DOCSLIB.ORG

Review of the University of California's

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Review of the University of California's REVIEW OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA’S MANAGEMENT CONTRACT FOR LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MAY 1, 2003 Serial No. 108–14 Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:33 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6011 Sfmt 6011 87736.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:33 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6011 Sfmt 6011 87736.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 REVIEW OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA’S MANAGEMENT CONTRACT FOR LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:33 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 87736.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:33 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 87736.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 REVIEW OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA’S MANAGEMENT CONTRACT FOR LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MAY 1, 2003 Serial No. 108–14 Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 87–736PDF WASHINGTON : 2003 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:33 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 87736.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan JOE BARTON, Texas Ranking Member FRED UPTON, Michigan HENRY A. WAXMAN, California CLIFF STEARNS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio RALPH M. HALL, Texas JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania RICK BOUCHER, Virginia CHRISTOPHER COX, California EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York NATHAN DEAL, Georgia FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey RICHARD BURR, North Carolina SHERROD BROWN, Ohio Vice Chairman BART GORDON, Tennessee ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky PETER DEUTSCH, Florida CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming ANNA G. ESHOO, California JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois BART STUPAK, Michigan HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, GENE GREEN, Texas Mississippi KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri VITO FOSSELLA, New York TED STRICKLAND, Ohio ROY BLUNT, Missouri DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado STEVE BUYER, Indiana LOIS CAPPS, California GEORGE RADANOVICH, California MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania TOM ALLEN, Maine MARY BONO, California JIM DAVIS, Florida GREG WALDEN, Oregon JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois LEE TERRY, Nebraska HILDA L. SOLIS, California ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey MIKE ROGERS, Michigan DARRELL E. ISSA, California C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho DAN R. BROUILLETTE, Staff Director JAMES D. BARNETTE, General Counsel REID P.F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania, Chairman MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida PETER DEUTSCH, Florida CLIFF STEARNS, Florida Ranking Member RICHARD BURR, North Carolina DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire JIM DAVIS, Florida GREG WALDEN, Oregon JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois Vice Chairman HENRY A. WAXMAN, California MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois MIKE ROGERS, Michigan JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana (Ex Officio) (Ex Officio) (II) 2 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:33 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 87736.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 C O N T E N T S Page Testimony of: Atkinson, Richard C., President, University of California ............................ 60 Brooks, Hon. Linton F., Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Acting Administrator for Nuclear Security, National Nuclear Security Admin- istration, U.S. Department of Energy ......................................................... 9 Darling, Bruce B., Senior Vice President, University Affairs, Interim Vice President for Laboratory Management, University of California; Accompanied by Anne Broome, Vice President for Financial Manage- ment, University of California; and Patrick Reed, University Auditor, University of California ................................................................................ 64 Friedman, Gregory H., Inspector General, U.S. Department of Energy ...... 43 McSlarrow, Hon. Kyle E., Deputy Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy ....................................................................................................... 8 (III) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:33 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 87736.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:33 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 87736.