy (fiscal quarter or date)
Expected Useful Life (number of years)
Expected Future Start of D&D of this capital asset (fiscal quarter)

4QFY2009a
50
2QFY2065(Related Funding requirements)

Operations
MaintenanceTotal, Operations & Maintenancea(dollars in thousands)
Annual Costs
Life Cycle Costs
Current Previous Current Previous
Total
Total
Total
Total
Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

This date corresponds to the beneficial occupancy of the RLUOB construction phase only. NF date is TBD.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
04-D-125, CMR Building Replacement
Project, LANL

Page 227

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

9. Required D&D Information
As directed by the DOE Acquisition Executive at CMRR CD-0, NNSA and LANL developed a preconceptual cost and schedule range for the D&D requirements of the existing CMR Building located atTA-3 during the CMRR conceptual design. The initial pre-conceptual cost estimate range for D&D of
the CMR Building is approximately $200,000,000 - $350,000,000 (un-escalated FY 2004 dollars) withan associated schedule estimate range of 4-5 years. This information was presented as part of CMRR
CD-1 per Secretarial direction issued at CD-0.
During the 3rd Quarter of FY 2005, the D&D of the existing CMR facility received CD-0 in conjunction
with CMRR CD-1 approval. Current Future Years Nuclear Security Program/Integrated Construction
Program Plan (FYNSP/ICPP) funding profiles do not include the funding for the D&D of the CMR
Facility. NNSA will not initiate CMR D&D activities until completion and operational start-up of the
CMRR Nuclear Facility, currently projected to be operational well after the FYNSP budget planningwindow. As such, budget formulation for CMR D&D is premature for the FY 2011 budget submission.
The inclusion of the D&D CMR Facility budget will occur upon the establishment of a project number
and update of the FYNSP/ICPP in out year budget cycles.
The CMR D&D commitment is reflected in this CPDS for completeness. However, as planning for thisD&D activity matures, NNSA may elect to enable this effort as a separate project, execute it as anelement of a wider project or program for a portfolio of D&D activities at LANL, or bundle it withother, yet undefined activities.
Area
TA-55-400 (Radiological Laboratory & Office Building)TA-55-440 (Central Utility Building)TA-55-500 (Security Category I/Hazard Category II Nuclear Facility)
TA-3, Building 29 (CMR)
LANL “banked excess” necessary to offset one-for-one requirement

Gross Square Feet (gsf)
187,127
20,998406,000 (beneficial occupancy post
FY 2018)(571,458)
42,667

Name and site location of existing facility to be replaced: CMR (TA-3, Building 29)
When originally conceptualized, the replacement facilities for CMR, the RLUOB and NF, were thought
to result in a significantly smaller space than the CMR facilities being replaced. However, owing toneeds to meet modern health, waste, safety, and security functions, the combined space for CMRR is
now expected to exceed the space for CMR.
CMRR has incorporated the NNSA Fiscal Year Banking of Excess Facilities Elimination, New
Construction and Net Banked Square Footage reporting process that documents, through the DOE
Facilities Information Management System (FIMS), the data associated with new construction added by
the RLUOB and the NF. The new construction square footage is accounted for once beneficial
occupancy is received and is subsequently offset with LANL “banked excess” additional D&D space tomeet the “one-for-one” requirement within the FY 2002 Energy and Water and Water Development
Appropriations Bill conference report (107-258). Given planned new construction (including CMRR) at
LANL and planned excess facility reductions, the excess program is projecting it will have banked well
Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
04-D-125, CMR Building Replacement
Project, LANL

Page 228

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

over a million and a half square feet before CMR is demolished. The gross square feet of the CMRR NF
is a preliminary estimate and will be updated as the design develops.
10. Acquisition Approach
Design and Construction Management will be implemented by Los Alamos National Security throughthe LANL Management and Operating Contract. The CMRR Acquisition Strategy is based on
procurement strategies specific for each major component of the CMRR project in order to mitigate
overall technical and schedule risk. The RLUOB was implemented via LANL-issued design-build
subcontract based on performance specifications developed during CMRR Conceptual Design. The SFE
associated with the RLUOB and the NF will be implemented via one or more LANL-issued final designbid-construction contracts. Design-build contracting may also be employed for discrete, well defined,
procurements. Other contracting mechanisms may also be utilized that are best suited, after analysis forindividual and discrete procurements. The performance baseline will be established upon completion of
final design for each portion of the Project. Options are being considered for construction of the main
NF structure, but the current plan is to acquire one or more qualified specialty contractors through thesite M&O under commercial terms.

Weapons Activities/RTBF/Construction/
04-D-125, CMR Building Replacement
Project, LANL

Page 229

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 230

Secure Transportation Asset
Overview
Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2009 Actual
Appropriation
Secure Transportation Asset (STA)
Operations and Equipment
Program Direction
Total, Secure Transportation Asset(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010 Current
Appropriation

127,701
86,738214,439

138,772
96,143234,915

FY 2011
Request149,018
99,027
248,045

Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2012(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015

Operations and Equipment
Operations and Equipment
Program Direction
Total, Operations and Equipment

149,274
101,998
251,272

144,398
105,058
249,456

144,660
108,209
252,869

150,066
111,455
261,521

MissionThe STA program safely and securely transports nuclear weapons, weapons components, and special
nuclear materials to meet projected Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Defense (DoD), andother customer requirements.
The STA Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) unit contains two activities that contributeto GPRA Unit Program Number 34 – Program Direction, and Operations and Equipment. Secure
Transportation Asset (STA) is a departmental asset. Program Direction in this account provides
primarily for the federal agents and the transportation workforce. Operations and Equipment in thisaccount provides for STA’s transportation service infrastructure that is critical in meeting the stockpile
refurbishment and modernization initiatives of the nuclear security enterprise.
The workload requirements for this program support the dismantlement and maintenance schedule forthe nuclear weapons stockpile and the initiative to consolidate the storage of nuclear material. The
transportation requirements result in the need for higher levels of funding to support new vehicle andequipment replacement and enhancements, as well as recruitment and training of the federal agent
workforce. These long-lead efforts are required to effectively maintain mission capacity. The challenge
to maintain the capacity of the program is in balance with complex national security concerns and therequirements of Graded Security Protection Policy (GSP). The uncertain threat environment
necessitates the implementation of force multiplier technologies and operational enhancements forintelligence analysis and front-end reconnaissance. STA’s resources will implement an operationallyfocused and intelligence-driven operation, focusing on the detection, deterrence and disruption ofpotential threats while sustaining capabilities to defend, recapture and recover.

Weapons Activities/
Secure Transportation Asset/Overview

Page 231

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

The STA current capacity will meet the planned NNSA Stockpile refurbishment and modernization
initiatives and other DOE workload. The NNSA STA Advisory Board (STAAB) will continue tobalance and prioritize customer requests against STA capability. In recent years, the nuclear material
consolidation campaigns have stressed the STA vehicle fleet, and now STA needs to replace seasonedtransportation assets to meet shipping requirements. In the long-term, the STA will maintain the
personnel and vehicle resources at sufficient levels to meet the NNSA and DOE shipping requirementswith safe and secure transportation.
Benefits
The primary objective is to serve its customers through the provision of safe and secure shipments.
Defense Programs remains the highest priority customer for STA, as these shipments are required tosupport and maintain the nuclear weapons in the national stockpile. The Stockpile Refurbishments, Life
Extensions, various test programs, and nuclear weapon disassemblies depend on the movement ofmaterial and weapons on schedule. In addition to this responsibility, the STA must also provide securetransport to support other NNSA programs including Naval Reactors, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
and Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response. STA supports the Departmental initiative to convert
weapons-grade material to commercial reactor fuel (MOX) by transporting weapon pits and fuel rods.
Other DOE programs including Nuclear Energy and Environmental Management are also supported.
STA also supports other government programs, including the National Aeronautic and Space
Administration, and is involved with the international shipments with Canada, United Kingdom, Italy,
and France.
Annual Performance Results and Targets
The STA Program directly supports the Secretarial goal for Security by reducing the nuclear dangers
and environmental risks associated with the transportation of nuclear cargo across the United States.
The key outcome performance indicator of the Program, 100 percent safe and secure shipments, attests
to the program’s commitment to perform this primary function. Since its formal creation in 1974, theprogram has maintained its long legacy of no loss of cargo and no radiological release on any shipment.
The performance indicator for Unit Readiness ensures that the program maintains the Federal Agent
resources to meet the departmental shipping requirements. This measure is important for futuretransportation operations because it takes years to recruit, clear, and train a Federal Agent for nuclear
explosives duties. The performance indicator for Delivery Timeliness ensures that the criticaltransportation needs of the department and other agencies are being met.

Weapons Activities/
Secure Transportation Asset/Overview

Page 232

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAnnual Performance Results and Targets(R = Results; T = Targets)
Performance Indicators

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Endpoint Target

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

Annually, ensure that 100% of
shipments are completed safely andsecurely without compromise/loss of
nuclear weapons/components or arelease of radioactive material.

Secretarial Goal: Security: Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risks
GPRA Unit Program Number: 34, Secure Transportation Asset
Safe and Secure Shipiments:
Annual percentage of shipmentscompleted safely and securely
without compromise/loss of
nuclear weapons/components or arelease of radioactive material.
(Annual Outcome)R: 100%

R: 100%

R: 100%

R: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%Convoy Cost: Annual cost per
convoy expressed in terms of
millions of dollars. (Efficiency)

R: $2.10

R: $1.69

R: $1.73

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

T: $1.80

T: $1.80

T: $1.79

By FY 2008, achieve a cost per
convoy equivalent of $1.79M.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

By FY 2008, achieve 118 convoy
equivalents.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

By FY 2009, achieve an operational
SGT fleet of 45.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

By the end of FY 2009, achieve end
strength of 390 Agents.

R: 93

R: 113

R: 109

T: 115

T: 115

T: 118

R: 36

R: 39

R: 42

R: 45

T : 36

T: 38

T: 42

T: 45

Federal Agents/Couriers:
Cumulative number of Federal
Agents at the end of each year.
(Long-term Output)

R: 324

R: 351

R: 373

R: 379

T: 355

T: 355

T: 385

T: 390

Delivery Timeliness: Annual
percentage of Transportation
Shipping Requests (TSRs)
delivered by the scheduled delivery
date. (Efficiency)

N/A

N/A

N/A

Baseline

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

Annually, ensure that 90% of TSRs
are delivered by the scheduleddelivery date.

Unit Readiness: Annual
percentage of Unit Readiness toperform assigned convoy missiona
weeks. (Long-term Output)

N/A

N/A

N/A

Baseline

T: 80%

T: 80%

T: 80%

T: 80%

T: 90%

T: 90%By FY 2014 ensure Operational
Units have a 90 % readiness rate toperform assigned convoy missionweeks.

Secure Convoys: Annual numberof secure convoys completed.
(Annual Output)
Safeguard Transporters (SGTs):
Cumulative number of Safeguard
Transporters (SGTs) in operation.
(Long-term Output)__________________aPerformance indicator was evaluated in FY 2009 and the calculation methodology was modified to reflect the efficient management of Federal Agent resources, as they
are the most critical factor in achieving mission outputs. With OMB approval, the measure was changed to a Long-term Output beginning in FY 2010.

Weapons Activities/
Secure Transportation Asset/Overview

Page 233

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009 Accomplishments• Safely and securely completed 100 percent of shipments without compromise/loss of nuclear
weapons/components or a release of radioactive material;• Completed the DOE Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) independent oversight inspection
which included a Joint Testing Exercise at Nevada Test Site;• Delivered 13 Heavy Chassis Escort vehicles ahead of schedule and below cost;• Completed two Agent Candidate Training (ACT) classes; with total of 59 graduates; achieving an
estimated Federal Agent end strength of 379;
• Produced 3 Safeguard Transporters (SGTs) for a total of 45;• Transportation for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory deinventory on schedule;• Transportation for the Hanford Site deinventory 100 percent complete;• Completed seven (7) Operational Readiness Training exercises;• Participated in an interagency exercise with the Las Vegas Federal Bureau of Investigation;• Supported NNSA with the Congressionally-directed Air Study;• Hosted Russian training workshop at Ft. Chaffee;• Completed a 5-week Train-the-Trainer Course for Republic of Kazakhstan in Albuquerque;• Participated in Nuclear Command and Control System Comprehensive Review;• Incorporated the Active Security Doctrine and the Graded Security Protection Policy into the STA
Site Safeguards and Security Plan;• Produced 24 Support Vehicles;• Updated Memorandums of Understanding with US NORTHCOM and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;• Implemented Leadership training for employee career development, and• Established a collective training venue at the Nevada Test Site.
Major Outyear Priorities and Assumptions
The outyear projections for STA total $1,015,118,000 for FY 2012 through FY 2015. The primaryobjective of the STA program is to continue completing 100 percent of shipments safely and securely
without compromise/loss of nuclear weapons/components or a release of radioactive material. In orderto support the workload requirements, while maintaining the safety and security of shipments, the STA
program will increase the cumulative number of escort vehicles in operation for a total of 118 by the endof FY 2014. An Armored Tractor prototype will be developed in FY 2011 with production activities
continuing throughout the FYNSP. Additionally, STA will initiate the design, engineering and fieldingof a new Command Control, Communication, Computer and Cyber (C5) System to replace the current
Transportation Command and Control System (TCCS) through the FYNSP. The STA program also
intends to maintain an annual average agent manpower at 390. A predictive transportation planning
process balances workload requirements, training, maintenance, and agent quality of life.
A major priority is the replacement of the last of the aging aviation assets in FY 2012. Two DC-9s andone C-9 have reached the end of their effective life-cycle. STA plans to acquire the final of the three
737-like aircraft in FY 2012.

Weapons Activities/
Secure Transportation Asset/Overview

Page 234

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Secure Transportation Asset
Operations and Equipment
Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2009 Actual
Appropriation
Operations and Equipment
Mission Capacity
Security/Safety Capability
Infrastructure and C5 Systems
Program Management
Total, Operations and Equipment(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010 Current
FY 2011
Appropriation
Request70,107
20,61725,978
10,999127,701

75,03826,472
23,217
14,045
138,772

84,01027,001
23,681
14,326
149,018

Outyear and Over Target Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2012
Operations and Equipment
Mission Capacity
Security/Safety Capability
Infrastructure and C5 Systems
Program Management
Total, Operations and Equipment

82,96627,541
24,155
14,612
149,274(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 201476,76428,092
24,63814,904
144,398

75,67228,65425,131
15,203
144,660

FY 2015
79,69929,22725,633
15,507150,066

MissionWithin the STA Operations and Equipment Activity, four subprograms make unique contributions to the
GPRA Unit Program Number 34 regarding the safety and security of the nuclear stockpile. These
subprograms accomplish the following: (1) Mission Capacity - provides agent candidate training tomaintain federal agent workforce, provides mission-essential agent equipment, maintains and expands
the transportation fleet, provides aviation services and optimizes transport operations;(2) Security/Safety Capability - develops and implements new fleet technologies, intensifies agent
training, and implements Security, Safety, and Emergency Response programs; (3) Infrastructure andC5 systems - provides facility maintenance, support for minor construction projects, and C5 systems;(4) Program Management - provides corporate functions and business operations that control, assist, anddirect secure transport operations.

Weapons Activities/
Secure Transportation Asset/
Operations and Equipment

Page 235

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
Mission Capacity

70,10775,03884,010

Sustains STA systems capacity through equipment purchases and maintenance of the agent manpower
to fulfill the present schedule. This goal includes the following activities: (1) Annually, conduct anAgent Candidate Training (ACT) class to maintain the agent end-strength and training expertise.
Funding supports the recruiting, equipping, and training of federal agent candidates necessary tomaintain the work force impacted by attrition. (2) Replaces aging vehicle fleet with newly designed
vehicles. Funding supports the design, engineering, testing, and fielding of specialized vehicles,
tractors and trailers that counter current threat scenarios. (3) Maintains readiness posture of the STA
fleet. Funding supports the inspection, testing, and maintenance of escort vehicles, secure trailers,armored tractors, mobile communication and defensive systems. It also supports the operation of threevehicle maintenance facilities. Funding also supports aircraft which are used to move agents tostaging points to minimize travel time. As the nuclear security enterprise moves toward consolidationof materials and centralization of operations, STA will adapt to new shipping patterns and delivery
timelines. Aircraft are also used to support the Limited Life Components Program and emergency
response for the Nuclear Emergency Search Team (NEST), Accident Response Group (ARG),
Radiological Assistance Program (RAP), and Joint Tactical Operations Team (JTOT). Funding
supports the operation and maintenance of three large fixed wing aircraft, one Learjet 35, and two
Twin Otters.
The FY 2011 request increases by 12 percent and will support an ACT class, maintain the STA fleet
and will purchase a 737-like aircraft and the associated parts, spares and tools required to manage andmaintain the acquired aircraft to replace the forty-year old aircraft.
Security/Safety Capability

20,617

26,47227,001

Provides support to the program objective of strengthening the STA security and safety capability.
This goal includes the following sub-elements: (1) Identifies, designs, and tests new fleet and mission
technologies. Funding supports on-going upgrades and enhancements to the secure trailers, analyzing
intelligence data, disseminating information and the application of emerging physical security
technology. (2) Sustains and supports intensified training. Funding supports the technical equipment,
logistics, curriculum development, and staffing necessary to conduct Special Response Force (SRF),
Operational Readiness Testing (ORT), and agent sustainment training. (3) Maintains security andsafety programs. Funding supports liaison with state and local law enforcement organizations;maintaining a human reliability program for federal agents and staff; analyzing security methods andequipment; conducting vulnerability assessments; developing the Site Safeguards and Security Plan(including Force-on-Force validation exercises), and combat simulation computer modeling; andconducting safety studies and safety engineering for the Safety Basis, Nuclear Explosive Safety, andover-the-road safety issues. (4) Maintains the NNSA Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in
Albuquerque, NM, as well as trains and exercises the STA response capability. Funding supports the

Weapons Activities/
Secure Transportation Asset/
Operations and Equipment

Page 236

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
Emergency Management Program to include Federal Agent Incident Command System refresher andsustainment training.
The focus in FY 2011 will be to operate the Transportation Safeguards System (TSS) within the safety
and security licenses, based on the updated/upgraded Site Safeguards and Security Plan, andmaintaining agent skills to meet the GSP requirements. STA will maintain the federal agent force,equipment and training tempo to meet GSP and workload requirements.
Infrastructure and C5 Systems

25,97823,217

23,681

Provides support to the program goal of expanding, modernizing, and maintaining the physicalplatforms that the STA operates. This goal includes the following sub-elements: (1) Modernize andmaintain classified command and control, communication, computer, and cyber (C5) systems
activities to enhance required oversight of nuclear convoys. Funding supports operation of theTransportation Emergency Control Centers; communications maintenance; electronic systems depot
maintenance; and the costs for operating relay stations in five states. (2) Expand, upgrade andmaintain the STA facilities and equipment to support the increase in federal agents and workload.
Funding supports the utilities, maintenance, upgrades and required expansion projects for
80 facilities and their respective equipment.
The focus for FY 2011 is to modernize and maintain classified command and control communication,
computer and cyber systems and upgrade and maintain the STA facilities and equipment.
Program Management

10,99914,045

14,326

Provides support to the program goal of creating a well-managed, responsive, and accountableorganization by employing effective business practices. This goal includes the following: (1) Provide
for corporate functions including validation of the safety and security operations, technical document
support and business operations that control, assist, and direct secure transport operations. Includes
supplies, equipment and technical document production and regulation. (2) Assess, evaluate andimprove work functions and processes. Funding supports quality studies, self-inspections,professional development, routine STA intranet web support, configuration management, and businessintegration activities.
The focus for FY 2011 is to provide for corporate functions and business operations that control, assist
and direct secure transportation operations.
Total, Secure Transportation Asset, Operations andEquipment

Weapons Activities/
Secure Transportation Asset/
Operations and Equipment

Page 237

127,701

138,772

149,018

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Mission Capacity
The increase is attributable to transition costs associated with maintenance activities
in support of multiple aircraft types; aircraft cargo door modification and necessary
tooling to meet payload configurations.

+8,972

Security/Safety Capability
The increase is associated with the cost of maintaining an effective Human
Reliability Program for Federal Agents and staff.

+529

Infrastructure and C5 Systems
The increase will support facility maintenance and utilities.

+464

Program Management
The increase will provide for general site support to all STA Federal Agent
Commands. Support includes supplies, equipment and services required to maintainFederal Agent qualifications and mission-related duties.
Total Funding Change, Operations and Equipment

Weapons Activities/
Secure Transportation Asset/
Operations and Equipment

Page 238+281+10,246

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Capital Operating Expenses and Construction Summary
Capital Operating Expenses(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 201100
0
3,000
21,10021,200General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

3,000

21,10021,200Outyear Capital Operating Expenses(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015000021,20021,20021,20021,200FY 2012General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

21,20021,20021,20021,200

Two DC-9s and one C-9 have reached the end of their effective life-cycle. Capital expenditures include
the procurement of 737-like aircraft replacements for a total of three aircraft and modification of aircraft
cargo doors to meet future payload configurations.
Armored Tractor production activities will commence in FY 2013 once the aircraft procurements andmodifications are complete. The Armored Tractor program has reached its life cycle and replacements
are necessary to provide safe and secure transportation.
In addition, capital operating expenditures are associated with procurement of specialized escort
vehicles. The vehicles are required to meet projected workload, replacing aging vehicles and initiate a
steady state lifecycle. Escort vehicles are critical in providing safe and secure transportation support to
the increased workload associated with material consolidation and Complex Transformation initiatives.

Weapons Activities/
Secure Transportation Asset/
Operations and Equipment
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

Page 239

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Secure Transportation Asset
Program Direction
Funding Profile by Subprogram(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Current
Appropriation
Appropriation

FY 2011
Request

Program Direction
Salaries and Benefits
TravelOther Related Expenses
Total, Program Direction

75,226
10,1881,324
86,73881,225
11,331
3,587
96,143

83,311
7,746
7,970
99,027

Total, Full Time Equivalents

570

647

637

Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2012Program Direction
Salaries and Benefits
TravelOther Related Expenses
Total, Program Direction
Total, Full Time Equivalents(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 201585,781
7,980
8,237
101,998

88,3238,218
8,517
105,058

90,9438,465
8,801
108,209

93,641
8,719
9,095
111,455

637

637

637

637

MissionThe STA Program Direction makes unique contributions to the GPRA Unit Program Number 34
regarding the safety and security of the nuclear stockpile by providing personnel to: (1) conduct armed
escorts of nuclear weapons, material, and components; (2) track nuclear convoys and provide emergency
response capability; (3) perform staff oversight of three federal agent commands; (4) supervise thedesign and implementation of classified security technologies; (5) provide critical skills training to thefederal agent force and staff; (6) staff and operate the Training and Logistics Command and conduct of
one 20-week training class per year for new agents; and (7) perform administrative and logistical
functions for the organization.

Weapons Activities/
Secure Transportation Asset/
Program Direction

Page 240

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
Salaries and Benefits

75,226

81,22583,311

Provides salaries and benefits for the program staff at Albuquerque, NM; Fort Chaffee, AR; andWashington, DC, as well as the federal agents and support staff at the three federal agent force
locations (Albuquerque, NM; Oak Ridge, TN; and, Amarillo, TX). Includes overtime, workmen’scompensation, and health/retirement benefits associated with federal agents, secondary positions, andsupport staff.
Travel10,188

11,331

7,746

Provides for travel associated with annual secure convoys, training at other federal facilities andmilitary installations, and program oversight.
Other Related Expenses

1,324

3,587

7,970

Provides required certification training for the handling of nuclear materials by federal agent forces, aswell as staff professional development. Provides for Permanent Change of Station (PCS) moves andother Contractual Services.
Total, Program Direction

Weapons Activities/
Secure Transportation Asset/
Program Direction

86,738Page 241

96,14399,027FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Salaries and Benefits
The increase is attributable to escalation of salaries, benefits and costs
associated with pay for performance to maintain 637 FTEs. This increase ispartially offset by a reduction in FTEs which supports the funding adjustments
for additional activities in the Other Related Expenses account.

+2,086

TravelThe decrease is attributable to the funding shift of travel costs associated withagent training at NTS to Other Related Expenses.

-3,585

Other Related Expenses
The increase supports training at NTS, the Service Center fee and payment for
the Department of Energy Common Operating Environment (DOECOE)
contract.

+4,383

Total Funding Change, Secure Transportation Asset, Program Direction+2,884

Weapons Activities/
Secure Transportation Asset/
Program Direction

Page 242

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Funding Profile by Subprograma(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Current
Appropriation
Appropriation
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Responsea(Homeland Security)
Emergency Response (Homeland Security)a
National Technical Nuclear Forensics (Homeland Security)a
Emergency Management (Homeland Security)a
Operations Support (Homeland Security)aInternational Emergency Management and Cooperation
Nuclear Counterterrorism (Homeland Security)a
Total, Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response

132,918
12,557
7,428
8,207
4,515
49,653215,278

139,048
10,217
7,726
8,536
7,181
49,228221,936

FY 2011
Request134,092
11,698
7,494
8,675
7,139
64,036
233,134

Outyear Target Funding Profile by Subprogram(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Emergency Response (Homeland Security)a
National Technical Nuclear Forensics (Homeland Security)a
Emergency Management (Homeland Security)a
Operations Support (Homeland Security)aInternational Emergency Management and Cooperation

137,715
11,589
7,129
8,691
7,129

138,359
11,694
6,629
8,799
7,139

139,504
11,577
6,505
8,749
7,032

141,107
11,828
6,694
9,000
7,275

Nuclear Counterterrorism (Homeland Security)a
Total, Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response

50,661
222,91449,888
222,508

61,933
235,300

62,082
237,986

MissionThe Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response (NCTIR) program, formerly the Nuclear Weapons
Incident Response program, responds to, and mitigates nuclear and radiological incidents worldwide andhas a lead role in defending the Nation from the threat of nuclear terrorism.
Benefits
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Emergency Operations program remains theUnited States (U.S.) government’s primary capability for radiological and nuclear emergency response
and for providing security to our Nation from the threat of nuclear terrorism. Through the development,
implementation and coordination of programs and systems designed to serve as a last line of defense in
the event of a nuclear terrorist incident or other types of radiological accident, the Office of Emergency
Operations maintains a high level of readiness for protecting and serving the U.S. and its allies – areadiness level that provides the U.S. Government with quickly deployable, dedicated resources capableof responding rapidly and comprehensively to nuclear or radiological incidents worldwide. NCTIR isfocused on redefining relationships with old partners such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),a

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Homeland Security designation.

Weapons Activities/
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response

Page 243

FY 2011 Congressional Budgetand strengthening relationships with other newer partners, such as the Department of Homeland Security(DHS). Even as the need for effective emergency operations activities continues to grow, NCTIR
increasingly serves as the Federal Government’s comprehensive defense of the Nation against thenuclear terrorism threat.
A single Readiness measure encompasses trained personnel, reliable and operational equipment andcommunications ready to respond to and mitigate nuclear and radiological incidents worldwide. Thisputs NCTIR’s focus on what is critically important, ties the measure to nearly 100 percent of the
program’s budget, forces a focus on all problem areas, and makes performance measurement a powerfulmanagement tool. In FY 2009, NCTIR added two additional components to the Readiness measure
related to transportation of first responders, to further characterize our ability to respond.
This budget request includes continued funding for the Render Safe Research and Development
Program and the Render Safe Stabilization Operations (formerly Stabilization Implementation within
Emergency Response) and National Technical Nuclear Forensics (NTNF) programs.
The NCTIR program functions primarily as a homeland security related activity which also uses its
resources and expertise as a unique foreign policy asset for the additional application of international
emergency response. Within the NCTIR program, the Emergency Response Homeland Security (HS),Emergency Management HS, National Technical Nuclear Forensics HS, Operations Support HS,
International Emergency Management and Cooperation, and Nuclear Counterterrorism HS subprograms
each make unique contributions to GPRA Unit Program Number 35. The Emergency Response HS
maintains and provides specialized technical expertise in response to nuclear/radiological incidents,
including those involving nuclear weapons. These capabilities include immediate situation resolution,
longer-term consequence management, and issues relating to human health. These response teams
include the Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST) and other assets. The Emergency Management
HS provides for the comprehensive, integrated emergency planning, preparedness, and response
programs throughout the Department’s field operations. The program develops and implements specificprograms, plans and systems to minimize the impact of emergencies on national security, worker andpublic safety, and the environment. The program oversees the implementation of emergency
management policy, preparedness, and response activities within the NNSA. The National Technical
Nuclear Forensics HS supports implementation of operations and research and development as well asbuilds upon nuclear disposition activities already underway, including pre- and post- detonation nuclear
forensics. Operations Support activities support Headquarters’ emergency response operations throughthe Headquarters’ Watch Office and Operations Centers. Program staffs participate in drills andexercises to improve communication and notification capabilities and procedures. NCTIR manages andoperates the Headquarters Emergency Communications Network to facilitate unclassified and classified
videoconferences in support of Department-wide task forces, meetings/briefings, exercises/drills and all
DOE site emergencies. The International Emergency Management and Cooperation Program conducts
training, provides technical assistance, and develops programs, plans and infrastructure to strengthen
emergency management systems worldwide. The Nuclear Counterterrorism (NCT) program serves as
the single point of contact for nuclear counterterrorism in the US Government, directly supporting otheragencies needs relative to Improvised Nuclear Device (IND) design and assessment activities. The NCT
program provides the necessary analysis of NNSA-specific data needed by other agencies to counter the
threat of a terrorist nuclear device. The NCT program draws on the full range of tools, techniques andexpertise developed within the nuclear weapons design laboratories.
Weapons Activities/
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response

Page 244

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAnnual Performance Results and Targets
The Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response program continues to contribute to the departmental
goal of “Security: Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risks” through the ongoing and plannedinternational activities to provide consistent emergency plans and procedures, effective early warningand notification of nuclear/radiological incidents or accidents, and delivery of assistance to an affectednation should an incident/accident occur. Through the International Emergency Management andCooperation (IEMC) program element, NCTIR is also providing communication and radiation
monitoring equipment and technical assistance for International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) andforeign government emergency programs to address nuclear/radiological incidents and accidents
including lost sources. The IEMC supports emergency response cooperative activities bilaterally, multilaterally and under various international agreements and arrangements and Presidential and Global
Initiatives to ensure programs are in place to protect emergency personnel, the public and theenvironment from the consequences of nuclear/radiological incidents and accidents.

Weapons Activities/
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response

Page 245

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAnnual Performance Results and Targets(R = Results; T = Targets)
Performance Indicators

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

T: 91

T: 91

T: 91

T: 91

T: 91

T: 91

Endpoint Target

Secretarial Goal: Security: Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risks
GPRA Unit Program Number: 35, Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Emergency Operations
Readiness Index: Emergency
Operations Readiness Index
measures the overall organizational
readiness to respond to andmitigate radiological or nuclear
incidents worldwide (This Index ismeasured from 1 to 100 withhigher numbers meaning better
readiness--the first three quarters
will be expressed as the readinessat those given points in time whereas the year end will be expressed as
the average readiness for the year’s
four quarters). (Efficiency)

R: 82

R: 91

R: 91

R: 91

T: 91

T: 91

T: 91

T: 91

Weapons Activities/
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response

Page 246

Annually, maintain an Emergency
Operations Readiness Index of 91 or
higher.

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009 Accomplishments Deployed multiple field teams to conduct special events and elevated threats including 34 highprofile special events and 47 emergency responses around the world in support of Homeland
Security, FBI and Department of State; including National Special Security Events, and National
Security Events. These events included: State of the Union; Super Bowl; several NASCAR events;
Papal visits to DC and New York; Annapolis Conference; Marine Corps Marathon; Republican and
Democratic National Conventions, MLB and NBA All-Star Games; Rolling Thunder; United
Nations General Assembly; New Years Eve support in various cities, as well as the 2009 Presidential
Inauguration.
Participated in 137 interagency national and international counterterrorism exercises, including:Marble Challenge (2), and led the Empire 2009 consequence management exercise, which was a
Tier 2 National Level Exercise, supported by DHS and other federal, state and local agencies. We
also participated in a Nuclear Weapons Accident Incident Exercise 2009 (NUWAIX 09).

Participated in Eagle Horizon 09, a White House-directed interagency continuity exercise.

Continued support to the FBI of its render safe capability and completed the first-ever Stabilization
tool kit, which has been field tested and training conducted in FY 2009. There will be an FBI
Stabilization team in one city by March 2010.



Executed for the first-ever end to end post-detonation Improvised Nuclear Device nuclear forensics
exercise, OAK PHOENIX, incorporating notification/deployment, sample collection, lab analysis,
and data evaluation phases.

Continued Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT) support through outreach,interagency, and international efforts designed to improve the capabilities of participant nations forresponse, mitigation, and investigation of terrorist use of nuclear and radioactive materials.
Individual events with the GICNT included exercises in the Netherlands and Kazakhstan;conferences in the Netherlands; and, workshops in Australia, the United Kingdom and Morocco.

Improved the capability of Triage, a radiological reach-back capability, to provide first responders
with expert analysis of detector readings and enhanced hands-on training and workshops.

Major Outyear Priorities and Assumptions
The outyear projections for Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response total $918,708,000 for
FY 2012 through FY 2015. The trend through the five-year period is relatively flat but funding istargeted to specific areas of the program including - Equipment and Training, Render Safe Stabilization
Operations, International Emergency Management and Cooperation, and Nuclear Counterterrorism.
These initiatives support scientific breakthroughs from Render Safe Research and Development insupport of stabilization equipment and training for FBI teams and the continued implementation ofinternational emergency management training and outreach activities to ensure its mission of reducing
the risk of international nuclear or radiological events by strengthening emergency preparedness andresponse capabilities worldwide.

Weapons Activities/
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response

Page 247

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

The NCTIR outyear budgets will concentrate on the programs that contribute the most to vital national
security missions. The program will focus to correct deficiencies surfaced by quarterly evaluation of thereadiness performance measure, and necessary upgrades to the Emergency Operations Centers.

Weapons Activities/
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response

Page 248

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification(dollars in thousands)

Emergency Response (Homeland Security)

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

132,918

139,048

134,092

The Office of Emergency Response serves as the last line of national defense in the face of a nuclear
terrorist incident or other type of radiological accident. The mission is to protect the public,
environment, and the emergency responders from terrorist and non-terrorist events by providing a
responsive, flexible, efficient, and effective nuclear/radiological emergency response framework andcapability for the Nation by applying NNSA’s unique technical expertise resident within the
Department of Energy (DOE) complex. The strategic approach for emergency response activities is toensure a central point of contact and an integrated response to emergencies. Specific attention is
focused on providing the appropriate technical response to any nuclear emergency within the
Department, the U.S. and abroad. This is accomplished by ensuring that the appropriate infrastructure
is in place to provide command, control, communications, and properly organized, trained and equipped
response personnel to successfully resolve an emergency event.


Nuclear Emergency Support Team87,30092,24989,106

Under the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and Presidential Decision Directives 39
and 62, National Security Presidential Directives (NSPD) 28, NSPD 17/Homeland Security
Presidential Directive (HSPD) 4, and NSPD 46/HSPD 15, government agencies are directed toplan for, train, and resource a robust capability to combat terrorism, especially in the area of
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST) programprovides DOE/NNSA technical assistance to a Lead Federal Agency (LFA), whether it be DHS,
FBI, or Department of Defense (DoD), to deal with incidents, including terrorist threats, thatinvolve the use of nuclear materials. NEST is comprised of three functional elements which
include searching for, rendering safe, and command and control of the assets. Furthermore, there
are five primary teams dedicated to the execution of these functions: Accident Response Group(ARG), Radiological Assistance Program (RAP), Nuclear/Radiological Advisory Team (NRAT),
Search Response Team (SRT), and Joint Technical Operations Team (JTOT). The NEST program
has been structured to address threats posed by domestic and foreign terrorists likely to have both
the will and means to employ WMD. The NEST response assumes that such an act might occur
with little, if any, advanced warning.
Under such circumstances, NEST would respond to assist in the search for, identification,
characterization, rendering safe and final disposition of any nuclear weapon or radioactive device.
Additionally, NEST has the capability to search for possible additional devices that may have been
emplaced. Finally, the NEST Technology Integration program keeps responders equipped with
cutting edge equipment and analysis methods.


Other Assets

26,91927,44925,660Additional assets provide assistance to local, state and other federal agencies and conduct exercises
in response to emergencies involving nuclear/radiological materials in support of Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)/Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and DOE, as well as support toWeapons Activities/
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response

Page 249

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

the NEST programs to ensure the safe resolution of an incident and protect public safety and theenvironment.
 The Aerial Measuring System (AMS) detects and maps radioactive material at an emergency
scene to determine contamination levels using fixed wing and rotary aircraft.
 The Atmospheric Release Advisory Capability (ARAC) develops and disseminates predictive
dose and deposition plots generated by sophisticated computer models.
 The Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center (FRMAC)/Consequence
Management Teams provide the technical capabilities focused on radiological consequence
management to assist and coordinate federal radiological monitoring and assessment activities
and effects with DHS, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), NRC, EPA, DoD,
state and local agencies, and others.
 The Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site (REAC/TS) provides advice andmedical consultation for injuries resulting from radiation exposure and contamination andserves as a training facility. REAC/TS operates the Cytogenetic Biodosimetry Laboratory(CBL) that has the capability to perform clinical dose assessments for potentially exposed
individuals to non-symptomatic levels of radiation. The CBL is the only federally funded
civilian facility of its kind in the country. Additionally, REAC/TS provides training to the
medical community and maintains a database of medical responders trained to treat radiation
injuries within the U.S. and abroad.


Render Safe Stabilization Operations

18,69919,35019,326The Render Safe Stabilization Operations (RSSO) has begun to operationally deploy technologies
developed by the Render Safe R&D program. The RSSO program is working with the FBI todevelop the teams to use technologies without extensive training, to isolate and stabilize a nuclear
device until the national response assets arrive to render it safe.
The Render Safe Research and Development (RS R&D) Program continues to researchtechnologies that can be used to stabilize and render safe a nuclear device. Currently, the RS
R&D portfolio is focused on stabilization technologies. Research is promising, and several
technologies developed by the RS R&D Program are in initial production to be used by RSSO
stabilization teams. The requested RSSO funding will make this possible. The RSSO program isalso leveraging technologies developed by other government agencies.
In FY 2011, the funding requested for Stabilization Operations will facilitate the interchange of
information between NCTIR and other agencies, obtain and maintain equipment, develop andtrain the stabilization field and home teams with the FBI, and deploy the first generation ofstabilization equipment to selected FBI teams, thus improving the national emergency response
capability and fully integrating this technology with response elements and associated deployedtechnologies.

Weapons Activities/
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response

Page 250

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)

National Technical Nuclear Forensics (Homeland
Security)

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

12,557

10,217

11,698The Office of National Technical Nuclear Forensics (NTNF) provides operational support to PreDetonation Device and Post-Detonation technical nuclear forensics program. The NTNF program is a
Homeland Security Council (HSC)/National Security Council (NSC) sponsored policy initiative, whichaims to establish missions, institutionalize roles and responsibilities and enable operational support for
pre-detonation and post-detonation nuclear forensics and attribution programs including training andexercises, equipment purchases and maintenance, logistics, and deployment readiness to support groundsample collection and Deployable Field Laboratory operations. Major program elements include: concept of operations development and techniques, tactics and procedures; modeling, signatures development, knowledge base and data management;
 support to FBI in collection of pre-detonation device forensics evidence;
 maintain G-Tunnel capability to support NTNF;
 support to FBI in collection and analysis of post-detonation ground samples; establish Home Team capability, and training, drills, and exercises.
Emergency Management (Homeland Security)

7,428

7,726

7,494

The Office of Emergency Management develops and implements specific programs, plans, and systems
to minimize the impacts of emergencies on worker and public health and safety, the environment, andnational security. This is accomplished by promulgating appropriate Departmental requirements andimplementing guidance; developing and conducting training and other emergency preparedness
activities; supporting readiness assurance activities and participating in interagency activities. The
objective is to continue to have a fully implemented and fully integrated Departmental comprehensive
emergency management system throughout the DOE complex. In FY 2011, the Office of Emergency
Management will conduct six to eight no-notice exercises at DOE/NNSA sites to gauge emergency
preparedness.
The Office of NNSA Emergency Management Implementation serves as the single point of contact for
implementing and coordinating emergency management policy, preparedness, and response activities
with NNSA, including managing the NNSA Headquarters emergency preparedness and response effort
and coordinating NNSA field and contractor implementation of emergency management policy.

Weapons Activities/
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response

Page 251

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011The Emergency Operations Training Academy (EOTA) is an academically accepted training anddevelopment center that remains on the cutting edge of technology and innovation. It is the Office ofEmergency Operations point of service for training development and oversight.
The Continuity Program (CP) continues to include responsibility for all of DOE and NNSA and is a
HSC/NSC required policy initiative. These programs develop the Headquarters and the fieldContinuity of Operations and Continuity of Government plans that are updated constantly. Periodic
training and exercises are required. The NNSA and DOE continue to participate in major interagency
exercises sponsored by DHS on an annual basis. In FY 2012, the CP plans to complete the National
Communications System directive (NCS) -10 (Federal) communications equipment and training
requirements for the national capital region as well as Albuquerque.
Operations Support (Homeland Security)

8,207

8,536

8,675

Emergency Operations Support operates the DOE Emergency Operations Centers and the Emergency
Communications Network (ECN). The DOE Headquarters Emergency Operations Center provides thecore functions of supporting Departmental command, control, communications, Geographic
Information System (GIS) data and situational intelligence requirements for all categories of DOE
emergency response situations. The goal of the Emergency Communications Network Program is toprovide the DOE/NNSA national emergency response community a world-class, state-of-the-art, highspeed, global emergency communications network to support the exchange of classified andunclassified voice, data and video information.
International Emergency Management and Cooperation

4,515

7,181

7,139

The International Emergency Management and Cooperation (IEMC) subprogram develops programplans and infrastructure; provides technical assistance, and conducts training to strengthen andharmonize emergency management systems worldwide. Current ongoing cooperation involves
Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, India, Iraq, Israel, Japan,
Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden,
and Taiwan. NNSA will continue liaison with, and participate in projects sponsored by, internationalorganizations (IAEA, European Union (EU), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Group of 8,(G8), Arctic Council), exhibiting leadership under assistance and cooperation agreements to provide
consistent emergency plans and procedures, effective early warning and notification of
nuclear/radiological incidents or accidents, and delivery of assistance to an affected nation should an
incident/accident occur.

Weapons Activities/
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response

Page 252

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011The IEMC subprogram supports the IAEA in developing and implementing new standards andguidance for emergency management affecting all member states (approximately 150 countries). The
IEMC is also providing communication and radiation monitoring equipment and technical assistancefor the IAEA and foreign government emergency programs to address nuclear and radiologicalincidents and accidents including lost sources. The subprogram supports emergency response
cooperative activities bilaterally, multi-laterally and under various international agreements andarrangements and Presidential and Global Initiatives to ensure programs are in place to protect
emergency personnel, the public and the environment from the consequences of nuclear/radiologicalincidents and accidents. The IEMC conducts emergency drills and exercises involving nuclear facility
workers and local and national government counterparts; and develops and conducts training courses
for nuclear facility emergency staff and other emergency responders.
The subprogram is developing specialized emergency management training courses for emergency
managers in several Asian (China, Malaysia, Philippines, South Korea) and South American countries(Argentina, Brazil, Chile) for topics to include hazards assessment, monitoring, and medical
management of a radiological emergency. Additionally, the subprogram is working to maximize
synergies and ensure integration of emergency management systems and training and emergency
response activities with other ongoing NNSA projects involving common foreign partners.
Nuclear Counterterrorism (Homeland Security)
49,65349,22864,036The Nuclear Counterterrorism (NCT) program serves as the primary point of contact in the US
Government for technical expertise regarding Improvised Nuclear Devices (IND); proliferant foreignand non-U.S. stockpile weapon design and assessment activities as they relate to nuclear terrorism,
counterproliferation and national render safe activities. The NCT program has developed specialized
capabilities within the stockpile-related nuclear weapons design laboratories and production facilities,
to provide the necessary analysis, policy support, and contingency planning needed by other agencies tocounter the threat of a stolen, modified, or improvised nuclear device. The majority of this budget
request is for nuclear materials and high explosives assessment, as well as development and testing of
diagnostics and render safe tools. Also, in FY 2011, NCT will be completing analysis of a second
series of major render safe experiments in support of the Disablement Capabilities Review.
This subprogram element enables specialized R&D for technical analysis, equipment, and procedures
necessary to maintain the Nation's capabilities for research on non-stockpile nuclear weapons designs;
e.g., Improvised Nuclear Devices or Radiological Dispersal Devices and the laboratory analysis of theiraftermath. Additionally, this program element will ensure that we will be able to meet the expectationsof DoD in our role for worldwide render safe support. This effort will enhance our capabilities to
respond to intelligence requests and maintain operational readiness through acquisition of needed
specialized equipment and training of interagency staff on non-stockpile weapons designs, thus
decreasing the Nation's risk in the event of a nuclear terrorist strike.
Total, Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Weapons Activities/
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response

Page 253

215,278

221,936

233,134

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Emergency Response (Homeland Security)


Nuclear Emergency Support Team
This decrease reflects reprioritization within NCTIR elements to accommodate
increases in higher priority mission requirements.

Other Assets
This decrease reflects reprioritization within NCTIR elements to accommodate
increases in higher priority mission requirements.

-3,143-1,789Render Safe Stabilization Operations
Reflects a slight decrease in development and deployment of first generationequipment for stabilization teams.

Subtotal, Emergency Response-24- 4,956

National Technical Nuclear Forensics (Homeland Security)
The increase supports further establishment of missions, institutionalization of roles
and responsibilities and refinement of operational support for pre-detonation and postdetonation nuclear forensics, attribution and ongoing disposition programs.

+ 1,481Emergency Management (Homeland Security)
This decrease reflects reprioritization within NCTIR elements to accommodate
increases in higher priority mission requirements.

-232

Operations Support (Homeland Security)
Increases Emergency Operations Centers funding to support required maintenance of
the Emergency Communications Network.

+139

International Emergency Management and Cooperation
This decrease is commensurate with the planned profile of funding requirements forinternational outreach efforts.

Weapons Activities/
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response

Page 254-42

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Nuclear Counterterrorism (Homeland Security)
This increase results from reallocation within NCTIR to ensure that efforts to combat
nuclear terrorism continue for existing customers and stakeholders along withtechnical aspects this program can bring to bear on the NCTIR mission. The NCT
base program will continue to ensure its mission of reducing the risks of potential
INDs. Funding requested represents revised investment mix in R&D for tools,
techniques and procedures in such areas as multi-dimensional modeling; an IND tool
kit; proactive information control, and various other activities.
The growth in this subprogram element enables specialized R&D for technicalanalysis, equipment, and procedures necessary to maintain the Nation's capabilities
for research on non-stockpile nuclear weapons designs; e.g., Improvised Nuclear
Devices or Radiological Dispersal Devices and the laboratory analysis of theiraftermath as well as ensuring that we will be able to meet the expectations of DoD in
our role for worldwide render safe support.
Total Funding Change, Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response

Weapons Activities/
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response

Page 255+ 14,808+ 11,198

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Capital Operating Expenses and Construction Summarya
Capital Operating Expenses(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
0
0
0
1,852
1,893
1,935

General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

1,852

1,893

1,935

Outyear Capital Operating Expenses(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
0
0
0
0
1,978
2,022
2,066
2,111

FY 2012General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

1,978

2,022

2,066

2,111

a

Funds are appropriated for Operations and Maintenance, which includes operating expenses, capital equipment and generalplant projects. The program no longer budgets separately for capital equipment and general plant projects. Funding shownreflects estimates based on actual FY 2009 obligations.
Weapons Activities/
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

Page 256

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program
Funding Profile by Subprogram(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Current
Appropriation
Appropriation
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Recapitalization
Infrastructure Planning
Facility Disposition
Subtotal, Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Construction
Total, Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program

69,226
10,3240
79,55067,899147,449

69,377
8,982
5,600
83,9599,963
93,922

FY 2011
Request79,6009,400
5,000
94,000094,000Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2012
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Recapitalization
Infrastructure Planning
Facility Disposition
Subtotal, Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Construction
Total, Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program

79,6009,400
5,000
94,000094,000(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 201486,6002,400
5,000
94,000094,000FY 2015

0
0

0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

MissionThe Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) continues its mission to restore,
rebuild and revitalize the physical infrastructure of the nuclear security enterprise. The program funding
is utilized to address an integrated, prioritized series of repair and infrastructure projects thatsignificantly increase the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the NNSA nuclear security
enterprise sites by focusing on elimination of legacy deferred maintenance. FIRP improves safety and isable to readily respond to changing missions, priorities and decisions affecting both sites and theirfacilities within the nuclear security enterprise through the implementation of its prioritized project listthat targets the highest priority facilities and infrastructure deficiencies first.
Benefits
Within FIRP, four subprograms each make unique contributions to the Government Performance andResults Act (GPRA) Unit Program Number 36. Of the four subprograms, three require funding in
FY 2011: Recapitalization, Infrastructure Planning, and Facility Disposition. The Facility Disposition
subprogram achieved its initial commitment to fund a cumulative 3,000,000 gross square feet (gsf) for
disposition in FY 2008. However, beginning in FY 2010 additional facilities will continue to bedispositioned as part of FIRP's effort to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog. The FIRP line item
construction program is not requesting funding in FY 2011.
Weapons Activities/
Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program

Page 257

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFIRP is complementary to the ongoing programmatic base maintenance and infrastructure efforts at
NNSA sites. Maintenance and infrastructure are primarily funded by Readiness in Technical Base andFacilities (RTBF) and through site overhead allocations to ensure that facilities necessary for immediate
programmatic workload activities are sufficiently maintained. FIRP addresses the additional sustained
investments above the RTBF base for focused reduction of deferred maintenance to extend facility
lifetimes, reduce the risk of unplanned system and equipment failures, increase operational efficiency
and effectiveness, allow for the recapitalization of aging facility systems, and remove hazards to workers
by improving safety. FIRP works in partnership with RTBF to ensure the facilities and infrastructure of
the nuclear security enterprise are restored to an appropriate condition to support the Stockpile
Stewardship Program mission, transformation of the complex, and to institutionalize responsible andaccountable facility management practices.
FIRP is effectively executing the program and reports the corresponding planned and actual
performance results in the Congressional Budget Request. FIRP's partners, NNSA sites, and M&O
contractors have committed to the achievement of the FIRP annual performance goals. The success of
FIRP is attributed to strong central management of the program; independent and objective oversight;
and an ongoing partnership between Headquarters programs, NNSA Site Offices, and NNSA M&O
contractors.

Weapons Activities/
Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program

Page 258

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAnnual Performance Results and Targets(R = Results; T= Targets)
Performance Indicators

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Endpoint Target

T: $34.1M(85.5%)

T: $24.7M(88.3%)

T:$24.5M(91.0%)

T: $23.6M(93.6%)

N/A

N/A

Eliminate$900,000,000 of
NNSA’s legacy
deferred maintenancebacklog by 2013.a

Secretarial Goal: Security: Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risks
GPRA Unit Program Number: .36, Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program
Deferred Maintenance:
Annual dollar value andcumulative percentage oflegacy deferred maintenancebaseline of $900 million;
funded for elimination by
FY 2013. (Long-term
Output)R: $118M(32.8%)

R: $75M(56%)

R: $93M(73%)

R:$75.7M(81.7%)

T: $60M(28%)

T: $60M(38%)

T: $80M(64%)

T: $62M(80%)

Execution of Projects:
Execute FIRP projects
within approved cost andschedule baselines(including BCPs submitted
for approval), such that 95
percent of FIRP projects areon schedule/meet establishedmilestones and are within
total estimated costs (TEC).
(Efficiency)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

T: 95%b

T: 95%

T: 95%

T: 95%

N/A

N/A

Achieve 95% ofprojects on scheduleand within total
estimated costs
through the end of
the program in
FY 2013.

Footprint Reduction:
Annual gross square feet(gsf) of NNSA excess
facilities space funded for
elimination; and cumulative
percentage of FY 2002-FY
2009 total goal of three
million gsf eliminated.

R: 316,000b(85%)

R: 264,000(96%)

R: 292,000(106%)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

T: 175,000(79%)

T: 225,000(92%)

T: 225,000(100%)

By 2009, eliminate
3,000,000 gsf ofexcess facility space.aa(1) The program’s deferred maintenance goal is to eliminate $900,000,000 of deferred maintenance by FY 2013. (2) The original FY 2009 date for elimination of thedeferred maintenance backlog was extended to 2013 due to constrained outyear funding.

b

FIRP’s contribution to reducing FCI is minimal compared to the RTBF program’s contribution. Therefore, FIRP developed a new efficiency measure for project
execution. Beginning in FY 2010, FIRP will no longer report FCI results.

Weapons Activities/
Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program

Page 259

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Endpoint Target

Facility Condition Index(FCI) for Mission Critical
Facilities: Annual NNSA
complex-wide aggregate
Facility Condition Index(FCI), as measured bydeferred maintenance costs
per replacement plant value,
for all mission-criticalfacilities and infrastructure.
(Jointly with Readiness inTechnical Base andFacilities). (Efficiency)

R: 6.7%

R: 6.5%

R: 4.26%

R: 3.37%

N/Ab

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

T: 7.4%

T: 6.8%

T: 5%

T: 5%

By
2009, maintain thecondition of mission
critical facilities andinfrastructure at an
FCI level of 5%.

Facility Condition Index(FCI) for Mission
Dependent Not Critical
Facilities: Annual NNSA
complex-wide aggregate
Facility Condition Index(FCI), as measured bydeferred maintenance costs
per replacement plant value,
for all mission-dependent,
not critical facilities andinfrastructure. (Jointly with
Readiness in Technical Baseand Facilities). (Efficiency)

N/A

N/A

R: 8.92%

R: 6.91%

N/Aa

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

T: 8.25%

T: 8.75%

By 2009,
improve mission
dependent, notcritical facilities andinfrastructure to an
FCI level of 8.75%.

Performance Indicators(Long-term Output)_______________a

FIRP met its footprint reduction target in FY 2008. Additional facilities continue to be dispositioned as part of FIRP's effort to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog.

b

FIRP’s contribution to reducing FCI is minimal compared to the RTBF program’s contribution. Therefore, FIRP developed a new efficiency measure for project
execution. Beginning in FY 2010, FIRP will no longer report FCI results.
Weapons Activities/
Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program

Page 260

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAnnual Performance Results and Targets
The FIRP program falls under the Secretarial Goal 3, entitled, “Security: Reduce nuclear dangers andenvironmental risks.” FIRP addresses an integrated, prioritized series of repair and infrastructure
projects that significantly increase the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the NNSA nuclear
security enterprise sites by focusing on elimination of legacy deferred maintenance. FIRP improvessafety and is able to readily respond to changing missions, priorities and decisions affecting both sites
and their facilities within the nuclear security enterprise through the implementation of its prioritizedproject list which targets the highest priority facilities and infrastructure deficiencies first.
FY 2009 Accomplishments All FIRP line item construction projects were rated as "Green" for cost and schedule by the DOE
Office of Engineering and Construction Management (OECM).
Major Outyear Priorities and Assumptions
The outyear projections for FIRP total $188,000,000 (FY 2012-FY2013). FIRP is a finite program witha Congressionally-mandated end date of FY 2013.
FIRP continues to use a prioritized project listing that enables the program to prioritize and fund legacy
deferred maintenance reduction projects that significantly reduce NNSA’s deferred maintenance backlog
to acceptable levels and support the Stockpile Stewardship Program mission and transformation of theenterprise. FIRP projects improve safety by improving conditions for the maintenance workers and thegeneral laboratory and plant populations.

Weapons Activities/
Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program

Page 261

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
Recapitalization

69,226

69,37779,600Recapitalization funds capital renewal and sustainability projects required to restore the facilities andinfrastructure comprising the nuclear security enterprise to an acceptable condition. The subprogram
funds projects in accordance with established criteria and priorities that target deferred maintenancereduction and repair (non-programmatic) of facilities and infrastructure. These projects are vital to
improving safety and restoring the facilities that accommodate the people, equipment, and material
necessary to support scientific research, production, or testing to conduct the Stockpile Stewardship
Program, the primary NNSA mission. Recapitalization also includes construction/renovation projects(non-programmatic) that renovate landlord or multi-program facilities, address adaptive reuse(conversion) or alterations to existing facilities, bring existing production and laboratory facilities into
compliance with mandated codes and/or standards, or reduce the site landlord’s total ownership costsof facilities and infrastructure. FIRP has invested approximately $87,000,000 (FY 2004-FY 2009) in
its enterprise-wide Roof Asset Management Program and plans to provide $15,000,000 in FY 2010
and FY 2011 to maintain a corporate approach for the management of NNSA’s roofing assets.
Infrastructure Planning

10,324

8,982

9,400

Infrastructure Planning funds planning activities for the upcoming year’s Recapitalization projects. Its
primary objective is to ensure that projects are adequately planned and designed in advance of project
start. This permits the timely use of Recapitalization funds and effective project execution, using a
graded approach to meet the requirements of DOE Order 413.3A, “Program and Project Management
for the Acquisition of Capital Assets.” The subprogram supports: the establishment ofRecapitalization project baselines; planning and design for priority general infrastructure projects;
contract preparation and other activities necessary to ensure the readiness to obligate and execute
funds. Infrastructure Planning also funds Other Project Costs in anticipation of FIRP Project
Engineering and Design (PED) and in support of construction for FIRP utility line items. Other key
activities funded by this subprogram include assessments of the physical condition of the enterprise toaid in the prioritization of deferred maintenance reduction and facility consolidation efforts; andprocurement support of small business contracts.
Facility Disposition

0

5,600

5,000

The Facility Disposition subprogram funds the decontamination, dismantlement, removal anddisposal of excess facilities that have been deactivated. This includes facilities that are excess tocurrent and future NNSA mission requirements, and are not contaminated by weapons processes.
The subprogram's budgeting and reporting (B&R) code will remain open through the conclusion of
the FIRP in FY 2013 in order to contribute to FIRP achieving a $900,000,000 legacy DM reduction
by FY 2013. From a corporate facilities view, an aggressively pursued disposition program is amajor component of all successfully executed government, private sector, and academic asset
management pursuits. This action restores that capability to NNSA's corporate facilities management
activities. The disposition of excess facilities reduces energy consumption, security risks,
Weapons Activities/
Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program

Page 262

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011environment, safety and health hazards, surveillance and maintenance costs, deferred maintenance,and contributes to the realization of a smaller, safer, more secure and less expensive nuclear security
enterprise.
FIRP Construction

67,8999,963

0FIRP Construction funds select utility line item construction projects across the enterprise, which
reduce deferred maintenance and result in increased efficiencies. FY 2010 funding will complete thelast project currently planned for execution under this subprogram.
Total, Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization
Program

Weapons Activities/
Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program

Page 263

147,449

93,922

94,000FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Recapitalization
The change reflects the redirection of FIRP's deferred maintenance project funding
from its line item construction projects to high priority Recapitalization projects.
This change supports FIRP’s continued effort to reduce deferred maintenance by
FY 2013. FIRP Recapitalization funding remains essential to restoring the conditionof mission essential facilities and infrastructure across the nuclear security enterprise
to an acceptable level.

+10,223

Infrastructure Planning
The requested amount is in alignment with the level of effort required to support upfront planning and design of FY 2012 Recapitalization projects. These activities
will ensure the effective and efficient expenditure of program funds.

+418

Facility Disposition
This change reflects funding associated with the disposition of excess facilities.
Projects proposed for execution under the Facility Disposition subprogram will
provide comparable Legacy DM reduction to FIRP Recapitalization projects andwill be prioritized with Recapitalization projects for execution in each year.

-600

Construction
The decrease reflects the planned shift of funding for deferred maintenancereduction from line item construction projects to projects funded under the
Recapitalization subprogram.
Total Funding Change, Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program

Weapons Activities/
Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program

Page 264-9,963+78

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Capital Operating Expenses and Construction Summary
Capital Operating Expensesa(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 201132,942
34,691
38,840000General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

32,942

34,691

38,840Outyear Capital Operating Expenses(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
38,84038,840000000General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

38,84038,84000Construction Projects b(dollars in thousands)

Major Item of Equipment
08-D-601, Mercury Highway, NTS c
08-D-602, Potable Water System, Y-12
07-D-253, TA-I Heating Systems
Modernization, SNL
06-D-601, Electrical Distribution System
Upgrade, PX
06-D-603, Steam Plant Life Extension
Project, Y-12
Total, Construction

Total
Prior Year
Estimated
ApproCost (TEC)
priations17,5007,651
48,90622,070FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 20119,849
0
0
26,8360
0UnappropriatedBalance0052,49627,251

15,282

9,963

0

0

16,721

12,841

3,880

0

0

0

43,81833,266

10,552
66,399

0
9,963

0
0

0

a

Since funds are appropriated for Operations and Maintenance, which includes operating expenses, capital equipment andgeneral plant projects, we no longer budget separately for capital equipment and general plant projects. FY 2010 and
FY 2011 funding shown reflects estimates based on actual FY 2009 obligations.
b

These represent construction estimates. Design TEC estimates are reported in the appropriate PED project.

c$1,500,000 of prior-year uncosted balances for 08-D-601, Mercury Highway, Nevada Test Site was reprogrammed in
FY 2009 in order to address funding needs for contractor employee defined-benefit pension plans. The project completed thepreviously-approved scope under budget and funding was available without impact due to favorable bids and subsequent
contract award for the project. the FY 2009..

Weapons Activities/
Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

Page 265

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 266

Site Stewardship
Funding Profile by Subprogram(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Current
Appropriation
Appropriation
Site Stewardship
Operations and MaintenanceConstruction
Total, Site Stewardship

061,288061,288FY 2011
Request90,47815,000105,478

Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2012Site Stewardship
Operations and MaintenanceConstruction
Total, Site Stewardship

101,929
0
101,929(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014103,5360
103,536

174,0710
174,071

FY 2015
205,8020
205,802

MissionThe goal of Site Stewardship is to ensure environmental compliance and energy and operational
efficiency throughout the nuclear security enterprise, while modernizing, streamlining, consolidating,and sustaining the stewardship and vitality of the sites as they transition within NNSA's plans for the
nuclear security enterprise. The objective of Site Stewardship is to maintain facility and overall site
stewardship to better focus resources in support of the overall NNSA missions by ensuring that all
regulatory and energy efficiency requirements are met and Special Nuclear Material (SNM) is
dispositioned.
Benefits
These activities support the NNSA's mission by ensuring efficient, balanced common stewardshipcontributions to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Unit Program Number 60. Site
Stewardship has a number of subprogram elements that are essential to support and maintain the criticalmission programs across the nuclear security enterprise. These subprogram elements address regulatory
driven requirements, nuclear materials consolidation, and NNSA-specific energy needs.
Operations and Maintenance
The Site Stewardship Operations and Maintenance program is comprised of three subprograms in
FY 2011 that include: Environmental Projects and Operations; Nuclear Materials Integration; andEnergy Modernization and Investment Program. Environmental Projects and Operations is a regulatory
driven subprogram that provides Long-Term Stewardship (LTS) at NNSA sites once the cleanup
mission at an NNSA site has been completed by the Office of Environmental Management. Nuclear
Materials Integration provides focused attention on the consolidation and disposition of specific NNSA
nuclear materials and on material sets owned by multiple programs and where a single coordinateddisposition program is warranted. Energy Modernization and Investment Program (EMIP) improvesenergy and water efficiency of enduring NNSA assets and implements renewable energy solutions in
Weapons Activities/
Site Stewardship

Page 267

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

accordance with regulatory requirements (e.g., Energy Policy Act, Energy Independence and Security
Act), Executive Orders 13423 and 13514, and DOE Order 430.2B.
Construction
Site Stewardship construction supports energy efficiency and site utility upgrade projects. In FY 2011
the Sanitary Effluent Reclamation Facility (SERF) Expansion at the Los Alamos National Laboratory(LANL) will upgrade 15 permitted wastewater discharge points to meet new EPA limits and to reduce
total site water usage by over 114 million gallons per year. Future Site Stewardship line item
construction projects will be identified and prioritized at each of the sites across the nuclear security
enterprise and will address environmental compliance and energy and operation efficiency and include
modernization projects as required.

Weapons Activities/
Site Stewardship

Page 268

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAnnual Performance Results and Targets(R = Results; T = Targets)
Performance Indicators

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Endpoint Target

T: 95%

T: 95%

T: 95%

T: 95%

T: 95%

T: 95%

Annually, submit on scheduleand receive regulator
approval of at least 95% of allenvironmental monitoring
and remediation deliverables
that are required at NNSA
sites under LTS by regulatory
agreements.

T: 80%

T: 90%

T: 100%

N/A

N/A

N/A

By the end of 2012, all
security category I and II
SNM removed from theLawrence Livermore National
Laboratory.

Secretarial Goal: Security: Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risks
GPRA Unit Program Number: 60, Site Stewardship
Environmental Monitoring
and Remediation: Annual
percentage of environmental
monitoring and remediationdeliverables that are requiredby regulatory agreements to be
conducted at NNSA sites underLong Term Stewardship (LTS)
that are executed on scheduleand in compliance with all
acceptance criteria. (Annual
Output)N/ASpecial Nuclear Material
Removed: Cumulative
percentage of security category
I/II Special Nuclear Material
removed from Lawrence
Livermore National
Laboratory. (Long-term
Output)

N/A

a

N/A

R: 100%

R: 100%
T: 95%

N/A

R: 35%a

R: 55%
T: 50%b

Target is associated with the previous Environmental Projects and Operations GPRA Unit.

b

Performance reporting is initiated in FY 2010 with the transfer of this activity into the new Site Stewardship account. Prior to FY 2010, this activity was funded within
the RTBF account and not reported as a discreet performance activity.

Weapons Activities/
Site Stewardship

Page 269

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetPerformance Indicators
NNSA Long-Term
Stewardship Program:
Cumulative cost savings
totaling 12% over six years for
the NNSA Long Term
Stewardship program
demonstrated by comparison of
the actual annual costs ofperforming the Stewardship
activities at a site as comparedto the budgeted annual costs ofperforming these sameactivities using Earned ValueManagement (EVM) principles
with a target savings of 2% per
year. (Efficiency Measure)

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

N/A

N/A

Baseline

R: 16%a

T: 2.0%

T: 2.0%

T: 2.0%

T: 2.0%

T: 2.0%N/A

T: 2.0%bEndpoint Target
Over a six year period(FY 2009 - FY 2014) achieve
a cumulative 12% costsavings when applying thismeasure.

a

The large apparent cost savings shown is due to delays in receiving regulatory approval for well replacements at Sandia and in completing the environmental restoration
activities at the Pantex Plant, which did not allow for all planned LTS activities to be completed during FY 2009 and thus resulting in lower than expected costs in
FY 2009. Future year performance of these deferred activities will normalize the apparent cost savings.

b

Target is associated with the previous Environmental Projects and Operations GPRA Unit Program.

Weapons Activities/
Site Stewardship

Page 270

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009 Accomplishments
The Site Stewardship GPRA unit begins in FY 2010. For specific FY 2009 achievements for the former
EPO GPRA unit, see the respective section in the EPO justification.
Major Outyear Priorities and Assumptions
The current outyear projections for Site Stewardship are $585,338,000 for FY 2012 through FY 2015.
Outyear funding will provide for the critical and persistent stewardship needs that support and align with
the NNSA mission and proposed transformation of the nuclear security enterprise. The effort tocomplete the removal of security category I/II SNM from LLNL by the end of 2012 will continue.

Weapons Activities/
Site Stewardship

Page 271

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification(dollars in thousands)
Operations and Maintenance

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011061,28890,478Environmental Projects and Operations
041,28842,273The Environmental Projects and Operations (EPO) subprogram provides for the continuance ofLong Term Stewardship (LTS) activities that are regulatory driven to reduce risks to human healthand the environment at NNSA sites and adjacent areas through two mechanisms: (1) by operating
and maintaining environmental cleanup systems installed by the Office of Environmental
Management as part of the Legacy Environmental Cleanup projects at NNSA sites; and(2) performing long-term environmental monitoring activities and analyses in a cost-effective
manner that assures compliance with federal, state, and local requirements. EPO provides effective
oversight of these activities and ensures integration of a responsible environmental stewardshipprogram with the NNSA’s stockpile stewardship and nuclear security efforts.
In FY 2011, NNSA is responsible for LTS at five sites: Kansas City Plant, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory (LLNL) Main Site, LLNL Site 300, Pantex Plant, and Sandia National
Laboratories. The EPO subprogram will support LTS regulatory requirements by continuing totreat contaminated groundwater; performing environmental monitoring of surface water, groundwater, and soils; operating and maintenance of landfill remedies; and working with EPA regions
and various states to meet post-completion regulatory cleanup and reporting requirements. The
NNSA, working in concert with other Federal agencies, states, and affected stakeholders, executes
its LTS activities in a cost-effective, compliant, and safe manner consistent with end states that
support the nuclear enterprise mission.
Nuclear Materials Integration
0
20,00041,554The Nuclear Materials Integration (NMI) subprogram provides focused attention on the
consolidation and disposition of specific NNSA nuclear materials and on material sets owned bymultiple programs and where a single coordinated disposition program is warranted. In addition,
the subprogram includes the Inactive Actinides program activities that ensure programmatic
materials, not in active use, are properly characterized and safely packaged, and that unneededmaterials have an appropriate disposition path.
In FY 2011, the ongoing inactive actinides program will continue to support the treatment,
consolidation and disposition of NNSA special nuclear material (SNM) that is no longer required tosupport the nuclear security enterprise mission. In FY 2011 Nuclear Materials Integration will
initiate the treatment and disposition of NNSA materials currently stored at non-NNSA sites
including the Idaho National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Support will be provided to Department-level planning activities including the identification ofmaterial sets with multiple program owners where a centralized and coordinated effort would be themost efficient and effective means of consolidating and dispositioning the material.

Weapons Activities/
Site Stewardship

Page 272

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

By the end of FY 2011, 90 percent of the security category I/II SNM will have been prepared foroff-site shipment. All security category I/II SNM will be packaged and removed from LLNL by
the end of 2012. Funding is provided starting in FY 2011 to package transuranic (TRU) waste
generated by the preparation of the LLNL materials, consistent with new guidance from the Officeof Environmental Management, for dispositioning at the Waste Isolation Pilot Program.
Energy Modernization and Investment Program
0
0
6,651
The Energy Modernization and Investment Program (EMIP) implements specific energy-savings
projects across the nuclear security enterprise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy
and water efficiency of enduring assets, and increase the generation and use of clean renewableenergy. The EMIP directly supports Executive Order 13423 Strengthening Federal Environmental,
Energy, and Transportation Management, Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership inEnvironmental, Energy and Economic Performance, DOE orders, and regulatory requirements.
The EMIP is a key component of NNSA’s energy management strategy to promote sustainability
and reduce energy usage and therefore costs, and complements other funding mechanisms.
The FY 2011 EMIP funding supports priority energy conservation projects that will reduce energy
consumption, enhance energy independence and security and provide life-cycle cost effective
benefits. Projects that provide the most significant contribution towards achievement of NNSA’senergy goals and result in cost savings and social benefits will be selected from the EMIP
Integrated Prioritized Project List (IPPL) for execution. Example projects include: energy
efficient upgrades to existing facility and utility systems; water conservation measures;
installation of advanced meters; high-efficiency new systems; and renewable energy solutions.
FY 2011 EMIP funding also supports Other Project Costs (OPC) for next-year energy stewardshipprojects.
00
15,000Construction
Site Stewardship construction supports energy efficiency and site utility upgrade projects.
In FY 2011 the Sanitary Effluent Reclamation Facility (SERF) Expansion at the Los Alamos
National Laboratory (LANL) will upgrade 15 permitted wastewater discharge points to meet new
EPA limits and to reduce total site water usage by over 114 million gallons per year.
Total, Site Stewardship

Weapons Activities/
Site Stewardship0Page 273

61,288105,478

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011
vs.
FY 2010($000)
Operations and MaintenanceEnvironmental Projects and Operations
The slight increase in EPO is at Pantex, primarily due to additional operationand maintenance of the Zone 11 In-situ bioremediation system, as a result of
regulatory concerns regarding perchlorate in the perched aquifer; and for wellreplacements in order to maintain compliance plan monitoring well network
requirements.



Nuclear Materials Integration
The net increase of $21,554,000 reflects a planned decrease of approximately$4,900,000 for the removal of security category I/II special nuclear material
from LLNL by the end of FY 2012; an increase of approximately $11,500,000
to implement new packaging requirements for TRU waste from the LLNL
effort; and an increase of approximately $14,900,000 in the program toconsolidate and disposition NNSA and multi-program nuclear materials.

