Saturday's UllrFest

It was a perfect day: mountain biking, beer & music.

Oh, and costumes, dancing, food, and more music. Don't know how the LANS shindig went, but those of us who spent the day at Pajarito Ski Hill had a great day.

--Doug

Click to enlarge.

Tired of Just Moping Around, Reading the Blog?

The big day approaches: UllrFest 09!

Get out of the house this Saturday for UllrFest 09 up on Pajarito Mountain. There will be beer, mountain biking, and music. My friends the Hop Hedz will be playing -- they have a great sound. I may even sit in with them for a set.

--Doug

Click to enlarge

Gone, But Not Forgotten

By request, this comment gets its own post.

--Doug

From the DOE Is Searching For LANL's Budget post:

"The so called "A" students are the reason LANL and the US are in so much trouble. They think they are so smart that the rules do not apply to them. I say to hell with them, no more Ph.ds for LANL, Wall Street or the Pentagon. If you have an "A" average as a college student you should also not be considered for a job since they will think they are so great. The D students as you idiots call them will get things done and do by the rules. The rules are there are a reason people what is so hard to understand about that? If you cannot understand than maybe you are not as smart as you seem."

Pete? Pete Nanos? Is that you, buddy? Hey, you *know* reading the blog is bad for your blood pressure. C'mon now, calm down.

There, better now? How are things at DTRA, BTW? Got all your CREM accounted for? Oh, and be careful using that laser pointer...

DOE Is Searching For LANL's Budget

They found it on the blog, of course. They also appear to be looking for LANL employee salaries, and for insights into our firefighting capabilities. An interesting combination of searches. Planning a fire sale, perhaps?

--Doug

Click to Enlarge

LANS Listens?

LANS survey sez....

For each question, the choices are: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree Nor Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree.

Page 1:

1. I feel well-informed about events, decisions, and other news at the Laboratory.

2. Management cares about my concerns related to Laboratory safety.

3. Career opportunities at the Laboratory are good.

4. The Laboratory provides opportunities regardless of age.

5. The Laboratory is a good place to work.

6. The Laboratory rewards those who contribute most.

7. Employees are treated with respect.

8. The leadership team is working together to advance the Laboratory’s mission.

9. I have confidence in the leadership of the Laboratory.

10. Laboratory managers set good examples.


Page 2:

11. I trust what I read in Lab-wide communications (LANLtoday, Intranet, news releases, etc.)

12. I know the proper channels for reporting my concerns about safety.

13. I am encouraged to find creative solutions to new challenges.

14. The Laboratory provides opportunities regardless of gender.

15. Overall, I like my job.

16. I am committed to the success of the laboratory.

17. Laboratory managers/supervisors consult employees about decisions that affect them.

18. My suggestions about security would be acted upon if I expressed them to management.

19. Favoritism is not an issue in my group.

20. Upward communication is encouraged and enabled in my division.


Page 3:

21. My suggestions about employee safety would be acted upon if I expressed them to management.

22. I am held accountable for my work performance.

23. My supervisor/manager takes appropriate action when workplace concerns are raised to him/her.

24. The Laboratory provides opportunities regardless of race.

25. My work is challenging.

26. I plan to be working here five years from now.

27. Laboratory managers/supervisors have the authority to make decisions related to their own work groups.

28. My morale at work is good.

29. I am valued by the Laboratory.

30. Upward communication is encouraged at the Laboratory.


Page 4:

31. I am encouraged by my supervisors to report any unsecure conditions I observe.

32. I am proud to tell people I work for the Laboratory.

33. The Laboratory supports diversity in the work environment.

34. My work is rewarding.

35. I have a good understanding of the scope and responsibilities of my job.

36. Laboratory managers/supervisors positively motivate others to achieve goals.

37. The morale of my co-workers is good.

38. I believe that action will be taken on the results of this survey.

39. I know the proper channels for reporting my concerns about security.

40. My supervisor treats me fairly.


Page 5:

41. The Laboratory's employee population is diverse.

42. I am satisfied with my overall compensation, including benefits.

43. What do you value most about the Laboratory? (FILL IN TEXT BOX)

44. What do you consider to be the most significant impediment(s) to getting work done at the Laboratory? (FILL IN TEXT BOX)

45. I receive the most useful information about the Laboratory from... (FILL IN TEXT BOX)

---

Mike Anastasio's claim that "morale at LANL is good" will now be put to the test. We'll also soon know if Kevin Roark is correct with his claim that this blog is the platform of only a few employees at the lab who are unhappy with LANS/Bechtel management. We'll know, that is, as long as LANS doesn't hold the results of this survey from staff under the pretense of corporate "proprietary information".

