Monday, May 21, 2012

Restructuring of NNSA in the FY13 budget

Anonymously contributed: Looks like there will be a fight between the Republican controlled House and White House over the restructuring of NNSA in the FY13 budget. From the WH Statement late last week on H.R. 4310 – National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2013... "Department of Energy (DOE) and Contractor Management Relationships: The Administration strongly objects to elements of sections 1061 and 1062 and certain provisions of Title 31 that change the responsibilities, authorities, and reporting requirements between and among DOE, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), contractors managing and operating the national laboratories, the President, and the Congress. Some of these changes fundamentally alter the relationship between DOE and NNSA by restricting the authority of the Secretary of Energy and transferring responsibilities from DOE to NNSA. The bill also: (1) legislates the establishment of a council of the national laboratory contractors with the authority to make unrestricted recommendations to NNSA, which then mandate a response by NNSA; (2) takes authority for final approval of the NNSA budget submission away from the President; (3) requires NNSA to submit a cost-benefit analysis to the Congress before competing a management and operating contract, which would undermine a long-standing and bipartisan effort to increase competition in government contracting; and (4) authorizes unrestricted access for the contractors to report to the Congress on Administration activities. Health and Safety at DOE and NNSA: The Administration strongly opposes sections 3202, 3115, 3113, and 3151. These provisions severely hamper external, independent oversight by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board; move regulatory authority from independent offices and agencies to the NNSA Administrator; require a weaker standard of contractor governance, management, and oversight; and eliminate DOE's flexibility to determine the appropriate means of assessing the unique risks that it confronts in its facilities. By lowering safety standards for the nuclear weapons complex and reducing requested funding for health, safety, and security, these provisions would weaken protections for workers and the general public. NNSA Staffing: Section 3111 would direct the Administration to make large reductions within the NNSA in its number of Federal employees. The NNSA is undertaking major, complex efforts to move to a more efficient and effective management of the nuclear security complex while maintaining the safety, security, and effectiveness of our nuclear arsenal. The Administration believes that the NNSA is best positioned to prescribe the proper level of staffing to fulfill those missions effectively within the budget appropriated by the Congress."

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Unecessary action

Anonymously contibutedL In the recent House Armed Services Committee proposed changes to NNSA, the strangest item seems to have attracted the least amount of attention. In the final bill that was passed last week --- SEC. 4509. DESIGN AND USE OF PROTOTYPES OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS FOR INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES. (a) PROTOTYPES. - The Administrator shall develop and carry out a plan for the national security laboratories and nuclear weapons production plants to design and build prototypes of nuclear weapons to further intelligence estimates with respect to foreign nuclear weapons activities. (b) PROHIBITION ON PRODUCTION OF NUCLEAR YIELDS. - In carrying out subsection (a), the Administrator may not conduct any experiments that produce a nuclear yield. ----- What the Heck?! This appears as an unnecessary action by Congress. Did one of the Lab Directors corner some overworked congressional staffer at a cocktail party and say; "Hey, you know what will really help me improve the talent pool working on our weapons? Letting them dream up completely wild eyed guesses as to what a North Korean nuke looks and feels like in person." Or maybe... "Hi there Congressman, that CIA spy over in the corner by the dessert table... oh by the way, definitely you should try the apple caramel tarts... just told me she has some stolen, I mean clandestinely acquired before the Israeli GBU-28 bunker buster we loaned them destroyed the underground floor safe they were in, Iranian nuclear bomb blueprints. Sure would be nice if my lab could try building what they had in mind to see if it would have worked...what do you think?" May 12, 2012 2:43 PM Anonymous Anonymous said... Not the 1st time we've mocked up some strange looking nukes :) May 12, 2012 4:23 PM Anonymous Anonymous said... May 12 4:23 pm is absolutely correct. This is simply a codification of what the NNSA labs have been doing for years. The "prototypes" are used for detection system development, yield estimation, support for intelligence estimates of technological advancement, and aiding attribution if anyone actually achieves a hostile attack on the US or its allies. Of course, we are prohibited already from obtaining nuclear yield from any testing. No big news here. May 12, 2012 9:07 PM

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

whoops! NNSA faces challenges in recruiting young workers

Anonymously contributed: *** NNSA could soon face workforce gaps but struggles to monitor them *** NNSA faces challenges in recruiting young workers May 1, 2012 - By Molly Bernhart Walker The National Nuclear Security Administration and the contractors who operate the national lab sites for NNSA may soon face a workforce shortage, according to an April 26 Government Accountability Office report (.pdf). NNSA's hiring and retention efforts have typically focused on "attracting early career hires with competitive pay and development opportunities," but the positions may not be appealing to today's young workers, say report authors.... read more.... http://www.fiercegovernment.com/story/nnsa-could-soon-face-workforce-gaps-struggles-monitor-them/2012-05-01

Monday, May 7, 2012

Did anyone notice?

Anonymously contributed? Anyone notice an increase of LANL TSMs going on overhead? That 2% retroactive tax on programs to pay for the VSP seems like a huge management mistake.

LLNS Contract discussion

SUGGEST NEW TOPICS HERE

Submit candidates for new topics here only. Stay on topic with National Labs' related issues. All submissions are screened first for ...