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 REVIEW OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFOR- NIA’S MANAGEMENT CONTRACT FOR LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m., in room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James C. Greenwood (chairman) presiding. Members present: Representatives Greenwood, Walden, Tauzin (ex officio), Deutsch, and Schakowsky. Also present: Representatives Radanovich, Markey, Eshoo, Stu- pak, and Udall. Staff present: Ann Washington, majority counsel; Michael Geffroy, majority counsel; Yong Choe, legislative clerk; and Edith Holleman, minority counsel. Mr. GREENWOOD. Good morning. This hearing of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Energy and Com- merce Committee will come to order. We welcome our witnesses and our guests, and the Chair recognizes himself for the purpose of an opening statement. The subcommittee meets today for the third time this year to hear testimony related to the management situation at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Currently operated by the University of Cali- fornia, the lab is one of the Nation’s premiere research facilities on matters critical to our safety and security. Yet, as we have learned in the course of our investigation, the lab has also been a premiere site of serious property mismanagement and even theft. Our February and March hearings concentrated on concerns raised by current and former lab employees about lab procurement and property management systems. I believe the issues identified at those hearings as well as the continued diligence of this com- mittee prompted the unprecedented Department of Energy an- nouncement yesterday that forms the backdrop to this hearing. The DOE announced its decision to put the Los Alamos contract up for competition for the first time in the lab’s 60-year history. This deci- sion is long overdue and one that members of this committee on a bipartisan basis have been calling for for many years. The University of California has operated Los Alamos under con- tract with DOE since 1943. At no time during its long reign as op- erator of the facility has UC ever been faced with the possibility (1) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:33 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 87736.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 2 of having to compete for this privilege. Given the length of time UC operated without the threat of competition, it appears that it has been lulled into a state of irresponsible complacency. Let me add that progress has been made to improve the situa- tion. The university has become much more involved in the daily operations of the lab in the past 6 months, and I am pleased with some of its efforts to get lab management back on track by replac- ing much of the senior staff, but it remains to be seen if those ef- forts will effect any meaningful change at the lab. We heard at our last hearing from Joe Salgado, the former prin- cipal deputy director of the lab, who said that Federal money was treated like monopoly money, which is hardly a description of the kind of fiduciary responsibility expected and required of DOE con- tractors. The lab argues that the amount of identified abuse of Federal money is just a drop in the bucket when compared to the lab’s budget as a whole, and that perhaps is why the abuses have not garnered the required attention. I appreciate the point, but this multibillion dollar facility is operated on taxpayers’ money, and as a steward of that money for the American public I am not com- fortable with that explanation. As I have said before, when this same lab is responsible for safeguarding not only taxpayer money but the Nation’s most sensitive nuclear secrets there is little room for error. So I salute the Department’s decision to compete this contract, to identify the best administrator for the lab. These are steps that the prior administration and prior secretaries have been too afraid to take, even in the face of repeated scandal and repeated promises of reform. In the testimony today we will hear from both the De- partment and the university on factors associated with this deci- sion and exactly what will be sought in the competitive process. On our first panel we will hear from Deputy Secretary of Energy Kyle McSlarrow and Ambassador Linton Brooks of the National Nuclear Security Administration. These gentlemen have been in- volved in the decision to compete the contract, and they will ex- plain their rationale for their decision. I look forward to their testi- mony and to learning how DOE will improve its own oversight of UC or its successor. Next we will hear from the DOE Inspector General, the Honor- able Greg Friedman.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Winter 2020 Full Issue
    Naval War College Review Volume 73 Number 1 Winter 2020 Article 1 2020 Winter 2020 Full Issue The U.S. Naval War College Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation Naval War College, The U.S. (2020) "Winter 2020 Full Issue," Naval War College Review: Vol. 73 : No. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol73/iss1/1 This Full Issue is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Naval War College: Winter 2020 Full Issue Winter 2020 Volume 73, Number 1 Published by U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons, 2020 1 Naval War College Review, Vol. 73 [2020], No. 1, Art. 1 Cover Two modified Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) Block IV interceptors are launched from the guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70) during a Missile Defense Agency (MDA) test to intercept a short-range ballistic-missile target, conducted on the Pacific Missile Range Facility, west of Hawaii, in 2008. The SM-2 forms part of the Aegis ballistic-missile defense (BMD) program. In “A Double-Edged Sword: Ballistic-Missile Defense and U.S. Alli- ances,” Robert C. Watts IV explores the impact of BMD on America’s relationship with NATO, Japan, and South Korea, finding that the forward-deployed BMD capability that the Navy’s Aegis destroyers provide has served as an important cement to these beneficial alliance relationships.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of the U.S. Navy's Maritime Strategy