You have two weeks to enter your opinions if you want to be heard. Sheeple need not apply.

-Anonymous

DOE Cares

Please print and post in your workplace.

Comment of the Week

At least once a week we receive a comment that could best be described as one of those foaming-at-the-mouth right-wing political rants. They usually get rejected, much to the outrage of the frustrated blogger wannabe. Lately, though, one or two of these knuckle-draggers have become marginally smart enough to at least tie their rant topic to something, albeit slightly, topical to this blog. Like the NNSA, for example. So I approved one of those gems last night, to which somebody else replied this morning with what shall be our COW for this week.

From the Comment of the Week, Thursday Evening Addition post:

"no one is paying attention"

Really?

Then where did your news article come from? Ahmedinejad-Clause? The nuke fairy?

--Doug

Leaving LANL

This person asked us to post his sentiments about leaving LANL on the blog.

A letter to LANS management:



The Uncaring Director and the BeckZillions have taken over LANL. You now have one less person employed at LANL, so you are closer to your 5% reduction in FTE’S for next year.

You know who you are with your fancy clothes and fancy cars and non management skills.

You have moved here to rape and pillage the land; as soon as it’s destroyed you will move on leaving in your wake those of us that make our homes here to deal with what’s left.

I challenge our nationally elected officials, Senators Bingaman and Udall, Representatives Heinrich, Lujan, Teague and our state officials Wallace and Griego to wake up before Los Alamos National Laboratory is no longer. Come here and really talk to employees not management, find out the real truth.

I terminated (sorry according to management I had to say retired) otherwise it would affect my retirement, a play with words by management. What I really wanted to do after a Gestapo type grilling was terminate my employment and retire, as quickly as I could.

I would have like to have waited for a few more months, but management has other ideas on making life unbearable for employees. Do you think morale will get any lower? I have no doubt that they are out to make life as miserable for employees as they can, and YES it will get lower. My group leader and FLM will never know what a huge favor they did for me.

TODAY IS THE 2^ND DAY OF MY REBIRTH FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE.

The clouds have lifted, the sun is shining brightly and I have no cares. Amazing how quickly the stress level dissipates, although it will take a little while longer. I actually feel like a huge weight has been lifted and I am taller. For the past 2 days my headaches have been less severe and getting better all the time. I have no urgency to my life. Take it as it comes and enjoy. I no longer wear a watch as I don’t have a schedule to keep. I am enjoying my new found life to the fullest, and doing things on my schedule.

To all the above LANS management THANK YOU! You really are the best and brightest, LOOK out for each other and wear your shoes that grip so that you will stay out it front. You really need those big fat bonus checks. A well deserved reward for killing off what was once the Crown Jewel Laboratory of the United States.

To all my friends and LANS employees leave while you still have your health, life really does get better.

Looking forward to many more days in my new found life, I don’t miss you LANS.


Anonymous

Comment of the Week, Thursday Evening Addition

Re: D'Agostino's re-appointment as NNSA head:

I demand to see Tom D'Agostino's birth certificate! Dr. Chu needs to re-count the votes on this awful decision.

'Nuff said.

--Doug

Comment of the Week, Thursday Afternoon Edition

This one grabbed my attention on the LTRS LANS EES (Employee Engagement Survey) post.

Here's our Thursday COW:

Few people seem willing argue against the position that LANL is much worse off now under the NNSA and the for-profit Bechtel-led corporation than it was under DOE and the non-profit contract years (excepting that brief period during the Nanos-led reign of terror, naturally).

The simple fact is that NNSA has been given free reign to do with LANL whatever they choose. The real question is why? I'm betting that military industrial lobbying is the answer. And you'll never lose a bet by following the money.

--Doug

Hippocratic Oath Overruled by Bechtel

Frank,
When Bechtel/LANS took over, doctors and medical providers at Occupational Medicine treated patients to diagnose and heal.

Imported Bechtel managers would tell the medical staff that they needed to reduce the number of “recordable” injuries and were told by same staff that their duty was to their patient and to uphold the Hippocratic Oath. Those were the early days of the transition.

Now, three years later, Occupational Medicine is bringing in an OSHA trainer from Denver to “instruct” them on what makes an injury recordable. This is important because recordable injuries are a metric by which LANS is judged, and which can determine those upper management bonuses.

