Memorandum from the Scottish Campaign
for Nuclear Disarmament
The points made below respond to Government
plans for the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE).
HOW MUCH
WILL IT
COST TO
REBUILD AWE?
1. Des Browne said that the £1,050
million expenditure on AWE, which had been announced in July 2005,
would fund a wide range of developments.[122]
He has refused to disclose the budget for individual facilities
in the plan saying "mature costs are not available".[123]
These figures are essential if there is to be any proper scrutiny
of these proposals.
2. Nuclear safety requirements would have
a substantial impact on cost. The Shiplift at Faslane went over
budget and still did not meet safety standards. The A90 facility
built at Aldermaston cost far more than budgeted. (The Audit Office
report into A90 should be placed in the public domain). The MoD
have just written off £147 million which had been spent on
the A91 radioactive waste treatment plant. The cost of the new
nuclear facilities at Devonport increased from an initial budget
of £576-£650 million to at least £812 million.[124]
The Audit Office report into Devonport also revealed that a number
of the initial designs did not meet safety requirements.
3. The US Department of Energy have plans
to rebuild many of their nuclear weapons' facilities. Table 1
shows some of the projects planned for AWE and published estimates
of the cost of related facilities in the US. These examples show
not only the scale of expenditure involved but also how final
costs may be several times higher than the initial estimate.
Table 1
| New AWE Facility |
US Example |
Cost of US Facility |
|
|
£ million |
| High Powered Computing |
Advanced Strategic Computing |
£320 per year |
| Orion Laser | National Ignition Facility
| Initial estimate £500;
current estimate £2,000
|
| Core Punch Facility | Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test
| Initial estimate £32;
current estimate £174
|
| Uranium Production Facility | Uranium Production Facility
| £400-500 |
| Material Science Facilities | Chemical & Metallurgical Research Replacement
| £450-550 |
| Tritium Facility | Tritium Extraction Facility
| £270 |
4. The Orion laser is a smaller project than the National
Ignition Facility. However the Uranium Production Facility could
be similar to that planned for the Y-12 site at Oak Ridge, Tennessee.[125]
The Core Punch Facility at Aldermaston would be more complex than
the new hydrodynamic facility at Los Alamos.
5. This suggests that implementing the AWE Site Development
plan in full would cost several billion pounds.
WHAT ARE
AWE PLANNING TO
DO?
Life Extension
6. Des Browne said the developments at AWE were "necessary
to sustain Trident for its remaining in-service life."[126]
The term "remaining in-service life" is misleading.
The life of the warhead is flexible and AWE's main priority has
been to extend it.
7. In 2001 an official statement on British nuclear weapons'
research said:
"the overarching objective of the UK nuclear warhead
programme is to keep the Trident warhead in service, and to be
able to underwrite its performance and safety over a period much
longer than its originally intended service life."[127]
8. AWE will have some confidence in the safety and reliability
of the Trident warhead up to a life of 25 years. The substantial
programme of production, surveillance, experiments and research
is not primarily to support this initial planned life, but to
provide a basis for extending it.
9. As part of this "Life Extension" approach
AWE continues to manufacture a number of warheads every year.
For surveillance purposes some of the oldest warheads are completely
dismantled. These are replaced with new warheads. The continuous
production of warheads means that the average age of the stockpile
is lower than would otherwise be the case.
Upgrade
10. AWE are preparing to upgrade the Trident warhead
in the first half of the next decade.[128]
Job advertisements reveal that AWE will shortly replace the Warhead
Electrical System.[129]
This component is also called the Arming, Fuzing and Firing System
(AF&F).[130] A
new AF&F for the US Trident warhead has just been designed.[131]
Some American warheads will be upgraded with the new AF&F
between 2006 and 2020. The modified warheads have the designation
W76-1.
11. The introduction of the new AF&F on US and British
warheads will increase the capability of Trident. Los Alamos say
that the W76-1 will have increased "targeting flexibility
and effectiveness", compared with the original design.[132]
Modifying British warheads to a W76-1 specification would be more
than a "relatively minor" upgrade.[133]
Defence Ministers have refused to discuss AWE's involvement in
the W76-1 programme or the new AF&F.[134]
New warhead
12. The US Administration are now moving away from the
Life Extension approach and focusing instead on designing new
warheads under the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) programme.
During Congressional scrutiny of the budget for 2007 the W80 Life
Extension project was cancelled and the amount allocated to RRW
was increased. It is likely that the W76-1 Life Extension project
will be curtailed and resources switched to the Trident RRW.
13. A choice between Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore
designs for the Trident RRW will be made in November 2006. The
third US nuclear weapons' laboratory, Sandia, is substantially
involved in both options. Lockheed Martin operates Sandia. They
are likely to use their role in AWE Ltd to advocate that Britain
develops an equivalent of RRW.
