Throwing Down the Gauntlet to the Next Generation ... · – Spring 2011 – Preparing for Social...

Throwing Down theThrowing Down theThrowing Down the Throwing Down the Gauntlet to the Next Gauntlet to the Next

Generation of Nuclear Generation of Nuclear Ste ardsSte ardsStewards:Stewards:

The Enduring Nuclear LegacyThe Enduring Nuclear Legacyg g yg g y

The 21st Century has brought many challenges in thenuclear world:

• The global spread of terrorism with entities

Los Alamos Committee on Arms Control and International

Security

• The global spread of terrorism with entitieswanting to secure weapons of mass destruction toachieve their goals, including nuclear materials

• The proliferation of nuclear weapons technologies• “Closing” of the nuclear fuel cycle and the challenges

associated with the disposition of spent fuel from nuclearpower reactors

• The legacy of high-level nuclear waste left from thebuildup of nuclear stockpiles during the Cold WarSecurity

December 4, 2014Los Alamos, New Mexico

Jack JekowskiInnovative Technology Partnerships, LLCInnovative Technology Partnerships, LLC

TM

http://www.itpnm.com

buildup of nuclear stockpiles during the Cold War•The continuing repercussions of the Fukushima nuclear

accident

It is up to the new generation to accept these challenges to ensure the future safety and security of

the world

Innovative Technology Partnerships, LLC

TM

The Transformation of the Nuclear EnterpriseComplex TransformationComplex Transformation

and the Future of the U.S.

The Transformation of the Nuclear EnterpriseA ninth year of examining the future of the U.S. Nuclear Security Enterprise –and the world, looking into the second

Nuclear Security Enterprise

INMM SW Chapter Annual Technical MeetingMay 21, 2009

Taos, New Mexico

The Proposed Restructuring of the Nation’s Nuclear Weapons Complex…past, present and future?

Complex Transformation Complex TransformationComplex TransformationThe “Nuclear Spring”

and the world, looking into the second decade of the new Millennium

Jack JekowskiInnovative Technology Partnerships, LLC


TM


Creating the National Security Enterprise


Taos, New Mexico

The Proposed Restructuring of the Nation’s Nuclear Weapons Complex…past, present and future?

p g


Taos, New Mexico

Strategic Implications of Current Events and U.S. Nuclear Policy on the Future of the U.S. Nuclear

Security Enterprise, the Stockpile and Deterrence



TM


The Road to Complex 2030The Road to Complex 2030A look back, one year later, on the

proposed restructuring of the Nation’s Nuclear Weapons Complex


Taos, New MexicoThe Nuclear WeaponsThe Nuclear Weapons



TM


INMM SW Chapter Annual Technical Exchange

The NNSA Landscape:A Year of Change

Ahead2012 brought many challenges to the NNSA: the Y-12Security Incident; problems at Los Alamos with a newsecurity perimeter intrusion system; projected multi-$Bcost overruns for the B-61 LEP, the Uranium Processing



TM


The Nuclear Weapons The Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure Task Complex Infrastructure Task

Force Report (NWCITF)Force Report (NWCITF)Historical Perspectives and

Future Implications


Taos, New Mexico

Weathering the Perfect Storm:

Implications of 2012 events on the Nuclear Security

Enterprise (NSE)

gMay 16, 2013

Taos, New MexicoJack Jekowski



TM


Facility in Oak Ridge, the MOX facility in SavannahRiver, and the CMRR facility in Los Alamos; problemswith achieving ignition goals at the LLNL National IgnitionFacility; and difficulties in the award of the newconsolidated Y-12/Pantex M&O contract. These issueshave once again focused Congressional, GAO and IGattention on the NNSA, and has resulted in Legislation tolook once again at the original construct thatseparated NNSA from DOE. This presentation willexplore the complex current landscape of NNSA, theestablishment and expansion of the role of the new NA-00 organization (Infrastructure & Operations), and whatthe future may hold for the organization as we head intoFY14 and beyond.Throwing Down the

Gauntlet to the Next Generation of Nuclear

Stewards:

2



TM


ANS Trinity Section and INMM SW Chapter Joint Dinner Meeting

November 2, 2012Santa Fe, New Mexico



TM

http://www.itpnm.comINMM SW Chapter Annual Technical Exchange

May 17, 2014Taos, New Mexico

Jack JekowskiInnovative Technology Partnerships, LLCInnovative Technology Partnerships, LLC

TM


Stewards:The Enduring Nuclear Legacy

The 21st Century has brought many challenges in thenuclear world:• The global spread of terrorism with entities

wanting to secure weapons of mass destruction toachieve their goals, including nuclear materials

• The proliferation of nuclear weapons technologies• “Closing” of the nuclear fuel cycle and the challenges

associated with the disposition of spent fuel from nuclearpower reactors

• The legacy of high-level nuclear waste left from thebuildup of nuclear stockpiles during the Cold War

•The continuing repercussions of the Fukushima nuclearaccident

It is up to the new generation to accept these challenges to ensure the future safety and security of

the world


TM

INMM Efforts to Throw Down the GauntletINMM Efforts to Throw Down the Gauntlet• Strengthen student and university engagement since 1998• Broaden International membership participation with the help of the DepartmentBroaden International membership participation with the help of the Department

of State’s Partnership in Nuclear Security initiative (https://pns-state.net/en-us/) • Creation of enhanced organizational structure - 2010• Examine broader strategic role for the Institute in standards and collaborations –

“T ki th L Vi i Ti f G t U t i t ”“Taking the Long View in a Time of Great Uncertainty”• Promote the important continuing role for the Institute

3


TM

A Long View in a Time of Great UncertaintyA Long View in a Time of Great Uncertainty

• Taking the Long View in a Time of Great Uncertainty: a column toof Great Uncertainty: a column to continue the discussion of“Externalities” and theirimpact on the INMM missionimpact on the INMM mission– Based on techniques employed by

Peter Schwartz (formerly of GBN), customized for use in the National Security environment

– Designed to challenge the reader to think about “what might be”M b d t id– Members encouraged to provide topics or guest author

– Poses strategic questions to the membership

4

membership

http://www.inmm.org/Journal_of_Nuclear_Materials_Management/5088.htm


TM

A Long View in a Time of Great UncertaintyA Long View in a Time of Great Uncertainty• Columns to date (since Fall of 2010)

– Fall 2010 – Taking the Long View – premier columnWi t 2011 F i th N l F l C l– Winter 2011 – Focusing on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle

– Spring 2011 – Preparing for Social Chain Reactions– Summer 2011 – A Strategic Inflection Point? The Nuclear Crisis

in Japan– Fall 2011 – The Changing Face of INMMFall 2011 The Changing Face of INMM– Winter 2012 – Focusing on the Future of Safeguards and

Nonproliferation– Spring 2012 – Looking Back at a Decade of Tumult– Summer 2012 – Sustaining the Institute

F ll 2012 INMM’ I i l R l– Fall 2012 – INMM’s International Role– Winter 2013 – Challenges and Opportunities Ahead– Spring 2013 – Readjusting Priorities– Summer 2013 – As the World Turns…Toward a More

Dangerous PlaceDangerous Place– Fall 2013 – Working Toward Solutions– Winter 2014 – Bumps in the Road– Spring 2014 – Reflecting on the Health of INMM– Summer 2014 – Throwing Down the Gauntlet

C

5

– Fall 2014 – Turning the Corner– Winter 2014 – Testing Diplomacy


TM

“Taking the Long View” QuestionsTaking the Long View Questions

• Challenges to the INMM membership:– How will the world deal with the untenable situations in Iran and DPRK?– What happens if other nation-states similarly pursue nuclear weapons?– How are other nations responding to President Obama’s global nuclear

initiatives – what impact will those responses have on the INMM?initiatives what impact will those responses have on the INMM?– What will be the world-wide response to the first terrorist nuclear event

(either nuclear or dispersal)?– Can nuclear forensics provide the deterrence needed to prevent terrorist

tt k ?attacks?– Will unilateral reductions in the U.S. stockpile influence the decision of

other Nuclear Weapons States to further reduce their own stockpiles?– What is the evolving role of the United Nations and IAEA in the new g

“International Order” proposed by President Barack Obama?– What scientific, technological and policy innovations can INMM promote

to make the world a safer place?Should INMM have an interactive web presence (social network)?