No longer will an employee be treated to heal and minimize pain, but only in the most minimal method so as to avoid making their injury recordable. Examples include sending employees with serious ergonomic injuries away with instructions to take prevention classes, rather than referring to physical therapy. Physical therapy, you see, is a “trigger” which would make that injury recordable and jeopardize those bonuses.

What to do? Since (some) providers at Occupational Medicine no longer have your healing as a prime motivator, here is some advice.

If you are injured at work, go ahead and report it and go to Occupational Medicine. Expect them to minimize the injury to you and send you away with ibuprofen or some other over the counter medication. You therefore do not become one of their “recordable” cases.

If you are still in pain, or have questions, see your personal health care provider, who is still working to heal you and reduce pain.

Good luck! Remember, Occupational Medicine has become an extension of LANS/Bechtel Management- your wellness is NOT their goal- only their injury/illness statistics.

-Anonymous

Anonymous,
I doubt most contractors know Occupational Medicine exists. I certainly would have gone there before the Los Alamos Medical Center. It has been frustrating having to explain to doctors that TA-55 is not the UFO landing strip in Nevada.
Frank

LTRS LANS EES (Employee Engagement Survey)

Since LANS will be conducting an "Employee Engagement Survey" next month, it might be appropriate to conduct the uncensored version of this same survey here. We'll kick it off with a comment from yesterday's COW post. Here, then is the first question from the LTRS LANS EES (Employment Engagement Survey):

Question #1 on the LANS employee satisfaction survey:

How good of a job is the Director doing in leading this lab?

A) Good

B) Excellent

C) Unbelievably, Amazing, Stupendous!

C) My goodness, this man is super-human! Give him a triple bonus and mail my survey reward to the home address!

And here are a few more:

Comment of the Week, Sunday Morning Edition

A brilliant image of The Future at LANL, as shared with us by a commenter on this week's normal edition of Comment of the Week:

I heard from a friend in the public affairs office that several PR folks from North Korea have been contracted to spearhead a new PR campaign for the Lab. That's why there was a North Korean contingent visiting Governor Bill Richardson recently. He's the one that came up with the idea. The idea is basically to portray Mikey as the "Supreme Director" of a new and improved "Laboratory of the new Millennium." Apparently that's going to be the new lab motto.

So beginning next year Mikey's photo will be displayed strategically across the Lab. As you cross the Los Alamos Bridge the first and last image you'll see will be Mikey's. Right now, as you read this blog, his leadership team (headed by Sir Knight Richard of the Sexual Harassment Order) is in the process of recruiting hundreds of volunteers (loyal Lab employees and spouses of course) to become part of a synchronized dance troop they want trained to perform every June 1st (anniversary of the LANS takeover). They will receive hands on instruction from experienced Olympic event dance choreographers. Dignitaries will be sitting on stands placed on in front of the National Security Building facing the open area between the Resource Library and the Otowi. That area will formally be christened next spring The Sheeple's Mall (pictured at the left).

The children of loyal Lab employees will be carrying long poles with long colored streamers tied to them, waving them back and forth in the wind as their parents dance for the Supreme Director. There will be many political dignitaries on hand to pay homage of course. Displays of mockups of every warhead design ever developed at the Laboratory (whether they worked or not) will line the mall. St. Pete will provide the keynote address of course. Imagine the cheering roar of the masses!

Well if you can’t imagine that, that’s the way my PR friend is imagining it. Sounds a little far fetched but hey, he’s a PR guy. And you know they never lie.

Comment of the Week

I noticed this also, but didn't quite know how to put it into words. A commenter from the Crasher Squirrel post did so succinctly with this contribution:

LANS and NNSA seem to have launched an intense PR campaign to convince the weapon complex employees, media and Congress that they're not the total fuck-ups that they appear to be.

--Doug

TA-35

DNFSB reports are only one page per week and are delayed for weeks. A reader sent this one to me, which describes some of the events at TA-35 last month.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

July 24, 2009

MEMORANDUM FOR: T. J. Dwyer, Technical Director
FROM: B. Broderick and R.T. Davis
SUBJECT: Los Alamos Report for Week Ending July 24, 2009

Emergency Management: On Thursday, LANL conducted its annual full scale emergency exercise. The exercise simulated an explosion in the Beryllium Technology Facility foundry resulting in several worker casualties and a release of Beryllium from the facility. At one point, the exercise had to be paused for several hours when key participants including Los Alamos County Fire Department, LANL Emergency Response and LANL Emergency Management personnel were called away to deal with an actual hazardous material event, discussed below. Work has begun on an exercise after-action report that will analyze performance and identify opportunities for improvement.