    U.S. Naval War College U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons Newport Papers Special Collections 2004 The Evolution of the U.S. Navy's Maritime Strategy John B. Hattendorf Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/usnwc-newport-papers Recommended Citation Hattendorf, John B., "The Evolution of the U.S. Navy's Maritime Strategy" (2004). Newport Papers. 20. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/usnwc-newport-papers/20 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Special Collections at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Newport Papers by an authorized administrator of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NAVAL WAR COLLEGE NEWPORT PAPERS 19 N A The Evolution of the U.S. Navy’s V AL Maritime Strategy, 1977–1986 W AR COLLEGE NE WPOR T P AP ERS N ES AV T A A L T W S A D R E C T I O N L L U E E G H E T R I VI IBU OR A S CT MARI VI 1 9 John B. Hattendorf, D. Phil. Cover This perspective aerial view of Newport, Rhode Island, drawn and published by Galt & Hoy of New York, circa 1878, is found in the American Memory Online Map Collections: 1500–2003, of the Library of Congress Geography and Map Division, Washington, D.C. The map may be viewed at http://hdl.loc.gov/ loc.gmd/g3774n.pm008790 The Evolution of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 062812 National Defense Industrial Association, Air
    062812 NATIONAL DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION, AIR FORCE ASSOCIATION AND RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION CAPITOL HILL BREAKFAST FORUM WITH LINTON BROOKS, SENIOR ADVISER AT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS, U.S.-RUSSIAN ARMS CONTROL, CHINESE NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND STRATEGIC STABILITY (For additional information on NDIA/AFA/ROA seminars contact Peter Huessy at [email protected]). [This is a rush, unofficial transcript provided by National Security Reports.] MR. PETER HUESSY: I want to thank you all for being here this morning. My name is Peter Huessy and on behalf of ROA, NDIA and AFA, I want to thank you for being here this morning to hear from our friend Linton Brooks. Frank Miller cannot be here today. For those of you who haven’t heard, his son passed away suddenly last weekend and was unable to be here. And we send – all of you I wish send your condolences to Frank and his wife. Just a couple of announcements. I want to thank also our friends from the Russian and British embassies that are here today. We do have one new speaker, and that is Secretary Donley of the Air Force, who will speak on July 25th. And the rest of the schedule stays as it is. We have four events the week after July 4th, so please let us know if you’d like to attend. Many of you know Linton Brooks. And, of course, he needs no introduction. But as Dr. Kissinger once said to me when I had the honor of introducing him, he said, “Peter, I like introductions,” especially when they’re as lengthy as they are for Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Report 4 on Tracking and Assessing Governance and Management Reform in the Nuclear Security Enterprise
    Report 4 on Tracking and Assessing Governance and Management Reform in the Nuclear Security Enterprise Panel to Track and Assess Governance and Management Reform in the Nuclear Security Enterprise Laboratory Assessments Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences A Consensus Study Report of and THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 This activity was supported by Contract No. DOE DE-NA0003381 with the Department of Energy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-67473-7 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-67473-5 Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25730 Copyright 2020 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the National Academy of Public Administration. 2020. Report 4 on Tracking and Assessing Governance and Management Reform in the Nuclear Security Enterprise. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25730. The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation.
    [Show full text]
  • January 20, 2006, Board Letter Forwarding
    A.J. Eggenberger, Chairman DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES Joseph F. Bader John E. Mansfield SAFETY BOARD 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20004-2901 (202) 694-7000 January 20, 2006 The Honorable Samuel W. Bodman Secretary of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585-1000 .Dear Secretary Bodman: In its response to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (Board) Recommendation 2004-1, Oversight of Complex, High-Hazard Organizations, the Department of Energy (DOE) committed to revitalizing Integrated Safety Management (ISM) with "a set of actions the Department will pursue to re-confirm that ISM will be the foundation of the Department's safety management approach and to address identified weaknesses in implementation ." The enclosed technical report, DNFSB/TECH-36, Integrated Safety Management: The Foundation for an Effective Safety Culture, provides an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the current state of ISM implementation at the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) production plants and laboratories . ISM was established 10 years ago as a new approach to integrating work and safety . The concept was adopted by DOE to enhance safety awareness, upgrade formality of operations, and improve safety performance. However, the potential for this practical safety system to achieve operational excellence and instill a sustainable safety culture has not been fully realized . From the broadest perspective, requirements and mechanisms to implement ISM are established, but implementation of safety management systems varies from site to site . This report examines the current status of the effectiveness of ISM systems at the seven NNSA weapons sites, summarizes failures and good practices, and proposes changes to enhance the effectiveness of ISM.