▪

+21,554

Energy Modernization and Investment Program
The increase supports the initiation and execution of priority Energy
Modernization and Investment Program (EMIP) projects that will contributetowards achievement of NNSA's energy conservation goals.

▪

+985

+6,651

Construction
The increase fully funds the Sanitary Effluent Reclamation Facility (SERF)
Expansion at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) to upgrade
wastewater discharge points to meet new EPA limits and to reduce total sitewater usage by over 114 million gallons per year.

Total Funding Change, Site Stewardship

Weapons Activities/
Site Stewardship+15,000+44,190

Page 274

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Capital Operating Expenses and Construction Summary
Capital Operating Expenses(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
0
0
0
0
0
0

General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

0

0

0

Outyear Capital Operating Expenses
FY 2012General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Construction Projects(dollars in thousands)

Major Item of Equipment
11-D-601, Sanitary Effluent Reclamation
Facility, LANL
Total, Construction

Weapons Activities/
Site Stewardship
Capital Operating Expenses

Total
Estimated
Cost (TEC)

Prior Year
Appropriations

15,000Page 275

FY 20090

FY 201000

FY 20110
0UnappropriatedBalance

15,00015,000FY 2011 Congressional Budget0Page 276

11-D-601, Sanitary Effluent Reclamation Facility (SERF) Expansion at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory (LANL) Project Data Sheet is for
Project Engineering and Design/Construction
1. Significant Changes
The most recent approved Critical Decision (CD) is CD-1, approved on January 8, 2010, with a preconceptual design cost range of $10,000,000 to $16,000,000.
A Federal Project Director has been assigned to this project.
This Project Data Sheet is new for Project Engineering and Design (PED) and Construction.
Consistent with the Deputy Secretary’s memorandum dated January 16, 2009, and the FY 2011 Field
Budget Call dated December 14, 2009, requiring that all pre-CD-2 projects with a total project cost(TPC) of less than $20,000,000 request all construction funds within the same appropriation year of startof construction, the project will be fully funded in FY 2011, its construction year. Therefore, PED andconstruction funding are being requested concurrently.
2. Design, Construction, and D&D Schedule(fiscal quarter or date)a

FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011CD-0
07/29/2009
07/29/2009
07/29/2009

CD-1
NA
NA
01/08/2010

PED
Complete
NANA
3Q 2011CD-2
NANA
3Q 2011CD-3
NANA
3Q 2011CD-4NANA
4Q 2012

D&D Start
NA
NA
NA

D&D
Complete
NA
NA
NA

CD-0 – Approve Mission Need
CD-1 – Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range
CD-2 – Approve Performance Baseline
CD-3 – Approve Start of Construction
CD-4 – Approve Start of Operations or Project Closeout
D&D Start – Start of Demolition & Decontamination (D&D) work
D&D Complete –Completion of D&D worka

The CD-1, CD-2, CD-3, and CD-4 dates are preliminary, pending approval of the performance baselineby the Acquisition Executive upon CD-2 approval.

Weapons Activities/Site Stewardship/Construction
11-D-601, Sanitary Effluent Reclamation Facility Expansion
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Page 277

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

3. Baseline and Validation Status

FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011

TEC,
PED
NA
NA
1,200

TEC,
ConstructionNANA
13,800

TEC, Total
NANA
15,000(dollars in thousands)aOPC
Except
OPC,
D&D
D&D
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,100
NA

OPC, Total
NA
NA
1,100

TPC
NA
NA
16,1004. Project Description, Justification, and Scope
Project Description
The Sanitary Effluent Reclamation Facility (SERF) was originally constructed in 2003 to supply
reclaimed sanitary effluent for use at only the Strategic Computing Complex (SCC). However, theSERF as originally designed does not have the capacity to treat the expected amount of effluent atcritical facilities and will need to be expanded. The expansion of SERF will provide treatment capacity(up to 500,000 gallons per day (gpd)), both in terms of volumetric flow and degree of treatment, which
will allow the Sanitary Waste Water System (SWWS), SCC, Laboratory Data Communications Center(LDCC), and Power Plant effluent to be treated to allow reuse, thereby greatly reducing the amount ofwater that must be discharged to the environment, and allowing National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit effluent limits to be met.
The SWWS and Power Plant treated effluents are currently combined and discharged to the environment
into Sandia Canyon (an environmental concern) in addition to the blow-down from the SCC and LDCC
cooling towers. However, an integrated approach to reduce or eliminate discharges to NPDESpermitted outfalls through water reuse does not exist. To achieve the integrated approach objective,
treated effluent from the SWWS plant will receive additional treatment at the SERF and be used to meet
the water demands for the Power Plant, SCC, and LDCC. Cooling tower blow-down from the SCC and
LDCC will be returned to the SERF, thereby minimizing the discharges to the canyon. Boiler andcooling tower blow-down and other routinely-generated non-sanitary wastewaters from the Power Plant
will also be returned to SERF, thereby eliminating the need to discharge these wastewaters to theenvironment.
Project Scope
The SERF Expansion Project will increase the existing facility’s footprint to allow the installation of
additional piping, pumps, and micro and reverse osmosis filters to increase capacity (up to 500,000 gpd)
and capability for removal of Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and metals from the waste waters. In
addition, new effluent and blending tanks will be provided as a process buffer to enable remote, off-shiftoperations. Additional tank capacity may be added near the SSWW plant to mitigate the potential of
untreated over-flow and provide operational flexibility/buffer. Lastly, new evaporation ponds will be
added to store reverse osmosis rejects which cannot be treated further to meet permit requirements.

a

All costs are preliminary, pending approval of the performance baseline costs by Acquisition Executive upon CD-2
approval.
Weapons Activities/Site Stewardship/Construction
11-D-601, Sanitary Effluent Reclamation Facility Expansion
Page 278
Los Alamos National Laboratory

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetProject Justification
The primary justification for the SERF project is to recycle 115 million gallons of water annually which
supports the goals of the Energy Management Executive Orders 13423 and 13514 which designate water
conservation targets requiring a 16 percent reduction by 2015. This project will contribute 37 percent toachieving the goal.
The outfall reduction strategy plan, dependent on the SERF Expansion Project, meets the establishedobjectives for reduced water consumption. Since LANL is the sixth largest user of water among DOE
facilities, a significant contribution from LANL is critical to achieving the Executive Order 13423 andExecutive Order 13514 goals. The Laboratory has implemented an objective and target under its
Environmental Management System of zero liquid discharges by 2012.
During the course of performing the national nuclear security mission, LANL discharges more than
175 million gallons of treated wastewater each year through 15 permitted outfalls under its NPDES
permit. These outfalls support mission-critical research and development and waste management
operations at LANL. In August 2007, LANL was issued a new NPDES Outfall permit by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA Permit #NM0028355). Stricter effluent limitations along with
July 2010 and July 2012 compliance deadlines will result in compliance issues for LANL if present
discharges are not addressed. The stricter effluent limitations contained in the new permit cannot be met
with existing treatment facilities at the Laboratory. Failure to resolve these compliance issues by thecompliance deadlines could disrupt Laboratory operations and possibly expose NNSA and LANL tocivil and criminal liability. Fines and penalties of $25,000/day for each violation could be imposed by
the EPA.
The project is being conducted in accordance with the project management requirements in DOE
O 413.3A Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, and all appropriate
project management requirements will be followed or tailored as necessary.
No construction funds will be used until the project performance baseline has been validated and CD-3
has been approved (this project may be completed as a design build acquisition contingent on approvalby the Acquisition Executive).

Weapons Activities/Site Stewardship/Construction
11-D-601, Sanitary Effluent Reclamation Facility Expansion
Page 279
Los Alamos National Laboratory

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

5. Financial Schedule
Appropriations(dollars in thousands)a
Obligations

Costs

Total Estimated Cost (TEC)PED
FY 2011
FY 2012
Total, PED

1,200
0
1,200

1,200
0
1,200

1,200
0
1,200

Construction
FY 2011
FY 2012
Total, Construction

13,800013,80013,800013,8002,000
11,80013,800TEC
FY 2011
FY 2012
Total, TEC

15,0000
15,00015,0000
15,0003,200
11,80015,000

1,100
0
0
0
1,100

136
764
0
200
1,100

136
564
200
200
1,100

D&D
FY 2012
Total, D&D

NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA

OPC
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
Total, OPC

1,100
0
0
0
1,100

136
764
0
200
1,100

136
564
200
200
1,100

1,100
0
15,0000
16,100136764
15,000200
16,100

136
564
3,400
12,000
16,100

Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&D
FY 2009b
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
Total, OPC except D&D

Total Project Cost (TPC)FY 2009 b
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
Total, TPC
aFunding and cost profiles shown are preliminary, pending approval of the performance baseline by the Acquisition
Executive upon approval of CD-2.

b

Funded by Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP).

Weapons Activities/Site Stewardship/Construction
11-D-601, Sanitary Effluent Reclamation Facility Expansion
Page 280
Los Alamos National Laboratory

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

6. Details of Project Cost Estimate(dollars in thousands)aCurrent Previous
Original
Total
Total
Validated
Estimate Estimate
Baseline
Total Estimated Cost (TEC)
Design (PED)
DesignContingency
Total, PED

1,000
200
1,200

NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA

Construction
Site Preparation
Equipment
Other Construction
Contingency
Total, Construction

1,000
4,000
6,600
2,200
13,800

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

Total, TEC
Contingency, TEC

15,000
2,400

NA
NA

NA
NA

800
200
100
1,100

NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
1,100
100

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

16,100
2,500

NA
NA

NA
NA

Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC Except D&D
Conceptual Design
StartupContingency
Total OPC Except D&D
D&D
D&D
Contingency
Total D&D
Total, OPC
Contingency, OPC
Total, TPC
Total, ContingencyaAll costs are preliminary, pending approval of the performance baseline costs by Acquisition Executive upon CD-2
approval.

Weapons Activities/Site Stewardship/Construction
11-D-601, Sanitary Effluent Reclamation Facility Expansion
Page 281
Los Alamos National Laboratory

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

7. Schedule of Total Project Costs
Prior Years
FY 2011

TEC
OPC
TPC

1,100
1,100

(dollars in thousands)
FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014
15,000FY 20100

15,0000

0

FY 20150Outyears

0

0

Total
15,000
1,100
16,1008. Related Operations and Maintenance Funding Requirements
Start of Operation or Beneficial Occupancy (fiscal quarter or date)

1QFY 2013

Expected Useful Life (number of years)
Expected Future Start of D&D of this capital asset (fiscal quarter)

30
1Q FY 2042

(Related Funding requirements)(dollars in thousands)
Annual Costs
Life Cycle Costs
Current
Previous
Current
Previous
Total
Total
Total
Total
Estimate Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
750
750
22,50022,5001,500
1,500
45,00045,0002,250
2,250
67,50067,500Operations
MaintenanceTotal, Operations & Maintenance

9. Required D&D Information
The one-for-one offset requirement will be met by utilizing site-banked square footage.
Area
Area of new construction
Area of existing facility(s) being replaced
Area of additional D&D space to meet the “one-for-one” requirement

Square Feet
800
NA
NA

Name(s) and site location(s) of existing facility(s) to be replaced:
10. Acquisition Approach
Potential alternatives that will be considered includes, but not limited to status quo, limited expansion(no recycle for the LDCC and the Power Plant Cooling Tower), expansion as described above, andexpanded SERF Expansion by adding Sigma and TA-55.
To meet the July 2012 deadline for meeting the NPDES permitting requirements, the project will beacquired through a design-build strategy on a firm-fixed price contract, if deemed necessary.

Weapons Activities/Site Stewardship/Construction
11-D-601, Sanitary Effluent Reclamation Facility Expansion
Page 282
Los Alamos National Laboratory

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Environmental Projects and Operations
Funding Profile by Subprogram(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Current
Appropriation
Appropriation
Environmental Projects and Operations
Long-Term Stewardship
Total, Environmental Projects and Operations

38,596
38,596

FY 2011
Request00

00

Budget Structure Changes
The Environmental Projects and Operations Long-Term Stewardship activities have been realigned toSite Stewardship Operations and Maintenance Program. The Site Stewardship Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) unit established in FY 2010 integrates program elements
managed under the Associate Administrator for Infrastructure and Environment into one funding entitythat will operate under a consistent policy.
FY 2009 Accomplishments
 Signed Chemical Commodities Superfund Consent Decree at Kansas City Plant.
 Submitted all regulatory documents on time for the Kansas City Plant, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Pantex Plant, and Sandia National Laboratories.
 Submitted Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Facility (MHWMF) permit renewal application
to Missouri DNR. The regulator allowed an application for a Post Closure permit instead of a
MHWMF permit which was less onerous and liability on the site.
 DOE and EPA negotiated and settled dispute with DOE agreeing fines and penalties due to
shutdown of remedial actions (treatment facilities) at LLNL Main Site in FY 2008. A Treatment
Facility restart schedule was also negotiated as part of the agreement which was implemented
beginning in FY 2009.
 Maintained Engineering and Institutional Controls in support of requirements identified inCompliance Plans for Long Term Stewardship of cleanup actions at these sites.
Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Environmental Projects and Operations/Long-Term Stewardship
Reflects realignment of the Environmental Projects and Operations Long-Term
Stewardship activities under the Site Stewardship Operations and Maintenance
Program in FY 2010.

0

Total Funding Change, Environmental Projects and Operations

0

Weapons Activities/
Environmental Projects and Operations

Page 283

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 284

Safeguards and Security
Funding Profile by Subprogram(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Current
Appropriation
Appropriation
Safeguards and Security (S&S)
Defense Nuclear Security (Homeland Security)
Operations and MaintenanceConstruction
Total, Defense Nuclear Security
Cyber Security (Homeland Security)
Total, Safeguards and Security

689,51045,698735,208
121,286
856,494

FY 2011
Request

720,044
49,000769,044
122,511
891,555

667,954
52,000719,954
124,345844,299(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015

Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2012
Safeguards and Security (S&S)
Defense Nuclear Security (Homeland Security)
Operations and MaintenanceConstruction
Total, Defense Nuclear Security
Cyber Security (Homeland Security)
Total, Safeguards and Security

675,22955,715730,944
126,046
856,990672,344
57,265
729,609125,822855,431671,671
57,254
728,925
125,707854,632

681,259
59,390740,649
127,189
867,838

MissionSafeguards and Security (S&S) is comprised of two Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
Unit Programs. The Defense Nuclear Security (DNS) program, managed by National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) Associate Administrator for Defense Nuclear Security, provides protection for
NNSA personnel, facilities, nuclear weapons, and information from a full spectrum of threats, mostnotably from terrorism, which has become of paramount concern since the September 11, 2001 attacks.
The Cyber Security program, managed by the NNSA Chief Information Officer, provides the requisite
guidance needed to ensure that sufficient information technology and information management security
safeguards are implemented throughout the NNSA enterprise. These program efforts are integrated
under NNSA’s Chief of Defense Nuclear Security.
The FY 2011 submission provides direct funding for the mission base program for Defense Nuclear
Security. Work for Others will continue to fund an allocable share of the base program through full cost
recovery. Extraordinary security requirements for Work for Others projects will be a direct charge tothose customers. In the FY 2011-2015 Budget Request, Cyber Security activities are all requested as
direct funded.
The NNSA Management and Operating contractors have provided estimates for full cost recovery of
Defense Nuclear Security activities that support and/or benefit Work for Others customers for FY 2011.
The table below provides an estimate of the costs that will be recovered from Work for Others
customers. There was no provision for full cost recovery in the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriation.

Weapons Activities/
Safeguards and Security

Page 285

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Estimates of Security Cost Recovered by Defense Nuclear Security(Dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual
FY 2010 Current
Site
Appropriation
Appropriation
Kansas City Plant
0200
Livermore National Laboratory
03,400
Los Alamos National Laboratory
0
3,939
Nevada Test Site
01,864
Pantex Plant
0
165
Sandia National Laboratory
0
17,000
Y-12 Plant
0
0
Total
0
26,568FY 2011
Request
300
3,400
3,939
1,929
165
16,000025,733

The Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12 (HSPD-12) directed the establishment of a common
identification standard for Federal employees and contractors. This directive will continue to drive
investments in upgrades to the physical security infrastructure and information technology to accept
HSPD-12 credentials throughout the NNSA. Defense Nuclear Security, Cyber Security and Office of
the Administrator Information Technology programs will continue to fund these activities in
FY 2011-2015.

Weapons Activities/
Safeguards and Security

Page 286

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Defense Nuclear Security
Funding Profile by Subprogram(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Current
Appropriation
Appropriation
Defense Nuclear Security
Operations and Maintenance (Homeland Security)
Protective Forces
Physical Security Systems
Transportation
Information Security
Personnel Security
Materials Control and Accountability
Program Management
Technology Deployment, Physical Security
Graded Security Protection Policy (formerly DBT)
Total, Operations and Maintenance (Homeland Security)
Construction (Homeland Security)
Total, Defense Nuclear Security

418,694
77,245420
25,88031,26335,92971,364
9,431
19,284
689,51045,698735,208

453,000
74,000025,30030,60035,20083,9448,000
10,000720,044
49,000769,044

FY 2011
Request414,166
73,794025,94330,91335,60280,3117,225
0667,954
52,000719,954

Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2012
Defense Nuclear Security
Operations and Maintenance (Homeland Security)
Protective Forces
Physical Security Systems
Information Security
Personnel Security
Materials Control and Accountability
Program Management
Technology Deployment, Physical Security
Total, Operations and Maintenance (Homeland Security)
Construction (Homeland Security)
Total, Defense Nuclear Security

422,22171,405
26,202
31,22235,95880,924
7,297
675,22955,715730,944(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014414,432
73,987
26,464
31,53436,31882,2397,370
672,344
57,265
729,609414,617
71,16526,72931,84936,681
83,186
7,444
671,671
57,254
728,925

FY 2015

421,346
72,297
26,99632,16737,04883,887
7,518
681,259
59,390740,649

MissionThe Defense Nuclear Security program provides protection from a full spectrum of threats especiallyterrorism for NNSA personnel, facilities, nuclear weapons, and information. The Defense Nuclear
Security program is a Homeland Security related activity.
Benefits
The Defense Nuclear Security program makes unique contributions to Government Performance andResults Act Unit Program Number 57 by protecting Department of Energy (DOE) interests from theft,diversion, sabotage, espionage, unauthorized access, compromise, and other hostile acts which may
cause unacceptable adverse impacts on national security, program continuity, and the health and safetyof employees, the public or the environment.
Weapons Activities/
Defense Nuclear Security

Page 287

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAnnual Performance Results and Targets(R = Results; T = Targets)
Performance Indicators

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

R: 100%

T: 50%

T: 50%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Endpoint Target

Secretarial Priority: Security: Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risks.
GPRA Unit Program Number: 57, Defense Nuclear Security
Graded Security Protection:
Cumulative percentage of progress,
measured in milestones completed,towards implementation of all
Graded Security Protection (GSP)
Policy at NNSA sites. (Long-termaOutput)R: 100%Elite Forces: Cumulative
percentage of completion towards
modernizing the National Nuclear
Security Administration’s
protective forces in accordancewith Tactical Response Force(TRF), also known as “Elite
Forces”, requirements. (Long-term
Output)N/AStandardize Procurement
Process: Standardize theprocurement process and security
equipment, such as vehicles,
weapons, ammunition across the
National Nuclear Security
Administration Defense Nuclear
Security complex by FY 2010.
b(Annual Output)

N/A

Common Procurement System:
Cumulative cost savings achievedby implementing a common
procurement system for selected
security equipment. (Efficiency)b

N/A

N/A

N/A

T: 100%

T: 100%Complete 50% of overall
GSP milestones in FY 2010,
and complete the remaining
50% GSP milestones in
FY 2011.
N/A

N/A

R: 40%

T: 60%

T: 100%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

By 2011 complete TRF
implementation.

T: 100%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Standardize 100% of the
procurement process andsecurity equipment by
FY 2010.

T: 5%

T: 10%

T:15%

T:20%

N/A

N/A

Achieve a cumulative 20%
savings from establishedbaseline by FY 2013.

T: 40%

N/A

N/A

R: 60%
T: 50%

N/A

N/A

R: Baselinea

The Department replaced the 2005 Design Basis Threat with the Graded Security Protection policy, issued in FY 2008.

b

New performance indicator added in FY 2010.

Weapons Activities/
Defense Nuclear Security

Complete 100% of
implementation plans (IPs)developed at NNSA sites in
FY 2009.

Page 288

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009 Accomplishments
Zero-Based Security Review (ZBSR): Working in partnership with the Office of Health, Safety andSecurity (HSS), a review of the entire NNSA physical security program to identify meaningful andachievable opportunities to improve the way NNSA implements security policies, procedures, andprograms in each of the security topical areas has been initiated. The goal is to eliminate unnecessary
costs, improve our ability to develop clear and consistent security requirements, identify enterprise-wide
acceptable levels of risk, and maintain the effectiveness of the site-level security program. Its results are
driving development of NNSA-specific policy implementation instructions for each security topicalarea, site-specific efficiency and effectiveness recommendations, and significant revision to DNSinternal processes supporting the Programming, Planning, Budgeting and Evaluation (PPBE) process
and related documents.
Common Procurement and Equipment Standardization: Significant strides have been madetowards implementing a Common Procurement and Equipment Standardization program. The Defense
Nuclear Security Office of Field Support (NA-72) established a “Security Commodity Team,”
consisting of contractor, federal, and union representatives from each NNSA and DOE field
site, which will be the mechanism for discussion, research, evaluation, and selection of security
equipment to be standardized across the enterprise. The DNS Office of Field Support also established abusiness relationship with the NNSA Supply Chain Management Center (SCMC), which has provided
a Safeguards and Security Commodity Manager to develop and manage the strategic sourcing part ofthis initiative. The first phase of the effort is changing and standardizing the procurement process forammunition. A business relationship with the DoD Joint Munitions Command (JMC) has been
established, which offers the use of its existing ammunition contracts for future procurements. This will
supply nearly 90 percent of DNS ammunition requirements at a much-reduced price and help avoid
existing overhead taxes imposed by the sites. The new process will also promote more granular
reporting of the actual ammunition needs and use for each site. As a result, Defense Nuclear Security
expects to save close to $1,000,000 in FY 2010 and several million dollars in the outyears.
Strategic Framework: A Strategic Framework was issued in June 2009 which captures the latest
analysis of the challenges facing the DNS Program; identifies four strategies for achieving a more
effective, efficient, and sustained nuclear security posture for the enterprise; and outlines an approach tostrategy execution designed to overcome potential barriers to success. It is aligned with the broader
missions and strategic direction of NNSA and the Department of Energy and establishes a new planning“baseline” by accounting for previous strategic and programmatic plans and numerous independent
analyses.
Vulnerability Assessment Peer Review Process: Defense Nuclear Security has led a year-long effort
to improve the quality and consistency of the site-level vulnerability assessments by focusing on
improving the rigor and formality of the analysis process at each site, working with the sites to identify
better and more cost effective security upgrades, and employing risk management in the development of
the site security strategy.
Graded Security Protection Policy Implementation Planning: Using the lessons learned from the2003 Design Basis Threat (DBT) a project-oriented approach has been adopted which provides for thecomprehensive management of all activities covered in the site implementation plans - including
detailed cost, scope, and schedule data for each site. With the replacement of the 2005 DBT policy by
the Department's Graded Security Protection (GSP) policy in 2008, a reassessment of the site-level
Weapons Activities/
Defense Nuclear Security

Page 289

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

activities contained within the implementation plans is being conducted to determine their utility inmeeting the new GSP policy. Following completion of the revised vulnerability assessments, newimplementation plans will be developed for each of the four enduring Category I sites. A follow-on
assessment effort will also be conducted at all NNSA sites to determine if upgrades are needed to reachfull compliance with the GSP policy - including "mission critical" activities, operations, and/or facilities.
Major Outyear Priorities and Assumptions
The outyear projections for Defense Nuclear Security total $2,930,127,000 for FY 2012 throughFY 2015. The trend through the five-year period is level, which allows for maintaining a security
protection posture consistent with the 2003 DBT. A full analysis is being conducted to ascertain costand schedule estimates in order to implement new requirements identified in the 2008 GSP policy.
To improve the efficiency of the NNSA security operation, Defense Nuclear Security will continue its
efforts to reduce the costs of protective forces across NNSA. Defense Nuclear Security is actively
engaged with the inter-agency community to identify, field test and deploy state-of-the-art detection andweapons systems that will lead to more efficient utilization of security police officers. Additionally,
greater emphasis will also be placed on using risk acceptance methodologies to understand the relativevalue of additional security increases and defer investments in areas where the risk of adverse security
outcomes are at acceptable levels.
The construction program outyear projections support the safeguards and security mission within the
nuclear security enterprise and future physical security upgrades in support of the Graded Security
Protection Policy and infrastructure modernization.
Project 10-D-708, Security Improvements Project at Y-12 will no longer require additional funds
beyond those requested in FY 2010 that fully funds the CD-2/3 validated estimate approved August
2009.

Weapons Activities/
Defense Nuclear Security

Page 290

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
Operations and Maintenance (Homeland
Security)

689,510

FY 2010

FY 2011720,044

667,954

Physical Security integrates personnel, equipment and procedures to protect a facility’s physical assets
and resources against theft, sabotage, diversion, or other criminal acts. Each NNSA site or facility has
an approved Site Safeguards and Security Plan (SSSP) or a facility Master Security Plan detailingprotection measures and resources needed to safeguard site security interests. The Physical Security
program will: continue to improve security to counter known and projected adversary threat
capabilities; manage a focused program to identify and deploy improved physical security systems
and equipment; work to improve the integration between personnel (protective forces) and technology
capabilities; and address protective force overtime rates. Other initiatives include reducing security
overhead costs and addressing life cycle equipment issues. The technology deployment endeavor will
work with DOE laboratories and parallel government efforts to deploy technologies that demonstratepromise to improve effectiveness and minimize cost growth.
Protective Forces

418,694

453,000

414,166

Funding requested for Protective Forces provides for specialized training and sustains protective
forces hired in support of the 2003 DBT and to begin planning activities for implementation of the2008 GSP policy and Tactical Response Force policy. These forces are a site’s primary front-line
protection, consisting of armed uniformed officers. Protective Forces are an integral part of asite’s security posture, trained and practiced in various tactics and procedures to protect site
interests.
In FY 2011, the request will allow sites to maintain additional forces hired to meet the 2003 DBT.
In addition to providing daily site protection, these forces function as first responders, train to
manage chemical and biological events, and provide special contingency response capabilities.
Funding needs are determined by Site Safeguards and Security Plans (SSSPs) supported by
Vulnerability Assessments, and protection strategies designed to ensure adequate protective force
staffing levels, equipment, facilities, training, management and administrative support.
The large reduction is mostly attributable to reductions to specific posts and patrols identified in
the Zero-Based Security Review, and in response to the Deputy Secretary’s Security Reform
Initiative. The reduction is also due to the one-time FY 2010 Appropriation increase of$10,000,000 for training and equipment.


Physical Security Systems

77,24574,00073,794

Physical Security Systems provide intrusion detection and assessment capabilities, access
controls, and performance testing and maintenance of security systems according to the approvedsite performance testing plan.

Weapons Activities/
Defense Nuclear Security

Page 291

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011In FY 2011, the request supports focus on life cycle replacement of assessment, detection andother security systems and equipment and implement new technologies to maximize costeffectiveness as we fully integrate security capital asset requirements into the NNSA site ten-yearplanning process.


Transportation

420

0

0

The Transportation subcategory was eliminated in FY 2010. Support of the movement andconsolidation of special nuclear material inventories is now included in Protective Forces.


Information Security

25,88025,30025,943The Information Protection element of the budget includes program management andadministration, and maintenance costs associated with: protection and control, planning, training,
administrative requirements for maintaining security containers and combination, marking, control
systems, operations security, special access programs, technical surveillance countermeasures(TSCM), and classification and declassification.
In FY 2011, the request supports continued reviews at Headquarters and field sites of classified
and sensitive information, to ensure proper document marking, storage and protection of
information.
Personnel Security

31,26330,60030,913

Personnel Security encompasses the processes for security clearance determinations at each site toensure that individuals are eligible for access to classified information or matter, and/or access to,or control over, special nuclear material or nuclear weapons.
In FY 2011, the request continues this effort, and supports the Human Reliability Program,Control of Classified Visits, Security Awareness Programs, and processing of unclassified visits
and assignments by foreign nationals.
Materials Control and Accountability

35,92935,20035,602

Materials Control and Accountability (MC&A) provides for the control and accountability of
special nuclear material and other accountable nuclear materials through measurements, quality
assurance, accounting, containment, surveillance, and physical inventory.
In FY 2011, the request provides for tracking movements of accountable nuclear materials
between sites and reporting those movements to a national level tracking system. The request
provides for assessment, testing, transfers, verifications and measurements, reconciliation andstatistical analyses related to MC&A requirements.

Weapons Activities/
Defense Nuclear Security

Page 292

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009Program Management

71,364

FY 2010

FY 201183,94480,311

Program Management provides direction, oversight and administration, planning, training, anddevelopment for security programs in these areas: Security Program Planning, Annual Operating
Plans (AOPs), Site Security Plans and Site Safeguards and Security Plans, Vulnerability Analysis,
Performance Testing and Assurance activities, Security Incident and Reporting Management,
Surveys and Self-Assessments, activities related to deviation requests, Control of Security
Technology Transfer Activities, and Facility Clearance and Foreign Ownership, Control or
Influence (FOCI) activities.
In FY 2011, the request provides for the assessment of security implementation efforts through thereview of updated security plans and performance testing, review of vulnerability assessments,
and revised threat and vulnerability analysis. To formalize the process, a detailed Program
Management Plan, including annual performance goals and baselines for each site’s security
program, is in place.
Technology Deployment, Physical Security

9,431

8,000

7,225

This effort will identify and facilitate the deployment of security technology to address both shortand long-term solutions to specific physical security and MC&A needs at NNSA sites.
In FY 2011, the request ensures focus on promising, emerging technologies that will provide
operational efficiencies for the NNSA security program.
Graded Security Protection Policy(formerly Design Basis Threat)

19,28410,0000

GSP policy funding will provide for implementation of the 2008 GSP policy in accordance withapproved implementation plans. The FY 2010 Appropriation included $10,000,000 for security
upgrades promulgated in the 2004 DBT Special Annex letter and incorporated into the 2008
Graded Security Protection Policy. Funding to continue GSP upgrades will be integrated intofunctional categories.
Construction

45,69849,00052,000

The Construction program includes the cost of new and ongoing line-item construction projects that
support the safeguards and security mission within the nuclear security enterprise.
FY 2011 funding of $52,000,000 supports the construction phase of the Nuclear Materials Safeguards
and Security Upgrades (NMSSUP) project, 08-D-701, at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Project 10-D-708, Security Improvements Project at Y-12 will no longer require additional funds
beyond those requested in FY 2010.
Total, Defense Nuclear Security

Weapons Activities/
Defense Nuclear Security

735,208

Page 293

769,044

719,954

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Defense Nuclear Security (Physical Security)Protective Forces
The decrease reflects efficiencies achieved through risk-informed
decisions regarding staffing levels to support the enterprise mission, andcommon procurement of equipment and supplies. Reductions to specificposts and patrols have been identified through the DNS Zero-Based
Security Review and in response to the Deputy Secretary’s Security
Reform Initiative, both which seek to streamline security requirements
using cost-benefit analyses and the acceptance of risk.

Physical Security Systems
The decrease allows for only essential upgrades to existing physicalsecurity systems, as well as systems maintenance and improvements tocompensate for life cycle concerns.



+643

Personnel Security
The minor increase maintains current levels for processing of clearances,
granting access authorizations for visitors at NNSA sites, managing the
Human Reliability Program, providing security awareness training, andprocessing visit requests for foreign national unclassified visits andassignments.



-206

Information Security
The minor increase maintains current levels for implementation of amore formalized information protection program, including enhanced
procedures for documentation, and centralized storage of classified andsensitive information.

-38,834+313

Materials Control and Accountability
The minor increase maintains the current levels for programmatic efforts
in support of materials consolidation, and revised processes andprocedures for process and item monitoring for more timely andaccurate tracking of accountable nuclear material.

Weapons Activities/
Defense Nuclear Security

Page 294+402

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)


Program Management
The decrease is attributable to completion of expanded efforts in
FY 2009 and FY 2010 to conduct Vulnerability Analysis, Performance
Testing, and Survey and Self-Assessment activities in support of
Departmental requirements (DOE Order 470.1), including the revised
Graded Security Protection policy.

-3,633

Technology Deployment, Physical SecurityThe decrease does not significantly impact planned deployment oftechnology to address specific physical security and MC&A needs at
NNSA sites.

-775

Graded Security Protection Policy (formerly Design Basis Threat)
The FY 2010 Appropriation language included $10,000,000 for security
upgrades promulgated in the April 2004 special annex letter andincorporated into the 2008 Graded Security Protection Policy. Funding
to continue GSP upgrades will be integrated into functional categories.

-10,000

Construction
Completion of construction funding for Project 10-D-708, Security
Improvements Project at Y-12 ($-49,000,000). Funding for 08-D-701,
Nuclear Materials Safeguards and Security Upgrades Project, LANL($+52,000,000).

+3,000Total, Defense Nuclear Security-49,090

Weapons Activities/
Defense Nuclear Security

Page 295

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Capital Operating Expenses and Construction Summarya
Capital Operating Expenses(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
19,314
19,73920,173
5,953
6,084
6,218

General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

25,26725,823

26,391Outyear Capital Operating Expenses(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
20,61721,071
21,53522,009
6,355
6,495
6,638
6,784

General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

26,972

27,56628,173

28,793

Construction Projects(dollars in thousands)
Total
Prior
Estimated
Year
UnapproCost
Appropriated(TEC) priations FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Balance05-D-170, Project Engineering and Design (PED), VL
05-D-170-1, PED NMSSUP II, LANL
05-D-170-2, PED Security Improvements Program, Y-12
08-D-701, NMSSUP II, LANL
10-D-170, Security Improvements Program, Y-12
Total, Construction

43,094
10,421
176,82249,00043,094
9,343
48,5500

01,078
44,620045,69800049,00049,0000052,000052,0000031,652031,652Outyear Construction Projects
FY 2012
08-D-701, NMSSUP II, LANL
12-D-XXX Outyear Infrastructure Upgrades & Modernization, NNSA
Total, Construction

31,652
24,06355,715(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013 FY 2014
057,26557,265

057,25457,254

FY 2015059,39059,390aFunds are appropriated for Operations and Maintenance, which includes operating expenses, capital equipment and generalplant projects. The program no longer budgets separately for capital equipment and general plant projects. FY 2010 and
FY 2011 funding shown reflects estimates based on actual FY 2009 obligations.
Weapons Activities/
Defense Nuclear Security
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

Page 296

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

08-D-701, Nuclear Materials Safeguards and Security Upgrades Project (NMSSUP) Phase II,
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico
Project Data Sheet is for Construction
1. Significant Changes
The most recent DOE O 413.3A approved Critical Decisions (CD) is CD-3B Approve Start ofConstruction that was approved on December 16, 2009 with a Total Project Cost (TPC) of $245,166,000
and CD-4 of January 2013.
A Federal Project Director at the appropriate level has been assigned to this project.
This PDS is an update of FY 2009 PDS. The performance baseline scope does not include the TechnicalArea Isolation Zone and the Airborne Mitigation System. These two items that were included in the
preliminary scope were found to be no longer essential.
2. Design, Construction, and D&D Schedule(fiscal quarter or date)
PED
CD-0
CD-1
Complete
CD-2
CD-3
FY 2008 4QFY2002 2QFY2007 1QFY2008 1QFY2008
2QFY2008
FY 2009 4QFY2003 1QFY2007 1QFY2008 2QFY2008
4QFY2008
FY 2011 08/25/2003 05/30/2008 09/30/2009 06/23/2009
06/23/2009

CD-4
3QFY2012
4QFY2011
2QFY2013

D&D
Start
N/A
N/A
N/A

D&D
Complete
N/A
N/A
N/A

CD-0 – Approve Mission Need
CD-1 – Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range
CD-2 – Approve Performance Baseline
CD-3 – Approve Start of Construction
CD-4 – Approve Start of Operations or Project Closeout
D&D Start – Start of Demolition & Decontamination (D&D) work
D&D Complete – Completion of D&D work
FY 2009
FY 2010CD-3A
06/23/2009

CD-3B
12/16/2009

3. Baseline and Validation Status

FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2011

TEC,
PED

TEC,
Construction

43,09443,094

170,715
176,822(dollars in thousands)
OPC
TEC, Total
Except D&D
214,755
25,245
213,80925,245219,916
25,250

OPC,
D&D
N/A
N/A
N/A

OPC, Total
25,24525,250TPC
240,000
239,054a
245,166a

The FY 2008 appropriated funding was reduced based on the rescission of 0.91 percent ($71,000) and use of prior year
balances from construction projects ($82,000) in accordance with the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act,
(P.L. 110-161).

Weapons Activities/Defense Nuclear Security/
08-D-701, Nuclear Materials Safeguards andSecurity Upgrades Project, Phase II, LANL

Page 297

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

4. Project Description, Justification, and Scope
Project Description
The project is being conducted in accordance with the project management requirements in DOE
O 413.3A and DOE M 413.3-1, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets,
and all appropriate project management requirements have been met.
The Nuclear Materials Safeguards and Security Upgrades Project (NMSSUP) Phase II will support theviability of stockpile management and other current missions carried out in Technical Area (TA)-55 at
the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) by providing an effective, robust physical security system
to address the core essential physical security systems, protection strategies, and security requirements.
The LANL nuclear missions, as they currently exist and as they are planned in the future, require areliable safeguards and security system to assure the protection and control of special nuclear materials(SNM), classified matter, and NNSA property. The nuclear materials operation at TA-55 involves theability to securely store, move, process, and track nuclear materials that are attractive to the adversaries
both in terms of the quantity of materials and the forms. The NMSSUP Phase II project plays a key rolein the support of this mission by replacing or improving the aging exterior physical security systems andinstalling enhanced systems to support a new protection strategy for the TA-55 site.
The primary components of the project include, at a minimum:
Perimeter Intrusion Detection, Assessment, and Delay System (PIDADS)
East Vehicle and Pedestrian Entry Control Facility (ECF)
Utility Infrastructure (to support the items above)
West Vehicle Access (WVA)

Weapons Activities/Defense Nuclear Security/
08-D-701, Nuclear Materials Safeguards andSecurity Upgrades Project, Phase II, LANL

Page 298

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

5. Financial Schedule
Appropriations(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

Total Estimated Cost (TEC)a

PEDa
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
Total, PED

10,00033,094000043,09410,00033,094000043,0940770
15,252
14,031
10,5692,472
43,094

Construction
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
Total, Construction

48,55044,620052,00031,652
176,822

48,55044,620052,00031,652
176,822

3,571
50,142
85,94037,169176,822TEC
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
Total, TEC

10,00033,0940
48,55044,620052,00031,652219,916

10,00033,0940
48,55044,620052,00031,652219,9160770
15,252
14,03114,14052,61485,94037,169219,916

0

PED funds were appropriated in FY 2005 and FY 2006 under PED Line Item 05-D-170.

Weapons Activities/Defense Nuclear Security/
08-D-701, Nuclear Materials Safeguards andSecurity Upgrades Project, Phase II, LANL

Page 299

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Appropriations

Costs

Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&D
Prior years cost
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
Total, OPC except D&D

9,357
5,855
370
358
200
1,100
6,280
1,730
0
25,250

9,357
5,855
370
358
200
1,100
6,280
1,730
0
25,250

9,357
5,855
370
358
200
1,100
6,280
1,380
350
25,250D&D
FY
Total, D&D

NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA

Total, OPC

25,25025,25025,25019,35738,949370
48,90844,8201,100
58,28033,3820245,166

19,35738,949370
48,90844,8201,100
58,28033,3820245,166

9,357
6,625
15,622
14,38914,34053,714
92,22038,549350
245,166

Total Project Cost (TPC)
Prior years cost
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
Total, TPC

Weapons Activities/Defense Nuclear Security/
08-D-701, Nuclear Materials Safeguards andSecurity Upgrades Project, Phase II, LANL

Page 300

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

6. Details of Project Cost Estimate(dollars in thousands)
Current
Previous Original
Total
Total
Validated
Estimate
Estimate Baseline
Total Estimated Cost (TEC)
Design (PED)
DesignContingency
Total, PED

41,133
1,961
43,09428,473
14,62143,09443,0940
43,094

Construction
Site Preparation
Equipment
Other Construction
Contingency
Total, Construction

41,711 43,257
19,836 39,777
69,878 77,486
45,397 10,195
176,822 170,715

42,447
20,86674,252
39,257
176,822

Total, TEC

219,916 213,809

219,916

11,925
4,473
7,361
1,491
25,25011,925
3,700
7,464
2,156
25,245

11,925
3,700
8,332
1,293
25,250

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

25,25025,24525,250245,166 239,054
48,849 26,972

245,166
40,550

Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&D
Conceptual Planning
Conceptual Design
Start-UpContingency
Total, OPC except D&D
D&D
D&D
Contingency
Total, D&D
Total, OPC
Total, TPC
Total Contingency

Weapons Activities/Defense Nuclear Security/
08-D-701, Nuclear Materials Safeguards andSecurity Upgrades Project, Phase II, LANL

Page 301

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

7. Schedule of Appropriation Requests

FY 2008

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

Prior Years FY 2010
TEC
138,590
49,000OPC
20,987
1,866
TPC
159,577
50,866TEC
137,644
49,000OPC
20,987
1,866
TPC
158,63150,866
TEC
OPC
TPC
TEC
136,264
OPC
16,1401,100
TPC152,404
1,100

FY 2011
27,165658
27,82327,165658
27,82352,0006,280
58,280(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

FY 2015

Outyears

1,734
1,734

-

-

-

-

1,734
1,734

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

31,652
1,730
33,382

Total
214,755
25,245240,000
213,80925,245
239,054219,916
25,250245,166

8. Related Operations and Maintenance Funding Requirements
Start of Operation or Beneficial Occupancy (fiscal quarter or date)
Expected Useful Life (number of years)
Expected Future Start of D&D of this capital asset (fiscal quarter)

2QFY2013
50
2QFY2063(Related Funding requirements)(dollars in thousands)
Annual Costs
Life Cycle Costs
Current Previous Current
Previous
Total
Total
Total
Total
Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
18,48042,962 924,000 2,148,100
1,600
1,510
80,00075,50020,08044,472 1,004,000 2,223,600

Operations
MaintenanceTotal, Operations & Maintenance

9. Required D&D Information
The limited D&D is considered incidental to construction and has been included in the construction
costs.
Area
Area of new construction
Area of existing facility(s) being replaced
Area of additional D&D space to meet the “one-for-one” requirement

Square Feet
N/A
N/A
N/A

Name(s) and site location(s) of existing facility(s) to be replaced: N/A
10. Acquisition Approach
NNSA has assigned management and execution of this project to LANL major contracts through a firm
fixed-priced contract. Interfaces between the contractor(s) and other entities at LANL will be managed
Weapons Activities/Defense Nuclear Security/
08-D-701, Nuclear Materials Safeguards andSecurity Upgrades Project, Phase II, LANL

Page 302

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

by a dedicated project team and minimized to facilitate clear lines of responsibilities and contractual
obligations. The contracts will be incrementally funded by annual appropriations.

Weapons Activities/Defense Nuclear Security/
08-D-701, Nuclear Materials Safeguards andSecurity Upgrades Project, Phase II, LANL

Page 303

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 304

Cyber Security
Funding Profile by Subprogram(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Current
Appropriation
Appropriation
Cyber Security (Homeland Security)
Infrastructure ProgramEnterprise Secure Computing
Technology Application Development
Total, Cyber Security (Homeland Security)

93,77625,5002,010
121,286

99,011
21,5002,000
122,511

FY 2011
Request97,84921,500
4,996
124,345

Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2012Cyber Security (Homeland Security)
Infrastructure ProgramEnterprise Secure Computing
Technology Application Development
Total, Cyber Security (Homeland Security)

99,55021,5004,996
126,046(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014
99,326
21,5004,996
125,822

98,211
22,5004,996
125,707

FY 2015
99,69322,5004,996
127,189

MissionThe goal of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Cyber Security program is to ensurethat sufficient information technology and information management security safeguards are
implemented throughout the NNSA enterprise to adequately protect the NNSA information assets and toprovide the requisite guidance in compliance with the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Defense-in-Depth
Cyber Security strategy and the NNSA Information Management Strategic Plan. The Cyber Security
program is a Homeland Security related activity.
Benefits
The Cyber Security program makes contributions to Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
Unit Program Number 58 by maintaining NNSA’s Cyber Security defenses against cyber threats that are
increasing in number, complexity, and sophistication while supporting the application of advanced
information technologies to the NNSA national security and other missions. NNSA sites continue toimprove the scope and quality of cyber security programs through implementation of NNSA cybersecurity guidance and by addressing the increasing number of requirements issued by Office ofManagement and Budget.
The NNSA strategy for a long term cyber security program includes several components:
 Planning – Planning is a collaborative effort among Headquarters, sites and Management andOperating (M&O) contractors to understand the threat landscape and identify weaknesses throughcompliance reviews and performance measurement. This information is fed back into the siteplanning activities to generate both a long-term strategic plan and an annual tactical plan. Processes
and documentation produced include cyber security working group, strategic and tactical plans, andboth a Departmental threat statement and risk assessment.
 Cyber security policy and guidance – The policy component is very closely aligned with both thegovernance program and the planning component. Cyber security policies establish the high-level
Weapons Activities/
Cyber Security

Page 305

FY 2011 Congressional Budget







goals and outcomes for the overall DOE Cyber Security program. Enhanced through guidance, andperformance metrics, the policy is in place to drive the program’s implementation. The focus is on
top-level “thin-policy” supported by guidance at the Departmental level.
Architecture and Technology – Installing well-defined, high level department structure, processes
and principles puts the department in position to successfully manage the technology it employs. To
achieve the best possible results from this structure and to ensure that a standard approach across thedepartment is achieved, the set of sub processes, which fall within the leadership decision process,address the management and technology component. Products stemming from this component
include architectural guidance, enterprise licensing of security tools and products, and a technology
review and development process.
Services – Sizeable changes to any organization can be difficult. As field sites adapt to the newprocesses and policies, it is the role of the NNSA Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) tofacilitate that adjustment at NNSA sites through various services and through the performance ofseveral key initiatives that protect the entire department. The aim of these services is to develop an
intelligent, proactive approach to mitigate the security threat to the department. Processes stemmingfrom this component include cyber security communications, education and awareness, asset
management, advice and assistance, and awards and recognition.
Performance Measurement – Performance measurement provides a clear and consistent way tomeasure success and demonstrate results to senior management. Process and documents stemmingfrom this component include compliance review and monitoring and cyber security metrics.

Weapons Activities/
Cyber Security

Page 306

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAnnual Performance Results and Targets(R = Results; T = Targets)
Performance Indicators

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Endpoint Target

T: 100%

T: 100%

T : 100%

T : 100%

T : 100%

T : 100%

Annually, achieve an effective ratingof at least 100% of OA Cyber
Security reviews.

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

Annually, achieve an effective ratingof 100% of OCIO SAV.

T: 40

T: 45

T: 55

T: 65

T: 65

T: 65

By FY 2013, increase the number ofassets reviewed per year to 65.

Secretarial Priority: Security: Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risks.
GPRA Unit Program Number: 58. Cyber Security
Cyber Security Reviews: Annual
average percentage of Cyber Security
reviews conducted by the Office of
Health, Safety, and Security (HSS) at
NNSA sites that resulted in the ratingof “effective” (based on the last HSS
review at each site over 2 Cyber
Security topical areas). (Long-term
Outcome)R : 41%

R : 57%

R: 100%

R: 100%

T: 57%

T: 57%

T: 100%

T: 100%Cyber Security Site Assessment(SAV): Annual percentage of Cyber
Security Site Assessment Visits(SAV) conducted by the Officeof the Chief Information Officer(OCIO) Cyber Security Program
Manager (CSPM) at NNSA sites that
resulted in the rating of “effective”.
(Annual Output)

N/A

N/A

R: 85%

R: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%Cyber Certification andAccreditation: Annual number of
NNSA information assets reviewed
for certification and accreditation.
(Efficiency)

N/A

R: 30

R: 35

T: 30

T: 35

Weapons Activities/
Cyber Security

N/A

Page 307

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009 Accomplishments
 The Cyber Security program maintained a flexible, comprehensive, and risk-based cyber security
program that protects the NNSA information and information assets.
 Completed the DOE Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) independent oversight inspection at
NNSA sites with 100 percent effective ratings.
 All Site Assessment Visits (SAV) conducted by the Cyber Security Program Manager (CSPM) at
NNSA sites resulted in an effective rating.
 Maintained and improved the NNSA cyber security architecture for NNSA Headquarters and sites
 Designed and built ESN-SIPRNet Gateway. Testing of the Gateway and the integration into ESN
will begin in FY 2010.
Major Outyear Priorities and Assumptions
The outyear projections for Cyber Security total $504,764,000 for FY 2012 through FY 2015. With theincreased prioritization of cyber security within NNSA, the program is working to develop a morerobust set of performance metrics to better align the budget requirements to anticipated anddemonstrated NNSA Cyber Security program performance outcomes.

Weapons Activities/
Cyber Security

Page 308

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification(dollars in thousands)

Infrastructure Program

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

93,776

99,011

97,849The infrastructure program supports the cyber security operations and activities at NNSA sites.
The cyber security operations and infrastructure program is built around a defense-in-depth
approach for achieving cyber security in a highly networked environment. The defense-in-depth
approach is a combination of known best practices and cost strategy that relies on the intelligent
application of techniques and technologies which exist today. The defense-in-depth approachconsists of three major components: personnel, technology and operations. This approach
recommends a balance between the protection capability and cost, performance, and operational
considerations. The implementation of this approach will enable maintenance of a cyber security
posture that complies with all DOE and NNSA policies and processes, while addressing theincreasing number and complexity of cyber security threats, vulnerabilities and risks.
In FY 2011, the request will provide for the implementation of enhanced cyber security capability,
daily operations, cyber security infrastructure, and risk management. During FY 2010 and FY 2011,
the Cyber Security program will provide leadership in the development and deployment of cybersecurity technologies for enhancement in incident management and the reduction of insider threat
capabilities. During this period, Cyber Security funding will support research, development anddeployment of the following technologies enterprise-wide:• Cyber Tracer – this tool will provide the department with the capability to handle cyber security
incidents enterprise-wide. The developed technology will provide each site with the capability toshare incident information real time within that site and allow for enterprise-wide corrective
actions to take place.
• Raytheon Oakley Systems’ InnerView – this tool is an insider threat solution that integrates
monitoring, investigation, and forensics capabilities that protect against insider threats. This tool isan agent-based insider threat protection that provides visibility and control of desktops and laptops,whether connected to the network, at home, or completely offline.
• Fidelis XPS – this tool provides a data detection leakage capability. It is a two-tiered architecturethat consists of multiple policy sensors placed around the network to detect and/or prevent dataleakage, and a central management console to distribute policies and collect/organize alerts.
• Symantec/Vontu’s Data Loss Prevention Product – this tool provides the capability to quickly
discover exposed confidential data wherever it is stored, with the broadest coverage of enterprisedata repositories, and web content and applications.
Enterprise Secure Computing

25,50021,50021,500Enterprise Secure Computing provides state-of-the-art enterprise level classified computing
infrastructure that enables effective collaboration and information sharing necessary for the NNSA
complex.
In FY 2011, activities will focus on daily operations, infrastructure enhancements and application
deployment. Enterprise Secure Computing funding will support research, develop and deploymentof the following technology enterprise-wide:
Weapons Activities/
Cyber Security

Page 309

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

BMC Remedy Service Desk incident and problem management solution - BMC Remedy IT
Service Management Suite, ITIL-based solution reduces the number of incidents handled,
improves resolution times, and prevents future incidents from occurring.
Technology Application Development

2,010

2,000

4,996

Technology Application Development is responsible for developing and advancing policies andinitiatives that will support short and long-term solutions to specific cyber security needs at the
NNSA sites and headquarters locations. Technological innovation, research and development are
critical components for NNSA to protect its assets in national and global technology driven
environments. The research and technology development efforts will focus on emerging
technologies and leverage existing technology resources to create a more secure environment. In
addition, new strategies can be developed to support cyber security activity across NNSA andfoster collaboration between organizations.
In FY 2011, activities will focus on the enhancement of cyber security capability in the areas ofincident management and disk encryptions. Funds will be used to implement risk mitigation
processes to provide for improvement in the cyber security architecture. Actions will be taken to
ensure these improvements are made which will include strengthening NNSA cyber security
architecture for NNSA Headquarters and sites. NNSA will baseline the cyber security controls forconfidentiality, integrity, and availability and will incorporate the certification and accreditation
process into the cyber security architecture life-cycle model. Additionally, NNSA will employ alayered defense-in-depth cyber security model across the NNSA enterprise that will ensure
integrated and layered protections are implemented consistently across NNSA computing
environments.
Total, Cyber Security
121,286
122,511
124,345

Weapons Activities/
Cyber Security

Page 310

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)


Cyber Security (Homeland Security)
Infrastructure Program
The decrease in the infrastructure program reflects a reduction in the CAMS
(configuration management, patch management and asset management) project.
The funds were shifted to Technology Application.

-1,162Enterprise Secure Computing
No change.

0Technology Application Development
The increase supports the implementation of risk mitigation processes complexwide.
Total, Cyber Security

Weapons Activities/
Cyber Security+2,996+1,834

Page 311

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Capital Operating Expenses and Construction Summarya
Capital Operating Expenses(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
0
4,400
5,000
352
360
368

General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

352

4,760

5,368

Outyear Capital Operating Expenses(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
0
0
0
0
376
384
392
401

General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

376

384

392

401

a

Funds are appropriated for Operations and Maintenance, which includes operating expenses, capital equipment and generalplant projects. The program no longer budgets separately for capital equipment and general plant projects. FY 2010 and
FY 2011 funding shown reflects estimates based on actual FY 2009 obligations.
Weapons Activities/
Cyber Security
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

Page 312

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Science, Technology and Engineering Capability
Funding Profile by Subprogram

Operations and MaintenanceTotal, Science, Technology and Engineering Capability(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Current
FY 2011
Appropriation
Appropriation
Request30,0000
20,00030,0000
20,000Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2012
Operations and MaintenanceTotal, Science, Technology and Engineering Capability

00(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
0
0
0
0
0
0

MissionThe program mission for Science, Technology and Engineering Capability (STEC) program’s mission is
to make strategic investments in the national security science, technology and engineering capabilities
and infrastructure base that are necessary to address current and future global security issues. The STEC
budget is separated into its own budget line in order to more clearly describe the nature of thesetechnical investments and seeks to honor the intent for which the investment funding is allocated. This
program integrates the management, development, and maintenance of STEC capabilities that are relied
upon by agencies across the Federal government and provides transparency, alignment, andaccountability into the investments made in workforce and infrastructure to preserve national security
STEC capability into the future.
The facilities and the expert multidisciplinary workforce within the nuclear security enterprise provide
decision makers with the ability to understand the state of international scientific and technologicaladvances as well as project how these advances could affect national security. Furthermore, their uniquemultidisciplinary infrastructure is key to anticipating technological surprise and for providing rapid
innovative solutions to complex technical problems faced by multiple agencies. To address thesenational security challenges beyond the nuclear stockpile, the administration is committed to both retain
and nurture national security research and development (R&D) capabilities to serve broader national
security interests.
The principal objective of the FY 2011 request is to fund a joint program between the Department of
Defense-Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics/Defense Threat
Reduction Agency (DTRA) and the Department of Energy-National Nuclear Security Administration(NNSA) to conduct R&D on counterterrorism, survivability, and weapon effects. The nuclear weapons
design and engineering facilities of the NNSA laboratories and DTRA’s capability to assess radiation
hardness and weapon effects will be used in a long term, jointly funded effort to achieve this objective.
The DTRA/NNSA program will organize into the following five focus areas:
1. Advanced Science and Forensics,
2. Experimental Capabilities,
3. Science Based Output,
4. Active Interrogation of Special Nuclear Material (SNM), andWeapons Activities/
Science, Technology and Engineering Capability

Page 313

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

5. Nuclear Weapons Effects Modeling and Simulation.
The preponderance of the funding is targeted at two of these focus areas within the DTRA/NNSA
program. The Advanced Science and Forensics focus area will concentrate on the advancement oftheory in material science, plasma and nuclear science, investigation of innovative designs bycomputational modeling, experimental testing of innovative designs, demonstration of capabilities tocustomers, and forensics of a nuclear device for attribution. Research in this focus area will develop a
new generation of transportable high performance radiation sources to support counter terrorism andweapon effects missions. The objective of the Active Interrogation of SNM focus area is to advanceunderstanding of the phenomenology and technologies associated with various approaches to standoff
detection of SNM and of nuclear weapons. These efforts seek to evaluate and to develop models,
experiments, interrogation sources, signature detection systems, and supporting tools and capabilities.
This focus area enhances and applies long-term NNSA nuclear weapon science capabilities related toprobing materials and objects through developing active interrogation methodologies for detecting
terrorist nuclear activities.
Benefits
NNSA’s nuclear security enterprise infrastructure, with its unparalleled R&D capabilities, has
underpinned national nuclear security from the Manhattan Project to the present. However, the national
security landscape in the twenty-first century has changed dramatically. Nations and non-state actors
pose unconventional warfare threats to the United States (U.S.) and our allies that could lead tosignificant loss of life, major damage to the nation’s infrastructure, severe economic consequences,
and/or technological surprise.
Other Federal agencies have made good use of the breadth of science and technology expertise of the
NNSA laboratories. However, past focus has been on short-term and tactical projects of some urgency
with specific deliverables that answer an immediate need. Using the partnership model with the unique,multidisciplinary workforce and infrastructure resident within the enterprise, results in an agile andresponsive STEC enterprise that is cost efficient, includes accelerated capability development, and has
quick response built-in.
This enterprise would help assure political and military decision makers that flexible intellectual andinfrastructure capabilities are available to respond to technological surprise and provide innovative
solutions to complex technical problems faced by agencies across the Federal government. To addressthese national security challenges beyond the nuclear stockpile, the administration is committed to both
retaining and nurturing national security R&D capabilities that serve broader national security interests.

Weapons Activities/
Science, Technology and Engineering Capability

Page 314

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAnnual Performance Results and Targets(R = Results; T = Targets)
Performance Indicators

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Endpoint Target

Secretarial Goal: Security: Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risksa
GPRA Unit Program Number: 61, Science, Technology and Engineering Capability
Tools for Counter Terrorism andWeapons Effects: Percent
complete toward delivery of a newgeneration of transportable, highperformance radiation source.
(Long-term Output)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

T:
Baseline

T : 25%

T : 40%

T : 65%

T : 100%

Complete delivery of a newgeneration of transportable, highperformance radiation sources by
FY 2015.

Tools for Nuclear
Nonproliferation: Percent
complete toward delivery of a
prototype enhanced particle
accelerator that can be used for
proton and x-ray radiography
diagnostics (Long-term Output)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

T:
Baseline

T : 25%

T : 40%

T : 65%

T : 100%

Complete delivery of a prototype
enhanced particle accelerator thatcan be used for proton and x-ray
radiography diagnostics by
FY 2015.

a

The program is developing an efficiency measure for inclusion in the FY 2012 OMB budget request.

Weapons Activities/
Science, Technology and Engineering Capability

Page 315

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009 Accomplishments
While this is a new GPRA unit beginning in FY 2011, the $30,000,000 provided by Congress in the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009, was placed in this budget. That funding is a building block thatwill help create a more robust strategic partnership between the intelligence community and the three
NNSA national security laboratories. This partnership envisions an increased analysis capacity, as wellas continually improving experimental and computational capabilities. The near-term, draft milestones
for the workload associated with this investment include the following: Produce plan for transitioning technical analyses of foreign nuclear weapons to modern simulation
tools, including modern baselines (3Q FY 2010).
 Develop approach to assessing how foreign nuclear weapon programs could advance under aComprehensive Test Ban Treaty, including full technical assessments (4Q FY 2010).
 Develop and evaluate new capability to assess specific foreign nuclear weapon technologies(4Q FY 2010).
 Develop and evaluate new capability to assess foreign neutron initiator technology, from reanalysis
of U.S. archival data through assessment with modern tools (4Q FY 2011).
Major Outyear Priorities and Assumptions
Outyear funding requests are pending the completion of a number of program plans in this area,
including deliverables to Congress required by the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009, andassociated with the 5-year Memorandum of Understanding with DTRA.

Weapons Activities/
Science, Technology and Engineering Capability

Page 316

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 201130,0000

20,000

8,000

0

1,000

Science, Technology and Engineering Capability
Operations and MaintenanceWeapons of Mass Destruction Analysis andAssessments

This subprogram addresses two significant challenges in the area of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) analysis and assessments that are of particular relevance to NNSA
capabilities. First is the challenge to deliver high specificity detection of nuclear materials
that are often at a distance in complex scenarios (e.g., cargo, moving target). A second
challenge is that of rapid, robust analysis and data evaluation of nuclear materials anddebris to enable attribution. These two challenges provide opportunities to develop andmaintain nuclear security capabilities including new radiation sources, measurement andinstrumentation expertise, extension of high performance code capabilities, and materialscience expertise.
Actinide Chemistry, Diagnostics, andRemote Detection

2,000

0

7,750

Actinide Chemistry, Diagnostics and Remote Detection subprogram critical efforts are
aimed at preventing the terrorist use of nuclear weapons. Actinide chemistry anddiagnostics enable rapid and robust identification of the materials interdicted or collected.
Key initiatives include the development of comprehensive nuclear materials databases,
newly predicted signatures and rapid, high fidelity analytical techniques. Emphasis on
debris forensics broadens radiochemistry research, nuclear cross section evaluation, andparticle transport modeling.
Impacts of Energy and Environment on
Global Security

0

0

1,000

This subprogram supports development and application of the nuclear security enterprise’s
resident expertise and methodologies needed to maintain the U.S. nuclear security missionthat are adjacent to and strongly complement broader energy security problems. This
includes modeling, simulation, theory and experimental capabilities that underpin problems
in energy security from laser-based applications, fission/fusion systems, carbon treaty
verification capabilities, special nuclear materials metallurgy skills associated with nuclear
security, safety and disposal.

Weapons Activities/
Science, Technology and Engineering Capability

Page 317

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)

Advanced Analysis, Tools, and Technologies

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 201120,0000

10,250This sub-program invests in a portfolio of tools and technologies that will address threats
across multiple national security domains including threat design, international safeguards,
radiochemistry analysis, and material disablement. Integrated software tools thatincorporate uncertainty quantification methodologies and validation of simulation results
will benefit the nuclear security enterprise and a number of the national security partners
that prioritize these important and emerging analysis concepts. Interagency interest in
weapons effects and NNSA expertise will seek tools in areas such as consequence
management and electromagnetic pulse threatened environments. Although nuclear
materials characterization is directly relevant to nuclear emergency response operations andfor surveillance of the current U.S. stockpile, simulation, development, and engineering of
new materials and algorithms will enable robust characterization of aging or less wellcharacterized nuclear materials. High performance computing is integral to enabling arobust predictive capability in the service of national defense. Special purpose hardware
and software, advancement in algorithm design and performance, advanced distributed
processing, and appropriately secured computing facilities are aspects of this foundational
technology.
Total, Science, Technology and Engineering
Capability

Weapons Activities/
Science, Technology and Engineering Capability

Page 318

30,0000

20,000FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Science, Technology and Engineering Capability
Operations and MaintenanceWeapons of Mass Destruction Analysis and Assessments
Increase is due to the establishment of a new program to deliver
high specificity detection of nuclear materials and to enableattribution of nuclear materials and debris. Including technical andcore capabilities and infrastructure that support a range of WMD
assessments and related national security threats.

+1,000

Actinide Chemistry, Diagnostics, and Remote Detection
Increase is due to the establishment of a new program task enable
rapid and robust identification of the materials interdicted orcollected. Including activities designed to integrate technical corecapabilities and tools across the portfolio of threat environments
and among nuclear security enterprise partners.

+7,750

Impacts of Energy and Environment on Global Security
Increase is due to the establishment of a new program to develop
and apply expertise and methodologies needed to maintain the U.S.
nuclear security mission that complements energy security
problems. Specific tasks include the range of capabilities needed toanalyze the potential effects of climate change and energy supplies
on global security.

+1,000

Advanced Analysis, Tools, and Technologies
Increase is due to the establishment of a new program to investigate
a portfolio of tools and technologies that will address threats acrossmultiple national security domains including threat design,international safeguards, radiochemistry analysis, and material
disablement.
Total Funding Change, Science, Technology and Engineering
Capability

Weapons Activities/
Science, Technology and Engineering Capability

Page 319+10,250+20,000

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Capital Operating Expenses and Construction Summary
Capital Operating Expensesa(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

0
0

0
0

250
250

(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013 FY 2014

FY 2015

Outyear Capital Operating Expenses
FY 2012General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

250

250

250

250

250

250

250

250

a

Funds are appropriated for Operations and Maintenance, which includes operating expenses, capital equipment and generalplant projects. The program does not budget separately for capital equipment and general plant projects.
Weapons Activities/
Science, Technology and Engineering Capability
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

Page 320

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Congressionally Directed Projects
Funding Profile by Subprogram

Congressionally Directed Projects(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Current
Appropriation
Appropriation
22,8363,000

FY 2011
Request0

Description
Starting in FY 2008, funding for Congressionally Directed projects was appropriated as a separate
funding line although specific projects may relate to ongoing work in a specific programmatic area.
The FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8) included 13 Congressionally Directed projects
within the Weapons Activities appropriation. The FY 2010 Energy and Water Development andRelated Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-85) includes $3,000,000 for one CongressionallyDirected Project in support of Center for Innovation through Computational Simulation and
Visualization, Purdue University, Calumet (IN). For FY 2011, no follow-on funding is requested.

Weapons Activities/
Congressionally Directed Projects

Page 321

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
Congressionally Directed Projects• Advanced Engineering Environment for Sandia National
Laboratories (MA)

1,427

0

0

• Cimtrak Cyber Security (IN) for cyber security software

952

0

0

3,806

0

0

952

0

0

2,379

0

0

4,757

3,000

0

• Technical Product Data Initiative (OH)

952

0

0

• Arrowhead Center, NM State University, Las Cruces, NM, topromote economic prosperity in New Mexico througheconomic development

952

0

0

• Restore Manhattan Project Sites (NM), LANL, Los Alamos, NM,
for historic preservation

475

0

0

• Renewable Energy Planning (NV), NNSA, Nevada Test Site, forplanning to maximize renewable energy production

475

0

0

• Electronic Record for Worker Safety and Health (NV),UNLV, Clark County, project to digitize NTS worker's records tohelp Nevada Site Office improve response to worker claims

1,427

0

0

• Distributed data driven test environment (OH)

3,330

0

0

952

0

0

22,8363,000

0• Secure Advanced Supercomputing Platform at Nextedge (OH)• Multi-Disciplined Integrated Collaborative Environment(MDICE) (MO)• Laboratory for Advanced Laser-Target Interactions (OH)• Center for Innovation through Computational Simulation and
Visualization, Purdue University, Calumet (IN)• Matter Radiation interactions in extremes (MARIE) (NM)Total, Congressionally Directed Projects

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Congressionally Directed Projects
Decrease results from no follow-on funding being requested for project.

-3,000Total, Congressionally Directed Projects-3,000Weapons Activities/
Congressionally Directed Projects

Page 322

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation

Page 323

Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation

Page 324

Table of Contents

Page
Appropriation Language .......................................................................................................................327
Overview...............................................................................................................................................329
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D...............................................................................................341
Nonproliferation and International Security .........................................................................................351
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation ...............................................................369
Elimination of Weapons Grade Plutonium Production ........................................................................385
Fissile Materials Disposition.................................................................................................................393
Global Threat Reduction Initiative .......................................................................................................435
Congressionally Directed Projects........................................................................................................447

Department of Energy/
Defenses Nuclear Nonproliferation

Page 325

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 326

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Proposed Appropriation Language
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant andcapital equipment and other incidental expenses necessary for defense nuclear nonproliferation
activities, in carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101
et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any facility or for plant or
facility acquisition, construction, or expansion, and the purchase of not to exceed one passenger motor
vehicle for replacement only, [$2,136,709,000] $2,687,167,000, to remain available until expended:[Provided, That, of the amount appropriated in this paragraph $250,000 shall be used for the projects
specified under the heading ‘‘Congressionally Directed Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Projects’’ inthe joint explanatory statement accompanying the conference report on this Act]. (Energy and Water
Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.)
Explanation of Change
The FY 2011 Request increase reflects the shift of the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF)
project from the Weapons Activities appropriation, with the goal of aligning management and funding
responsibilities for the interrelated surplus plutonium disposition activities under a single appropriation.
In addition, the increase supports $100,000,000 of the $400,000,000 the U.S. pledged to support theRussian plutonium disposition and supports the Research & Development of the Gas Turbine-Modular
Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) located in Russia, as required under the Plutonium Management Disposition
Agreement (PMDA).
The funding increase for International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation reflects new oradditional Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting (MPC&A) upgrades at Rosatom Weapons
Complex sites, expanded MPC&A upgrades at selected buildings to address outsider and insider threats,
additional support for the sustainability of installed MPC&A upgrades, and expansion of MPC&A work
to countries outside of Russia and the Former Soviet Union. The funding increase for Nonproliferation
and Verification Research and Development primarily support a new testing and evaluation program at
the Nevada Test Site (NTS) to address emerging technical challenges associated with the
Administration’s nonproliferation objectives. The new capability at NTS will ultimately support U.S.
capabilities to monitor international treaties and cooperative agreements, such as the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT) and the proposed Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT).
Funding increases for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative reflect an acceleration of efforts to remove
and/or dispose of high priority vulnerable nuclear materials from the out years into FY 2011 in supportof the international effort the President announced in Prague on April 5, 2009 to secure all vulnerable
nuclear materials around the world within four years. In addition, the funding increase reflects anacceleration of the pace of reactor conversions and of establishing a capability to produce
Molybdenum-99 in the United States without the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU).
The Nonproliferation and International Security funding decrease is primarily the result of a reduction inprogram activities in support of verification of disablement of the Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea nuclear program.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Overview

Page 327

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 328

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Overview
Appropriation Summary by Program(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Current
Appropriation
Appropriation

FY 2011
RequestDefense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development

356,281

317,300

351,568

Nonproliferation and International Security

150,000

187,202

155,930

International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation

460,592

572,050

590,118

Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production

141,299

24,5070

Fissile Materials Disposition

41,774

701,900

1,030,713

333,500

558,838ab

Global Threat Reduction Initiative

404,640

Congressional Directed Projects

1,903

250

0

1,556,489

2,136,709

2,687,167-11,418001,545,071

2,136,709

2,687,167

Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Use of Prior Year Balances
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

NOTES:FY 2009 funds appropriated in Other Defense Activities for the Mixed Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility, and in Weapons Activities for the Waste Solidification Building and Pit
Disassembly and Conversion Facility (FY 2009 and FY 2010) are not reflected in the abovetable.

