DOCSLIB.ORG

Ocontract No. DE-NA0001942 Section J, Appendix A, Page I SECTION J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ocontract No. DE-NA0001942 Section J, Appendix A, Page I SECTION J oContract No. DE-NA0001942 SECTION J APPENDIX A STATEMENT OF WORK (0015, 0018, 0075, 0104) Section J, Appendix A, Page i oContract No. DE-NA0001942 SECTION J APPENDIX A STATEMENT OF WORK Table of Contents CHAPTER I. Objectives, Scope, and Requirements ......................................................................... 1 1.0 OBJECTIVE ........................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 The NNSA Mission ...................................................................................................... 2 2.2 The NNSA Organization .............................................................................................. 2 2.3 Becoming an Enterprise................................................................................................ 2 2.4 Location of Performance .............................................................................................. 3 3.0 SCOPE ................................................................................................................................. 3 3.1 Mission .........................................................................................................................4 3.2 Merging of Operations.................................................................................................. 5 3.3 Scope and Financial Management................................................................................ 5 3.4 Enterprise Success ........................................................................................................ 6 4.0 ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS ........................................... 7 4.1 Integrated Safety Management (ISM), Integrated Safeguards and Security Management (ISSM), Environmental Management System (EMS), and Quality Assurance Systems (QAS)................................................................................................. 7 4.2 Work Authorization (WA) System............................................................................... 7 4.3 Information Technology (IT)........................................................................................ 7 4.4 Governance................................................................................................................... 8 4.5 Contractor Human Resources..................................................................................... 10 4.6 Environmental Permits and Applications................................................................... 10 4.7 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board and Other Government Agencies Support and Liaison....................................................................................................................... 11 4.8 Interfaces with Other Site Users................................................................................. 11 4.9 Privacy Act System of Records .................................................................................. 12 4.10 ....................................................................................................................... Cost Reduction 12 CHAPTER II. Work Scope Structure .............................................................................................. 13 1.0 PROGRAMS...................................................................................................................... 13 1.1 Defense Programs....................................................................................................... 13 1.2 Other NNSA Work ..................................................................................................... 16 1.3 Work for Others/Other Reimbursable Work............................................................... 19 2.0 FUNCTIONAL SUPPORT................................................................................................ 19 2.1 General Support:......................................................................................................... 19 2.2 Mission Support.......................................................................................................... 19 2.3 Site Specific Support................................................................................................... 20 CHAPTER III. Human Resources ................................................................................................... 21 1.0 DEFINITIONS................................................................................................................... 21 2.0 WORKFORCE TRANSITION.......................................................................................... 21 2.1 Staffing Plan ............................................................................................................... 21 2.2 Pay & Benefits............................................................................................................ 21 2.3 Incumbent Employees Right of First Refusal ............................................................. 22 2.4 Advance Understanding on Human Resources........................................................... 22 Section J, Appendix A, Page ii oContract No. DE-NA0001942 3.0 COMPENSATION ................................................................................................................. 23 3.1 Total Compensation System ........................................................................................... 23 3.2 Cash Compensation .................................................................................................... 23 3.2.1 Additional Compensation System Self-Assessment Data ....................................... 24 3.2.2 Proposed Major Compensation Program Design Changes...................................... 24 3.2.3 Annual Compensation Increase Plan (CIP) ............................................................. 24 3.2.4 Compensation Actions for All Key Personnel......................................................... 25 3.2.5 Incentive Compensation Plan .................................................................................. 25 3.2.6 Assignments Outside of Normal Duty Station ........................................................ 26 3.2.7 Contractor’s Total Compensation System ............................................................... 26 3.2.8 Human Resources Plan............................................................................................ 26 3.3 Reports and Information: Compensation .................................................................... 26 4.0 BENEFITS......................................................................................................................... 28 4.1 Assumption of Existing Pension Plan......................................................................... 28 4.2 Reports and Information: Benefits.............................................................................. 30 4.3 Workers’ Compensation ............................................................................................. 30 4.4 Pension Plans .............................................................................................................. 