    [Show full text]
  • The Naval Intelligence Underpinnings of Reagan's Maritime Strategy
    The Journal of Strategic Studies Vol. 28, No. 2, 379 – 409, April 2005 REAGAN’S MARITIME STRATEGY The Naval Intelligence Underpinnings of Reagan’s Maritime Strategy CHRISTOPHER A. FORD AND DAVID A. ROSENBERG Maritime Strategy, Office of Naval Intelligence, Operational Intelligence, OPINTEL ABSTRACT Washington’s so-called Maritime Strategy, which sought to apply US naval might against Soviet vulnerabilities on its maritime flanks, came to full fruition during the 1980s. The strategy, which witnessed a major buildup of US naval forces and aggressive exercising in seas proximate to the USSR, also explicitly targeted Moscow’’s strategic missile submarines with the aim of pressuring the Kremlin during crises or the early phases of global war. Relying on a variety of interviews and newly declassified documents, the authors assert that the Maritime Strategy represents one of the rare instances in history when intelligence helped lead a nation to completely revise its concept of military operations. KEY WORDS: U.S. Navy, Maritime Strategy, Office of Naval Intelligence, Operational Intelligence, Ocean Surveillance Information System (OSIS) Writing meaningfully about lessons from the role of intelligence in the Cold War is exceedingly difficult.1 The Cold War decades are ‘arguably the most interesting and certainly the most expensive’ in the history of US naval intelligence, but they remain heavily ‘shrouded in classifica- tion and . .may be at the most risk for [historical] preservation’.2 The many triumphs of US technical intelligence during the Cold War produced some remarkably good information about the capabilities and status of the Soviet armed forces. US Naval Intelligence, particularly operational intelligence (Opintel) and the institutions and analytical mindset it created, played a critical role in Cold War naval Correspondence Email: [email protected] ISSN 0140-2390 Print/ISSN 1743-937X Online/05/020379-31 # 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd DOI: 10.1080/01402390500088627 380 Christopher A.
    [Show full text]
  • Debating 21St Century Nuclear Issues Owen C.W
    DEBATING 21ST CENTURY DEBATING 21ST CENTURY N NUCLEAR ISSUES U C LEAR I SSUES PRI C E AN D M A C KBY OWEN C.W. PRICE AND JENIFER MACKBY Center for Strategic and International Studies 1800 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006 EDITORS Tel: (202)887-0200 Fax: (202) 775-3199 Web: www.csis.org CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES DEBATING 21ST CENTURY NUCLEAR ISSUES OWEN C.W. PRICE AND JENIFER MACKBY EDITORS CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES WASHINGTON, D.C. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) seeks to advance global security and prosperity in an era of economic and political transformation by providing strategic insights and practical policy solutions to decisionmakers. CSIS serves as a strategic planning partner for the government by conducting research and analysis and developing policy initiatives that look into the future and antici- pate change. Our more than 25 programs are organized around three themes: Defense and Security Policy—With one of the most comprehensive programs on U.S. defense policy and international security, CSIS proposes reforms to U.S. de- fense organization, defense policy, and the defense industrial and technology base. Other CSIS programs offer solutions to the challenges of proliferation, transna- tional terrorism, homeland security, and post-conflict reconstruction. Global Challenges—With programs on demographics and population, energy security, global health, technology, and the international financial and economic system, CSIS addresses the new drivers of risk and opportunity on the world stage. Regional Transformation—CSIS is the only institution of its kind with resident experts studying the transformation of all of the world’s major geographic regions.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Issues 2014 WINTER CONFERENCE December 9-10, 2014 Key Contacts