Public Law Authorization:
Energy and Water and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-85)
National Nuclear Security Administration Act, (P.L. 106-65), as amended
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84)__________________a

FY 2009 amount includes international contributions of $4,067,065 from Government of Canada, $387,335 fromNew Zealand, $837,600 from Norway, and $300,000 from South Korea.
b

FY 2009 amount includes international contributions of $3,918,000 from the Government of Canada, and $5,722,212
from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Overview

Page 329

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetOutyear Appropriation Summary by Program
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development
Nonproliferation and International Security
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Fissile Materials Disposition
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

FY 2012(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015315,941
161,083
570,798
859,375
599,9942,507,191

317,558
165,275
561,790
1,010,642
659,926
2,715,191

351,145
181,741
623,670
743,600
1,056,172
2,956,328

328,194
169,861
558,492
789,558
987,138
2,833,243

MissionThe convergence of heightened terrorist activities and the ease of moving materials, technology andinformation across borders have made the potential for terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction(WMD) the most serious threat facing the Nation. Preventing WMD from falling into the hands ofterrorists is a major national security priority of this Administration. The FY 2011 budget request for
DNN reflects the need to protect the United States (U.S.) and its allies from this threat.
The DNN mission is to provide policy and technical leadership to limit or prevent the spread ofmaterials, technology, and expertise relating to weapons of mass destruction; advance technologies todetect the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction worldwide; and eliminate or secure inventories
of surplus materials and infrastructure usable for nuclear weapons -- in short, to detect, deter, secure, or
dispose of dangerous nuclear material.
Benefits
The National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) nonproliferation programs seek to secure
nuclear materials worldwide that could be used for weapons and to convert such materials for peacefulapplications. Within the Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and Development activities, improved
detection of nuclear material is being achieved through instrument development and extensive
cooperation among federal and international agencies. These advanced detection techniques andanalysis capabilities are a major part of the U. S. capability to detect nuclear weapon tests and nuclear
materials production processes to assure that intelligence information and agreed material controls areadequate in the face of increasing efforts by adversaries to obtain these capabilities. Demonstration of
improved detection techniques, relying on state-of-the-art instrument advances to detect smaller andmore specific types of material, in many cases remotely, are uniquely contributed by NNSA. Novel
verification technologies and methodologies and realistic testing of detectors are also solely available
from NNSA. Frequent interagency technical meetings and international comparisons, along with
scientific peer review of each activity, guide these specific research and development programs.
The DNN program supports the NNSA and Department of Energy (DOE) mission to protect our
national security by preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials to terrorist
organizations and rogue states. These efforts are implemented in part through the Global Partnershipagainst the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, formed at the G8 Kananaskis
Summit in June 2002, and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, launched in Rabat
Morocco in October 2006.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Overview

Page 330

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetPerformance
All of the programs within the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation appropriation support Secretarial
Goal 3 - Security: Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risks. NNSA will secure the mostvulnerable nuclear materials worldwide within four years consistent with the commitmetns the
President’s announced in Prague; strengthen the international safeguards system by developing newtechnologies, expertise, policies and partnerships; develop comprehensive models of the full life-cycleof fissile materials for analyzing weapons material properties, predictive simulation and proliferation
risk; and enable ratification of new arms control measures through NNSA’s technical capabilities.
In addition, select programs within this appropriation support Secretarial Goals 1 - Innovation: Leadthe world in science, technology and engineering and Goal 2 - Energy: Build a competitive, lowcarbon economy and secure America’s energy future.
NNSA will leverage its nuclear security science, technology, and engineering capabilities to promotesolutions to Energy initiatives and support Innovation and education.
Means and Strategies
The pursuit of nuclear weapons by terrorists and states of concern makes it clear that ournonproliferation programs are urgently required, and must proceed on an accelerated basis. We will
fully exploit the world-class expertise of our National Laboratories to increase our design, testing, andfielding capabilities for safeguards, detection, and verification technologies.
The pace and nature of treaties and agreements, extremely poor economic conditions in many hostcountries, political and economic uncertainties in the former Soviet Union, and the unwillingness ofthreshold states to engage in negotiations can all have dramatic effects on the pace of program
implementation and effectiveness. The Department will implement the following strategies:
Interfaces, Partnerships and Working Relationships: NNSA partners with many U.S. agencies,
international organizations, and non-governmental organizations to further our nonproliferation goals.
All major policy issues are coordinated with the National Security Council, and we also work closelywith the Departments of State, Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, Treasury, and Commerce. We
leverage our nuclear nonproliferation research and development base within the National Laboratorycomplex to achieve program goals. In addition, NNSA coordinates with the Department of State andNuclear Regulatory Commission on selected aspects of the fissile materials disposition program, andworks with the IAEA to further international safeguards. We work with the United States Enrichment
Corporation (USEC), the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Babcock and Wilcox, and Nuclear Fuel
Services in the disposition of surplus U.S. HEU, and USEC is also involved in the Russian HEU
purchase agreement. The U.S. Industry Coalition is NNSA’s partner in the Global Initiative for
Proliferation Prevention. The U.S. Agency for International Development, the Nuclear Energy Agency,
the Intelligence Community, and other agencies are also participants. We anticipate continued frequentcollaborations with the Department of Homeland Security, providing technical assistance and training
for domestic interdiction and export control cases.
The goal of the Russian Plutonium Disposition program is to work with Russia to dispose of at least
34 MT of surplus Russian weapon-grade plutonium. In November 2007, DOE and its Russiancounterpart agency, Rosatom, agreed on a revised program to dispose of surplus Russian weapon-grade
plutonium. The Russian program relies on the use of fast reactors for plutonium disposition (theDefense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Overview

Page 331

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

existing BN-600 and the BN-800 currently under construction), operating under certain nonproliferation
restrictions. Simultaneously, Russia continues to support research and development of the Gas TurbineModular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) on a cost shared basis with the U.S., which could also be used for
disposition should that technology become operational during the disposition period. The U.S. andRussian governments have completed negotiations of a Protocol that will amend the PMDA to reflect
this revised program. It is expected that the Protocol to the 2000 PMDA containing these amendments
will be signed in early 2010 and that both countries will begin disposing of their surplus plutonium inthe 2018 timeframe.
The PMDA Protocol, once approved by the two governments, calls for the U.S. to make available$400,000,000 to support plutonium disposition in Russia, subject to future appropriations. The balanceof the more than approximately $2,000,000,000 remaining cost of Russia's plutonium disposition would
be borne by Russia and, if available, non-U.S. government contributions. Additional funds separate
from the $400,000,000 would also be required to continue U.S. cost sharing of GT-MHR research anddevelopment in Russia, U.S. management and oversight of the overall Russian plutonium disposition
program and to implement a bilateral monitoring and inspection regime. The request for FY 2011
includes the first $100,000,000 of the $400,000,000 pledge. Failure of the U.S. to execute the Protocol
with Russia and contribute $400,000,000 would likely cause Russia to delay or terminate efforts todispose of its weapon-grade plutonium.
Securing Nuclear Weapons, Material and Expertise: For over a decade, the U.S. has been working
cooperatively with the Russian Federation to enhance the security of facilities containing fissile material
and nuclear weapons. The scope of these efforts has been expanded to protect weapons-usable material
in countries outside the former Soviet Union as well. These programs fund critical activities such as
installation of intrusion detection and alarm systems, and construction of fences around nuclear sites.
Efforts to complete this work and to secure facilities against the possibility of theft or diversion havebeen accelerated. DOE has also established the Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention Program(GIPP), which is the only program in the U.S. Government that works to transition Former Soviet Union
WMD scientists, engineers and related technical experts to commercial, non-weapons-related activities.
Security upgrades were completed for Russian Navy nuclear fuel and weapons storage at the end of
FY 2006 and were completed for Rosatom buildings covered by the February 2005 Bratislava
Agreement at the end of calendar year 2008. Security upgrades to the nuclear warhead storage sites of
the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces were completed in 2007 and upgrades to the Russian Ministry of
Defense’s 12th Main Directorate nuclear warhead storage sites were completed at the end of calendar
year 2008. Although the Bratislava Agreement workscope was completed in 2008, as agreed, a numberof important areas/buildings have been added to the scope of joint work; and these additional Materials
Protection Control and Accounting (MPC&A) upgrades will be completed by 2012.
Revitalizing International Safeguards: With the increasing number, size, and complexity of nuclear
facilities deployed worldwide, the widespread entry into force of International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) additional protocols, and the emergence of new proliferation threats from both state and substate terrorist actors, the current workload of the IAEA far exceeds its resources. At the same time, thecurrent generation of safeguards technologies is becoming outdated and the safeguards “human capital”
base is aging and shrinking. As nuclear energy continues to expand, opportunities for proliferation will
multiply and the gap between IAEA needs and resources will grow wider.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Overview

Page 332

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

NNSA's Next Generation Safeguards Initiative focuses on revitalizing the U.S. safeguards technology
and human capital base to ensure that the IAEA has the authorities, capabilities, technologies, expertise,and resources it needs to meet current and future challenges. In particular, NNSA coordinates andimplements a dedicated program focused on developing advanced safeguards approaches, technologies,
and equipment that will cultivate a new generation of specialists with expertise in a broad range ofsafeguards-relevant disciplines.
Verifying Nuclear Programs in Countries of Proliferation Concern: The Nuclear Noncompliance
Verification (NNV) program develops advanced technology applications to verify declared nuclear
activities, detect undeclared nuclear materials and activities, and carry out dismantlement andverification of nuclear programs in countries of proliferation concern. The program also provides
technical and operational support for U.S. Government policies and activities related to countries ofproliferation concern. In FY 2011, the program will continue to support the Six Party Talks and related
USG efforts to prepare for denuclearization and verification activities in North Korea. The program also
will develop and deliver new verification technologies or methods and will support continued U.S. andinternational efforts related to the dismantlement and verification of proliferant-state nuclear programs.
Countering Illicit Supplier Networks: DOE has a long history of providing the technical input to theinteragency in the various interdiction activities conducted by the U.S. Government. However, in lightof the escalation in these activities catalyzed by the uncovering of A. Q. Khan’s clandestine nuclear
supply network, and the continued efforts by North Korea and Iran to pursue WMD technologies, theNonproliferation and International Security program has developed a comprehensive capability to
extract actionable information dealing with proliferation networks, technology transfers andinvolvement of entities and persons of interest in proliferation and terrorism.
In addition, the program provides real-time technical and policy support for efforts by the U.S.
Government in a timely manner to facilitate a wide range of counter proliferation and counterterrorism
interdiction options. The backbone of this capability is comprised of various customized electronic
database applications that exploit information and provide rapid, real-time technical support to theinteragency on illicit transfers of proliferation-sensitive technology and commodities; technology
assessments in the DOE complex and U.S. industry; updates on proliferation network off-shoots;
support to the new IAEA role investigating proliferation networks; and evaluation of the impact ofproliferation networks on global safeguards and export controls systems.
Pre-Screening Cargo Containers for Nuclear and Radiological Materials: The world’s shipping
network, with millions of cargo containers in transit, could conceal nuclear and radiological materials.
The Megaports Program provides the tools for law enforcement officials to pre-screen the bulk of the
cargo in the world trade system through work with international partners to deploy and equip key ports
with the means to detect and deter illicit trafficking in nuclear and other radioactive materials. Thiseffort supports the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Container Security Initiative. The FY 2011budget supports the completion of four additional ports, which will increase the number of ports
participating in and equipped through the Megaports Initiative to forty seven.
NNSA Support to Presidential Initiative for Research and Development: The Nonproliferation andVerification Research and Development program continues to provide basic and applied research inadvanced materials for radiation detection sensors, special nuclear material movement, uranium
enrichment detection, and plutonium reprocessing/production detection. These multi-use technologies
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Overview

Page 333

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

are designed to support the nonproliferation mission, but also support fundamental research anddevelopment critical for Defense, Homeland Security, and the Intelligence Community. Additionally,
the program provides research, development, production, and delivery of space- and ground-based
sensors to detect nuclear detonations in support of national security and treaty monitoring/verification.
Eliminating Russian Plutonium Production: The Elimination of Weapons Grade Plutonium
Production (EWGPP) Program will result in the permanent shutdown of three nuclear reactors thatcurrently have produced weapons-grade plutonium for Russian nuclear weapons. These reactors, whichwere the last three reactors in Russia that produced plutonium for military purposes, also provide
necessary heat and electricity to two “closed cities” in the nuclear weapons complex. The two reactors
in Seversk were shut down six months ahead of schedule in June 2008, leaving only the Zheleznogorsk
reactor in operation.
The FY 2011 budget requests no funding for EWGPP. Previous budgets contained funding to shutdown
the three reactors through (1) refurbishment of an existing fossil-fuel (coal) power plant in Seversk
completed in December 2008; and (2) construction of a new fossil-fuel plant at Zheleznogorsk by 2011.
The program officially received Critical Decision (CD)-4 approval on September 26, 2008, effectively
terminating the Seversk project. The remaining activities to expand the full U.S. commitment of$285,000,000 to the Russian Federation will continue through the first quarter in FY 2010. This will
eliminate the production of 1.2 MT annually of weapons-grade plutonium. The program is of highvalue because plutonium that is never created does not have to be accounted for, or secured, and cannot
be used by terrorists.
Disposing of Surplus U.S. and Russian Weapon-Grade Fissile Material: The Fissile Materials
Disposition program disposes of inventories of surplus Russian and U.S. weapon-grade plutonium andsurplus U.S. weapon-grade HEU. The FY 2011 budget request supports continuing efforts to dispose of
surplus U.S. HEU including support for the Reliable Fuel Supply Program, and for design andconstruction of several plutonium disposition projects. In addition, funds will be used to support
implementation of a revised program for disposition of Russian surplus weapon-grade plutonium basedon the use of existing and planned fast reactors with certain nonproliferation conditions. These activities
are of critical importance because they help to ensure that surplus fissile materials in the U.S. and Russia
are permanently disposed of, and demonstrate U.S. and Russian leadership in working towards a
nuclear-free world. A complementary fissile material reduction program, the HEU Transparency
Program, continues to confirm the permanent elimination of HEU from the Russian weapons stockpile
by monitoring the conversion of 30 MT of HEU to low-enriched uranium annually. The program has
eliminated over 350 MT of HEU from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons of the 500 MT planned by
the end of the HEU Purchase Agreement in 2013.
Joint Action Plan for Cooperation on Security Upgrades of Russian Facilities: An agreement on
Nuclear Security Cooperation was reached between the Presidents of the U.S. and the RussianFederation during their February 2005 Bratislava Summit. This agreement includes, for the first time, acomprehensive joint action plan for the cooperation on security upgrades of Russian nuclear facilities atRosatom and Ministry of Defense sites and cooperation in the areas of nuclear regulatory development,sustainability, secure transportation, MPC&A expertise training and protective force equipment.
Preventing a Possible Terrorist Attack Using Civilian Nuclear or Radiological Materials: The GTRI
mission is to reduce and protect vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials located at civilian sites
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Overview

Page 334

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

worldwide. GTRI directly supports the Administration’s goal announced in Prague on April 5, 2009 tosecure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years. The Joint Statement from the
Moscow Summit in July 2009 and the September 2009 UNSC Resolution 1887 provide further global
commitments to removal of nuclear materials and conversion of research reactors.
Establishing a Capability to Produce Molybdenum-99: Molybdenum-99, or moly-99, is widely used in
medical diagnosis and has been produced commercially with reactors using highly enriched uranium(HEU) fuel. Because of the nonproliferation mission to remove HEU from use, NNSA’s GTRI program
has the lead for moly-99. As part of its nuclear nonproliferation mission, and in light of the current
moly-99 supply shortage, GTRI is working to demonstrate moly-99 production without the use of HEU.
GTRI is implementing projects to demonstrate the viability of non-HEU based technologies for largescale commercial moly-99 production, including accelerator technology, low-enriched uranium (LEU)
target technology, LEU solution reactor technology, and neutron capture technology.a
Global Partnership: Our nonproliferation objectives cannot be met without strong cooperation/
partnership with other nations. The Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of
Mass Destruction, formed at the G-8 Kananaskis Summit in June 2002, renewed the G-8 nations’ (theU.S., Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, and the United Kingdom) commitment to address
nonproliferation, disarmament, counter-terrorism, and nuclear safety issues. The G-8 leaders pledged to
devote up to $20,000,000,000 over ten years to support cooperative efforts, initially in Russia, and haveinvited other similarly motivated countries to participate in this partnership. The U.S. is committed toprovide $10,000,000,000 over ten years to be matched by $10,000,000,000 from the other members,
attesting to the firm belief that nonproliferation concerns are of the highest government priority, and that
this work is of paramount importance for the security of the nation and the world. A total of$3,855,000,000 has been costed from FY 2002 through FY 2009. The following table reflects the
Department of Energy funds budgeted for FY 2010-2015, by country.
U.S. Nonproliferation and Threat Reduction Assistance to Former Soviet States
Summary by Country
RussiaKazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
UkraineUzbekistanAzerbaijan/Armenia
Georgia
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Total, Russia & FSU(dollars in millions)
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
365.0
347.3
259.1
119.7
117.4
117.4
15.1
9.1
15.6
10.4
5.1
5.1
1.3
1.6
4.4
0
0
0
9.3
11.2
18.1
19.3
31.7
31.7
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
7.1
7.2
6.8
2.9
1.4
1.4
5.8
4.5
1.4
1.7
1.7
1.7
0
2.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.0
2.6
0.3
0.3
403.8
383.9
312.6
156.8
157.8
157.8

a

Isotope production at the Department of Energy is primarily the responsibility of the Office of Science with two exceptions:plutonium-238 production by the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) and molybdenum-99 production is supported by NNSA’s
Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI).

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Overview

Page 335

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Validation and Verification
To verify and validate program performance, NNSA conducts various internal and external reviews andaudits. NNSA’s programmatic activities are subject to continuing review by the Congress, theGovernment Accountability Office, the Department’s Inspector General, the National Security Council,
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, the Department’s Office of Engineering and Construction
Management, and the Department’s Office of Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance. Eachyear numerous external independent reviews are conducted of selected projects. Additionally, NNSA
Headquarters senior management and Field managers conduct frequent, in-depth reviews of cost,schedule, and scope to ensure projects are on-track and within budget.
NNSA has established a comprehensive validation and verification process as part of its Planning,
Programming, Budgeting and Evaluation (PPBE) system. Long-term performance goals are
established/validated during the Planning Phase and linked in a performance cascade to annual targets
and detailed technical milestones. During the Programming Phase, budget and resources trade-offs anddecisions are evaluated based on the impact to annual and long-term performance measures. These
NNSA decisions are documented and used to develop the budget requests during the Budgeting Phase.
Program and financial performance for each performance measure is monitored and progress verified
during the Execution and Evaluation Phase.
NNSA validation and verification activities during the PPBE Execution and Evaluation phase include a
set of tiered performance reviews to examine everything from detailed technical progress to program
management controls to corporate performance against long-term goals. This set of reviews includes:(1) Budget Formulation Validation; (2) the Independent Assessment process; (3) NNSA Administrator
Program Reviews; (4) Program Manager Detailed Technical Reviews; (5) the NNSA Mid-Year Financeand Performance Review; (6) quarterly reporting of progress through the Department's performancetracking system, and (7) the NNSA Administrator's Annual Performance Report.
NNSA is performing annual internal self-assessments of the management strengths and weaknesses ofeach NNSA program. Among other things, this process helps NNSA ensure that quality, clarity, andcompleteness of its performance data and results are in accordance with standards set in the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993.
The NNSA Administrator reviews each NNSA program as part of the NNSA's PPBE Evaluation
process. These reviews, usually conducted annually, include the NNSA Management Council and focus
on both technical and financial information to identify issues, monitor program progress, and makerecommendations for corporate improvement. The focus of these reviews is to verify and validate that
NNSA programs are on track to meet their long-term goals and annual targets. The program managers
conduct more detailed reviews of each program. These Program Manager Detailed Technical Reviews
are normally held at least quarterly during the year. The focus of these reviews is to verify and validatethat NNSA contractors are achieving detailed technical milestones that result in progress towards annual
targets and long-term goals. These two reviews work together to ensure that advance warnings are
given to NNSA managers in order for corrective actions to be implemented.
The results of all of these reviews are reported quarterly in the Department's performance tracking
system and annually in the NNSA Administrator's Annual Performance Report and the DOE
Performance and Accountability Report (PAR). Both documents help to measure the progress NNSA
programs are making toward achieving annual targets and long-term goals. These documents are at a
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Overview

Page 336

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

summary level to help senior managers verify and validate progress towards NNSA and Departmental
commitments listed in the budget.
In addition, the Government Accountability Office, Inspector General, National Security Council, Foster
Panel, Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board, and Secretary of Energy Advisory Board provide
independent reviews of NNSA programs.
Major Outyear Priorities and Assumptions
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation will play a key role in meeting the Administration’s nonproliferation
objectives, to accelerate control of "loose nuclear materials" to secure and remove all vulnerable nuclear
material from the most vulnerable sites by the end of 2012. In particular, Global Threat Reduction
Initiative (GTRI) will have worked in 118 countries around the world to implement nuclear andradiological threat reduction in line with the Administration’s nonproliferation initiatives. By the end of
2015, GTRI will have converted or verified the shutdown of 129 (65%) of the 200 HEU reactors atcivilian sits, removed 4,597 kilograms (99%) of the approximately 4,604 kilograms of nuclear materials
at civilian sites, and protected 3,946 (79%) of the 5,000 buildings with high-priority nuclear andradiological materials. The Second Line of Defense program will continue to make significant progressin the prevention and detection of illicit transfer of nuclear material through shipping ports andsignificant reduction of risk of terrorists acquiring radiological materials and include approximately
650 border sites and 100 Megaports by the end of 2015. Nonproliferation and International Security
funding in the outyears reflects the growth of the Next Generation Safeguards Initiative to strengthen
global safeguards institutions, in particular the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), andrevitalize the U.S. safeguards technology and human capital base. The Fissile Materials Disposition(FMD) program will continue to work with Russia to dispose of its surplus weapon-grade plutonium in atransparent and irreversible manner and to dispose of surplus U.S. weapon-grade plutonium and highly
enriched uranium in a similar manner. Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development
began executing the ten-year Integrated University Program and has created a new national security
capability at the Nevada Test Site providing a technical foundation for addressing the challenges of the
President’s nonproliferation objectives.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Overview

Page 337

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

DOE Nuclear Nonproliferation Activities($ in Millions)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
ActualAppropriation Estimate
FY 2012
NNSA
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferationa1,545.1

1,499.0

1,909.9

1,796.0

FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

1,874.9

2,251.7

2,546.5

47.0

77.0

78.5

40.9

25.8

0

0

Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility b

38.4

89.1

193.0

188.1

245.0

241.1

192.4

Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility c
Subtotal, NNSA

01,630.5560.7
2,225.8505.8
2,687.2482.2
2,507.2

569.5
2,715.2

340.4
2,833.2

217.4
2,956.3

467.8
2,098.302,225.802,687.202,507.202,715.202,833.202,956.3

Waste Solidification Building

Nuclear Energy/Other Defense Activities
Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility c
Total, DOE Funding

The FY 2011 DNN budget request reflects a shift in emphasis from the Bratislava agreement
accomplishments to increasing Second Line of Defense sites, and expansion of nuclear and radiologicalmaterial removal under the GTRI in line with the Administration’s goal; as well as realigning thefunding for fissile materials disposition within DNN.
Department of Energy (DOE) Working Capital Fund (WCF) Support
Beginning in FY 2011, NNSA programs will fund a pro rata share by appropriation of certain DOE
Working Capital Fund activities. FY 2011 projected NNSA program allocations are as follows:
DOEnet ($482,000) for DOE telecommunications services; Financial Statement Audits ($4,514,000),previously budgeted by the DOE Office of Inspector General; Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)
Audits ($3,076,000) for procurement management; iManage ($3,121,000) for corporate systems that
support the DOE accounting, finance, procurement and budgeting processes; and Financial Control
Reporting Assessment ($1,502,000). The NNSA’s total contribution to the WCF from both Programand Program Direction funds for FY 2011 is projected at $35,942,000.
The NNSA Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation appropriation projected allocation of the DOE Working
Capital fund for FY 2011 is $3,205,618.

___________________
a

Funding in FY 2009 was appropriated in the Weapons Activities appropriation account. FY 2010 - FY 2015 funding is
included in the DNN Appropriation.
b

Funding in FY 2009 - FY 2010 was appropriated in the Weapons Activities appropriation account. FY 2011 - FY 2015
funding is included the DNN Appropriation.

c

Funding in FY 2009 was appropriated within the Other Defense Activities appropriation. FY 2010 - FY 2015 funding is
included in the DNN appropriation.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Overview

Page 338

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetHistorically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Support
The NNSA has established the program to target research opportunities for HBCU institutions toincrease their participation in national security-related research and to train and recruit qualified HBCU
graduates for employment within the national security enterprise. The majority of the efforts directly
support program activities, and programs funded in the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation appropriationplans to fund research with the HBCU totaling up to approximately $3,000,000 in FY 2011, in areas
including engineering, radiochemistry, material sciences, and sensor development.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Overview

Page 339

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 340

Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development
Funding Profile by Subprogram(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Current
Appropriation
Appropriation

FY 2011
RequestNonproliferation and Verification R&D
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Proliferation Detection

195,400

181,839

225,004

Homeland Security-Related Proliferation Detection [Non-Add]
Nuclear Detonation Detection
Subtotal, O&M
Construction
Total, Nonproliferation and Verification R&D[50,000]
142,421337,821
18,460356,281[50,000]
135,461
317,300
0317,300[50,000]
126,564
351,568
0351,568

Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2012
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
Operations and Maintenance
Proliferation Detection (PD)Homeland Security-Related Proliferation Detection[Non-Add]
Nuclear Detonation Detection
Total, Nonproliferation and Verification R&D(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015

182,614

183,549

189,696

202,962[50,000]
133,327
315,941[50,000]
134,009317,558[50,000]
138,498
328,194[50,000]
148,183
351,145

MissionThis program reduces the threat to national security posed by nuclear weapons proliferation/detonationor the illicit trafficking of nuclear materials, through the development of new and novel technologies andthe development of national and international treaty monitoring and verification capabilities.
Benefits
Using the unique facilities and scientific skills of NNSA and DOE national laboratories and plants, inpartnership with industry and academia, the program conducts research and development that supports
nonproliferation mission requirements necessary to close technology gaps identified through closeinteraction with NNSA and other U.S. government agencies and programs. This program meets uniquechallenges and plays an important role in the federal government by developing new technologies
applicable to nonproliferation, homeland security, and national security needs.
The Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development (R&D) program has two
subprograms that make unique contributions to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
Unit Program Number 39.
The Proliferation Detection (PD) subprogram leads the nonproliferation community R&D effort inadvancing next-generation nuclear detection capabilities and methods to detect foreign nuclear materials
and weapon production facilities and processes. The PD subprogram develops the tools, technologies,
and techniques used to detect, locate, and analyze the global proliferation of nuclear weapon
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D

Page 341

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

technologies, with special emphasis on capabilities to detect the illicit diversion of special nuclear
materials and on support for U.S. commitments to international treaties, such as the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the proposed Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT).
The Nuclear Detonation Detection subprogram develops and builds the nation’s operational space-based
sensors to detect and report surface, atmospheric, or space nuclear detonations; produces and delivers
advanced technology that enable operation of the nation’s ground-based monitoring networks to detectatmospheric nuclear detonations; and develops tools, technologies, and related science for collecting andanalyzing forensic information related to nuclear detonations. Further, this subprogram forms the core
U.S. R&D capability to support U.S. implementation and monitoring of treaties, such as theComprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
The R&D program supported a joint effort between the DOE Office of Science (SC) and the Departmentof Homeland Security (DHS) to construct approximately 200,000 gross square feet of laboratories,
offices, and facilities, known as the Physical Sciences Facility (PSF), on the Horn Rapids Triangle at
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. In addition, the program supports the life extension upgrades to
Building 325 in the Hanford 300 Area. This upgrade effort will replace and extend existing researchcapabilities being displaced, as a result of the closure and cleanup of the Hanford 300 Area. NNSA
completed its commitment to support the PSF construction funding in FY 2009; no additional funds arerequested in the outyears.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D

Page 342

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAnnual Performance Results and Targets(R= Results; T = Targets)
Performance Indicators

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Endpoint Target

T: 30%

T: 50%

T: 60%

T: 75%

T: 90%

T: 95%

By 2016, demonstrate the next
generation of technologies andmethods to detect Uranium-235
Production activities.

T: 50%

T: 65%

T: 75%

T: 90%

T: 95%

T: 100%

By 2015, demonstrate the next
generation of technologies andmethods to detect Plutonium
Production activities.

T: 60%

T: 80%

T: 90%

T: 100%

N/A

N/A

By 2013, demonstrate the next
generation of technologies andmethods to detect Special Nuclear
Material movement.

T: 90%

T: 90%

T: 90%

T: 90%

T: 90%

T: 90%

Annually achieve timely delivery of
NNSA nuclear detonation detection
products (90% target reflects goodon-time delivery. Index considers
factors beyond NNSA’s control andimpact on customer schedules).

Secretarial Goal: Security: Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risks
GPRA Unit Program Number: 39, Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
Uranium-235 Production
Detection: Cumulative percentage
of progress toward demonstrating
the next generation of technologies
and methods to detect Uranium235 production activities.
(Progress is measured against thebaseline criteria and milestones
published in the “FY 2006 R&D
Requirements Document”). (Longterm Outcome)R: 10%

R: 15%

R: 20%

R: 25%

T: 10%

T: 15%

T:20%

T: 25%

Plutonium Production Detection:
Cumulative percentage of progress
toward demonstrating the next
generation of technologies andmethods to detect Plutonium
production activities. (Progress ismeasured against the baseline
criteria and milestones published in
the “FY 2006 R&D Requirements
Document”). (Long-term
Outcome)R: 10%

R: 20%

R: 25%

R: 30%

T: 10%

T: 20%

T: 25%

T: 30%

Special Nuclear Material
Detection: Cumulative percentage
of progress toward demonstrating
the next generation of technologies
and methods to detect Special
Nuclear Material movement.
(Progress is measured against thebaseline criteria and milestones
published in the “FY 2006 R&D
Requirements Document”). (Longterm Outcome)R: 10%

R: 20%

R: 27%

R: 33%

T: 10%

T: 20%

T: 27%

T: 33%

R&D Detonation Detection:
Annual index that summarizes thestatus of all NNSA detonation
detection R&D deliveries that
improve the nation’s ability todetect nuclear detonations.
(Annual Output)

R: 90%

R: 90%

R: 95%

R: 90%

T: 90%

T: 90%

T: 90%

T: 90%

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D

Page 343

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Endpoint Target

Independent Merit Review:
Cumulative percentage of active
research projects for which an
independent R&D merit review ofthe project’s scientific quality andmission relevance has been
completed during the second yearof effort (and again within eachsubsequent three year period for
those projects found to be of
merit). (Efficiency)

R: 100%

R: 100%

R: 100%

R: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T:100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

By 2006, ensure that 100% of theactive research projects havecompleted an independent R&D
peer assessment of the project’s
scientific quality and mission
relevance within a 2–3 year cycle.

Merit Reviewed Journals/
Fora: Annual number of articles
published in merit reviewed
professional journals/ for arepresenting leadership inadvancing science and technology
knowledge. (Annual Output)

R: 200

R: 220

R: 235

R: 331

T: 200

T: 200

T: 200

T: 200

T: 200

T: 200

T: 200

T: 200

T: 200

T: 200

Annually, achieve goal of 200
articles published in merit reviewed
professional journals/for arepresenting leadership in advancing
science and technology knowledge.

Performance Indicators

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D

Page 344

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009 Accomplishments• Completed initial analysis of multiple signatures at uranium conversion plant(s) leading to new
detection opportunities.
• Completed design and testing of advanced focal plane array mass spectrometry detector.
• Developed and fielded a robust detection system for stand-off detection and real-timecharacterization of Special Nuclear Materials (SNM) at distances of tens of meters.
• Developed a technology to combine broad area search with focused high-resolution SNM detection
technologies in real time.
• Developed the plan for establishing a new capability at the Nevada Test Site in FY 2010 that
addresses technical challenges associated with the Administration’s nonproliferation objectives,
especially those relating to emerging treaties and cooperative agreements.
• Began execution of the Integrated University Program to develop the next generation of nuclear
engineering and nuclear science researchers for nonproliferation applications.
• Designed, built, and delivered two operational sensors for the Global Positioning System (GPS)satellite constellation that monitor the Earth's surface, atmosphere, and space environment for
nuclear tests.
• Delivered the Regional Seismic Travel Time (RSTT) code for improved ground-based nuclear
detonation detection.
Major Outyear Priorities and Assumptions
The FY 2012 – FY 2015 outyear projections for the R&D program total $1,312,838,000 and support
R&D leading to detection systems for strengthening U.S. capabilities to respond to current and projected
threats to national security posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons, diversion of SNM, as well as
support to international treaties and regimes. Almost a third of this funding is for production of sensors
to support the nation’s operational nuclear detonation detection and reporting infrastructure through joint
programs with DoD and provides both U.S.-only and international support to treaties.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D

Page 345

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D O&M
Proliferation Detection

195,400

181,839

225,004

The Proliferation Detection (PD) subprogram provides technical expertise and leadership. The
R&D efforts are focused on advanced technologies and approaches for detecting foreign
proliferant activities, including fissile material and weapon production facilities, equipment, andprocesses. This also includes developing technologies for identifying and exploiting indicators of
the use of these processes, facilities, or associated equipment and infrastructure, both locally andremotely. The PD subprogram is especially interested in developing detection capabilities for theillicit diversion of special nuclear materials, both internal and external to facilities.
The PD subprogram executes NNSA’s part of the Integrated University Program, which is a
Congressionally mandated three-way effort between NRC, DOE, and NNSA to enable
development of the next generation of nuclear engineers and scientific researchers. In 2010, a new
testing and evaluation program was started at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) to address emerging
technical challenges associated with the Administration’s nonproliferation objectives. The newcapability at NTS will ultimately support U.S. capabilities to monitor international treaties andcooperative agreements, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the proposed
Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT).
Additionally, the PD subprogram provides developed and validated technical knowledge to U.S.
Government acquisition programs and the U.S. industrial base to support national and homeland
security missions. Technical advances, new proven methodologies, and improvements tocapabilities are transferred to operational programs through technical partnerships, including thedevelopment of special prototypes to assist major acquisition efforts. A four-way Memorandum ofUnderstanding between NNSA, DHS, DoD, and DNI enables a high degree of interagency
coordination, leverages capability development across application boundaries, and eliminates
unnecessary duplication of funding and effort, particularly in the cross-cutting research area ofradiation detection.
Homeland Security-Related Proliferation Detection[Non-Add][50,000][50,000][50,000]

Nuclear Detonation Detection

142,421

135,461

126,564

The Nuclear Detonation Detection (NDD) subprogram builds the Nation’s operational treaty
monitoring and Integrated Tactical Warning/Threat Assessment space sensors, conducts R&D toadvance analytic forensic capabilities related to nuclear detonations, and produces and updates theregional geophysical datasets and analytical understanding to enable operation of the Nation’s
ground-based treaty monitoring networks.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D

Page 346

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011The satellite-based segment of the program builds the Global Burst Detector (GBD) and Space andAtmospheric Burst Reporting System (SABRS) payloads for detecting and reporting nuclear
detonations. These payloads are launched on Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites andmissile warning replenishment satellites. In addition to building the payloads, the programsupports the integration, initialization, and operation of these payloads. The NDD subprogramsupports the research, development, and engineering efforts to prepare next generation sensors.
For FY 2011, production and delivery of GBD and SABRS payloads will continue at a pace tosupport timely Air Force launch of host satellites.
The ground-based segment of the NDD research program provides research products, withappropriate testing, demonstration, and technical support for use in the U.S. National Data Centerand U.S. Atomic Energy Detection System. Through a Memorandum of Understanding with U.S.
nuclear detonation detection agencies, NNSA provides the integrated geophysical models andnuclear event source models that enable global, regional, and specific site threat detection,
reporting, and interpretation of nuclear events. The NDD subprogram also conducts a limited
amount of applied research and system support in non-seismic ground-based detection
technologies.
The NDD forensics research program conducts research, technology development, and relatedscience to improve post-detonation technical nuclear forensic capabilities. This segment addresses
both debris and prompt signatures from a nuclear detonation, including the modeling to predict
signatures for collection planning, collection technology, measurement or counting, andevaluation.
Total, Nonproliferation and Verification Research andDevelopment O&M

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D

Page 347

337,821317,300

351,568

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D O&M
Proliferation Detection (PD)The increase supports the Nevada Test Site for testing & evaluation of
new technologies in support of treaty monitoring and verification.

+43,165

Nuclear Detonation – Detection (NDD)
The decrease reflects a return to baseline funding after a one-time
Congressional increase in FY 2010.

Total Funding Change, Nonproliferation Verification R&D

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D

Page 348–8,897+34,268

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Capital Operating Expenses and Construction Summary
Capital Operating Expensesa(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011503
518
534
37,45838,582
39,739General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

37,961

39,10040,273Outyear Capital Operating Expenses(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
550
562
574
586
40,931
41,83142,731
43,628General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

41,481

42,39343,30544,214

Construction Projects b(dollars in thousands)
Total
Estimated
Cost
(TEC)
07-SC-05, Physical Sciences Facility,
PNNL, (Construction), VL
Total, Construction

Prior Year
Appropriations

180,000–
245,000

FY 20090

18,46018,460FY 2010

UnappropriatedBalance

FY 2011
0
0

0
0

0
0

a

Since funds are appropriated for Operations and Maintenance, which includes operating expenses, capital equipment andgeneral plant projects, we no longer budget separately for capital equipment and general plant projects. FY 2010 and
FY 2011 funding shown reflects estimates based on actual FY 2009 obligations.

bThis is a joint project funded by two DOE organizations, the SC and NNSA, and DHS. This table reflects NNSA funding
only, except for the TEC.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

Page 349

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 350

Nonproliferation and International Security
Funding Profile by Subprogram(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Current
Appropriation
Appropriation
Nonproliferation and International Security
Dismantlement and Transparency
Global Security Engagement and Cooperation
International Regimes and Agreements
Treaties and Agreements
Total, Nonproliferation and International Security

47,52944,076
40,793
17,602150,000

72,76350,70842,70321,028187,202

FY 2011
Request49,20747,28939,824
19,610155,930

Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2012
Nonproliferation and International Security
Dismantlement and Transparency
Global Security Engagement and Cooperation
International Regimes and Agreements
Treaties and Agreements
Total, Nonproliferation and International Security

50,832
48,852
41,141
20,258161,083(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014
52,15550,12442,21020,786
165,275

53,60251,514
43,38321,362
169,861

FY 2015
57,351
55,117
46,41722,856
181,741

MissionThe Nonproliferation and International Security (NIS) mission is to prevent and counter the proliferationof weapons of mass destruction (WMD), including materials, technology and expertise, by state andnon-state actors. In FY 2011, NIS will provide policy and technical support for nonproliferation andassociated treaties and agreements, domestic and international legal and regulatory controls, anddiplomatic and counter-proliferation initiatives, and through cooperation with international organizations
and foreign partners on export controls, safeguards, and security.
Benefits
Within the NIS program, four subprograms make unique contributions to Government Performance andResults Act (GPRA) Unit Program Number 41. These four subprograms are described below.
The Dismantlement and Transparency (D&T) subprogram provides policy and technical support for
nonproliferation and arms control treaties and agreements that promote transparent WMD reductions;develops effective verification options for dismantlement of nuclear equipment, weapons andcomponents; and develops monitoring equipment, technology and tools to ensure obligations of foreign
governments are being met. D&T will administer activities involving the incorporation of safeguards
into facility designs and development of related verification tools and methods.
The Global Security Engagement and Cooperation (GSEC) subprogram supports implementation ofUnited Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1540 and the Global Initiative to Combat
Nuclear Terrorism, by engaging in global cooperative efforts to strengthen nuclear infrastructure,safeguards, border security and export control systems, and to redirect WMD expertise in selected
countries of concern to non-weapons related activities. GSEC works with foreign partners to ensure that

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and International Security

Page 351

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

the development of their nuclear infrastructure emphasizes safeguards, security and related
nonproliferation norms.
The International Regimes and Agreements (IRA) subprogram provides policy and technical support to
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, multilateral supplier regimes, nuclear
interdiction efforts, nonproliferation treaties and agreements, international physical protection activities
designed to limit the spread of WMD and related items and technologies, and WMD export control andinterdiction activities. IRA will work with domestic and international partners on developing a new
global framework for civil nuclear commerce including developing a credible and reliable fuel supply
concept. IRA will also review and recommend enhancements of the U. S. Government’s (USG) nuclear
export control regime to be in-line with the development of new nuclear technologies and the new civil
nuclear framework. IRA will work with the IAEA and other partners to continue the enhancement ofphysical protection and safeguards.
The Treaties and Agreements (TA) subprogram supports implementation of bilateral and multilateral,
Presidential-directed or Congressionally-mandated nonproliferation and international security
requirements stemming from high-level nonproliferation initiatives, agreements and treaties.
Specifically, the TA program conducts policy and technical analysis on urgent national security issues,
proliferation trends in regions of concern, and options to strengthen international mechanisms forpreventing proliferation. The TA program also will coordinate all activities and funding for the Next
Generation Safeguards Initiative (NGSI).
The NIS makes vital contributions to strengthen international security and the nuclear nonproliferation
regime in four main areas: (1) Nuclear Safeguards; (2) Nuclear Controls; (3) Nuclear Verification/
Transparency; and (4) Nonproliferation Policy. The NIS safeguards nuclear material to ensure it is notdiverted for non-peaceful uses, controls the spread of WMD material, technology and expertise, andverifies nuclear reductions and programs. In FY 2011, the program will strengthen its efforts throughthe following activities: supporting the maintenance and improvement of international nonproliferation
regimes, including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the system of International Atomic Energy
Agency safeguards, multilateral supplier regimes, and bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements;
cooperating with foreign partners to improve national export controls, safeguards, physical protection
systems, border security systems and to redirect WMD expertise; and applying technology in support oftreaty and agreement verification and monitoring and international nuclear safeguards.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and International Security

Page 352

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAnnual Performance Results and Targets(R = Results; T = Targets)
Performance Indicators

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

T: 402

T: 432

T: 462

T: 492

T: 500

N/A

By the end of calendar year 2013,
confirm that 500 metric tons of
weapons-usable HEU has beenpermanently eliminated from theRussian stockpile.

T: 82%

T: 85%

T: 88%

T: 90%

T: 91%

T: 92%

By 2019, obtain non-USG funding
contributions equal to 100% of the
cumulative USG GIPP funding
contributions.

T: 11

T: 12

T: 14

T: 16

T: 19

T: 22

By 2020, 38 0f 41 countries where
INECP is engaged have export
control systems that meet criticalrequirements, defined as having (1)control lists consistent with the
WMD regimes; (2) initiatedoutreach to producers of WMDrelated commodities; (3) developed
links between technical experts andlicense reviewers and front-line
enforcement officers; and (4) begun
customization of WMD Commodity
Identification Training (WMD CIT)
materials and technical guides.

Endpoint Target

Secretarial Goal: Security: Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risks
GPRA Unit Program Number: 41, Nonproliferation and International Security
Russian Weapon-Usable Highly
Enriched Uranium (HEU)
Eliminated: Cumulative metrictons of Russian weapon-usable
HEU that U.S. experts haveconfirmed as permanently
eliminated from the Russian
stockpile under the HEU Purchase
Agreement. (Long-term Outcome)R: 285

R: 315

R: 345

R: 375

T: 282

T: 312

T: 342

T: 372Global Initiatives to Prevent
Proliferation (GIPP) Non-USG
Project Funding: Cumulative
percentage of non-USG (private
sector and foreign government)
project funding contributions
obtained relative to cumulative
USG GIPP funding contributions.
(Efficiency)

R: 70%

R: 75%

R: 80%

R: 81%

T: 70%

T: 75%

T: 78%

T: 81%

Nuclear Export Control Program:
Cumulative number of countries
where International Nonproliferation
Export Control Program (INECP) is
engaged that have export control
systems that meet criticalrequirements. (Long-term Outcome)

R: 5

R: 7

R: 8

R: 9

T: 5

T: 7

T: 8

T: 9

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and International Security

Page 353

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Safeguards Systems: Annual
number of safeguards systems
deployed and used in international
regimes and other countries that
address an identified safeguards
deficiency. (Annual Output)

R: 2

R: 3

R: 3

R: 3

T: 4

T: 4

T: 4

T: 5

T: 5

T: 5

T: 2

T: 3

T: 3

T: 3

By 2015, 38 technologies are
deployed and used in international
regimes and other countries that
address an identified safeguards
deficiency.

Elimination of Russian HEU:
Annual number of special
monitoring visits completed to thefour Russian processing facilities
that downblend highly enricheduranium (HEU) to low-enricheduranium to monitor and confirm
the permanent elimination of 30
metric tons of Russian HEU fromthe Russian weapons stockpile
under the HEU Purchase
Agreement. . (Annual Output)

R: 24

R: 24

R: 24

R: 24

T: 24

T: 24

T: 24

T: 24

N/A

N/A

T: 24

T: 24

T: 24

T: 24

By 2014, complete transparency
monitoring observations and data
gathering at 4 Russian uranium
processing facilities to confirm thatall 500 metric tons of weaponsusable HEU has been permanently
eliminated from the Russian
stockpile.

Performance Indicators

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and International Security

Page 354

Endpoint Target

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009 Accomplishments
Nuclear Safeguards
 Recruited over 100 students for international safeguards internships at national laboratories, andfunded 9 post-doctoral positions in international safeguards at the national laboratories, as part ofNGSI efforts to reinvigorate the human capital resource base in international safeguards at the labs;
 Conducted 3 NGSI Lab summer courses on international safeguards for interns and other students;
 Co-sponsored with EURATOM an international workshop on human capital development andsafeguards education for the next generation of safeguards professionals;
 Continued 2008 activity to partner with 6 countries to develop safeguards systems concepts;
 Trained over 1,000 foreign nationals in nuclear safeguards applications; Engaged with 14 countries, ABACC and EURATOM on safeguards implementation and technology
evaluation, and infrastructure for peaceful uses;
 Hosted 2 regional infrastructure workshops for countries interested in pursuing nuclear power;
 Expanded the technology program with sufficient funds to explore advanced safeguards
applications; Developed several new safeguards technologies and analytical methodologies; Surveyed safeguards technology development in USG, industry, and academia, and Completed the update to five-year NGSI Program Plan.
Nuclear Controls
 Continued to lead the five-state ‘core group’ efforts to update IAEA INFCIRC/225;
 Advanced policy discussions on strengthened guidelines for enrichment and reprocessing technology
in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG);
 Reviewed approximately 3,000 foreign WMD/missile procurements for sanctionable activity or
diplomatic/interdiction response; Reviewed 6,900 export licenses/requests for proliferation risk, recommending denial of 240;
 Brought on-line the Proliferation Trade Control Directory; Provided nearly $50,000,000 to the IAEA to establish an international nuclear fuel reserve;
 Agreed to several important technical amendments to the NSG control lists including amendments
for stable isotope separations, machine tools, and UF6 resistant valves; Engaged thousands of technical personnel at more than 100 former WMD facilities, in the former
Soviet Union, Iraq, and Libya;
 Trained 400 officials from 75 countries in IAEA physical protection training; Conducted bilateral physical protection assessments in seven countries; Secured partnership between NNSA and the U.S. Department of Defense on Middle East/South Asia
border security;
 Trained roughly 2000 licensors, enforcement officials, and industry representatives on export
controls (both domestically and internationally); Supported the first UNSCR 1540 regional assistance request for the Caribbean community(CARICOM); Established an on-going WMD Commodity Identification Training partnership with South Africa; Re-established export control training and cooperation with Turkey;
 Expanded export control internal compliance engagement in Russia;
 Expanded industry outreach collaborations with India, China, Pakistan, and Argentina;
 Initiated proliferation risk analysis and commodity-based training in Southeast Asia;
 Conducted dozens of training sessions on all aspects of WMD fuel and weapons manufacturing
technologies for U.S. enforcement agencies (Department of Homeland Security (DHS), FBI);
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and International Security

Page 355

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetCompleted national versions of guidebooks to the Nuclear Suppliers Group Trigger List with both
Russia and China, andEngaged the Government of Iraq in border security capacity-building in line with its UNSCR 1540
request for assistance.

Nuclear Verification/Transparency
 Since 1995, monitored the conversion of a cumulative 375 metric tons (MT) of Russian highlyenriched uranium (HEU) from weapons (15,000 weapons) to low enriched uranium (LEU)(30 MT/1,200 weapons converted in FY 2009);
 Completed 24 HEU monitoring visits annually to four Russian uranium processing facilities;
 Supported Six-Party Talks and performed and monitored agreed disablement activities at nuclear
facilities in North Korea, and Monitored shutdown of reactors and over 9 MT of Russian weapons-grade plutonium under the
Plutonium Production Reactor Shutdown Agreement.
Nonproliferation Policy
 Managed 22 policy analysis projects undertaken by national laboratories, NGOs, and institutes ofhigher learning; Commenced negotiations on arrangements and procedures to effect reprocessing consent provisions
contained in U.S.-India Agreement for Cooperation;
 Served as DOE/NNSA representative to the interagency process on the Fissile Material Cut-Off
Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; Supported negotiations on a START follow-on treaty; Commenced negotiations with URENCO countries and France on a nuclear cooperation agreement
to create a legal framework for construction of an AREVA enrichment facility in the United States; Supported the entry into force of the India Agreement for Cooperation;
 Participated in and organized Track II engagement activities;
 Developed policy analysis and options for downblending additional quantities of HEU, and Completed a draft Nonproliferation Impact Assessment for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
Major Outyear Priorities and Assumptions
The NIS outyear funding profile totals $677,960,000 (FY 2012 – FY2015) will place increasingemphasis on the Next Generation Safeguards Initiative (NGSI), a program designed to strengthen IAEA
safeguards and revitalize the U.S. technical and human capital base that supports them. The program
will address looming gaps in IAEA safeguards through generational improvements in safeguards
technology, recruitment of expertise, political and technical analyses of issues and challenges, assistancein implementing safeguards, and collaboration with foreign partners.
NGSI complements related NIS priorities to reduce proliferation risks associated with growinginternational interest in the use of nuclear power. IAEA safeguards must be credible and effective indeterring the diversion of nuclear materials and reassuring states that peaceful-use commitments areupheld. Another priority is the development and implementation of reliable fuel services as analternative to the further spread of enrichment and reprocessing capabilities. NIS will work with other
Departmental elements and U.S. agencies to promote such concepts. Assuring that states adopt
safeguards and security measures in line with the highest international nonproliferation standards is
another priority.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and International Security

Page 356

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

The NIS funding profile also will provide for activities that prevent and counter WMD proliferation,
including continued support for U.S. efforts to address proliferation by Iran, North Korea, andproliferation networks, implement nuclear arms reduction and associated agreements, strengtheninternational nonproliferation agreements and standards, implement statutory export control andsafeguards requirements, encourage global adherence to and implementation of international
nonproliferation requirements, and support high-priority diplomatic initiatives.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and International Security

Page 357

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification

FY 2009
Dismantlement and Transparency

47,529(dollars in thousands)
FY 201072,763

FY 2011
49,207The Office of Dismantlement and Transparency reduces or eliminates proliferation concerns by promoting
transparent arms reductions, including negotiating, implementing and strengthening U.S. nonproliferation
and arms control treaties and agreements, and developing the required verification technologies andapproaches and associated transparency-monitoring tools. This office is responsible for the following
program elements: U.S.-Russian Federation Plutonium Production Reactor Agreement (PPRA);
U.S.-Russian Federation Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Purchase Agreement; the Chemical Weapons
Convention (CWC); nuclear testing limitations; policy development for the Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty (START) and the Treaty of Moscow; future nonproliferation initiatives; and activities under Next
Generation Safeguards Initiative (NGSI) to develop advanced safeguards equipment and technologies for
the U.S. Government and in coordination with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This
office will promote the incorporation of safeguards into facility designs and design new related verification
tools and methods.
Warhead Dismantlement and Fissile
Material Transparency

15,883

18,132

16,911

The Warhead Dismantlement and Fissile Material Transparency (WDT) program develops
technologies and approaches for transparent reductions and monitoring of nuclear warheads and fissile
material, and supports U.S. Government policy development and implementation for potential futuretransparency initiatives and the following current treaties and agreements: START, the Treaty of
Moscow, the Threshold Test Ban Treaty; Limited Test Ban Treaty, the CWC, and the PPRA. The
WDT program is responsible for all monitoring and policy aspects of PPRA implementation, andworks on behalf of the Secretary of Energy to fulfill DOE's responsibilities as the U.S. Government's
Executive Agent for the Agreement. In addition, the WDT program provides DOE/NNSA support toactivities of international organizations to develop an International Monitoring System for detecting
nuclear explosions worldwide and serves as the DOE/NNSA focal point for U.S. interagency policy
development and international negotiations and activities associated with the potential ratification andentry-into-force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The WDT program also serves as the
DOE/NNSA focal point for U.S. Interagency policy development and international negotiations
associated with implementation of the START and Moscow Treaties, and the development of a
START follow-on agreement with Russia. This work includes the development and assessment ofadvanced technical concepts for warhead and fissile material transparency, monitoring anddismantlement verification to assure the technologies needed to protect our national interests, including
those needed to verify arms control and nonproliferation agreements essential to our security, aredeveloped.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and International Security

Page 358

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009


Nuclear Noncompliance Verification

14,983(dollars in thousands)
FY 201036,865FY 201115,728The Nuclear Noncompliance Verification (NNV) program provides advanced technology applications
to verify declared nuclear activities, detect undeclared nuclear materials and activities, and support theverifiable dismantlement of nuclear programs in countries of proliferation concern. Program activities
are closely coordinated with the work of the NNSA Nonproliferation and Verification Research andDevelopment program to ensure that state of the art technology is incorporated into the work. In
addition, the NNV program oversees DOE support for the U.S. Support Program (USSP) to IAEA
Safeguards, which develops equipment and technologies and provides inspector training and technicalconsultant support to the IAEA Department of Safeguards. USSP assistance aims to increase theoverall effectiveness and efficiency of IAEA safeguards and strengthen IAEA capabilities to detect
undeclared nuclear activities. Other specially-designed tools and technologies will also be developed
to address unique proliferation threats. In FY 2011, the NNV program will complete the developmentof three verification tools, technologies, or analyses, and accelerate planning and readiness to support
verifiable dismantlement of nuclear programs in countries of proliferation concern. In supportingNGSI through a joint roadmap to develop enabling technologies for international safeguards, these
efforts will need to involve significant coordination with the IAEA, particularly in the area of new andemerging proliferation threats.
HEU Transparency Implementation

16,663

17,766

16,568The HEU Transparency program annually monitors the conversion of 30 metric tons (MT) of Russian
HEU into low enriched uranium (LEU), to provide confidence that the LEU purchased under the 1993
HEU Purchase Agreement is derived from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons processed andeliminated from Russia’s weapons stockpile and used for peaceful purposes in the United States.
Reciprocal transparency monitoring visits are conducted to ensure the nonproliferation objectives of
the Agreement are met. The program also provides support to Transparency Review Committee
negotiating sessions with Russian counterparts to update transparency procedures as new facilities andprocesses are introduced, and to resolve issues related to program implementation. In FY 2011, theHEU Transparency program will complete 24 monitoring visits, monitor the conversion of 30 MT of
Russian HEU to LEU for a cumulative total of 432 MT downblended and verifiably eliminated,
support a Russian monitoring visit to the United States, and continue to monitor and assess Russiantransparency data.
Global Security Engagement andCooperation

44,07650,70847,289The Office of Global Security Engagement and Cooperation (GSEC) engages in global cooperative efforts
to assist partner states in implementing and enforcing nonproliferation obligations and in detecting anddeterring proliferators seeking weapons of mass destruction (WMD). GSEC helps states to strengthen
nuclear safeguards and infrastructure requirements to prevent the diversion of nuclear materials; strengthen
national WMD export control systems at the governmental and industry level; develop technically effective
approaches to enhance regional security and prevent proliferation in volatile areas; and transition andengage WMD scientific communities to advance security objectives. This office is responsible for the
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and International Security

Page 359

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010

FY 2011

following program elements: Confidence Building Measures program; International Nuclear Safeguards
and Engagement program; International Nonproliferation Export Control program; Cooperative Border
Security program; and Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention.
Confidence Building Measures

1,000

2,000

1,911

The Confidence-Building Measures (CMBS) program promotes international technical collaboration inregions of proliferation concern. The program currently promotes international cooperation on
nonproliferation nuclear forensics and seismic monitoring cooperation in the Middle East. CMBS also
will support a number of seismology collaborations in the Middle East, such as assisting in thesustainment and operation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) International Monitoring
System. The program also will strengthen its support of regional centers of nonproliferation excellence
to promote regional capacity-building and foster sustainability of assistance efforts. In particular,
CMBS will assume management of the Cooperative Monitoring Center in Amman, Jordan and thischange is reflected in this budget request.
International Nuclear Safeguards
and Engagement Program

12,418

13,831

12,883The International Nuclear Safeguards and Engagement Program (INSEP) supports U.S. andinternational nonproliferation objectives by strengthening the international safeguards regime. In
FY 2011, INSEP will continue to serve as a key implementing element of the Next Generation
Safeguards Initiatives, working with foreign partners to develop safeguards technologies to detect illicit
diversion or transfer of nuclear material throughout the nuclear fuel cycle and to strengthen indigenous
safeguards systems. Also, INSEP will expand its cooperation with countries in the Middle East andNorth Africa that have credible plans for nuclear power development to establish infrastructures thatemphasize safety, security, and appropriate safeguards.
International Nonproliferation
Export Controla

12,93912,501

11,643The International Nonproliferation Export Control Program (INECP) strengthens national systems ofexport control, focusing on countries and regions of proliferation concern. INECP has two primary
program components: international cooperation and training for USG export enforcement agencies.
Internationally, INECP works with established and emerging supplier states, high volume transshipment countries, and transit states located close to suppliers. In FY 2011, INECP will continue tofocus on industry outreach and Commodity Identification Training, which teaches customs agents andother officials to recognize WMD-sensitive goods. In addition, INECP will capitalize on regional
outreach opportunities and leverage INECP-trained experts in regional best practices engagements.

a

In FY 2010, the International Nonproliferation Export Control activities became a stand alone program to differentiate its
distinct mission from the Cooperative Border Security Program. Funds for INECP only are reflected for FY 2009 andFY 2010.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and International Security

Page 360

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010

FY 2011

Training for USG agencies will provide specialized, commodity-specific information to U.S. law
enforcement agencies with the authority to investigate export control violations, including
DHS/Custom and Border Protection, DHS/Immigration and Custom Enforcement, FBI and others.


Cooperative Border Security
Programa

2,311

2,669

2,489

The Cooperative Border Security Program (CBSP) provides comprehensive analytical and technicalsupport to facilitate the development of sustainable border control systems in regions of proliferation
concern. The program will improve surveillance, detection, and interdiction capabilities to mitigate therisks of illicit smuggling in WMD and related commodities through border control analysis to identify
deficiencies and develop solutions to mitigate the identified weaknesses. CBSP is currently engaging
with the Iraqi Ministry of Interior on a proof of concept project to demonstrate a border control system.
In FY 2011, the program will expand efforts within high-priority regions of the Middle East andCentral Asia.


Global Initiatives for Proliferation
Prevention

15,40819,70718,363

The Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (GIPP) advances global nonproliferation efforts byhelping to impede transfers of weapons of mass destruction expertise and know-how to terrorist
organizations and rogue states by working with former WMD scientists and technical personnel in nonweapons related activities aimed at advancing security and nonproliferation objectives. In FY 2011, theprogram will continue to exclusively target high priority institutes in line with an interagency risk
assessment. In Russia, new work will focus on technologies that support global security andnonproliferation, and cost-share activities will be emphasized where possible. In Iraq, engagement willremain steady based on assessed risk.
International Regimes and Agreements

40,79342,70339,824The Office of International Regimes and Agreements (IRA) raises WMD proliferation barriers andstrengthens international nonproliferation regimes and agreements. The IRA negotiates, implements andstrengthens multilateral supplier regimes, conventions, treaties, guidelines, and other institutions that limit
the spread of nuclear and other WMD and their supporting technologies and systems for delivery. The
IRA also is responsible for implementing statutory requirements for the regulation of U.S. exports and theapplication of international safeguards in the U.S., and cooperates with other U.S. agencies to support theinterdiction of WMD items and enforcement of export controls. In support of NGSI and U.S. efforts tomanage the global expansion of nuclear power, in FY 2011, IRA will focus on policy and analyticalsupport to IAEA safeguards and strengthening the pool of U.S. experts to support IAEA safeguards;
promote concepts for reliable fuel services to discourage the spread of sensitive fuel cycle technologies;a

In FY 2010, the Cooperative Border Security activity has become a stand alone program to differentiate its distinct mission.
Funds for this activity are now reflected under Cooperative Border Security section.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and International Security

Page 361

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010

FY 2011

support completion of improved international physical protection standards; and provide technical support
for diplomatic efforts relating to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty,
and associated agreements. IRA will also provide statutorily mandated support for the negotiations andimplementation of 123 Agreements and physical protection requirements associated with U.S. obligatednuclear exports.


WMD Interdiction and MultilateralSupplier Policya

3,926

4,136

7,107

The WMD Interdiction and Multilateral Supplier Policy program has a dual role of developing
multilateral supplier regime policies and contributing to WMD interdiction at home and abroad.
Specifically, the Interdiction Technical Analysis Group (ITAG) provides critical technical support,
real-time “reach-back” capabilities, and policy guidance to USG interdiction groups and activities andsupport for the Proliferation Security Initiative and the implementation of U.S. nonproliferation
sanctions. The program also provides technical support to U.S. Government diplomacy within the
Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), the NPT Exporter's (Zangger) Committee, the Missile Technology
Control Regime (MTCR), the Australia Group (AG), and the Wassenaar Arrangement, and provides
analyses of WMD proliferation risk and technology needs of countries of proliferation concern (chokepoints). The program also is the lead for the U.S. Government in developing and negotiating
guidelines for the minimization and management of HEU. In FY 2011, the program will enhance DOE
National Laboratory technical support to the USG interdiction groups; increase coverage of WMDtechnologies in the technical reference guides; and provide assessments of WMD-related items,
proliferation program choke-points and international trade flows to determine interdiction
opportunities. Also, in FY 2011, the program will continue its leading role in supporting thedevelopment of supply policies in the multilateral supplier regimes (such as the NSG) to ensure theyadequately reflect the latest technology developments in the nuclear fuel cycle and dual-use
technology. In 2011, the program will continue playing a leading role in the Fundamental Review of
the NSG control lists. The program also seeks to bring innovative ideas and briefings on WMD
proliferation to the NSG Information Exchanges Meetings to raise awareness among suppliers.
Global Regimes

3,221

7,628

3,864

The Global Regimes program develops policy and provides program oversight on nuclear
nonproliferation and international security issues and nuclear treaties and agreements, including support
for issues pertaining to the NPT, multilateral regimes and groups, and the United Nations Conference
on Disarmament. Issues include negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty; the IAEA TechnicalCooperation (TC) program that facilitates access by IAEA Member States to the peaceful use of nuclear
energy; bilateral Agreements for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy (under Atomic
Energy Act Section 123); the Biological Weapons and Toxins Convention (BWC); and development of
reliable nuclear fuel service concepts. The Global Regimes program also assists in the formulationa

In 2011, the Interdiction and Multilateral Export Control Teams have been combined to streamline functions. The newname is WMD Interdiction and Multilateral Supplier Policy.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and International Security

Page 362

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010

FY 2011of internationally-agreed mechanisms to ensure that states have reliable access to the nuclear fuelmarket, providing policy and technical expertise to these agreements. Moreover, the program ensuresthat the development and implementation of such arrangements meet U.S. national security and foreign
policy objectives. In FY 2011, the program will provide statutorily-mandated technical assistance tonegotiations supporting agreements for cooperation and their administrative arrangements, represent
DOE/NNSA in potential negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) and all NPT
meetings and consultations, represent DOE/NNSA at the BWC Intersession Working Group meetings,
and lead the development of assured fuel supply concepts and activities. The program will also support
the development and implementation of a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation as called for by
the President to reduce reliance on indigenous development of enrichment and reprocessing efforts byrecipient states.


Nuclear Safeguards Program

12,391

12,946

12,073

The Nuclear Safeguards program develops and implements DOE and international safeguards policies
and approaches through several efforts in support of U.S. and departmental priorities, principally the
NGSI. The Nuclear Safeguards program develops safeguards policy positions in the interagency
process and supports the development of policy at the IAEA through the Director General’s Standing
Advisory Group on Safeguards Implementation. The program’s Voluntary Offer Agreement (VOA)
Safeguards implementation meets existing treaty obligations through the application of safeguards atselected U.S. sites and maintains the DOE portion of the Eligible Facilities List. The program’s
Additional Protocol (AP) implementation addresses issues and concerns arising within the DOE
complex regarding obligations under the U.S. AP. The Nuclear Safeguards program develops new
approaches and safeguards concepts to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of IAEA safeguards
verification, including the incorporation of safeguards into facility designs, and works to reinvigorate
the human capital aspects of the safeguards regime, which will be essential to combat proliferation inview of a rapidly growing and dynamic international fuel cycle. In FY 2011, the program will
investigate new safeguards concepts for enrichment plants. The program also will provide technicalanalysis and support for international safeguards and nonproliferation policy, including the assessments
necessary to support regulatory and governance processes and conduct proliferation risk assessments of
new technologies and facilities including those related to the global expansion of nuclear power.
Export Control Licensing Operations
11,686
12,136
11,318
IRA has statutory requirements to support domestic export licensing operations. This includes
reviewing and providing advice on U.S. export license applications for dual-use items (equipment,materials, technology and software) and munitions that could have uses in the development of nuclear,chemical, and biological weapons and their delivery systems. The Licensing Operations program
performs technical and nonproliferation reviews of DOE sensitive software code requests and DOE
programs/projects involving foreign nationals. For these purposes, the program maintains theProliferation Information Network System (PINS), an automated, wide-area, classified system for thereview and evaluation of export requests and technology transfers to foreign nationals, as well as
providing for the development and coordination of technical and nonproliferation studies on sensitivetechnology and related policy. The program also operates and maintains a state-of-the-art Nuclear
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and International Security

Page 363

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
Suppliers Group (NSG) Information Sharing System (NISS), a secure internet-based system that allows
NSG members to share real-time information on license denials to prevent proliferation and provides
related technical support to regime members; and has under development an information sharing
system for the Australia Group, the multilateral regime for controls of chemical and biological warfare
related dual-use items. The Licensing Operation program draws on unparalleled technical expertise tosupport control list changes in multilateral export control regimes and ensure consistency with U.S.
export control regulations.
In cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security, the program also provides export
enforcement training on WMD-related technologies to DOD border security programs; performs
technical reviews of suspicious shipments for proliferation risk; shares technical proliferationassessments to identify export control vulnerabilities and critical technology needs of countries ofproliferation concern; and provides access to the Proliferation Trade Control Directory (PTCD) for
identification of manufacturers of export-controlled goods to aid in inspection and seizure of illegal
shipments. The program participates in weekly USG interagency export licensing groups; interacts
closely with the interagency on dual-use license application reviews; and maintains, with the
Department of Commerce, the “Nuclear Referral List,” which identifies nuclear dual-use items
requiring special attention. It also provides export control and nonproliferation guidance to U.S.
industry and a wide range of DOE activities to help ensure compliance across the DOE complex and its
contractors.
Export Control Multilaterala



3,880

0

The Export Control Multilateral program provides technical and policy support to U.S. Government
diplomacy within the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and the NPT Exporters’ (Zangger) Committee,
the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Australia Group (AG) for chemical/biologicalrelated items, and the Wassenaar Arrangement for items controlled for national security reasons. The
Export Control Multilateral program draws on the unparalleled technical expertise in the national
laboratories and is a recognized international leader in the area of nuclear export controls. This
program develops timely and topical analyses of WMD proliferation risk and programs of concerns,
identifying export control vulnerabilities and critical technology needs of countries of proliferation
concern (choke-points). In FY 2011, the program will continue to lead the U.S. effort to conduct a
fundamental review of the NSG control list to ensure it adequately reflects the latest technology
developments in the nuclear fuel-cycle and dual-use technology.

aIn 2011, the Interdiction and Multilateral Export Control Teams have been combined to streamline functions. The newname is WMD Interdiction and Multilateral Supplier Policy.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and International Security

Page 364

FY 2011 Congressional Budget0

FY 2009
International Nuclear Security

5,689(dollars in thousands)
FY 20105,857

FY 20115,462

The International Nuclear Security program strengthens global physical security norms and practices byconducting bilateral physical protection assessments, as required under the 1978 Nuclear
Nonproliferation Act, to verify that foreign sites holding U.S. nuclear material are adequately protected.
The program supports these objectives by assisting the IAEA in its execution of International PhysicalProtection Advisory Service (IPPAS) and other missions; conducting physical protection training forforeign officials; and aiding in the design and implementation of new physical protection guidelines in
conjunction with the IAEA and other Member States. The program also works with the IAEA andnational physical protection officials to help states implement physical protection requirements, such as
those required in the amended Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials (CPPNM).
The program coordinates with the Office of Global Threat Reduction to provide assessments to assist
with future physical protection upgrades. In FY 2011, the program will begin training on a global basis
on new provisions of a revised IAEA INFCIRC/225. The program will continue providing assistance tothe IAEA on document development associated with the new Nuclear Security Plan. The program will
also focus to enhance its engagement with other countries on a bilateral basis. In support of the global
expansion of nuclear energy, the program will work with international partners to ensure that physicalprotection standards for new fuel and facilities are consistent with internationally agreed-upon physicalprotection standards and recommendations codified in the CPPNM and INFCIRC/225.
Treaties and Agreements

17,602

21,028

19,610The Treaties and Agreements Office supports implementation of President-directed or Congressionallymandated nonproliferation and international security requirements stemming from high-level
nonproliferation initiatives, agreements and treaties. Specifically, the program conducts policy andtechnical analysis on urgent national security issues, strategic engagement, proliferation trends in regionsof concern, and options to strengthen international mechanisms for preventing proliferation. This includes
funding research and engagement activities by non-governmental organizations and institutes of higher
learning that support NNSA’s mission and policy requirements. Examples of this work include analysis ofregional nuclear fuel cycle growth and engagement of technical experts in a dialogue on nonproliferation
infrastructure requirements for emerging and existing nuclear power programs. The program continues toprovide for unexpected, unplanned responses to requirements of an immediate nature based on U.S.
national security needs. Examples of unforeseen activities in the past have included: providing technicaland policy support to U.S. delegations to the Six-Party Talks denuclearization and energy assistanceworking groups; analysis of procurement associated with the emergence of proliferation networks; anddismantlement and removal of nuclear materials from clandestine WMD programs. In FY 2011, theprogram will coordinate activities and funding for all NGSI activities aimed at strengthening internationalsafeguards and revitalizing the U.S. technical and human capital resource base that supports them, and willconduct 20 policy studies/analyses undertaken by National Laboratories, non-government organizations, or
institutes of higher learning in support of the Department’s implementation of high-level nonproliferation
initiatives such as UNSCR 1540, the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, and the Proliferation
Security Initiative. In addition, the program will provide policy and technical analyses of, and responses
to, emerging and immediate nonproliferation and counter-proliferation security issues including the global
expansion of nuclear energy and evolution of the nuclear fuel cycle. The Treaties and Agreements Officewill coordinate work in the five main NGSI program areas to: (1) support U.S. safeguards policy
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and International Security

Page 365

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011development and work with international partners to strengthen the international safeguards system as an
essential element of the global nuclear nonproliferation regime; (2) develop advanced safeguards systemlevel concepts, approaches, and assessment methodologies to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency andcredibility of international safeguards; (3) develop and apply tools, technologies, and methods that
optimize the effectiveness and efficiency of safeguards implementation; (4) attract and train a newgeneration of talent to rejuvenate the international safeguards human capital base; and (5) develop national
infrastructures in countries that have nuclear power or credible plans for nuclear power.
Total, Nonproliferation andInternational Security

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and International Security

150,000

Page 366

187,202

155,930

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)

Dismantlement and Transparency
Funding decrease results from a reduction to Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea activities.



Global Security Engagement and Cooperation (GSEC)
Funding decrease is a result of operational efficiencies to streamlining
management processes for the GIPP and completion of development of export
control training curricula for recently undertaken outreach initiatives.

-3,419International Regimes and Agreements
Funding decrease reflects refinement of analytical tools resulting in greater
efficiencies in reviewing export and interdiction cases. The decrease also reflects
the accomplishments from previous year investments in human capitaldevelopment efforts.

-23,556-2,879Treaties and Agreements
Funding decrease reflects the elimination of the requirement to draft
strategic/analytical policy planning papers for the incoming Administration.

