Safety in natural disasters

Another IG report on LANL, this one on facilities safety in natural disasters

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/06/f2/OAS-M-13-04.pdf

With all the attention that this topic gets, you might think that after awhile it would get resolved.

Maybe it slipped through the cracks while attention was focused on other, more urgent issues.

Taking another shot at cutting nukes

Taking another shot at cutting nukes

President Obama wants the number of deployed U.S. strategic nuclear warheads reduced from the 1,550 limit set by the 2010 treaty with Russia to closer to 1,000, depending on an agreement with that country.

In a June 19 speech in Berlin, Obama said: “After a comprehensive review, I’ve determined that we can ensure the security of America and our allies, and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent, while reducing our deployed strategic nuclear weapons by up to one-third. And I intend to seek negotiated cuts with Russia to move beyond Cold War nuclear postures.”

That review of the Nuclear Weapons Employment Strategy was only the third such study since the end of the Cold War. Led by the Defense Department, it included representatives from the departments of State and Energy (which builds the weapons), plus the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Council.
It led to a new presidential nuclear employment guidance under which the Strategic Command sets contingency nuclear targeting plans for the U.S. triad of delivery systems: strategic bombers, along with land-based and sub-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

In a report released June 12, Defense stated that the 2018 levels specified in the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty “are more than adequate for the United States to fulfill its national security objectives.” That left open the option of more cuts.
The president also wants to take some deployed ICBMs off constant alert. The White House, in a fact sheet released the day of the speech, said the president had directed the Defense Department “to examine and reduce the role of launch under attack [the phrase for constant alert] in contingency planning.”

Why? Because, as the White House said, “the potential for a surprise, disarming nuclear attack is exceedingly remote.” That’s because no country, including Russia, has the capability to knock out enough nuclear weapons to prevent the United States from responding with a more devastating nuclear counterattack to the enemy country.

For example, Russia or another country would have to have enough warheads to simultaneously hit all the nuclear-capable delivery systems allowed under the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that will be in effect after 2018. That means probably 420 land-based ICBMs, along with 60 nuclear-equipped bombers and 12 strategic submarines, at least eight of which would be out to sea.

The “first strike” attack theory — which never could have been carried out — caused the United States and the Soviet Union to build up to 10,000 strategic nuclear warheads each during the Cold War. That’s what both are now reducing.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/taking-another-shot-at-cutting-nukes/2013/06/26/6e041988-ddac-11e2-b797-cbd4cb13f9c6_story.html

FY14 NNSA Budget: Scarce Resources Devoted to Nuclear Weapons

FY14 NNSA Budget: Scarce Resources Devoted to Nuclear Weapons

June 24, 2013

The president’s FY14 budget requests $11.65 billion for the NNSA, about $190 million more than the organization’s funding under the FY13 Continuing Resolution, and $650 million more than its FY12 appropriation. The requested increase comes in a year of tight budgets all around, where most governments programs face stagnant or declining budgets. Notably, for all federal programs, the administration’s request completely ignores the budget cuts mandated by the sequester. Unless Congress finds a different solution, the NNSA will have to cut about $600 million overall below the FY14 request.


Account FY12 FY13 FY14 Request Change %Change
FY13-14 FY13-14
NNSA Total 11 11.5 11.65 0.19 1.6
Weapons Activities 7.2 7.6 7.9 0.31 4.1
Defense 2.3 2.4 2.1 -0.27 -11.2
Nonproliferation

USD, in billions. Note, totals do not add exactly due to rounding.



As the table above illustrates, however, if the overall NNSA budget is funded at the requested level in FY14, it is programs to maintain and modernize nuclear weapons that would benefit from this increase. Nonproliferation programs—those that reduce the threat from the spread of nuclear weapons—would still see substantial cuts. The real reduction is even larger because two counterterrorism programs have been moved from Weapons Activities into this category. These programs add roughly $250 million to the total Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation budget. If these programs had not been added, the overall total would be down by $520 million in FY 2014, or 22%.
Funding for dismantlement programs—those that disassemble retired weapons and dispose of the resulting materials—would fall as well.
One bright spot in this picture, however, is that the cuts in nonproliferation programs do include a sizeable cut to the mixed oxide (MOX) fuel program, a dangerous and expensive method of disposing of surplus weapons plutonium. Funding for this program was cut by $118 million in the FY14 request, a reduction of nearly 30%, while the contractor provides updated cost estimates and the administration assesses alternative strategies for disposal.


http://allthingsnuclear.org/fy14-nnsa-budget-scarce-resources-devoted-to-nuclear-weapons/

To Senior Management:

Senior Management,

Direct or Indirect that is the question.

Being intelligent and part of senior management you likely already have a strong opinion however as a result of this comment perhaps a future pause or reflection could shape a future decision that otherwise would not.