6

– Should INMM have an interactive web presence (social network)?– How will the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant accident impact the future

of the Nuclear Renaissance?


TM

Which Landscape Does the Future Hold?Which Landscape Does the Future Hold?Path Toward

World Peace?“T ki th L Vi i Ti f G t U t i t ”A

discontinuity event?

World Peace?“Taking the Long View in a Time of Great Uncertainty”

Throwing Down the GauntletThrowing Down the GauntletThrowing Down the Gauntlet Throwing Down the Gauntlet to the Next Generation of to the Next Generation of

Nuclear Nuclear Stewards:Stewards:The Enduring Nuclear LegacyThe Enduring Nuclear Legacy

Possible Discontinuity Events:• Israeli attack on Iran nuclear facilities

Status Quo?

Today

• Israeli attack on Iran nuclear facilities• Iranian nuclear test • DPRK and South Korea conflict• Destabilization of Pakistani government• India/Pakistan conflict• Rise of new nuclear powers• Middle East war

77

y

Path Toward Global Conflict?

• Conflict in the South Asia Sea• Terrorism on U.S. soil• Non-state use of WMD• “Fukishima” events• Nuclear 9/11

The Next Generation of

Nuclear Stewards


TM

The New Era – Positives and NegativesThe New Era – Positives and Negatives• Positives

– Praque speech - 2009• Negatives

– Iranian nuclear situation still q p– Significant accomplishments in

securing and reducing nuclear material world wide

– NPT Summit – 2010

unresolved – delayed for seven more months on November 24th

– North Korea continues down path toward deployable nuclear weaponsR i Chi d P ki t– New START treaty signed

– Nuclear Security Summits, 2010, 2012 and 2014

– U.N. Security Resolution 1887

– Russia, China and Pakistan upgrading their nuclear stockpiles

– Growing concern over effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear umbrellaCongressional response to Ukraine– Nobel Peace Prize recognition

– QDR, NPR and National Security Strategy deemphasizing role of nuclear stockpile in National Security Strategy

– Congressional response to Ukraine Situation (New START implications)

– Declining relationship with Russia (not attending 2016 Nuclear Summit?)Security Strategy

– Use of diplomacy to resolve international issues

– Recognition of “Global Zero” initiative

– Growing tensions in the East and South China Seas

– Unrest in many third-world countries: rise of ISIS

– Brandenburg Gate speech - 2013 – Budget deficit and continued global economic problems

– Growing Cybersecurity threats8


TM

The New Era – The Prague SpeechThe New Era – The Prague Speech• April 5, 2009 – the morning after a DPRK ballistic missile launch

– “In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has goneIn a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up.”

• Reaffirms the Administration goal of a world without nuclear weapons• Reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy• Negotiate a new, verifiable Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia by

g , g y y

the end of the year [when the existing one ends]• Pursuit of U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).• Pursuit of a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT). See

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/fmct/ for background informationSt th i th N lif ti T t (NPT t f h d l d

XX

• Strengthening the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT - next conference scheduled for 2010]

• Strengthening international inspections [IAEA]• New framework for civil nuclear cooperation including an international fuel

bank?

bank• Consequences for countries breaking the rules• Secure all vulnerable nuclear material around

the world within four years - establish theProliferation Security Initiative, and the

?