Total Funding Change, Nonproliferation and International Security

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and International Security

Page 367-1,418-31,272

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Capital Operating Expenses and Construction Summary
Capital Operating Expensesa(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
0
0
0
2,281
2,331
2,832

General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

2,281

2,331

2,832

Outyear Capital Operating Expenses(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
0
0
0
2,434
2,488
2,543
2,599

FY 2012General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

2,434

2,488

2,543

2,599

a

Since funds are appropriated for Operations and Maintenance, which includes operating expenses, capital equipment andgeneral plant projects, we no longer budget separately for capital equipment and general plant projects. FY 2010 and
FY 2011 funding shown reflects estimates based on actual FY 2009 obligations.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Nonproliferation and International Security
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

Page 368

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2009 Actual
Appropriation
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Navy Complex
Strategic Rocket Forces/12th Main Directorate
Rosatom Weapons Complex
Civilian Nuclear Sites
Material Consolidation and Conversion
National Programs and Sustainability
Second Line of Defense
International Contributions
Total, International Nuclear Materials Protection andCooperation(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010 Current
FY 2011
Appropriation
Request30,316
51,76776,07045,542
21,56054,901
174,844
5,592

33,88048,646
71,51763,481
13,611
68,469272,446

34,322
51,359105,318
59,027
13,86760,928265,29700

572,050

590,118(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015a

460,592

Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2012International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Navy Complex
Strategic Rocket Forces/12th Main Directorate
Rosatom Weapons Complex
Civilian Nuclear Sites
Material Consolidation and Conversion
National Programs and Sustainability
Second Line of Defense
International Contributions
Total, International Nuclear Materials Protection andCooperation

31,76437,83052,00018,502
14,306
61,967354,42900000
14,62739,006508,1570000014,62739,006504,85900000
16,433
43,623563,6140570,798

561,790

558,492

623,670

MissionThe International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation (INMP&C) program prevents nuclear
terrorism by working in Russia and other regions of concern to (1) secure and eliminate vulnerable
nuclear weapons and weapons exploitable material; and (2) install detection equipment at internationalcrossing points and Megaports to prevent and detect the illicit transfer of nuclear material.

_______________a

FY 2009 amount includes international contributions of $4,067,065 from Government of Canada, $387,335 fromNew Zealand, $837,600 from Norway, and $300,000 from South Korea.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
International Nuclear Materials
Protection and Cooperation

Page 369

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Benefits
Within INMP&C, 7 subprograms each make unique contributions to Government Performance andResults Act (GPRA) Unit Program Number 42, which supports the Administration's efforts to secure allvulnerable nuclear material around the world within 4 years.
In February 2005, the Bratislava Initiative resulted, for the first time, in a comprehensive plan for thecooperation on security upgrades of Russian nuclear facilities at Rosatom and Ministry of Defense sites
and cooperation in the areas of nuclear regulatory development, sustainability, secure transportation,
Materials Protection Control and Accounting (MPC&A) expertise training, and protective force
equipment. Workscope as of February 2005 was completed at the end of 2008. However, a number ofimportant areas/buildings have been added to the scope of joint work since February 2005. The
MPC&A upgrades at most of these additional areas/buildings will be completed in 2010, while somework scope will continue through 2012.
The Navy Complex program element improves security of Russian Navy warhead and weapons
exploitable material by installing improved security systems at Russian Navy nuclear warhead sites,
Russian Navy HEU fuel storage facilities (fresh and damaged fuel), and shipyards where nuclear
materials are present. There are 50 sites, 39 Russian Navy nuclear warhead sites and 11 Russian Navyfuel/nuclear material storage sites. The program also improves security systems at checkpoints near
upgraded sites, the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) for the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD),
and sustainability activities consisting of training and site-level maintenance support for upgraded MoD
sites.
The Strategic Rocket Forces (SRF)/12th Main Directorate program element improves security ofRussian warheads maintained by the Russian Ministry of Defense by installing improved security
systems at Strategic Rocket Forces and 12th Main Directorate nuclear warhead sites. A total of
25 SRF sites (at 11 bases) and nine 12th Main Directorate sites have received MPC&A upgrades.
The Rosatom Weapons Complex program element improves the security of nuclear weapons andmaterials at seven Rosatom nuclear weapons, uranium enrichment, and material processing/storage sites,
which are located within the closed cities of the Rosatom Weapons complex. The Civilian Nuclear Sites
program improves security at 32 civilian nuclear sites (19 Russian and 13 sites outside of Russia).
The Material Consolidation and Conversion (MCC) program element reduces the complexity and thelong-term costs of securing weapons exploitable nuclear material in Russia. The MCC program isdesigned to significantly reduce the proliferation risk associated with weapons exploitable nuclear
materials by consolidating excess, non-weapons exploitable highly enriched uranium (HEU) andplutonium into fewer, more secure locations. The MCC program achieves further risk reduction by
downblending weapons exploitable HEU to non-weapons exploitable low enriched uranium (LEU).
The National Programs and Sustainability element assists Russia and other partner countries indeveloping and maintaining a nation-wide MPC&A infrastructure, thereby ensuring that U.S.-funded
security upgrades and an effective infrastructure can be sustained. Activities include developing andrevising regulations, developing inspection capabilities, training, education and regional support, site

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
International Nuclear Materials
Protection and Cooperation

Page 370

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

sustainability planning, nuclear security culture activities, and secure transportation and protective force
improvements.
The Second Line of Defense (SLD) program strengthens the capability of foreign governments to deter,
detect, and interdict illicit trafficking in nuclear and other radioactive materials across international
borders and through the global maritime shipping system. The SLD Program also provides training in
the use of the equipment to appropriate law enforcement officials and initial system sustainability
support and maintenance as the host government assumes full operational responsibility for theequipment. Implementation of the SLD Program in any given country is contingent upon theagreement/invitation of the government in that country.
The SLD Core Program installs radiation detection equipment at borders, airports, and strategic ports in
Russia, other former Soviet Union states, Eastern Europe, and other key countries. Under the Core
Program, detection equipment is deployed to scan commercial cargo, passenger vehicles, andpedestrians regardless of direction or destination. Approximately 650 sites in 32 countries have been
identified to potentially receive detection equipment installations under the Core Program, including
approximately 170 sites in Russia.
The SLD Megaports Initiative provides radiation detection equipment to key international seaports toscreen cargo containers for nuclear and other radioactive materials regardless of the container
destination. The Megaports Initiative also cooperates closely with the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security’s Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to support the Container Security Initiative(CSI) and to implement the Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) at international ports. The primary goal of
the Megaports Initiative is to scan as much container traffic for radiation as possible, (including imports,
exports, and trans-shipments) regardless of destination and with minimal impact to port operations.
Under this initiative, NNSA plans to implement this program in up to 100 international seaports by theend of 2015. NNSA is currently engaged in negotiations with governments in Europe, Asia, the Middle
East, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa for the implementation of the Megaports Initiative.
NNSA continues to engage with governments and commercial terminal operators in those countries
where it is important to implement the Megaports Initiative.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
International Nuclear Materials
Protection and Cooperation

Page 371

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAnnual Performance Results and Targets(R = Results; T = Targets)
Performance Indicators

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

Endpoint Target

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

T: 213

T: 218

T: 229

N/A

N/A

N/A

By December 2012, complete
MPC&A upgrades onapproximately 229 buildings
containing weapons-usable
nuclear material including
Post Bratislava work-scope.

Secretarial Goal: Security: Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risks
GPRA Unit Program Number: 42, International Materials Protection and Cooperation
Materials Protection,
Control andAccountability(MPC&A) Upgrades –Buildings: Cumulative
number of buildings
containing weaponsusable material withcompleted MPC&A
upgrades. (Long-term
Output)N/A

Buildings Secured:
Cumulative number ofbuildings with weaponsusable material secured.
(Long-term Output)

R: 175
T: 175Materials Protection,
Control andAccountability(MPC&A) Upgrades:
Cumulative number of
warhead sites withcompleted MPC&A
upgrades. (Long-term
Output)aHighly Enriched
Uranium (HEU)
Conversion to Low
Enriched Uranium(LEU): Cumulative
metric tons of HighlyEnriched Uraniuma

N/A

R: 181
T: 191

R: 210

R: 193
T: 190

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

By September 2007, secured(rapid or comprehensive
upgrades complete) 193
buildings containing
weapons-usable nuclear
material. This measure is
replaced as a result of the
FY 2007 OMB PART review.

R: 50
T: 53

R: 64
T: 58

R: 65
T: 64

R: 73

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Completed MPC&A upgradesat 73 warhead sites in
December 2008.

R: 8.4
T: 8.6

R: 9.8
T: 9.5

R: 10.7
T: 11.0

R: 11.7

T: 12.6

T:13.5

T: 14.4

T: 15.3

T: 16.2

T: 17

By December 2015, convert
17 MTs of HEU to LEU.

T: 210

T: 73

T: 11.7

The number previously presented in the Performance and Accountability Report was inaccurately reported as 53.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
International Nuclear Materials
Protection and Cooperation

Page 372

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

MPC&A Regulations:
Cumulative number of
MPC&A regulations in
the development phasefor Russian and other
FSU countries. (Longterm Output)

N/A

N/A

N/A

Second Line of Defense(SLD) Sites: Cumulative
number of Second Line of
Defense (SLD) sites with
nuclear detection
equipment installed(Cumulative number of
Megaports completed).
(Long-term Output)

R: 104(6)
T: 114(10)

R: 162(12)
T: 173(12)

R: 232(19)
T: 224(23)

Megaports with Host
Country Cost Sharing:
Cumulative number of
Megaports with hostcountry cost-sharing,
resulting in decreased
cost to the US program(Estimated cost sharing
value). (Efficiency)

N/A

N/A

R:3/$14M
T:5/$24M

Performance Indicators

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

R: 162

T: 194

T: 198

T: 203

T: 226

T: 249N/A

By the end of FY 2014, placea total of approximately 249
MPC&A regulations in thedevelopment phase for theRussian and other FSU
countries.

R: 335(27)
T: 312(28)

T: 404(43)

T: 463(45)

T: 529(55)

T: 619(70)

T: 709(85)

T: 750(100)

By December 2015, installradiation detection equipment
at approximately 650 bordercrossing sites and 100 Mega
ports (750 total SLD sites)(assuming no expansion ofprogram sites).

R: 7/$36.8
T: 8/$40M

T: 12/$66M

T: 14/$73M

T: 18/$87M

T: 24/$101M

T: 25/$115

N/A

By the end of FY 2014,
complete host country cost
sharing on approximately
25 Megaports for an
estimated value of $115M.

Endpoint Target

converted to LowEnriched Uranium.
(Long-term Outcome)T : 165

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
International Nuclear Materials
Protection and Cooperation

Page 373

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009 Accomplishments:
 Completed MPC&A upgrades at a cumulative total of 210 of 229 buildings containing weapons
exploitable material in Russia and NIS/Baltics;
 Downblended approximately a cumulative total of 11.7 metric tons (MTs) of HEU to LEU;
 Facilitated the enactment of 11 additional MPC&A regulations in Russia;
 Placed a cumulative total of 162 MPC&A regulations in the development phase for Russia and other
FSU countries, and Completed installation of radiation detection equipment at a cumulative total of 335 sites, 308 SLDCore sites and 27 Megaports.
Major Outyear Priorities and Assumptions
The outyear projections for the INMP&C program total approximately $2,314,750,000(FY 2012 – FY 2015). The Program supports efforts to secure and eliminate vulnerable nuclear
weapons and weapons exploitable materials in Russia and other countries of concern and efforts toprevent and detect the illicit transfer of nuclear material. Near level funding during the outyears reflects
the completion of MPC&A upgrades to warhead and material sites in Russia and the transition to greater
Russian cost sharing on sustainability activities. Funding for the SLD program increases as the programis expanded to include additional land border sites and Megaports in targeted countries of strategicinterest and in countries where NNSA is working with its Department of Homeland Security
counterparts to implement requirements of the "Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007."
To meet the NNSA strategic long-term goal of Nuclear Nonproliferation, the INMP&C program
completed MPC&A upgrades in Russia at a total of 73 warhead sites at the end of calendar year 2008
and plans to: (1) complete approximately 229 buildings containing weapons exploitable nuclear
material by the end of 2012; (2) downblend a total of approximately 17 MTs of HEU by the end of
2015; and (3) install radiation detection equipment at approximately 650 border crossings around theworld and at approximately 100 ports of interest in approximately 40 countries by the end of 2015.
These results will directly support the goal of Nuclear Nonproliferation by providing a first line ofdefense (securing warheads and weapons exploitable nuclear materials at their source), and a second lineof defense (preventing and detecting the illicit transfer of nuclear materials).

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
International Nuclear Materials
Protection and Cooperation

Page 374

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification

FY 2009
Navy Complex(dollars in thousands)
FY 201030,31633,880FY 201134,322The Navy Complex program element was established to improve security of Russian Navy warhead
and weapons exploitable material by installing improved security systems at Russian Navy nuclear
warhead sites, Russian Navy Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) fuel storage facilities (fresh anddamaged fuel), and shipyards where nuclear materials are present. These sites include a total of
50 sites: 39 Russian Navy nuclear warhead sites and 11 Russian Navy fuel and other nuclear material
storage sites.
Comprehensive upgrades were completed at all 11 Navy fuel and other nuclear material storage sites in
FY 2004. No new work is planned at those sites; however, sustainability and training efforts willcontinue for 7 of these sites to ensure that the equipment provided is effective in protecting thematerial. In addition, retrofit of MPC&A equipment at the end of its service life will be performed at
1 site, and upgrades to address insider threats will be completed at another site.
The INMP&C completed MPC&A upgrades at the final 2 Russian Navy nuclear warhead sites in
FY 2006 (increasing the total Navy warhead sites secured with either completed rapid and/or
comprehensive upgrades) to 39 sites. In FY 2011, INMP&C will provide: (1) sustainability support
such as training and site level maintenance of installed MPC&A upgrades to 12 of these 39 sites whichmeet interagency requirements for such support; (2) nuclear detection at closed city entrances,including security upgrades to one checkpoint and sustainability support to 3 checkpoints withpreviously installed security upgrades; (3) support for personnel reliability programs; (4) replacementof outdated security equipment, and (5) additional upgrades for training and maintenance centers toensure sustainability of upgrades.
Strategic Rocket Forces/12th Main
Directorate

51,767

48,64651,359The Strategic Rocket Forces (SRF)/12th Main Directorate program element improves security ofRussian warheads by installing improved MPC&A systems at RF Strategic Rocket Forces and 12th
Main Directorate nuclear warhead sites. These sites, which include 25 SRF sites (at 11 bases) andnine 12th Main Directorate sites, have been approved by the U.S. Government for MPC&A upgrades.
The process for working with the SRF and the 12th Main Directorate is based upon the refined processdeveloped for working with the Russian Navy, which includes: (1) upgrades designs driven byvulnerability assessments (VAs), (2) a rapid upgrades and/or a comprehensive upgrades phase, and(3) a sustainability program, which assures the systems will remain effective after the installation of
upgrades is complete.
In FY 2011, INMP&C plans to provide sustainability support for 23 SRF and three 12th Main
Directorate sites which will include: (1) development of training curriculum and courses;(2) construction and support of technical centers to ensure that the Russian Ministry of Defense will
have a sufficient cadre of technicians and trainers to assume maintenance and sustainability of the
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
International Nuclear Materials
Protection and Cooperation

Page 375

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
installed upgrades at all Russian Ministry of Defense sites; (3) infrastructure development, including
performance assurance and procedure development, and (4) provide site level maintenance of installed
MPC&A upgrades at these sites. INMP&C will also provide additional MPC&A upgrades to other
SRF sites that will provide additional protection from theft and/or diversion of warheads from thesesites.
Rosatom Weapons Complex

76,07071,517

105,318

The Rosatom Weapons Complex program element improves the security of nuclear weapons andmaterials at seven Rosatom nuclear weapons, uranium enrichment, and material processing/storagesites, which are located within the closed cities of the Rosatom Weapons Complex. The Rosatom
Weapons Complex element primarily focuses on upgrades at seven large sites which have many
nuclear material storage and handling locations. The goal of this joint cooperative program is toprovide protection from internal and external theft scenarios at areas that handle highly attractive
material.
In FY 2011, INMP&C will continue to fund selective new upgrades to buildings/areas at these sitesthat were added to the cooperative after the Bratislava Summit, including: (1) nuclear detection on
closed city borders; (2) expanded MPC&A upgrades at some buildings to address both outsider andinsider threats; (3) Rosatom protective force training center development; (4) improvements to sitewide material measurement and accounting practices, and (5) internal site nuclear transport security.
The majority of this work is expected to be located at the All Russian Scientific Research Institute ofExperimental Physics (A-16), the Mayak Production Association, and the Mining and Chemical
Combine (K-26).
Significant efforts will be directed towards implementing a comprehensive MPC&A sustainability
effort at all sites to include: (1) efforts to improve MPC&A management infrastructures, (2) training,(3) procedural development and adherence, (4) system maintenance and repair, (5) performance testing,(6) configuration management, and (7) operational cost analysis. Where necessary, the program will
also finance the replacement of systems that were upgraded earlier in the cooperative that are at the endof their operational lifecycles.
Funding supports continued MPC&A activities outside of Russia, including sustainability activities atnine sites in Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus and Uzbekistan, and engagement with the International
Atomic Energy Agency to promote best practices related to nuclear material control, accounting andsustainability. Funding will also be allocated to the continued engagement with India on nuclear
material security best practices.
Civilian Nuclear Sites

45,542

63,48159,027The Civilian Nuclear Sites program element improves security at 32 civilian nuclear sites (19 Russian
sites and 13 sites outside of Russia). The basic MPC&A upgrade objective is to employ a costeffective, graded approach with an initial focus on installing upgrades for the most highly proliferantattractive nuclear material at each site. Rapid MPC&A upgrades are installed to mitigate the
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
International Nuclear Materials
Protection and Cooperation

Page 376

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
immediate risk of theft and diversion, until long term, more comprehensive MPC&A upgrades aredesigned, installed and placed into operation. Following the completion of initial rapid andcomprehensive site upgrades, U.S. funding will continue at a reduced level to: (1) help foster site
capabilities to operate and maintain installed security systems, and (2) support replacement ofequipment and possible additional security enhancements, e.g., perimeter upgrades, as warranted. This
program element will also continue to support those sites with completed MPC&A comprehensive
upgrades.
In FY 2011, INMP&C plans to provide sustainability support to 15 civilian nuclear sites withcompleted MPC&A upgrades including support for training, procedures, maintenance, equipment
repair, critical spare parts, and performance testing and other activities at these sites, in order to ensure
the sustainability of those upgrades, and support additional MPC&A upgrades focused on addressing
outsider and insider threats within the Civilian Nuclear sites. Sustainability support is not being
provided to four Russian Civilian sites because three sites have withdrawn from cooperation, and all of
the highly attractive nuclear material has been transferred from the fourth site.
In addition, in FY 2011, INMP&C plans to continue to cooperate with countries outside of Russia andthe Former Soviet States in order to increase MPC&A awareness, and to provide assistance to protect
weapons exploitable materials. This will include engagement with China on modern nuclear material
security methodologies and best practices. Planned activities generally include training, technicalexchanges, and consultations to improve security at nuclear material locations. It may be appropriate atsome partners to support security upgrades for sites with weapons exploitable nuclear materials which
are the most vulnerable to theft and/or diversion. This MPC&A assistance is expected to significantly
reduce the risk of theft and/or diversion of weapons exploitable materials by potential terrorists seeking
to produce nuclear weapons.
Material Consolidation and Conversion

21,56013,611

13,867The Material Consolidation and Conversion (MCC) program element reduces the complexity and thelong-term costs of securing weapons exploitable nuclear material. The MCC project is designed tosignificantly reduce the proliferation risk associated with weapons exploitable nuclear materials by
consolidating excess, non-weapons-useable HEU and plutonium into fewer, more secure locations.
This approach can decrease the number of proliferant-attractive theft targets and the equipment andpersonnel costs associated with securing such material. MCC also converts weapons exploitablespecial nuclear material (SNM) to a less proliferation attractive form. By the end of 2015, it is planned
that the MCC project will convert approximately 17 MTs of HEU to LEU.
In FY 2011, INMP&C plans to continue to implement the MPC&A strategy to simplify the nuclear
security situation in Russia by converting attractive SNM to a less proliferant-attractive form
(e.g., HEU to LEU) and to consolidate material to fewer sites and fewer buildings where possible. The
program is expecting to convert an additional 0.9 MTs of the total 17 MTs of HEU to LEU, (for a
cumulative total converted of 13.5 MTs).

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
International Nuclear Materials
Protection and Cooperation

Page 377

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009
National Programs and Sustainability(dollars in thousands)
FY 201054,901

68,469FY 201160,928The National Programs and Sustainability element assists Russia and other partner countries indeveloping and maintaining a nation-wide MPC&A infrastructure, thereby ensuring that U.S.-funded
security upgrades and an effective infrastructure can be sustained. Projects include developing andrevising regulations, developing inspection capabilities, training, education and regional support, sitesustainability planning, nuclear security culture activities, and secure transportation and protective
force improvements. These projects develop the necessary MPC&A infrastructure for sustaining longterm MPC&A operations in Russia and other partner countries as well as the conditions by which U.S.
technical and financial support can be transitioned to the partner countries.
In FY 2011, INMP&C will accelerate projects to assist Russia and other partner countries inestablishing the necessary MPC&A support infrastructure to sustain effective MPC&A operations in
the long term. Since a re-baseline was established in 2005, the regulatory development project isworking to develop or revise 199 MPC&A regulations for the Russian Federation and Ukraine tosupport sustainable MPC&A operations. In FY 2011, a cumulative total of 198 MPC&A regulations
will be in the development phase, with a total of 249 regulations in the development phase between
FY 2009 and FY 2014. Regulatory analyses for the Russian Ministry of Defense, 12th Main
Directorate, Navy, and Strategic Rocket Forces were completed in 2007-2008, and work to develop andrevise regulations will culminate in a total of 120 regulations being completed by 2013. A decision ispending regarding a regulatory analysis for the Russian Federation Air Force with a possible
20 additional regulations being needed between 2010-2013. Regulatory revisions for all agencies willcommence in 2013 as part of MoD sustainability activities; and 23 advanced Rostekhnadzor inspection
exercises/Rosatom monitoring inspections and self-inspections will be conducted in the areas ofphysical protection and material control and accounting. The program will work cooperatively with
Rosatom to sustain existing railcars and trucks. In addition, the program will support training
activities, performance testing, and maintenance systems for transportation security.
INMP&C will assist the Russian Federation in improving the security of weapons exploitable nuclear
material at high risk of insider theft or diversion. This will be done by helping to support a sustainable
and effective measurement-based Material Control and Accountability (MC&A) program. In FY 2011;
six MC&A measurement methodologies will be developed for approximately 12 sites, and100 reference material standards will be developed for MC&A equipment calibration and operation.
The program will also evaluate and provide updated command and control communications systems at
Rosatom sites to improve response times of protective forces to potential threats. The Protective Force
Project will complete upgrades to 2 national level training academies for MVD-IT nuclear guards at
Gorelovo and Ozersk in FY 2010/ FY 2011.
INMP&C will continue to operate and maintain three regional technical support facilities to provide
equipment repair, maintenance, calibration assistance, operations assistance, configuration control,
warranty service, spare parts inventories, and training for critical MPC&A systems and components;
and continue to develop MPC&A training, infrastructure curricula and support provisions of MPC&A
courses. In FY 2011, 22 physical protection classes with 400 participants, 40 material control andaccounting classes with 600 participants, and 20 protective force courses with 250 participants will be
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
International Nuclear Materials
Protection and Cooperation

Page 378

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
conducted. Fifteen students will graduate from the Engineering Degree Program at the National
Research Nuclear University (MEPhI); and Tomsk Polytechnic University will graduate its third classof 15 students from their Engineering Degree Program in February 2011.
INMP&C will also assist partner countries in achieving long-term effective operation of their MPC&A
programs by assisting sites to establish dedicated MPC&A organizations, and develop site MPC&A
management plans, operating procedures, human resource programs, operational cost analysis andperformance test plans. The program will also work to bolster the nuclear security culture in Russia
through various security culture enhancement efforts.
In addition, INMP&C will continue implementation of an MPC&A sustainability and transition
strategy to achieve the goal of fully transitioning operations and maintenance of MPC&A upgrades tofull partner country responsibility by working with these partner countries to develop the capabilities
they need to maintain the safeguards and security of their weapons exploitable nuclear material.
Second Line of Defense

174,844

272,446

265,297

 Core Program

71,91778,432

140,413

The Second Line of Defense (SLD) Core Program installs radiation detection equipment at borders,
airports, and strategic ports in Russia, other former Soviet Union states, Eastern Europe and otherkey countries. The SLD Core Program also provides training and technical support for appropriate
law enforcement officials and initial system sustainability support as the host government assumes
operational responsibility for the equipment. The program selects sites to be addressed, through asite prioritization and selection methodology so as to effectively plan and utilize program resources.
In FY 2011, the SLD Core program plans to install radiation detection equipment at an additional
55 foreign sites in Azerbaijan, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Bulgaria,
Hungary, Russia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Poland, Mongolia, Turkey, Croatia, Pakistan, Tajikistan and
Mexico, increasing the total non-Megaport sites with completed installations to 418. Training will
be provided in equipment maintenance and alarm response to law enforcement personnel in thesecountries. The SLD Core program plans to continue to provide mobile detection and stationary
detection capability at points internal to borders of countries of strategic interest. The SLD Core
program provides sustainability support in the form of maintenance and/or repair of equipment,
training, and/or technical collaboration and support for radiation detection systems at up to 250 sites
in countries where the SLD Core Program has installed such equipment, including Russia,
Azerbaijan, Armenia, Austria, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Romania, Turkmenistan, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Georgia and Ukraine.
Additionally, the program will continue to maintain equipment installed by the U.S. Department of
Defense in Uzbekistan. In addition to ongoing activities to implement the SLD Core program incountries of strategic importance, efforts to deploy radiation detection technologies at key landborder crossings, airports, and seaports in support of various United Nations Security Council
Resolutions will continue.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
International Nuclear Materials
Protection and Cooperation

Page 379

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009
 Megaports(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010

102,927

194,014

FY 2011
124,884

The SLD Megaports Initiative is pursuing cooperation with international partners to deploy andequip key ports with radiation detection equipment and to provide training to appropriate law
enforcement officials, in order to provide them the technical means to detect, deter and interdict
illicit trafficking in nuclear and other radioactive materials. The ports of interest to NNSA havebeen identified based upon a risk-based approach to guide implementation priorities consideringfactors such as container volume to the U.S., routing criteria, regional threat, strategic location, andtraffic flow characteristics to guide the implementation priorities.
This program is closely coordinated and complements the Department of Homeland Security’s(DHS) Bureau of Customs and Border Protection’s Container Security Initiative (CSI) with DHS’s
Secure Freight Initiative (SFI), introduced on December 7, 2006. NNSA efforts under the
Megaports Initiative also support implementation of new requirements in the "Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007," which calls for the integrated scanning of
100 percent of U.S.-bound container cargo at foreign seaports. The Megaports program is alsoplanning to provide a single radiation portal monitor (RPM) in close proximity to the non-intrusive
imaging (NII) system at CSI ports to allow for the integration of RPM alarm data with the NII
images.
By adding radiation detection capabilities at seaports, NNSA will be able to screen container cargo
for nuclear and radioactive materials that could be used in a weapon of mass destruction or aradiological dispersal device (RDD) (dirty bomb) against the U.S., the host country, and/or ourallies. Under SFI, NNSA will continue to work with DHS to provide the integrated scanning ofcontainers bound for the U.S. with radiation detection equipment (provided by NNSA) and nonintrusive imaging equipment (provided by DHS) and the transmission of integrated data from theequipment to U.S. teams both in-country and in the U.S.
In FY 2011, the program plans to complete installations at 4 additional Megaports (increasing thenumber of completed ports to 45). This involves providing site surveys, engineering assessments,
radiation detection equipment design procurement and installation. Sustainability support including
equipment, maintenance, system checkups and diagnostics and supplemental training and technicalcollaboration will be provided for approximately 29 of the sites which have completed installations.
In addition, NNSA will continue to work with DHS and other NNSA components to test newtechnologies that may be used to scan transshipped containers, including mobile technologies andcrane based technologies. NNSA will continue to pursue cooperation with international partners
interested in participating in the Megaports initiative.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
International Nuclear Materials
Protection and Cooperation

Page 380

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009
International Contributions(dollars in thousands)
FY 20105,592

FY 201100Section 3113 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2007 authorized theDepartment of Energy to receive and use financial contributions, including from foreign governments,
for programs with the GTRI.
FY 2009 amount includes international contributions of $4,067,065 from Government of Canada,$387,335 from New Zealand, $837,600 from Norway, and $300,000 from South Korea.
Total, International Nuclear Materials
Protection and Cooperation

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
International Nuclear Materials
Protection and Cooperation

460,592

Page 381

572,050

590,118

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)


Navy Complex
Increase reflects retrofit of MPC&A equipment at the end of its
service life at 1 site and upgrades to address insider threats at another
site.



Strategic Rocket Forces/12th Main Directorate
Increase reflects additional support for the sustainability of installed
MPC&A upgrades which includes the development of training
curriculum and courses, construction and support of technical centers,
and infrastructure development, including performance assurance andprocedure development.

+33,801

Civilian Nuclear Sites
Decrease reflects programmatic shift from large-scale MPC&A
upgrades at Russian sites towards more sustainability support.

+2,713Rosatom Weapons Complex
Increase reflects selected new or additional MPC&A upgrades atRosatom Weapons Complex sites added after the Bratislava
Agreement and expanded MPC&A upgrades at some buildings toaddress both outsider and insider threats and comprehensive upgrades
to the external perimeter of the K-26 site in support of the President’s
goal to secure all nuclear material within 4 years (2013).



+442

-4,454

Material Consolidation and Conversion
Increase due to a higher projected availability of excess HEU to be

downblended to LEU.
+256

National Programs and Sustainability
Decrease reflects the completion of the procurement of railcars andtrucks to provide physical security protection for the transportation of
Russian nuclear material.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
International Nuclear Materials
Protection and Cooperation

Page 382-7,541

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)


Second Line of Defense
Decrease reflects offset to Megaports to fund high-priority activities
in the SLD Core Program including: deployment of radiation
detection systems in Ukraine and Kazakhstan; continued
implementation of the communication integration project in Russia tolink radiation alarms at Russian border sites to central headquarters
locations; and expanded deployment of mobile radiation detection
systems to countries for use by law enforcement personnel in supportof anti-smuggling activities at green border and internal locations.

Total Funding Change, International Nuclear Materials Protection
and Cooperation

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
International Nuclear Materials
Protection and Cooperation

Page 383-7,149+18,068

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Capital Operating Expenses and Construction Summary
Capital Operating Expensesa(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
0
0
0
205
210
215
205
210
215

General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Equipment

Outyear Capital Operating Expenses(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
0
0
0
0
225
230
235
220
220
225
230
235

FY 2012General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital EquipmentaSince funds are appropriated for Operations and Maintenance, which includes operating expenses, capital equipment andgeneral plant projects, we no longer budget separately for capital equipment and general plant projects. FY 2010 and
FY 2011 funding shown reflects estimates based on actual FY 2009 obligations.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
International Nuclear Materials
Protection and Cooperation
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

Page 384

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetElimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production
Funding Profile by Subprogram(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Current
Appropriation
Appropriation
Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production (EWGPP)
Zheleznogorsk Plutonium Production Elimination (ZPPEP)
Crosscutting and Technical Support Activities
Total, Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production(EWGPP)FY 2011
Request139,282
2,017

22,5072,000

0
0141,299

24,5070Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2012
Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production

0(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 20140
0

FY 20150Mission
The Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production (EWGPP) program enables the RussianFederation (RF) to permanently cease production of weapons-grade plutonium by replacing the heat andelectricity produced by the plutonium-producing reactors, thus allowing the reactors to be shut down.
Benefits
The EWGPP program achieves a major U.S. non-proliferation policy objective by permanently halting
weapons-grade plutonium production in Russia. Within the EWGPP program, three subprograms makeunique contributions to Government Performance and Results ACT (GPRA) Unit Program Number 40.
The Seversk Plutonium Production Elimination Project subprogram enabled the shutdown of two of thelast three weapons-grade plutonium production reactors by providing heat and electricity throughrefurbishment of an existing 1950s fossil-fueled facility. The two reactors at Seversk were shut down
more than six months early (April and June 2008). The program received Critical Decision (CD)-4
approval on September 26, 2008, effectively terminating the project. The remaining project closeoutactivities to expend the full U.S. commitment of $285,000,000 to the Russian Federation continued into
FY 2010.
The Zheleznogorsk Plutonium Production Elimination Project subprogram will enable the shutdown of
the last weapons-grade plutonium production reactor by constructing a replacement fossil-fueled facility.
The Crosscutting and Technical Support Activities subprogram provides resources for crosscutting
efforts, such as the Reactor Shutdown Project, International Participation coordination, and other various
program technical support activities.
The Reactor Shutdown Project ensures the RF shuts down the three weapons-grade plutonium
production reactors as fossil-fuel plants are constructed. Reactors ADE-4 and ADE-5 at Seversk were

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Elimination of Weapons-Grade
Plutonium Production

Page 385

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

shut down more than six months ahead of schedule, and the RF has approved the shutdown schedule for
Reactor ADE-2 at Zheleznogorsk. The planned date for the Zheleznogorsk plant shutdown is
December 2010.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Elimination of Weapons-Grade
Plutonium Production

Page 386

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAnnual Performance Results and Targets(R = Results; T = Targets)
Performance Indicators

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

Endpoint Target

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

By December 2008, complete
refurbishment of fossil plant atSeversk.

Secretarial Goal: Security: Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risks
GPRA Unit Program Number: 40, Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production
Refurbishing Seversk Fossil
Plant: Cumulative percentage ofprogress towards refurbishing a
fossil plant in Seversk facilitating
the shut down of two weaponsgrade plutonium production
reactors. (Long-term Output)

R: 50%

R: 73%

R: 87%

R: 100%

T: 55%

T: 72%

T: 90%

T: 100%

Cost Performance Index (CPI)for Seversk: Annual Costs
Performance Index (CPI) for
Seversk construction as measured
by the ratio of budgeted costs ofwork performed to actual costs ofwork performed. (Efficiency)

R: 1.0

R: 1.0

R: 1.0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

T: 1.0

T: 1.0

T: 1.0

Annually, complete work at or
below budgeted cost (CPI greaterthan 1.0 indicates under budget).

Constructing Zheleznogorsk
Fossil Plant: Cumulative
percentage of progress towards
constructing a fossil plant inZheleznogorsk facilitating the shut
down of one weapons-grade
plutonium production reactor.
(Long-term Output)

R: 11.4%

R: 34.0%

R: 46%

R: 71%

T: 98%

T: 100%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

T: 9.6%

T: 33.6%

T: 50%

T: 70%By December 2010, complete
construction of fossil plant at
Zheleznogorsk.

N/A

N/A

N/A

R: .93

T: 1.0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Annually, complete work at or
below budgeted cost (CPI greaterthan 1.0 indicates under budget).

Cost Performance Index (CPI)for Zheleznogorsk Fossil Plant:
Annual Costs Performance Index(CPI) for Zheleznogorsk
construction as measured by theratio of budgeted costs of work
performed to actual costs of workaperformed. (Efficiency)aT: 1.0

Two reactors shutdown in April/June 2008 and the remaining reactor shutdown will take place no later than December 2010.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Elimination of Weapons-Grade
Plutonium Production

Page 387

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetPerformance Indicators
Russian Weapons-Grade
Plutonium Production: Annual
percentage of Russian weaponsgrade plutonium production
capability eliminated from its 2003
baseline of 1.2 MT/yr (0.4 MT per
reactor per year). (Long-term
Outcome)

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

N/A

N/A

N/A

R: 67%

T: 67%

T : 100%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Elimination of Weapons-Grade
Plutonium Production

T: 67%

Page 388

Endpoint Target
Eliminate 100% of Russian
weapons-grade plutonium
production capability by 2011.

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009 Accomplishments
 The Seversk Plutonium Production Elimination Project completed the project scope of therefurbishment of an existing 1950s fissile-fueled facility.
 Physical completion of the Seversk project was accomplished with the exception of one turbine,
obtaining high-level Russian Federation commitment to shut down the last (ADE-2) reactor in
July 2010.
Major Outyear Priorities and Assumptions
FY 2010 is the final year of funding for the EWGPP program. The program will be complete in
FY 2011 when the last of the three reactors is shut down.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Elimination of Weapons-Grade
Plutonium Production

Page 389

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification(dollars in thousands)

Zheleznogorsk Plutonium Production Elimination

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

139,282

22,5070

In FY 2009, the U.S. contractor continued to provide oversight for the project, while monitoringschedule and cost compliance from the Moscow-based program management office and the field
office in the Krasnoyarsk region of southern Siberia. The U.S. contractor will continue to track
Russian progress against the mutually agreed to quid pro quo reactor shutdown plan. By the end of
FY 2009, the project was 71 percent complete.
In FY 2010, the project will complete and commission four boilers from Startup Areas One and Two,coal plant construction and all supporting infrastructure to supply hot water to Zheleznogorsk. By theend of FY 2010, the project is projected to be approximately 98 percent complete.
No new funding is requested for FY 2011. Remaining activities, including final documentation andoutstanding invoices, will complete the post closeout phase.
Crosscutting and Technical Support Activities

2,017

2,000

0

The crosscutting and technical support activities funding provides the program with internal andexternal project reviews, preparation of external reporting (including reports to Congress), contract
administration, intergovernmental contract negotiation support, quality assurance, foreign logisticalsupport, and program financial management support. The crosscutting and technical support activities
also provide the necessary supporting technical and engineering expertise for independent analyses ofmanagement processes, crosscutting of project management systems, and support to the Moscow
Resident Officer for Construction. Other major crosscutting efforts include reactor shutdown planningand supporting close out activities of the Seversk Project and associated post shutdown requirements
for reactors ADE-4 and ADE-5, under agreements with the RF. A detailed reactor shutdown plan foreach site has been developed, which provides linkage between construction milestones for the power
plant and shutdown of the plutonium-producing reactors.
Total, Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium
Production

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Elimination of Weapons-Grade
Plutonium Production

Page 390

141,299

24,5070

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Zheleznogorsk Plutonium Production Elimination
Decrease reflects the ramp down of work as the project is completed.

-22,507

Crosscutting and Technical Support Activities
Decrease reflects close out activities of the Seversk and Zheleznogorsk Projects.

-2,000Total Funding Change, Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production-24,507

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Elimination of Weapons-Grade
Plutonium Production

Page 391

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Capital Operating Expenses and Construction Summary
Capital Operating Expenses(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
0
0
0
0
0
0

General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Equipment

0

0

0

Outyear Capital Operating Expenses
FY 2012General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Equipment

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Elimination of Weapons-Grade
Plutonium Production
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

Page 392(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Fissile Materials Disposition
Funding Profile by Subprogram(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010 Current
FY 2011
Appropriation
RequestFY 2009 Current
Appropriation
Fissile Materials Disposition (FMD)
U.S. Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
U.S. Plutonium Disposition
U.S. Uranium Disposition
Supporting Activities
Subtotal, O&M
Construction
Total, U.S. Surplus FMD
Russian Surplus FMD
Russian Materials Disposition
Total, Fissile Materials Disposition

039,2741,500
40,774040,77490,896
34,691
1,075
126,662574,238
700,900

278,940
25,9850304,925
612,788917,713

1,000
41,7741,000
701,900

113,000
1,030,713

Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2012Fissile Materials Disposition
U.S. Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition (O&M)
Construction
Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition
Total, Fissile Materials Disposition

302,276
556,099
1,000
859,375(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014482,185
527,457
1,000
1,010,642

478,897309,661
1,000
789,558

FY 2015459,827
282,773
1,000
743,600

MissionThe program goal is to eliminate surplus Russian weapon-grade plutonium and surplus United States(U.S.) weapon-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium.
Benefits
Within the Fissile Materials Disposition (FMD) Program, two subprograms each make uniquecontributions to Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Unit Program Number 43.
Plutonium Disposition – The goal of the U.S. Plutonium Disposition program is to dispose of at least
34 metric tons (MT) of surplus U.S. weapon-grade plutonium in accordance with a long-standing U.S.
policy and the September 2000 U.S. - Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement(PMDA). Three key U.S. facilities are being built at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina
by the FMD program to accomplish this goal: a Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF)
to fabricate plutonium oxide into MOX fuel for irradiation in domestic reactors; a pit disassembly andconversion capability to disassemble nuclear weapon pits and convert the resulting plutonium metal to a
powder form suitable for MOX; and a Waste Solidification Building (WSB) to handle waste from theMFFF and pit disassembly operations. MFFF is scheduled to start operations to produce MOX fuel in
October 2016. The WSB cold start-up activities are scheduled to begin operations in September 2013 to
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition

Page 393

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

support MOX cold start-up. An alternative analysis study has been completed and the Department is
exploring the combination of NNSA’s Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility and Environmental
Management’s (EM) Plutonium Preparation (PuP) project into a single project to be located in K-Area
Reactor Facility at the SRS and managed by NNSA.
The goal of the Russian Plutonium Disposition program is to work with Russia to dispose of at least
34 MT of surplus Russian weapon-grade plutonium. In November 2007, DOE and its Russiancounterpart agency, Rosatom, agreed on a revised program to dispose of surplus Russian weapon-grade
plutonium. The Russian program relies on the use of fast reactors for plutonium disposition (theexisting BN-600 and the BN-800 currently under construction), operating under certain nonproliferation
restrictions. Simultaneously, Russia continues to support research and development of the Gas TurbineModular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) on a cost shared basis with the U.S., which could also be used for
disposition should that technology become operational during the disposition period. The U.S. andRussian governments have completed negotiations of a Protocol that will amend the PMDA to reflect
this revised program. It is expected that the Protocol to the 2000 PMDA containing these amendments
will be signed in early 2010 and that both countries will begin disposing of their surplus plutonium inthe 2018 timeframe.
Uranium Disposition – NNSA is also responsible for disposing of U.S. highly enriched uranium (HEU)
that has been declared surplus to defense needs primarily by down-blending it into low enricheduranium (LEU). Once down-blended, the material can no longer be used for nuclear weapons. To theextent practical, the program seeks to recover the economic value of the material by using the resulting
LEU as commercial or research reactor fuel. Four separate projects (H-Canyon Enriched Uranium (EU)Disposition Project, the 12 MT HEU Blend-Down project, Reliable Fuel Supply, and Research Reactor
Fuel) are currently being implemented and additional projects are being planned. HEU disposition
projects are expected to result in payments to the U.S. Treasury of over $1,000,000,000 for LEU
purchases, based on current uranium market prices.
Significant Program Shifts
The Department is requesting funds for the PDCF in Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Fissile
Materials Disposition (instead of Weapons Activities appropriation) with the goal of aligning
management and funding responsibilities for the interrelated surplus plutonium disposition activities
under a single appropriation.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition

Page 394

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAnnual Performance Results and Targets(R = Results; T= Targets)
Performance Indicators

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Endpoint Target

Secretarial Goal: Security: Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risks
GPRA Unit Program Number: 43, Fissile Materials Disposition
Mixed Oxide (MOX)
Fuel Fabrication
Facility: Cumulative
percentage of the design,
construction, and cold
start-up activities
completed for the Mixed
Oxide (MOX) Fuel
Fabrication Facility.
(Long-term Output)a

R: 17%
T: 17%

R: 24%
T: 24%

R: 30%
T: 30%

R: 38%
T: 39%

T: 49%

T: 62%

T: 77%

T: 89%

T: 96%

T: 99%

By 2016, complete
design, construction,and cold start-up
activities for the MOX
Facility.

Waste Solidification
Building: Cumulative
percentage of the design,
construction, and cold
start-up activities
completed for the Waste
Solidification Building(WSB). (Long-term
Output)b

N/A

N/A

N/A

R: 26%

T: 45%

T: 65%

T: 80%

T: 100%

N/A

N/A

By 2013, complete
design, construction,and cold start-up
activities for the WSB.

U.S. Highly Enriched
Uranium (HEU)
Downblended:
Cumulative amount of
surplus U.S. highly
enriched uranium (HEU)
down-blended or shippedfor down-blending.
(Efficiency)

R: 93 MT
T: 93 MT

T: 130 MT

T: 133 MT

T: 136 MT

T: 138 MT

T: 140 MT

T: 142 MT

By 2050, complete
disposition of 217 MTof surplus HEU.

T: 30%

R:103 MT
T: 103 MT

R:117 MT
T: 112MT

R: 127 MT
T: 125 MTaPrior to FY 2007, annual MOX and PDCF performance was derived by multiplying the percent complete for a project phase (R&D, design, construction) by anassociated weighting factor. Starting in FY 2007, percent completion is derived by the earned value expressed as a percent of the Performance Measurement Baseline. .
b

The WSB percent complete is measured by the earned value expressed as a percent of the Performance Measurement Baseline.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition

Page 395

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009 Accomplishments• Installed over 54,000 cubic yards of reinforced concrete and more than 11,000 tons of rebar for the
MFFF.
• Completed construction of 9 of the 18 auxiliary MOX buildings; two more buildings are underconstruction (Secured Warehouse Building and Electrical Substation).
• Received approval of Critical Decision (CD)-2 (performance baseline) and CD-3 (start ofconstruction) for the WSB, and construction began in December 2008. Completed the first of two
major phases of construction of the WSB, which entailed site preparation, facility excavation, andinstallation of underground utilities. The Balance of Plant subcontract for the WSB has been
awarded for the remaining facility construction work scope.
• Successfully completed the PDCF Technical Independent Project Review, and continued withprocess design activities.
• Selected WesDyne International/Nuclear Fuel Services team as the down-blending and storage
contractor for the new 12 MT HEU project.
• Completed all shipments of HEU for the Reliable Fuel Supply initiative, and enough LEU to supply
fuel for multiple commercial reactor core reloads.
• Completed negotiations between the U.S. and Russian governments of a Protocol to amend the2000 PMDA to reflect the current U.S. and Russian plutonium disposition program.
Major Out Year Priorities and Assumptions
The outyear requirements for FMD total $3,403,175,000 (FY 2012 – FY 2015). The funding trend forthe five-year period for FMD accounts for the start of operations for MOX and the WSB, and beginning
construction of the PDCF. The funding profile for the U.S. Uranium Disposition program is declining in
the future because the large quantities of surplus HEU have already been disposed of or are in thepipeline, and the future supply of HEU for disposition (from dismantlements and Naval Reactors rejects)
will be at a much lower rate. The HEU disposition program depends on the continuing ability to pay forcommercial down-blending services by transferring title to a portion of the resulting low-enricheduranium to the contractors (barter arrangement).
The PMDA Protocol, once approved by the two governments, calls for the U.S. to make available$400,000,000 to support plutonium disposition in Russia, subject to future appropriations. The balanceof the more than approximately $2,000,000,000 remaining cost of Russia's plutonium disposition would
be borne by Russia and, if available, non-U.S. government contributions. Additional funds separate
from the $400,000,000 would also be required to continue U.S. cost sharing of GT-MHR research anddevelopment in Russia, U.S. management and oversight of the overall Russian plutonium disposition
program and to implement a bilateral monitoring and inspection regime. The request for FY 2011
includes the first $100,000,000 of the $400,000,000 pledge.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition

Page 396

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010

FY 2009
U.S. Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition(O&M)


U.S. Plutonium Disposition

FY 2011

40,774

126,662304,925090,896

198,940•

MOX Irradiation, Feedstock, andTransportation
026,454
107,787
Funding supports programmatic activities that are not part of the line item construction projects but arenecessary to support the overall program to dispose of surplus weapon-grade plutonium as MOX fuel.
These activities include: MOX fuel qualification and irradiation, obtaining plutonium and depleted
uranium oxide feedstock, storage of feed materials, and transportation.
Irradiation—Funding supports qualification, licensing and irradiation of MOX fuel in existing nuclear
reactors. In FY 2011, funding will support the pursuit of license amendments and modifications forcommercial nuclear reactors to irradiate MOX fuel and the continuation of Post Irradiation
Examinations (PIE) of irradiated MOX fuel lead test assemblies.
Feedstock—Funding supports activities necessary to characterize and convert plutonium and depleted
uranium into chemical forms that can be used to fabricate MOX fuel. In FY 2011, Los Alamos National
Laboratory (LANL) will continue to disassemble limited quantities of nuclear weapon pits and convert
the resulting plutonium metal into an oxide form using the Advanced Recovery and Integrated
Extraction System (ARIES) process as part of the campaign to produce 2 MT of feedstock to be usedduring start-up and initial operation of the MFFF. Activities associated with the conversion of DOEowned depleted uranium hexafluoride to uranium dioxide for MOX fuel fabrication will increase in
FY 2011. Activities to further characterize non-pit feed materials for MFFF will also continue.
Storage—Funding supports safe storage of surplus weapon-grade plutonium, both pits and oxide,
including surveillance and monitoring activities. FY 2011 activities include continuing to store surplus
plutonium at Pantex and LANL; continuing to package surplus pits for shipment from Pantex to LANL
for ARIES conversion activities.
Transportation—Funding supports the development, certification and maintenance of containers andfuel loading equipment to transport pits, plutonium oxide and fresh MOX fuel necessary for plutonium
disposition. In FY 2011, work will continue to develop a MOX fresh fuel shipping container and a newcontainer for transporting MOX fuel for boiler water reactors. New containers will also be procured andfabricated to transport pits from Pantex to SRS/LANL. Containers will also be procured to support
oxide packaging and shipping. Packaging and loading equipment development will continue during
FY 2011.
FY 2009 funding of $16,900,000 was provided within Other Defense Activities (ODA) appropriation.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition

Page 397

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010

FY 2009•

MOX Other Project Cost
Activities (OPC)

056,466

FY 201130,000MOX OPC Activities support project activities such as management oversight, design reviews,
facility start-up testing and licensing. FY 2011 activities include continuing management
oversight and licensing activities as well as planning for start-up and operation of the MFFF.
OPC will also fund the design and testing support of the aqueous polishing process contained
within the MOX project, environmental permitting, and the monitoring and support for the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review of the possession and use license application for
the MFFF.
Funding of $47,068,000 was provided in FY 2008 within the Nuclear Energy appropriation andthese uncosted balances were used to support the work scope in FY 2009.
•

MOX Operating Expenses(OPEX)

0

976

865

MOX Operating Expenses support activities associated with hot start-up testing and operationsof the MFFF. FY 2011 activities include planning and support for hot start-up testing andoperations of the MFFF.
In FY 2009, $2,300,000 was provided within ODA for this purpose.
•

Waste Solidification Building(WSB) (OPC)

0

7,000

21,500WSB OPC funding supports planning for facility operations (development of operatingprocedures and training program), program development activities (start-up testing, spare parts,
emergency preparedness), waste management planning (development of waste complianceplans), interface management, and use of the Smart Plant foundation database (a software
relationship management tool that provides the capability to transition engineering/project
documents from design/construction/testing to eventual operations while maintaining
requirements and configuration control).
In FY 2009, funding of $7,000,000 was provided within the Weapons Activities appropriation,
Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) program.
•

Pit Disassembly and Conversion
Facility (PDCF) (OPC)00112,999

PDCF OPC funding supports Critical Decision package development and activities needed tosupport project management, project risk management, design authority, design oversight andreviews, planning for facility operations (development of operating procedures and training
program), program development activities (start-up testing, planning spare parts, and emergency
preparedness), waste management planning (development of waste compliance plans), interface
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition

Page 398

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
management, and use of the Smart Plant foundation database. LANL will continue
Demonstration and Testing (D&T) preparations for hot testing of the hydride/dehydride furnace.
In FY 2009, funding of $13,472,000 was provided within the Weapons Activities appropriation,
DSW program, and in FY 2010, funding of $58,800,000 was provided within Weapons
Activities appropriation, RTBF for PDCF.
•

Plutonium Disposition Program
Integration

0

0

5,789

This funding supports the integration of the MOX, WSB and pit disassembly activities to ensurethat the surplus weapon-grade plutonium disposition program is successful and implemented in amanner that supports the program's objectives. This includes the development of an integrated
program plan and schedule and a programmatic risk analyses to assess and manage risk anduncertainty within the program. Funds also support development and maintenance ofinfrastructure activities that are required to support the three interrelated projects.
Previously funded under Supporting Activities.


U.S. Uranium Disposition

39,274

34,691

25,985This funding supports the disposition of U.S. HEU that has been declared surplus, primarily by
down-blending it to LEU. Four separate disposition activities are on-going, and additional
projects are being planned as HEU becomes available from anticipated weapon dismantlements.
FY 2011 activities include:•

TVA HEU Down-blending Project: Continue down-blending of 5.6 MT of off-spec material
at SRS. Derived LEU will be transferred to Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) under the
DOE-TVA Interagency Agreement.

• Research Reactor Fuel Project: Continue down-blending HEU to LEU for use as fuel forforeign research reactors as part of the Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors
program.
• 12 MT HEU Project: Complete HEU shipments to Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) by the end of
2011. The resulting LEU will create an inventory for potential backup use by utilities
participating in the MOX plutonium disposition program.
• Planning for Additional Projects: Prepare plans to process, characterize and package
additional surplus HEU for down-blending and ultimate disposition. The material is locatedat various sites in the DOE complex, including Y-12, SRS, LANL, Idaho National
Laboratory, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition

Page 399

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010

FY 2009
 Supporting Activities•

Monitoring and Inspection

FY 2011

1,500

1,075

0

1,000

675

0

This subprogram was realigned and is funded under the Russian Surplus Fissile Materials
Disposition Program beginning in FY 2011.
The U.S.-Russia PMDA agreement requires that the parties implement a bilateral monitoringand inspection (M&I) regime that will provide confidence that each party is disposing of
34 MT of surplus weapon-grade plutonium.
•

Plutonium Disposition Program
Integration

500

400

0

This subprogram was realigned and is funded under U.S. Plutonium Disposition beginning in
FY 2011.
Construction•

99-D-141-01, Pit Disassembly andConversion (PDC)

0574,238

612,7880080,000A Pit Disassembly and Conversion (PDC) capability is needed to disassemble surplus nuclear
weapon pits and convert the resulting weapon-grade plutonium metal to an oxide form that canbe fabricated into MOX fuel. Approximately 75 percent of surplus plutonium to bedispositioned is in sealed pit form and must be disassembled and converted to an oxide form
useable for MOX fuel. NNSA conducted an alternative analysis to identify potential cost-saving
alternatives for the PDC mission. An Independent Review Team agreed with the alternative
analysis report and recommended that the PDCF project scope and operations be combined with
the Office of Environmental Management’s (EM) Plutonium Preparation (PuP) project and belocated in the K-Area Reactor Building at the SRS. On November 22, 2009, the Department
approved exploring the combination of NNSA’s PDCF and EM’s PuP projects into a single
project to be located in K-Area Reactor Facility at the SRS and managed by the NNSA. As aresult the project team was authorized to develop a conceptual design report, including NEPA
and other documentation to support Critical Decision (CD) -1 (Approve Alternative Selection
and Cost Range), in accordance with DOE Order 413.3A. A detailed project integration plan iscurrently under development. An updated funding profile and detailed work scope will be
provided as it becomes available.
In FY 2009 and FY 2010, PDCF funding of $24,900,000 and $30,300,000 was provided within
the Weapons Activities appropriation, DSW and RTBF programs respectively.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition

Page 400

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010

FY 2009•

99-D-141-02 Waste Solidification
Building (WSB)

070,000FY 201157,000

The WSB will receive liquid waste streams from the MOX facility and the PDC operations. The
waste will be chemically treated and solidified for ultimate disposal. The WSB is a reinforced
concrete facility that will contain storage tanks, evaporators, and cementation equipment, andwill include an adjacent storage area for drums awaiting transfer to SRS packaging facilities.
Construction of the WSB began in FY 2009.
In FY 2011, planned activities include testing/site acceptance of the cementation equipment,
continuing installation of “trapped” equipment, completion of the final roof concrete placement,
and installation of mechanical and electrical process systems.
In FY 2009, funding of $40,000,000 was provided within the Weapons Activities appropriation,
DSW Program.
•

99-D-143, MOX Fuel Fabrication
Facility (MFFF)

0504,238

475,788

The MFFF will provide the capability to fabricate plutonium oxide into MOX fuel for
subsequent use in commercial nuclear reactors. The facility will contain the following key areas:
shipping and receiving, storage, chemical processing, pellet manufacturing, fuel rod loading, fuelbundle assembly, fuel bundle storage and an analytical laboratory. Supporting facilities will bebuilt, including an administration building, material receipt warehouse, technical support
building, emergency and diesel standby generator buildings, and a chemical reagent building.
FY 2011 planned activities include completion of the main MFFF process building structure andinstallation of ventilation equipment, process piping and electrical equipment in the main processbuilding. Assembly and testing of gloveboxes and process equipment in the Process Assembly
Facility will continue. The project also intends to continue construction of support buildings(Technical Support Building and Emergency Diesel Building).
In FY 2009, funding of $467,800,000 was provided within Other Defense Activities (ODA)
appropriation.
Russian Surplus Fissile Materials
Disposition


Russian Surplus Fissile Materials
Disposition (funds spent in the
U.S.)

1,000

1,000

113,000

1,000

1,000

8,000

FY 2011 funding will support U.S. technical oversight of work in Russia associated with thedisposition of surplus Russian weapon-grade plutonium in the BN-600 and BN-800 fast reactors
as well as the research and development of the GT-MHR technology. Funding will be used tocontinue with DOE contractual management and oversight of the Russian plutonium disposition
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition

Page 401

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
program and research and development of the GT-MHR. In addition, these funds will support
the implementation of a monitoring and inspection (M&I) regime that will provide confidence
that each party is disposing of 34 MT of surplus weapon-grade plutonium and support
negotiations among the U.S., Russia, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on
M&I issues.
Russian Surplus Fissile Materials
Disposition (funds spent in
Russia)0
0
105,000
This funding represents a portion of the $400,000,000 the U.S. pledged to support Russian
plutonium disposition. Major activities include: modifying the existing BN-600 MOX fuelfabrication facility at the Research Institute for Atomic Reactors (RIAR), fabricating andinstalling non-plutonium breeding assemblies in the BN-600 to replace the plutonium breedingblanket assemblies, modifying the BN-600 reactor so it can be used to irradiate MOX fuel,modifying facilities to fabricate MOX fuel for the BN-800, and implementing a monitoring andinspection (M&I) regime at Russian disposition facilities to provide confidence that Russia is
disposing of 34 MT of surplus weapon-grade plutonium.
The additional $5,000,000 will support the research and development (R&D) of the GT-MHR in
Russia as required under the PMDA. Major activities include fabrication and testing of particle
nuclear fuels and testing of vertical turbo machine components. The funds used for the GTMHR do not count against the $400,000,000 U.S. contribution.

Total, Russian Surplus Fissile Materials
Disposition
Total, Fissile Materials Disposition

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition

1,000
41,774

Page 402

1,000
701,900

113,000
1,030,713

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
U.S. Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition
U.S. Plutonium Disposition: The increase supports the work scope associatedwith depleted uranium conversion and licensing, and modifications of reactors
to use MOX fuel. In addition, it includes the PDCF OPC and related
supporting activities transferred from Weapons Activities.

+ 188,044

U.S. Uranium Disposition: The decrease reflects the reduced availability ofsurplus HEU for disposition.

- 8,706

Supporting Activities: The decrease reflects the realignment of work
scope and funds to the Russian Program for M&I activities and the U.S.
Plutonium Disposition Program for Plutonium Disposition Program
Integration.

Total, U.S. Fissile Materials Disposition O&M-1,075+178,263

U.S. Fissile Materials Disposition Construction
99-D-141-02 Waste Solidification Building (WSB): The decreasereflects the completion of initial large outlays needed by the Balance ofPlant sub-contractor and a decline in long-lead procurements.

-13,000

99-D-141-01 Pit Disassembly and Conversion (PDC): The increase
supports the continuation of the design work scope and preparing the
documentation for CD-1 (Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range).

+ 80,000

99-D-143 Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility:
The decrease reflects the completion of many long-lead equipment
procurements and facility design activities.

- 28,450

Total, U.S. Fissile Materials Disposition Construction

38,550Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition


U.S. Support for Russian Plutonium Disposition (funds spent in theU.S.): The increase supports the continuation of DOE management andoversight of the Russian plutonium disposition program, implementationof a M&I regime at U.S. disposition facilities and the continuation ofoversight of the GT-MHR research and development program.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition

Page 403+7,000FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)


U.S. Support for Russian Plutonium Disposition (funds spent in
Russia): The increase supports a portion ($100,000,000) of the$400,000,000 the U.S. pledged to support the Russian plutonium
disposition and supports the R&D of the GT-MHR in Russia as required
under the PMDA.

+105,000

Total, Russian Fissile Materials Disposition+112,000

Total Funding Change, Fissile Materials Disposition+ 328,813

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition

Page 404

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Capital Operating Expenses and Construction Summary
Capital Operating Expensesa(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
0
0
0
0
0
0

General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

0

0

0

Outyear Capital Operating Expenses(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

0

0

0

0

a

Funds are appropriated for Operations and Maintenance, which includes operating expenses, capital equipment and generalplant projects, and are no longer budgeted separately for capital equipment and general plant projects. FY 2010 and FY 2011
funding reflects estimates based on actual FY 2009 obligations.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

Page 405

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetConstruction Projects(dollars in thousands)

99-D-141-01, Pit Disassembly andConversion (PDC)
99-D-141-02, Waste Solidification Building(WSB)
99-D-143, MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility
Total, Construction

Total
Estimated
Cost
(TEC)

Prior Year
Appropriations

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

TBD

247,275 a

24,893 c

30,321 e

80,000

TBD

244,33159,749 a
3,975,828 1,315,060 b
1,622,084

40,000 c
467,808 d
532,701

70,000504,238 f
604,559

57,000475,788612,788

17,582
1,212,934

UnappropriatedBalance

Outyear Construction Projects
FY 2012
158,000
12,927385,172

99-D-141-01, Pit Disassembly and Conversion (PDC)
99-D-141-02, Waste Solidification Building (WSB)
99-D-143, MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility
Total, Construction

556,099(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014200,000
200,000
4,655
0322,802109,661
527,457

309,661

FY 2015
157,000
0125,773282,773___________________a

In FY 2008, Waste Solidification Building (WSB) ($33,600,000) and the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF)($22,447,0000) were appropriated under the Weapons Activities appropriation under the Directed Stockpile Work.

b
In FY 2008, the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility (O&M) ($47,068,0000) and Construction ($231,721,000)
were appropriated under the Nuclear Energy appropriation.

c

In FY 2009, WSB and PDCF funding were appropriated under the Weapons Activities appropriation under the Directed
Stockpile Work.

d

In FY 2009, MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility funding was appropriated in Other Defense Activities.

e
In FY 2010, PDCF funding was requested under the Weapons Activities appropriation under the Readiness in TechnicalBase and Facilities Program.

f

In FY 2010, MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility was requested under the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/FMD.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

Page 406

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

99-D-143, Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility,
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina
Project Data Sheet is for Construction
1. Significant Changes
The most recent Department of Energy (DOE) Order 413.3A approved Critical Decision (CD) is CD-3,
Start of Construction, and was approved on April 11, 2007, with a Total Project Cost (TPC) of$4,814,329,000 and CD-4 of FY 2017. However, as directed by the Revised Continuing Resolution,
2007, Public Law 110-5, construction began on August 1, 2007. The latest approved baseline change
was on December 17, 2008, with a TPC of $4,857,129,000 and CD-4 of FY 2017.
A Federal Project Director certified at the appropriate level has been assigned to this project.
The sale of Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel to nuclear utilities, (based on July 2009 market prices) could
generate approximately $1.1 billion in revenue to the U.S. Treasury from this 34 metric ton (MT)disposition program.
This Project Data Sheet (PDS) is an update of the FY 2010 PDS. Significant changes include:
MOX engineering costs have increased (less than 5 percent) due to several factors including: theproject’s decision to procure additional process equipment and gloveboxes as “build to print” verses“design-build” contracts, thereby reducing schedule and technical risks; additional costs to placeengineering personnel in vendor shops to ensure the required quality for purchased equipment; andunanticipated increases in personnel rates.
The reduction in contingency (29 percent) is primarily due to construction, process unit, and glovebox
bids being significantly greater than government estimates. Major contributors to the higher bids
included: a limited number of qualified suppliers; real and perceived risks for bidders resulting inincreased margins in bids; anticipated and real uncertainties in material costs; expected difficulties inmeeting National Quality Assurance (NQA)-1 quality standards; and availability of qualified personnel
to perform work. Overall, project application of contingency and management reserve continues to bewithin acceptable limits for projects of this size and at this stage of the project.
2. Design, Construction, and D&D Schedule(fiscal quarter or date)
CD-0
CD-1
FY 2000
N/A 2QFY1999
FY 2001
N/A 2QFY1999
FY 2002
N/A 2QFY1999
FY 2003
N/A 2QFY1999
FY 2004
N/A 2QFY1999
FY 2005
N/A 2QFY1999
FY 2006
N/A 2QFY1999
FY 2007
N/A 2QFY1999
FY 2008
1QFY1997 2QFY1999
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-143, Mixed Oxide (MOX)
Fuel Fabrication Facility

PED
Complete
4QFY2001
3QFY2002
4QFY2002
4QFY2003
1QFY2004
3QFY2004
1QFY2005
4QFY2009
2QFY2011

CD-2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2QFY2007

Page 407

CD-3
1QFY2002
4QFY2002
2QFY2003
2QFY2004
2QFY2004
3QFY2005
3QFY2005
2QFY20072QFY2007

CD-4
4QFY2005
1QFY2006
1QFY2007
4QFY2007
4QFY20072QFY2009
TBD
4QFY2014
4QFY2013

D&D Start
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

D&D
Complete
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

(fiscal quarter or date)

FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011CD-0
1QFY1997
1QFY1997
1QFY1997

CD-1
03/22/1999
03/22/1999
03/22/1999

PED
Complete
2QFY2013a
2QFY2013
2QFY2013

CD-2
04/11/2007
04/11/2007
04/11/2007

CD-3
08/01/2007b
08/01/2007
08/01/2007

CD-4
4QFY2016
1QFY2017
1QFY2017

D&D Start
N/A
N/A
N/A

D&D
Complete
N/A
N/A
N/A

CD-0 – Approve Mission Need
CD-1 – Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range
CD-2 – Approve Performance Baseline
CD-3 – Approve Start of Construction
CD-4 – Approve Start of Operations or Project Closeout
D&D Start – Start of Demolition & Decontamination (D&D) work
D&D Complete – Completion of D&D work

FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009

NRC
Construction
Authorization
N/A
03/30/2005
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

(fiscal quarter or date)
Performance
Baseline
Validation
CD 2A/3A
N/A
N/A
09/30/2005
N/A
N/A
07/07/2006
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

CD 2B/3B
N/A
N/A
N/A
04/06/2006
N/A
N/A

CD 2A/3A - Approval to start Site Preparation
CD 2B/3B - Approval to begin long lead procurements (“trapped” tanks, steel embeds, reinforcing steel,barrier doors)aFacility and process design will be completed in FY 2010, the equipment design will be completed in FY 2011 and thesoftware design will be completed in FY 2013.
b

The Department approved CD-3 (Start of Construction) on April 11, 2007, however, as directed by the Revised Continuing
Resolution, 2007, Public Law 110-5, construction began on August 1, 2007.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-143, Mixed Oxide (MOX)
Fuel Fabrication Facility

Page 408

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

3. Baseline and Validation Status

FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011

TEC,
PED
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
960,925(dollars in thousands)
TEC,
OPC
Construction TEC, Total Except D&D
TBD
383,1860
TBD
398,186
0
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
3,277,984
354,108
TBD
3,868,628
830,701
TBD
3,938,628
875,701
TBD
3,975,828
881,301
3,014,903
3,975,828
881,301

OPC,
D&D
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

OPC, Total
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
354,108
830,701
875,701
881,301
881,301

TPC
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3,632,092
4,699,329
4,814,329
4,857,129
4,857,129

4. Project Description, Justification, and Scope
Description and Scope
The U.S. MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) at the Savannah River Site will combine surplus
weapon-grade plutonium oxide with depleted uranium oxide to form MOX fuel assemblies that will be
used as fuel for U.S. commercial nuclear reactors. Once irradiated and converted into spent fuel, theresulting plutonium can no longer be readily used for nuclear weapons. The nominal design life of the
facility is 40 years; however, it will take approximately 13 years to complete the 34 MT mission withadditional surplus plutonium disposition planned. After completing its mission, the facility can bedeactivated, decontaminated, and decommissioned in approximately three to four years.
The MOX facility has been designed with the capacity needed to receive and process 3.5 MT of
plutonium oxide per year. The plutonium oxide will come from pit disassembly and conversion
operations and from other selected inventories of weapon-grade plutonium within the DOE complex.
The facility will have the capacity to store sufficient plutonium oxide for two years of operations.
The MOX facility will be approximately 441,000 square feet in size and provide all of the material
processing and fabrication operations needed to produce MOX fuel. The MOX facility operations
include: aqueous polishing (AP) to purify the plutonium oxide; blending and milling; pelletizing;
sintering; grinding; loading fuel rods; bundling fuel assemblies; and storing feed material, pellets, andfuel assemblies. The facility also includes a laboratory and space for material sampling and use by amonitoring and inspection team. Adjacent to the MOX process areas is the secure shipping andreceiving area to support material receipt, utilities, and technical support.
The design of the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) is based on technologies, processes andfacilities that have been successfully operating in France for decades, specifically AREVA’s MELOX
and La Hague facilities. The facility will meet U.S. conventions, codes, standards, and regulatory
requirements, and will be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-143, Mixed Oxide (MOX)
Fuel Fabrication Facility

Page 409

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

The MFFF has the following Key Performance Parameters: (1) process and dispose of 3.5 MT of
weapon-grade plutonium annually by producing mixed-oxide fuel qualified for use in U.S. commercial
nuclear power plants; and (2) provide the capability to successfully process alternate (non-pit) feedstock.
FY 2010 and FY 2011 Description of Activities
In FY 2010, the facility and process design will be completed. Construction will continue with the third
floor slab and walls being completed in Aqueous Polishing (AP), and the second floor slab being
completed in the MOX processing area and trapped equipment will continue to be installed as the mainprocessing facility construction progresses. Process piping installation will begin, and the TechnicalSupport Building design and construction will begin. Electrical conduit and raceway installation will
begin, along with initiation of the Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systeminstallation and fire protection system installation. Construction of the Reagent Building and theEmergency Diesel Generator Building will begin.
In FY 2011, the MFFF structural construction package will be completed, including completion of the
primary exterior wall and MFFF roof. HVAC, Reagent Building, Emergency Diesel Generator
Building, and Technical Support Building construction will continue. Process piping installation willcontinue, and glovebox installation/connections, and electrical installation will begin.
The project is being conducted in accordance with the project management requirements in
DOE O 413.3A, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, and all
appropriate project management requirements have been met.
5. Financial Schedule
Appropriations(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

Total Estimated Cost (TEC)
DesignFY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
Total, Design

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-143, Mixed Oxide (MOX)
Fuel Fabrication Facility

28,00012,37525,94365,99392,08881,081
251,195
119,853
65,13356,04572,50955,93733,0361,582
155960,925

Page 410

9,600
30,77525,94365,99392,08881,081
251,195
119,853
65,13356,04572,50955,93733,0361,582
155960,925

2,545
33,51229,93852,51382,02293,457
216,801
165,618
62,342
58,95868,39559,587
32,9512,081
205
960,925

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Appropriations
Construction
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2008 (rescinded PY
unobligated balance)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Total, ConstructionTEC
FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2008 (rescinded PY
unobligated balance)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Total, TEC
Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&D
FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-143, Mixed Oxide (MOX)
Fuel Fabrication Facility(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

279,193
113,892
97,947
197,367
175,676

044,100217,469
197,367
290,1390015,210115,065
209,174-115,000
395,299
448,301
442,752
383,590322,647
109,661
125,773
37,80503,014,903

0395,299
448,301
442,752
383,590322,647
109,661
125,773
37,80503,014,903

0300,155
390,969
459,817600,710491,676
238,858
128,207
65,0620
3,014,903

28,00012,37525,94365,99392,088360,274
365,087
217,800
262,500
231,7219,600
30,77525,94365,99392,08881,081
295,295
337,322
262,500
346,184

2,545
33,51229,93852,51382,02293,457
216,801
180,828
177,407
268,132-115,000
467,808504,238
475,788385,172
322,802109,661
125,773
37,8050
3,975,828

0467,808504,238
475,788385,172
322,802109,661
125,773
37,8050
3,975,828

0
368,550
450,556
492,768
602,791
491,881
238,858
128,207
65,0620
3,975,828

5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
8,000
9,292

5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
8,000
9,292

4,500
4,500
5,000
5,000
5,000
11,500Page 411

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Total, OPC except D&D
D&D
FY
Total, D&D
Total Project Cost (TPC)FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2008 (rescinded PY
unobligated balance)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Total, TPC

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-143, Mixed Oxide (MOX)
Fuel Fabrication Facility

Appropriations
9,357
28,200915
47,068056,46630,00097,035
246,669
230,697
91,6035,999
0881,301(dollars in thousands)
Obligations
9,357
21,3007,792
47,068056,46630,00097,035
246,669
230,697
91,6036,022
0881,301

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

33,00017,37530,94370,993100,088369,566
374,444
246,000
263,415
278,789

14,60035,77530,94370,993100,088
90,373
304,652
358,622270,292
393,252

7,045
38,012
34,93857,51387,022
104,957
220,550
187,851
186,685
283,878-115,000
467,808
560,704
505,788482,207569,471
340,358
217,376
43,8040
4,857,129

0467,808
560,704
505,788482,207569,471
340,358
217,376
43,82704,857,129

0392,199
469,575
583,006
697,762
698,142
415,868
264,624
127,50204,857,129

Page 412

Costs
3,749
7,023
9,278
15,746
23,64919,01990,23894,971
206,261
177,010
136,41762,4400881,301

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

6. Details of Project Cost Estimate(dollars in thousands)
Current Previous Original
Total
Total Validated
Estimate Estimate Baseline
Total Estimated Cost (TEC)
Design (PED)
DesignContingency
Total, PED

960,9250960,925

916,1480916,148916,1480916,148

Construction
Site Preparation
Equipment (MOX & AP equip.)
Other Construction
Contingency
Total, Construction

39,95739,03839,929344,590 200,415 251,791
2,197,139 2,153,444 2,067,639
433,217 666,783 663,121
3,014,903 3,059,680 3,022,480

Total, TEC
Contingency, TEC

3,975,828 3,975,828 3,938,628
433,217 666,783 663,121

Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&D
Conceptual Planning
Conceptual Design
Start-UpContingency
Total, OPC except D&D
D&D
D&D
Contingency
Total, D&D
Total, OPC
Contingency, OPC
Total, TPC
Total, Contingency

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-143, Mixed Oxide (MOX)
Fuel Fabrication Facility

37,7230672,903
170,675
881,301

37,723
0662,328
181,250
881,301

37,7230650,468
187,510875,701

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

881,301
170,675

881,301
181,250

875,701
187,510

4,857,129 4,857,129 4,814,329
603,892 848,033 850,631

Page 413

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

7. Schedule of Total Project Costs

FY 2009
TEC
Performance OPC
Baseline
TPC
TEC
FY 2010OPC
TPC
TEC
FY 2011
OPC
TPC(dollars in thousands)
Prior Years FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
Outyears
1,964,589
395,674
308,722
301,938
382,802
158,325
125,611
300,967
173,832
55,00087,036180,269
136,669
149,192
85,771
7,932
2,138,421
450,674
395,758
482,207519,471
307,517
211,382
308,899
2,014,589
504,238
475,788385,172
322,802109,661
125,773
37,805
122,832
56,46630,00097,035
246,669
230,697
91,603
5,999
2,137,421
560,704
505,788482,207569,471
340,358
217,376
43,8042,014,589
504,238
475,788385,172
322,802109,661
125,773
37,805
122,832
56,46630,00097,035
246,669
230,697
91,603
5,999
2,137,421
560,704
505,788482,207569,471
340,358
217,376
43,804

Total
3,938,628
875,701
4,814,329
3,975,828
881,301
4,857,129
3,975,828
881,301
4,857,129

8. Related Operations and Maintenance Funding Requirements
Start of Operation or Beneficial Occupancy (fiscal quarter or date)
Expected Useful Life (number of years) (after hot startup)a
Expected Future Start of D&D of this capital asset (fiscal quarter)

1QFY2017
13
N/A(Related Funding requirements)

Operations
Security
Total, Operations & Security b(dollars in thousands)
Ave. Annual Costs
Life Cycle Costs
Current Previous Current Previous
Total
Total
Total
Total
Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
314,600 142,900 4,089,800 1,857,100
99,10041,500 1,288,300 539,500
413,700 184,400 5,378,100 2,396,600

9. Required D&D Information
Area
Area of new construction
Area of existing facility(s) being replaced
Area of additional D&D space to meet the “one-for-one” requirement

Square Feet
441,000
N/A
N/A

Name(s) and site location(s) of existing facility(s) to be replaced:
The new construction is not replacing an existing facility.
a

The nominal design life of the facility is 40 years, however, it will take approximately 13 years to complete the 34 MT
mission.

b

Previous life cycle costs were estimated in 2005 dollars. The current estimates are expressed in 2010 dollars and should beconsidered preliminary. The Government is negotiating Option II of the MFFF contract to add start-up and initial operationof the facility to the current contract scope in order to reduce the government's risk that the facility will be unable to produce
specification MOX fuel. NNSA is also negotiating security and other overhead costs with Environmental Management --theSRS Landlord. When the process is completed the project life cycle costs will be updated.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-143, Mixed Oxide (MOX)
Fuel Fabrication Facility

Page 414

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

10. Acquisition Approach
The procurement strategy for the MOX facility involved awarding a base contract to Duke Cogema
Stone & Webster (now Shaw AREVA MOX Services) in March 1999 for design, licensing andirradiation services associated with fuel qualification activities and reactor licensing. Three options
were included in the base contract, for (1) construction and management oversight; (2) hot start-up,
operations and irradiation services; and (3) deactivation can be awarded separately. Option 1 was
exercised by DOE in May 2008. In January 2009, an Early Option 2 proposal was submitted to NNSA
for consideration. The proposed work scope included the fabrication of eight (8) fuel assemblies as apart of the facility hot start-up plan. Negotiations on Early Option 2 are currently in process.
Actual physical construction is being conducted through fixed-price subcontracts to the extent practical,
with incentive and award fee contracts for construction management services and glovebox assembly.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-143, Mixed Oxide (MOX)
Fuel Fabrication Facility

Page 415

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 416

99-D-141-02, Waste Solidification Building (WSB)
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina
Project Data Sheet is for Construction
1. Significant Changes
The most recent Department of Energy (DOE) Order 413.3A approved Critical Decision (CD) is CD-3,
Start of Construction, and was approved on December 10, 2008 with a Total Project Cost (TPC) of$344,455,000 and CD-4 of FY 2013.
A Federal Project Director (FPD), certified at the appropriate level has been assigned to this project.
This Project Data Sheet (PDS) is an update of the FY 2010 PDS. Significant changes include:
The first phase of construction for site preparation was completed in FY 2009. The scope of this work
included: excavation; installation of waste transfer lines; installation of the process sewer, sanitary
sewer, and storm sewer systems; installation of electrical and telecommunications duct banks; andconstruction of the facility mud mat and roadways.
The Balance of Plant (BOP) sub-contract for the second phase of construction was awarded in July 2009
for the amount of $91,500,000. Work scope for this contract includes facility construction, system
testing and turnover. Construction is scheduled to be complete in 2012.
Approximately $30,000,000 of construction funds were used in FY 2009 to support long-lead equipment
procurements, early site construction and mobilization of the facility construction sub-contractor. Long
lead equipment includes evaporators, tanks, cementation process equipment and glove boxes. Thisequipment requires significant lead time to fabricate and must be available for installation early in theconstruction process (i.e. before steel roof supports are put in place).