Target Fabrication Facility: The event that led to the pause in the full scale exercise occurred at the Target Fabrication Facility, a radiological facility in Technical Area 35. A worker was transferring a nitric acid solution into a shipping container to prepare it for disposition when an unexpected chemical reaction occurred causing reddish fumes to begin evolving from the container. The worker became concerned that an exothermic reaction occurring inside the shipping container could cause it to fail, so he attempted to transfer the reacting solution into a more robust container. During this attempted transfer liquid began to bubble out of the container. At this point the worker left the room and prompted a facility evacuation. The facility evacuation was complicated by the evacuation alarm being out of service. Also, one individual had not been issued a facility emergency notification pager and remained unaware of the situation and inside the facility for a significant period of time.

Incident command decided to order adjacent facilities in TA-50 to shelter-in-place to protect personnel from exposure to any chemical vapors being exhausted from the Target Fabrication Facility through an unfiltered stack. Notification to shelter-in-place does not appear to have been effectively communicated to all impacted TA-50 facilities, including the WCRR repackaging facility.

Ultimately a hazardous materials team made entry into the facility and stabilized the scene. Fourteen workers, including the individual directly involved in the event were transported to Occupational Medicine where they were examined and released without restriction. The direct cause of the chemical reaction that initiated the event is still under investigation. In part due to similarities with the July 8th exothermic chemical reaction event at another TA-35 facility, the Material Science and Technology division has paused operations involving chemicals, pending reviews of work control documents and walkdowns of laboratory spaces where work with chemicals is performed (site rep weekly 7/10/09).

[...]

Pentagon Vetting Could Delay Warhead Modernization Plan

By Elaine M. Grossman, Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Defense Department leaders plan to submit to outside technical review their forthcoming recommendation on how to proceed with nuclear warhead modernization, a process that might delay a decision on the contentious plan until next year, according to a senior official (see GSN, Aug. 18).

Pentagon officials say they are weighing an array of modernization options as part of the congressionally mandated Nuclear Posture Review, a broad assessment of the nation's strategy, forces and readiness due in December.

One alternative could be to continue maintaining the existing stockpile through reuse and refurbishment, officials say. Another might be to replace aging warheads with a newly crafted design aimed at boosting the safety, security and reliability of the stockpile.

Once recommended modernization options have been narrowed down, Pentagon leaders expect to submit them for assessment by outside scientists -- a process that might well extend beyond the due date for the posture review, the defense official said in an interview yesterday. How many months of delay might be involved remains uncertain.

"It's better to understand those considerations in advance, [and] decide if you agree with them or not, rather than to have them come up after the fact," said the senior official, who declined to be identified because of political sensitivities surrounding the posture review.

"It would be preferable if it happens within the NPR" time frame, the senior official told Global Security Newswire.

However, "if the technical details aren't sorted by then," the official said, the posture review might indicate instead: "OK, here's what the basic principles are that should guide where we go in the future, and here are the next decisions that need to be taken, and the next research actions or technical analysis actions that need to be considered."

President Barack Obama's national security team remains deeply divided over how best to maintain the viability of an aging arsenal in the absence of explosive testing. The United States has implemented a moratorium on underground tests since the early 1990s.

While serving as President George W. Bush's defense secretary, Robert Gates advocated building a Reliable Replacement Warhead, but Congress twice rejected funding for the effort. Lawmakers argued that an untested RRW design could actually raise doubts about nuclear-weapon reliability -- potentially harming deterrence -- and undermine Washington's efforts at thwarting nuclear proliferation around the globe.

Now serving a new president, Gates has pushed behind the scenes to revive a "replacement" approach to nuclear arms modernization. Despite growing support for warhead replacement among other Cabinet leaders, Vice President Joseph Biden in June rebuffed the idea, saying it could derail Obama's vision for reducing the role nuclear weapons play worldwide, GSN reported last week.

During the presidential campaign, Obama said he opposed "rushing to produce a new generation of warheads." Once in the Oval Office, the president committed to pursuing the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. For the foreseeable future, though, the United States will "maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal," Obama said during a major address in Prague.

How the president opts to proceed with nuclear warhead modernization is "an issue of great interest -- not just in DOD and DOE -- but across the government," said the senior Pentagon official, referring to the Defense and Energy departments.

Beyond that, "potential adversaries are likely watching closely to see how the new administration balances its security needs and its alliance commitments with the president's goal of global nuclear elimination," Thomas Scheber, a senior Pentagon official during the Bush administration, said yesterday.

