Unless otherwise noted, the source for data are the FY 1985, b/ The source of these data after FY 1983 is the MA-22 analysis Question: Please provide a table showing the funding for environmental activities for FY 1984 FY 1987. Please provide this information by location at each site with a brief description of each environmental problem. Answer: We do not budget for or collect costs for environmental compliance; however, we can provide estimates that show approximate costs for environmental compliance and protection for FY 1984-FY 1987. The following estimates include operating costs, capital equipment costs, and construction line items including general plant projects. The major portion of the funding for environmental compliance activities is for routine operating expenses for staff and associated expenses for environmental assessments, site characterization, monitoring, treatment of effluents, and waste management. Following are active line item construction projects to address specific environmental concerns. Oak Ridge 84-D-124, Environmental Improvements, includes construction of new facilities and modification of some existing facilities for the handling and treatment of liquid and solid wastes and for the containment or elimination of major pollution sources and hazards. Oak Ridge 85-D-121, Air and Water Pollution Control Facilities, will provide facilities for reducing mercury in liquid effluents and for controlling particulate uranium emissions from process stacks. The two Oak Ridge projects respond to a Memorandum of Understanding between Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Tennessee Department of Health and Environment. The Memorandum of Understanding details the objectives and major actions toward full compliance in areas of existing noncompliance. Failure to meet the objectives could result in legal actions by the State and/or EPA aimed at shutting down certain operations critical to the manufacture of nuclear weapons components at Y-12. Since these operations are not duplicated in the weapons complex, a shutdown would seriously effect the national defense effort. Albuquerque - 86-D-122, Structural Upgrade of Existing Plutonium Facilities will upgrade the Class 1 plutonium facilities at Rocky Flats which do not meet current wind loading criteria and thereby reduce the risk of catastrophic failure due to natural wind forces. Albuquerque 87-D-127, Environmental, Safety, and Health Upgrade will correct numerous deficiencies to the site storm and sanitary water systems at the Mound Plant near Dayton, Ohio. Without this project, Mound will continue to be in violation of its NPDES permit and will not comply with a Consent Order issued by the State of Ohio. San Francisco 85-D-102, Tritium Facility Upgrade, will provide safety and monitoring control of tritium facilities at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to reduce tritium releases to the environment. San Francisco 86-D-103, Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility will replace existing 40-year-old facilities at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory with a centralized facility which brings it into full compliance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. San Francisco - 87-D-102, Environmental Compliance and Cleanup will clean up various areas of groundwater and soil contamination at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Site 300. The Environmental Protection Agency has named Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory as a candidate for the National Priority List (under Superfund) because of off-site contamination and groundwater with organic solvents. The proposed project is to correct these problems and bring the facility into compliance. The various parts of the project encompass work on cleaning up organic solvents in the groundwater, clean up of a gasoline spill caused by a leaking underground tank, review and correction of other underground tanks, assess and conduct remedial action on landfills, take correction action on PCB problems, constructing an incinerator, etc. Various Locations 86-D-123, Environmental Hazards Elimination. This project eliminates waste water contamination at the Bendix Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, and eliminate of PCB from electrical systems at Bendix, Pinellas, Rocky Flats, and Y-12 Plants, and the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Question. Describe the status of the W79 and the W82 AFAP activities. Answer: The W79 completes production in August 1986. The W82 begins production engineering in May 1986 and is scheduled to enter production DELETED The planned mix is DELETED within the authorized quantity of 925 modern artillery warheads. Question: Please describe the status of the Sentry/Load system warhead. Answer: There are no development or preproduction activities associated with the now terminated Sentry/Load program. Question: How much is included in the FY 86 and FY 87 request for the "Midgetman" warhead concept? Describe the status of DOD and DOE's development. Answer: DOE and DOD are in the final portion of the warhead technical feasibility (Phase 2) study. DOE anticipates embarking on the weapon design and cost phase (Phase 2A) during the early summer of 1986. Most FY 1986 and FY 1987 funding allocated to the system is for research, development, and testing activities. However, costs are not identified to a specific system before Phase 3 because before that time, research, development, and testing activities are mutually beneficial to more than one system. For production and surveillance, no funds are planned to be allocated for the Small Intercontinental Ballistic Missile in FY 1986; less than $1 million is estimated to be allocated in FY 1987 for early production/ process engineering work. Question: What is the total estimated cost (OE and PACE) and BA allocated for each year of research, development, and production for the SRAM II warhead? Please provide the total quantities or builds and the estimated per unit costs of the warhead. Answer: The Short Range Attack Missile II is currently in Phase 2. No definitive cost estimate will exist for the system until the end of Phase 2a when the Weapon Design and Cost Report is published by the Department of Energy. As such, research, development, and testing costs are not identified by system until after that time. The Production and Surveillance request for FY 1987 contains an estimated allocation DELETED for SRAM II in FY 1987, which would support early production/process engineering work. No construction estimates are available in the FY 1987 budget. Delivery Schedule for SRAM II (from NWSM) Units DELETED Question: Describe the need for the new tactical bomb. Provide for the record the total estimated cost (both OE & PACE) and the BA allocated for each year through the end of production. What is the number of total builds and the annual schedule for this new warhead? Since Answer: When the budget was originally submitted, there were four mods of the B61 planned, the B61-6/8 and the B61-3D/4D. that time, the B61-6/8 program has been canceled in favor of building additional B61-3/4's, DELETED The additional B61-3/4's will be identified as an ALT. The 3/4 mods of the B61 feature improved safety and command and control (Category F Permissive Action Link). The purpose of these weapons is to replace older, less-secure bombs that are currently deployed overseas. The B61-3D/4D program will replace Navy B43's, B57's, and older mods of the B61. The B61-3D/4D design will meet modern safety criteria and will have a Category D Permissive Action Link. The total requirement for tactical nuclear gravity bombs is currently under review by the joint Department of Defense/ Department of Energy Tactical Bomb Stockpile Initiative working group. The Tactical Bomb Stockpile Initiative recommendations may result in future modifications to the quantities and types of weapons in the tactical bomb stockpile. Neither total estimated costs nor capital estimates are available for these systems in the FY 1987 budget. However, the FY 1987 Production and Surveillance budget does show allocations of $2.5 million for these systems based upon the former schedule. This funding will likely be reallocated to other systems in view of the schedule change. Question: Provide a table listing all weapons in or about to enter Phase 3 and Phase 4 and estimated funding levels for each weapon in FY 85, FY 86, FY 87 and anticipated for FY 88 and FY 89. Answer: There are five systems currently in Phases 3 and 4. Estimated allocations of direct Production and Surveillance operating and construction costs are contained in the following table: Question: Provide a table listing all weapons systems in Phase 2 in FY 85, FY 86, FY 87, and FY 88 with estimated funding for each system. Answer: 1. The following systems were in Phase 2 and 2A in FY 1985 and continue in Phase 2 in FY 1986: Small Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Short Range Attack Missile 2. The following systems are in Phase 2 and 2A or may enter Phase 2 and 2A in FY 1986: Lance Follow-on Missile DELETED Antisubmarine Nuclear Depth/Strike Bomb |