The most significant project risk involves the reduction in contingency funds due to the receipt offinal bids for facility construction, greatly exceeding government estimates. Major contributors to
the higher bids include difficulty of contractors to meet National Quality Assurance (NQA)-1
standards requiring additional Quality Assurance oversight and an anticipated lack of craft labor
requiring additional relocation costs. Although some of the amounts were offset by under-runs inother areas, approximately $20,000,000 of available contingency was required (about one third of
the total contingency). The early use of such a significant portion of contingency will affect theflexibility of the project team to address unforeseen changes for the duration of the project.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-141-02, Waste Solidification Building

Page 417

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

2. Design, Construction, and D&D Schedule(fiscal quarter or date)

FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011

CD-0a

CD-1b

PED
Complete

10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997

10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
3QFY2008
3QFY2008
05/09/2008
05/09/2008

D&D
D&D
Start Complete

CD-2

CD-3

CD-4

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
4QFY2008
4QFY2008
12/10/2008
12/10/2008

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
1QFY2009
4QFY2008
12/10/2008
12/10/2008

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
1QFY2013
4QFY2013
4QFY2013

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

CD-0 – Approve Mission Need
CD-1 – Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range
CD-2 – Approve Performance Baseline
CD-3 – Approve Start of Construction
CD-4 – Approve Start of Operations or Project Closeout
D&D Start – Start of Demolition & Decontamination (D&D) work
D&D Complete – Completion of D&D work
3. Baseline and Validation Status

FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009

TEC,
PED
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
25,70029,30031,18336,102

TEC,
Construction
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
160,000
171,013
159,367(dollars in thousands)
OPC
TEC, Total
Except D&D
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
189,300
36,708202,196
42,908
195,469
82,718

OPC,
D&D
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

OPC, Total
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
36,70842,90882,718

TPC
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
25,700226,008
245,104
278,187aApproval of mission need for waste treatment activities was originally obtained in 1997 as part of the scope of the Pit
Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF) project and was reinforced in the Record of Decision (ROD).
b

Preliminary design activities for the Waste Solidification Building (WSB) were initiated in February 2003, but suspended in
2004 due to uncertainties in the schedule of the overall plutonium disposition program and the counterpart Russian
disposition program. These issues have been resolved and design activities were resumed in October 2006.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-141-02, Waste Solidification Building

Page 418

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2010
FY 2011TEC,
PED
42,54242,652

TEC,
Construction
201,789
201,679(dollars in thousands)
OPC
Except D&D
TEC, Total
244,331
100,124
244,331
100,124

OPC,
D&D
N/A
N/A

OPC, Total
100,124
100,124

TPC
344,455
344,455

4. Project Description, Justification, and Scope
Waste Solidification Building (WSB):
The WSB will process radioactive liquid waste streams from the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility(MFFF) and pit disassembly and conversion operations into a solid form for ultimate disposal. The
MFFF will produce approximately 85 percent of the waste that the WSB will process. The WSB must
be operational to support mixed oxide (MOX) cold start-up testing activities scheduled in the 2013
timeframe. The radioactive liquid waste consists of one high-activity and two low-activity streams. The
high-activity stream contains significant amounts of americium removed from plutonium oxide during
MOX aqueous polishing operations. The low-activity streams contain stripped uranium also removed
from MOX aqueous polishing operations and laboratory waste from pit disassembly and conversion
operations. The WSB operating life is expected to be approximately 15 years; however the facility has adesign life of 30 years and could easily be extended to accommodate disposition of additional surplus
plutonium. After completing its mission, the WSB will be deactivated, decontaminated, anddecommissioned over three to four years.
The scope of this sub-project consists of the following activities: design, construction, procurement,
installation, testing, demonstration, and start-up testing of structures and equipment. The processing
facility will be approximately 33,000 square feet and is designed as a single story structure of hardened
concrete. An additional separate structure consisting of a covered concrete pad will be constructed toprovide temporary storage of containerized waste following treatment prior to packaging for shipment.
The major process equipment includes tanks, evaporators, and solidification equipment.
The WSB has the following Key Performance Parameters: (1) demonstrate the ability to process the
anticipated waste volumes of the high activity waste stream and the two low activity waste streams, and(2) demonstrate the ability to produce waste products that are within the established limits of the Waste
Acceptance Criteria and/or Documented Safety Analysis of the receiving facilities.
FY 2010 and FY 2011 Description of Activities
In FY 2010, planned activities include completion of foundation rebar placement, completion of
fabrication/testing/site acceptance of cementation equipment, procurement of major equipment(including long-lead equipment), installation of "trapped" equipment, and installation of the facility roof.
In FY 2011, planned activities will focus on installation of mechanical and electrical systems inside thefacility and the construction and installation of outside equipment and ancillary structures.
The WSB project is being conducted in accordance with the project management requirements in DOE
O 413.3A, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets and all appropriate
project management requirements have been met.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-141-02, Waste Solidification Building

Page 419

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

5. Financial Schedule

Appropriations(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

Total Estimated Cost (TEC)PED
FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
Total, PED

0
0
0
0
6,195
2,100
0
2,354
15,50016,393110
42,652

0
0
0
0
6,195
2,100
0
2,354
15,50016,393110
42,652

0
0
0
0
4,610
3,114
0
1,003
11,74520,072
2,108
42,652

Construction
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
Total, Construction

00
17,20739,89070,00057,00012,927
4,655
201,6790017,20739,89070,00057,00012,927
4,655
201,67900015,85972,71485,16921,4496,488
201,679

0
0
0
0
6,195
2,100
0
2,354
15,50033,60040,00070,00057,00012,927
4,655
244,331

0
0
0
0
6,195
2,100
0
2,354
15,50033,60040,00070,00057,00012,927
4,655
244,331

0
0
0
0
4,610
3,114
0
1,003
11,74520,072
17,96772,71485,16921,4496,488
244,331TEC
FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
Total, TEC

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-141-02, Waste Solidification Building

Page 420

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Appropriations(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&D
FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
Total, OPC except D&D

0
0
0
0
4,071
0
(50)
1,400
5,060
5,000
7,000
7,000
21,50028,00021,143
100,124

0
0
0
0
4,071
0
(50)
1,400
5,060
5,000
7,000
7,000
21,50028,00021,143
100,124

0
0
0
0
2,650
1,041
208
79
2,145
5,415
4,526
12,574
18,17025,32927,987100,124

D&D
FY
Total, D&D

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

OPC
FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
Total OPC

0
0
0
0
4,071
0
(50)
1,400
5,060
5,000
7,000
7,000
21,50028,00021,143
100,124

0
0
0
0
4,071
0
(50)
1,400
5,060
5,000
7,000
7,000
21,50028,00021,143
100,124

0
0
0
0
2,650
1,041
208
79
2,145
5,415
4,526
12,574
18,17025,32927,987100,124

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-141-02, Waste Solidification Building

Page 421

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Appropriations
Total Project Cost (TPC)FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
Total, TPC

000010,266
2,100
(50)
3,754
20,56038,60047,00077,00078,50040,927
25,798344,455

Costs

0
0
0
0
10,266
2,100
(50)
3,754
20,56038,60047,00077,00078,50040,927
25,798344,455

0
0
0
0
7,260
4,155
208
1,082
13,89025,48722,49385,288103,339
46,77834,475
344,455

6. Details of Project Cost Estimate(dollars in thousands)
Current Previous Original
Total
Total Validated
Estimate Estimate Baseline
Total Estimated Cost (TEC)
Design (PED)
DesignContingency
Total, PED

42,652042,652

41,825717
42,542

N/A
N/A
N/A

Construction
Site Preparation
Equipment
Other Construction
Contingency
Total, Construction

1,300
42,585
135,443
22,351
201,679

1,300
42,585
118,025
39,879201,789

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Total, TEC
Contingency, TEC

244,331
22,351

244,331
40,596

N/A
N/A

2,650
27,44049,50020,534
100,124

2,650
27,27749,50020,697100,124

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&D
Conceptual Planning
Conceptual Design
Start-UpContingency
Total, OPC except D&D

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-141-02, Waste Solidification Building

Page 422

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
Current Previous Original
Total
Total Validated
Estimate Estimate Baseline
D&D
D&D
Contingency
Total, D&D

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

Total, OPC
Contingency, OPC

100,124
20,534

100,124
20,697

N/A
N/A

Total, TPC
Total, Contingency

344,455
42,885

344,455
61,293

N/A
N/A

7. Schedule of Total Project Costs

TEC
FY 2008
OPC
TPC
FY 2009
TEC
Performance OPC
TPC
Baseline
TEC
FY 2010OPC
TPC
TEC
FY 2011
OPC
TPC(dollars in thousands)
Prior Years FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Outyears
0
16,224
8,284
12,2006,200
16,224
8,284
12,200
6,200
0
0
0
0
99,74954,00038,1003,620
20,481
5,400
14,731
31,647
10,459120,230
59,40052,83135,267
10,45900099,74970,00057,00012,927
4,655
22,481
7,000
21,50028,00021,143
122,230
77,00078,50040,927
25,79800099,74970,00057,00012,927
4,655
22,481
7,000
21,50028,00021,143
122,230
77,00078,50040,927
25,798
0
0
0

Total
0
42,90842,908
195,469
82,718278,187244,331
100,124
344,455
244,331
100,124
344,455

8. Related Operations and Maintenance Funding Requirements
99-D-141-02 – Waste Solidification Building
Start of Operation or Beneficial Occupancy (fiscal quarter or date)
Expected Useful Life (number of years)a
Expected Future Start of D&D of this capital asset (fiscal quarter)

4QFY2013
15
4QFY2028

a

The WSB operating life is expected to be approximately 15 years; however the facility has a design life of 30 years andcould easily be extended to accommodate disposition of additional surplus plutonium.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-141-02, Waste Solidification Building

Page 423

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

(Related Funding requirements)
99-D-141-02 – Waste Solidification Building(dollars in thousands)
Annual Costs
Life Cycle Costs
Current Previous Current Previous
Total
Total
Total
Total
Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
Operations
MaintenanceTotal, Operations & Maintenance

47,911
3,278
51,18947,911
3,278
51,189718,663
49,170767,833

718,663
49,170767,833

9. Required D&D Information
Area
Area of new construction
Area of existing facility(s) being replaced
Area of additional D&D space to meet the “one-for-one” requirement

Square Feet
33,000
N/A
N/A

Name(s) and site location(s) of existing facility(s) to be replaced:
The new construction is not replacing an existing facility.
10. Acquisition Approach99-D-141-02 – Waste Solidification Building
The WSB design service was procured through the Savannah River Site Management and Operating(M&O) contract. Purchase orders for procurement of long-lead equipment for the WSB were issued in
FY 2009. The Savannah River Site M&O will serve as the construction manager. Fixed-priceconstruction sub-contracts for the WSB were awarded on the basis of competitive bidding. The
acquisition strategy has been finalized.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-141-02, Waste Solidification Building

Page 424

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

99-D-141-01, Pit Disassembly and Conversion (PDC)
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina
Project Data Sheet (PDS) is for Construction
1. Significant Changes
The most recent Department of Energy (DOE) approved Critical Decision (CD) for the Pit Disassembly
and Conversion Facility (PDCF) Line Item is CD-0/1, Approve Mission Need and Alternative Selection
and Cost Range, which was approved on October 31, 1997. At that time, the project completion date
was estimated to be 4Q FY 2004. The preliminary cost range to design, construct and start-up thefacility is $2,400,000,000 - $3,200,000,000. These estimates will be adjusted when the project baseline
is established. The PDCF design is approximately 65 percent complete.
A Federal Project Director, certified at the appropriate level has been assigned to this project.
This Project Data Sheet (PDS) is an update of the FY 2010 PDS. Significant changes include:
The Department is requesting funds for the PDCF in Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Fissile
Materials Disposition (instead of Weapons Activities Appropriation) with the goal of aligning
management and funding responsibilities for all of the interrelated surplus plutonium disposition
activities under a single appropriation.
Previously, the Department of Energy (DOE) approved two major capital construction projects – the Pit
Disassembly and Conversion Facility project (PDCF) and the Plutonium Preparation Project (PuP) – atSavannah River Site (SRS) involving separate plutonium processing capabilities in support of efforts todispose of surplus, weapon-usable plutonium. The PDCF, which NNSA previously decided to constructat SRS, would disassemble nuclear weapon pits, convert the plutonium metal into an oxide form, andtemporarily store the material for fabrication into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel at the MOX Fuel Fabrication
Facility (currently under construction at SRS). Similarly, the PuP, a planned EM capability (in theconceptual design phase) in the K-Area at SRS, would include storage, oxidization, stabilization andpackaging of non-pit plutonium metal and oxides. Those materials were previously included in the
NNSA mission, prior to cancellation of the NNSA program to immobilize certain weapon-usable fissile
materials. Following processing in the PuP, the non-pit metal and oxides suitable for fabrication into
MOX fuel would be processed at the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility.
A 2008 feasibility study of alternatives for siting the pit disassembly and conversion mission at SRS
identified an opportunity to reduce costs and/or schedule by combining the PuP and PDCF capabilities
into one project within the K-Area. A subsequent joint EM/NNSA evaluation recommended thatcombining the two projects would have the following Departmental benefits: 1) avoids the expenditureof resources associated with design, construction, operation, and decontamination and demolition of anadditional Hazard Category 2, Secure Category 1 facility; 2) allows for greater program and funding
flexibility by executing a project in a phased approach; 3) provides additional opportunities for earlymaterial storage, and 4) levels out the demand for secure transport operations. A subsequent

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-141-01, Pit Disassembly andConversion Facility

Page 425

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetIndependent Review Team (IRT) comprised of subject matter experts from across the DOE Complex
concurred with the overall conclusion and recommended combining the two projects.
On November 22, 2009, the Department approved pursuing the combination of NNSA’s PDCF andEM’s PuP projects into a single project to be located in K-Area Facility at the SRS and managed by the
NNSA. As part of this approval, the project team was also authorized to commence development of aconceptual design report, along with NEPA and other documentation to support Critical Decision(CD) -1 (Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range), which is required per the Department’s DOE
Order 413.3A, “Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets.” The single
project will be renamed the “Pit Disassembly and Conversion (PDC) Project.”
The nature of the combined project is such that there are elements of the overall design and support
documentation at varying stages of maturity (i.e. conceptual, preliminary and detailed). Despite the factthat a CD-1 for the combined project awaits subsequent approval, continued project engineering anddesign efforts will be funded by both operating and construction funds in FY 2010, consistent with thelevel of design maturity of those facility systems and components. This approach is consistent with therequirements contained in DOE Order 413.3A
A detailed project integration plan is currently under development. The Department plans to submit an
updated funding profile and detailed work scope for FY 2011 as it becomes available. The funding
profile for future years will be updated when the estimates are validated. All funding estimates shown inthis PDS are unvalidated. As the project design advances in maturity, it is possible that construction
funds may be needed late in FY 2011 to support activities such as long-lead procurements upon approvalof the appropriate Critical Decision in accordance with DOE O 413.3A.
2. Design, Construction, and D&D Schedule

FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011CD-0
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997

CD-1
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
10/31/1997
TBD

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-141-01, Pit Disassembly andConversion Facility

CD-1
07/17/1999
07/17/1999
07/17/1999
07/17/1999
07/17/1999
07/17/1999
07/17/1999
07/17/1999
07/17/1999
07/17/1999
07/17/1999
TBD(fiscal quarter or date)
PED
Complete
CD-2
CD-3
4QFY2001
N/A
2QFY2001
1QFY2002
N/A
1QFY2002
TBD
N/A
TBD
1QFY2004
N/A
TBD
2QFY2004
N/A
TBD
4QFY2005
N/A
2QFY2005
4QFY2005
N/A
3QFY2010
4QFY2007
N/A
1QFY2011
4QFY2009 2QFY2007 1QFY2011
2QFY2011 4QFY2008
TBD
4QFY2011 3QFY2009
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

Page 426

CD-4
4QFY2004
3QFY2005
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
4QFY2015
2QFY2019
TBD
TBD
TBD

D&D
Start
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

D&D
Complete
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

CD-0 – Approve Mission Need
CD-1 – Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range
CD-2 – Approve Performance Baseline
CD-3 – Approve Start of Construction
CD-4 – Approve Start of Operations or Project Closeout
D&D Start – Start of Demolition & Decontamination (D&D) work
D&D Complete – Completion of D&D work

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-141-01, Pit Disassembly andConversion Facility

Page 427

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

3. Baseline and Validation Status

FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011

TEC,
PED
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
255,391
312,700
380,664
TBD

TEC,
Construction
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,388,226
TBD
TBD
TBD

(dollars in thousands)
OPC
Except D&D
TEC, Total
346,1920346,192
0
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
1,243,428
481,628
1,643,617
805,435
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

OPC,
D&D
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

OPC, Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
805,435
TBD
TBD
TBD

TPC
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,725,056
2,449,052
TBD
TBD
TBD

4. Project Description, Justification, and Scope
The PDC will be a first of its kind facility. The United States has never before constructed and operated
a production-scale facility for disassembling nuclear weapon pits. The PDC, which will be built at theSavannah River Site, will disassemble surplus nuclear weapon pits and convert the resulting weapongrade plutonium metal and surplus weapon-grade non-pit plutonium metal to an oxide form which thencan be fabricated into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for irradiation in U.S. commercial nuclear reactors.
Once irradiated and converted into spent fuel, the plutonium can no longer be readily used for nuclear
weapons. After completing its mission, the PDC project will be deactivated, decontaminated, anddecommissioned over a three to four year period.
Establishing the PDC capability within the 350,000 square feet K-Area facility will utilize
approximately 150,000 square feet and contain the following key areas: pit and non-pit material
receiving, assay and storage; pit disassembly and metal-to-oxide conversion; and plutonium oxide
packaging, assay, storage and shipment. This facility will be equipped with storage capacity forincoming pit and non-pit materials and include areas for recovery, decontamination and declassificationof non-nuclear components resulting from the disassembly of the nuclear weapon pits.
Conventional/commercial support facilities and structures will also be constructed, which will notcontain radioactive materials, totaling approximately 150,000 square feet (i.e., facilities to support
construction/maintenance craft, technical support, warehouse space, etc.).
FY 2010 and FY 2011 Description of Activities
The FY 2010 scope includes preparing the conceptual design documentation necessary to support
Critical Decision 1 (CD-1). The nature of the combined project is such that there are elements of theoverall design and support documentation at varying stages of maturity (i.e., conceptual, preliminary anddetailed). Despite the fact that a CD-1 for the combined project awaits subsequent approval, continued
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-141-01, Pit Disassembly andConversion Facility

Page 428

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

project and design efforts will be funded by both OPC and TEC funds in FY 2010, consistent with thelevel of design maturity of those facility systems and components. This approach is consistent with therequirements contained in DOE Order 413.3A
Additionally, design reviews associated with plutonium processing gloveboxes and associatedequipment will continue, along with essential activities associated with the Los Alamos National
Laboratory’s (LANL) Demonstration and Technology (D&T) PDC work scope, including thecompletion of design packages associated with LANL Government Furnished Equipment (GFE).
The FY 2011 scope continues to support the development of a conceptual design report along withNEPA and other documentation and activities to support CD-1, as well as initiation of preliminary
design activities. The plutonium glovebox and process designs will continue, along with developmentof the balance-of-plant systems including civil, structural, ventilation, electrical, water, fire and security
systems. LANL will continue the associated D&T scope of the PDC technology. If approved, removalof existing equipment from the lower levels of the K-Building may commence and early procurement ofglovebox shell and components for the stabilization and packaging glovebox required for early MOX
feed portion of the project.
A detailed project integration plan is currently under development. The Department plans to submit an
updated funding profile and detailed work scope for FY 2011as it becomes available.
The PDC project is being conducted in accordance with the project management requirements in DOE
O 413.3A, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, and all appropriate
project management requirements have been met.
5. Financial Schedule.
Appropriations(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

Total Estimated Cost (TEC)PED
FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-141-01, Pit Disassembly andConversion Facility

20,00018,751
19,956
11,00028,46240,42032,044
21,40632,78922,447
24,89530,32180,000108,000
150,000
75,000Page 429

20,00017,396
17,804
14,50728,46239,82032,644
21,40632,78922,447
24,89530,32180,000108,000
150,000
75,000211
13,44917,83423,37738,05232,026
40,626
18,38418,081
22,882
34,31642,35480,500105,500
148,000
76,250FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Total, Design(dollars in thousands)
Appropriations
Obligations
32,00032,000
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

Costs
34,750
TBD
TBD
TBD

Construction
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
Total, Construction

0
0
0
0
0
0
50,00050,000125,000
125,000
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

0
0
0
0
0
0
50,00050,000125,000
125,000
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

0
0
0
0
0
0
42,75055,500118,300
126,650
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

TEC
FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
Total TEC

20,00018,751
19,956
11,00028,46240,42032,044
21,40632,78922,447
24,89530,32180,000
158,000
200,000
200,000
157,000
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

20,00017,396
17,804
14,50728,46239,82032,644
21,40632,78922,447
24,89530,32180,000
158,000
200,000
200,000
157,000
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

211
13,44917,83423,37738,05232,026
40,626
18,38418,081
22,882
34,31642,35480,500148,250
203,500
194,550
161,400
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

18,37829,36927,193
27,69918,37829,36927,193
27,69917,401
24,48829,191
23,649Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&D
FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-141-01, Pit Disassembly andConversion Facility

Page 430

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
Total, OPC except D&D(dollars in thousands)
Appropriations
Obligations
27,88427,88433,161
32,93525,65825,65847,39547,29822,00022,273
4,597
4,262
13,472
13,47258,78058,780112,999
112,999
30,14130,141
44,992
44,992
41,143
41,14335,44135,441
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

Costs
29,97030,82826,727
33,77021,93016,462
11,81033,636
118,800
38,50048,85045,55033,450
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

D&D
FY
Total, D&D

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total, OPC

TBD

TBD

TBD

38,37848,12047,14938,69956,34673,581
57,70268,80154,78927,04438,367
89,101
192,999
188,141
244,992
241,143
192,441
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

38,37846,76544,99742,20656,34672,75558,302
68,70455,062
26,70938,367
89,101
192,999
188,141
244,992
241,143
192,441
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

17,61237,93747,02547,02668,02262,85467,35352,15440,011
39,344
46,12675,990199,300
186,750
252,350
240,100
194,850
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

Total Project Cost (TPC)FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
Total, TPC

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-141-01, Pit Disassembly andConversion Facility

Page 431

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

6. Details of Project Cost Estimate(dollars in thousands)
Current Previous Original
Total
Total Validated
Estimate Estimate Baseline
Total Estimated Cost (TEC)
DesignDesignContingency
Total, Design

TBD
TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD
TBD

Construction
Site Preparation
Equipment
Other Construction
Contingency
Total, Construction

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

Total, TEC
Contingency, TEC

TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD

OPC except D&D
Conceptual Planning
Conceptual Design
Start-UpContingency
Total, OPC except D&D

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

D&D
D&D
Contingency
Total, D&D

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD

TBD
TBD

Other Project Cost (OPC)

Total, OPC
Contingency, OPC
Total, TPC
Total, Contingency

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-141-01, Pit Disassembly andConversion Facility

Page 432

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

7. Schedule of Total Project Costs

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

TEC
OPC
TPC
TEC
OPC
TPC
TEC
OPC
TPC

Prior Years
274,165
298,919573,084
273,358
333,174
606,532
273,358
333,174
606,532

FY 2010
113,500
37,503151,003
30,321
70,229100,550
30,32158,78089,101

FY 2011
195,000
49,603244,60376,98569,620146,605
80,000112,999
192,999(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014 FY 2015 Outyears
225,000
224,960
TBD
TBD
TBD
36,14539,710
TBD
TBD
TBD
261,145
264,670
TBD
TBD
TBD
178,622234,546
216,566
TBD
TBD
48,68656,80571,304
TBD
TBD
227,308
291,351
287,870
TBD
TBD
158,000
200,000
200,000
157,000
TBD
30,141
44,992
41,14335,441
TBD
188,141
244,992
241,143
192,441
TBD

Total
1,032,625
461,880
1,494,505
1,010,398
649,818
1,660,216
1,098,679
656,670
1,755,349

8. Related Operations and Maintenance Funding Requirements
Sub-Project 01 – Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility
Start of Operation or Beneficial Occupancy (fiscal quarter or date)
Expected Useful Life (number of years)
Expected Future Start of D&D of this capital asset (fiscal quarter)

TBD
TBD
TBD

(Related Funding requirements)
Sub-Project 01 – Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility(dollars in thousands)
Annual Costs
Life Cycle Costs
Current Previous Current Previous
Total
Total
Total
Total
Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
Operations
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Maintenance
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Total, Operations & Maintenance
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

9. Required D&D Information
Area
Area of new construction
Area of existing facility(s) being replaced
Area of additional D&D space to meet the “one-for-one” requirement

Square Feet
N/A
N/A
N/A

Name(s) and site location(s) of existing facility(s) to be replaced: N/A
10. Acquisition Approach
Pit Disassembly and Conversion (Combined Project)
A transition team will be established and will provide a plan and recommendation to the Acquisition
Executive to transition from two independent projects and DOE programs to a single program/project
ownership acquisition strategy. The transition plan will address the scope and timing of budget/financial
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-141-01, Pit Disassembly andConversion Facility

Page 433

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

activities, program ownership, project ownership, and project scope transition opportunities. The
Acquisition strategy for the combined project will be developed as part of the CD-1 process that isscheduled for approval in 2011.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Fissile Materials Disposition/
99-D-141-01, Pit Disassembly andConversion Facility

Page 434

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetGlobal Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)
Funding Profile by Subprogram a
FY 2009 Actual
Appropriation
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Reactor Conversion
Nuclear and Radiological Material Removal
Russian-Origin Nuclear Material Removal
U.S.-Origin Nuclear Material Removal
Gap Nuclear Material Removal
Emerging Threats Nuclear Material RemovalInternational Radiological Material Removal
Domestic Radiological Material Removal
Subtotal, Nuclear and Radiological Material Removal(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010 Current
FY 2011
Appropriation
Request76,706

102,772

119,000

123,083
8,331
4,982
7,600
21,702
17,063
182,761

94,167
9,889
9,111
5,556
8,333
17,778144,834

145,191
16,500108,000
16,00045,00025,000355,691

50,97742,90941,647

9,109
41,46335,3222,000
57,00025,147

Nuclear and Radiological Material Protection
BN-350 Nuclear Material Protection
International Material Protection
Domestic Material Protection
Subtotal, Nuclear and Radiological Material
Protection

135,533

85,894

84,147

Total, Global Threat Reduction Initiative (appropriation)
Funds from International Contributions
Total, Global Threat Reduction Initiative Funds Available

395,000
9,640
404,640

333,500
0333,500

558,8380558,838a

FY 2009 amount includes international contributions of $3,918,000 from the Government of Canada, and $5,722,212 fromthe United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)

Page 435

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetOutyear Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2012Global Threat Reduction Initiative
HEU Reactor Conversion
Nuclear and Radiological Material Removal
Russian-Origin Nuclear Material Removal
U.S.-Origin Nuclear Material Removal
Gap Nuclear Material Removal
Emerging Threats Nuclear Material RemovalInternational Radiological Material Removal
Domestic Radiological Material Removal
Subtotal, Nuclear and Radiological
Material Removal
Nuclear and Radiological Material Protection
BN-350 Nuclear Material Protection
International Material Protection
Domestic Material Protection
Subtotal, Nuclear and Radiological
Material Protection
Total, Global Threat Reduction Initiative(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015

176,000

210,000

245,000

293,000

96,0001,000
22,00016,00044,00031,00070,0003,000
16,00016,00039,00031,00082,0001,000
27,000
194,000
10,00033,00083,0001,000
1,000
188,000
10,00034,000210,000

175,000

347,000

317,000

2,000
100,000
111,9940
125,000
149,9260
130,000
265,1380
143,000
303,172

213,994
599,994

274,926
659,926

395,138
987,138

446,172
1,056,172

Mission
The Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) mission is to reduce and protect vulnerable nuclear andradiological materials located at civilian sites worldwide.
Benefits
GTRI directly supports the Administration’s goal announced in Prague on April 5, 2009 to secure allvulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years. The Joint Statement from the Moscow
Summit in July 2009 and the September 2009 UNSC Resolution 1887 provide further global
commitments to the removal of nuclear materials and conversion of research reactors.
GTRI supports the U.S. Department of Energy's Nuclear Security Goal by preventing terrorists fromacquiring nuclear and radiological materials that could be used in weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
or other acts of terrorism by: 1) converting research reactors and isotope production facilities from theuse of highly enriched uranium (HEU) to low enriched uranium (LEU); 2) removing and disposing ofexcess nuclear and radiological materials; and 3) protecting high-priority nuclear and radiologicalmaterials from theft and sabotage. These three key subprograms of GTRI -- Convert, Remove, andProtect -- provide a comprehensive approach to achieving its mission and denying terrorists access tonuclear and radiological materials. The GTRI subprograms that make important and uniquecontributions to Government Performance and Results (GPRA) Unit Program Number 44 are discussed
below.
The HEU Reactor Convert subprogram supports the conversion of domestic and international civilian
research reactors and isotope production facilities from HEU to LEU. This includes working with
Mo-99 producers to convert their existing operations to use LEU targets and developing new
non-HEU-based Mo-99 production capabilities in the United States. These efforts result in permanent
threat reduction by minimizing and, to the extent possible, eliminating use of HEU in civilian
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)

Page 436

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

applications. The Convert subprogram is key to the GTRI mission because it removes the need for HEU
at civilian sites. Once the need is eliminated, any remaining HEU fresh and spent fuel can bepermanently disposed of by GTRI's Remove subprogram.
The Nuclear and Radiological Material Remove subprogram supports the removal and disposal ofexcess and vulnerable nuclear and radiological material from civilian sites worldwide. These efforts
result in permanent threat reduction by eliminating nuclear and radiological materials that terrorists
could acquire. The Remove subprogram is key to the GTRI mission because each kilogram or curie of
this dangerous material that is removed reduces the risk of a terrorist bomb. This subprogram includes:


Russian-origin nuclear material removal. This activity supports the removal and disposal of
Russian-origin nuclear material from research reactors worldwide.



U.S.-origin nuclear material removal. This activity supports the removal and disposal of U.S.-origin
HEU and LEU from TRIGA and MTR research reactors. U.S.-origin fuel will be returned to theUnited States until 2019 as an incentive for reactor conversion.

Gap nuclear material removal. This activity supports the removal and disposal of vulnerable, highrisk nuclear materials that are not covered under the Russian-origin and U.S.-origin nuclear removal
activities. This includes U.S.-origin HEU other than TRIGA and MTR fuel; HEU of non-U.S. andnon-Russian-origin; and separated plutonium.

Emerging threats nuclear material removal. This activity develops the capability to rapidly
denuclearize a country ensuring that when opportunities present themselves, such as Libya in 2004,
the U.S. is able to respond quickly. This includes in-country stabilization, packaging, and removalof nuclear materials through the deployment of self-sufficient, trained rapid response teams andmobile facilities.

International radiological material removal. This activity supports the removal and disposal ofexcess or abandoned radiological material in other countries. This includes Russian radioisotopic
thermoelectric generators (RTGs), U.S.-origin sealed sources in other countries, and other orphanedradiological materials.

Domestic radiological material removal. This activity supports the removal and disposal of domestic
radiological materials by working in cooperation with Federal, State, and local agencies, and private
industry to recover and permanently dispose of excess radiological sources in the United States.

The Nuclear and Radiological Material Protect subprogram supports the securing of high priority
nuclear and radiological material worldwide from theft and sabotage. These efforts result in threat
reduction by improving security of bomb material remaining at civilian sites. The Protect subprogram is
key to the GTRI mission because it upgrades security until a permanent threat reduction solution can be
implemented. This subprogram includes:
BN-350 nuclear material protection. This activity provides safe and secure long-term storage ofapproximately 3,000 kilograms of weapon-grade plutonium and 10,000 kilograms of HEU in spent
fuel from the shutdown BN-350 fast breeder reactor in Kazakhstan.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)

Page 437

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetInternational material protection. This activity works in cooperation with foreign counterparts andinternational agencies to install security upgrades at buildings containing high-priority, vulnerable
nuclear and radiological materials located at civilian sites outside the United States.

Domestic material protection. This activity works in cooperation with Federal, State, and local
agencies, and private industry to install security upgrades at buildings containing high-priority
nuclear and radiological materials located at civilian sites in the United States.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)

Page 438

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetPerformance Results and Targets(R = Results; T = Targets)
Performance Indicators

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Endpoint Target

T: 71

T: 78

T: 87

T: 96

T: 111

T: 129By 2020, convert or verify the
shutdown prior to conversion of 200
HEU reactors.

T: 2,767

T: 3,297

T: 3,693

T: 4,227

T: 4,373

T: 4,597

By 2016, remove or dispose of
4,604 kilograms of vulnerable
nuclear material (HEU andplutonium) (enough for more than
175 nuclear bombs). (GTRI willcontinue to remove U.S.-origin fuelfrom foreign research reactors until
2019 as an incentive for converting
research reactors from HEU to LEU
fuel.)

T: 25,214

T: 28,000

T: 31,000

T: 34,000

T: 37,000

T: 40,000

Annually, remove at least 2,200
excess domestic radiologicalsources.

T: 855

T: 965

T: 1,275

T: 1,961

T: 2,957

T: 3,946

By 2019, protect an estimated 5,000
buildings with high-priority nuclear
and radiological materials.

Secretarial Goal: Security: Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risks
GPRA Unit Program Number: 44, Global Threat Reduction Initiatives
Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU)
Reactors Converted or
Shutdown: Cumulative number of
HEU reactors converted or verified
as shutdown prior to conversion.
a(Long-term Outcome)

R: 45

R: 55

R: 62

R: 67

T: 46

T: 53

T: 62

T: 68

Nuclear Material Removed:
Cumulative number of kilogramsof vulnerable nuclear material(HEU and plutonium) removed or
disposed. (Efficiency Measure)

R: 1,366

R: 1,791

R: 1,948

R: 2,317

T: N/A

T: 1,671

T: 2,133

T: 2,311

Radiological Sources Removed:
Cumulative number of excess
domestic radiological sources
removed or disposed. (Long-term
Outcome)R: 13,878

R:15,503

R: 18,656

R: 23,014

T: N/A

T: 15,455

T: 17,500

T: 22,000

R: 352

R: 426

R: 514

R: 705

T: N/A

T: N/A

T:N/A

T: 694

Nuclear and Radiological
Buildings Protected: Cumulative
number of buildings with highpriority nuclear and radiologicalmaterials secured. (Long-termbOutcome)a

The program changed the methodology for accounting for cumulative research reactors starting in FY 2007. The metric now includes converted research reactors andresearch reactors verified as shutdown prior to conversion. The comparable number for FY 2006 using the new methodology would be 47 reactors converted or
shutdown.
b

GTRI changed the methodology for accounting for protection of buildings with high-priority nuclear and radiological materials starting in FY 2009, consistent with the
OMB-approved Management Improvement Plan. The metric now includes security upgrades completed at research and test reactors and other vulnerable buildings
containing radiological materials. Previously, the number included recoveries of radioisotopic thermoelectric generators (RTGs) but did not include the research and test
reactors. RTGs are now better reflected as removed and disposed, resulting in permanent threat reduction.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)

Page 439

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetMajor FY 2009 Accomplishments
Through the end of FY 2009, GTRI has accelerated threat reduction efforts by: 1) converting orverifying the shutdown of a cumulative 67 research reactors from use of HEU fuel to LEU fuel;2) removing a cumulative 2,317 kilograms of HEU and plutonium, enough material to make more than
90 nuclear bombs; 3) removing a cumulative 23,014 excess and unwanted radiological sources in the
United States, containing more than 750,000 curies; and 4) protecting a cumulative 705 nuclear andradiological buildings worldwide with vulnerable high-priority nuclear and radiological materials.
Major Outyear Priorities and Assumptions
The outyear projections for the GTRI program total approximately $3,303,230 (FY 2012 – FY 2015).
GTRI plays a key role in support of the international effort the President announced in Prague on April
5, 2009 to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years, which was further
strengthened in the July 2009 Joint Statement resulting from the Moscow Summit and the September
2009 UNSC Resolution 1887. GTRI has worked in 118 countries around the world to implement
nuclear and radiological threat reduction in line with this goal. By the end of 2015, GTRI will have
converted 129 (65 percent) of the 200 HEU reactors, removed 4,597 kilograms (99 percent) of theapproximately 4,604 kilograms of nuclear material at civilian sites, and protected 3,946 (79 percent) of
the 5,000 buildings with high-priority nuclear and radiological materials

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)

Page 440

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011HEU Reactor Convert

76,706

102,772

119,000

GTRI's Convert subprogram supports the conversion of domestic and international civilian research
reactors and isotope production facilities from HEU to LEU. This includes working with Mo-99
producers to convert their existing operations to use LEU targets and developing new non-HEU-based
Mo-99 production capabilities in the United States. These efforts result in permanent threat reduction
by minimizing and, to the extent possible, eliminating use of HEU in civilian applications. The
Convert subprogram is key to the GTRI mission because it removes the need for HEU at civilian sites.
Once the need is eliminated, any remaining HEU fresh and spent fuel can be permanently disposed of
by GTRI's Remove subprogram. These activities together support the goals contained in the
Administration’s nonproliferation initiative announced in Prague on April 5, 2009 to secure allvulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years, and further strengthened in the July2009 Joint Statement resulting from the Moscow Summit and the September 2009 UNSC Resolution
1887.
In FY 2011, GTRI will convert, or verify as shutdown, an additional 7 HEU research reactors, bringing
the cumulative total to 78. The conversions identified for FY 2011include for example Poland andChina. In addition, GTRI will continue efforts required to fabricate the new high-density LEU fuelneeded to convert the 27 HEU research reactors around the world that cannot convert with existing
LEU fuel. The conversion of these 27 high performance reactors will result in HEU avoidance of anadditional 520 kilograms per year. GTRI will also provide technical and financial support to the U.S.
private sector to accelerate the establishment of a reliable domestic production capability for thecritical medical isotope Mo-99 without the use of HEU.
Nuclear and Radiological Material Remove

182,761

144,834

355,691

GTRI's Remove subprogram supports the removal and disposal of excess nuclear and radiologicalmaterial from civilian sites worldwide. These efforts result in permanent threat reduction byeliminating nuclear and radiological materials that terrorists could acquire. The Remove subprogramis key to the GTRI mission because each kilogram or curie of this dangerous material that is removed
reduces the risk of a terrorist bomb.
• Russian-Origin Nuclear Material Remove

123,083

94,167145,191

This activity supports the removal and disposal of Russian-origin nuclear material from research
reactors worldwide. These activities collectively support the goals contained in the
Administration’s nonproliferation initiative announced in Prague on April 5, 2009 to secure allvulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years, which was further strengthened in
the July 2009 Joint Statement resulting from the Moscow Summit and the September 2009 UNSC
Resolution 1887. In accordance with these goals, GTRI is accelerating the return of Russian-origin
HEU fuel.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)

Page 441

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011In FY 2011, GTRI will return to Russia and dispose of an additional 340 kilograms of Russianorigin HEU fuel from facilities located in the former East Germany, Serbia, Ukraine, andBelarus, resulting in a cumulative total of 1,720 kilograms of HEU removed, enough material for
more than 65 nuclear bombs. Funds will also be used for preparatory activities for removals
planned for 2012.
• U.S.-Origin Nuclear Material Remove

8,331

9,889

16,500This activity supports the removal and disposal of U.S.-origin HEU and LEU from TRIGA and
MTR research reactors. U.S.-origin fuel will be returned to the United States until 2019 as anincentive for reactor conversions. These activities collectively support the goals contained in the
Administration’s nonproliferation initiative announced in Prague on April 5, 2009 to secure allvulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years, which was further strengthened in
the July 2009 Joint Statement resulting from the Moscow Summit and the September 2009 UNSC
Resolution 1887. In accordance with these goals, GTRI is accelerating the return of U.S.-origin
HEU fuel.
In FY 2011, GTRI will return to the United States an additional 30 kilograms of U.S.-origin HEU
from several countries, such as Mexico and South Africa, resulting in a cumulative total of
1,276 kilograms of HEU removed, enough material for more than 50 nuclear bombs.
• Gap Nuclear Material Remove

4,982

9,111

108,000

This activity supports the removal and disposal of vulnerable, high-risk nuclear materials that are
not covered by the Russian-origin and U.S.-origin Nuclear Material Remove activities. This
includes U.S.-origin HEU other than TRIGA and MTR fuel, HEU of non-U.S.- and non-Russianorigin, and separated plutonium. These activities collectively support the goals contained in the
Administration’s nonproliferation initiative announced in Prague on April 5, 2009 to secure allvulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years, which was further strengthened in
the July 2009 Joint Statement resulting from the Moscow Summit and the September 2009 UNSC
Resolution 1887. In accordance with these goals, GTRI is accelerating the return of Gap material
from third countries.
In FY 2011, GTRI will remove or facilitate disposition of an additional 161 kilograms of Gap HEU
and plutonium from several countries, resulting in a cumulative total of 301 kilograms of HEU andplutonium removed, enough material for more than 10 nuclear bombs. Funds will also be used for
preparatory activities for removals planned for 2012.
• Emerging Threats Nuclear Material Remove

7,600

5,556

16,000This activity develops the capability to rapidly denuclearize a country, ensuring that whenopportunities present themselves, such as Libya in 2004, the United States is able to respondquickly. This includes in-country stabilization, packaging, and removal of nuclear materials
through the deployment of self-sufficient, trained rapid response teams and mobile facilities.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)

Page 442

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011In FY 2011, GTRI will procure packaging equipment, train rapid response teams, and field test allcapabilities. Additional efforts over the long term address staging of support materials, anddevelopment, testing, and analysis of deployment procedures. The program seeks to maintain ashort-term readiness posture to deploy assets rapidly to assist in recovery of nuclear materials. In
addition, the program provides life-cycle replacement of equipment to maintain state-of-the-art
technical capability.
• International Radiological Material Remove

21,702

8,333

45,000This activity supports the removal and disposal of excess or abandoned radiological materials inother countries. This includes Russian radioisotopic thermoelectric generators (RTGs), U.S.-origin
sealed sources in other countries, and other orphaned radiological materials.
In FY 2011, GTRI will complete the removal of an additional 90 RTGs, resulting in a cumulative
total of 421 RTGs removed by GTRI through direct funding and international contributions(e.g. Canada). By the end of FY 2011, other countries (e.g. Russia, Norway, France) are expected
to have funded the recovery of an additional cumulative 225 RTGs for a grand total of 646 of the851 RTGs being completed. Funds will also be used to recover and dispose of orphaned radioactive
sources in other countries, for example China and Bangladesh.
• Domestic Radiological Material Remove

17,063

17,77825,000This activity supports the removal and disposal of domestic radiological materials by working incooperation with Federal, State, and local agencies, and private industry to recover and permanently
dispose of excess radiological sources in the United States.
In FY 2011, GTRI will remove at least an additional 2,200 excess and unwanted sealed sourcesfrom locations in the United States, resulting in a cumulative total of 28,000 excess sealed sources
removed.
Nuclear and Radiological Material Protect

135,533

85,894

84,147

GTRI's Protect subprogram supports the securing of high priority nuclear and radiological material
worldwide from theft and sabotage. These efforts result in threat reduction by improving security on
the bomb material remaining at civilian sites. The Protect subprogram is key to the GTRI
mission because it upgrades security until a permanent threat reduction solution can be implemented.
• BN-350 Nuclear Material Protect

50,977

9,109

2,000

This activity provides safe and secure long-term storage of approximately 3,000 kilograms of
weapons-grade plutonium and 10,000 kilograms of HEU in spent fuel from the shutdown BN-350
fast breeder reactor in Kazakhstan. The BN-350 shipments will be completed in December 2010.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)

Page 443

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011• International Material Protect

42,90941,46357,000This activity works in cooperation with foreign counterparts and international agencies to install
security upgrades on high-priority, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials located at civilian
sites outside the United States.
In FY 2011, GTRI will complete security upgrades at an additional 50 research reactor andradiological buildings, resulting in a cumulative total of 736 international buildings secured. Baseefforts also include working with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), foreign
regulators, and sites to support the sustainability of previously installed security upgrades at
686 buildings in over 65 countries.
• Domestic Material Protect

41,64735,32225,147This activity works in cooperation with Federal, State, and local agencies, and private industry to
install security upgrades on high-priority nuclear and radiological materials located at civilian sites
in the United States.
In FY 2011, GTRI will complete security upgrades at an additional 60 research reactor andradiological buildings, resulting in a cumulative total of 229 domestic buildings secured. Baseefforts also include working with Federal, State, and local authorities and the sites to support thesustainability of previously installed security upgrades at 169 buildings.
Total, Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Appropriation

395,000

333,500

558,838

Funds from International Contributions

9,640

0

0

Section 3113 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2007 authorized theDepartment of Energy to receive and use financial contributions, including from foreign governments,
for programs with the GTRI.
In FY 2009, GTRI received contributions of $3,918,000 from Canada to recover, replace, and remove
up to ten Russian RTGs, and $5,722,212 from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland to address international threat reduction efforts in Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine.
Total, Global Threat Reduction Initiative

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)

404,640

Page 444

333,500

558,838

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)HEU Reactor Convert
Reflects an increased number of reactor conversions and shutdowns from 4 in
FY 2010 to a total of 7 in FY 2011, and increased support to accelerate theestablishment of a reliable domestic production capability for the critical medical
isotope Mo-99 without the use of HEU.

+16,228

Nuclear and Radiological Material Remove
Increase reflects the acceleration of removal or disposition of high-priority,vulnerable nuclear materials in support of the international effort the President
announced in Prague to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world
within four years, and further emphasized in the July 2009 Joint Statement
resulting from the Moscow Summit and the September 2009 UNSC Resolution
1887 resulting in an increase in removals from 449 kgs of HEU and 24 RTGs in
FY 2010 to 530 kgs and 90 RTGs in FY 2011. Increased funding will also be used
to prepare for HEU removals in FY 2012.

+210,857

Nuclear and Radiological Materials Protect
Nuclear and Radiological Materials Protection decrease mainly due to completionof the BN-350 shipments in FY 2010.
Total Funding Change, Global Threat Reduction Initiative

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)

Page 445-1,747+225,338

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Capital Operating Expenses and Construction Summary
Capital Operating Expensesa(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
0
0
0
166
170
174

General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

166

170

174

Outyear Capital Operating Expenses(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
0
0
0
0
178
182
186
190

FY 2012General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

178

182

186

190

a

Funds are appropriated for Operations and Maintenance, which includes operating expenses, capital equipment and generalplant projects, and are no longer budgeted for separately for capital equipment and general plant projects. FY 2010 and
FY 2011 funding shown reflects estimates based on actual FY 2009 obligations.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

Page 446

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Congressionally Directed Projects
Funding Profile by Subprogram(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual
FY 2010 Current
Appropriation
Appropriation
1,903
250

Congressionally Directed Projects

FY 2011
Request0

Description
Starting in FY 2008, funding for Congressionally Directed projects was appropriated as a separate
funding line although specific projects may relate to ongoing work in a specific programmatic area. The
FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8) included one Congressionally Directed project
within the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program. The FY 2010 Energy and Water Development
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-85) includes $250,000 for one CongressionallyDirected project for Global seismographic network equipment renewal. For FY 2011, no follow-on
funding is requested.
Detailed Justification(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
Congressionally Directed Projects• Nuclear Security Science and Policy Institute, Texas A&M (TX). Funding
was provided to bring nuclear technology and education together with
development of sound public policy for nuclear nonproliferation. Amongthe capabilities, the researchers are working on new methods tosafeguard nuclear reactor fuel, attribution of the source of a nuclear orradiological attack, and development of more sensitive and accurateinterrogation devices to detect radioactive materials at ports of entry.

1,903

0

0

• Global seismographic network equipment renewal.
Total, Congressionally Directed Projects

0
1,903

250
250

0
0

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Congressionally Directed Projects
Decrease results from no follow-on funding being requested for project.

-250

Total, Congressionally Directed Projects-250

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation/
Congressionally Directed Projects

Page 447

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 448

Naval Reactors

Page 449

Naval Reactors

Page 450

Naval Reactors
Proposed Appropriation Language
For Department of Energy expenses necessary for naval reactors activities to carry out the Departmentof Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the acquisition (by purchase,
condemnation, construction, or otherwise) of real property, plant, and capital equipment, facilities, andfacility expansion [945,133,000] $1,070,486,000 to remain available until expended.
Explanation of Change
Change from the language proposed in FY 2010 consists of a change to the requested funding amount.

Naval Reactors/
Overview

Page 451

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 452

Naval Reactors
Overview
Appropriation Summary by Program(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Current
Appropriation
Appropriation
Naval Reactors Development
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Program Direction
Construction
Total, Naval Reactors Development

771,600
34,45422,000828,054877,533
36,80030,800945,133

FY 2011
Request997,886
40,00032,6001,070,486

Public Law Authorizations:
P.L. 83-703, “Atomic Energy Act of 1954”“Executive Order 12344 (42 U.S.C. 7158), “Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program”
P.L. 107-107, “National Defense Authorizations Act of 2002”, Title 32, “National Nuclear Security
Administration”
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2007, (P.L. 109-364)
FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161)
National Nuclear Security Administration Act, (P.L. 106-65), as amended
FY 2009 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8)
FY 2010 Energy and Water and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-85)
Outyear Appropriation Summary by Program

Naval Reactors Development
Operations and Maintenance
Program Direction
Construction
Total, Naval Reactors Development

FY 2012(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015

1,018,634
41,20039,9001,099,734

1,102,97842,40025,8001,171,178

1,240,430
45,00025,1001,310,530

1,177,817
43,7004,500
1,226,017

MissionNaval Reactors is responsible for all naval nuclear propulsion work, beginning with reactor technology
development, continuing through reactor operation, and ending with reactor plant disposal. The
Program ensures the safe and reliable operation of reactor plants in nuclear-powered submarines andaircraft carriers (constituting 40 percent of the Navy’s combatants), and fulfills the Navy’s requirements
for new nuclear propulsion plants that meet current and future national defense requirements.

Naval Reactors/
Overview

Page 453

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Benefits
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is working to provide the U.S. Navy with
nuclear propulsion plants that are capable of responding to the challenges of the 21st century security
environment.
Performance
The Naval Reactors program falls under the Secretarial Goal 3, Security: Reduce nuclear dangers andenvironmental risks.”
Naval Reactors performance measures fully support the programs mission to provide the U.S. Navy withsafe, militarily effective nuclear propulsion plants and ensure their continued safe and reliable operation.
The program continues to pursue aggressive performance measures that support the Secretary’s goal topromote national security and reduce environmental risks (e.g., ensure 100 percent of operations have noadverse impact on human health or the quality of the environment). Naval Reactors performancemeasures continue to demonstrate the Program's commitment to safe operation of reactor plants, as wellas its accomplishments in meeting national defense requirements for advanced nuclear propulsion
technology.

Naval Reactors/
Overview

Page 454

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAnnual Performance Results and Targets(R = Results; T = Targets)
Performance Indicators

FY 2006
Results

FY 2007
Results

FY 2008
Results

FY 2009
Results

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Endpoint Target

T: 144

T: 146

T: 148

T: 150

T: 152

T: 154

By 2015, complete safe steaming ofapproximately 154 million miles innuclear-powered ships. (Interim
Target)FY 2010

Secretarial Priority: National Security: Security: Reduce nuclear dangers and environmental risks
GPRA Unit Program Number: 45, Naval Reactors
Fleet Reactor Plant Operations:
Cumulative miles steamed, inmillions, of safe, reliable, militarily
effective nuclear propulsion plant
operation supporting National
security requirements. (Long-term
Outcome)R: 136

R: 138

R: 140

R: 142

T: 134

T: 138

T: 140

T: 142TTC Reactor Plant: Cumulative
percentage of completion on theTransformational Technology Core
(TTC) reactor plant core fueldesign. (Long-term Outcome)

R: 34%

R: 100%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

T: 34%

T: 100%In 2007, completed the TTC reactor
plant core fuel design.

A1B Reactor Plant Design:
Cumulative percentage ofcompletion on the next-generation
aircraft carrier reactor plant design.
(Long-term Outcome)R : 75%

R: 80%

R: 85%

R: 88%

T: 91%

T: 94%

T: 96%

T: 98%

T: 99%

T: 100%

T: 75%

T: 80%

T: 85%

T: 88%

By 2015, provide the reactor plant
for the next-generation aircraft
carrier.

Program Operations: Annual
percentage of Program operations
that have no adverse impact onhuman health or the quality of theenvironment. (Annual Outcome)R: 100%

R: 100%

R: 100%

R: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

T: 100%

Annually, ensure that 100% of
Program operations have no adverse
impact on human health or thequality of the environment.

Utilization of Test Reactor
Plants: Annual utilization factor
for operation of test reactor plants.
(Efficiency)

R: 91%

R: 95%

R: 92%

R: 91%

T: 90%

T: 90%

T: 90%

T: 90%

T: 90%

T: 90%

T: 90%

T: 90%

T: 90%

T: 90%

Annually, achieve a utilization
factor of at least 90% for operationof test reactor plants.

Naval Reactors Facility
Condition Index: Annual Naval
Reactors complex-wide aggregate
Facility Condition Index (FCI), as
measured by deferred maintenance
per replacement plant value for all
program facilities andinfrastructure. (Annual Output)

R: 5%

R: 5%

R: 4%

R: 4%

T: 4%

T: 4%

T: 4%

T: 4%

T: 4%

T: 4%

T: 5%

T: 5%

T: 5%

T: 4%

Annually, achieve an FCI of 4% or
below.

Naval Reactors/
Overview

Page 455

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Means and Strategies
The Naval Reactors Program will use various means and strategies to achieve its program goals,
including performing collaborative activities. The Program does not believe there are major external
factors that could affect our ability to achieve this goal. However, given the unique nature of theProgram’s responsibilities, commitments to both the Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Navymust be considered at all times. Therefore, any external factor seriously affecting either organization’s
policies may have an impact on the Naval Reactors Program.
The Naval Reactors Program uses two Government-owned, contractor-operated laboratories, the Bettis
and Knolls Atomic Power Laboratories, which are predominately involved with the design, development
and operational oversight of nuclear propulsion plants for naval vessels. Through these laboratories, andthrough testing conducted at the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) located at the Idaho National Laboratory(INL), the Department will complete scheduled design, analysis and testing of reactor plant components
and systems, and will conduct planned development, testing, examination, and evaluation of nuclear fuelsystems, materials, and manufacturing and inspection methods necessary to ensure the continued safety
and reliability of reactor plants in Navy warships. The Department will also accomplish planned testing,
maintenance and servicing at land-based prototype nuclear propulsion plants, and will execute planned
inactivation of shutdown, land-based reactor plants in support of environmental cleanup goals. Finally,
the Department will carry out the radiological, environmental and safety monitoring and ongoingcleanup of facilities necessary to protect people, minimize release of hazardous effluents to theenvironment, and comply with all applicable regulations.
Industry-specific business conditions, outside technological developments and Department of Navydecisions all impact the performance of naval nuclear propulsion work. Naval nuclear propulsion work
is an integrated effort involving the DOE and the Navy, who are full partners in the Naval Nuclear
Propulsion Program. This relationship is set forth in Executive Order 12344 and Title 42 U.S.C. 7158.
Validation and Verification
NNSA uses extensive internal and external reviews to evaluate progress against established plans.
NNSA’s programmatic activities are subject to continuing review by the Congress, the General
Accounting Office, the Department’s Inspector General, the National Security Council, the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, the Department’s Office of Engineering and Construction Management,
and the Department’s Office of Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance.
The NNSA Administrator reviews each NNSA program as part of the NNSA’s Programming, Planning,
Budgeting and Evaluation (PPBE) Evaluation process. These reviews, usually conducted annually,
include the NNSA Management Council and focus on both technical and financial information to
identify issues, monitor program progress, and make recommendations for corporate improvement. The
focus of these reviews is to verify and validate that NNSA programs are on track to meet their long-termgoals and annual targets.
Naval Reactors evaluates the effectiveness, relevance, and progress towards achieving its goals,
objectives, and targets by conducting various internal and external reviews and audits. Naval Reactors
Headquarters provides continuous oversight and direction for all elements of Program work. Due to thenature of nuclear technology, a dedicated Government headquarters professional staff expert in nuclear
technology makes all major technical decisions regarding design, procurement, operations, maintenance,
Naval Reactors/
Overview

Page 456

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

training, and logistics. Headquarters engineers set standards and specifications for all Naval Nuclear
Propulsion Program work, while on-site Headquarters representatives monitor the work at thelaboratories, prototypes, shipyards, and prime contractors.
Naval Reactors has a fully integrated long-range planning, budgeting, and execution system. Throughthis system, Naval Reactors determines general work direction and associated funding needs; balancescompeting work priorities against available funds; and establishes, monitors, and enforces performancemeasures and controls. Work and funding priorities are established in relation to core mission. The
Program uses this focused, multi-year planning process to evaluate any deficiencies. The resulting
review process validates 100 percent of the budget twice a year and serves as Naval Reactors’ change
control process.
FY 2009 Accomplishments
 Steamed over two million miles in nuclear–powered ships and submarines in a safe, reliable andmilitarily-effective manner, which brings the total to over 142 million miles of safe steaming.
 Completed 88 percent of the design for the next-generation reactor plant for the GERALD R. FORD
aircraft carrier.
 Achieved a complex-wide aggregate Facility Condition Index of less than four percent.
 Commissioned the fifth VIRGINIA-class fast attack submarine, the USS NEW HAMPSHIRE.
 Commissioned the last NIMITZ-class aircraft carrier, the USS GEORGE H.W. BUSH.
Major Outyear Priorities and Assumptions
The outyear requirements for Naval Reactors total $4,807,459,000 (FY 2012-FY 2015). This level offunding supports Naval Reactors’ continued achievement of its core objective of ensuring the safe andreliable operation of the Nation’s Nuclear Fleet. This includes providing proper maintenance and safety
oversight, as well as addressing emergent operational issues and technology obsolescence, for
72 submarines, 11 aircraft carriers, and four research and development and training platforms,
constituting 104 reactor plants. This level of funding also supports Naval Reactor’s continued
achievement of ongoing new plant design projects (i.e., reactor plant for the GERALD R. FORD-classaircraft carrier and alternative lower-cost core for VIRGINIA-class submarines), as well as continued
achievement of its legacy responsibilities such as ensuring proper storage of naval spent nuclear fuel,prudent recapitalization of aging facilities, and cleanup of environmental liabilities.
OHIO-Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Replacement
OHIO-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) have been the backbone of the Nation's Sea-Based
Strategic Deterrent (SBSD) since the early-1980s. The Navy intends to replace the OHIO-class SSBNs
beginning in FY 2027 when the first of 14 is retired. In order to have a replacement available in
FY 2027 and consistent with the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan, the Navy would need to procure thisship in FY 2019 and begin research, development, and design in FY 2010. Design of a new reactor
plant is required to meet required capabilities, maximize operational availability, and reduce acquisitionand life-cycle costs. This new design will leverage VIRGINIA-class technology, as well as
manufacturing development and demonstration efforts to be performed as part of the Land-BasedPrototype Refueling program. Central to this work is the development of a reactor plant core that
operates the life of the ship without refueling. DOE reactor plant design and development work for the
OHIO-class replacement began in FY 2010 and will continue in FY 2011 and beyond to ensuresufficient maturity of detailed design to support initial fabrication and procurement of long-lead nuclear
Naval Reactors/
Overview

Page 457

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

components in FY 2017 and ship construction in FY 2019. Funding has been identified within Naval
Reactors Operations and Maintenance in the estimated amount of $91,000,000 to fund this effort in FY
2011.
Land-Based Prototype Refueling
The S8G Prototype (located in upstate New York), which serves as a critical operating reactor platform
to demonstrate technology advancements for fleet application, will be depleted and will require refueling
beginning in FY 2017. Originally built as a prototype for the OHIO-class submarine propulsion plant,
this testing platform has been integral to the development of technologies including the VIRGINIA-classand SEAWOLF-class fuel systems, which have resulted in improved performance and reliability while
reducing life-cycle costs. Continued operation of the land-based prototype and development ofadvanced core technology will enable extended core lifetimes, more efficient use of nuclear fuel, greatercompactness, and cross-platform adaptability. Integral to development of a longer-life core for the
OHIO-class replacement, core manufacturing and demonstration will be performed as part of thisrefueling effort. By constructing the replacement core for the prototype with technologies andcapabilities planned for the OHIO-class replacement, technical, cost, and schedule risk to the ship
construction program will be significantly mitigated. This manufacturing development anddemonstration work, as well as development of new core technologies, began in FY 2010. To preserve
this critical research and development asset long term and to achieve an extended-life core for the
OHIO-class replacement, core development and refueling overhaul work will continue in FY 2011 andbeyond. Funding has been identified within Naval Reactors Operations and Maintenance in theestimated amount of $70,600,000 to fund this effort in FY 2011.
Recapitalization of Spent Nuclear Fuel Infrastructure
All spent naval nuclear fuel from Navy shipyards is shipped to the Naval Reactors Facility (NRF),
located at the Idaho National Laboratory, for examination and disposal per the 1995 agreement signed
by Department of Navy, DOE, and the State of Idaho. Compliance with this agreement and Naval
Reactors’ resultant ability to continue work in Idaho is dependant upon a viable, efficient fuel-handlinginfrastructure. However, major portions of the existing infrastructure (i.e., water pools and related
support facilities) and equipment (i.e., examination equipment, cranes, etc.) are 50+ years old.
Consequently, the magnitude of required sustainment efforts and incremental infrastructure upgrades
pose substantial risk to operations and production workflow. An interruption to refueling and defuelingschedules for nuclear-powered vessels, as required by existing maintenance schedules, would adversely
affect the operational availability of the nuclear Fleet. If this interruption were to extend over long
periods, the ability to sustain Fleet operations would be impacted, resulting ultimately in a significant
decrement to the Navy’s responsiveness and agility to fulfill military missions worldwide. The National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and conceptual design efforts began in FY 2010. As the timing forcompletion of this recapitalization effort prudently balances risks and directly supports significant cost
avoidance associated with scheduled aircraft carrier refueling and defueling, work will continue in
FY 2011 and beyond to support construction in FY 2015 and facility completion by FY 2020.
In accordance with 50 United States Code (USC), Section 2746, which requires the Department torequest funds for conceptual designs that exceed the $3,000,000 threshold, funding for conceptual
design and ongoing NEPA efforts has been estimated at approximately $40,600,000 for FY 2011.

Naval Reactors/
Overview

Page 458

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetDepartment of Energy Working Capital Fund Support
The DOE Working Capital Fund (WCF) Board has extended the policy for using program funding tofinance WCF activities. Beginning in FY 2011, NNSA programs will fund a pro rata share by
Appropriation of certain DOE Working Capital Fund activities. FY 2011 projected NNSA program
allocations are as follows: DOEnet ($482,000) for DOE telecommunications services; Financial
Statement Audits ($4,514,000), previously budgeted by the DOE Office of Inspector General; Defense
Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Audits ($3,076,000) for procurement management; iManage($3,121,000) for corporate systems that support the DOE accounting, finance, procurement andbudgeting processes; and Financial Control Reporting Assessment ($1,502,000). The NNSA’s total
contribution to the WCF from both Program and Program Direction funds for FY 2011 is projected at$35,942,000.
The NNSA Naval Reactors appropriation projected allocation of the DOE Working Capital Fund for
FY 2011 is $1,164,000 from program and $149,000 from program direction funds. This proportional
share of program funding includes financial statement audits $397,000, DCAA $361,000, iManage$274,000 and financial control reporting assessments $132,000.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Support
The NNSA has established program to target research opportunities for HBCU institutions to increase
their participation in national security-related research and to train and recruit qualified HBCU graduates
for employment within the nuclear security enterprise. The majority of the efforts directly support
program activities, and programs funded in the Naval Reactors appropriation plans to fund research with
the HBCU totaling up to approximately $1,000,000 in FY 2011.

Naval Reactors/
Overview

Page 459

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Naval Reactors – Operations and MaintenanceFunding Profile by Subprogram
FY 2009 Actual
Appropriation
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Plant Technology
Reactor Technology and Analysis
Materials Development and Verification
Evaluation and Servicing
ATR Operations and Test Support
Facility Operations
Total, Operations and Maintenance(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010 Current
FY 2011
Appropriation
Request104,000
204,400
106,100
264,300
60,30032,500771,600

142,000
266,900
106,100
261,400
61,80039,333
877,533

154,200
301,100
109,600
325,700
63,10044,186
997,886

Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram
FY 20121,018,634
1,018,634

Operations and MaintenanceTotal, Operations and Maintenance(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014
1,102,9781,177,817
1,102,9781,177,817

FY 20151,240,430
1,240,430

MissionThe Operations and Maintenance subprogram funds continued efforts by the Bettis Power Laboratory,
Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, Kesselring Site, and Naval Reactors Facility in support of theProgram’s cradle-to-grave responsibility for all naval nuclear propulsion work. These focused-mission
laboratories perform complex engineering and technical work to develop highly capable reactor plants
and associated equipment for naval propulsion, evaluate advanced fuel systems and materials for futureapplication, and design and demonstrate more efficient manufacturing processes, as well as provide thenecessary support to ensure safe and reliable operation and future disposition of naval nuclear power
plants.
Benefits
Naval Reactors contributes to the Government Performance and Results Act Unit Program Number 45
which allows maintaining cradle-to-grave responsibility for naval nuclear propulsion work, beginningwith technology development and continuing through reactor operation, and ultimately ensuring
appropriate and responsible reactor plant disposal. An over-arching theme is maintaining National
Security and nuclear preeminence, which Naval Reactors achieves by developing new or back fit
applications which are implemented in the operating Fleet, maintaining oversight during the operational
stage to ensure technologies perform as intended, and supporting the operation, installation, maintenanceand inactivation/D&D work related to land-based prototypes and test facilities.

