{
  "id": "RL33256",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL33256",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 312101,
      "date": "2006-02-01",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:16:11.035029",
      "title": "Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration: Analysis of an Energy Department Task Force Report",
      "summary": "Congress annually funds the nuclear weapons complex (the Complex), those sites that develop,\nmaintain, manufacture, and dismantle nuclear weapons. In hearings held in 2004, the House\nAppropriations Committee pressed the Secretary of Energy \"for a systematic review of requirements\nfor the weapons complex over the next twenty-five years.\" The committee expressed its concern that\nthe Complex is not well suited to the post-Cold War situation, and should reflect presidential\ndecisions on the stockpile as well as issues of cost, security, and Complex size. In response, the\nNuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure Task Force of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board\nprepared a report, released in final form in October 2005.\n The report indicated that the Complex had redundant facilities, security concerns, high cost,\nexcessive competition between the weapons labs, and inadequate equipment for the production\nplants. To redress these problems, the Task Force proposed restructuring the Complex. It would\nshift much production and some R&D to a new nuclear production center, probably close one\nor\nmore plants, contract out some nonnuclear work, shrink the labs, consolidate facilities, and take steps\nto make governance more effective. It was concerned that current warheads, produced during the\nCold War, are inappropriate for the current situation because they have more yield and efficiency\nthan is needed, yet are more vulnerable to terrorist threats than is desirable, are hard to manufacture,\nare designed close to failure points, and will probably become harder to maintain. It recommends\nrestructuring the nuclear arsenal by producing new-design Reliable Replacement Warheads (RRWs)\nwith characteristics deemed more suitable to the current environment. The report links Complex and\nwarheads: in the Task Force's view, RRWs would be easier to produce and maintain, permitting a\nsmaller, more efficient, and less costly Complex.  Observers familiar with the current Complex\nraise several concerns. From their perspective,\nclosing Complex sites and facilities might meet fatal political opposition. They maintain that the\nreport seems to downplay the value of investments in Complex facilities over six decades, and\nprojects large cost savings through 2030 based on questionable assumptions. They fear that shifting\nkey tasks that the nuclear weapons labs perform to other sites could disrupt the labs' ability to do\ntheir work. The recommendation to proceed immediately with RRW deals with restructuring\nweapons rather than the Complex and, in this view, may go beyond the Task Force's mandate. A\nDepartment of Defense official stated that a Department of Defense-Department of Energy agency\ndid not approve the Task Force's proposed 3-step transition to RRW, despite the report's strong\nimplication to the contrary. While any final decision on deploying RRWs must await completion\nof studies that might possibly reject RRW, the Task Force assumes RRW will proceed and does not\nexamine how its restructured Complex would support current warheads. Some express concern that\nTask Force recommendations may be at odds with U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy.\n This report will not be updated.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33256",
          "sha1": "79c56eb8882b1add31e06b09ceb62d46a815c048",
          "filename": "files/20060201_RL33256_79c56eb8882b1add31e06b09ceb62d46a815c048.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33256",
          "sha1": "9a937cc08bc2dfd73a0bc7dc84dd5325316b08b3",
          "filename": "files/20060201_RL33256_9a937cc08bc2dfd73a0bc7dc84dd5325316b08b3.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Appropriations",
    "Environmental Policy",
    "National Defense"
  ]
}