    Project on Nuclear Issues 2014 WINTER CONFERENCE December 9-10, 2014 Key Contacts: Clark Murdock Senior Adviser and PONI Director Offi ce: 202.775.3182 Fax: 202.775.3199 [email protected] Sarah Minot Program Coordinator and Research Associate Project on Nuclear Issues Offi ce: 202.741.3878 Fax: 202.775.3199 [email protected] Cover photo: B-52 Stratofortress at Royal Air Force Force Fairford, England on June 11, 2014. Photographer: Sta Sgt. Nick Wilson http://www.af.mil/news/photos.aspx?igphoto=2000804026 Dear Winter Conference Participants Since 2003, the PONI conference series has provided a forum for rising experts in the field to advance the debate on nuclear issues by presenting insights from their independent research and their professional experiences. PONI conferences are unique in the high value they place on featuring the next generation of nuclear experts, as discussion panels feature some of the best and brightest graduate students, post-docs, and young professionals. PONI holds three regional conferences per year and a year-end capstone event that includes selected presentations from the preceding three. Today’s event marks the third conference of the 2014-15 PONI Conference Series, which will conclude with the Capstone Conference on March 4, 2015 at U.S. Strategic Command, Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, Nebraska. Through panel presentations, expert keynotes, group discussions, and a crisis simulation, we believe this conference will enrich the conversation over nuclear issues and help develop the next generation of nuclear experts. Please remember that all proceedings at the conference are strictly off-the-record.
    [Show full text]
  • Dnfsb/Tech-36
    A.J. Eggenberger, Chairman DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES Joseph F. Bader John E. Mansfield SAFETY BOARD 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20004-2901 (202) 694-7000 January 20, 2006 The Honorable Samuel W. Bodman Secretary of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585-1000 .Dear Secretary Bodman: In its response to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (Board) Recommendation 2004-1, Oversight of Complex, High-Hazard Organizations, the Department of Energy (DOE) committed to revitalizing Integrated Safety Management (ISM) with "a set of actions the Department will pursue to re-confirm that ISM will be the foundation of the Department's safety management approach and to address identified weaknesses in implementation ." The enclosed technical report, DNFSB/TECH-36, Integrated Safety Management: The Foundation for an Effective Safety Culture, provides an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the current state of ISM implementation at the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) production plants and laboratories . ISM was established 10 years ago as a new approach to integrating work and safety . The concept was adopted by DOE to enhance safety awareness, upgrade formality of operations, and improve safety performance. However, the potential for this practical safety system to achieve operational excellence and instill a sustainable safety culture has not been fully realized . From the broadest perspective, requirements and mechanisms to implement ISM are established, but implementation of safety management systems varies from site to site . This report examines the current status of the effectiveness of ISM systems at the seven NNSA weapons sites, summarizes failures and good practices, and proposes changes to enhance the effectiveness of ISM.
    [Show full text]
  • NUCLEAR Unwasted NUCLEAR Unwasted NEWS
    N ational Conference of State Legislatures NUCLEAR unWASTEd NEWS A QUATERLY S UMMARY OF GENERATION, TRANSPORTATION, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL ISSUES JANUARY - MARCH 2007 V OL. 2, NO . 1 Headline State Legislation on Radioactive Waste 3/05 Several states have taken up legislation this year on radioactive waste issues, particularly in the areas of transportation and storage. Three bills are highlighted here because of their national implications and their history of attempted passage. Missouri - HB252 Representative Edward Robb introduced this bill on January 4, which would require all entities that transport radioactive waste through Missouri be assessed a fee and provide notification of the shipment. Universities would be excluded from the fee, but would need to reimburse the Department of Transportation for costs associated with shipment escorts. Military or national defense shipments would be exempt from the fees and notification require- ments. The general fee structure would include: • By truck - $1,800 for each cask of high-level radioactive waste (HLW), transuranic waste (TRU), spent nuclear fuel (SNF), and highway route controlled quantities (HRCQ). Subject to a $25/mile surcharge for every mile over 200 miles traveled within the state. • By rail - $1,300 for the first cask and $125 for each additional cask of HLW, TRU, SNF for each rail transport. • $125 for each truck or train transporting low-level radioactive waste (LLW). The Department of Natural Resources could accept an annual shipment fee as negotiated with shipper or accept payment per transport or shipment. Any shipper who failed to pay a fee or provide notice of a shipment to the Department of Natural Resources would be liable for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed 10 times the amount of the original assessed fee.