"It is somewhat of a schizophrenic Nuclear Posture Review," Hans Kristensen, who directs the Federation of American Scientists' Nuclear Information Project, said at a press briefing yesterday. "The planners are being asked to do, in a way, two very different things. How do you do that?"

Few observers expect Biden's protest to be the last word on the matter.

In fact, the senior official indicated the Nuclear Posture Review would likely regard "replacement" as at least one facet of any effort aimed at extending the lives of today's nuclear warheads.

"The starting point for analysis is that life extension [is] generally understood to include everything -- all the three R's," said the official, referring to warhead reuse, refurbishment and replacement.

A critical distinction is that any replacement parts or warheads would stop short of improving a weapon's military capabilities against a target, and instead would simply enhance its safety, security or reliability, according to the defense official.

"I think warhead replacement ought to be an option available to policy-makers as a last resort in the event of a significant failure in one or more life-extension programs," said Jeffrey Lewis, who directs the New America Foundation's Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative. "That means drawing a bright line" between research aimed at maintaining a replacement option, and "engineering development work to actually exercise it," he said.

The senior defense official noted that the devil is very much in the details of any approach to nuclear modernization.

"I hope we're going to be successful in defining a framework for thinking about the problem," said the official, describing a process of sorting out exactly which initiatives are -- and are not -- technically and politically feasible.

Some "elements" of the modernization framework are in place as the review coalesces, the senior defense official said, but the Pentagon-led assessment has not yet completed its proposal for maintaining the stockpile.

One idea on the table is to introduce "common design elements" across multiple warheads in the arsenal, according to the defense official.

"In the future, we may not always have different warheads for our ICBMs and our SLBMs, in particular," the official told GSN. However, he did not elaborate on the cost or technical reasons for introducing more warhead commonality into the arsenal, or the modernization benefits to be achieved.

The official did say that such an approach "would involve mixing and matching primaries and secondaries" -- the two explosive stages of a thermonuclear weapon -- that were proven functional in past experiments, prior to the moratorium.

"I think everybody agrees that even if you add some safety features and if you improve reliability and take other steps, [and] if you're using existing primaries and secondaries, that would be not a replacement but a reuse," said the official, suggesting this might be a politically palatable approach.

Not everyone would agree.

If one or more components common to warheads across the arsenal were at some point found to be defective, the reliability of a sizable portion of the stockpile might be thrown into question overnight, Kristensen noted. For that reason, the Bush administration emphasized the importance of maintaining "warhead diversity" across the sea, land and air legs of the nuclear triad.

"An untested, modernized warhead would seem to compound the risks of [a common-warhead] strategy," Kristensen told GSN yesterday in an e-mailed response to questions.

The senior defense official conceded "it's possible" that some scientists would raise a red flag on the idea of increasing warhead commonality. However, he said some other initiatives might be undertaken to mitigate the risks of warhead failure in the absence of explosive testing.

One approach might be to mix and match only those parts that have been extensively tested in the past, the official said. Another could be to increase the design margins in modernized warheads, making them less sensitive to small defects and less likely to fail.

The idea of vetting the Nuclear Posture Review's near-final modernization options with the scientific community reflects a lesson learned from the Pentagon's experience in pursuing the Reliable Replacement Warhead, the official said.

"People involved in this [review] have seen what happened with RRW and the fact that, at one moment, there appeared to be a technical consensus that this was the right approach," the official said. "And the next thing you know, you have it picked apart by JASONs and others. And the consensus behind it came apart and it came to be seen as an unnecessary and potentially 'new' weapon."

The JASON group -- an independent panel that frequently advises the U.S. government on scientific and technical matters -- in 2007 raised questions about whether the replacement warhead might run a higher risk of failure than existing designs in today's stockpile. Panel members voiced concerns that the RRW design combined warhead parts that had never been explosively tested in this new configuration (see GSN, Oct. 1, 2007).

The scientific community's worries -- though not universally shared -- led lawmakers to demand further study before they would appropriate funds to develop the new warhead.

"That history is not lost on us," the senior defense official said. "So as we go through and develop an approach and plan -- before we go public with it -- we want to be sure that it will sustain rigorous technical analysis. ... That means getting a second and a third opinion."

"It reaffirms how badly the previous administration got burned on the RRW that [Obama administration officials] are still uncertain about how to approach the modernization question," Kristensen said.

The senior defense official also said it might be impossible to identify a single, proposed modernization solution for each type of warhead in the arsenal before year's end. In such a case, further studies -- apart from the external technical vetting -- might be warranted.