Naval Reactors/
Operations and Maintenance

Page 460

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification(dollars in thousands)
Plant Technology

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011104,000

142,000

154,200

Plant Technology work focuses on the components and systems of the ship's nuclear power plant.
These components and systems transfer, convert, store and measure power to facilitate reductions inmaintenance costs over the life of the plant while improving reliability, efficiency, and operational
performance. Reactor plant performance, reliability, and safety are maintained via a thoroughunderstanding of component performance and system condition throughout the life of a ship. Also,
new components and systems are needed to support new reactor plants and to replace obsolete ordegraded equipment and systems. Development and application of new analytical methods, predictive
tests, and design tools are required to identify potential concerns before they become actual problems.
This enables preemptive actions to ensure the continued safe operation of reactor plants and theminimization of maintenance costs. Plant Technology work is concentrated in the following areas:(1) Steam Generator, (2) Instrumentation and Control Technology, (3) Plant Arrangement/
Development, and (4) Plant Performance and Plant Chemistry.
Steam Generator: This work focuses on ensuring satisfactory reactor plant operation throughout life
and improving steam generator operation and steam generator chemistry technologies to enhance
performance and reduce maintenance costs. This work also focuses on the development of newenergy conversion methods for simplicity, cost savings, and potential replacement of the steam
Rankine cycle. FY 2011 work objectives include the following:• Continue to develop improved steam generator chemistry and corrosion instrumentation throughcontinued prototype and laboratory testing;• Continue to evaluate alternate energy conversion technologies focused on compactness, efficiency,
and cost, with an emphasis on using supercritical carbon dioxide as a heat transfer fluid;• Continue to develop and assess the use of a steam generator liquid level probe for future steam
generator applications;• Support the qualification of an alternate steam generator tubing vendor;• Perform transient and other testing of the supercritical carbon dioxide integrated systems test loop,
and• Provide design support for the manufacture of the improved steam generator heat exchanger in the
VIRGINIA-class submarine.

Naval Reactors/
Operations and Maintenance

Page 461

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

Instrumentation and Control Technology: This work focuses on developing instrumentation andcontrol (I&C) equipment to replace obsolete equipment, improve reliability and performance andreduce costs. FY 2011 work objectives include the following:• Continue integrated system testing of advanced electric plant control systems including newtechnologies and architectures;• Continue qualification of the A1B reactor plant I&C, including new technologies and architectures;• Evaluate advanced display and control methodologies in the OHIO-class replacement program
rapid prototype, and• Design and develop network-based communications system and test architecture for Type 2 I&C
systems.
Plant Arrangement/Development: This work focuses on developing and testing reactor plantcomponents and applicable emergent energy conversion technologies for converting high temperature
reactor heat to electricity. These efforts address known limitations and have as a goal improved
overall reactor plant systems performance and reliability. FY 2011 work objectives include thefollowing:• Continue evaluation, development, and testing of new features/materials for various main coolant
pump designs;• Continue to assist plant designers in implementation of novel design methods to identify
vulnerabilities in more simplified, more affordable designs;• Continue design of the A1B reactor plant and development of the A1B reactor plant operatingprocedures;• Continue design activities necessary to support VIRGINIA-class cost reduction initiatives, and• Continue development of OHIO-class replacement propulsion plant arrangement studies and systemdesigns to meet performance functional requirements.
Plant Performance and Primary Chemistry: This work focuses on performing reactor plant
analyses to ensure safe operation and improving reactor plant chemistry controls to reduce corrosion
and plant radiation levels. FY 2011 work objectives include the following:• Continue to implement fleet-wide use of improved primary chemistry analysis techniques;• Perform emergent radiochemical, chemical, and microchemical analyses on primary system
samples and components to resolve operating plant problems;• Evaluate chemistry control changes to improve steam generator corrosion performance and life,
including improvements to shorten maintenance evolutions;• Assess impacts of reactor plant materials substitutions on corrosion and radiation levels for new
plant designs;

Naval Reactors/
Operations and Maintenance

Page 462

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011• Support development and modifications of the A1B Chemistry Analysis Room as necessary tosupport Secondary Chemistry Automated Analysis Systems and Automated Coolant Analysis
Systems designs, and• Continue to perform protection analysis as necessary to support A1B-class shipboard test program.
Reactor Technology and Analysis

204,400

266,900

301,100

Reactor Technology and Analysis supports the work required to ensure the operational safety andreliability of operating reactor plants in U.S. warships, extend the operational life of Navy nuclear
propulsion plants, support Navy acoustic requirements, and preserve the Program’s level of excellencein radiological and environmental control. Work focuses on developing a better understanding ofreactor behavior fundamentals; designing new, reduced cost reactors with improved reliability, andefficiency; improving and streamlining manufacturing and assembly processes to achieve cost savings
and reduce waste; developing production techniques that incorporate new materials and processes; andcontinuing a record of excellence in safety. Reactor Technology and Analysis work is concentrated in
the following areas: (1) Advanced Core and Reactor Technology, (2) Advanced Thermal-HydraulicTechnology, (3) Advanced Fuel and Manufacturing Technology, (4) Control Drive Mechanism andOther Reactor Equipment Technology, (5) Reactor Physics, (6) Safety Analysis and Shielding, and(7) Radiological Controls, Environmental, Safety, and Quality Efforts.
Advanced Core and Reactor Technology: This work focuses on improving the nuclear heat source(core) design and analysis methods and developing improved designs to satisfy service life
requirements. FY 2011 work objectives include the following:• Continue work on core design concepts related to future submarine initiatives;• Continue to develop new design and analysis tools to enable improved core performance;• Verify the physics parameters of all operating fleet cores and monitor operating data;• Perform calculations in support of Virginia Forward Fit core final design and validation;• Support certification of second A1B core and the manufacture of the second ship set of A1B cores;• Continue with assembly design of the land-based prototype test cell to support core replacement;• Develop new technology test cell concept designs to support potential future fleet applications
focused on improved performance and reduced cost, and• Develop OHIO-class replacement reactor core concepts and arrangements.

Naval Reactors/
Operations and Maintenance

Page 463

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

Advanced Thermal-Hydraulic Technology: This work focuses on developing and qualifying
improved core and reactor component thermal and hydraulic designs. FY 2011 work objectives
include the following:• Perform tests and procedures to apply advanced thermal-hydraulic analytical tools for new naval
applications;• Maintain existing thermal-hydraulic design procedures and support infrastructure;• Develop thermal-hydraulic technologies and methods to support future advanced pressurized water
reactor (PWR) and advanced concept designs, and• Begin procurement of test hardware to support land-based prototype test cell development.
Advanced Fuel and Manufacturing Technology: This work focuses on evaluating and testing
improved core manufacturing processes and inspection techniques to support reactors. FY 2011 work
objectives include the following:• Develop new fuel and poison manufacturing technologies to enable future plant design concepts;• Investigate new methods to improve core-manufacturing processes;• Investigate new fuel systems for cost savings and improved manufacturability;• Continue to fabricate model elements and core structural components essential to qualify newreactor core materials, designs, and manufacturing and inspection technologies, and• Continue core manufacturing development and demonstration for refueling of the land-based
prototype and qualify fleet production-scale manufacturing capability.
Control Drive Mechanism: This work focuses on designing and testing improved reactor equipment
including advanced control drive mechanisms (CDM) which meet all design requirements, are morereliable than past designs, and are more affordable. FY 2011 work objectives include the following:• Develop tooling and technical manuals for the A1B CDM;
• Complete testing on the A1B CDM lead unit;• Complete final design and procure long-lead materials in support of a long-term A1B CDM test
facility;• Continue other CDM support for the A1B lead ship;• Continue analysis of the Next Generation Reactor (NGR) CDM;
• Continue design of CDM and heavy equipment for the OHIO-class replacement reactor plant, and• Continue design of CDM and heavy equipment for the land-based prototype reactor plant.

Naval Reactors/
Operations and Maintenance

Page 464

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

Reactor Physics: This work focuses on performing physics testing and analysis to confirm expectedfuel system and core performance and develop improved analysis methods for predicting core
performance that reduce design approximations, uncertainties, and associated conservatism. FY 2011
work objectives include the following:• Develop and qualify design procedures and computer programs for analyzing advanced PWR cores;• Develop technologies and methods to support future advanced PWR and advanced concept designs;• Develop high quality nuclear reactor physics parameters that can be used in training future plant
operators;• Maintain integrated, state-of-the-art software systems for reactor core performance analysis;• Provide analysis support for physics testing of the A1B core;• Develop test predictions and related analysis for Next Generation Reactor new construction testing;• Support development of core design concepts for the OHIO-class replacement, and• Support development of core design concepts for the land-based prototype reactor plant and test
cells.
Safety Analysis and Shielding: This work focuses on conducting reactor safety and shielding
analysis for nuclear reactor plants to ensure containment of radiation and proper protection of
personnel. FY 2011 work objectives include the following:• Document reactor safety deliverables and support Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Advisory
Committee on Reactor Safeguards reviews;• Perform reactor safety analyses in support of new reactor plants;• Provide shielding review of issues associated with advanced reactor plant designs;• Provide consultation on shielding issues for advanced reactor design development, and• Support updates and revisions to the A1B drawings.
Radiological Controls, Environmental, Safety, and Quality Efforts: This work focuses on
conducting radiological control, environmental, and safety operations necessary to protect laboratory
employees, minimize release of hazardous effluents to the environment, and comply with allapplicable regulations. FY 2011 work objectives include the following:• Continue to survey and document radiological conditions; train personnel for all phases ofradiological work and environmental work;• Continue to review radiological work procedures, conduct a radiological health program, andconduct emergency preparedness program;• Continue to store, process, and ship radioactive material/waste in accordance with all regulations;• Continue to maintain strict accountability and handling methods for nuclear fuel;Naval Reactors/
Operations and Maintenance

Page 465

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011• Continue to ensure compliance with all safety and environmental regulations; train personnel tocomply with latest standards and practices, and• Continue to ensure compliance with the laboratory quality assurance program through training,
consulting, facilitating, lab self-assessment and process improvement, inspection, auditing, andvendor oversight.
Materials Development and Verification

106,100

106,100

109,600

To extend the lifetime of reactors, reduce costs, and achieve greater power capabilities, new materials
must be developed and qualified for use in the harsh reactor environment. Existing or new materials
selected for current or future advanced designs must also be economical to acquire and feasible tomanufacture. Manufacturing processes must be developed to ensure the materials can be costeffectively produced to stringent specifications in appropriate quantities. Material test specimens arefabricated and rigorously tested for desired characteristics. Irradiation testing and quality control
techniques are crucial to this qualification process. Materials exhibiting the desired characteristics
warranting further evaluation are committed to long-term tests and verification in prototype cores andtest reactors. Materials Development and Verification work is concentrated in the following areas:(1) Irradiation Testing and Evaluation, (2) Core and Reactor Materials Development, (3) Plant andComponent Materials Development, and (4) Materials Evaluation, Testing and Verification.
Irradiation Testing and Evaluation: This work involves fabricating, testing and examining highintegrity nuclear fuel, poison, cladding and structural materials for affordable advanced naval reactor
cores. The generated data is used to develop materials capable of maintaining their structural andmechanical integrity over long periods of time in an operating reactor environment. FY 2011 work
objectives include the following:• Establish methods and hardware to irradiate and qualify new materials and manufacturing methods
for PWR designs;• Perform destructive and non-destructive testing and evaluation of irradiated fuel, poison, andcladding in support of development and improvement of core, plant and steam generator materials;• Perform post-service evaluation of components from the fleet to improve component designs andverify performance;• Examine PWR fuel and cladding performance incorporating results into predictive tools, and• Deliver test assemblies for irradiation testing at the Advanced Test Reactor.

Naval Reactors/
Operations and Maintenance

Page 466

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011Core and Reactor Materials Development: Involves verifying acceptable performance for current
cores through end of life, pursuing potential cost reductions, and improving materials and processes
through long-term irradiation tests and evaluations. FY 2011 work objectives include the following:• Utilize test data and increased fundamental understanding to improve models and revise current
design bases for more capable and cost efficient PWR designs;• Continue to develop, test, and examine high performance fuel system constituent materials foradvanced applications;• Continue to establish the processes needed to qualify new materials and manufacturing methods forsafer, more capable, and more cost effective PWR designs;• Apply core material modeling capabilities to guide testing programs, improved understanding of
manufacturing processes, and better predict in-core performance;• Incorporate design procedures and performance limits into the Fuel and Poison Design manualdeveloped for future PWR designs, and• Perform corrosion testing to support core design needs, model development and improved
understanding of the corrosion process for particular metals and metal alloys.
Plant and Component Materials Development: This work characterizes high strength structural,
corrosion resistant, pressure vessel, steam generator, and valve materials to determine the cause fordegraded performance and develop improved predictive techniques. FY 2011 work objectives include
the following:• Continue testing of Stress Corrosion Cracking in 304 stainless steel;• Complete Alloy 600 Stress Corrosion Cracking initiation and incubation testing, and• Provide manufacturing support for S9G Steam Generators and A1B reactor heavy equipment
fabrication.
Materials Evaluation, Testing and Verification: The purpose of this work is to establish andmaintain capability to perform materials testing representative of shipboard service applications.
FY 2011 work objectives include the following:• Provide Analytical Chemistry, Radiochemistry, Physical Chemistry, Metallography, Microanalytical and Mechanical Testing services in support of materials development programs;• Conduct high temperature and high-pressure autoclave testing in support of new materials
development for use in the fleet, and• Qualify and implement Focus Ion Beam capabilities.

Naval Reactors/
Operations and Maintenance

Page 467

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
Evaluation and Servicing

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

264,300

261,400

325,700

Evaluation and Servicing promotes the Naval Reactors Program tradition of safety, reliability, andtechnical excellence through the operation, maintenance, and testing of land-based test facilities. A
key focus of these facilities is to enhance fleet performance through testing and examination ofmaterials, components, and new designs under actual operating conditions. This effort includes thedesign of fuel servicing and component disposal equipment, evaluating and resolving design issues,
plus the planning and execution of defueling, lay-up, and disassembly work. Evaluation and Servicing
work is concentrated in the following areas: (1) Routine Operations and Maintenance, (2) Routine
Environmental Remediation, (3) Servicing, (4) Expended Core Processing and Examination, and(5) Prototype Inactivation.
Routine Operations and Maintenance: This work involves operating the Naval Reactors prototypes
in a safe and reliable manner to support testing and evaluation of new components, systems,
applications, and designs. The work also supports preventive maintenance, upgrades andmodifications on the prototypes. FY 2011 work objectives include the following:• Operate the prototypes for testing and maintenance at a utilization factor of equal to or greater than90 percent;• Perform depletion and testing of the cores in Modifications and Additions to Reactor Facilities(MARF) and S8G prototypes;• Conduct MARF maximum power tests at specified intervals;• Conduct MARF and S8G materials stress tests, and• Complete periodic MARF and S8G routine maintenance shutdowns.
Routine Environmental Remediation: This process involves decontaminating to minimize theenvironmental, health, and safety impact of contaminated facilities, with the benefit of making
radiological facilities available for non-radiological use. FY 2011 work objectives include thefollowing:• Conduct remediation of obsolete facilities to reduce potential environmental liabilities;• Maintain inactive Naval Reactors Facility (NRF) prototype plants in a safe and environmentallybenign condition;• Commence scoping study for the F-Complex demolition;• Conduct decontamination and disposition of existing Expended Core Facility environmental
legacies;• Continue efforts to prepare L-building for demolition, and• Continue Q-complex demolition.

Naval Reactors/
Operations and Maintenance

Page 468

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

Servicing: This work involves servicing prototypes to ensure continued safe and reliable operation.
Servicing also provides refueling/defueling systems for both existing and new core designs. FY 2011
work objectives include the following:• Continue casualty monitoring instrumentation and emergency safeguards system cutting equipment
design;• Replace the Ships Battery during the planned MARF prototype shutdown;• Perform pressurizer heavy heaterwell inspection and replacement during the planned MARF
prototype shutdown;• Perform a media replacement during the planned S8G prototype shutdown, and• Commence planning and design work to refuel and overhaul the land-based prototype.
Expended Core Processing & Examination: This work involves operating the Expended Core
Facility (ECF) in Idaho including the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) in a safe and reliable manner tosupport examination and disposal of spent naval fuel. FY 2011 work objectives include the following:• Perform specific core component examinations as requested by test sponsors;• Provide engineering support and funding to maintain five NR Program test loops at the ATR;
• Perform scheduled examinations of irradiated test specimens;• Complete design of M-290 unloading equipment;• Commence design of M-290 loading equipment, and• Perform conceptual design and NEPA (i.e., Environmental Impact Statement) efforts in support ofrecapitalization of the Program’s spent nuclear fuel infrastructure.
Prototype Inactivation: This work involves the disassembly and disposition of the Program’s testing
prototypes and support facilities. FY 2011 work objectives include the following:• Continue disassembly of the D1G Primary Shield Tank; and• Continue D1G reactor compartment disassembly.
Advanced Test Reactor Operations and Test Support

60,30061,80063,100Naval Reactors performs irradiation testing at the Advanced Test Reactor in support of advanced
reactor design development. While ATR is a facility primarily funded by the Office of Nuclear
Energy and operated by their contractor, NR funds a portion of the cost of base operations of the ATR,
as well as NR specific testing.

Naval Reactors/
Operations and Maintenance

Page 469

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
Facility Operations

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 201132,50039,33344,186

Facility Operations funding supports general plant projects (GPP) and capital equipment
procurements.
Total, Naval Reactors Operations and MaintenanceNaval Reactors/
Operations and Maintenance

Page 470

771,600

877,533

997,886

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Plant Technology• Continue design and development of the OHIO-class replacement ballistic
missile submarine reactor plant including development of I&C, plantarrangements and system designs to meet performance requirements.

+12,200

Reactor Technology and Analysis• Continue design and development of the OHIO-class replacement ballistic
missile submarine reactor plant core.

+20,200• Manufacturing development and demonstration and development of coretechnologies in support of the land-based prototype refueling. Funding thisactivity is in support of delivery of an extended life core design for initialfabrication of the OHIO-class replacement SSBN propulsion plant as well as
ongoing operation of the prototype and related R&D programs beyond 2018.

+14,000

Materials Development and Verification• Manufacturing support for S9G Steam Generators and A1B reactor heavyequipment fabrication.

+1,800• Materials validation work in support of design and development efforts
related to core and core technologies for the land-based prototype refueling($0.9M) and OHIO-class replacement ($0.8M) programs.

+1,700Evaluation and Servicing• Initiation of design for the M-290 loading equipment.

+3,000• Initiation of scoping studies for the F-Complex demolition.

+4,600• Transfer of funding to DOE-NE for safeguards and security services
provided by the Idaho National Laboratory to the Naval Reactors Facility.

-1,500Naval Reactors/
Operations and Maintenance

Page 471

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)• Planning and design work necessary to refuel, overhaul, and modernize theland-based prototype. Funding this activity supports core and coretechnology development work for refueling of the land-based prototype, for
its planned return to service by FY 2021.

+17,600• Conceptual design and NEPA (i.e., Environmental Impact Statement) efforts
in support of recapitalization of the Program’s spent nuclear fuelinfrastructure. Funding supports refueling and defueling schedules fornuclear-powered vessels.

+40,600

ATR Operations and Test Support• Inflationary increase to support continued operations and maintenance of theAdvanced Test Reactor.

+1,300

Facility Operations•

Increase in capital equipment procurements.

Total Funding Change, Operations and MaintenanceNaval Reactors/
Operations and Maintenance

Page 472+4,853+120,353

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Capital Operating Expenses and Construction Summary
Capital Operating Expenses(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 201114,00010,08334,30018,50029,2509,886
32,50039,33344,186

General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

Outyear Capital Operating Expenses
FY 2012General Plant Projects
Capital Equipment
Total, Capital Operating Expenses

15,90032,30048,200(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014
19,30040,70060,000FY 2015

38,00041,50079,50020,30031,90052,200(dollars in thousands)
Total
Estimated
Prior Year
Cost
Appro(TEC)
priations
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
TBD
0
0
700
500

UnappropriatedBalance
12,000Construction Projects

10-D-904, NRF Fire Protection, ID
10-D-903, KSO Security Upgrades

TBD

0

0

1,500

400

19,10009-D-902, NRF Production Support
Complex, ID

18,700

0

8,300

6,400

4,000

0

0

0

1,000

1,000

0

0

70,445

545

300

9,500

25,00035,10029,8103,010

12,40022,00011,70030,8002,700
32,6000

09-D-190, PED, Infrastructure Upgrades,
KAPL
08-D-190, ECF M-290
Receiving/Discharge Station, NRF, ID
07-D-190, Materials Research andTechnology Complex , BAPLa
Total, Construction________________aIncludes PED funding ($3,014,000) from 07-D-190, PED, Materials Research and Technology Complex.

Naval Reactors/
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

Page 473

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetOutyear Construction Projects
FY 201215-D-XXX, NRF Warehouse
15-D-XXX, Materials Characterization Laboratory, KAPL
14-D-XXX, Plant Services Building
14-D-XXX, Support Services Facility
13-D-XXX, ECF Water Pit #1 Upgrade
10-D-904, NRF Fire Protection, ID
10-D-903, KSO Security Upgrades
08-D-190, ECF M-290 Receiving/Discharge Station , NRF, ID
Total, Construction

0
0
0
0
0
12,000100
27,80039,900(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014
0
0
0
0
0
1,000
0
1,000
1,100
800
0
0
19,000
0
5,700
1,700
25,8004,500

FY 2015
12,800
1,000
700
900
9,300
0
0
400
25,100Major Items of Equipment (TEC $2 million or greater)(dollars in thousands)

Major Item ofEquipment
Network Upgrade
Scalable Parallel
Supercomputer
Bettis Network
UpgradeS8G Prototype
I&C

Total
Project
Cost
(TPC)

Other
Project
Costs
(OPC)

Total
Estimated
Cost (TEC)

Prior Year
Appropriations

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

Completion
Date

250

4,450

4,200

0

600

1,200

1,200

FY 2012

401

6,001

5,600

0

5,600

0

0

FY 2009

0

0

3,000

0

0

1,000

1,000

FY 20121500

17,90016,400

0

0

400

1,100

FY 2019

Emergency Safety
Fill System

2,000

14,40012,400

6,100

1,000

0

0

FY 2009

High Performance
Computing
System

889

9,889

9,000

0

0

0

9,000

FY 2011

250

3,250

3,000

0

0

3,000

0

FY 2010

7,200

5,600

12,300High Performance
Computing
SystemTotal, Major
Items of
Equipment

Naval Reactors/
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

Page 474

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetOutyear Major Items of Equipment

Bettis Network Upgrade
KAPL Network UpgradeHigh Performance Technical Computing System (FY 12 Buy)S8G Prototype I&C
High Performance Technical Computing System (FY 13 Buy)High Performance Technical Computing System (FY 14 Buy)
KAPL Network
High Performance Technical Computing System (FY 15 Buy)
Total, Major Items of Equipment

Naval Reactors/
Capital Operating Expenses
and Construction Summary

Page 475(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
1,000
0
0
0
1,200
0
0
0
11,000
0
0
0
1,300
1,600
2,600
4,000
0
11,000000
0
11,000
0
0
0
1,000
0
11,00000014,50012,60013,60016,000FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Naval Reactors - Program Direction
Funding Schedule by Category(dollars in thousands)(Whole FTEs)
FY 2010b

FY 2009

FY 2011

Headquarters
Salary and Benefits
TravelOther Related Expenses
Total, Headquarters
Full-Time Equivalents

11,300970
3,034
15,30474

13,9001,200
3,400
18,50094

14,8001,400
4,600
20,80096

Pittsburgh Naval Reactors
Salary and Benefits
TravelOther Related Expenses
Total, Pittsburgh Naval Reactors
Full-Time Equivalents

9,025
330
1,550
10,905
71

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Schenectady Naval Reactors
Salary and Benefits
TravelOther Related Expenses
Total, Schenectady Naval Reactors
Full-Time Equivalents

7,215
240
790
8,245
64

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

15,200600
2,500
18,300121

15,700800
2,700
19,200121

27,5401,540
5,374
34,454
209

29,1001,800
5,900
36,800215

30,5002,200
7,300
40,000217aNaval Reactors Laboratory Field Office
Salary and Benefits
TravelOther Related Expenses
Total, Naval Reactors Laboratory Field Office
Full-Time Equivalents
Total Naval Reactors Program Direction
Salary and Benefits
TravelOther Related Expenses
Total, Program Direction
Full-Time Equivalents____________________________________a

Beginning in FY 2010, Naval Reactors will consolidate its field offices into one entity. In addition, responsibilities wererealigned between HQ and NRLFO resulting in a shift of Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs).
b

Funding for new projects beginning in FY 2010 also created a need for increased government oversight resulting in an
increase of FTEs in FY 2010.

Naval Reactors/
Program Direction

Page 476

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetOutyear Funding Profile by Category(dollars in thousands/whole FTEs)
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
Headquarters
Salary and Benefits
TravelOther Related Expenses
Total, Headquarters
Full-Time Equivalents

15,3001,450
4,725
21,47596

15,8001,500
4,950
22,25096

16,3001,550
5,075
22,92596

16,8001,600
5,200
23,60096

Naval Reactors Laboratory Field Office
Salary and Benefits
TravelOther Related Expenses
Total, Naval Reactors Laboratory Field Office
Full-Time Equivalents

16,100825
2,800
19,725
121

16,500850
2,800
20,150121

17,000875
2,900
20,775
121

17,500900
3,000
21,400121

Total Naval Reactors Program Direction
Salary and Benefits
TravelOther Related Expenses
Total, Program Direction
Full-Time Equivalents

31,4002,275
7,525
41,200217

32,3002,350
7,750
42,400217

33,3002,425
7,975
43,700217

34,3002,500
8,200
45,000217

MissionDue to the critical nature of nuclear reactor work, Naval Reactors is a centrally managed organization.
Federal employees oversee and set policies and procedures for developing new reactor plants, operating
existing nuclear plants, facilities supporting these plants, contractors, and the Bettis and Knolls Atomic
Power Laboratories. In addition, these employees interface with other DOE offices and local, state, andFederal regulatory agencies.

Naval Reactors/
Program Direction

Page 477

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Detailed Justification(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
Salaries and Benefits

27,54029,10030,500Federal Staff continue to direct technical work and provide management/oversight of laboratories andfacilities to ensure safe and reliable operation of Naval nuclear plants. The change is due to a
projected increase in FTEs for oversight of new project funding in addition to inflationary growth
between FY 2010 and FY 2011.
Travel

1,540

1,800

2,200

Travel includes funding for the transportation of Government employees, their per diem allowances
while in authorized travel status and other expenses incidental to travel. FY 2010 funding supports
travel required for the management and oversight of the Naval Reactors Program, in addition to
inflationary growth between FY 2010 and FY 2011.
Other Related Expenses

5,374

5,900

7,300

Includes provision of funds for increases to the Working Capital Fund (WCF), based on guideline
estimates provided by the Working Capital Fund Manager. Starting in FY 2011, the WCF includes
full funding for the Defense Contract Auditing Agency audits. Funding also supports goods andservices such as training and Automated Data Processing (ADP) maintenance, and includes labor costs
for Bettis contractor services and ADP requirements for Naval Reactors Headquarters internalclassified local area network.
34,454

Total, Program Direction

Naval Reactors/
Program Direction

Page 478

36,80040,000FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Explanation of Funding Changes
FY 2011 vs.
FY 2010($000)
Salaries and Benefits
The change is due to a projected increase in FTEs for oversight of new project fundingin addition to inflationary growth between FY 2010 and FY 2011.

+1,400TravelThe change is due to increased travel requirements for the management and oversightof the Naval Reactors Program, increased costs associated with travel (i.e., airfare/fuel), and adjustments in accordance with allowable inflation.

+400

Other Related Expenses
Change due to increased Working Capital Fund funding requirements which now
include funding for Defense Contract Audit Agency audits. In addition, new program
efforts require additional oversight; additional training and Automated Data
Processing (ADP) maintenance, labor costs for Bettis contractor services and ADP
requirements for Naval Reactors Headquarters internal classified local area network.

+1,400Total Funding Change, Program Direction+3,200

Other Related Expenses by Category(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
Training

240

250

320

Working Capital Fund
Software Procurement/Maintenance Activities/Capital
Acquisitions

674

900

1,380

2,325

2,500

3,000

Other

2,135

2,250

2,600

Total Budget Authority

5,374

5,900

7,300

Naval Reactors/
Program Direction

Page 479

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 480

10-D-904, Naval Reactors Facility (NRF) Fire Protection, Idaho
Project Data Sheet (PDS) is for PED/Construction
1. Significant Changes
The most recent DOE O 413.3A approved Critical Decision (CD) is CD-0, Approve Mission Need,which was approved on April 7, 2009, with a preliminary cost range of $18,000,000 to $23,000,000 andCD-4 of FY 2017.
A Federal Project Director at the appropriate level has been assigned to this project.
This PDS is a continuation of a PED PDS proceeding to construction in FY 2012.
2. Design, Construction, and D&D Schedule(fiscal quarter or date)

FY 2010
FY 2011CD-0
3QFY2009
04/07/2009

CD-1
1QFY2010
2QFY2010

PED
Complete
1QFY2011
1QFY2012

CD-2
TBD
TBD

CD-3
TBD
TBD

CD-4
TBD
TBD

D&D Start
TBD
TBD

D&D
Complete
TBD
TBD

CD-0 – Approve Mission Need
CD-1 – Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range
CD-2 – Approve Performance Baseline
CD-3 – Approve Start of Construction
CD-4 – Approve Start of Operations or Project Closeout
D&D Start – Start of Demolition & Decontamination (D&D) work
D&D Complete – Completion of D&D work
3. Baseline and Validation Status

FY 2010
FY 2011

TEC,
PED
1,200
1,200

TEC,
Construction
TBD
TBD(dollars in thousands)
OPC
TEC, Total
Except D&D
TBD
443
TBD
TBD

OPC,
D&D
TBD
TBD

OPC, Total
TBD
TBD

TPC
TBD
TBD

4. Project Description, Justification, and Scope
The NRF Fire Protection project will replace most of the NRF site-wide fire alarm notification system.
The current site-wide fire alarm system requires replacement due to a system architecture that isvulnerable to single point faults that affect or disable fire protection and evacuation signaling.
The fire protection upgrades will install new signaling panels networked together to provide
communications capabilities for monitoring. All buildings will comply with applicable standards byassuring manual pull stations are within code and horns and strobe lights meet the American Disability
requirements.

Naval Reactors/Construction
10-D-904 – NRF Fire Protection, Idaho

Page 481

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

The project is being conducted in accordance with the NR Implementation Bulletin of DOE O 413.3A
and the NR Program and Project Management Manual, and appropriate project management
requirements have been met.
5. Financial Schedule
Appropriations(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

Total Estimated Cost (TEC)PED
FY 2010
FY 2011
Total, PED

700
500
1,200

700
500
1,200

694
506
1,200

77
105
182

77
105
182

77
105
182

Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&D
FY 2008
FY 2009
Total, OPC except D&D

6. Details of Project Cost Estimate(dollars in thousands)
Current Previous Original
Total
Total Validated
Estimate Estimate Baseline
Total Estimated Cost (TEC)
Design (PED)
DesignContingency
Total, PED

1,200
0
1,200

1,200
0
1,200

N/A
N/A
N/A

25
157
0
182

56
387
0
443

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&D
Conceptual Planning
Conceptual Design
Contingency
Total, OPC except D&D

Naval Reactors/Construction
10-D-904 – NRF Fire Protection, Idaho

Page 482

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

7. Schedule of Total Project Costs
Prior Years FY 2010
FY 2009
TEC
Performance OPC
Baseline
TPC
TEC
FY 2010OPC
TPC
TEC
FY 2011
OPC
TPC

0
443
443
182
182

FY 2011(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

FY 2015

Outyears

Total

0
700

0
500

0

0

0

0

0

700
700

500
500

0

0

0

0

0

700

500

0

0

0

0

0

0
0
0
1,200
443
1,643
1,200
182
1,382

8. Related Operations and Maintenance Funding Requirements
Not applicable for PED.
9. Required D&D Information
Not applicable for PED.
10. Acquisition Approach
Not applicable for PED.

Naval Reactors/Construction
10-D-904 – NRF Fire Protection, Idaho

Page 483

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 484

10-D-903, KSO Security Upgrades, Schenectady, NY
Project Data Sheet (PDS) is for PED/Construction
1. Significant Changes
The most recent DOE O 413.3A approved Critical Decision (CD) is CD-0, Approve Mission Need,which was approved on April 22, 2008, with a preliminary cost range of $19,000,000 to $23,000,000
and a CD-4 of FY 2016.
A Federal Project Director at the appropriate level has been assigned to this project.
This PDS is a continuation of a PED PDS proceeding to construction in FY 2013.
2. Design, Construction, and D&D Schedule(fiscal quarter or date)

FY 2010
FY 2011CD-0
4/22/2008
4/22/2008

PED
Complete
2QFY2013
4QFY2012

CD-1
2QFY2009
4QFY2009

CD-2
TBD
TBD

CD-3
TBD
TBD

CD-4
TBD
TBD

D&D Start
TBD
TBD

D&D
Complete
TBD
TBD

CD-0 – Approve Mission Need
CD-1 – Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range
CD-2 – Approve Performance Baseline
CD-3 – Approve Start of Construction
CD-4 – Approve Start of Operations or Project Closeout
D&D Start – Start of Demolition & Decontamination (D&D) work
D&D Complete – Completion of D&D work
3. Baseline and Validation Status

FY 2010
FY 2011

TEC,
PED
2,000
2,000

TEC,
Construction
TBD
TBD(dollars in thousands)
OPC
TEC, Total
Except D&Da
TBD
400
TBD
300

OPC,
D&D
TBD
TBD

OPC, Total
TBD
TBD

TPC
TBD
TBD

4. Project Description, Justification, and Scope
The Kesselring Site Operation (KSO) Security Upgrades project will replace and upgrade security
related infrastructure on the site perimeter at the Kesselring Site. The advanced age and degradation of
the currently installed security systems requires upgrading to continue meeting the basic security
principles to deter, detect, assess and delay, as directed by the security vulnerability assessment. Thea

Includes conceptual planning and design.

Naval Reactors/Construction
10-D-903 – KSO Security
Upgrades, Schenectady, NY

Page 485

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

site will acquire upgrades to the security perimeter, perimeter lighting system, alarm system, and newsite entrance buildings.
The project is being conducted in accordance with the NR Implementation Bulletin of DOE O 413.3A
and the NR Program and Project Management Manual, and appropriate project management
requirements have been met.
5. Financial Schedule
Appropriations(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

Total Estimated Cost (TEC)PED
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
Total, PED

1,500
400
100
2,000

1,500
400
100
2,000

1,000
400
600
2,000

300
300

300
300

300
300

Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&D
FY 2008
Total, OPC except D&D

6. Details of Project Cost Estimate(dollars in thousands)
Current Previous Original
Total
Total Validated
Estimate Estimate Baseline
Total Estimated Cost (TEC)
Design (PED)
DesignContingency
Total, PED

1,818
182
2,000

1,820
180
2,000

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
300
N/A
300
300

N/A
400
N/A
400
400

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&D
Conceptual Planning
Conceptual Design
Contingency
Total, OPC except D&D
Total, OPC

Naval Reactors/Construction
10-D-903 – KSO Security
Upgrades, Schenectady, NY

Page 486

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

7. Schedule of Total Project Costs
Prior Years
FY 2009 TEC
PerformanceOPC
Baseline
TPC
TEC
FY 2010 OPC
TPC
TEC
FY 2011 OPC
TPC

0
400
400
300
300

FY 2010

FY 2011(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

FY 2015

Outyears

Total

0
1,500

0
500

0

0

0

0

0

1,500
1,500

500
400

0
100

0

0

0

0

1,500

400

100

0

0

0

0

0
0
0
2,000
400
2,400
2,000
300
2,300

8. Related Operations and Maintenance Funding Requirements
Not applicable for PED.
9. Required D&D Information
Not applicable for PED.
10. Acquisition Approach
Not applicable for PED.

Naval Reactors/Construction
10-D-903 – KSO Security
Upgrades, Schenectady, NY

Page 487

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 488

09-D-902, Naval Reactors Facility (NRF) Production Support Complex,
Naval Reactors Facility, Idaho
Project Data Sheet (PDS) is for Construction
1. Significant Changes
The most recent DOE O 413.3A approved Critical Decision (CD) is CD-3, Approve Start ofConstruction, which was approved on February 11, 2009, with a Total Project Cost of $19,945,000 andCD-4 of 2Q FY 2013.
A Federal Project Director at the appropriate level has been assigned to this project.
This PDS is an update of the FY 2010 PDS.
2. Design, Construction, and D&D Schedule(fiscal quarter or date)

FY2009FY2010FY2011CD-0
8/30/2007
8/30/2007
8/30/2007

PED
Completea
N/A
N/A
N/A

CD-1
1QFY2008
7/15/2008
7/15/2008

CD-2
1QFY2008
7/15/2008
7/15/2008

CD-3
2QFY2009
2/11/2009
2/11/2009

CD-4
2QFY2012
2QFY2012
2QFY2013

D&D Start
N/A
N/A
N/A

D&D
Complete
N/A
N/A
N/A

CD-0 – Approve Mission Need
CD-1 – Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range
CD-2 – Approve Performance Baseline
CD-3 – Approve Start of Construction
CD-4 – Approve Start of Operations or Project Closeout
D&D Start – Start of Demolition & Decontamination (D&D) work
D&D Complete – Completion of D&D work
3. Baseline and Validation Status

FY2009FY2010FY2011

a

TEC,
PED
N/A
N/A
1,855

TEC,
Construction
18,70018,70016,845(dollars in thousands)
OPC
TEC, Total
Except D&D
18,700288
18,700772
18,700
1,245

OPC,
D&D
N/A
N/A
N/A

OPC, Total
288
772
1,245

TPC
18,98819,472
19,945Construction design will be performed by the Design-Build contractor.

Naval Reactors/Construction
09-D-902 – NRF Production
Support Complex, ID

Page 489

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

4. Project Description, Justification, and Scope
Description
The NRF Production Support Complex is a design-build project that will construct an office building
containing a cafeteria, an emergency control center (ECC), training classrooms, and a large meetingroom that can be easily modified to accommodate additional cafeteria seating or classroom space.
Justification
The NRF has experienced substantial employee population growth over the past five years to establish
the production capability to process spent nuclear fuel. NRF is the sole facility in the Naval Nuclear
Propulsion Program which has the facilities, equipment, and established processes for processing spent
naval nuclear fuel. The processing of spent naval nuclear fuel into containers is required to support
ongoing fleet defuelings to meet legal agreements with the state of Idaho. The population growth has
exhausted the available office capacity to permanently house professional employees in program
standard office environments. Additionally, the population growth has exceeded the existing capacity of
support activities including the NRF cafeteria, large training and meeting rooms, and the NRF ECC.
Additional space and capability in these areas are required to maintain professional work environments
and to support the site’s mission.
Scope
The NRF Production Support Complex project will construct an office building that will containapproximately 170 office spaces, a cafeteria that can serve approximately 500 persons for lunch and seatapproximately 250 persons, approximately 2,400 square feet of space for an ECC, and approximately
37,900 square feet of space for training classrooms, office spaces, and a large meeting room that can beeasily modified to accommodate additional cafeteria seating or classroom space.
The project is being conducted in accordance with the NR Implementation Bulletin of DOE O 413.3A
and the NR Program and Project Management Manual, and appropriate project management
requirements have been met.
5. Financial Schedule
Appropriations(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

Total Estimated Cost (TEC)FY 2009
FY 2010
Total, Design
Construction
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
Total, Construction

Naval Reactors/Construction
09-D-902 – NRF Production
Support Complex, ID

1,855
0
1,855

1,855
0
1,855

200
1,655
1,855

6,445
6,400
4,000

6,445
6,400
4,000

16,845

16,8450
5,390
10,612843
16,845

Page 490

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Appropriations
TEC
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
Total, TEC(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

8,300
6,400
4,000
0
18,700

8,300
6,400
4,000
0
18,700200
7,045
10,612843
18,700

51
312
63
119
96
156
448
1,245

51
312
63
119
96
156
448
1,245

51
312
63
119
96
156
448
1,245

D&D
Total, D&D

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

OPC
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
Total, OPC

51
312
63
119
96
156
448
1,245

51
312
63
119
96
156
448
1,245

51
312
63
119
96
156
448
1,245

51
312
8,363
6,519
4,096
156
448
19,945

51
312
8,363
6,519
4,096
156
448
19,945

51
312
63
7,364
10,708999
448
19,945

Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&D
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
Total, OPC except D&D

Total Project Cost (TPC)FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
Total, TPC

Naval Reactors/Construction
09-D-902 – NRF Production
Support Complex, ID

Page 491

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

6. Details of Project Cost Estimate(dollars in thousands)
Current Previous Original
Total
Total Validated
Estimate Estimate Baseline
Total Estimated Cost (TEC)
DesignDesignContingency
Total, Design

1,855
N/A
1,855

1,794
N/A
1,794

1,794
N/A
1,794

Construction
Site Preparation
Equipment and Furnishings
Other Construction
Contingency
Total, Construction

556
1,847
12,754
1,688
16,845349
1,718
13,5391,300
16,906349
1,556
10,686
4,315
16,906

Total, TEC
Contingency, TEC

18,7001,688

18,7001,300

18,7004,315

OPC except D&D
Conceptual Planning
Conceptual Design
Start-UpContingency
Total, OPC except D&D

51
375
819
0
1,245

51
284
437
0
772

74
150
64
0
288

D&D
D&D
Contingency
Total, D&D

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

Total, OPC
Contingency, OPC

1,245
0

772
0

288
0

19,945
1,688

19,472
1,300

18,9884,315

Other Project Cost (OPC)

Total, TPC
Total, Contingency

Naval Reactors/Construction
09-D-902 – NRF Production
Support Complex, ID

Page 492

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

7. Schedule of Total Project Costs

FY 2009
TEC
Performance OPC
Baseline
TPC
TEC
FY 2010OPC
TPC
TEC
FY 2011OPC
TPC

Prior Years
8,300
224
8,524
8,300
335
8,635
8,300
426
8,726

FY 20106,400

FY 2011
4,000

6,400
6,400

4,000
4,000

6,400
6,400
119
6,519

4,000
4,000
96
4,096

(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

FY 2015

Outyears

64
64

0

0

0

0

437
437

0

0

0

0

156
156

448
448

0

0

0

Total
18,700288
18,98818,700772
19,472
18,700
1,245
19,945

8. Related Operations and Maintenance Funding Requirements
Start of Operation or Beneficial Occupancy (fiscal quarter or date)

2QFY2013

Expected Useful Life (number of years)
Expected Future Start of D&D of this capital asset (fiscal quarter)40
2QFY2053(Related Funding requirements)

Operations and MaintenanceTotal, Operations & Maintenance(dollars in thousands)
Annual Costs
Life Cycle Costs
Current Previous Current Previous
Total
Total
Total
Total
Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
374
374
14,96014,960374
374
14,96014,960

9. Required D&D Informationa
Area
Area of new construction
Area of existing facility(s) being replaced
Area of additional D&D space to meet the “one-for-one” requirement

Square Feet
N/A
N/A
N/A

Name(s) and site location(s) of existing facility(s) to be replaced: N/A
10. Acquisition Approach
The Program’s prime contractor prepared the performance specification as the basis for the design-build
contract. A fixed-price contract for the procurement and construction will be awarded on the basis ofcompetitive bidding. The successful design-build contractor will perform the design and construction of
the new facility.
a

No offsetting D&D will be identified for this project. The NRF site has and will continue to expand to meet mission-criticalwork in support of spent fuel processing with insufficient excess facilities to support planned construction.

Naval Reactors/Construction
09-D-902 – NRF Production
Support Complex, ID

Page 493

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 494

08-D-190, Expended Core Facility (ECF) M-290 Receiving/Discharge Station, Naval Reactors
Facility, Idaho
Project Data Sheet (PDS) is for PED/Construction
1. Significant Changes
The most recent DOE O 413.3A approved Critical Decision (CD) is CD-2, Approve Performance
Baseline, which was approved on November 30, 2009, with a Total Project Cost of $75,186,000 and aCD-4 of 3Q FY 2014.
A Federal Project Director at the appropriate level has been assigned to this project.
This PDS is an update of the FY 2010 PDS.
2. Design, Construction, and D&D Schedule(fiscal quarter or date)

FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011CD-0
11/30/2006
11/30/2006
11/30/2006
11/30/2006

PED
Complete
2QFY2010
2QFY2010
2QFY2010
3QFY2010

CD-1
4QFY2007
8/17/2007
8/17/2007
8/17/2007

CD-2
TBD
TBD
3QFY2009
1QFY2010

CD-3
TBD
TBD
1QFY2010
1QFY2011

CD-4
TBD
TBD
2QFY2014
3QFY2014

D&D Start
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

D&D
Complete
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

CD-0 – Approve Mission Need
CD-1 – Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range
CD-2 – Approve Performance Baseline
CD-3 – Approve Start of Construction
CD-4 – Approve Start of Operations or Project Closeout
D&D Start – Start of Demolition & Decontamination (D&D) work
D&D Complete – Completion of D&D work
3. Baseline and Validation Status

FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011

TEC,
PED
850
1,045
1,045
4,081

TEC, Construction
TBD
TBD
21,50066,864(dollars in thousands)
OPC
Except D&Da
TEC, Total
TBD
298
TBD
298
22,545649
70,945
4,241

OPC,
D&D
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

OPC, Total
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

TPC
TBD
TBD
23,19475,186

4. Project Description, Justification, and Scope
The M-290 shipping container system will allow direct loading of carrier spent nuclear fuel without
temporary storage and disassembly work at the shipyard as currently required for existing smalleraIncludes conceptual planning and design.

Naval Reactors/Construction
08-D-190 – ECF M-290 Receiving/
Discharge Station

Page 495

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

M-140 shipping containers. The direct loading method improves shipyard operations, supports
aggressive refueling and inactivation (defueling) schedules and mitigates potential security risks
associated with holding spent nuclear fuel at the shipyard. The full-length carrier spent nuclear fuel tobe shipped in the M-290 is approximately twice as long as the fuel modules typically sent to ECF. As
such, ECF currently does not have facilities capable of handling the larger, heavier, M-290 shipping
container. The project will also provide the capability to ship spent nuclear fuel from ECF to apermanent repository or interim storage facility using the M-290 shipping container.
This project will accomplish the following: 1) construct a new facility to allow the receipt and handlingof M-290 shipping containers, 2) incorporate an Overpack Expansion Building to store approximately
110 spent nuclear fuel overpacks (previously identified as a separate line-item construction project), and3) construct related support facilities (e.g., briefing room, lockers, and office spaces). One key aspect of
this new facility will be the capability for concurrent operations of fuel processing from INTEC andreceipt and handling of M-290 shipping containers.
Funding in FY 2010 supports long-lead material procurement.
The project is being conducted in accordance with the NR Implementation Bulletin of DOE O 413.3A
and the NR Program and Project Management Manual, and appropriate project management
requirements have been met.
No construction funds other than for long lead equipment will be used until the project performancebaseline has been validated and CD-3 has been approved.
5. Financial Schedule
Appropriations(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

Total Estimated Cost (TEC)PED
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
Total, PED

545
300
3,236
4,081

545
300
3,236
4,081

436
409
3,236
4,081

Construction
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
Total Construction

6,264
25,00027,800
5,700
1,700
400
66,864

6,264
25,00027,800
5,700
1,700
400
66,864

3,296
18,892
28,102
10,5023,672
2,400
66,864

Naval Reactors/Construction
08-D-190 – ECF M-290 Receiving/
Discharge Station

Page 496

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Appropriations
TEC
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
Total, TEC(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

545
300
9,500
25,00027,800
5,700
1,700
400
70,945

545
300
9,500
25,00027,800
5,700
1,700
400
70,945

436
409
6,532
18,892
28,102
10,5023,672
2,400
70,945

144
418
1,999
107
580
118
115
260
500
4,241

144
418
1,999
107
580
118
115
260
500
4,241

144
418
1,999
107
580
118
115
260
500
4,241

D&Da
Total, D&D

N/A

N/A

N/A

OPC
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
Total, OPC

144
418
1,999
107
580
118
115
260
500
4,241

144
418
1,999
107
580
118
115
260
500
4,241

144
418
1,999
107
580
118
115
260
500
4,241

Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&D
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
Total, OPC except D&Da

No offsetting D&D will be identified for this project. The Naval Reactors Facility site will expand to meet mission-criticalwork in support of spent fuel processing with insufficient excess facilities to support planned construction.
Naval Reactors/Construction
08-D-190 – ECF M-290 Receiving/
Discharge Station

Page 497

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Appropriations
Total Project Cost (TPC)FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
Total, TPC

144
963
2,299
9,607
25,58027,918
5,815
1,960
900
75,186

Costs

144
963
2,299
9,607
25,58027,918
5,815
1,960
900
75,186

144
854
2,408
6,639
19,472
28,22010,6173,932
2,900
75,186

6. Details of Project Cost Estimate(dollars in thousands)
Current Previous Original
Total
Total Validated
Estimate Estimate Baseline
Total Estimated Cost (TEC)
DesignDesignContingency
Total, Design

3,770
311
4,081

808
237
1,045

0
0
0

Construction
Site Preparation
Equipment and Furnishings
Other Construction
Contingency
Total, Construction

0
11,76545,6599,440
66,8640
7,950
10,924
2,626
21,50000000

Total, TEC
Contingency, TEC

70,945
9,751

22,545
2,863

0
0

666
1,661
1,914

100
298
251

4,241

649

0
0
0
0
0

D&D
D&D
Contingency
Total, D&D

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

0
0
0

Total, OPC
Contingency, OPC

4,241
0

649
0

0
0

75,186
9,751

23,1942,863

00Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&D
Conceptual Planning
Conceptual Design
Start-UpContingency
Total, OPC except D&D

Total, TPC
Total, Contingency
Naval Reactors/Construction
08-D-190 – ECF M-290 Receiving/
Discharge Station

Page 498

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

7. Schedule of Total Project Costs

FY 2009
TEC
Performance OPC
Baseline
TPC
TEC
FY 2010OPC
TPC
TEC
FY 2011OPC
TPC

Prior Years
1,395
298
1,693
845
415
1,260
845
2,561
3,406

FY 2010200

FY 2011

200
9,500
6
9,506
9,500
107
9,607

0
5,400
16
5,416
25,000580
25,580(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

0
16
16
27,800118
27,918

0
6,800
16
6,816
5,700
115
5,815

FY 2015

Outyears

0

0

0

180
180
1,700
260
1,960

0
400
500
900

0

0

Total
1,595
298
1,893
22,545649
23,19470,9454,241
75,186

8. Related Operations and Maintenance Funding Requirements
Start of Operation or Beneficial Occupancy (fiscal quarter or date)

3QFY2014

Expected Useful Life (number of years)
Expected Future Start of D&D of this capital asset (fiscal quarter)40
3QFY2054(Related Funding requirements)

Operations
MaintenanceTotal, Operations & Maintenance(dollars in thousands)
Annual Costs
Life Cycle Costs
Current Previous Current Previous
Total
Total
Total
Total
Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

9. Required D&D Information
Area
Area of new construction
Area of existing facility(s) being replaced
Area of additional D&D space to meet the “one-for-one” requirement

Square Feet
N/A
N/A
N/A

Name(s) and site location(s) of existing facility(s) to be replaced: N/A
10. Acquisition Approach
The Program’s A/E subcontractor will perform construction design to support development of aconstruction solicitation package. This contract will be designated as a fixed-price contract for
procurement and construction and will be awarded on the basis of competitive bidding.

Naval Reactors/Construction
08-D-190 – ECF M-290 Receiving/
Discharge Station

Page 499

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 500

07-D-190, Materials Research and Technology Complex, Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory,
Pittsburgh, PA
Project Data Sheet (PDS) is for PED/Construction
1. Significant Changes
The most recent DOE O 413.3A approved Critical Decision (CD) is CD-3, Start of Construction, which
was approved on September 5, 2008, with a Total Project Cost of $71,690,000 and CD-4 of
4Q FY 2011.
A Federal Project Director at the appropriate level has been assigned to this project.
This PDS is an update of the FY 2010 PDS.
2. Design, Construction, and D&D Schedule(fiscal quarter or date)

FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011CD-0
2/12/2004
2/12/2004
2/12/2004
2/12/2004
2/12/2004

CD-1
2QFY2005
2QFY2005
4/11/2007
4/11/2007
4/11/2007

PED
Complete
3QFY2008
3QFY2008
1QFY2009
1/13/2009
1/13/2009

CD-2
TBD
TBD
12/17/2007
12/17/2007
12/17/2007

CD-3
TBD
TBD
1QFY2009
9/5/2008
9/5/2008

CD-4
TBD
TBD
4QFY2011
4QFY2011
4QFY2011

D&D Start
TBD
TBD
1QFY2009
5/21/2008
5/21/2008

D&D
Complete
TBD
TBD
4QFY2039
4QFY2039
4QFY2039

CD-0 – Approve Mission Need
CD-1 – Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range
CD-2 – Approve Performance Baseline
CD-3 – Approve Start of Construction
CD-4 – Approve Start of Operations or Project Closeout
D&D Start – Start of Demolition & Decontamination (D&D) work
D&D Complete – Completion of D&D work
3. Baseline and Validation Status

FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011(dollars in thousands)
TEC,
TEC,
OPC
OPC,
PED
Construction
TEC, Total Except D&Da
OPC, Total
D&Db
3,014
TBD
TBD
930
TBD
TBD
3,014
TBD
TBD
930
TBD
TBD
3,010
26,80029,8104,370
36,50040,8703,010
26,80029,8104,760
36,50041,2603,010
26,80029,8104,380
37,50041,880aPrior to CD-2, OPC only included costs for conceptual planning and design.

b

D&D is performed in accordance with the Program’s 30-year D&D plan.

Naval Reactors/Construction
07-D-190 – Materials Research
and Technology Complex

Page 501

TPC
TBD
TBD
70,68071,07071,690FY 2011 Congressional Budget

4. Project Description, Justification, and Scope
Description
The MRTC project will include the construction of an approximately 37,000 gross square feet (GSF)
main chemistry building and the modification of the existing 16,400 GSF Cleanroom Technology
Facility, as well as related support and office facilities. The main building will house general chemistry,
classical wet chemistry, surface science, electron microprobe, spectroscopy, and radiochemistrylaboratories, while the existing CTF building will house the analytical electron microscopy, scanningelectron microscopy, and metallography laboratories. Related support and office facilities will provide
sufficient space to collocate all materials research personnel. The buildings will be constructed outsideof the existing perimeter fence in the southwest corner of the ball field at the Bettis Atomic Power
Laboratory site in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania.
Justification
The analysis and testing laboratory facilities to be constructed as part of the MRTC project are the focal
point for providing the necessary technology to support Bettis-Pittsburgh’s efforts to develop, test, andqualify material and processes for supporting a variety of Naval Reactors programs, as well as theoperating fleet. The existing testing laboratories currently operate within 50-year-old buildings withaging infrastructure and radiological, asbestos, and PCB legacies. The new complex is needed toreplace old and inadequate system utilities; to effectively integrate environmental and radiologicalrequirements to maximize productivity; and to consolidate currently dispersed operations to optimize
technical alignment of the test laboratories’ organization. Construction of the MRTC will also allow thecurrent facilities to be vacated and turned over to the Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D)
contractor for future deconstruction.
Scope
The MRTC project will consist of several buildings for a total of 70,900 gross square feet. Of the total
gross square footage approximately 25 percent is designated as office or conference facilities while theremaining 75 percent gross square feet will consist of mechanical rooms and technical laboratory space.
The main building (MRTC-2) will house general chemistry, classical wet chemistry, surface science,electron microprobe, spectroscopy, and radiochemistry laboratories, while the existing Cleanroom
Technology Facility building will house the analytical electron microscopy, scanning electron
microscopy, and metallography laboratories (MRTC-1). Related support and office facilities will housea conference room, office spaces, restrooms and utility spaces for mechanical and electrical equipment.
The project is being conducted in accordance with the NR Implementation Bulletin of DOE O 413.3A
and the NR Program and Project Management Manual, and appropriate project management
requirements have been met.

Naval Reactors/Construction
07-D-190 – Materials Research
and Technology Complex

Page 502

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

5. Financial Schedule
Appropriations(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Costs

Total Estimated Cost (TEC)PED
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
Total, PED

1,079
0
1,485
446
0
3,010

1,079
0
1,485
446
0
3,010

1,079
0
624
1,234
73
3,010

Construction
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
Total, Construction

12,40011,7002,700
026,80012,40011,7002,700
026,8004,100
15,8006,400
500
26,800TEC
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
Total, TEC

1,079
0
1,485
446
12,40011,7002,700
029,810

1,079
0
1,485
446
12,40011,7002,700
029,810

1,079
0
624
1,234
4,173
15,8006,400
500
29,810

OPC except D&D
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
Total, OPC except D&D

567
363
0
25
425
1,100
200
1,700
4,380

567
363
0
25
425
1,100
200
1,700
4,380

567
363
0
25
425
1,100
200
1,700
4,380

D&D
FY 2013 – FY 2039a
Total, D&D

37,50037,50037,50037,50037,50037,500

Other Project Cost (OPC)a

D&D is performed in accordance with the Program’s 30-year D&D plan.

Naval Reactors/Construction
07-D-190 – Materials Research
and Technology Complex

Page 503

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
Obligations

Appropriations

Costs

OPC
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2014 – FY 2039
Total, OPC

567
363
0
25
425
1,100
200
1,700
37,50041,880

567
363
0
25
425
1,100
200
1,700
37,50041,880

567
363
0
25
425
1,100
200
1,700
37,50041,880Total Project Cost (TPC)FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012FY 2014 – FY 2039
Total, TPC

1,646
363
1,485
471
12,82512,8002,900
1,700
37,50071,690

1,646
363
1,485
471
12,82512,8002,900
1,700
37,50071,690

1,646
363
624
1,259
4,598
16,9006,600
2,200
37,50071,6906. Details of Project Cost Estimate(dollars in thousands)
Current Previous Original
Total
Total Validated
Estimate Estimate Baseline
Total Estimated Cost (TEC)
Design (PED)
DesignContingency
Total, PED

3,010
0
3,010

3,010
0
3,010

3,010
0
3,010

Construction
Site Preparation
Equipment
Other Construction
Contingency
Total, Construction

94
1,483
19,8935,330
26,80097
021,3735,330
26,80097
021,3735,330
26,800Total, TEC
Contingency, TEC

29,8105,330

29,8105,330

29,8105,330

Naval Reactors/Construction
07-D-190 – Materials Research
and Technology Complex

Page 504

FY 2011 Congressional Budget(dollars in thousands)
Current Previous Original
Total
Total Validated
Estimate Estimate Baseline
Other Project Cost (OPC)
OPC except D&D
Conceptual Planning
Conceptual Design
Start-Up
Soil Removal
Temporary Utilities
Relocation
Contingency
Total, OPC except D&D

175
755
575
129
39
2,707
0
4,380

567
363
440
120
35
3,235
0
4,760

567
363
420
0
20
3,000
0
4,370

D&D
D&D
Contingency
Total, D&D

37,500037,50036,500036,50036,500036,500Total, OPC
Contingency, OPC

41,880041,260040,870071,6905,330

71,0705,330

70,6805,330

Total, TPC
Total, Contingency

7. Schedule of Total Project Costs

FY 2009
TEC
Performance OPC
Baseline
TPC
TEC
FY 2010OPC
TPC
TEC
FY 2011OPC
TPC

Prior Years
15,4101,065
16,475
15,4101,355
16,765
15,4101,380
16,790FY 2010
11,700200
11,90011,700680
12,38011,7001,100
12,800FY 2011
2,700
1,605
4,305
2,700
725
3,425
2,700
200
2,900

(dollars in thousands)
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

FY 2015

Outyears

1,500
1,500

0

0

0

36,50036,500

2,000
2,000

0

0

0

36,50036,500

1,700
1,700

0

0

0

37,50037,500Total
29,81040,87070,68029,81041,26071,07029,81041,88071,6908. Related Operations and Maintenance Funding Requirements
Start of Operation or Beneficial Occupancy (fiscal quarter or date)

1QFY2012

Expected Useful Life (number of years)
Expected Future Start of D&D of this capital asset (fiscal quarter)50
1QFY2062

Naval Reactors/Construction
07-D-190 – Materials Research
and Technology Complex

Page 505

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

(Related Funding requirements)

Operations
MaintenanceTotal, Operations & Maintenance(dollars in thousands)
Annual Costs
Life Cycle Costs
Current Previous Current Previous
Total
Total
Total
Total
Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
51
46
10,608
8,907
133
126
27,21624,082
184
172
37,82432,989

9. Required D&D Informationa
Area
Area of new construction
Area of existing facility(s) being replaced
Area of additional D&D space to meet the “one-for-one” requirement

Square Feet
37,00031,9605,040

Name(s) and site location(s) of existing facility(s) to be replaced: Materials Evaluation Laboratory andChemistry Laboratories, Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA.
10. Acquisition Approach
The Program’s A/E subcontractor will perform construction design to support development of aconstruction solicitation package. MRTC (1) which includes modification of the existing Cleanroom
facility will be a traditional contract placement. MRTC (2) and related support and office facilities will
be accomplished as a phase-funded contract. Both contracts will be designated as a fixed-price contract
for procurement and construction and will be awarded on the basis of competitive bidding.

a

D&D is performed in accordance with the Program’s 30-year D&D plan.

Naval Reactors/Construction
07-D-190 – Materials Research
and Technology Complex

Page 506

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetSite Funding Summary
FY 2009(dollars in thousands)
FY 2010

FY 2011

Chicago Operations Office
Ames Laboratory

236

435

420

Argonne National Laboratory

45,50153,527

66,247

Brookhaven National Laboratory

39,13528,35040,041

Chicago Operations Office

38,962

15,404

14,236

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

6,541

5,717

5,506

New Brunswick Laboratory

1,150

3,769

1,209

Idaho National Laboratory

212,786

186,457

236,801

Idaho Operations Office

1,237

1,299

1,364

456,103

467,512535,388

6,106

5,881

7,078

1,121,277

1,077,345

1,159,825

18,564

18,91419,7591,563,230

1,488,855

1,870,375

19,87419,80520,021

3,359

1,050

0

15,707

22,10022,500

0

0

0

6,027

2,104

2,060

NNSA Service Center (all other sites)

755,064

618,382

582,335

University of Rochester/LLE

55,37059,93962,477

Nevada Site Office

105,937

103,627

97,980

Nevada Test Site

288,259

263,159

335,239

0

0

9,464

Idaho Operations OfficeKansas City Site OfficeKansas City Plant
Kansas City Site Office
Livermore Site Office
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore Site Office
Los Alamos Site Office
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos Site Office
NETL
NETL
NNSA Service Center
General Atomics
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Naval Research Laboratory

Nevada Site Office

Remote Sensing Laboratory

NNSA Site Information Appendix

Page 507

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetFY 2009
Naval Reactors Laboratory Field Office

FY 2010

FY 20110

18,30019,200Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Engineering

13,81915,66318,480Oak Ridge National Laboratory

183,016

183,901

282,591

Oak Ridge Operations Office

215

240

223

Office of Science and Technical Information

631

773

771

237,219

330,140

293,019

Pantex Plant

526,567

534,706

532,535

Pantex Site Office

12,813

12,902

14,396

Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory

418,700

434,400

498,900

Pittsburgh Naval Reactors Office

10,905

0

0

1,463

1,385

1,418

1,165,794

1,124,875

1,329,228

14,611

14,352

15,217

Savannah River Operations Office

36,346630,694

764,846

Savannah River Site

247,367

335,782339,214

Savannah River Site Office

31,176

7,750

7,710

Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory

302,800

391,800

434,900

Schenectady Naval Reactors Office

8,245

0

0

355,401

515,174

648,075

Y-12 National Security Complex

866,573

907,227

885,416

Y-12 Site Office

39,64740,08438,291

Adjustments-11,418-52,4200Total, NNSA

9,222,315

9,887,027

11,214,755

Oak Ridge Operations Office

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Pantex Site Office

Pittsburgh Naval Reactors OfficeRichland Operations OfficeRichland Operations Office
Sandia Site Office
Sandia National Laboratories
Sandia Site Office
Savannah River Operations Office

Schenectady Naval Reactors Office

Washington DC Headquarters
Headquarters
Y-12 Site Office

NNSA Site Information Appendix

Page 508

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

BETTIS ATOMIC POWER LABORATORYTABLESFUNDING BY PROGRAM:(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
NNSA
Naval Reactors
Total, NNSA

418,700
418,700

434,400
434,400

498,900
498,900(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015

OUT-YEAR FUNDING:FY 2012
NNSA
Naval Reactors
Total, NNSA

492,800
492,800

551,300
551,300

593,600
593,600

621,400
621,400

Congressional Items of Interest: None
Major Changes or Shifts: Core development for the land-based prototype refueling overhaul
replacement core with technologies and capabilities planned for the OHIO-class replacement, andconceptual design and oversight of construction of the Expended Core Facility Recapitalization at theNaval Reactor Facility in Idaho, beginning in FY 2015.
Site Description
INTRODUCTION:
The Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory is situated on nearly 202 acres of the former Bettis Airfield inWest Mifflin, Pennsylvania, about 7.5 miles southeast of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
This research and development laboratory is operated by Bechtel Marine Propulsion Corporation for the
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (Naval Reactors), in a joint effort by the Department of the Navyand the Department of Energy (DOE). The Naval Reactors Laboratory Field Office oversees Bettis
operations. Bettis is primarily involved with the design, development, and operational flow of nuclear
propulsion plants for naval vessels. The Program ensures the safe operation of reactor plants in nuclearpowered submarines and aircraft carriers (constituting 40 percent of the Navy’s combatants), and fulfills
the Navy’s requirements for new nuclear propulsion plants that meet current and future national defense
requirements. Initial efforts of the Bettis Laboratory led to the development of the power plant for the
USS NAUTILUS (SSN 571), the world’s first nuclear-powered submarine.

Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory

Page 509

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetACTIVITIES:Naval Reactors
The broad spectrum of Bettis’ activities has included work on core and component technology anddesign, thermal and hydraulic systems, materials, and nuclear physics. Also, Bettis has lead
responsibility for the overall training program for Navy personnel in nuclear plant operations, including
training at the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command, Charleston, South Carolina; the Moored
Training Ships; and Fleet training. Bettis also maintains engineering field offices at numerous shipyards
and core contractor facilities, and operates the Expended Core Facility at the Naval Reactors Facility
near Idaho Falls, Idaho.
In FY 2011, Bettis will continue manufacturing development and demonstration work, as well as
development of new core technologies, of the reactor plant to be used in the land-based prototype
refueling overhaul. In addition, conceptual design of the Expended Core Facility Recapitalization at theNaval Reactors Facility in Idaho will continue.

Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory

Page 510

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

KANSAS CITY PLANT
TABLESFUNDING BY PROGRAM:(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Directed Stockpile WorkEngineering Campaign
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
Readiness Campaign
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Secure Transportation Asset
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program
Site Stewardship
Environmental Projects and Operations Program/LTS*
Defense Nuclear Security
Cyber Security
Subtotal, Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and Verification Research & Development
Nonproliferation and International Security
Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Congressionally Directed Projects
Total, NNSA

245,9826,984
684
24,251
113,312
27,157
4,941
10,6000
2,696
10,843
5,349
452,799

227,033
4,450
725
9,069
162,146
21,672
2,339
13,9801,821
011,0605,087
459,382259,1253,550
500
18,765
190,889
21,530
4,956
15,0001,847
011,2005,587
532,949

35
2,317
2,352

30
2,583
2,613

30
2,409
2,439

952
456,103

0461,995

0535,388* Funding included in Site Stewardship beginning in FY 2010.

Kansas City Plant

Page 511

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

OUT-YEAR FUNDING:FY 2012
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Directed Stockpile WorkEngineering Campaign
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Secure Transportation Asset
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program
Site Stewardship
Defense Nuclear Security
Cyber Security
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and International Security
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Total, NNSA

(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015

235,5093,600
142,379
21,972
2,549
15,0001,889
11,3006,733
440,931249,623
3,180
100,900
21,441
2,708
15,0002,218
11,400
6,733
413,203

266,990
3,600
91,656
21,897
5,238
0
2,269
11,500
6,733
409,883

286,182
3,580
94,792
22,715
5,265
0
2,293
11,600
6,733
433,160

2,488
2,488
443,419

2,553
2,553
415,756

2,624
2,624
412,507

2,807
2,807
435,967

Congressional Items of Interest: Transformation implementation plans for downsizing, and support of
W76 Life Extension Program (LEP).
Major Changes or Shifts: None
Site Description
INTRODUCTION:
The Kansas City Plant (KCP) is situated on approximately 122 acres of the 300-acre Bannister Federal
Complex located within city limits, 12 miles south of downtown Kansas City, Missouri.
The KCP is the primary nonnuclear production plant responsible for development and maintenance of abroad technology base that delivers advanced, integrated, and secure solutions for the Department ofEnergy/National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA).
The site is aligned with transformation activities for the nuclear security enterprise. The site has an
approved critical decision to proceed with planning for a new facility under a General Services
Administration (GSA) lease. Elements of this transformation include: (1) reducing the floor spacerequired for non-nuclear production activities by nearly two-thirds through outsourcing and reducing
capacity, (2) establishing a supply chain management center for reduced procurement costs across thenuclear security enterprise, (3) down-sizing the inventory of stored parts for legacy weapons, and(4) adopting a new oversight model for NNSA sites that increases the use of best industrial practices.

Kansas City Plant

Page 512

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetACTIVITIES:
Directed Stockpile Work (DSW)The Kansas City Plant (KCP) activities include production engineering, tooling, material procurement,
and production labor associated with continuing production and Retrofit Evaluation System Test (REST)
surveillance program of non-nuclear components with emphasis on the Life Extension Programs (LEP)
for the W76-1. Production continues for the B61 Alt 356. Enduring Stockpile System production
activities will include Joint Test Assembly (JTA) support, Firing Set, Environmental Sensing Devices,
Mechanical Safe and Arm Detonators, and Lightning Arrestor Connector surveillance rebuilds inaddition to laboratory and flight test sampling. Partnering with the Air Force, a major design change tothe W87 JTA4 will continue. Major reservoir production continues for the B61, W76, W78, W80, B83,
and W88 enduring Stockpile Systems. KCP continues to produce materials/parts through NNSA's
Supply Chain Management Center, which is responsible for implementing tools, processes, andaccountability to support enterprise-wide NNSA strategic sourcing. Weapon component build-aheads
and requalification activities continue to support the Kansas City Responsive Infrastructure
Manufacturing and Sourcing (KCRIMS).
Engineering Campaign
The KCP supports the Engineering Campaign through the Enhanced Surveillance subprogram byevaluating non-nuclear components and materials for age-related characteristics, which are then used toassist in lifetime assessments and age-aware models at the laboratories. The KCP supports futuresystem deployment including on-board/embedded components, materials and system sensors, as well as
on-board telemetry and communication linkage. Also, KCP supports the Enhanced Surety subprogramof the Engineering Campaign.
Readiness Campaign
The KCP supports the following Readiness Campaign subprograms.
•

Advanced Design and Production Technologies (ADAPT) examines modern and emerging
technologies and applies them to the development of new or replacement design and production
capabilities in those cases where the modern technology would lead to cost-effective lean processes;
shortened cycle times, built-in quality and acceptance, closer integration of activities across thenuclear security enterprise; a more productive workforce, and agile processes that enhance
responsiveness to future national security needs..

•

Nonnuclear Readiness provides the electrical, electronic and mechanical capabilities required toweaponize a nuclear explosive. This activity deploys the product development and production
capabilities required to support nonnuclear product requirements. Nonnuclear functions range from
weapon, command and control to examining performance during deployment simulations, including
weapon structural features, neutron generators, tritium reservoirs, detonators and component testers..