    [Show full text]
  • Fit for Purpose? the U.S. Strategic Posture in 2030 and Beyond BRAD ROBERTS, EDITOR
    Fit for Purpose? The U.S. Strategic Posture in 2030 and Beyond BRAD ROBERTS, EDITOR Center for Global Security Research Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory October 2020 FIT FOR PURPOSE? THE U.S. STRATEGIC POSTURE IN 2030 AND BEYOND BRAD ROBERTS, EDITOR Center for Global Security Research Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory October 2020 FIT FOR PURPOSE? THE U.S. STRATEGIC POSTURE IN 2030 AND BEYOND | 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 authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. ISBN-978-1-952565-06-9 LCCN-2020919310 LLNL-MI-815397 TID-60097 2 | BRAD ROBERTS FIT FOR PURPOSE? THE U.S. STRATEGIC POSTURE IN 2030 AND BEYOND | 1 Table of Contents About the Authors . 2 Introduction Brad Roberts . 5 The Nuclear Enterprise in the 21st Century William Goldstein . 8 Modernizing the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal: The Road to 2030 and Beyond John R. Harvey . 16 21st Century Deterrence: Hedging with Resilience Sheryl Hingorani . .28 Missile Defense: Fit for What Purpose in 2030? Brad Roberts . 38 Conventional Prompt Strike in 2030 and Beyond Dean Wilkening. 55 The Changing Role of Space in the U.S. Strategic Posture Benjamin Bahney . 65 Toward an Integrated Strategic Deterrent Paul Bernstein . 75 The Tripolar Strategic Balance in 2030 Linton Brooks . .90 Russia’s Assessment of the 2030 Strategic Balance Anya Loukianova Fink.
    [Show full text]
  • S:\KELLI\Forums & Meetings\Deterrence Summit\2015
    Additional Speakers (as of 1/21/2015) Featured Speakers… Steve Erhart, Mgr., Production Office, NNSA Mark Holecek, Mgr., Kansas City, NNSA Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak, Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the U.S. Jim McConnell, Assoc. Administrator for Infrastructure & Operations, NNSA Rose Gottemoeller, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control & Int’l Security Vic Reis, Senior Advisor, U.S. DOE Michael Bennett, Principal Analyst, Nat’l Lieutenant General Frank Klotz (Ret.), Under Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Security Div., Congressional Budget Office Security and Administrator, NNSA Leland Cogliani, Staffer, Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee Vice Admiral Terry Benedict, Director, Strategic Systems Programs, USN Tim Morrison, Majority Staff, House Armed Services Committee Major General Garrett Harencak, Assistant Chief of Staff for Strategic Rob Soofer, Professional Staff Member, Deterrence and Nuclear Integration, USAF Senate Armed Services Committee Leonor Tomero, Minority Counsel, House Don Cook, Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, NNSA Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Drew Walter, Majority Staff, House Armed Anne Harrington, Deputy Administrator, Defense Nuclear Nonprolif., NNSA Services Committee Jonathan Gill, Assistant Director, U.S. GAO Robert Raines, Associate Administrator for Acquisition & Project Mgmt., NNSA Jeffrey Johnson, Chief of Defense Nuclear Security; Associate Administrator for the Bill Goldstein, Director, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory NNSA Office of Defense Nuclear Security Paul Hommert, Director, Sandia National Laboratories Jonathan Medalia, Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy, Congressional Research Charlie McMillan, Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory Service David Trimble, Director, Natural Resources Ambassador Linton Brooks, former Administrator, NNSA and Environment, U.S. GAO Tom D'Agostino, former Administrator, NNSA; Senior Vice President for Penrose ("Parney") C.
    [Show full text]