It is "possible" the "NPR will recommend moving forward with a study of different options" for modernization affecting one or more warheads in today's stockpile, the senior defense official said.

Further study "could be as narrow as [considering] how to deal with issues associated with a specific warhead or couple of warheads, or it could be more fundamental," the official added. "If we don't have it all tied up in a bow -- which is very possible -- I think it's more likely to be a somewhat narrow set of questions."

The objective, the official said, would be to winnow down the potential recommendations undergoing further study "as much as possible," while offering "a very firm technical basis for what the NPR is recommending" when it debuts in December, the official said.

Scheber, now vice president of the National Institute for Public Policy, counseled against any significant delays on modernization.

"The can has already been kicked down a long road," he told GSN.

However, one advantage to further putting off a decision on potential replacement options could be "that in a few years, we will have a much better sense of how well the ongoing life-extension programs are going," Lewis said.

The Energy Department, its semiautonomous National Nuclear Security Administration and the national laboratories are providing scientific and technical support for the posture review. These organizations have supported an RRW-type approach in the past, though Kristensen asserted they have used their responsibility to maintain the nuclear stockpile "as an excuse for modernization."

The senior official would not say whether the JASON panel or others would be tapped to perform the external scientific study.

"Given the extremely technical nature of some of the issues that come up, there is not a very large community to which we're going to reach out," said the official.

Kristensen welcomed the concept of an external study, provided that reviewers are given adequate access to nuclear weapon information and data.

However, he argued that the postponement might help advance a replacement-warhead approach by allowing Pentagon officials to unveil the plan after national attention on the Nuclear Posture Review results diminishes, thereby minimizing the potential for renewed controversy.

"The risk is that this is really RRW through the back door," Kristensen said. The Pentagon might build "gradual support for incremental enhancements to individual systems without confronting the Obama pledge [not to build new weapons] head-on," he said.

H1N1 in Los Alamos

According to the author of this comment, the recent outbreak of flu in Los Alamos is H1N1. From the Sick Students post:

After a quick visit to the peds, we got the word that the typing came back as h1n1 and the duration estimate is changed to 5-7 days rather than 3-5.

Good news is that the actual h1n1 flu that we've experienced in our household isn't too severe: fluctuating fevers, body aches, snotty nose and coughing for 3 people in the house so far and all the symptoms seem to be managed well with OTC remedies.

--Doug

Crasher Squirrel

Frank,
The now famous "crasher squirrel" photo has been showing up almost everywhere on the web.

Not to be left out, a recent examination of the latest blog photo of Anastasio indicates he has a little furry friend. The resemblance between the two is uncanny!
-Anonymous

---

Anonymous,
Yes, the resemblance is uncanny. They remind me of a furry version of Dr. Evil and Mini Me.

Another thing they have in common is they both never seem to have enough nuts.
-Frank

Study on Labs' Control Nixed

By John Fleck, Albuquerque Journal Staff Writer

The Obama administration has abandoned a controversial study that could have led to Pentagon control over U.S. nuclear weapons design and manufacturing.

In February, the administration's Office of Management and Budget called for a study of the possibility of moving nuclear weapons work run by the National Nuclear Security Administration, including Los Alamos and Sandia labs, out of the civilian Department of Energy and into the Department of Defense.

But after missing a key study milestone, an Office of Management and Budget spokesman acknowledged Monday that the study will not be done.

The decision to abandon the study, first reported Monday by Global Security Newswire, does not mean the idea of Pentagon control is dead, according to the statement from OMB communications director Ken Baer. But rather than a fast track study, the issue will instead be considered as part of broader discussions of the future of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

"The administration is looking at the most effective positioning for the NNSA," Baer's statement said, "and it very well may be that the best place for the NNSA is exactly where it is now."

In response, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., issued a statement reiterating his belief that putting the labs under military control is a bad idea.

"I do not believe the proposal to move the NNSA to the Department of Defense ever made sense. But I do believe that it's important to examine what steps we can take to ensure NNSA is strengthened and improved," Bingaman said.

The study, called for in an internal Office of Management and Budget memorandum, would have looked at the costs and benefits of taking control of the National Nuclear Security Administration away from the Department of Energy, where it now resides.

In New Mexico, it could have led to the end of six decades of civilian management of Sandia and Los Alamos national labs, which design and maintain nuclear weapons.

Administration officials never commented publicly on their reasons for launching the study, citing the internal nature of the deliberations. But others, including former Sandia National Laboratories Director C. Paul Robinson, said a change would solve management problems with the current system. The agency has faced major projects running over budget and behind schedule, along with a string of embarrassing security incidents.