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF)
The RTBF is the primary NNSA direct infrastructure funding source to enable DSW and Campaigns
supporting responsiveness, sustaining Environment, Safety and Health, providing rearrangements for
production efficiency, and delivering reliable facility, utility, and equipment uptime in support ofStockpile Stewardship production missions. The RTBF provides continual support of fundamental
Kansas City Plant

Page 513

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

infrastructure services including facilities management and site planning, maintenance, utilities, capital
equipment, general plant projects, expense funded projects; facility startup and project support;
Environment, Safety and Health and Program Readiness. Specific efforts will be focused on completionof the Supply Chain Management Center and the Kansas City Responsive Infrastructure Manufacturing
and Sourcing transformation plan.
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
The NCTIR activities at KCP involve assistance in providing operations and capabilities to Federal,state and local government agencies for responding to radiological accidents and incidents. This effort
includes special purpose equipment for the program including the Stabilization Operations program.
Secure Transportation Asset (STA)
Honeywell Federal Manufacturing and Technologies is the engineering assembly agency and technicalsystems integrator for the STA program. It provides engineering support for integrated mobile
communications systems for vehicles and convoy operations; manages and supports relay station
operations, maintenance and upgrades; operates vehicle production facilities in Kansas City andAlbuquerque, conducts quality assurance studies, vehicle and communication upgrades and repairs to
the fleet; provides document management and control of the Federal Agent Standard Operating
Procedure, maintains the STA secure website, and maintains the Electronic Systems Depot. It provides
technical training support, operates a Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF), and maintains a Mobile
Electronic Maintenance Facility (MEMF) to support the STA training fleet at Fort Chaffee, AR.
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP)The KCRIMS has allowed redirection of FIRP resources to other critical priorities. The Kansas City
Site Office will continue to manage the NNSA’s Roof Asset Management Program (RAMP), a best
business practice employed throughout the national security enterprise. Under the RAMP, KCP
contracts for an integration manager to oversee an economical roof repair program for seven of the eight
nuclear weapons sites. In 2008, the RAMP was the winning entry for the General Services
Administration’s 12th Annual Achievement Award for Real Property Innovation.
Site Stewardship
In FY 2011, Site Stewardship efforts will be directed toward Environmental Project and Operations
Long Term Stewardship (LTS) activities required for ensuring environmental regulatory compliance.
The LTS program at the Kansas City Plant consists of activities necessary to maintain compliance withthe restoration of 43 release sites. The LTS activities include but are not limited to, administration of
implemented cleanup actions at NNSA sites, operations and maintenance of treatment and monitoring
systems required under KCP’s RCRA Post Closure Permit issued by the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources, regulatory reporting, and program management.
Defense Nuclear Security
The Defense Nuclear Security program at KCP provides all aspects of physical security protection forthe plant consistent with applicable DOE Orders and requirements documented in its approved facility
Master Security Plan. In FY 2011, KCP will focus on improving the efficiency of the security program,including modernization of the security infrastructure and implementation of technology upgrades toreduce the need for protective force posts and patrols. The KCRIMS is central to this goal.
Kansas City Plant

Page 514

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Cyber Security
The NNSA Cyber Security program implements a flexible, comprehensive, and risk-based cybersecurity program that (a) protects NNSA information and information assets; (b) is predicated on
Executive Orders; national standards; laws and regulations; Departmental and NNSA orders, manuals,
directives and guidance; and (c) results in a policy-driven cyber security architecture; aligned with the
NNSA enterprise architecture; a programmatic framework and methodology that is based on current
policies and procedures; and a management approach that integrates all of the components of acomprehensive cyber security program; ensures alignment of the program with the NNSA and
Departmental strategic plans and relevant plans of the CIO.
In FY 2011, the cyber security program at KCP will continue improvement efforts for the risk-based
assessment model. The KCP will develop and deploy intrusion detection technology, which will
provide timely notification of potential intrusions. Also, KCP will implement standards for maintaining
a consistent site computing infrastructure.
Nonproliferation and International Security
The KCP provides International Regimes and Agreements with reviews of export controlled equipment,materials, software, and analytical tools and technical references for use in developing recommendations
on U.S. export license applications, including weapons of mass destruction (WMD) training to the
Department of Homeland Security and other enforcement agencies. Also, for the Office of Global
Security Engagement and Cooperation (GSEC), KCP provides instructors, curriculum development andother support to export control outreach. In addition, KCP engages former WMD scientists andengineers in civilian activity, redirecting their expertise to peaceful purposes and integrating them into
the larger international scientific and business communities.

Kansas City Plant

Page 515

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetKNOLLS ATOMIC POWER LABORATORYTABLESFUNDING BY PROGRAM:(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
NNSA
Naval Reactors
Total, NNSA

302,800
302,800

391,800
391,800

434,900
434,900(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015

OUT-YEAR FUNDING:FY 2012
NNSA
Naval Reactors
Total, NNSA

457,300
457,300

500,700
500,700

514,900
514,900

548,800
548,800

Congressional Items of Interest: None
Major Changes or Shifts: DOE reactor plant design and development work for the OHIO-classreplacement ballistic missile submarine replacement. This program began in FY 2010 and continues in
FY 2011 and beyond to ensure sufficient maturity of detailed design to support initial fabrication andprocurement of long-lead nuclear components in FY 2017 and ship construction in FY 2019.
Site Description
INTRODUCTION:
The Knolls Site in Niskayuna is situated on approximately 180 acres of land, while the Kesselring Site
in West Milton, New York is situated on approximately 3,905 acres. The KAPL field personnel also
work at shipyards in New Hampshire, Connecticut, Virginia, Hawaii, Washington, and the Naval
Reactors Facility Site in Idaho.
The Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL) is a research and development laboratory operated by
Bechtel Marine Propulsion Corporation for the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (Naval Reactors), a
joint effort by the Department of the Navy and the Department of Energy. The Naval Reactors
Laboratory Field Office oversees KAPL operations. The KAPL’s primary function is to support the
U.S. Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program through the development of advanced reactor plant designs,
while providing design agency support to the operating fleet and training nuclear propulsion plant
operators. The Program ensures the safe operation of reactor plants in nuclear-powered submarines andaircraft carriers (which constitute 40 percent of the Navy’s combatants), and fulfills the Navy’s current
and future national defense requirements for new nuclear propulsion plants.

Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory

Page 516

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetACTIVITIES:Naval Reactors
The KAPL’s efforts focus on designing the world’s most technologically advanced nuclear reactor
plants for U.S. Navy submarines. Fundamental research is conducted to develop improved materials,
chemistry control systems, and components for naval nuclear propulsion technology. The KAPL uses
its theoretical knowledge, sophisticated testing capabilities, and computational power to design newreactor and propulsion systems and components that will be used on existing and future Navy surface
ships and submarines. In addition, KAPL operates two prototype plants located at the Kesselring Site inWest Milton, New York. The MARF and S8G prototypes are used primarily for naval nuclear
propulsion training. These plants are also used to test reactors, reactor plant systems, and reactor steam
and electric plant components. Also located at Kesselring, the S3G and D1G prototypes are undergoinginactivation. Upon completion of their missions in the 1990s, the S3G and D1G plants were shut down
and inactivation was started as part of Naval Reactors’ continuing commitment to ensure proper
dismantlement and environmental remediation of formerly used facilities.
In FY 2011, KAPL will continue reactor plant design and development work for the OHIO-classballistic missile submarine replacement to ensure sufficient maturity of detailed design to support initialfabrication and procurement of long-lead nuclear components in FY 2017 and ship construction in
FY 2019. In FY 2011, this will also include payment in lieu of taxes to the Town of Niskayuna.

Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory

Page 517

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORYTABLESFUNDING BY PROGRAM:(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Directed Stockpile Work
Science Campaign
Engineering Campaign
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
Readiness Campaign
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program
Environmental Projects and Operations Program/LTS *Site Stewardship
Defense Nuclear Security
Cyber Security
Science, Technology and Engineering Capability
Congressionally Directed Projects
Subtotal Weapons Activities

100,340
92,40823,403284,215
220,630
8,423
88,63440,381
15,91521,446
091,031
17,756
10,5003,806
1,018,888

92,484
92,69624,013
291,461
199,5113,494
90,30340,236
10,770034,112
95,477
18,35600992,913110,889
107,552
22,900296,247
213,140
4,881
80,26945,5559,381
038,47594,00019,8567,925
01,051,070

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
Nonproliferation and International Security
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Total, NNSA

43,53023,761
17,497
17,601
102,389
1,121,277

38,16028,653
13,724
3,895
84,432
1,077,345

36,82824,70031,287
15,940108,755
1,159,825* Funding included in Site Stewardship beginning in FY 2010.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Page 518

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

OUT-YEAR FUNDING:FY 2012
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Directed Stockpile Work
Science Campaign
Engineering Campaign
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program
Site Stewardship
Defense Nuclear Security
Cyber Security
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
Nonproliferation and International Security
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Total, NNSA

(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015

109,353
116,745
23,200296,142
176,387
42,467
41,2909,381
33,532
94,10017,619960,216

106,123
123,184
21,057285,363
175,580
43,16038,797
9,381
28,70473,40018,619923,368

101,822
122,421
23,366
285,000
174,777
22,271
40,954036,161
74,40019,119900,291

104,625
115,909
23,323
285,000
173,978
23,03441,020040,67875,30019,119901,986

43,30425,517
26,172
17,189112,182
1,072,398

43,16926,181
6,665
16,46892,483
1,015,851

44,54026,907
6,665
8,072
86,184986,475

47,37928,7897,416
8,617
92,201
994,187

Congressional Items of Interest: None.
Major Changes or Shifts: None
Site Description
INTRODUCTION:
The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is located on a one-square-mile site inLivermore, California, with a larger (10-square mile) remote explosives testing site (Site 300) situated18 miles east of the main Livermore site.
The LLNL has a primary role in the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration(DOE/NNSA) mission special capabilities, required for stockpile stewardship and nonproliferation
activities as well as homeland security, to meet enduring national needs in conventional defense, energy,
environment, biosciences, and basic science, as well as enhancing the competencies needed for thenational security mission. The site is aligned with the nuclear security enterprise transformation
activities, which includes eliminating quantities of special nuclear materials from the Laboratory, andLawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Page 519

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

establishing shared user facilities to more efficiently maintain experimental capabilities such as the
National Ignition Facility (NIF).
ACTIVITIES:
Directed Stockpile Work (DSW)The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is responsible for four enduring weaponssystems: the W62, W80, B83, and W87; and the Life Extension Programs (LEP), as well as weapon
system assessments, and certification and stockpile support. The LEP and enduring systems directly
support weapons systems, while the Stockpile Services contains activities that support multiple weaponssystems, including, plutonium, High Energy Density/Above Ground Experiment (HED/AGEX)
experiments, Nuclear Safety Research & Development (R&D), surveillance management and subject
matter experts, container design, assessment and certification, and weapons response support to theplants.
The LLNL is tasked with supporting continuing efforts to examine how the B61 Phase 6.2/6.2A study
can address issues of safety, security and long-term reliability of the nation's nuclear deterrent. The
study will provide options to address aging, reliability, surety improvements, and the consolidation ofnumerous modifications.
Science Campaign
The Science Campaign develops the tools and methodology to assess and certify the safety, reliability,and performance of the stockpile systems. These tools and methodology also support ongoing activities
in LEPs, Significant Finding Investigations (SFI), and Laboratory-to-Laboratory Peer Reviews. The
Science subprogram activities are:•Advanced Certification: Initiated in FY 2008, Advanced Certification will continue to review,
evaluate and implement key recommendations from the JASON review of RRW regarding
approaches to establishing an accredited warhead certification plan, without nuclear testing, in an era
where changes to nuclear components will occur due to aging or design concerns;•

Primary Assessment Technologies: As the Quantification of Margins and Uncertainty (QMU) tools
and methodology are validated, they will be used in assessment work required to support DSW
activities. Primary assessment also designs the experimental program that supports primaryassessment and certification, and validates the Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) codes
and the physics-based models that support QMU development and application. Using the QMU
methodology, the laboratories will continue to identify and quantify technical areas with the largest
uncertainties and impact to stockpile performance, and focus future efforts to reduce these
uncertainties and quantify margins. Two major LLNL-specific products of these efforts are programplans for the LLNL Hydrotest Program and Plutonium Experiments program. These plans arecoordinated with Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in the National Hydrotest Plan and the
National Primary Assessment Plan. Another major LLNL activity is the development of the project
for application to equation of state characterization at very high pressures. This project will conduct
a series of isentropic compression experiments (ICEs) that are driven by a High Explosive Pulsed

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Page 520

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetPower (HEPP) system. Also, LLNL will continue efforts on the National Ignition Facility (NIF)
experiments;•

Dynamic Materials Properties: The LLNL work in this subprogram extends key experimental
capabilities, data analysis, and materials models (used by both the Primary Assessment Technologies
and Secondary Assessment Technologies subprograms). The focus is the experimental activities
required to support the development of accurate, predictive, physics-based models of materials
properties and behavior under relevant conditions. The development of such models and subsequent
code insertion is supported through the closely coordinated ASC Physics and Engineering Models
subprogram. This activity supports experiments and data analysis at U1A and the Joint Actinide
Shock Physics Experimental Research (JASPER) Facility, and uses a wide range of otherexperimental tools to create conditions of static and dynamic high pressure and temperature andenables investigations of the dynamic response of materials under ultra-high-pressure conditions ofshock loading;•

Advanced Radiography: The scope of this subprogram activity is to improve the capability toexperimentally infer the integral performance of the mock primaries. This supports evaluation of themargins and uncertainties for the continuing certification of reliability and safety of the stockpile.
Radiographic hydrotest data are critical to weapon programs, including the current LEPs, and thedevelopment of modern baselines for all weapon systems; and•Secondary Assessment Technologies: The Secondary Assessment Technologies subprogram
develops the tools and capabilities needed to understand the factors that control secondary yield andthen applies these tools to reduce uncertainties in secondary performance. These activities support
assessments of the safety, reliability, and performance of stockpile weapons, including ongoing
activities in LEPs and Significant Finding Investigations (SFIs). As these tools and methodology arevalidated, they, along with simulation and computing capabilities, will be delivered to the DSW
Program for assessments required to support directed stockpile activities at LLNL. In FY 2011,
LLNL will continue to develop high energy density physics platforms of ICF facilities in order tofocus on increasing our understanding of secondary performance and developing a more complete
understanding of stockpile weapons. Using QMU methodology, LLNL will continue to identify andquantify technical areas with the largest uncertainties and impact to stockpile performance, and focus
future efforts on reducing uncertainties and quantifying margins.

Engineering Campaign
The Engineering Campaign activity provides the nuclear security enterprise with modern tools andcapabilities in engineering sciences and technologies to ensure the safety, security, reliability, andperformance of the current and future U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, and a sustained basis for stockpile
certification. The LLNL portion of the Engineering Campaign supports all four subprograms:
Enhanced Surety, Weapon Systems Engineering Assessment Technology, Nuclear Survivability andEnhanced Surveillance.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Page 521

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetReadiness Campaign
The LLNL supports the following Readiness Campaign subprograms:•

Advanced Design and Production Technologies (ADAPT) examines modern and emerging
technologies and applies them to the development of new or replacement design and production
capabilities in those cases where the modern technology would lead to cost-effective lean processes;
shortened cycle times; built-in quality and acceptance; closer integration of activities across thenuclear security enterprise; a more productive workforce; and agile processes that enhance
responsiveness to future national security needs.

•

High explosives and Weapons Operations (HEWO) develops and deploys technology-based
solutions that resolve capability, infrastructure, workforce, and facility issues and achieve andmaintain production readiness for Directed Stockpile Work programs. The HEWO is the vehicle toimplement technologies demonstrated by other programs. It provides the equipment, infrastructure,
and workforce required, and provides operational support for capital facility projects needed toaccommodate new capabilities. In addition, LLNL supports the development of capabilities
primarily deployed at the Pantex Plant.

•

Nonnuclear Readiness provides the electrical, electronic, and mechanical capabilities required toweaponize a nuclear explosive. This activity deploys the product development and production
capabilities required to support nonnuclear product requirements. Nonnuclear functions range from
weapon command and control to examining performance during deployment simulations, including
weapon structural features, neutron generators, tritium reservoirs, detonators and component testers.
In addition, LLNL primarily supports the development of technologies and capabilities that are
deployed at the KCP and SNL.

Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Campaign
In FY 2011, LLNL ASC activities will focus on three major areas:•

maintaining a world-class, national supercomputing user facility that enables reliable and responsive
computer simulations throughout the laboratory complex;•

development and application of simulation tools for annual assessment, LEPs, SFIs and the mission
priorities of the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP), and•apply ASC capabilities to national nuclear security mission needs including the NEST, warhead
dismantlement, nuclear attribution, effects and emerging threats.

Also, LLNL will continue its leadership in the deployment of Tri-laboratory Productivity On-Demand(TriPoD) capabilities on all newly procured capacity clusters enabling a seamless ASC user environment
for capacity computing. The ASC Campaign at LLNL will pursue forward looking investments in
Sequoia, a computing platform that will perform the large number of demanding simulations needed forquantification of simulation uncertainties, to be delivered in FY 2011. Also in FY 2011, LLNL willcontinue to develop, implement, and apply a suite of physics-based models and high-fidelity databases
to enable predictive simulation of the initial conditions for primary performance.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Page 522

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield (ICF) Campaign
With the completion of NIF construction and successful demonstration of over 1MJ of laser energy in an
ignition pulse, the ICF activity at LLNL is focused on the commissioning of the NIF as a laboratory
experimental facility and its use for ignition and other high energy density physics experiments insupport of the SSP. The LLNL is responsible for both the experimental commissioning and operation of
the NIF and for oversight of the National Ignition Campaign (NIC), the integrated national effort todemonstrate ignition at NIF. Also, LLNL coordinates construction and installation of diagnostics andother experimental equipment required for the NIF weapons mission and for use by the broader user
community.
The experimental efforts to support ignition, other weapons science, and broader scientific goals began
in the 3rd quarter of 2009. A multi-site milestone led by LLNL stipulates execution of the first NIF
ignition experiments by the end of FY 2010. The NIF ignition experiments will provide a means toinvestigate thermonuclear burn related issues central to assessment of the legacy and evolving nuclear
stockpile. Ignition and other experiments in areas such as radiation flow, hydrodynamics, and material
properties support ongoing stockpile assessment via the quantification of margins and uncertainties
methodology. Approximately 15 percent of NIF experiments will be made available to the basic science
community and other users external to the NNSA. The LLNL effort also executes high energy density
physics experiments in support of the SSP at the University of Rochester Laboratory for Laser
Energetics (OMEGA), the Z Machine at Sandia National Laboratories and other facilities, and develops
many of the advanced targets required to support these experiments.
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF)
The Stockpile Stewardship Program at LLNL relies heavily on a wide variety of experimental,
computational, fabrication, and special materials-handling facilities, and related support facilities andinfrastructure to accomplish the objectives and milestones described in the Campaign and DSW programand implementation plans. Of these “Stockpile Stewardship Mission-Essential Facilities,” the subset of
direct, programmatic facilities and technical base (i.e., “capabilities”), that are in part or fully directfunded through the RTBF program include the Nuclear Materials Technology Program (NMTP)
facilities (Superblock), the light gas guns (B341), the High Explosive Applications Facility (HEAF), theopen air firing sites and Contained Firing Facility (CFF) at Site 300, and the Engineering test facilities at
Site 300.
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
The NCTIR activities at LLNL include assisting in operating, exercising, and maintaining DOE’s
capability to provide assistance to federal, state and local government agencies for responding toradiological accidents and incidents. The LLNL deploys trained, qualified technical and professional
personnel and specialized equipment and provides research and development, training, exercises,
operations, maintenance and required coordination with other federal agencies and foreign governments
to effectively address current and projected threats. The LLNL is an active participant in the NNSA
Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST), which can respond to any type of emergency involving
radioactive or nuclear materials in the U.S. or abroad. Moreover, LLNL supports the National Technical
Nuclear Forensics (NTNF) and Stabilization Operations programs, which will continue through theplanning period. In addition, LLNL provides research and support to the Office of Emergency
Operations with unique expertise in supporting the Office of Nuclear Counterterrorism as well as
operation of the National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center, (NARAC). This facility provides tools
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Page 523

FY 2011 Congressional Budgetand services for atmospheric plume predictions to the federal government, that map the probable spreadof hazardous material accidentally or intentionally released into the atmosphere.
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP)In FY 2011, FIRP provides for the recapitalization of aging facilities and infrastructure at the LLNL toassure that the quality of the infrastructure keeps pace with the Laboratory’s scientific mission
requirements. The FIRP funds have stabilized LLNL’s deferred maintenance to a level consistent withindustry standards.
In FY 2011, the recapitalization component of FIRP will continue to fund high-priority projects that
restore and rehabilitate mission critical facilities and infrastructure, through the reduction of deferred
maintenance, which will support transformation of the nuclear security enterprise. Projects in FY 2011
will continue to rehabilitate or replace aged and deteriorated equipment and roofs. Specific focus will
be on the replacement and upgrades of Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems, andlow voltage electrical components. Mission critical buildings will be rehabilitated for adaptive reusethrough the replacement of lighting, paint, carpet and tiles, in addition to the HVAC and electricalupgrades. High-voltage electrical distribution cables and components will be replaced and reconfigured
to support changing demands in the East and Central portion of the laboratory. In addition to the
execution of Recapitalization projects, the FY 2011 President’s Budget Request includes planning for
the FY 2012 Recapitalization projects and general replacement/upgrades such as motor control centers,
transformers, sectionalizing switches, panel boards, heat pumps, fans and generators in mission criticalfacilities. The Laboratory will continue its participation in the Enterprise’s Roof Asset Management
Program (RAMP).
Site Stewardship
In FY 2011, Site Stewardship efforts will be directed toward Environmental Projects and Operations
Long Term Stewardship (LTS) activities required for ensuring environmental regulatory compliance;
reducing and consolidating Special Nuclear Material (SNM) inventories; and Energy Modernization and
Investment Program activities aimed at achieving Departmental energy efficiency goals. The LTS
activities at LLNL are post-remediation activities to assure regulatory compliance and continued
protection of public health and the environment. The LTS activities began at LLNL-Main Site in
FY 2007 and in FY 2009 at LLNL-Site 300 after the completion of legacy environmental cleanup
activities. In FY 2011, LTS activities include, but are not limited to program management, operationand maintenance of contaminated ground water treatment systems; inspection and maintenance oflandfill caps (Site 300 only); soil vapor and groundwater monitoring, well field operations andmaintenance and modeling; and access controls.
Nuclear Materials Integration (NMI)
The NMI Program will continue efforts to remove all security category I/II materials from LLNL by
the end of FY 2012. By the end of FY 2011, more than 90 percent of the material will have beenprocessed, packaged and shipped off site.
Energy Modernization and Investment Program (EMIP)
The FY 2011 EMIP supports priority energy conservation projects that will reduce energy
consumption, enhance energy independence and security and provide life-cycle cost effective
benefits. Projects that provide the most significant contribution towards achievement of NNSA’s
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Page 524

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

energy goals and result in cost avoidances/savings and social benefits will be selected from the
EMIP Integrated Prioritized Project List (IPPL) for execution.
Defense Nuclear Security
The LLNL Defense Nuclear Security program provides protection measures consistent with therequirements documented in its Site Safeguards and Security Plan (SSSP). In FY 2011, the Program
will continue to focus on preparation of movement of category I/II SNM from the SuperBlock to other
NNSA/DOE sites. To meet the 2012 de-inventory goal set by Defense Programs, LLNL will also
continue to focus on improving the efficiency of the security program, including modernization of the
security infrastructure and implementation of technology upgrades.
Cyber Security
The NNSA Cyber Security program implements a flexible, comprehensive, and risk-based cybersecurity program that (a) protects the NNSA information and information assets as appropriate; (b) ispredicated on Executive Orders; national standards; laws and regulations; and Departmental and NNSA
orders, manuals, directives and guidance; and (c) results in a policy-driven cyber security architecture;aligned with the NNSA enterprise architecture; a programmatic framework and methodology that isbased on current policies and procedures; and a management approach that integrates all of thecomponents of a comprehensive cyber security program; and ensures alignment of the program withstrategic plans and relevant plans of the CIO.
In FY 2011, the LLNL cyber security program will continue implementation of a comprehensive selfassessment program, effective risk management program and identify cyber security vulnerabilities andthreats on the unclassified computing infrastructure. Additionally, in FY 2011, the program will
implement networking and system standards complex-wide.
Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development
The Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development program develops technology to
improve national capabilities for detecting nuclear proliferation. At LLNL the program focuses on
improvements to geographic models to locate and identify regional seismic events to support nuclear
detonation detection assessments, remote sensing techniques for standoff detection and identification of
nuclear activities, radiation sensor technology, and various other exploratory technologies. The programis the inter-laboratory coordinator on testing optical remote sensing techniques for WMD proliferation
detection/characterization; and is a recognized national leader in developing hyperspectral
instrumentation for standoff detection of gases and other materials over denied areas.
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation (INMP&C)
The INMP&C program provides operational experience in civilian and defense nuclear material
protection, control, and accounting (MPC&A) in combination with institutional expertise in nuclear
energy, international and domestic safeguards, and the assessment of the proliferation impacts on U.S.
national security of foreign nuclear energy programs. The LLNL provides security and engineeringexpertise in support of international MPC&A activities at several Russian Navy, Civilian, and Rosatom
Weapons Complex sites. In FY 2011, MPC&A will continue to support sustainability and infrastructure
projects for Ministry of Defense, Rosatom, Rostekhnadzor, Federal Inspectonate for Nuclear andRadiation Safety, Ministry of Transportation, and the Russian Shipbuilding Agency with efforts inregulatory development and implementation and a national accounting system.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Page 525

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Nonproliferation and International Security (NIS)The NIS program provides support for conducting technical exchanges and technology development
under the Warhead and Fissile Material Transparency Program, Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU)
Purchase Agreement Transparency Program policy implementation and development, Plutonium
Production Reactor Agreement implementation, and the development of nuclear transparency measures.
Also, NIS supports USG efforts to plan/prepare for denuclearization and verification activities in the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and other proliferating states. In addition, NIS assists
technical analysis and technology development, and assists regional security efforts in policymaking andnegotiations regarding various nonproliferation and arms control regimes. The NIS program provides
reviews of export controlled equipment, materials and software, and foreign customers, and analytical
tools and technical references for use in developing recommendations on U.S. export licensing
applications, interdictions, international safeguards, physical protection, technology assessments, policy
support and nonproliferation assessments, multilateral outreach through support efforts for policymaking
and negotiations regarding various nonproliferation control regimes, and international cooperation,
primarily in the Former Soviet Union but increasingly in transit states as well. The NIS programsupports development of safeguards, tools and methodologies such as IAEA environmental samplingand spent fuel monitoring techniques, as well as training to foreign nationals as needed. The program
also provides technical support on nuclear safeguards, safety, and security to developing countries
interested in nuclear power under the nuclear infrastructure development efforts. The program provides
instructors, curriculum development and other support for export control outreach as well as analyticalservices in support of border security capacity building outreach efforts and technical assistance support
for nuclear forensics engagement program. The NIS program further participates in projects that engage
former WMD scientists and engineers in civilian activity, redirecting their expertise to peaceful purposes
and integrating them into the larger international scientific business communities.
Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)
The LLNL provides significant technical, scientific, and management expertise to two of the three key
subprograms of GTRI–Remove and Protect—supporting the comprehensive GTRI approach toachieving its mission to reduce and protect vulnerable nuclear and radiological material worldwide, anddenying terrorists access to nuclear and radiological materials that could be used in weapons of mass
destruction or other acts of terrorism. The Nuclear and Radiological Material Removal subprogramsupports the removal and disposal of excess, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials from civilian
sites worldwide. The Nuclear and Radiological Material Protection subprogram supports the securing ofinternational and domestic buildings containing high priority nuclear and radiological materials
worldwide from theft and sabotage.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Page 526

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORYTABLESFUNDING BY PROGRAM:(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Directed Stockpile Work
Science Campaign
Engineering Campaign

344,931
117,366
26,211

295,175
115,437
24,690428,069
125,050
24,200Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
Readiness Campaign
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program
Site Stewardship
Defense Nuclear Security
Cyber Security
Science , Technology and Engineering Capability
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

12,559186,916
7,807
456,975
36,985
26,6130
149,823
17,7279,750
1,393,663

15,000202,356
2,150
460,483
38,835
15,6163,000
108,000
18,4270
1,299,169

17,000184,6398,530
587,734
43,67015,114
19,230157,000
19,927
6,675
1,636,838

Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
Nonproliferation and International Security
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Fissile Materials Disposition
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Total, NNSA

88,57725,33033,410022,250169,567
1,563,230

77,12533,06853,554
025,124
188,871
1,488,040

74,431
26,33149,78342,00040,992
233,537
1,870,375

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Page 527

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

OUT-YEAR FUNDING:FY 2012
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Directed Stockpile Work
Science Campaign
Engineering Campaign
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program
Site Stewardship
Defense Nuclear Security
Cyber Security
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
Nonproliferation and International Security
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Fissile Materials Disposition
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Total, NNSA

(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015

390,913
134,683
24,600397,367
140,910
22,572406,398
139,960
25,350413,848
134,039
25,601

20,000169,332
694,533
40,494
15,114
7,944
136,752
17,927
1,652,292

20,000168,600
668,879
43,008
15,114
9,616
105,200
18,927
1,610,193

24,000169,872
698,255
46,8970
22,897
105,300
19,427
1,658,356

25,000169,148
699,654
47,364
029,225
105,400
19,427
1,668,706

100,790
27,20251,75638,00051,220268,968
1,921,260

100,784
27,90963,14245,00053,345
290,180
1,900,373

103,523
28,684
63,07945,00051,783292,069
1,950,425

109,660
30,69069,85245,00056,670311,872
1,980,578

Congressional Items of Interest: The design and installation of equipment activities continue at
CMRR along with the design of the Nuclear Facility.
Major Changes or Shifts: The increase at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is associated withsupport for the nuclear weapons stockpile, and major construction activity for plutonium capabilities andsecurity upgrades.
Site Description
INTRODUCTION:
The LANL is located on approximately 25,000 acres, adjacent to the town of Los Alamos, New Mexico.
The LANL is a multi-program laboratory, supporting research and a limited production mission
predominantly in national security. The laboratory also supports environmental restoration, waste
management, general science programs, homeland security, and work for others.

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Page 528

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

The site is aligned with nuclear security enterprise transformation activities which include:(1) reducing facility square footage required for weapons activities, (2) establishing shared user facilities
to more cost-effectively manage expensive experimental computational and production capabilities(3) ensuring laboratory plutonium space efficiently supports interim pit manufacturing and Enterprisewide special nuclear materials consolidation, and (4) construction of the Chemistry and Metallurgy
Research Replacement Nuclear Facility Project (CMRR-NR), and (5) demonstrating organizational
leadership required to achieve a more integrated, interdependent nuclear security enterprise.
ACTIVITIES:
Directed Stockpile Work (DSW)The LANL is responsible for four enduring weapons systems: the B61, W76, W78, and W88; andsupports the Life Extension Program (LEP), weapon system assessments, and certification and stockpile
support. In addition, LANL activities include the design, qualification, production support for hardware
manufacturing, surveillance and assessment of safety, reliability and performance of the bombs andwarheads, and the Production Agency for manufacturing mission assigned components for all weapon
systems. A portion of the LANL activities support the W76-1 Life Extension Programs (LEP). Also,
LANL is tasked with supporting the B61 Phase 6.2/6.2A study, technical maturation for future LEP, andexperimental capabilities (hydrotests).
Science Campaign
In its historic role as a nuclear weapons design laboratory, Los Alamos continues to have a robust
science effort supporting science-based stockpile stewardship. A large portion of that effort is reflectedin the work supported by the Science Campaign. The Science Campaign subprogram activities are:•Advanced Certification - will continue efforts begun in FY 2008 to review, evaluate, and implement
key recommendations from the JASON review of RRW regarding approaches to establishing an
accredited warhead certification plan, without nuclear testing, in an era where changes to nuclear
components will occur due to aging or design concerns;•

Primary Assessment Technologies - activities support the science (including theory, experiment,
simulation, and analysis) necessary to develop and improve a validated capability for predicting andcertifying primary performance, safety, and Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties (QMU)
without additional nuclear tests. Approximately half of the effort for this subprogram is directed
towards boost physics;•

Dynamic Materials Properties - develops physics-based, experimentally validated data and models of
all stockpile materials, at a level of accuracy required by the Primary and Secondary Assessment
Technologies and Engineering Campaign. The Dynamic Materials Properties is focused on the
behavior of high explosives, plutonium, uranium, and other metals. Work with DoD under the DoDDOE joint munitions program is conducted principally under Dynamic Materials Properties;•

Advanced Radiography - supports development of technologies for three-dimensional imagery of
imploding mock primaries, with sufficient time and space resolution to help resolve uncertainties inprimary performance. With the completion of the Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Page 529

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

(DARHT) 2nd axis refurbishment, the focus has turned to optimization of radiographic tools anddevelopment of new technologies; and•Secondary Assessment Technologies - develops the tools and capabilities required to understand thefactors that control secondary yield and to use these tools to reduce uncertainties in secondary
performance. These activities support assessments of the safety, reliability, and performance of the
LANL stockpile weapons, including ongoing activities in LEPs, and Significant Findings
Investigation (SFIs). Along with advanced simulation and computing capabilities, as these tools andmethodology are validated, they will be delivered to the DSW program for usage in assessment workrequired to support directed stockpile activities at LANL. In FY 2011, LANL will develop highenergy density physics platforms of Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) facilities to focus on
increased understanding of stockpile weapons. Using Quantification in Margins and Uncertainties(QMU) methodology, LANL will identify and quantify technical areas with largest uncertainties andimpact to stockpile performance and focus efforts to reduce uncertainties and quantify margins.

Engineering Campaign
As the design agency for the stockpile, Los Alamos is focused on engineering-based development insupport of the enduring stockpile. Also LANL provides the nuclear security enterprise with modern
tools and capabilities in engineering sciences and technologies to ensure the safety, security, reliability,and performance of the current and future U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and a sustained basis forstockpile certification. Moreover, LANL supports all four of the Engineering Campaign subprogram
activities: Enhanced Surety, Weapon System Engineering Assessment Technology, Nuclear
Survivability and Enhanced Surveillance.
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield (ICF) Campaign
The ICF Campaign provides quantitative experimental data (in the High Energy Density (HED) regime)
and the physical underpinning needed for validation of advanced modeling required in nuclear weapons
certification. It participates in the pursuit of laboratory ignition through utilizing unique Los Alamos
scientific and technological capabilities. Also, LANL is a key contributor to the design, construction,and implementation of diagnostics for the NIF.
Los Alamos’ major emphasis is to support the National Ignition Campaign developing theoretical target
designs and advanced ignition diagnostics for the experiments at the NIF, Z and other HED facilities
across the weapons enterprise.
Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Campaign
In FY 2011, the national ASC Campaign at LANL will focus on three major areas:•

Integrated Codes – including maintaining legacy codes, research and development of replacement
components;•

Computational Systems and Software Environment (CSSE) to protect the investment in sciencebased simulation capabilities; and•Facility Operations and user support - to move toward a more standard user environment; andprovide system management of the ASC Campaign computers and networks.

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Page 530

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetAs part of operations at the Metropolis Center, the ASC Campaign at LANL will continue maintenanceof Roadrunner, operate computing scalable units in support of weapons certification and assessment, anddeploy a new capability-class computing platform.
An area of development is integrated code development where LANL will continue to movecomputational science capabilities onto the Roadrunner platform. This process allows the weapons
program to take advantage of the advanced hybrid architecture by applying this leading edge technology
to issues of national security.
Readiness Campaign
The Readiness Campaign examines modern and emerging technologies and applies them to thedevelopment of new or replacement design and production capabilities in those cases where the modern
technology would lead to cost-effective lean processes; shortened cycle times; built-in quality andacceptance; closer integration of activities across the nuclear security enterprise; a more productive
workforce; and agile processes that enhance responsiveness to future national security needs.
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF)
The RTBF program supports a broad base of activities and facilities that enable the laboratory to meetits mission obligations to the NNSA and the nation. The LANL RTBF mission is to ensure that the site
is implementing the technologies and methods necessary to make construction, operation, andmaintenance of Defense Program (DP) facilities safe, secure, compliant, and cost effective. The
objective is to ensure that DP facilities and infrastructure are available to conduct the scientific,
computational, engineering, and manufacturing activities of the Stockpile Stewardship Program. The
LANL RTBF program will maintain facilities and technologies in an appropriate condition, such thatthey are not limiting factors in the accomplishment of the DP mission. The LANL Operations ofFacilities activity includes the DP share of the cost to operate and maintain DP-owned programmatic
facilities in mission capable mode, a state of readiness in which each facility is prepared to executeprogrammatic tasks identified in the subprograms. At LANL, DP direct-funded facilities include
facilities supporting weapons engineering, tritium, weapons physics (DARHT, etc.), accelerator work at
Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE), waste management, nuclear materials research andmanufacturing (Plutonium Facility (TA-55) and Chemistry and Metallurgical Research (CMR))
beryllium technology, and machining and fabrication shops. Mission capable work scope includes
conventional facility management, infrastructure support, operation and maintenance of real property
and special equipment, and compliance with security, environmental, safety and health requirements.
Appropriate support for the long term viability of LANL’s plutonium facilities (TA-55 and CMR) andwaste processing activities requires incremental funding from users, both DP and non-DP users. In
addition, LANL will continue to implement and administer cost recovery models in these areas in
FY 2011, and begin development of a full cost recovery model to support upcoming RLUOB operations.
The RTBF activity also includes infrastructure support: specific project activities to support
consolidation and footprint reduction and out-year risk and/or cost redirection strategies, Line Item
Other Project Costs (OPCs), general plant projects construction, seismic studies, authorization basis,
beryllium rule, and program management. Also, the RTBF activity includes landlord costs associatedwith the conveyance and transfer of land at LANL to the County of Los Alamos and San IldefonsoPueblo.

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Page 531

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Program activities in support of nuclear materials recycle and recovery operations are also contained
within RTBF. The LANL support within this program activity is central to the material consolidation
activities across the Enterprise.
RTBF Construction
There are a number of line item projects in RTBF at LANL, which are based on a key element of longrange planning, specifically, the Integrated Nuclear Planning (INP). The INP project is a high-level
effort to plan the future nuclear facilities within TA-55. The INP presently includes the integration of
the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) project; infrastructure upgrades at
TA-55, proposed safeguards and security upgrades; and two new waste management facilities fortreatment of radiological liquid waste and processing of transuranic solid waste. These new andrefurbished facilities provide a long-term, flexible infrastructure to support current and future plutonium
missions.
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP)
Recapitalization projects provide improvements to mission facilities and infrastructure that support
transformation of the enterprise. These improvements are accomplished by reducing legacy deferred
maintenance resulting in both improved worker safety and facility reliability. Mission facilities andinfrastructure improvements directly support Defense Programs (DP) activities and priorities within
Directed Stockpile Work and Stockpile Stewardship Campaigns.
In FY 2011, LANL plans upgrades to system reliability through correction of CMR and TA-55 electricaland mechanical system deficiencies and Rad Liquid Waste Collection Vault repairs. Additional efforts
will include, but not be limited to, upgrades to electrical and mechanical systems within TA-16 andTA-53. Further, LANL will also continue to participate in the Enterprise’s Roof Asset Management
Program (RAMP), achieving both improved operating cost efficiencies and life extension of LANL’s
roofing assets.
Site Stewardship
In FY 2011, Site Stewardship efforts will be directed toward reducing/consolidating Special Nuclear
Material (SNM) inventories and Energy Modernization and Investment Program activities aimed atachieving Departmental energy efficiency goals. The FY 2011 EMIP activities support priority energy
conservation projects that will reduce energy consumption, enhance energy independence and security
and provide life-cycle cost effective benefits. Projects that provide the most significant contribution
towards achievement of NNSA’s energy goals and result in cost avoidance/savings and social benefits
will be selected from the EMIP Integrated Prioritized Project List (IPPL) for execution. In FY 2011, theSanitary Effluent Reclamation Facility (SERF) expansion at LANL will upgrade 15 permitted waste
water discharge points to meet new EPA limits and reduce total site water usage by over 114 million
gallons per year.
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
In FY 2011, NCTIR activities at LANL will continue to assist in operating, exercising, and maintaining
DOE’s capability to provide assistance to federal, state and local government agencies for responding toradiological accidents and incidents. LANL deploys trained, qualified technical and professional
personnel and specialized equipment and provides research and development, training, exercises,
operations, maintenance and required coordination with other federal agencies and foreign governments
Los Alamos National Laboratory

Page 532

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

to effectively address current and projected threats. The LANL is an active participant in the NNSA
Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST), which can respond to any type of emergency involving
radioactive or nuclear materials in the U.S. or abroad.
Support for the National Technical Nuclear Forensics (NTNF) and Stabilization Operations program
will continue through the planning period. In addition, LANL will continue to provide research andsupport to the Office of Emergency Operations with unique expertise in supporting the Office of
Nuclear Counterterrorism.
Defense Nuclear Security
The LANL Defense Nuclear Security program provides laboratory protection measures consistent withrequirements documented in its Site Safeguards and Security Plan (SSSP). During FY 2011, thelaboratory will continue the Nuclear Materials Safeguards and Security Upgrade Project (NMSSUP)
Phase II to upgrade access control systems begun in FY 2005. Furthermore, LANL will continue tofocus on improving the efficiency of the security program, including modernization of the security
infrastructure and implementation of technology upgrades.
Cyber Security
The NNSA Cyber Security program implements a flexible, comprehensive, and risk-based cybersecurity program that (a) protects the information and information assets; (b) is predicated on Executive
Orders; national standards; laws and regulations; Departmental and NNSA orders, manuals, directives,and guidance; and (c) results in a policy-driven cyber security architecture; aligned with the NNSA
enterprise architecture; a programmatic framework and methodology based on current policies andprocedures; and a management approach that integrates all of the components of a comprehensive cybersecurity program; ensures alignment of the program with the NNSA and Departmental strategic plans
and relevant plans of the CIO.
In FY 2011, LANL will continue to evaluate the unique risk management process for authorizing
foreign national access to unclassified computers and networks, and any sensitive information. The
LANL will also continue to manage wireless computer technology site-wide. Also, LANL will focus on
improving the efficiency of the security program, including modernization of the security infrastructure
and implementation of technology upgrades.
Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development
The Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development program at LANL develops
technology to improve national capabilities for detecting nuclear proliferation. The program designs,
builds, tests, and conducts full-lifecycle performance assessment of a suite of satellite payloads fornuclear detonation detection. This program conducts R&D to improve analytic tools and sensors todiscriminate earthquakes and industrial activities from nuclear detonations. The program develops new
and innovative remote sensing technologies, radiation detection technologies, and other detection andanalysis capabilities supporting nuclear fuel cycle monitoring missions, nuclear forensics missions, andother proliferation detection technology. The program is a recognized national leader in developing
hyperspectral analytical models for standoff detection of gases and other materials over denied areas.

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Page 533

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetGlobal Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)In FY 2011, LANL will continue to provide significant technical, scientific, and management expertiseto the three key subprograms of GTRI–Convert, Remove, and Protect—supporting the comprehensive
GTRI approach to achieving its mission to reduce and protect vulnerable nuclear and radiologicalmaterial worldwide, and denying terrorists access to nuclear and radiological materials that could be
used in weapons of mass destruction or other acts of terrorism. The Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU)
Reactor Conversion subprogram supports the conversion or verified shutdown of domestic andinternational civilian research reactors and isotope production facilities from HEU to Low Enriched
Uranium. The Nuclear and Radiological Material Removal subprogram supports the removal anddisposal of excess, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials from civilian sites worldwide. The
Nuclear and Radiological Material Protection subprogram supports the securing of international anddomestic buildings containing high priority nuclear and radiological materials worldwide from theft andsabotage.
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation (INMP&C)
The Materials Protection Cooperation and Accounting (MPC&A) program provides a wealth ofexpertise through material accounting methodologies, specialized material verification techniques,project and construction management for storage facilities, and language specialization. This program
has designed and developed computerized accounting systems that are currently operating at several
Russian enterprises. The NNSA is working with LANL in the use of material controls, particularly withthe active-nonviolent insider threats when completing MPC&A upgrades at all Russian enterprises.
Furthermore, program laboratory experts provide technical solutions to Second Line of Defense (SLD)Core and Megaports programs including scientific analysis and testing of radiation detection systems.
In addition, the program supports installation of radiation detection equipment at border crossings andairports/seaports within both Russia and the Former Soviet Union States under the SLD Core Programand at major container shipping terminals within the global maritime cargo transportation system under
the SLD’s Megaports Initiative.
Nonproliferation and International Security (NIS)The NIS program provides support for conducting technical exchanges and technology development
under the Warhead and Fissile Material Transparency Program and development of nuclear transparency
measures. The NIS supports operation of the Blend Down Monitoring System in the HEU Transparency
Program. The NIS supports USG efforts to prepare for denuclearization and verification efforts inNorth Korea and other proliferating countries, as well as safeguards technology development activities
through the Next Generation Safeguards Initiative and the U.S. Support Program to IAEA Safeguards.
The Program supports export control work with operation of the Proliferation Information Network
System (PINS), reviews of export controlled equipment, materials and software, and analytical tools andtechnical references to use in developing recommendations on U.S. export license applications, policy
support in the development of nuclear transparency measures, fuel cycle analysis and internationalsafeguards technology assessments, and policy support and nonproliferation assessments in the areas ofinternational regimes and regional security. The NIS program provides instructors curriculum
development and other support for export control outreach and supports international safeguards efforts,
especially development of safeguards technologies and methodologies for advanced fuel cycle facilities
such as those in Japan, the Republic of Korea, Brazil and France. In addition, the NIS program helps
create business opportunities for displaced weapons workers and engages former WMD scientists and

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Page 534

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

engineers in civilian activity, redirecting their expertise to peaceful purposes and integrating them into
the larger international scientific and business communities.
Fissile Materials Disposition
The LANL is the lead for the development of U.S. weapons pit disassembly and conversion technology.
The Advanced Recovery and Integrated Extraction System (ARIES) located at LANL serves as the
prototype demonstration project for the production-scale pit disassembly and conversion capability.
Furthermore, ARIES will be used to convert 2 metric tons of pit plutonium metal to oxide for use in theinitial phase of operations of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility.

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Page 535

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

NEVADA TEST SITETABLESFUNDING BY PROGRAM:(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Directed Stockpile Work
Science Campaign
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
Readiness Campaign
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Secure Transportation Asset
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program
Site Stewardship
Science, Technology and Engineering Capability
Congressionally Directed Projects
Subtotal Weapons Activities

44,11731,3253,095
50
492
132,034177
44,007
13,67500475
269,447

48,443
23,841
3,000
75
500
109,341
6,279
45,2086,354
0
0
0
243,041

37,901
28,547000102,892
5,917
46,195
6,582
535
100
0
228,669

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Fissile Materials Disposition
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Total, NNSA

10,538
100
600
7,574
18,812
288,259

19,0930
0
3,025
22,118265,159

63,4260043,144
106,570
335,239

NOTE: Funding for Defense Nuclear Security and Cyber Security is provided through the Nevada Site Office.

Nevada Test Site

Page 536

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

OUT-YEAR FUNDING:FY 2012
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Directed Stockpile Work
Science Campaign
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Secure Transportation Asset
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program
Site Stewardship
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Total, NNSA

(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015

21,71931,89989,027
5,863
46,395
6,582
1,978
203,463

25,02934,12689,031
5,788
45,914
6,582
2,247
208,717

25,20833,94894,585
5,719
46,2460
7,559
213,265

26,96731,546
105,9425,933
47,0000
10,090227,478

7,971
48,80956,780260,243

8,151
55,827
63,978272,695

8,956
66,51475,470288,735

9,762
72,70682,468309,946

Congressional Items of Interest: None
Major Changes or Shifts: None
Site Description
INTRODUCTION:
The Nevada Test Site (NTS) is located 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas and is approximately
1,375 square miles. The NTS is surrounded by the Department of Defense Nevada Test and Training
Ranges and unpopulated land controlled by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. In addition to the
NTS, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Nevada Site Office assets include facilities
in North Las Vegas; Nellis Air Force Base (AFB), NV; Andrews AFB, MD; Livermore, CA;
Los Alamos, NM; and Santa Barbara, CA.
The NTS is aligned with complex transformation activities for the nuclear security enterprise. The NTS
supports the consolidation of Category I/II quantities of special nuclear materials from other sites andlong-term consolidation of hydrodynamic testing and other high-hazard experiments. The current
Environmental Impact Statement and the associated Record of Decision allow for the execution of avariety of complex and unique projects and experiments, while ensuring the protection of workers, thepublic and the environment. The existing assets of the NTS represent a unique and indispensable
extension of the National Weapons Laboratories experimental capabilities, and are essential to the
NNSA Office of Defense Programs and the nation’s ability to return to underground nuclear testing,should the President direct it.

Nevada Test Site

Page 537

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetACTIVITIES:
Directed Stockpile Work (DSW)The NTS scope falls within the DSW Stockpile Services activities, which support multiple weaponssystems, studies, and other Research and Development (R&D) activities to support future stockpile
requirements. The NTS primarily supports DSW by developing and executing Equation of State (EOS)
experiments and other highly diagnosed dynamic experiments. The work scope includes support for
dynamic plutonium experiments and high explosive pulse power experiments, test bed construction
development and design, and procurement and operation of diagnostics systems. Also included are
diagnostic development activities required to support future experiments, including research anddevelopment, control systems, data acquisition, and data analysis.
The NTS will continue to support the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in defining andexecuting a series of High Explosive Pulse Power (HEPP) experiments; Los Alamos National
Laboratory (LANL) in fielding the large bore powder gun experiments at U1A and the “Barolo” seriesof dynamic plutonium experiments. The NTS will provide the Sandia National Laboratories (SNL)
technical input, analysis and interpretation of time-resolved experiments fielded at NTS as part of the
National Hydrotest Plan.
Science Campaign
The NTS participates in the following Science Campaign activities:•

Primary Assessment Technologies - conducts scientific experiments, which support the experimental
study and improvement of material models with emphasis on plutonium. NTS will continue to assist
LLNL in defining and executing a series of High Explosive Pulse Power (HEPP) experiments as partof the Phoenix project. NTS provides support in the area of testbed engineering and construction,
diagnostics fielding, controls, and data reduction for the DPEs. In FY 2011, NTS will continue tosupport both LLNL and LANL reanalysis of underground test (UGT) data using modern statisticalanalysis.

•

Dynamic Materials Properties - NTS supports the laboratory subprograms by developing diagnostics
and fielding experiments. In FY 2011, NTS will support dynamic materials experiments datacollection at the Special Technologies Laboratory (STL) Boombox. Special Nuclear Material(SNM) experiment series and diagnostic advancements at the Joint Actinide Shock Physics
Experimental Research (JASPER) Facility are planned and executed with LLNL. Also, NTS will
support dynamic experiments and diagnostic development leveraging gas guns at LANL and large
bore powder gun capabilities at U1A. Additionally, NTS will provide support to SNL inexperiments (e.g., ICE - EOS experiments on weapon materials), pulsed power source development,
and diagnostic advancements (e.g., VISAR, Pyrometry, and X-ray diffraction).

•

Advanced Radiography - NTS supports the LANL Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamics Test
(DARHT), the proton radiography experiments at the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center(LANSCE), and Brookhaven National Laboratory. In FY 2011, NTS will continue to provide
accelerator diagnostics for DARHT II activities, focusing on LANL experiments. The Proton
Radiography (pRad) group will support experiments at LANSCE Line C by providing diagnostics

Nevada Test Site

Page 538

FY 2011 Congressional Budget•equipment, machined hardware, and personnel for troubleshooting and support during theexperiments, conducting image analyses, and providing reports to LANL.
Secondary Assessment Technology - NTS provides diagnostic development, calibration, fielding,and experiment data collection related to radiation flow studies performed by LLNL and SNL,
including advances in optical, x-ray, and neutron detector development. In addition, NTS provides
National Institute of Standards and Technology-traceable calibration facilities for radiation-flow
diagnostics needed for High Energy Density (HED) physics experiments, the laser at the Universityof Rochester Laboratory for Laser Energetics (OMEGA) and LLNL lasers in support of LLNL.
NTS will also continue to support SNL in core diagnostic support and advanced diagnostics
development and characterization on experiments, including x-ray, optical, neutron, otherdiagnostic-related capabilities, and sources and processes for improving their absolute calibration.

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF)
The NTS RTBF program provides the Stockpile Stewardship Program with the essential physical andoperational infrastructure required to conduct the engineering, scientific, and technical activities of theStockpile Stewardship Program. The objective of the NTS RTBF program is to ensure the correct
program-related facilities and activities are maintained in a mission capable state to allow experimental
operations to occur in a safe, secure, reliable, and cost effective manner. At the NTS, facilities andactivities that are direct-funded are contained in two subprogram elements: Operations of Facilities andProgram Readiness. The Operation of Facilities element includes the operation and maintenance of thefollowing NNSA-owned programmatic facilities: Device Assembly Facility (DAF), U1A Complex,
JASPER, Control Point Complex, High Explosive Facility, and the North Las Vegas Complex. The
Atlas Pulse Power Facility will continue to be maintained in a cold-standby condition. Activities
supported under Program Readiness include logistical support to the National Laboratories; support to
Other Federal Agencies; Environmental Compliance and Restoration with respect to Defense legacy
issues, which includes the Borehole Management Program; and Equipment Revitalization. In FY 2011,
Program Readiness also supports the Test Readiness scope of work.
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
The NCTIR activities at NTS include assisting in the operating, exercising, and maintaining DOE’s
capability to provide assistance to federal, state and local government agencies for responding toradiological accidents and incidents as well as support assistance for any DOE or National emergency.
Also, NTS deploys trained, qualified technical and professional personnel and specialized equipment
and provides research and development, training, exercises, operations, maintenance and required
coordination with other federal agencies and foreign governments to effectively address current andprojected threats. Support for the National Technical Nuclear Forensics (NTNF) program will continue
through the planning period.
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP)In FY 2011, FIRP activities will emphasize mission facility and infrastructure projects to meet federal
and state requirements. Specific to this year’s program are upgrading power distribution systems in
Area 23 from 4.16kV to 12.47kV. These improvements will provide more reliable power to mission
critical facilities. The Nevada Site Office will also continue to participate in the complex-wide Roof
Asset Management Program (RAMP), achieving improved cost efficiencies and life extension of NTS’s
roofing assets.

Nevada Test Site

Page 539

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetSite Stewardship
In FY 2011, Site Stewardship efforts will focus on the Energy Modernization and Investment Program
activities aimed at achieving Departmental energy efficiency goals. The 2011 EMIP activities support
priority energy conservation projects that will reduce energy consumption, enhance energy
independence and security and provide life-cycle cost effective benefits. Projects that provide the mostsignificant contribution towards achievement of NNSA’s energy goals and result in cost savings andsocial benefits will be selected from the EMIP Integrated Prioritized Project List (IPPL) for execution.
Defense Nuclear Security
The Defense Nuclear Security’s physical security program at the Nevada Test Site is administered by
the Nevada Site Office. The Defense Nuclear Security program provides site security consistent withrequirements documented in its Site Safeguards and Security Plan. In FY 2011, NTS will continue tofocus on improving the efficiency of the security program, including modernization of the security
infrastructure and implementation of technology upgrades.
Cyber Security
The Cyber Security program at the Nevada Test Site is administered through the Nevada Site Office.
The Cyber Security program will focus on implementation of the Department of Energy's revitalization
plan, which will enable NNSA to respond to its highest priorities and to address current and future risks;
unclassified system certification and accreditation for proper documentation of risks and justification of
associated operations for systems at all sites; and education and awareness that provides training forfederal and contractor personnel to meet expanding skill requirements of cyber security and information
environments.
The NTS will continue to maintain effective feedback and improvement mechanisms to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities, eradicate them from site networks, and prevent recurrence. The NTS will also
focus on improving the efficiency of the program to provide feedback and result-driven risk-based
methodologies site-wide. The NTS will implement processes, procedures and technologies to enhance
the security infrastructure complex-wide.
Secure Transportation Asset
The NSTec provides management, quality assurance, personnel training, and preventative and corrective
maintenance services in support of the Maryland Relay Station (RS). This facility is a vital part of thecommunications system dedicated to the tracking and safeguarding of STA shipments. Also, NSTec
provides utilities, range support, training area support, and grounds and facilities maintenance to meet
STA’s training needs at the NTS.
Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development
In FY 2011, focus will on continuing the new testing and evaluation program, which began in FY 2010at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) to address emerging technical challenges associated with the
Administration’s nonproliferation objectives. The new capability at NTS will ultimately support U.S.
capabilities to monitor international treaties and cooperative agreements, such as the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT).

Nevada Test Site

Page 540

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetGlobal Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)The Nevada Test Site provides significant technical, scientific, and management expertise to two of
three key subprograms of GTRI–Remove and Protect—supporting the comprehensive GTRI approach toachieving its mission to reduce and protect vulnerable nuclear and radiological material worldwide, anddenying terrorists access to nuclear and radiological materials that could be used in weapons of mass
destruction or other acts of terrorism. The Nuclear and Radiological Material Removal subprogramsupports the removal and disposal of excess, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials from civilian
sites worldwide. The Nuclear and Radiological Material Protection subprogram supports the securing ofinternational and domestic buildings containing high priority nuclear and radiological materials
worldwide from theft and sabotage.

Nevada Test Site

Page 541

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

PANTEX PLANT
TABLESFUNDING BY PROGRAM:(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Directed Stockpile WorkEngineering Campaign
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
Readiness Campaign
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Secure Transportation Asset
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program
Site Stewardship
Environmental Projects and Operations Program/LTS*
Defense Nuclear Security
Cyber Security
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and Verification Research & Development

178,144
2,589
100
5,133
176,395
5,276
935
17,8270
7,473
125,397
7,081
526,350

177,382
3,350
165
4,158
179,793
5,622
982
12,0178,328
0135,595
7,081
534,473

188,981
3,300
0
2,994
167,601
5,502
1,031
10,482
12,3450
133,000
7,081
532,317

35

30

29

Nonproliferation and International Security
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Total, NNSA

182
217
526,567

203
233
534,706

189
218
532,535* Funding included in Site Stewardship beginning in FY 2010.

Pantex Plant

Page 542

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

OUT-YEAR FUNDING:FY 2012
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Directed Stockpile WorkEngineering Campaign
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Secure Transportation Asset
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program
Site Stewardship
Defense Nuclear Security
Cyber Security
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and International Security
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Total, NNSA

(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015

192,497
3,300
162,406
5,571
1,083
10,482
15,638134,330
6,927
532,234

182,984
2,904
133,933
5,453
1,137
10,482
16,031
135,100
6,927
494,951

187,637
3,300
133,181
5,519
1,150
0
26,693
136,500
6,927
500,907

201,995
3,234
137,737
5,726
1,162
0
31,530137,600
6,927
525,911

195
195
532,429201
201
495,152206
206
501,113221
221
526,132

Congressional Items of Interest: Continuing to support dismantlement goals and W76 Full-Production
Rates.
Major Changes or Shifts: None
Site Description
INTRODUCTION:
The Pantex Plant (Pantex) is situated on 16,000 acres in the Texas Panhandle, approximately 17 miles
northeast of Amarillo. Pantex has five primary operational missions: (1) Weapons Assembly,(2) Weapons Disassembly, (3) Weapons Evaluation, (4) High Explosive Research and Development,and (5) Interim Plutonium Pit Storage. The site is also aligned with Complex Transformation activities,
which include actions to improve throughput capacity, accelerate dismantlements, and support
consolidation of special nuclear materials.
ACTIVITIES:
Directed Stockpile Work (DSW)The Pantex Plant activities include the assembly/disassembly for nuclear weapons. Pantex supports theLife Extension Program (LEP) disassembly for conversion, production, and Retrofit Evaluation System
Test (REST) surveillance schedules, Seamless Safety for the 21st Century (SS-21) projects; stockpile
weapon system surveillance (assembly/disassembly), sustained retired systems dismantlement andrequired production support.

Pantex Plant

Page 543

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

The Pantex Plant stores surplus pits pending shipment to the Los Alamos National Laboratory in supportof the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF). The Pantex Plant also packages and storessurplus pits for future shipment to the Savannah River Site for conversion in the PDC prior tofabrication into mixed-oxide fuel.
Engineering Campaign
Pantex supports the Engineering Campaign through the Enhanced Surveillance subprogram by
performing aging studies on explosives and non-nuclear materials and components. These results arethen provided to the Design Agencies for incorporation into the aging models. Work is also performed
with the Design Agencies to develop and deploy new diagnostics tools for implementation into DSW.
Readiness Campaign
Pantex supports the following Readiness Campaign subprograms.
•

Advanced Design and Production Technologies (ADAPT) examines modern and emerging
technologies and applies them to the development of new or replacement design and production
capabilities in those cases where the modern technology would lead to cost effective lean processes;
shortened cycle times; built-in quality and acceptance; closer integration of activities across thenuclear security enterprise; a more productive workforce; and agile processes that enhance
responsiveness to future national security needs.

•

High Explosives and Weapons Operations (HEWO) develops and deploys technology-based
solutions that resolve capability, infrastructure, workforce, and facility issues and achieve andmaintain production readiness for Directed Stockpile Work programs. The HEWO is the vehicle toimplement technologies demonstrated by other programs. It provides the equipment, infrastructure,
and workforce required, and provides operational support for capital facility projects needed toaccommodate new capabilities.

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF)
The RTBF Program provides the physical infrastructure and operational capabilities required to conduct
the DSW and Campaign activities. This includes ensuring that facilities are operational, safe, secure,and compliant, and that a defined level of readiness is sustained to perform the current and future Pantex
mission. In addition to the RTBF program elements, the companion programs and construction work
cooperatively with the RTBF elements and the Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program.
Secure Transportation Asset (STA)
The B&W Pantex provides facilities and support for the federal agents force at Agent Operations
Central Command. The plant operates a Vehicle Maintenance Facility and a Mobile Electronic
Maintenance Facility to support convoy operations, including specialized and secure maintenance/repairof the vehicle fleet and communications equipment. The plant also maintains facilities for Federal
Agent training and mission operations.
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP)
Pantex will prioritize projects for execution that align with the NNSA initiative to enhance reliability of
mission essential infrastructure. The FIRP Program at Pantex will continue to execute deferred
maintenance reduction projects in mission critical and mission dependent facilities. This strategy will
Pantex Plant

Page 544

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

improve facility system reliability, minimize the risk of unscheduled facility outages and improve safety.
Over the past three years, this strategy has contributed to the increased throughput on NNSA mission
objectives for Stockpile Stewardship, Life Extension Program and Retired Weapons Systems. In
FY 2011, projects include Fire Protection Lead-ins to Cells and Bays, refurbishment of mission criticalfacilities housing a gas laboratory and support personnel, and steam pipe refurbishments. Also, theFY 2011 President’s Budget Request includes planning for FY 2012 recapitalization projects, andcontinued support of roof repairs executed through the complex-wide Roof Asset Management Program(RAMP), achieving improved cost efficiencies and life extension of Pantex’s roofing assets.
Site Stewardship
In FY 2011, Site Stewardship efforts will be directed toward Environmental Projects and Operations
Long Term Stewardship (LTS) activities required for ensuring environmental regulatory compliance;and Energy Modernization and Investment Program activities aimed at achieving Departmental energy
efficiency goals. The environmental restoration project was completed by the Office of Environmental
Management at the end of FY 2008 and in FY 2009; LTS then became the responsibility of the NNSA.
The NNSA LTS activities include long-term surveillance and maintenance, monitoring, and reporting
and will continue to assure protection of public health and the environment.
Energy Modernization and Investment Program (EMIP)
The 2011 EMIP activities support priority energy conservation projects that will reduce energy
consumption, enhance energy independence and security and provide life-cycle cost effective
benefits. Projects that provide the most significant contribution towards achievement of NNSA’senergy goals and result in cost avoidances/savings and social benefits will be selected from the
EMIP Integrated Prioritized Project List (IPPL) for execution.
Defense Nuclear Security
The Defense Nuclear Security program at Pantex provides protection measures consistent withrequirements documented in the Site Safeguards and Security Plan (SSSP). During FY 2011, the site
will sustain the 2003 Design Basis Threat upgrades. The program will also focus strongly on life cycle
replacement of aging intrusion detection and assessment systems and other protection systems withemphasis on utilization of new technologies.
Cyber Security
The NNSA Cyber Security program implements a flexible, comprehensive, and risk-based cybersecurity program that (a) protects the NNSA information and information assets; (b) is predicated on
Executive Orders; national standards; laws and regulations; Departmental and NNSA orders, manuals,
directives and guidance; and (c) results in a policy-driven cyber security architecture; aligned with the
NNSA enterprise architecture; a programmatic framework and methodology that is based on current
policies and procedures; and a management approach that integrates all the components of acomprehensive cyber security program; ensures alignment of the program with NNSA and Departmental
strategic plans and relevant plans of the Office of the CIO.
In FY 2011, Pantex will maintain the cyber security training program for personnel who have systemadministrator responsibilities. Pantex will also establish an effective program to manage theimplementation of wireless computer technologies site-wide. Also, the site will implement cybersecurity life-cycle management processes, to include upgrading cyber security components.
Pantex Plant

Page 545

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Nonproliferation and International Security (NIS)The NIS program provides support for conducting technical exchanges and technology development
under the Warhead and Fissile Material Transparency Program and development of nuclear transparency
measures. The NIS program conducts a Pit-Out Review during disassembly to classify weapon partsand components for U.S. national security and export controls for nonproliferation concerns, andmaintains a computer data base jointly funded with Defense Programs.
Fissile Materials Disposition
The Pantex Plant stores surplus pits pending shipment to the Los Alamos National Laboratory in supportof the Pit Disassembly and Conversion (PDC) technology demonstration. The Pantex Plant also
packages and stores surplus pits for future shipment to the Savannah River Site for conversion in the
PDC prior to fabrication into mixed-oxide fuel.

Pantex Plant

Page 546

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIESTABLESFUNDING BY PROGRAM:(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Directed Stockpile Work
Science Campaign
Engineering Campaign
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
Readiness Campaign
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Secure Transportation Asset
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Site Stewardship
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program
Environmental Projects and Operations Program/LTS*
Defense Nuclear Security
Cyber Security
Science , Technology and Engineering Capability
Congressionally Directed Projects
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
Nonproliferation and International Security
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Total, NNSA

373,40242,45080,40550,405120,198
15,220159,138
16,147
26,166
0
18,548
6,981
68,244
19,5589,750
1,427
1,008,039

373,338
35,52982,02651,500128,642
7,937
126,890
15,636
28,6297,027
11,386
066,70017,85800953,098545,262
43,29676,70048,000127,685
8,431
136,390
15,43632,093
9,255
8,747
0
66,00019,3585,300
01,141,953

73,344
16,33744,98323,091
157,755

63,887
18,211
72,641
17,038
171,777
1,124,875

61,655
16,98393,363
15,274
187,275
1,329,228

1,165,794* Funding included in Site Stewardship beginning in FY 2010.

Sandia National Laboratories

Page 547

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

OUT-YEAR FUNDING:FY 2012(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015564,178
48,05981,31748,000126,112
195
125,388
15,69828,972
8,747
10,372
66,10017,2811,140,419

590,778
50,10075,44548,000125,5410126,197
15,34030,256
8,747
11,237
66,20018,281
1,166,122

603,839
49,74877,65048,000127,9730134,303
15,60733,2580
21,38766,30018,781
1,196,846

616,259
47,87878,80348,000127,408
0
128,555
16,19034,649026,292
66,40018,781
1,209,215

75,493
17,54497,09442,646
232,777
1,373,196

75,42718,001
78,83654,981
227,245
1,393,367

75,506
18,50077,106
84,773
255,885
1,452,731

78,002
19,79488,053
96,139281,988
1,491,203

NNSA
Weapons Activities
Directed Stockpile Work
Science Campaign
Engineering Campaign
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
Readiness Campaign
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Secure Transportation Asset
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program
Site Stewardship
Defense Nuclear Security
Cyber Security
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
Nonproliferation and International Security
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Total, NNSA

Congressional Items of Interest: None
Major Changes or Shifts: None
Site Description
INTRODUCTION:
Sandia National Laboratories/New Mexico (SNL/NM) is located on 75,520-acre Kirtland Air Force
Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico. It occupies nearly 9,000 acres of the Kirtland reservation and has
additional facilities in Livermore, California (400 acres); Kauai, Hawaii (120 acres); and Tonopah,
Nevada (600 square miles). The SNL is aligned with the nuclear security enterprise transformation
activities and the Record of Decision. Sandia also conducts operations at California and the Tonopah
Test Range (TTR). NNSA operations at TTR will reduce footprint, upgrade equipment with mobile
capability, and conduct NNSA flight tests in a campaign mode. No Category I/II SNM will be used infuture flight tests.

Sandia National Laboratories

Page 548

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

The SNL’s Science, Technology, and Engineering program conducts a large variety of research anddevelopment programs that support five key areas: (1) Nuclear Weapons, (2) Nonproliferation andAssessments, (3) Military Technologies and Applications, (4) Energy and Infrastructure Assurance, and(5) Homeland Security.
ACTIVITIES:
Directed Stockpile Work (DSW)The SNL activities ensure the reliability, safety, and security of the current and future nuclear weapons
stockpile. The SNL supports the W76-1 Life Extension Program (LEP) design, qualification,
production, and surveillance activities, as well as Retired Systems activities, including required
characterization of stockpile weapon components. Other SNL activities include: surety assessments, theAnnual Assessment Report, the semi-annual weapon reliability reports, support to the Nuclear Explosive
Safety Studies (NESS), laboratory and flight surveillance, neutron generator design and development,
cross-cutting subjects in Significant Finding Investigations (SFIs), aircraft compatibility, and military
liaison with the Department of Defense (DoD). Sandia has design and production mission assignments
for Neutron Generators; arming, fusing and firing system; and a dozen other technologies that require
extensive engineering oversight to produce. In FY 2009, SNL was assigned gas transfer system design
responsibility for NNSA.
Also, SNL supports continuing efforts to examine how the B61 Phase 6.2/6.2A study can address issuesof safety, security and long-term reliability of the nation's nuclear deterrent.
Science Campaign
In FY 2011, SNL will continue to leverage its unique capabilities and tools in the pulsed power sciences
and the materials and process sciences to support the mission of the Science Campaign for stockpile
stewardship. The Science Campaign subprogram activities are as follows:•

Advanced Certification - SNL will continue efforts to review, evaluate, and implement key
recommendations from the JASON review of the Reliable Replacement Warhead regarding
approaches to establish an accredited warhead certification plan, without nuclear testing, in an era
in which changes to nuclear components will occur due to aging or design concerns. Sandia willobtain actinide, gas, and other material equation of state data.

•

Primary Assessment Technologies - SNL will begin executing a plan for theoretical andexperimental activities for boost that are consistent with the National Boost Initiative strategy.

•

Dynamic Materials Properties - the Z pulsed-power facility has a unique capability to isentropically(i.e., shocklessly) compress materials and to accelerate flyer plates to shock compress materials tohigh pressures, thus providing equation-of-state and constitutive property data to the SNL, LANL,
and LLNL material communities for inclusion in models and for the quantification of margins anduncertainty (QMU) process. In particular, SNL will continue to conduct experiments to obtainfundamental and integrated data on special nuclear materials (i.e., plutonium) to quantify initialconditions for boost processes and to develop new techniques for measuring dynamic strength on
Z. In addition, SNL provides the science basis for developing new non-nuclear materials,

Sandia National Laboratories

Page 549

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

improving fabrication processes, and characterizing the performance of materials based oncomposition, processing, and microstructure to advance the state of the art.
•

Advanced Radiography - In pulsed power at SNL, the advanced radiography capabilities include
the design, development, and deployment of state-of-the-art, compact, reliable, and high-intensity
flash x-ray radiographic sources for experiments conducted at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) and forabove ground dynamic experiments for LANL and the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) insupport of improved physics models. Moreover, SNL will demonstrate new technologies such as
the linear transformer driver for advanced applications to both radiography and dynamic materials
and conduct radiographic source coupling tests.

•

Secondary Assessment Technologies - At the Z pulsed power facility, SNL also develops intense
energetic radiation sources, sophisticated x-ray diagnostics, and an enhanced radiographic
capability for the Z Beamlet laser and supports the utilization of these sources and diagnostics by
LANL for applications to Secondary Assessment Technologies in radiation transport,hydrodynamics, and integrated implosions. In addition, SNL develops plasma radiation source forimpulse testing and technical safety requirements (TSR) to support radiation effects to customers.

