§6115 — Title 10 Armed Forces | U.S. Code

§6115 Major warhead refurbishment program

Title 10 › Subtitle Subtitle A— - General Military Law › Part PART VI— - ELEMENTS OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND OTHER MATTERS › Subpart Subpart B— - Atomic Energy Defense › Chapter CHAPTER 602— - NUCLEAR WEAPONS STOCKPILE MATTERS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— - STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP AND WEAPONS PRODUCTION › § 6115

Last updated Apr 6, 2026|Official source

Summary

Starting in fiscal year 2015 and every year after, the Secretary of Energy must send the congressional defense committees a report for each major warhead refurbishment program that reaches the Phase 6.3 milestone. The report must analyze the different options considered. The report must say what options were looked at before Phase 6.3, compare the costs and benefits and show trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance, list the cost and risk for key technologies for each option (like how mature the technology is, integration risk, manufacturing feasibility, and testing needs), identify cost and risk for any extra facilities or capital equipment needed, compare risks, costs, and schedules for any military requirement to improve safety, security, or maintainability — including comparing consolidation or integration plans to at least one other feasible option the Nuclear Weapons Council deems appropriate — and give a life‑cycle cost estimate for the chosen option with total cost, scope, and schedule assumptions.

Title 10, §6115

Armed Forces — Source: USLM XML via OLRC

In fiscal year 2015 and subsequent fiscal years, the Secretary of Energy shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report, on each major warhead refurbishment program that reaches the Phase 6.3 milestone, that provides an analysis of alternatives. Such report shall include—

(1)a full description of alternatives considered prior to the award of Phase 6.3;

(2)a comparison of the costs and benefits of each of those alternatives, to include an analysis of trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives against each alternative considered;

(3)identification of the cost and risk of critical technology elements associated with each alternative, including technology maturity, integration risk, manufacturing feasibility, and demonstration needs;

(4)identification of the cost and risk of additional capital asset and infrastructure capabilities required to support production and certification of each alternative;

(5)a comparative analysis of the risks, costs, and scheduling needs for any military requirement intended to enhance warhead safety, security, or maintainability, including any requirement to consolidate and/or integrate warhead systems or mods as compared to at least one other feasible refurbishment alternative the Nuclear Weapons Council considers appropriate; and

(6)a life-cycle cost estimate for the alternative selected that details the overall cost, scope, and schedule planning assumptions.

Notes & Related Subsidiaries

Editorial Notes

Prior Provisions

A prior section 6115, act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 382, prescribed a time limit for filing claims for drill pay and for the uniform gratuity. Section was also amended by Pub. L. 85–861, § 33(a)(31), which amended catchline by substituting “uniform gratuity” for “unform gratuity”, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 85–861, § 36B(17), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1571. Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 2523c of Title 50, War and National Defense, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 119–60, § 3111(b)(3).