The first phase of the study was to have been done in early August, with the hope that necessary decisions could be made in time to begin any resulting management changes by 2011. News of the study, first reported by the Journal in February based on an internal Obama administration document, drew intense criticism.

In March, Bingaman and a bipartisan group of senators representing key committees with jurisdiction over the labs, wrote to the administration to express "our firm opposition to the transfer of the NNSA to the Department of Defense."

It was signed by Bingaman, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as well as Bingaman's Republican counterpart on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the leaders of two other key Senate committees with jurisdiction over the nuclear weapons program.

Potential Action on Nuclear Agency Reform Deferred to Year's End

Monday, Aug. 24, 2009
By Elaine M. Grossman, Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- The White House budget office has reversed course on its plan to formally review whether responsibility for the safety, security and reliability of U.S. nuclear weapons should be transferred from the Energy Department to the Defense Department (see GSN, March 19).

Instead, the matter is being considered in interagency discussions and as part of a broader, ongoing Pentagon assessment of nuclear weapon strategy, forces and readiness, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget told Global Security Newswire.

"A formal study hasn't been initiated," Ken Baer, the OMB communications director, said in a written response to questions.

Congressional sources said the initiative to move the nuclear agency appears, at least for now, to have lost momentum.

"The administration's actions speak louder than any words," said one House aide, who was not authorized to address the issue publicly and requested anonymity.

Budget office leaders in early February proposed that the Energy and Defense departments jointly undertake a study on whether to reposition the National Nuclear Security Administration, which has frequently been criticized for ineffective oversight of the nuclear weapons complex (see GSN, Feb. 5).

A so-called OMB "passback memo" asked the two agencies to lead the assessment and brief the budget agency on their preliminary recommendations by Aug. 7, with a final report due Sept. 30.

Since its formation in 2000, the National Nuclear Security Administration has been a semiautonomous agency of the Energy Department. Budgeted at nearly $10 billion for fiscal 2010 and employing thousands of government workers and contracted personnel, its primary responsibility is the management and security of U.S. nuclear weapons and nuclear nonproliferation activities.

However, a number of internal and external reviews over the years have said the agency has not performed as expected.

"The governance structure of the NNSA is not delivering the needed results" and "should be changed," according to the most recent assessment, from the congressionally mandated Strategic Posture Commission.

The bipartisan panel -- led by former Defense Secretaries William Perry and James Schlesinger -- found in May that excessive regulation and micromanagement hampered the national laboratories and other weapons facilities, and contributed to skyrocketing costs.

"It is a testament to our weapon designs in the 1970s and '80s that the weapons are NNSA-proof," said Jeffrey Lewis, who directs the New America Foundation's Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative. "Given the failures that run from the management [of] NNSA down to the labs, it's remarkable that our bombs work at all."

The agency touts its record of achievement, noting on its Web site that the U.S. nuclear stockpile has been annually certified as viable in the absence of underground testing, based on a "wide range of breakthrough science experiments, engineering audits and high-tech computer simulations, including extensive laboratory and flight tests of warhead components and subsystems."

To help thwart nuclear proliferation, NNSA officials have worked "with a wide range of international partners, key U.S. federal agencies, the U.S. national laboratories, and the private sector to detect, secure, and dispose of dangerous nuclear and radiological material, and related WMD technology and expertise" around the world, the organization states (see GSN, June 30).

However, others have criticized the organization for failing to make sufficient progress toward nonproliferation goals.

"There is currently a 15-year backlog of some 4,200 retired [U.S.] nuclear warheads awaiting dismantlement," according to Robert Alvarez of the Institute for Policy Studies, who supports moving the agency to the Defense Department. "Elimination of nuclear weapons continues to have a low priority in the DOE budget."

Despite the concerns about its performance, opposition has arisen to moving the agency to the Defense Department.

After the budget office issued its passback memo, several influential lawmakers demanded that the study be scrapped.

A bipartisan group of five key senators -- including Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) -- on March 18 wrote to OMB Director Peter Orszag saying they seek improvements to a "dysfunctional" relationship between the Energy Department and its nuclear agency.

Still, they argued, shifting responsibility to the Defense Department is not the answer. The senators insisted that control over nuclear weapons remain in nonmilitary hands, calling civilian authority a "cornerstone" of the U.S. approach to atomic arms that has earned the "trust of other nuclear nations."