The laboratory like the tide has shifted strategy over and over regarding the flow of costs toward or away from indirect (G&A and Site Support).

Currently it appears to those in the trenches the strategy is to move costs into indirect with the intention of better managing those resources.

I would like to bring to your attention an alternate thought from a time when the strategy tide was completely reversed.

When programs charge resources (labor and non-labor) directly the cost saving self-interest/motivation is high. For every dollar saved that specific program saves a dollar.
When programs charge resources (labor and non-labor) to indirect self-interest is the reverse. Spend every dollar since saving a dollar would only result in perhaps specific program savings of twenty five cents at best (if the stars, moon and sun align with a rate decrease after the miracle of no one else at the lab offsetting that savings).

Good intentions to manage better in my humble opinion are not as effective as making it in the self-interest of each PAD to realize cost savings.

I do understand that efficiencies can be realized with the synergy of combining like functions. Those opportunities should be a very clear and a large slam dunk to offset the hard results that naturally come from building self-interest in to the decision making process.

Thank you for your time,
Respectfully. A current and hopeful long term employee who loves working at the lab.

LLNL Director's update

LLNL Director's update of FY13, FY14 budget decisions
6/24/2013

This update comes at a time of evolutionary change for our Laboratory. We have experienced the departure this month of 399 employees through the Self-Select Voluntary Separation Program (SSVSP) and said farewell to many of our colleagues as they begin new experiences. Much has happened since my last update, and I want to thank you for your patience. I know this message is long in coming -- it was important to wait until I had accurate information to give you.

These past weeks, I have been working closely with Laboratory senior managers to pursue all available options to address the many challenges we have faced due to sequestration in FY13, as well as the proposed budget for FY14. Finding solutions that provided the least impact to employees has proved more complicated than anticipated...

While it has been difficult to adjust to the void left behind by our colleagues who participated in the SSVSP, its outcome will help right-size the Lab to meet the unfolding elements of the proposed FY14 budget and beyond. We must now look to ways to address the workload that had once been filled by those employees, while living with the reduced funding brought on by sequestration. We are in the process of identifying those areas and organizations that were significantly impacted by the SSVSP so that we can get back to a balanced level of service and a balanced workload for employees.

We are in the process of adjusting to a new budget reality for FY13 that is $100 million less than anticipated prior to sequestration, and have addressed this challenge through a number of adjustments and actions - including cost cutting in procurements, travel and overtime; reprogramming actions, staffing changes associated with the SSVSP and supplemental labor; and other actions.

Because of these actions and the follow-through commitment of the senior management team, I am announcing the cancellation of the Lab's salary reduction/closure day program. However, it is clear we cannot return to past spending practices. We must continue to manage this gap through actions such as those listed above.

Consistent with benefit plan needs, the Lab will make the $40 million employer contribution this fiscal year to the TCP1 pension plan, as originally planned. Participating employees will see their contributions increase from 5 percent to 7 percent as initially planned beginning July 1 (paycheck date of July 19). We believe these combined efforts will ensure our pension plan remains strong.

I understand these announcements answer many of your questions, but also raise a few more. I want to thank you for diligent efforts to stay focused, and I ask for your patience as we continue to align the Lab to its fiscal realities. As always, I promise to keep you informed as I receive additional details.

In the coming weeks and months, we will take some time to assess our workforce and reset expectations. Because external hiring will be restricted for the next 12 months to a ceiling established under the SSVSP, there will be challenges in redeploying staff to responsibly fill gaps created by the SSVSP. It is important that we have an open dialogue with our sponsors to adjust expectations resulting from lower budgets and staffing levels.

Because of the impacts on the workforce, and the potential for getting distracted by these larger issues as we carry out our work, it is essential that we carry out a period of "deliberate operations" -- providing additional direct and sustained management and employee attention on ensuring safe, secure and compliant mission performance. Remember, you are always encouraged to use the safety pause authority today and everyday when faced with a concern.

The missions this Lab performs are important to the nation. Despite the stresses the current budget environment puts on this Lab (and the larger national security enterprise) we will continue to innovate and do great things for the nation.

Reimagining the National Laboratories

Digital Journal
June 20, 2013

ITIF Report: Reimagining the National Laboratories

The Department of Energy's (DOE) National Laboratories System was created in the 1940s to develop the atomic bomb. From its national security origins, the Labs have become one of the centerpieces of the United States federal research enterprise, representing nearly $20 billion in annual public research dollars. However, as the pace of innovation has accelerated and the complexity of national challenges has increased, the national laboratory system has not kept stride. Significant reforms are required to better catalyze innovation and promote the 21st century economy.