30 4.5 Pension Management Plan.......................................................................................... 35 5.0 LABOR RELATIONS ....................................................................................................... 38 6.0 WORKFORCE PLANNING.............................................................................................. 39 6.1 Workforce Planning - General .................................................................................... 39 6.2 Reductions in Contractor Employment – Workforce Restructuring ........................... 39 CHAPTER IV. Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) ....................................................................... 41 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 41 2.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 41 3.0 ACQUISITION STRATEGY............................................................................................. 41 4.0 ROLES OF THE DESIGN AUTHORITY AND DESIGN AGENT ................................. 41 5.0 DESIGN CODE OF RECORD .......................................................................................... 40 6.0 FUNCTIONALORGANIZATION ................................................................................... 41 7.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................ 41 8.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 42 9.0 PROJECT GOALS AND MILESTONES.......................................................................... 43 10.0 COST REQUIREMENTS.................................................................................................. 44 11.0 PROJECT DELIVERABLES 5) ........................................................................................ 44 Section J, Appendix A, Page iii oContract No. DE-NA0001942 CHAPTER I. Objectives, Scope, and Requirements 1.0 OBJECTIVE The objective of this Contract is to obtain nuclear production services to support National Nuclear
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Weapons Summary Final 5.30.Indd
    Workshop on U.S. Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Management Summary Report November 10, 2011 Summary Report Workshop on U.S. Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Management November 10, 2011 Sponsored by the american association for the advancement of Science, the hudson institute center for political- Military analysis and the Union of concerned Scientists Acknowledgments the center for Science, technology, and Security policy (cStSp) at the american association for the advancement of Science (AAAS) gratefully acknowledges support from the carnegie corporation of New york and the John D. and catherine t. Macarthur Foundation. also, the Union of concerned Scientists (UcS) wishes to thank the colombe Foundation, the David and katherine Moore Family Foundation, inc., the ploughshares Fund, and the prospect hill Foundation for their sustaining support. summaRy RepoRt: WoRkShop oN U.S. N UcleaR Weapons Stockpile Ma NageMeNt | i Introduction on November 10, 2011, the center for Science, technology, and Security policy at the american association for the advancement of Science (AAAS), the hudson institute center for political- Military analysis and the Union of concerned Scientists (UcS) hosted a workshop to discuss the future of the Department of energy’s stockpile management program.1 the meeting was unclassified and off the record.t o allow free discussion, it was carried out under the chatham house Rule in which statements made during the meeting (such as those reported here) can be cited but not attributed to individual speakers. in addition to those from
    [Show full text]
  • 1958 Geneva Conference on the Discontinuation of Nuclear Weapons
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Presidential Decisions on Stockpile Stewardship Test-Based Stewardship and the Cold War Transitioning to Stockpile Stewardship Science: Research, Development, and Technology Deterrence and the Life Extension Program Global Nuclear Security Timeline of U.S. Stockpile Stewardship Innovation The Path Forward Today, I am announcing my “decision to negotiate a true zero-yield comprehensive test ban.” U.S. President Bill Clinton, August 11, 1995 The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994 (P.L. 103-160) estab- lished the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) to sustain the nuclear deterrent in the absence of nuclear explosive testing. The SSP supports U.S. national security missions through leading-edge scientific, engineering, and technical tools and expertise – a U.S. response to the end of the Cold War and the need to remake the global nuclear landscape. One year later, on August 11, 1995, Presi- dent Bill Clinton announced that the United States would support a “zero yield” Compre- hensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT): “I am assured by the Secretary of Energy and the Directors of our nu- clear weapons labs that we can meet the challenge of maintaining our nuclear deterrent under a Compre- hensive Test-Ban Treaty through a Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship program without nuclear testing.” This year, the Nation and the Department of Energy (DOE) celebrate the 20th anniver- sary of that announcement and the scientific and technical capabilities that have devel- oped to support this policy direction. The national investment in stockpile stewardship has enabled resolution of many stockpile issues and provided more detailed knowledge than what could have been attained through nuclear explosive testing.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Weapons Technology 101 for Policy Wonks Bruce T
    NUCLEAR WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY FOR POLICY WONKS NUCLEAR WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 101 FOR POLICY WONKS BRUCE T. GOODWIN BRUCE T. GOODWIN BRUCE T. Center for Global Security Research Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory August 2021 NUCLEAR WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 101 FOR POLICY WONKS BRUCE T. GOODWIN Center for Global Security Research Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory August 2021 NUCLEAR WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 101 FOR POLICY WONKS | 1 This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in part under Contract W-7405-Eng-48 and in part under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. The views and opinions of the author expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. ISBN-978-1-952565-11-3 LCCN-2021907474 LLNL-MI-823628 TID-61681 2 | BRUCE T. GOODWIN Table of Contents About the Author. 2 Introduction . .3 The Revolution in Physics That Led to the Bomb . 4 The Nuclear Arms Race Begins. 6 Fission and Fusion are "Natural" Processes . 7 The Basics of the Operation of Nuclear Explosives. 8 The Atom . .9 Isotopes . .9 Half-life . 10 Fission . 10 Chain Reaction . 11 Critical Mass . 11 Fusion . 14 Types of Nuclear Weapons . 16 Finally, How Nuclear Weapons Work . 19 Fission Explosives . 19 Fusion Explosives . 22 Staged Thermonuclear Explosives: the H-bomb . 23 The Modern, Miniature Hydrogen Bomb . 25 Intrinsically Safe Nuclear Weapons . 32 Underground Testing . 35 The End of Nuclear Testing and the Advent of Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship . 39 Stockpile Stewardship Today . 41 Appendix 1: The Nuclear Weapons Complex .