"For the past 63 years, nonmilitary control over the development of nuclear weapons technology has ensured independence of technical judgment over issues associated with our nuclear arsenal, has attracted the best scientific and technical talent to these important programs, and has served to underline the crucial differences between nuclear weapons and conventional military munitions," according to a discussion paper the senators released with their letter.

The lawmakers said a decision on how to proceed should await the conclusions of the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review, which is to be completed in December.

It appears the senators got their way.

Rather than launch a study specifically focused on shifting the nuclear agency to the Defense Department, Obama administration officials are less formally mulling an array of alternatives for how to accomplish NNSA missions and functions more effectively, sources said.

"The Nuclear Posture Review is examining many of the issues involved," Baer said. "Other questions will be addressed through ongoing agency discussions."

Budget office officials declined to specify what additional questions remain under consideration. However, no decisions on the matter are expected prior to completion of the Nuclear Posture Review.

In the process, Baer said, "the administration is looking at the most effective positioning for the NNSA, and it very well may be that the best place for the NNSA is exactly where it is now."

A White House decision not to include any funds for shifting the nuclear agency in its fiscal 2010 budget request -- delivered to Capitol Hill in May -- suggests that the idea "is either on the back burner or dead," the House aide said.

An NNSA spokesman had no comment, referring all questions to the White House budget office.

However, NNSA Administrator Thomas D'Agostino in March voiced resistance to the proposal, saying a transfer would "put our national security goals on idle for two years while everyone is trying to figure out who reports to whom and how the funding comes in."

Bingaman -- whose state is home to the Los Alamos National Laboratory, which is responsible for designing most of today's nuclear stockpile -- remains "confident" that the nuclear agency will not end up at the Defense Department, spokeswoman Jude McCartin told GSN last week.

Some critics of the Energy Department's stewardship of the nuclear weapons complex allege that parochial interests prompted the administration to alter its study plans.

"The New Mexico congressional delegation has hotly opposed the idea" of a transfer, Alvarez wrote in June. "At stake is the state's status and the huge amount of funding that supports the weapons labs that dominate its economy.

"In response to the outcry," he continued, Energy "Secretary [Steven] Chu has offered public reassurances that this won't happen."

Alvarez said an NNSA shift to the Pentagon could help focus the Energy Department on developing alternative energy sources. As it stands, energy activities constitute just 18.5 percent of the department's spending, he wrote. Nearly twice that portion of the Energy Department budget goes toward supporting the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, federal officials have said.

"DOE's actual energy functions continue to take a backseat to propping up the nation's large and antiquated nuclear infrastructure," wrote Alvarez, who could not be reached for comment last week. "Despite the president's rhetoric about reshaping America's energy future, the DOE budget for [fiscal] 2010, minus stimulus spending, looks a lot like that of George W. Bush and several presidents before him."

For its part, the Perry-Schlesinger panel stopped short of recommending an NNSA transfer to the Defense Department, though it noted that some unidentified members saw merit in at least a partial shift.

Pentagon interest in the nuclear weapons complex "is, at best, episodic" and if moved to the Defense Department, its funding could become "a bill payer" for that department's other, higher priorities, the commission warned in its report. The group also questioned the Pentagon's ability to effectively operate the weapons laboratories and allow "independent voices" to be heard in assessing the continued viability of the nuclear stockpile.

Lewis agreed that moving the agency and its laboratories to the Pentagon would be tantamount to "suicide for a terminal cancer patient."

The posture commission said the most "appealing" alternative would be to "establish the NNSA as an independent agency reporting to the president with a "board of directors" comprising key Cabinet members. This approach was recently laid out by a Henry L. Stimson Center study.

"NNSA has the potential to support a lot of different activities other than those it has typically been associated with," said Paul Hughes, the posture commission's executive director. Oversight by multiple federal agencies could help make fuller use of the national laboratories in advancing alternative energy, nonproliferation, homeland security and intelligence initiatives, he told GSN this morning.

However, the Perry-Schlesinger panel said such an approach "does not appear to be politically practical at this time." The group did not elaborate.

Instead, it advocated establishing the National Nuclear Security Administration as an "independent agency" that reports to the president via the energy secretary. Hughes said this was the commission's consensus position.

"To make this approach work, the NNSA, as an independent agency, should have a budget separate from any other entity," the group advised.

Lewis said he does not expect the Nuclear Posture Review to significantly improve on what he sees as the commission's "anodyne" recommendation. Rather, he anticipates the nuclear agency and national laboratories would likely remain in "a death spiral of sorts," hampered by "incompetent" management and "shrinking budgets."