Anonymously contributed:
==============================================================================
GAO gives failing marks to NNSA at House Oversight Committee hearing
==============================================================================
http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/Hearings/OI/20120912/HHRG-112-IF02-WState-GaffiganM-20120912.pdf
Comments
“...there have been calls in Congress and other organizations to enhance NNSA’s ability to operate independently of DOE. For example, the Defense Science Board proposed in 2006 that a completely independent nuclear weapons agency be created. 8 In January 2007, we reported 9 that former senior DOE and NNSA officials with whom we spoke generally did not favor removing NNSA from DOE; we concluded that such drastic change was unnecessary to produce an effective organization and we continue to hold this view."
“…efficient use of scarce federal resources needed…”
“Nevertheless, DOE and NNSA must continue their efforts to (1) commit sufficient people and resources to resolve…the problem”
Looks like the next big push is to make all personnel Feds – Abracadabra no more problems.
September 12, 2012 5:37 PM
Yep. And in Livermore as well. This has always been the case, although SNL and LLNL have almost always managed to keep the problem under the rug until they could appear to have addressed it early, and therefore avoid NNSA/DOE "surprise" retribution. LANL, on the other hand, always confesses early, before there is even any evidence they did anything wrong. Legacy of Wen Ho Lee.
PX is not a lab, no SNM process streams but lots of NE’s & SNM components - seems to be void of any criticism in the GAO report. Much too critical I guess – hear, see & speak no evil?
Think about it, and it all fits together. No one likes the DOE orders or the NNSA regs. When they hit SNL they take the view that work needs to get accomplished, and how can you meet sponsors needs and still keep on the right side of DOE. LANL sees the same orders and proceeds at every available opportunity to publicly condemn the low IQ of the individuals in the organization that wrote the orders.
Ask yourself which organization is most likely to have staff that follow those orders. Probably the same one that listens to potential sponsors instead of lecturing them.
While the immediate cause for the report is nungate and Y-12 coming in for a beating, the report covers issues from 2000. From 2000 - 2007, things were pretty quiet away from Los Alamos. If this report is any indication of where things are headed, so far 2013 is looking a lot like a replay of those dark years.
And the many shall pay for the sins of the few.
Could also point out that the 'culture of arrogance' that was highlighted as an underlying cause in the 2000 report had been mostly absent from 2007. Judging by how things have been going lately, it must just have temporarily gone underground and never truly left. It has been on overt display for the past year or so, and is as bad as it ever was.
The LLNL slapdown surrounding "Yes NIF is on-time and on-budget, Secretary Richardson", is not fully accounted in this GAO report because of the time-period GAO selected. So the cost estimate balloon factor as stated (25%) appears smaller, though over a slightly longer period, the balloon factor is quite staggering.
Perhaps LLNL's emphasis on supercomputing in it's portfolio gives it less exposure to certain types of "gotchas." As a side note, Dona Crawford the AD for Computations is known (even when she was at Sandia) to emphasize delivery to customers both internal (as a matrix organization) and external. And Computations has done very well in terms of its performance and reputation.
So the opposite of a "culture of arrogance" being a "culture of listening to and helping your customer" does make alot of sense. One of the first unspoken rules in business is "Don't do anything that will hurt or embarass your customer." This includes causing or playing down security problems that are a result of negligence.
Some of these performance based "bonuses" to LANS/LLNS and the other operators of NNSA facilities are supposed to incentivise positive behavior (or atleast positive performance which is assumed to be tied to good governance and management). We'll see if it works. The penalty needs to hit very hard in cases of bad behavior/performance for it to send a message across an institution.
But of course this is all theoretical. It may work in a modern and well managed private sector firm that is very accountable to its stakeholders. Who knows for a large old national lab. It's possible that people may choose to further blame the sponsor, an internal scapegoat, another lab, Obama/Chu, global warming, or their own parents, rather than admit the existence of or get rid of problem sources within their own ranks.
September 13, 2012 10:13 AM"
In addition to the fee income determination, does the annual NNSA "grade" have any impact on who has the operating contract?
Too bad GAO didn't look at the broader picture. Indeed they were the ones to bring up the "culture of arrogance" issue, yet didn't address it or describe the numerous other factors and contexts that play an important part in explaining the state of the NWE. Thinking in these terms, the GAO report is fairly flimsy. Dense on words and details. But light on deeper analysis or meaningful recommendations.
That's a good question. I suspect that Y-12 and LANL related performance assessment (in score overall) won't see a dramatic change in the score's magnitude anyways. On the other hand, political pressure may influence who doesn't get a contract that is up for renewal. It's not a transparent process. I'm also curious to see what has come out of the "show cause" notice to Y-12.
On the other hand, the LANL accidental radiation exposure of dozens of workers will probably turn out to have bigger consequences. When you read that local elementary schools in the community had to be monitored for contamination as a consequence of the exposure, remember the impact of Karen Silkwood.
September 13, 2012 11:36 AM
"Had to be..." or "Were..."? there is a big difference, both in seriousness of concern and intent. State your references. I never read anything like that in the local media. Fearmongering.
If the taxpayers were shelling out 2 billion a year for an operation that was in charge of cat litter control at a facility and if Congress was holding multiple hearings about the control failure, then said observations would be relevant.
Until that time comes, such passion may be more effective when directed elsewhere.
That been the story now at the NNSA labs for almost a decade. Unfortunately, no one cares about the rot that has taken over and the layers upon layers of useless and expensive "management" that feed like parasites on what's left of the rotten core.