    [Show full text]
  • Sidney D. Drell Papers
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt0g5030h6 No online items Register of the Sidney D. Drell papers Finding aid prepared by Beth Goder Hoover Institution Library & Archives © 2012, 2021 434 Galvez Mall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-6003 [email protected] URL: http://www.hoover.org/library-and-archives Register of the Sidney D. Drell 80074 1 papers Title: Sidney D. Drell papers Date (inclusive): 1945-2017 Collection Number: 80074 Contributing Institution: Hoover Institution Library & Archives Language of Material: English . Physical Description: 62 manuscript boxes, 2 oversize boxes, 2 oversize folders(33.0 Linear Feet) Abstract: Speeches and writings, notes, correspondence, memoranda, reports, studies, and printed matter relating to scientific and technological aspects of United States national security and intelligence issues, including nuclear weapons, nuclear stockpile management, satellite reconnaissance, biological and chemical warfare issues, and terrorism issues. Also includes material relating to the dissident Soviet physicist Andreĭ Sakharov, and to efforts on his behalf by Western scientists. Includes writings and letters by Sakharov. Hoover Institution Archives Access The collection is open for research; materials must be requested at least two business days in advance of intended use. Publication Rights For copyright status, please contact the Hoover Institution Archives. Acquisition Information Acquired by the Hoover Institution Archives in 1980, with increments received in 1981 and 2016. Accruals Materials may have been added to the collection since this finding aid was prepared. To determine if this has occurred, find the collection in Stanford University's online catalog at https://searchworks.stanford.edu . Materials have been added to the collection if the number of boxes listed in the online catalog is larger than the number of boxes listed in this finding aid.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges Facing Stockpile Stewardship in the Second Nuclear Age
    Challenges Facing Stockpile Stewardship in the Second Nuclear Age WELCOME to this issue of National Security Science. is issue is in celebration of the rst Los Alamos Primer lectures, which took place 71 years ago in the spring of 1943. ese lectures were held in conjunction with the start-up of “Project Y,” which was part of the Manhattan Project. Project Y would eventually become Los Alamos National Laboratory. e U.S. entry into the Atomic Age had been slow and cautious. But when the United States entered World War II and faced the carnage of the war, ghting and genocide had already claimed millions of lives. Obtaining the bomb before Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan was imperative. e brightest students (their average age was 24) were recruited from the nation’s best colleges and universities. ey were joined by other recruits: some of the world’s preeminent scientists—for example, Enrico Fermi, Hans Bethe, Edward Teller, and Stanislaw Ulam—many of them refugees from Nazi Germany. e recruits were told very little other than that their work might bring an end to the war. ey were given one-way train tickets to the tiny town of Lamy, New Mexico, just south of Santa Fe. ere they were met by government agents and spirited away to an undisclosed location in the mountains northwest of Santa Fe. e youthful recruits, soon to become the world’s rst nuclear weapons scientists and engineers, knew little about nuclear energy and nothing at all about making an atomic bomb. J. Robert Oppenheimer tasked his Berkeley protégé, Robert Serber, with immediately laying the necessary intellectual groundwork for the arriving scientists.