Engineering Campaign
The Engineering Campaign is a key element to realize the transformation goals for the nuclear security
enterprise with a sustainable stockpile. The SNL Engineering Campaign develops the modern
engineering tools, capabilities, and technologies needed to ensure the safety, security, survivability,
reliability, and performance of the existing and future stockpile, and to provide a sustained engineeringscience basis, through the use of quantified margins and uncertainties, for stockpile assessment andcertification. The SNL portion of the Engineering Campaign supports all four subprograms: Enhanced
Surety, Weapon System Engineering Assessment Technology, Nuclear Survivability, and Enhanced
Surveillance.
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield (ICF) Campaign
The SNL ICF activities support the High Energy Density Physics (HEDP) program primarily throughexperiments at the SNL Z pulsed power facility. Z will conduct stockpile stewardship experiments in(Dynamic Materials Properties, Secondary Assessment Technologies, and Nuclear Survivability
subprograms and Directed Stockpile Work), pulsed-power-ICF and x-ray-source-development
experiments, as its primary mission. A small part of the Z agenda will also be devoted to a combinationof basic science, z-pinch physics, power flow, and inertial fusion energy experiments.
This ICF Campaign develops, maintains, and operates all of the x-ray particle, and laser-based
diagnostics required for a full experimental capability at Z. Diagnostic activity also includes
development, maintenance, and operation of diagnostics associated with the Z-Beamlet back lighter
facility (that is coupled to the Z pulsed-power facility). The SNL ICF program also develops, maintains,
and operates multi-dimensional simulation codes and supports the staff who design, perform, andanalyze the experiments (including load and target hardware). Research on Z and Z-Beamlet is
performed in cooperation and collaboration with other national laboratories including the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency laboratories, universities, and the Atomic Weapons Establishment.

Sandia National Laboratories

Page 550

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Campaign
In FY 2011, SNL ASC activities will focus on the following:•

simulation tools that support annual assessments, LEPs, Significant Finding Investigations (SFIs),•

mission priorities of the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP), including the continuing
improvement of predictivity and certification methodologies (e.g., Quantification of Margins andUncertainties, or QMU), and•opportunities to leverage ASC technology in support of other national nuclear security mission needs
including secure transportation and emerging threats.

Foundational elements of the SNL ASC program include development of the toolset needed to quantify
the uncertainty in the predictions of the NNSA weapons codes – including the effective use of
supercomputing and forward looking cost-effective architectures, and application of new methodologies
for demonstrating credibility of simulation results.
Readiness Campaign
The SNL supports the following Readiness Campaign subprograms.
•

Advance Design and Production Technologies (ADAPT) examines modern and emerging
technologies and applies them to the development of new or replacement design and production
capabilities in those cases where the modern technology would lead to cost-effective lean processes;
shortened cycle times, built-in quality and acceptance, closer integration of activities across thenuclear security enterprise; a more productive workforce; and agile processes that enhance
responsiveness to future national security needs.

•

Nonnuclear Readiness provides the electrical, electronic, and mechanical capabilities required toweaponize a nuclear explosive. This activity deploys the product development and production
capabilities required to support nonnuclear product requirements. Nonnuclear functions range from
weapon command and control to examining performance during deployment simulations, including
weapon structural features, neutron generators, tritium reservoirs, detonators and component testers.

•

Tritium Readiness continues to model the design of the Tritium Producing Burnable Absorber Rods
(TPBARs) for comparison against experimental data gathered during the initial irradiation cycles inorder to understand the permeation performance of the TPBARs.

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF)
The RTBF Program supports a broad base of activities that enable the laboratory to meet its mission andobligations to the NNSA and the nation. The activities are derived from the staffing and operation of anumber of critical Nuclear Weapons Program capabilities and facilities, operation of test capabilities andtest ranges, supporting development work and studies in weapons materials, waste management,
education, and high energy density physics readiness. The SNL RTBF projects range from the staffing
and operation of complex experimental capabilities (e.g., Tech Area V reactors, Tonopah Test Range,
and Environmental Test Facilities) to production and support capabilities (e.g. Microelectronics
Development Laboratory, Neutron Generator equipment maintenance, and the Primary Standards
Sandia National Laboratories

Page 551

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Laboratory). Sandia provides the primary standards capabilities for the nuclear security enterprise. Also
critical within the RTBF program are efforts to develop programs to maintain key nuclear weapons
critical skills and develop the critical capabilities for the next generation of program needs.
Secure Transportation Asset (STA)The SNL provides the research, design and engineering development, and operational support for new
technology, mobile communications, and vehicle production. In addition, SNL conducts safety andsecurity studies and analyzes risks involving nuclear weapons transportation. Sandia maintains the STA
safety and security authorization basis, and designs, analyzes, tests, and documents all nuclear weaponand material cargo tie-down systems for STA ground and air transportation, engineering production,
configuration management, and field support for the Safeguards Transporter, Safe Secure Trailer,
Armored Tractors, and Escort Vehicles, and maintains a "24/7" emergency response capability forconvoy missions. The SNL plant operates a Vehicle Maintenance Facility and a Mobile Electronics
Maintenance Facility (MEMF) to support convoy operations, including specialized and securemaintenance/repair of the vehicle fleet and communications equipment.
Defense Nuclear Security
The SNL Defense Nuclear Security program provides laboratory protection measures consistent withrequirements documented in its Site Safeguards and Security Plan (SSSP). In FY 2011, SNL willcontinue to focus on improving the efficiency of the security program, including modernization of the
security infrastructure and implementation of technology upgrades.
Cyber Security
The NNSA Cyber Security program implements a flexible, comprehensive, and risk-based cybersecurity program that (a) protects the NNSA information and information assets as appropriate; (b) ispredicated on Executive Orders; national standards; laws and regulations; and Departmental and NNSA
orders, manuals, directives and guidance; and (c) results in a policy-driven cyber security architecture;aligned with the NNSA enterprise architecture; a programmatic framework and methodology that isbased on current policies and procedures; and a management approach that integrates the components ofa comprehensive cyber security program; ensures alignment of the program with NNSA and
Departmental strategic plans and relevant plans of the CIO.
In FY 2011, SNL will continue improving the efficiency of the security program, including
modernization of the security infrastructure and implementation of technology upgrades. The SNL will
also establish a comprehensive self-assessment program for cyber security. In FY 2011, SNL will leadthe effort to deploy a virtual collaboration computing incident response capability complex-wide.
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
SNL assists NCTIR in operating, exercising, and maintaining DOE’s capability to provide assistance tofederal, state and local government agencies for responding to radiological accidents and incidents. The
SNL deploys trained, qualified technical and professional personnel and specialized equipment andprovides research and development, training, exercises, operations, maintenance and required
coordination with other federal agencies and foreign governments to effectively address current andprojected threats. The SNL is an active participant in the NNSA Nuclear Emergency Support Team(NEST), which can respond to any type of emergency involving radioactive or nuclear materials in the
U.S. or abroad. The SNL also supports the National Technical Nuclear Forensics (NTNF) andSandia National Laboratories

Page 552

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Stabilization Operations programs, which will continue through the planning period. Other SNL
activities include the conduct of operations and technical integration in support of the Joint Technical
Operations Team (JTOT), Accident Response Group (ARG), and Home Team (HT) in the form oftechnical support, research and development, intelligence support, field operations, and training andexercises. In addition, SNL provides research and support to the Office of Emergency Operations withunique expertise in supporting the Office of Nuclear Counterterrorism.
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP)The SNL uses FIRP funding for projects that support refurbishment of building systems and utilities formission-critical Defense Programs facilities and infrastructure. Recapitalization projects planned for
FY 2011 include chiller replacements supporting Sandia’s scientific and classified computing resources,
exhaust fan and air handling unit replacements in facilities involved with critical R&D, production,
machining activities, and additional road repairs.
Site StewardshipLong Term Stewardship (LTS) activities at SNL continue to support remedial actions completed at
263 of 265 release sites. In FY 2011, NNSA LTS activities include program management, maintenanceof remedies at a number of environmental restoration sites at SNL/New Mexico, and groundwater
monitoring at SNL /California. . Energy Modernization and Investment Program activities are aimed atachieving Departmental energy efficiency goals. The 2011 EMIP activities support priority energy
conservation projects that will reduce energy consumption, enhance energy independence and security
and provide life-cycle cost effective benefits. Projects that provide the most significant contribution
towards achievement of NNSA’s energy goals and result in cost avoidances/savings and social benefits
will be selected from the EMIP Integrated Prioritized Project List (IPPL) for execution.
Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development
The SNL Nonproliferation and Verification R&D program will develop, demonstrate, and validate
improvements to data processing and analysis tools in support of ground-based nuclear detonation
detection. The program will design, develop, and produce new optical detectors for the next generationof U.S. satellite-based monitoring nuclear/radiation detection nuclear detonation detection program. The
SNL serves as the national center for research on Synthetic Aperture Radar systems and analysis
methods for national security applications. The program develops new and innovative remote sensing
technologies, radiation detection technologies, and other detection and analysis capabilities supporting
nuclear fuel cycle monitoring missions, nuclear forensics missions, and other proliferation detection
technology thrusts.
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation (INMP&C)
The INMP&C program at SNL provides experience with the design and installation of physicalprotection systems and has specific technical expertise in access delay systems; intrusion detection andassessment systems and associated display systems; access control systems; and vulnerability analysis
procedures, processes and associated computer codes. The program at SNL also provides technicalexpertise to advise Russian institutes, enterprises, and government agencies as they develop andimplement physical protection systems, regulations, and sustainability and training programs and tosupport the Second Line of Defense program. Additionally, the program at SNL supports installation ofradiation detection equipment at border crossings and airports/seaports within both Russia and theFormer Soviet Union States under the Second Line of Defense Core Program and at major container
Sandia National Laboratories

Page 553

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

shipping terminals within the global maritime cargo transportation system under the Second Line of
Defense Program’s Megaport Initiative.
Nonproliferation and International Security (NIS)The NIS program at SNL conducts technical exchanges and technology development under the Warhead
and Fissile Material Transparency Program, develops nuclear transparency measures, including throughtechnical analysis and technology development, and supports policymaking and negotiations regarding
various arms control and nonproliferation regimes. The program also supports HEU Transparency
Program implementation and development. The program provides support for licensing operations
through reviews of export controlled equipment, materials and software, and analytical tools andtechnical references for use in developing recommendations on U.S. export license applications,international safeguards technology assessment, policy support and nonproliferation assessment,
multilateral outreach through support efforts for policymaking and negotiations regarding various
nonproliferation control regimes, and international cooperation, primarily in the Former Soviet Union
but increasingly in transit states as well. The program supports regional security efforts and export
control activities and NNSA regional security objectives, particularly with the Cooperative Monitoring
Center. In addition, the program supports safeguards and international physical protection cooperation,
provides vulnerability assessment support for foreign sites of interest, training to foreign nationals as
needed, support to IAEA and USG meetings abroad to strengthen physical protection measures globally,
additional Protocol outreach and training, and safeguards agreement implementation. The program
helps create business opportunities for displaced weapons workers and engages former weapons of mass
destruction scientists and engineers in civilian activity, redirecting their expertise to peaceful purposes,
and integrating them into the larger international scientific and business communities.
Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)The SNL provides significant technical, scientific, and management expertise to two of the three key
subprograms of GTRI–Remove and Protect—supporting the comprehensive GTRI approach toachieving its mission to reduce and protect vulnerable nuclear and radiological material worldwide, anddenying terrorists access to nuclear and radiological materials that could be used in weapons of mass
destruction or other acts of terrorism. The Nuclear and Radiological Material Removal subprogramsupports the removal and disposal of excess, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials from civilian
sites worldwide. The Nuclear and Radiological Material Protection subprogram supports the securing ofinternational and domestic buildings containing high priority nuclear and radiological materials
worldwide from theft and sabotage.

Sandia National Laboratories

Page 554

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

SAVANNAH RIVER SITETABLESFUNDING BY PROGRAM:(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Directed Stockpile WorkEngineering Campaign
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
Readiness Campaign
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Site Stewardship
Defense Nuclear Security
Cyber Security
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
Fissile Materials Disposition
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Total, NNSA

Savannah River Site

74,805750
50
28,512
104,5692,332
012,4203,835
227,273

40,511360
75
30,160138,0982,449
012,668
5,335
229,656

43,164236
030,75399,496
2,571
1,130
8,500
5,835
191,685

17,414850
1,830
20,09415,02687,5003,600
106,126
335,782

14,501
109,289
23,739147,529
339,214247,367

Page 555

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

OUT-YEAR FUNDING:FY 2012
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Directed Stockpile WorkEngineering Campaign
Readiness Campaign
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Site Stewardship
Defense Nuclear Security
Cyber Security
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
Fissile Materials Disposition
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Total, NNSA

(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015

46,074100
29,599104,026
2,700
1,494
8,600
5,630
198,223

45,250100
30,156
104,411
2,835
1,562
8,700
5,630
198,644

49,532200
34,670105,800
2,800
2,890
8,800
5,630
210,32264,550250
35,855
109,419
2,896
3,523
8,900
5,630
231,023510
76,3704,492
81,372
279,595

510
78,152
3,598
82,260280,904

525
63,838
5,479
69,842
280,164

539
86,150343
87,032
318,055

Congressional Items of Interest: Construction of the Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility and therelated facilities in support of U.S. plutonium disposition activities.

Major Changes or Shifts: The FY 2011 President’s Budget Request has consolidated all of thefunding requests for the Fissile Materials Disposition activities within the Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation appropriation.

Site Description
INTRODUCTION:
The Savannah River Site (SRS) spans approximately 310 square miles bordering the Savannah River inwestern South Carolina. The Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management is the site
landlord. The Savannah River Site is designated as a National Environmental Research Park and covers
a small portion of Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale counties.
The SRS Tritium Facilities, which occupy a portion of the total site, are supporting the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) Stockpile Stewardship and Stockpile Evaluation programs, and are
executing a plan to meet the challenges of the future through the following core missions:

Savannah River Site

Page 556

FY 2011 Congressional Budget•Provide tritium and non-tritium loaded reservoirs to meet Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan
requirements;•

Conduct the Stockpile Evaluation Program; and Extract tritium produced at TVA reactors.

The SRS Tritium Facilities are aligned with nuclear security enterprise transformation activities. The
SRS will remain the site for tritium supply management and provide R&D support to production
operations and gas transfer system development. In addition, the plans are reducing its facility square
footage by greater than 25 percent.
ACTIVITIES:
Directed Stockpile Work (DSW)The SRS activities include processing tritium and inert reservoirs and associated components in supportof the Life Extension Program (LEP) and enduring weapon systems. The LEP activities include
production Retrofit Evaluation System Test (REST) surveillance, and production sampling evaluation
associated with the refurbishment of the W76-1. Stockpile Systems categories include Limited Life
Component Exchange (LLCE), Gas Transfer System (GTS) Surveillance, Stockpile Laboratory Tests(SLTs), and Life Storage Program (LSP) activities. Reservoirs and associated parts will be processed asnecessary to support LLCE schedules per production directive requirements for the enduring stockpile.
Retired Systems include reservoirs returned from retired weapons that will be unloaded, welded closed
for disposal, or managed per NNSA requirements.
Engineering Campaign
The SRS supports the Enhanced Surveillance subprogram of the Engineering Campaign by developing
the tools, techniques, and procedures to advance the capabilities of the nuclear security enterprise tomeasure, analyze, calculate, and predict the effects of aging on certain weapons materials, components,and systems to determine if and/or when these effects will impact weapon reliability, safety, or
performance. Specifically, the SRS role in this campaign is to develop methods for surveillance oftritium reservoirs and other Gas Transfer System components as well as provide power management
technology support.
Readiness Campaign
The SRS supports the following Readiness Campaign subprograms:•

Advanced Design and Production Technologies (ADAPT) examines modern and emerging
technologies and applies them to the development of new or replacement design and production
capabilities in those cases where the modern technology would lead to cost-effective lean processes;
shortened cycle times, built-in quality and acceptance; closer integration of activities across thenuclear security enterprise; a more productive workforce; and agile processes that enhance
responsiveness to future national security needs.

•

Stockpile Readiness examines modern and emerging technologies and applies them to thedevelopment of new or replacement design and production capabilities in those cases where modern
technology would lead to cost-effective lean processes, shortened cycle times, built-in quality and

Savannah River Site

Page 557

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

acceptance, closer integration of activities across the national security enterprise, a more production
workforce, and agile processes that enhance responsiveness to future national security needs.
•

Tritium Readiness manages the TEF extraction operations to extract tritium safely, efficiently, andeconomically from commercially irradiated TPBARs, provide related technical liaison with the
TPBAR development, irradiation and transportation activities, and provide technical and programsupport to the Tritium Readiness manager in accordance with annual or specific tasking guidance.
The SRS primarily supports the TEF operations.

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF)
The RTBF program at SRS maintains the facilities and infrastructure in a readiness state in support of
the DSW missions, including LEPs, Stockpile Services, and Production Support. Operations ofFacilities include facilities management and support activities for mission operations. Preventive,
predictive, and corrective maintenance of process and infrastructure equipment/facilities are performed.
Environmental, safety, and health activities are conducted to ensure the well being of SRS workers, thepublic, and the environment, as well as developing and providing updates to the Authorization Bases.
Contracted costs of providing utilities to the SRS Tritium Facilities are included. Capital equipment andgeneral plant projects that meet base maintenance and infrastructure needs are planned and executed tomaintain the safety, utility, and capability of the process facilities. Material Recycle and Recovery
involves recovery and purification of tritium, deuterium, and helium-3 gases from reservoir recycle gas,
hydride storage vessels, and facility effluent-cleanup systems. The SRS performs physical maintenanceof various shipping containers, and provides operational, regulatory, and technical support of Pressure
Vessels. The SRS also designs and tests replacement shipping containers for use within the DOE
Complex.
Defense Nuclear Security
The SRS Defense Nuclear Security program provides security for the Tritium Facility consistent withrequirements documented in its approved facility Master Security Plan. In FY 2011, the security
program will also focus on ensuring NNSA’s role in MOX and PDCF security are fully supported.
Cyber Security
The NNSA Cyber Security program implements a flexible, comprehensive, and risk-based cybersecurity program that (a) protects the NNSA information and information assets; (b) is predicated on
Executive Orders; national standards; laws and regulations; Departmental and NNSA orders, manuals,
directives and guidance; and (c) results in a policy-driven cyber security architecture; aligned with the
NNSA enterprise architecture; a programmatic framework and methodology that is based on current
policies and procedures; and a management approach that integrates all the components of acomprehensive cyber security program; ensures alignment of the program with the NNSA and
Departmental strategic plans and relevant plans of the CIO.
In FY 2010, SRS will implement an effective risk management program for cyber security to ensure
protection of NNSA information and information assets. For FY 2011, SRS will implement effective
mechanisms to identify cyber security vulnerabilities and threats to the computing infrastructure.

Savannah River Site

Page 558

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP)The FIRP has allowed the SRS to achieve a reduction of the baseline deferred maintenance to facilities
and infrastructure, including roof replacements, renovations to end-of-life electrical distribution systems
and fire protection systems, and replacement of HVAC systems. In FY 2011, FIRP funds will continue
to support high-priority projects that restore and rehabilitate mission critical facilities and infrastructure.
Specific projects include electrical and plumbing repairs, supply fan refurbishments, and replacement of
an Uninterruptable Power System (UPS).
Site Stewardship
In FY 2011, Site Stewardship efforts will be directed toward Energy Modernization and Investment
Program activities aimed at achieving Departmental energy efficiency goals. The 2011 EMIP activities
support priority energy conservation projects that will reduce energy consumption, enhance energy
independence and security and provide life-cycle cost effective benefits. Projects that provide the mostsignificant contribution towards achievement of NNSA’s energy goals and result in cost
avoidances/savings and social benefits will be selected from the EMIP Integrated Prioritized Project List
(IPPL) for execution.
Fissile Materials Disposition (FMD)
The FMD program at the Savannah River Site (SRS) supports disposition of U.S. plutonium and has theoverall lead for the Mixed-Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF), the Waste Solidification
Building (WSB) and the Pit Disassembly and Conversion (PDC) Project. The SRS will provide projectand contract management support for the U.S. plutonium disposition program, which includes MFFF,
PDC and the WSB. A DOE prime contractor, Shaw AREVA MOX Services, is responsible for thedesign and construction of the MOX FFF, and the site M&O is responsible for construction andoperation of the WSB. In addition, during the construction phase, the site M&O contractor is
responsible for the site infrastructure, electric power, water and sewer, roads, communications, waste
management, fire protection, security and related services for the MFFF project, and integration, design
authority, and operation of the PDC Project. Finally, the FMD program provides support for
qualification, irradiation, transportation, and procurement and characterization of feed materials for
MOX fuel.
Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development
The Nonproliferation and Verification R&D program at SRS provides nuclear materials analysis efforts(advance mass spectrometry developments, ultra-sensitive separation, and detection techniques) andcharacterization of nuclear materials. The program also provides state-of-the-art scientific research todefine improved effluent collection systems and develops new and innovative proliferation detection
technologies and analysis capabilities supporting nuclear fuel cycle monitoring missions, nuclear
forensics missions, and other proliferation detection technology thrusts.
Nonproliferation and International Security (NIS)The NIS program at SRS provides safeguards and export control support, specifically in the area ofvulnerability assessment support for foreign sites of interest, necessary training to foreign nationals,
Additional Protocol outreach and training, and safeguards agreement implementation. The NIS programsupports implementation of the U.S.-Russia Plutonium Production Reactor Agreement anddenuclearization efforts in North Korea. The program supports licensing operations through reviews ofexport controlled equipment, materials and software, and analytical tools and technical references foruse in developing recommendations on U.S. export license applications and interdictions, including
Savannah River Site

Page 559

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

managing and providing WMD training to Department of Homeland Security and other enforcement
agencies, and technical reach-back on enforcement investigations along with ANL, KCP, LANL, LLNL,
ORNL, PNNL and SNL. The NIS program supports domestic and foreign training and otherengagement on strategic trade and export controls.
Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)
Savannah River Site provides significant technical, scientific, and management expertise to one of thethree key subprograms of GTRI–Remove—supporting the comprehensive GTRI approach to achieving
its mission to reduce and protect vulnerable nuclear and radiological material worldwide, and denying
terrorists access to nuclear and radiological materials that could be used in weapons of mass destruction
or other acts of terrorism. The Nuclear and Radiological Material Removal subprogram supports theremoval and disposal of excess, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials from civilian sites
worldwide.

Savannah River Site

Page 560

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetY-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEXTABLESFUNDING BY PROGRAM:(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Directed Stockpile WorkEngineering Campaign
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
Readiness Campaign
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Secure Transportation Asset
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program
Site Stewardship
Defense Nuclear Security
Cyber Security
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and Verification Research & Development
Nonproliferation and International Security
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Fissile Materials Disposition
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Total, NNSA

Y-12 National Security Complex

Page 561

173,4113,986
350
20,809421,564
3,171
1,217
42,9050
162,980
7,587
837,980

212,140
3,347
725
5,019
403,029
3,350
1,278
20,7227,000
211,000
7,587
875,197

223,298
3,500
500
11,781
403,988
3,278
1,342
21,0698,000
148,000
7,587
832,343

2,446
1,338
2,762
14,951
7,096
28,593

1,921
1,491
2,572
13,191
12,85532,030

1,854
1,391
1,702
9,420
38,70653,073

866,573

907,227

885,416

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

OUT-YEAR FUNDING:FY 2012
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Directed Stockpile WorkEngineering Campaign
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Secure Transportation Asset
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program
Site Stewardship
Defense Nuclear Security
Cyber Security
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and Verification Research & Development
Nonproliferation and International Security
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Fissile Materials Disposition
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Total, NNSA

(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015

242,118
3,500
424,797
3,318
1,409
21,06910,708149,000
7,264
863,183

248,189
3,080
494,632
3,248
1,479
21,069
11,212
151,200
7,264
941,373

252,4463,500
559,234
3,288
1,496
0
21,173
152,800
7,264
1,001,201

270,0393,430
614,117
3,411
1,511
0
25,919154,100
7,264
1,079,791

9,037
1,437
1,757
9,425
28,39050,046913,229

9,246
1,474
1,170
7,225
32,64751,762
993,135

9,482
1,515
1,170
7,225
59,16778,5591,079,760

9,719
1,621
1,309
7,338
58,48878,475
1,158,266

Congressional Items of Interest: Completed construction of the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials
Facility and continue support for the Uranium Processing Facility.
Major Changes or Shifts: This site is undergoing a major transformation that is closely aligned with
the NNSA nuclear security enterprise planning.
Site Description
INTRODUCTION:
The Y-12 National Security Complex is located in the Bear Creek Valley of East Tennessee, adjacent to
Oak Ridge, and approximately 15 miles from Knoxville, Tennessee. The facility is located on
811 acres, spanning 2.5 miles, with some 500 buildings that house some 7 million square feet oflaboratory, machining, dismantlement, and research and development areas.
The Y-12 role includes the following activities:•

Manufacturing and assessing nuclear-weapon secondaries, cases, and other weapons components;•

Dismantling weapons secondaries returned from the stockpile;

Y-12 National Security Complex

Page 562

FY 2011 Congressional Budget•Providing safe and secure storage and management of special nuclear material;•

Supplying special nuclear material for use in naval reactors;•

Promoting international nuclear safety and nonproliferation;•

Reducing global dangers from weapons of mass destruction; and•Supporting U.S. leadership in science and technology.

The transformation for Y-12 reflects consolidation of storage and manufacturing operations of special
nuclear material (SNM), footprint reduction, and revitalization and construction of the Highly Enriched
Uranium Materials Facility (HEUMF) and construction of the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF). In
addition, the Protected Area Reduction Project (PARP) will complete the high security area perimeterand a future proposal, the Consolidated Manufacturing Complex (CMC) will consolidate all nonenriched uranium manufacturing operations. The completion of both near-term and long-term actions
will enable:•

Reducing the site “footprint” by nearly 90 percent, thereby shrinking the requirement for high levelsof security for special nuclear materials;•

Consolidating, manufacturing and processing operations to reduce the number of facilities square
footage required, improve workflow efficiencies, and facilitate reduction of high-security perimeter;•

Consolidating material storage operations to reduce the number of buildings, square footage, andlong-term maintenance operating cost;•

Consolidating administrative and technical operations into permanent and new facilities based onfunctional, security, and workflow requirements; and•Consolidating plant support operations into permanent new facilities to improve workflow efficiency
and reduce long-term maintenance, operation and security costs.

ACTIVITIES:
Directed Stockpile Work (DSW)The DSW Y-12 activities include weapon secondary manufacturing, quality evaluation, disposition, andcase manufacturing. The Y-12 supports increased emphasis on conducting surveillance of the existing
stockpile, predicting its life, performing refurbishments for the Life Extension Program (LEP),
dismantling weapons, and providing safe, secure management, and storage of the nation’s inventory ofhighly enriched uranium (HEU) and other weapons materials. Significant tasks include the steady-state
rate production of the W76-1 LEP. Stockpile Systems quality evaluations will also continue, as will
dismantlement of selected retired weapon systems.

Y-12 National Security Complex

Page 563

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Engineering Campaign
The Engineering Campaign at Y-12 supports the Enhanced Surveillance subprogram activity byproviding improved surveillance tools, diagnostics and methods, including non-destructive techniques
for canned sub-assemblies, cases, and nonnuclear components to the DSW program for transforming
surveillance to be more predictive in finding defects in weapons. Lifetime-prediction efforts include
work to improve knowledge of weapon materials, materials interactions, and aging phenomena.
Readiness Campaign
The Readiness Campaign at Y-12 maintains supports the following subprograms.
•

Advanced Design and Production Technologies (ADAPT) examines modern and emerging
technologies and applies them to the development of new or replacement design and production
capabilities in those cases where the modern technology would lead to cost-effective, lean processes,
shortened cycle times, built-in quality and acceptance, closer integration of activities across thenuclear Security Enterprise, a more productive workforce, and agile processes that enhance
responsiveness to future national security needs..

•

Nonnuclear Readiness provides the electrical, electronic, and mechanical capabilities required toweaponize a nuclear explosive. This activity deploys the product development and production
capabilities required to support nonnuclear product requirements. Nonnuclear functions range from
weapon command and control to examining performance during deployment simulations, including
weapon structural features, neutron generators, tritium reservoirs, detonators and component testers.

•

Stockpile Readiness examines modern and emerging technologies and applies them to thedevelopment of new or replacement design and production capabilities in those cases where modern
technology would lead to cost-effective lean processes, shortened cycle times, built-in quality andacceptance, closer integration of activities across the national security enterprise, a more productive
workforce, and agile processes that enhance responsiveness to the future national security needs.

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF)
The RTBF program ensures the readiness of the facilities, infrastructure, materials, and personnel tosupport Defense Programs mission objectives at Y-12.
The elements of the Y-12 RTBF Program include the following:• Maintaining base operations support for the entire site infrastructure of approximately 350 Y-12
buildings, as well as base operations including maintenance, utilities, and compliance;•

Providing construction line item management, including all pre-conceptual planning and otherproject costs (OPC) for all RTBF-funded line items;•

Developing and updating the master site plan and Ten Year Site Plans (TYSP);•

Providing inter- and intra-site containers for the transportation of SNM and waste;•

Providing for the management and storage of HEU and other SNM;

Y-12 National Security Complex

Page 564

FY 2011 Congressional Budget•Managing legacy material disposition to promote footprint reduction and compliance with security
requirements;•

Providing for the recycle and recovery of HEU and Lithium;•Managing responsibilities associated with the Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program(CBDPP); and•Consolidating excess uranium and other nuclear materials from the Y-12 Plant.

Construction of the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility (HEUMF) has been completed, and the
Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) design is underway. These facilities will provide modern,consolidated enriched uranium storage and production and to enable the 90 percent reduction of the highsecurity area.
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP)
The facility conditions of Y-12 are noticeably improved due in large measure to the aggressive
execution of the Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program. The FIRP at Y-12 hasestablished a deferred maintenance reduction program focused on mission facilities and infrastructure
projects that directly support Directed Stockpile Work (DSW), Campaigns, and transformation of theEnterprise. In FY 2011, recapitalization projects will address deficiencies for electrical, mechanical,
utility, specialty and structural systems across the site. One major disposition project will facilitate theconstruction of a new fence that will effectively reduce the protected area by 50 percent. The FIRP at
Y-12 will also continue to participate in the Enterprise’s Roof Asset Management Program (RAMP) tocorrect priority deficiencies and extend the life of the site’s roofing assets.
Site Stewardship
In FY 2011, Site Stewardship efforts will be directed toward reducing/consolidating SNM inventories
and Energy Modernization and Investment Program activities aimed at achieving Departmental energy
efficiency goals. The 2011 EMIP activities support priority energy conservation projects that will
reduce energy consumption, enhance energy independence and security and provide life-cycle costeffective benefits. Projects that provide the most significant contribution towards achievement of
NNSA’s energy goals and result in cost savings and social benefits will be selected from the EMIP
Integrated Prioritized Project List (IPPL) for execution.
Secure Transportation Asset (STA)
The B&W Y-12 provides facilities and support for the Federal Agent force at Agent Operations Eastern
Command. The Y-12 plant operates a Vehicle Maintenance Facility and a Mobile Electronic
Maintenance Facility to support convoy operations, including specialized and secure maintenance/repairof the vehicle fleet and communications equipment. The plant also maintains facilities for Federal
Agent training and mission operations.
Defense Nuclear Security
The Defense Nuclear Security’s physical security program at the Y-12 National Security Complex isadministered by the Y-12 Site Office. The Defense Nuclear Security program provides protection
measures consistent with protection requirements documented in the facility Site Safeguards andY-12 National Security Complex

Page 565

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Security Plan (SSSP). In FY 2011, activities will focus on development of the 2008 Graded Security
Protection (GSP) policy implementation plan, including consolidation of SNM, adding protective force
posts and redeploying protective force personnel, implement new vehicle delay measures, and otherinterim barrier features. The Y-12 Defense Nuclear Security Program will continue to focus on
improving the efficiency of the security program, including modernization of the security infrastructure
and implementation of technology upgrades.
Cyber Security
The Cyber Security program at the Y-12 National Security Complex is administered by the Y-12 Site
Office. The Cyber Security program implements a flexible, comprehensive, and risk-based program that(a) protects the NNSA information and information assets; (b) is predicated on Executive Orders;
national standards; laws and regulations; Departmental and NNSA orders, manuals, directives, andguidance; and (c) results in a policy-driven cyber security architecture; aligned with the NNSA
enterprise architecture; a programmatic framework and methodology that is based on current policies
and procedures; and a management approach that integrates all of the components of a comprehensive
cyber security program; ensures alignment of the program with the NNSA and Departmental strategicplans and relevant plans of the CIO.
In FY 2011, the Y-12 cyber security program will ensure preventive maintenance measures for cybersecurity within the Y-12 computing infrastructure. Also, Y-12 will establish a risk program to address
the implementation of wireless technologies site-wide. In FY 2011, Y-12 will implement cyberprotection measures consistent with national protection requirements.
Fissile Materials Disposition (FMD)The Y-12 FMD program supports disposition activities through the HEU Disposition Program Office.
The program also provides form conversions and packaging of surplus HEU for shipment to downblending contractors.
The FMD program provides for planning and implementation of HEU disposition activities, which
include blending and transfer of off-specification materials to the Tennessee Valley Authority, transfer
of materials to Nuclear Fuel Services for down-blending associated with the Reliable Fuel Supply
initiative, and the MOX LEU Backup Inventory Project, tracking and evaluation of surplus HEU
inventories, and planning for disposition of unallocated surplus HEU material. The FMD programsupports planning and implementing the disposition program in areas of strategic and tactical planning,oversight, technical analyses, regulatory coordination, business development and marketing, andcoordination of interfaces among key participants and stakeholders. The program also manages thedesign, certification, and procurement of shipping containers for surplus HEU and plutonium.
Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development
The Y-12 program supports the Nonproliferation R&D Simulation, Algorithm, and Modeling teameffort with assessment support. Additionally, the Y-12 program supports advanced materials analysis
and enrichment studies.
Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)The Y-12 National Security Complex provides significant technical, scientific, and management
expertise to the three key subprograms of GTRI–Convert, Remove, and Protect—supporting the
Y-12 National Security Complex

Page 566

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

comprehensive GTRI approach to achieving its mission to reduce and protect vulnerable nuclear andradiological material worldwide, and denying terrorists access to nuclear and radiological materials that
could be used in weapons of mass destruction or other acts of terrorism. The Highly Enriched Uranium(HEU) Reactor Conversion subprogram supports the conversion or verified shutdown of domestic andinternational civilian research reactors and isotope production facilities from HEU to Low Enriched
Uranium. The Nuclear and Radiological Material Removal subprogram supports the removal anddisposal of excess, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials from civilian sites worldwide. The
Nuclear and Radiological Material Protection subprogram supports the securing of international anddomestic buildings containing high priority nuclear and radiological materials worldwide from theft andsabotage.

Y-12 National Security Complex

Page 567

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORYFUNDING BY PROGRAM:(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and Verification Research & Development
Nonproliferation and International Security
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Total, NNSA

0
937
2,188
3,125

1,000
380
2,297
3,677

0
0
2,412
2,412

3,275
5,977
2,509
30,61542,376

2,826
6,662
2,237
38,12549,850

2,727
6,213
766
54,12963,83545,50153,527

66,247(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015

OUT-YEAR FUNDING:FY 2012
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and International Security
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Total, NNSA

2,480
2,480

2,280
2,280

2,305
2,305

2,200
2,200

6,419
788
60,402
67,60970,0896,586
423
65,75072,75975,0396,768
427
78,26785,462
87,767

7,242
434
90,29097,966100,166

Congressional Items of Interest: None
Major Changes or Shifts: None
Site Description
INTRODUCTION:
The Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) is not a National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
managed site. The Office of Science is the site landlord for the Department of Energy. However,significant NNSA work is conducted at the site.

Argonne National Laboratory

Page 568

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetACTIVITIES:
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
The Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response Radiological Assistance Program (RAP) at Argonne is
the second largest Regional Response Coordinator. In FY 2011, the program will continue to provide
emergency response training assistance to federal, state, tribal and local governments through the WMDFirst Responder Training program and technical integration.
Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development
The Argonne program supports the Nonproliferation R&D Simulation, Algorithm, and Modeling teameffort with assessment support. Additionally, the program looks at advanced methods in modelingvalidation.
Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)The Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) provides significant technical, scientific, and management
expertise to the three key subprograms of GTRI–Convert, Remove, and Protect—supporting thecomprehensive GTRI approach to achieving its mission to reduce and protect vulnerable nuclear andradiological material worldwide, and denying terrorists access to nuclear and radiological materials that
could be used in weapons of mass destruction or other acts of terrorism. The Highly Enriched Uranium(HEU) Reactor Conversion subprogram supports the conversion or verified shutdown of domestic andinternational civilian research reactors and isotope production facilities from HEU to Low Enriched
Uranium. The Nuclear and Radiological Material Removal subprogram supports the removal anddisposal of excess, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials from civilian sites worldwide. The
Nuclear and Radiological Material Protection subprogram supports the securing of international anddomestic buildings containing high priority nuclear and radiological materials worldwide from theft andsabotage.
Nonproliferation and International Security (NIS)In FY 2011, the NIS program will continue to provide safeguards and export control support,
specifically in the area of vulnerability assessment support for foreign sites of interest, training toforeign nationals as needed, Additional Protocol outreach and training, and safeguards agreement
implementation. The NIS program supports implementation of the HEU Transparency Program
implementation and supports denuclearization efforts in North Korea. The NIS program supports
licensing operations through reviews of export controlled equipment, materials and software, andanalytical tools and technical references for use in developing recommendations on U.S. export license
applications and interdictions, including managing and providing WMD training to Department ofHomeland Security and other enforcement agencies, and technical reach back on enforcement
investigations with ANL, KCP, LANL, LLNL, ORNL, PNNL, and SNL. The NIS program supports
domestic and foreign training and other engagement on strategic trade and export controls.

Argonne National Laboratory

Page 569

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORYTABLESFUNDING BY PROGRAM:(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
Nonproliferation and International Security
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Total, NNSA

235
1,702
1,937

150
1,787
1,937

0
1,876
1,876

2,221
3,919
30,601457
37,198

1,916
5,868
18,169460
26,41328,3501,849
4,074
31,699543
38,16540,041

39,135OUT-YEAR FUNDING:FY 2012
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
Nonproliferation and International Security
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Total, NNSA

(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015

1,970
1,970

2,019
2,019

2,042
2,042

2,060
2,060

1,734
4,209
27,581790
34,31436,284

1,774
4,318
18,112938
25,142
27,161

1,820
4,438
18,112
1094
25,46427,506

1,866
4,748
18,9891307
26,91028,970Congressional Items of Interest: None
Major Changes or Shifts: None
Site Description
INTRODUCTION:
The Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) is not a National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
managed site. The Office of Science is the site landlord for the Department of Energy. However,significant NNSA work is conducted at the site.
Brookhaven National Laboratory

Page 570

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetACTIVITIES:
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
The Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response Radiological Assistance Program (RAP) at
Brookhaven is the largest Regional Response Coordinator for first response radiological assistance toprotect the health and safety of the public and the environment. In FY 2011, the RAP will focus on
emergency response training, joint participation drills, exercises and support.
Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development
The BNL Nonproliferation and Verification R&D program develops radiation detection, scientificfoundations, and instrumentation to improve the technical foundations of radiation detection throughdemonstrations of advanced concepts and systems to detect and track fissile materials.
Nonproliferation and International Security (NIS)The BNL NIS program supports international safeguards technology assessment, policy support andnonproliferation assessment. The BNL NIS program supports international cooperation efforts,
including scientist engagement and redirection efforts in the former Soviet Union. Additionally, the
BNL NIS program provides support for conducting technical exchanges and technology development
under the Warhead and Fissile Material Transparency Program and development of nuclear transparency
measures as well as denuclearization work in N. Korea and the U.S. Support Program to IAEA
Safeguards.
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation (MPC&A)
The INMP&C program at BNL provides experience in the design and implementation of MPC&A
upgrades on Russian facilities by virtue of their actual work at such facilities and by their involvementwith developing MPC&A approaches for such facilities. The BNL provides experience in contractingwith various Russian vendors, including government-run institutes, and contracts all of the down
blending activities for material conversion and consolidation. Also, the BNL provides support in thedevelopment and delivery of MPC&A training courses, as well as support for the Material Control andAccountability Measurements Project. The BNL is the lead laboratory that provides support for the
MPC&A Operations Monitoring Project, the Technical Survey Team Project, the Insider Threat Review
Project, and for the Project Planning and Effectiveness Project.

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Page 571

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

CHICAGO OPERATIONS OFFICETABLESFUNDING BY PROGRAM:(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Inertial Confinement FusionIgnition and High Yield Campaign
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
Readiness Campaign
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Total, NNSA

05,530
33,43238,962

5
5,699
9,700
15,404

0
4,800
9,436
14,23638,962

15,404

14,236(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015

OUT-YEAR FUNDING:FY 2012
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Readiness Campaign
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Total, NNSA

46,96946,96946,96935,94335,94335,94330,98330,98330,98332,38532,38532,385Congressional Items of Interest: None
Major Changes or Shifts: None
Site Description
INTRODUCTION:
The Chicago Operations Office (CHO) is not a National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
managed site operation within the Department of Energy. However, significant NNSA work is
conducted through CHO using the office’s technical and administrative expertise, and funding andcontracting arrangements.
ACTIVITIES:
Readiness Campaign
The Readiness Campaign CHO program supports the Tritium Readiness activity that re-established andoperates the tritium production capability to sustain the nuclear weapons stockpile. The activity is being
implemented at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Watts Bar reactor.

Idaho National Laboratory

Page 572

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetIDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORYTABLESFUNDING BY PROGRAM:(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Directed Stockpile Work
Readiness Campaign
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Site Stewardship
Congressionally Directed Projects
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
Nonproliferation and International Security
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Naval Reactors
Total, NNSA

194
2,193
3,840
586
0
952
7,765

0
2,595
4,745
615
0
0
7,955

0
3,419
0
646
5,880
0
9,945

4,595
7,265
1,518
122,743
136,12168,900

2,630
8,098
2,525
86,04999,302
79,200

2,538
7,552
524
122,842
133,456
93,400212,786

186,457

236,801

OUT-YEAR FUNDING:FY 2012
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Site Stewardship
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
Nonproliferation and International Security
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Naval Reactors
Total, NNSA

(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015

678
4,305
4,983

712
4,620
5,332

720
5,250
5,970

727
5,250
5,977

4,867
7,802
478
108,220
121,367
105,000
231,350

4,980
8,005
195
101,217
114,39773,300193,029

5,107
8,227
195
118,806
132,335
70,300208,605

5,234
8,802
218
132,485
146,739
91,600244,316

Congressional Items of Interest: None

Idaho National Laboratory

Page 573

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetMajor Changes or Shifts: None
Site Description
INTRODUCTION:
The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is not a National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
managed site. The Office of Nuclear Energy is the site landlord for the Department of Energy.
However, significant NNSA work is conducted at the site.
ACTIVITIES:
Readiness Campaign
The Readiness Campaign INL program supports the Tritium Readiness that re-established and operates
the tritium production capability to sustain the nuclear weapons stockpile
Site Stewardship
The Site Stewardship program will initiate the treatment and permanent disposition of certain NNSA
materials currently stored at the INL.
Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)
The Idaho National Laboratory provides significant technical, scientific, and management expertise to
the three key subprograms of GTRI–Convert, Remove, and Protect—supporting the comprehensive
GTRI approach to achieving its mission to reduce and protect vulnerable nuclear and radiologicalmaterial worldwide, and denying terrorists access to nuclear and radiological materials that could be
used in weapons of mass destruction or other acts of terrorism. The Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU)
Reactor Conversion subprogram supports the conversion or verified shutdown of domestic andinternational civilian research reactors and isotope production facilities from HEU to Low Enriched
Uranium. The Nuclear and Radiological Material Removal subprogram supports the removal anddisposal of excess, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials from civilian sites worldwide. The
Nuclear and Radiological Material Protection subprogram supports the securing of international anddomestic buildings containing high priority nuclear and radiological materials worldwide from theft andsabotage.
Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development
The Nonproliferation and Verification R&D program at INL provides research to assess alternative
fissile material production methods and advanced nuclear fuel cycle development and improvements toadvanced detector materials.
Nonproliferation and International Security (NIS)The INL NIS program provides support for conducting technical exchanges and development of nuclear
transparency measures under the Warhead Dismantlement of Fissile Material Transparency program.
The NIS program at INL includes Safeguards by Design (SBD) and NGSI Human Capital Development.
Activities for SBD include preparation of SBD Guidance documents and Industry engagement. The
SBD Guidance documents are intended to provide the designer of a new nuclear facility a description ofrequirements, best practices, and advanced concepts for safeguards. Engagement with industry provides
Idaho National Laboratory

Page 574

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

an opportunity to further develop SBD concepts and share Guidance documents. The NGSI Human
Capital Development program utilized several venues, (1) the post-doctoral fellowship program,(2) VTC safeguards lectures, and (3) summer safeguards internships. In addition, the program supports
international safeguards cooperation and implementation.
Naval Reactors (NR)The NR Advance Test Reactor (ATR) is designed to evaluate the effects of intense radiation on material
samples, especially nuclear fuels. The principal customer for the ATR over most of its lifetime has been
the NR program. The ATR produces very high neutron flux, which allows the effects of many years ofoperation in other reactor environments to be simulated in as short as one-tenth the time. Subsequentevaluations of test specimens in the NR Expended Core Facility and the Knolls Atomic Power
Laboratory Radioactive Materials Laboratory facilities are the main source of data on the performanceof reactor fuel, poison, and structural materials under irradiated conditions. Naval Reactors continues todevelop enhanced systems for high temperature irradiation testing with precise temperature control andenvironmental monitoring in the ATR.

Idaho National Laboratory

Page 575

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORYTABLESFUNDING BY PROGRAM:(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Directed Stockpile Work
Science Campaign
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Site Stewardship
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
Nonproliferation and International Security
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Fissile Materials Disposition
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Total, NNSA

0
368
469
3,806
1,199
0
5,842

15
0
482
2,774
1,259
0
4,530

0
0
552
0
1,322
4,000
5,874

25,862
20,476110,378
020,458177,174

22,31525,324
120,387
0
11,345
179,371

21,536
21,285111,279
105,000
17,617
276,717

183,016

183,901

282,591(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015

OUT-YEAR FUNDING:FY 2012
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Site Stewardship
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
Nonproliferation and International Security
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Total, NNSA

1,388
4,200
5,588

1,457
4,800
6,257

1,474
4,800
6,274

1,489
5,200
6,689

11,62821,98982,655
17,590133,862
139,450

11,88422,56135,763
16,79687,004
93,261

12,18323,18735,06455,320125,754
132,028

12,48224,80941,47355,700134,464
141,153

Congressional Items of Interest: None
Major Changes or Shifts: None

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Page 576

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetSite Description
INTRODUCTION:The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is not a National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
managed site. The Office of Science is the site landlord for the Department of Energy. However,significant NNSA work is conducted at the site.
ACTIVITIES:International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation (INMP&C)
The INMP&C program at ORNL is where subject matter experts have unique working experience in thedevelopment of vulnerability assessments; personnel reliability program development for insider
protection; the design and application of physical security and material control and accounting systems;
performance assurance; sustainability; and life cycle management; transportation security andpackaging; storage; and response force training for Ministry of Defense, Rosatom, and civilian Russian
sites. The INMP&C ORNL program’s experience in defense conversion, and the handling, processing
and safeguard of extremely large and varied inventories of enriched uranium and related materials,
provides unique experience to the Material Conversion and Consolidation efforts. In addition, ORNL
provides expertise in the areas of transportation security, acceptance testing, performance assurance,
maintenance, and procedures to the national programs. The ORNL has critical expertise necessary totest and evaluate the radiation detection equipment; and analyze the data retrieved from radiation portalmonitors deployed by the Second Line of Defense (SLD) program. The ORNL maintains the repository
for all of the data retrieved by systems installed by the SLD program. The ORNL has an integral role inthe development of training and implementation of sustainability with the SLD program. The ORNL
serves as the lead laboratory in developing independent cost estimates that support the SLD Program's
acquisition planning strategy and cost-effective implementation of its CORE and MEGAPORTS
projects. The ORNL also serves as the laboratory intermediary for complementary DOE and Defense
Threat Reduction Agency project areas related to sustainability.
Nonproliferation and International Security (NIS)In FY 2011, the NIS program at ORNL will continue to support safeguards technology and concept
development; licensing activities, and export control cooperation with international partners. The
ORNL supports the development of nuclear transparency measures. The facility also provides expertiseon various arms control and nonproliferation agreements and treaties. The ORNL further provides
technical support to the Subcommittee on Technical Programs and Cooperation and the U.S.-RussiaIAEA Working Group on the Trilateral Initiative (TI). Also, ORNL provides technical support related
to safeguards and verification measures and uranium enrichment processing facilities. In addition,
ORNL supports licensing operations through reviews of export controlled equipment, materials andsoftware, and analytical tools and technical references for use in developing recommendations on U.S.
export license applications, including WMD training to Department of Homeland Security and otherenforcement agencies, specialized expertise in the control of nuclear reactor-related technology,
prepares analyses to revise U.S. and international nuclear export control lists, studies of export control
implications of the development of advanced fuel cycle technologies, and tracks global machine tool
supply trends. The ORNL supports nonproliferation assessment activities, and the IAEA withtechnology development and assessment and environmental monitoring development as well as
operation of the Blend Down Monitoring System (BDMS) in the HEU Transparency Program including
Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Page 577

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

equipment maintenance, personnel training, and provision of personnel for monitoring visits. OtherORNL support includes efforts to strengthen international safeguards at all levels of nuclear
development. Further, ORNL provides analytical and technological systems services in support ofinternational border security capacity building outreach, as well as export control outreach efforts.
Nonproliferation Verification Research and Development
The ORNL program conducts research to address the threat from nuclear weapons and radiologicaldispersal devices. Also, ORNL provides leading-edge research into candidate materials, which could
replace existing nuclear detectors used for gamma spectroscopy and neutron detection. The program
also provides nuclear material analysis efforts; leads research efforts to better understand and detecturanium enrichment operations and contributes to understanding associated effluents associated withthose processes.
Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)The ORNL provides significant technical, scientific, and management expertise to two of the three key
subprograms of GTRI–Remove and Protect—supporting the comprehensive GTRI approach toachieving its mission to reduce and protect vulnerable nuclear and radiological material worldwide, anddenying terrorists access to nuclear and radiological materials that could be used in weapons of mass
destruction or other acts of terrorism. The Nuclear and Radiological Material Removal subprogramsupports the removal and disposal of excess, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials from civilian
sites worldwide. The Nuclear and Radiological Material Protection subprogram supports the securing ofinternational and domestic buildings containing high priority nuclear and radiological materials
worldwide from theft and sabotage.
Fissile Materials Disposition
The ORNL conducts R&D associated with the irradiation of MOX fuel in domestic and commercial
reactors to include post irradiation examination of MOX fuel, advise on reactor licensing, and fuelqualification R&D. In support of the Russian program, ORNL will provide technical assistance andexpertise associated with NNSA management of the U.S. $400 million ($100M requested in FY 2011)
contribution to the Russian plutonium disposition program. Specifically, ORNL will assist NNSA in
drafting and negotiating a DOE/Rosatom Implementing Agreement under the Plutonium Management
and Disposition Agreement, and the development of appropriate milestones and verification of thecompletion of those milestones.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Page 578

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetPACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYTABLESFUNDING BY PROGRAM:(dollars in thousands)
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Readiness Campaign
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
Nonproliferation and International Security
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Total, NNSA

10,578
3,628
14,206

14,892
2,990
17,882

8,695
3,139
11,83461,06817,421
91,241275
53,008223,013

37,16925,919197,446
051,724
312,258

35,871
18,110132,3210
94,883281,185

237,219

330,140

293,019(dollars in thousands)
FY 2013
FY 2014

FY 2015

OUT-YEAR FUNDING:FY 2012
NNSA
Weapons Activities
Readiness Campaign
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
Subtotal Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
Nonproliferation and International Security
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Total, NNSA

3,221
3,196
6,417

3,026
3,100
6,126

2,732
3,200
5,932

2,825
3,400
6,225

33,49018,70899,160135,014286,372
292,789

33,64619,19593,023
166,255
312,119
318,245

37,90819,72893,496
264,327
415,459
421,391

46,144
21,107102,741
281,864
451,856
458,081Congressional Items of Interest: None
Major Changes or Shifts: None

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Page 579

FY 2011 Congressional BudgetSite Description
INTRODUCTION:
The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) is not a National Nuclear Security Administration(NNSA) managed site. The Office of Science is the site landlord for the Department of Energy.
However, significant NNSA work is conducted at the site.
ACTIVITIES:
Readiness Campaign
The Readiness Campaign PNNL program supports the Tritium Readiness activity that re-established andoperates the tritium production capability to sustain the nuclear weapons stockpile.
Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development
The PNNL R&D program provides tools for radionuclide detection and statistical expertise (seismic
discrimination) in ground-based nuclear detonation detection. The PNNL program provides tools fornuclear forensics sample collection efforts in post-detonation environments. The PNNL program plays a
key role in the identification of detection signatures and observables, nonproliferation data exploitation,
leading edge research, and in the development of a "spectral signatures library" to aid in proliferation
signatures detection. Also, PNNL is providing radiation detection R&D for HEU detection, long-range
SNM detection, and new room-temperature, high-resolution materials. The PNNL provides significant
research in the development of methods and tools for enhanced detection of uranium enrichment andplutonium reprocessing facilities using both ground-based effluent collectors and remote sensing
systems.
Construction: PNNL provides capabilities replacement efforts for the 300 Area and in the Horn Rapids
Triangle area. The acceleration of DOE's Environment Management clean-up activities forces theevacuation of most of the 300 Area facilities by 2011. This project supports a joint effort with the DOE
Office of Science and the Department of Homeland Security to construct the Physical Sciences Facility
Capabilities Replacement Laboratory and upgrade critical facilities in the 300 Area to be completed by
2011. NNSA completed its commitment to support the construction funding in FY 2009; no additional
funds are requested in FY 2011 or the outyears.
Nonproliferation and International Security (NIS)The NIS program at PNNL provides support for conducting technical exchanges and technology
development under the Warhead and Fissile Material Transparency Program, Plutonium Production
Reactor Agreement implementation, development of nuclear transparency measures, technical analysis,planning for denuclearization and verification efforts in North Korea and other countries of proliferation
concern, and technology development, and regional security efforts in policymaking and negotiations
regarding various nonproliferation and arms control regimes. The PNNL provides support for licensing
operations through reviews of export controlled equipment, materials and software, and analytical tools
and technical references for use in developing recommendations on U.S. export license applications,
including Chemical/Biological Weapons related training to Department of Homeland Security,
multilateral outreach through support efforts for policymaking and negotiations of various
nonproliferation control regimes, international safeguards and physical protection technology
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Page 580

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

assessments, policy support and nonproliferation assessments, and international cooperation, primarily
in the Former Soviet Union but increasingly in transit states as well. The NIS program supports thedevelopment of safeguards tools and methodologies, as well as training to foreign nationals as needed.
The program also provides technical support on nuclear safeguards, safety and security to developing
countries interested in nuclear power for nuclear infrastructure development efforts. The NIS programsupports domestic and foreign training and other engagement on strategic trade and export controls andprogram management services in support of international border security capacity building outreach.
The program participates in projects which engage former WMD scientists and engineers in civilian
activity, redirecting their expertise to peaceful purposes and integrating them into the larger international
scientific and business communities.
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation (INMP&C)
The NNSA’s INMP&C program at PNNL provides technical, contracting, and management expertise.
In particular, this includes the efforts of experts in physical security, material control and accounting,and protective forces, as well as experienced project managers. The PNNL also manages several
projects related to materials protection cooperation and accounting (MPC&A) infrastructure in Russia,
including physical protection, material, control and accounting, and protective forces training, regulatory
development, and inspections/oversight. In addition, PNNL management and technical experts provide
project management support, sustainability assistance and training expertise to the Second Line of
Defense program.
Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)
The PNNL provides significant technical, scientific, and management expertise to the three key
subprograms of GTRI–Convert, Remove, and Protect—supporting the comprehensive GTRI approach toachieving its mission to reduce and protect vulnerable nuclear and radiological material worldwide, anddenying terrorists access to nuclear and radiological materials that could be used in weapons of mass
destruction or other acts of terrorism. The Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Reactor Conversion
subprogram supports the conversion or verified shutdown of domestic and international civilian research
reactors and isotope production facilities from HEU to Low Enriched Uranium. The Nuclear andRadiological Material Removal subprogram supports the removal and disposal of excess, vulnerable
nuclear and radiological materials from civilian sites worldwide. The Nuclear and Radiological Material
Protection subprogram supports the securing of international and domestic buildings containing highpriority nuclear and radiological materials worldwide from theft and sabotage.

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Page 581

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 582

GENERAL PROVISIONS[SEC. 301. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to prepare or initiate Requests For
Proposals (RFPs) for a program if the program has not been funded by Congress.][SEC. 302. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used—(1) to augment the funds made available for obligation by this Act for severance payments andother benefits and community assistance grants under section 4604 of the Atomic Energy Defense
Act (50 U.S.C. 2704) unless the Department of Energy submits a reprogramming request to theappropriate congressional committees; or(2) to provide enhanced severance payments or other benefits for employees of the Departmentof Energy under such section; or(3) develop or implement a workforce restructuring plan that covers employees of the
Department of Energy.]
SEC. [303]301. The unexpended balances of prior appropriations provided for activities in this Act
may be available to the same appropriation accounts for such activities established pursuant to this title.
Available balances may be merged with funds in the applicable established accounts and thereafter may
be accounted for as one fund for the same time period as originally enacted.
SEC. [304]302. None of the funds in this or any other Act for the Administrator of the BonnevillePower Administration may be used to enter into any agreement to perform energy efficiency services
outside the legally defined Bonneville service territory, with the exception of services provided
internationally, including services provided on a reimbursable basis, unless the Administrator certifies inadvance that such services are not available from private sector businesses.
SEC. [305]303. When the Department of Energy makes a user facility available to universities or otherpotential users, or seeks input from universities or other potential users regarding significant
characteristics or equipment in a user facility or a proposed user facility, the Department shall ensure
broad public notice of such availability or such need for input to universities and other potential users.
When the Department of Energy considers the participation of a university or other potential user as aformal partner in the establishment or operation of a user facility, the Department shall employ full andopen competition in selecting such a partner. For purposes of this section, the term "user facility''
includes, but is not limited to:(1) a user facility as described in section 2203(a)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13503(a)(2));(2) a National Nuclear Security Administration Defense Programs Technology Deployment
Center/User Facility; and(3) any other Departmental facility designated by the Department as a user facility.
SEC. [306]304. Funds appropriated by this or any other Act, or made available by the transfer of funds
in this Act, for intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically authorized by the Congress forpurposes of section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal year [2010]2011 until the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year [2010] 2011.
SEC. [307]305. Of the funds made available by the Department of Energy for activities atGovernment-owned, contractor-operated laboratories funded in this Act or subsequent Energy andGeneral Provisions

Page 583

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Water Development Appropriations Acts, the Secretary may authorize a specific amount, not to exceed
8 percent of such funds, to be used by such laboratories for laboratory directed research anddevelopment: Provided, That the Secretary may also authorize a specific amount not to exceed 4 percent
of such funds, to be used by the plant manager of a covered nuclear weapons production plant or the
manager of the Nevada Site Office for plant or site directed research and development.
SEC. [308]306. (a) In any fiscal year in which the Secretary of Energy determines that additional
funds are needed to reimburse the costs of defined benefit pension plans for contractor employees, theSecretary may transfer not more than 1 percent from each appropriation made available in this andsubsequent Energy and Water Development Appropriation Acts to any other appropriation available to
the Secretary in the same Act for such reimbursements.
[(b) Where the Secretary recovers the costs of defined benefit pension plans for contractor
employees through charges for the indirect costs of research and activities at facilities of the Departmentof Energy, if the indirect costs attributable to defined benefit pension plan costs in a fiscal year are morethan charges in fiscal year 2008, the Secretary shall carry out a transfer of funds under this section.]([c]b) In carrying out a transfer under this section, the Secretary shall use each appropriation madeavailable to the Department in that fiscal year as a source or the transfer, and shall reduce eachappropriation by an equal percentage, except that appropriations for which the Secretary determines
there exists a need for additional funds for pension plan costs in that fiscal year, as well as
appropriations made available for the Power Marketing Administrations, the title XVII loan guarantee
program, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, shall not be subject to this requirement.
([d]c) Each January, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House ofRepresentatives and the Senate on the state of defined benefit pension plan liabilities in the Department
for the preceding year.
([e]d) This transfer authority does not apply to supplemental appropriations, and is in addition to any
other transfer authority provided in this or any other Act. The authority provided under this section shall
expire on September 30, 2015.
([f]e) The Secretary shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate in writing not less than 30 days in advance of each transfer authorized by this section.
[SEC. 309. (a) Subject to subsection (b), no funds appropriated or otherwise made available by thisAct or any other Act may be used to record transactions relating to the increase in borrowing authority
or bonds outstanding at any time under the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act (16U.S.C. 838 et seq.) referred to in section 401 of division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 140) under a funding account, subaccount, or fund symbol
other than the Bonneville Power Administration Fund Treasury account fund symbol.
(b) Funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act or any other Act may be used toensure, for purposes of meeting any applicable reporting provisions of the American Recovery andReinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 115), that the Bonneville Power Administration
uses a fund symbol other than the Bonneville Power Administration Fund Treasury account fund symbol
solely to report accrued expenditures of projects attributed by the Administrator of the Bonneville Power
Administration to the increased borrowing authority.
(c) This section is effective for fiscal year 2010 and subsequent fiscal years.][SEC. 310. Section 1702 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16512) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:

General Provisions

Page 584

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

"(k) WAGE RATE REQUIREMENTS.—All laborers and mechanics employed by contractors andsubcontractors in the performance of construction work financed in whole or in part by a loan
guaranteed under this title shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on projects of acharacter similar in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with subchapter
IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code. With respect to the labor standards in this subsection,
the Secretary of Labor shall have the authority and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered
14 of 1950 (64 Stat. 1267; 5 U.S.C. App.) and section 3145 of title 40, United States Code.''.][SEC. 311. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to make a grant allocation,
discretionary grant award, discretionary contract award, Other Transaction Agreement, or to issue aletter of intent totaling in excess of $1,000,000, or to announce publicly the intention to make such anaward, including a contract covered by the Federal Acquisition Regulation, unless the Secretary ofEnergy notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives atleast 3 full business days in advance of making such an award or issuing such a letter: Provided, That if
the Secretary of the Department of Energy determines that compliance with this section would pose asubstantial risk to human life, health, or safety, an award may be made without notification and theCommittees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall be notified not later
than 5 full business days after such an award is made or letter issued.][SEC. 312. (a) ULTRA EFFICIENT VEHICLES.—Section 136 of the Energy Independence andSecurity Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17013) is amended—(1) in subsection (a)—(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting "an ultra efficient vehicle or'' after "means''; and(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:"(5) ULTRA EFFICIENT VEHICLE.—The term `ultra efficient vehicle' means a fully closed
compartment vehicle designed to carry at least 2 adult passengers that achieves—"(A) at least 75 miles per gallon while operating on gasoline or diesel fuel;"(B) at least 75 miles per gallon equivalent while operating as a hybrid electric-gasoline orelectric-diesel vehicle; or"(C) at least 75 miles per gallon equivalent while operating as a fully electric vehicle.'';(2) in subsection (b)—(A) by inserting ", ultra efficient vehicle manufacturers,'' after "automobile manufacturers'';(B) in paragraph (1)—(i) by striking "or'' at the end of subparagraph (A);(ii) by striking "and'' at the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting "or''; and(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:"(C) ultra efficient vehicles; and''; and(C) in paragraph (2), by inserting ", ultra efficient vehicles,'' after "qualifying vehicles'';(3) in subsection (g), by inserting "or are utilized primarily for the manufacture of ultra efficient
vehicles'' after "20 years''; and(4) in subsection (h)(1)(B), by striking "automobiles'' the first place it appears and inserting "ultra
efficient vehicles, automobiles,''.
(b) RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR APPLICATIONS.—The Secretary of Energy shall reconsider
applications for assistance under section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42U.S.C. 17013) that were—(1) timely filed under that section before January 1, 2009;

General Provisions

Page 585

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

(2) rejected on the basis that the vehicles to which the proposal related were not advanced
technology vehicles; and(3) related to ultra efficient vehicles.][SEC. 313. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), none of the funds appropriated or otherwise madeavailable by this title for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve may be made available to any person that as ofthe enactment of this Act—(1) is selling refined petroleum products valued at $1,000,000 or more to the Islamic Republic ofIran;(2) is engaged in an activity valued at $1,000,000 or more that could contribute to enhancing theability of the Islamic Republic of Iran to import refined petroleum products, including—(A) providing ships or shipping services to deliver refined petroleum products to the Islamic
Republic of Iran;(B) underwriting or otherwise providing insurance or reinsurance for such an activity; or(C) financing or brokering such an activity; or(3) is selling, leasing, or otherwise providing to the Islamic Republic of Iran any goods, services,or technology valued at $1,000,000 or more that could contribute to the maintenance or expansion of
the capacity of the Islamic Republic of Iran to produce refined petroleum products.
(b) The prohibition on the use of funds under subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any
contract entered into by the United States Government before the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) If the Secretary determines a person made ineligible by this section has ceased the activities
enumerated in (a)(1)-(3), that person shall no longer be ineligible under this section.][SEC. 314. Section 132 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006 (119 Stat2261) is amended—(1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking "Corps of Engineers'' and inserting "Southwestern Power
Administration'';(2) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following new paragraph:"(5) PAYMENT TO NON-FEDERAL LICENSEE.—Southwestern Power Administration shallcompensate the licensee of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project No. 2221 pursuant toparagraph (3) using receipts collected from the sale of Federal power and energy related services.
Pursuant to paragraph (6), Southwestern Power Administration will begin collecting receipts in theSpecial Receipts and Disbursement account upon the date of enactment of this paragraph. Payment to
the licensee of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project No. 2221 shall be paid as soon as
adequate receipts are collected in the Special Receipts and Disbursement Account to fully compensate
the licensee, and in accordance with paragraph (2), such payment shall be considered nonreimbursable.'';(3) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following new paragraph:"(6) The Southwestern Power Administration shall compensate the licensee of Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Project No. 2221 in annual payments of not less than $5,000,000, until thelicensee of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project No. 2221 is fully compensated pursuant toparagraph (3). At the end of each fiscal year subsequent to implementation, any remaining balance to be
paid to the licensee of Project No. 2221 shall accrue interest at the 30-year U.S. Treasury bond rate ineffect at the time of implementation of the White River Minimum Flows project.'';(4) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following new paragraph:"(7) ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL RECEIPT AND DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNTS.—Thereis established in the Treasury of the United States a special receipt account and corresponding
General Provisions

Page 586

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

disbursement account to be made available to the Administrator of the Southwestern Power
Administration to disburse pre-collected receipts from the sale of federal power and energy and related
services. The accounts are authorized for the following uses:"(A) Collect and disburse receipts for purchase power and wheeling expenses incurred bySouthwestern Power Administration to purchase replacement power and energy as a result of
implementation of the White River Minimum Flows project.
"(B) Collect and disburse receipts related to compensation of the licensee of Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Project No. 2221.
"(C) Said special receipt and disbursement account shall remain available for not more than 12
months after the date of full compensation of the licensee of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Project No. 2221.''; and(5) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following new paragraph:"(8) TIME OF IMPLEMENTATION.—For purposes of paragraphs (3) and (4), `time of
implementation' shall mean the authorization of the special receipt account and corresponding
disbursement account described in paragraph (7).''. ]SEC. 307. (a) Section 1801 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297g) is amended insubsection (b)(2) by striking "amounts contained within the Fund" and inserting "assessments collectedpursuant to section 1802 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297g-1) as amended".
(b) Section 1802 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297g-1) is amended:(1) in subsection (a):(A) by striking "$518,233,333" and inserting "$663,000,000"; and(B) by striking "on October 24, 1992" and inserting "with fiscal year 2012".
(2) in subsection (c):(A) by inserting "(1)" before "The Secretary";(B) by inserting after "utilities": ", only to the extent provided in advance in appropriation Acts";(C) by striking "$150,000,000" and inserting "$200,000,000";(D) by inserting "beginning in fiscal year 2012" after "adjusted for inflation";(E) by striking "(1)" and inserting "(A)";(F) by striking "(2)" and inserting "(B)";(G) by adding a new paragraph 2, ",(2) Amounts authorized to be collected pursuant to thissection shall be deposited in the Fund and credited as offsetting receipts."(3) in subsection (d), by striking "for the period encompassing 15 years after the date of theenactment of this title" and inserting "through fiscal year 2026"; and(4) in subsection (e):(A) in paragraph (1), by striking "15 years after the date of the enactment of this title" andinserting "September 30, 2026";(B) in paragraph (2), by striking "$2,250,000,000" and inserting "$3,000,000,000"; and(C) in paragraph (2) by inserting "beginning in fiscal year 2012" after "adjusted for inflation".
SEC. 308. The Secretary shall collect up to $200,000,000 in assessments pursuant to section 1802 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297g-1), as amended by this Act.
SEC. 309. For an additional amount for the "Other Defense Activities" account, $11,891,755, toincrease the Department's acquisition workforce capacity and capabilities: Provided, That such funds
may be transferred by the Secretary to any other account in the Department to carry out the purposes
provided herein: Provided further, That such transfer authority is in addition to any other transfer
General Provisions

Page 587

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

authority provided in this Act: Provided further, That such funds shall be available only to supplement
and not to supplant existing acquisition workforce activities: Provided further, That such funds shall beavailable for training, recruitment, retention, and hiring additional members of the acquisition
workforce as defined by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended (41 U.S.C. 401 etseq.): Provided further, That such funds shall be available for information technology in support ofacquisition workforce effectiveness or for management solutions to improve acquisition management.
SEC. 310. Not to exceed 5 per centum, or $100,000,000, of any appropriation, whichever is less, madeavailable for Department of Energy activities funded in this Act or subsequent Energy and Water
Development and Related Agencies Appropriation Acts may hereafter be transferred between suchappropriations, but no appropriation, except as otherwise provided, shall be increased or decreased bymore that 5 per centum by any such transfers, and any such proposed transfers shall be submitted to theCommittee on Appropriations of the House and Senate. (Energy and Water Development and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.)

SEC. 501. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used in any way, directly or indirectly,
to influence congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before Congress,
other than to communicate to Members of Congress as described in 18 U.S.C. 1913.
SEC. 502. To the extent practicable funds made available in this Act should be used to purchase lightbulbs that are "Energy Star'' qualified or have the "Federal Energy Management Program'' designation.
[SEC. 503. Title IV of division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public
Law 111-5) is amended by adding at the end of the title, the following new section 411:
"SEC 411. Up to 0.5 percent of each amount appropriated to the Department of the Army and the
Bureau of Reclamation in this title may be used for the expenses of management and oversight of the
programs, grants, and activities funded by such appropriation, and may be transferred by the Head of theFederal Agency involved to any other appropriate account within the department for that purpose:
Provided, That the Secretary will provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House ofRepresentatives and the Senate 30 days prior to the transfer: Provided further,That funds set aside under
this section shall remain available for obligation until September 30, 2012.''.][SEC. 504. (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:(1) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—The term "administrative expenses'' has the meaning as
determined by the Director under subsection (b)(2).
(2) AGENCY.—The term "agency''—(A) means an agency as defined under section 1101 of title 31, United States Code, that isestablished in the executive branch and receives funding under this Act; and(B) shall not include the District of Columbia government.
(3) DIRECTOR.—The term "Director'' means the Director of the Office of Management andBudget.
(b) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—(1) IN GENERAL.—All agencies shall include a separate category for administrative expenses
when submitting their appropriation requests to the Office of Management and Budget for fiscal year
2011 and each fiscal year thereafter.

General Provisions

Page 588

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

(2) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES DETERMINED.—In consultation with the agencies, theDirector shall establish and revise as necessary a definition of administration expenses for the
purposes of this section. All questions regarding the definition of administrative expenses shall be
resolved by the Director.
(c) BUDGET SUBMISSION.—Each budget of the United States Government submitted under
section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, for fiscal year 2011 and each fiscal year thereafter shall
include the amount requested for each agency for administrative expenses.][SEC. 505. None of the funds made available in this Act may be transferred to any department,
agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government, except pursuant to a transfer made by, ortransfer authority provided in this Act or any other appropriation Act.]
SEC. [506]503. [Specific projects contained in] To the extent that the report of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives accompanying this Act [(H. Rept. 111-203) ] includes
specific projects that are considered congressional earmarks for purposes of clause 9 of rule XXI of theRules of the House of Representatives, such projects, when intended to be awarded to a for-profit entity,
shall be awarded under a full and open competition. (Energy and Water Development and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.)

General Provisions

Page 589

FY 2011 Congressional Budget

Page 590

Office of the Administrator

Weapons Activities

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

Naval Reactors