Administration

Enhanced Test Readiness Cost Study; DOE/NV--828

2002 · réf. 88245 — Las Vegas NV: U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Operations Office 2002. Presumed to be one of some limited number of multiple originals produced. CD in a paper envelope with a clear plastic face. Very good. This disc has no distribution limitation information on its front. This CD contains one file with an approximately 70 page document that has color illustrations tabular data and briefing slides at the end. There may be a hardcopy version of this given the DOE/NV number. The content addresses the then current test readiness maintaining current posture enhancing test readiness and provided several appendixes including Threshold Test Ban Preparations and Authorization Basis including Underground Nuclear Test Standards Safety Basis Safety Management and a Device-Specific Nuclear Explosive Safety Study. Table 4 is a summary of the cost study results in Millions. The Department of Energy submitted a report to the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 20 calling for the United States to shorten the time it would take to conduct a nuclear test to 18 months in order to provide a "reasonable level of flexibility" for the Bush administration. Congress requested the report in November 2002 instructing Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham to draw up plans that would enable the department to test within six 12 18 or 24 months. Currently the United States can conduct a nuclear test within 24-36 months of a presidential directive to do so. Congress also asked Abraham to determine in consultation with the secretary of defense which readiness period would be optimal. The 18-month recommendation "reflects what is achievable and cost effective" according to the report which was prepared by the National Nuclear Security Administration NNSA a semiautonomous agency within the Energy Department. The report indicated that 18 months is the minimum amount of time needed to evaluate a problem identified in the U.S. nuclear stockpile propose a solution and "execute a test that would provide the information needed to certify the ‘fix.'" The recommendation is "consistent with realistic testing schedules" established during previous U.S. nuclear testing which ceased in 1992. By contrast shortening test readiness to six or 12 months would require a "substantial diversion of personnel and facilities at the laboratories" according to the report. That would "represent a major redirection of the stockpile stewardship program" which is intended to maintain the nuclear arsenal in the absence of testing. Adopting a testing posture of a year or less would be "most relevant.if the President might direct that testing resume for political reasons." The report also noted that the shorter readiness period would be considerably more expensive. The transition to shorten the current 24-36 month readiness posture expected to take three years is already underway. NNSA conducted an Enhanced Test Readiness Cost Study in July 2002 to determine the steps and funding required to shorten the readiness posture and the Nuclear Weapons Council a consultative group of officials from the Energy Department and the Pentagon approved the plan to transition to an 18-month readiness window in September 2002 according to the report. The Bush administration asked for funds to begin moving to a shorter test readiness posture in its fiscal year 2004 budget request. Charles Anson Franklin NNSA spokesman said that the current readiness posture of 24-36-months was "a policy decision of the previous administration. This administration has made a policy decision of an 18-month readiness period." He added "It's been out there—it's not been a surprise.We've been talking about moving to an 18-month readiness posture since 2001." The changes will be fully implemented by the end of fiscal year 2005 and will cost $83 million with an additional $25-30 million needed annually to sustain the heightened state of scientific technological and personnel preparedness according to the report. The report examined a speedier transition but concluded that reaching the 18-month readiness posture sooner would cost more and disrupt other programs because of the limited number of nuclear weapons personnel. U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada Operations Office unknown