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2021 Congressional Budget Request
    DOE/CF-0161 Volume 1 Department of Energy FY 2021 Congressional Budget Request National Nuclear Security Administration Federal Salaries and Expenses Weapons Activities Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Naval Reactors February 2020 Office of Chief Financial Officer Volume 1 DOE/CF-0161 Volume 1 Department of Energy FY 2021 Congressional Budget Request National Nuclear Security Administration Federal Salaries and Expenses Weapons Activities Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Naval Reactors February 2020 Office of Chief Financial Officer Volume 1 Printed with soy ink on recycled paper FY 2021 Congressional Budget Request Volume 1 Table of Contents Page Appropriation Account Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Overview .................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Federal Salaries and Expenses .................................................................................................................................................. 69 Weapons Activities .................................................................................................................................................................... 85 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ...........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Stockpile Stewardship at 20 Years
    Stockpile S&TR July/August 2015 Stockpile Stewardship In the two decades since it was established, at 20 Years the nation’s Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program has served as a highly effective tool for maintaining confidence in the U.S. nuclear deterrent. 6 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory S&TR July/August 2015 Stockpile StewardshipStockpile OLLOWING the collapse of the Soviet weapons laboratories (Livermore, Los FUnion and the end of the Cold War, the Alamos, and Sandia national laboratories), United States took a series of bold steps to DOE officials, and congressional leaders. strengthen nuclear nonproliferation. These The new approach relied on advanced steps included halting underground nuclear scientific understanding through a testing, ceasing the development of new combination of theoretical advances, nuclear weapons, reducing the size of the nonnuclear (including subcritical) existing nuclear stockpile, and beginning to experiments, supercomputer simulations, close nonessential elements of the nuclear and enhanced stockpile surveillance—not weapons production complex. In September on additional nuclear testing—to predict, 1996, President Clinton formally announced identify, and correct stockpile problems. his decision to seek a Comprehensive A key architect of the fledgling Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and program, DOE’s Assistant Secretary for directed the Department of Energy (DOE) Defense Programs Vic Reis, addressed to take the required actions for sustaining Livermore employees in October 1995 confidence in the stockpile without nuclear to discuss the ambitious effort. Reis told testing. Thus, the Stockpile Stewardship employees the “awesome responsibility” and Management Program was formally for decisions regarding the safety and established to maintain the safety, security, reliability of the nation’s nuclear weapons and reliability of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Is Available on the UCS Website At
    Making Smart Security Choices The Future of the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex Making Smart SecurityChoices The Future of the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex Lisbeth Gronlund Eryn MacDonald Stephen Young Philip E. Coyle III Steve Fetter OCTOBER 2013 Revised March 2014 ii UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS © 2013 Union of Concerned Scientists All rights reserved Lisbeth Gronlund is a senior scientist and co-director of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) Global Security Program. Eryn MacDonald is an analyst in the UCS Global Security Program. Stephen Young is a senior analyst in the UCS Global Security Program. Philip E. Coyle III is a senior science fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. Steve Fetter is a professor in the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland. The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet’s most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. More information about UCS and the Global Security Program is available on the UCS website at www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security. The full text of this report is available on the UCS website at www.ucsusa.org/smartnuclearchoices. DESIGN & PROductiON DG Communications/www.NonprofitDesign.com COVER image Department of Defense/Wikimedia Commons Four B61 nuclear gravity bombs on a bomb cart at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. Printed on recycled paper. MAKING SMART SECURITY CHOICES iii CONTENTS iv Figures iv Tables v Acknowledgments 1 Executive Summary 4 Chapter 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) Program Update
    Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) Program Update Presented to: NAS Meeting of the Board on Physics and Astronomy By: Michael E. Donovan, Ph.D. Acting Assistant Deputy Administrator for Inertial Confinement Fusion and the NIF Project National Nuclear Security Administration April 25, 2008 Mission and Strategic Objectives of the ICF Program Mission: Provide the experimental capabilities and scientific understanding in high energy density physics to maintain a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile without underground testing. Strategic Objectives: • Achieve thermonuclear ignition in the laboratory and develop it as a scientific tool for stockpile stewardship. • Support execution of high energy density physics experiments necessary to provide advanced assessment capabilities for stockpile stewardship. • Develop advanced science and technology capabilities that support the long-term needs of stockpile stewardship. • Maintain a robust national program infrastructure and attract scientific talent to stockpile stewardship. 2 Key Points • The nuclear weapon complex is undergoing major changes (Complex Transformation Office created within NNSA) that result in budgetary pressures within the program • Inertial fusion and high energy density physics are key elements of stockpile stewardship ― High Energy Density Laboratory Plasma experiments (HEDLP) provide integrated test of advanced simulation codes • Highest priority for ICF Program is NIF completion and execution of ignition experiments (National Ignition Campaign) starting in FY2010