To accomplish this goal, three think tanks, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), the Heritage Foundation, and the Center for American Progress (CAP), propose a set of nonpartisan policy proposals for reforming the national laboratories. Turning the Page: Re-imagining the National Labs in the 21st Century Innovation Economy makes a series of recommendations that if enacted will increase research flexibility, allow for greater cooperation between the labs and the private sector, and promote a more cohesive and efficient researchprogram within the Department of Energy.

"The national labs are a tremendous source of cutting-edge research and scientific talent, but their operations are still based on a decades-old management model that no longer meets the needs of our modern innovation ecosystem," notes Matthew Stepp, Senior Analyst with ITIF and lead author of the report. "This study presents a series of twelve proposals for Congress and the Administration that can ensure the labs better meet their mission and produce useful technologies that spur economic growth and create jobs."

While efforts to reform the lab system have become highly politicized, ITIF, Heritage, and CAP have been able to agree on common sense reforms for basic, good governance of the labs. As stated in the report, "These recommendations are as relevant to a large, highly-funded research agenda as they are to a much more limited one."

"A system that allows the market to pull technologies out of the federal research establishment rather than them being pushed into the market by Washington is the best way to get more successes like GPS and fewer failures like synfuels," adds Jack Spencer, a Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

"These pragmatic reforms won't cost the taxpayer anything, but will lead to better research, more innovation, and greater economic growth," says Sean Pool, a former policy analyst and managing editor of CAP's Science Progress program. "But pragmatic does not mean less bold.


I'm pleased that we were able to find consensus across ideological lines around a set of reforms that are both ambitious and practical."

The reforms presented fall into three main categories: (1) removing DOE micromanagement of lab decisions and replacing it with more robust contractor accountability; (2) reforming the DOE program offices to better coordinate lab stewardship, budgeting, and research; and (3) providing better incentives and flexibility for the labs, industry, and universities to move promising technologies to market.

"The national labs have been a tremendous driver of innovation and business development in the past," Stepp adds. "But the reforms we propose today are critical to the labs producing more economy-transforming research. If three ideologically diverse organizations can agree on these issues, surely Washington can as well."

Read the Report At

http://www2.itif.org/2013-turning-page-national-lab-innovation-economy.pdf

NNSA Outlines Price Tag Of '3+2' Vision For Future Of Nuclear Stockpile

NNSA Outlines Price Tag Of '3+2' Vision For Future Of Nuclear Stockpile
Weapons Complex Monitor
June 19, 2013

Implementing the Obama Administration’s “3+2” vision for the future of the nuclear stockpile could cost more than $65 billion through Fiscal Year 2038, according to the National Nuclear Security Administration’s recently released Fiscal Year 2014 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan. But while arms control experts have scoffed at the high price tag, the Administration says the approach is designed to save money in the long run. The “3+2” approach was approved late last year by the Nuclear Weapons Council and includes the production by FY 2038 of three interoperable ballistic missile warheads and two air-delivered systems: a nuclear capable cruise missile and the B61 gravity bomb. But only this week have the potential costs of the approach been broached publicly. On top of the NNSA’s estimated $8 billion price tag for the ongoing B61 refurbishment (other estimates suggest the cost could actually exceed $10 billion), the W78/W88-1 refurbishment could cost more than $14 billion. A second interoperable warhead projected to be the W87/W88 could cost more than $13 billion, and a third interoperable warhead involving the W76-1 could cost around $12 billion. A refurbished cruise missile warhead is estimated to cost close to $12 billion, and other refurbishment work on a follow-on B61 life extension program (which would start in FY 2033) as well as refurbishment work on the W88 to replace its neutron generator and ongoing work on the W76-1 contribute to the overall life extension costs.

The NNSA also emphasized that the costs are dependent on other efforts to modernize the weapons complex and maintain the nation’s nuclear know-how. “When fully implemented, the ‘3+2’ strategic vision will reduce stockpile maintenance costs while maintaining strategic flexibility and offering the potential to consider decreasing the size of the stockpile hedge without increasing the risk,” the NNSA said in the plan. In the near-term, the NNSA is planning to undertake refurbishment work on the W76-1, B61, W78/W88-1 interoperable warhead, cruise missile warhead, and the W88 ALT 370 over the next decade, beginning work on the cruise missile warhead refurbishment in FY 2015. “This very aggressive plan will place most of the nuclear weapons stockpile in some phase of life extension in the present decade,” the NNSA said. “This work is absolutely essential and must be accomplished while maintaining the stockpile and continuing stewardship-based surveillance.” The extent of the work on the NNSA’s plate, and the price tag, is likely to draw increased scrutiny from Congress, said Kingston Reif, the director of Nuclear Non-Proliferation at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. “The sticker shock is just incredible,” Reif said. “You have to look at this in the context of NNSA being unable to accurately project costs historically. If this is their opening bid and previous history is any indication, this could be two to three times the cost.”