14. A crucial difference between Life Extension and RRW
is that the latter involves redesigning the plutonium pit at the
core of the primary of the warhead. The decision on whether to
replace the pit in British warheads will be related to estimates
of its service life. Des Browne said that AWE undertakes a range
of studies to: "enable regular assessments of the service
life of any particular pit."[135]
15. As with the submarine platform, the MoD may be preparing
for both Life Extension and, later, replacement of the warhead.
Facilities and options
16. Table 2 indicates how the proposed facilities relate
to future options.
Table 2
| Facility |
Dismantle Trident 2020-25 with no replacement |
Trident Life Extension |
Design and build replacement warhead |
| High Powered Computing |
No need to increase capability |
Some investment |
Substantial investment |
| Hydrodynamics |
New facilities not essential |
Limited programme of experiments to extend pit life |
Substantial programme of experiments for new pit |
| Orion Laser |
Not required |
Limited programme of experiments |
Substantial programme of experiments |
| New Uranium Production Facility | Not required; use A90 |
Limited production related to the surveillance programme |
Substantial production if secondary or radiation case replaced |
| A90 Plutonium Production Facility |
Plutonium and Uranium work |
Limited production related to the surveillance programme |
Upgrade of A90 required for substantial production of new pit |
| Tritium Extraction Facility |
Not required |
New facility | New facility
|
| Warhead Assembly and Disassembly Facility |
Scaled down new facility | New facility
| New facility |
| Explosive facilities | Limited requirement
| New facility | New facility
|
| Material science facilities | Not essential
| New facility | New facility
|
17. The workload of AWE, in terms of research, surveillance,
production and dismantlement, will vary depending on what the
plans are for the future of British nuclear weapons. That workload
would be substantially greater if a decision was made to design
and build a new warhead. It would be much less if Trident was
scrapped in 2025 and not replaced.
18. The Site Development Plan would create a range of
new facilities which could design, build, sustain and dismantle
two-stage thermonuclear warheads between 2020 and 2050, with assistance
from the US.
COMMENT
19. The MoD are trying to preempt crucial decisions on
the future of nuclear weapons by initiating a very expensive rebuilding
programme. Vital resources should not be committed to expanding
an infrastructure for building and maintaining nuclear weapons.
Britain clearly has no need for these weapons and they undermine
our potential to tackle global issues of proliferation and disarmament.
20. In addition to the billions of pound which may be
wasted, we would also be squandering the talents of men and women
whose skills could make a valuable contribution to the future
welfare of this country. The computer scientists who are being
recruited to perfect the design of nuclear warheads could use
their expertise for climate modelling, which also requires supercomputers.
The hundreds of mechanical and electrical engineers being drafted
into AWE would be far better employed designing and producing
alternative sources of energy supply.
21. AWE are not, as they claim, a forward looking establishment.
They are a historical relic whose time has passed. Scarce human
resources and capital expenditure should be directed towards projects
which tackle the real needs of the 21st century.
30 September 2006
122
Reply by Des Browne MP to a written question from Nick Harvey
MP who asked which facilities would be funded by the £1,050
announced in July 2005; Hansard 5 July 2006. Back
123
Replies to written questions in July 2006. Back
124
National Audit Office report into the Construction of nuclear
submarine facilities at Devonport; 6 December 2002. Back
125
Report of recent visit by AWE staff to their US counterparts
in the Y-12 newsletter. Back
126
Reply by Des Browne MP to a written question from Nick Harvey
MP Hansard 5 July 2006. Back
127
High Energy Density Physics, National Nuclear Security Administration,
April 2001, Appendix G-United Kingdom Statement on High Energy
Density Physics. Back
128
MoD Memorandum to Defence Committee 19 January 2006; Annex B
Expected Life of the Trident System. Back
129
A vacancy for a Warhead Electrical Engineer refers to "the
approval programme for the introduction of the [Warhead Electrical]
System into UK Trident". There are other related positions.
www.awe.co.uk Back
130
Appendix F to the Report of the Fundamental Classification Policy
Review Group Report of the Weaponization and Weapons Production
and Military Use Working Group, 15 January 1997, James B Wright,
Chair Sandia National Laboratories. Back
131
The new US Arming Fuzing and Firing System is designated MC4700.
It has a similar fuzing system to the W88 warhead and a replacement
contact fuze. Back
132
www.lanl.gov/orgs/d/d5/projects/W76/W76-1-LEP-Overview.htm Back
133
MoD Memorandum to Defence Committee 19 January 2006; Annex B
Expected Life of the Trident System. Back
134
Reply by Lewis Moonie MP to a written question from Lynne Jones
MP Hansard 6 February 2002, and reply by Des Browne MP to a written
question from Nick Harvey MP 6 July 2006. Back
135
Reply by Des Browne MP to a written question from Nick Harvey
MP Hansard 13 July 2006. Back
| 