    [Show full text]
  • The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program: Background and Current Developments
    Order Code RL32929 The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program: Background and Current Developments Updated May 11, 2007 Jonathan Medalia Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program: Background and Current Developments Summary Most current U.S. nuclear warheads were built in the 1970s and 1980s and are being retained longer than was planned. Yet they deteriorate and must be maintained. To correct problems, a Life Extension Program (LEP), part of a larger Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP), replaces components. Modifying some components would require a nuclear test, but the United States has observed a test moratorium since 1992 so LEP rebuilds these components as closely as possible to original specifications. With this approach, the Secretaries of Defense and Energy have certified stockpile safety and reliability for the past 11 years without nuclear testing. In the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress provided $9 million to initiate the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program. The program trades key Cold War features such as high yield and low weight to gain features more valuable now, such as lower cost, greater ease of manufacture, and a further increase in use control. It plans to make these improvements by designing replacement warheads that would not add military capability. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which operates the U.S. nuclear weapons program, views RRW as part of a comprehensive plan that would also modernize the nuclear weapons complex (the Complex), avoid nuclear testing, and reduce non-deployed weapons. The Nuclear Weapons Council, a joint NNSA-Department of Defense organization that coordinates nuclear weapons matters, conducted a competition for an RRW design, with the winning design selected in March 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Stockpile Stewardship
    Experiments, Simulations, Accomplishments Theory Key to Confidence Despite stiff technical challenges, stockpile stewardship has worked exceedingly Since 1992, scientists no longer confirm well, thanks to an expert workforce; advances in theory and understanding of how the performance of America’s nuclear nuclear weapons work and the aging mechanisms that can degrade performance arsenal by conducting explosive tests and safety; investments in world-class experimental facilities such as the National underground at the Nevada Test Site. Ignition Facility (NIF) and the Contained Firing Facility (CFF); advances in materials Instead, scientists ensure the continuing and manufacturing; and development of new generations of supercomputers, safety, security, and effectiveness of including Sierra, the second-fastest computing system in the world. LLNL’s many America’s nuclear stockpile through the advances and accomplishments include these: National Nuclear Security Administration’s In 2018 LLNL completed Cycle 23 of the annual stockpile assessment. As part (NNSA’s) science-based Stockpile of this extensive process, the nuclear design laboratories (Lawrence Livermore Stewardship Program. Established in and Los Alamos) conduct peer reviews of each other’s weapon systems. 1994, this program comprises surveillance, advanced simulations, scientific and LLNL high-explosives experts have pioneered the use of insensitive high engineering experiments, materials explosives (IHEs), which greatly lessens the possibility of accidental detonation. research, and refurbishment. As part of stockpile stewardship, LLNL scientists LLNL is making excellent progress in the LEP for the W80-4 warhead for the and engineers regularly assess the health Air Force Long-Range Standoff missile. Livermore experts are working closely of the stockpile to inform refurbishment with the Air Force, the two competing contractors for building the missile, and decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex: Overview of Department of Energy Sites
    The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex: Overview of Department of Energy Sites Updated March 31, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45306 SUMMARY R45306 The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex: March 31, 2021 Overview of Department of Energy Sites Amy F. Woolf Responsibility for U.S. nuclear weapons resides in both the Department of Defense Specialist in Nuclear (DOD) and the Department of Energy (DOE). DOD develops, deploys, and operates the Weapons Policy missiles and aircraft that deliver nuclear warheads. It also generates the military requirements for the warheads carried on those platforms. DOE, and its semiautonomous James D. Werner National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), oversee the research, development, Section Research Manager testing, and acquisition programs that produce, maintain, and sustain the nuclear warheads. To achieve these objectives, the facilities that constitute the nuclear weapons complex produce nuclear materials, fabricate nuclear and nonnuclear components, assemble and disassemble nuclear warheads, conduct scientific research and analysis to maintain confidence in the reliability of existing warheads, integrate components with nuclear weapons delivery vehicles, and conduct support operations. The Trump Administration raised concerns about the aging infrastructure of facilities in the nuclear weapons complex. The Obama Administration had proposed, and Congress had funded, budget increases for these facilities during the 2010s. Nevertheless, the Trump Administration argued, in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, that “the United States has not pursued the investments needed to ensure that the infrastructure has the capacity to not only maintain the current nuclear stockpile but also to respond to unforeseen technical or geopolitical developments.” The Trump Administration then proposed, and Congress appropriated, significant additional increases in funding for the nuclear weapons complex.
    [Show full text]