99

Proliferation Security Initiative, and theGlobal Initiative to Combat NuclearTerrorism as durable international institutions

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-By-President-Barack-Obama-In-Prague-As-Delivered/


TM

NPR Implementation StudyNPR Implementation Study

• Madeline Creedon, Asst. Sec. of Defense, Global Strategic Affairs, Senate Subcommittee on Strategic Forces April 17 2013:Senate Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, April 17, 2013:“the administration has been conducting an NPR implementation study to review our nuclear deterrence requirements and operational plans to ensure they address today’s threats…The implementation study e su e t ey add ess today s t eats e p e e tat o studyfocuses on the five key strategic objectives established in the Nuclear Posture Review”:

• Preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism;• Reducing the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy;Reducing the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy; • Maintaining strategic deterrence and stability at reduced nuclear force levels; • Strengthening regional deterrence and reassuring U.S. allies and partners; and • Sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal.

• The “Brandenburg Gate Speech”, June 19, 2013g p , ,– The President announces plans to further reduce

the number of deployed nuclear weapons – Released with new “Nuclear Employment Strategy”

that clarifies the implementation of the NPR, and sets

10

that clarifies the implementation of the NPR, and setsthe stage for a “3+2” strategy

– Proposal not well-received by Russia10http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/19/fact-sheet-nuclear-weapons-employment-strategy-united-states

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/reporttoCongressonUSNuclearEmploymentStrategy_Section491.pdf


TM

National Policy Strategic Linkages“Defending our nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the Federal Government.”

National Policy Strategic Linkages“Until such time as the Administration’s goal of a world free of nuclear weapons is achieved, nuclear capabilities will be maintained as a core mission for the Department of Defense. We will maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal to deter attack on the

The QDR embodies and builds on the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance priorities, preparing for the future by rebalancing our defense efforts in a period of fiscal constraint….emphasizing three pillars::� Protect the homeland, to deter and defeat attacks on the United States , ,

United States, and on our allies and partners.”and to mitigate the effects of potential attacks and natural disasters.� Build security globally, to preserve regional stability, deter adversaries, support allies and partners, and cooperate with others to address common security challenges.� Project power and win decisively, to defeat aggression, disrupt and destroy terrorist networks, and provide humanitarian assistance and disaster relief..

NPR Policy Framework:

Joint Tri-Lab Director statement on Nuclear Posture Review:

“We believe that the approach

New review for 2015 underway

“…pursuing…a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal at the lowest levels consistent with U S and allied

NPR Policy Framework:� Preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism;� Reducing the role of U.S. nuclear weapons;� Maintaining strategic deterrence and stability at reduced

nuclear force levels;� Strengthening regional deterrence and reassuring U.S.

allies and partners; and� Sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal.

ppoutlined in the NPR, which excludes further nuclear testing and includes the consideration of the full range of life extension options (refurbishment of existing warheads, reuse of nuclear components from different warheads and replacement of

“Our Armed Forces will always be a cornerstone of our security, but they must be complemented. Our security also depends on diplomats who can act in every corner of the world…”

“With this QTR, we bind together multiple energy technologies, as well as multiple DOE energy technology programs, in the common purpose of solving

with U.S. and allied interests as we pursue the peace and security of a world free of nuclear weapons.”

pnuclear components based on previously tested designs), provides the necessary technical flexibility to manage the nuclear stockpile into the future with an acceptable level of risk.“

Four enduring national interests:• Security of the U.S., allies and partners• Prosperity both in the U.S. and abroad• Values and respect at home and abroad• International Order that promotes peace,

security and opportunities

”It is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force, which would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory as well as their role in U.S. national security strategy.”

common purpose of solving our energy challenges. In addition, the QTR provides a multi-year framework for our planning. Energy investments are multi-year, multi-decade investments. Given this time horizon, we need to take a longer view ”

11

The U.S. will:• Pursue the goal of a world without Nuclear weapons• Strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty• Present a clear choice to Iran and North Korea• Secure vulnerable nuclear weapons and material• Support peaceful nuclear energy• Counter biological threats

”U.S. economic and security interests are inextricably linked to developments in the arc extending form the Western Pacific and East Asia into the Indian Ocean region and South Asia…while the U.S. military will continue to contribute to security globally, we will of necessity rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region.”

need to take a longer view.


TM

NGO Example: The Four StatesmenNGO Example: The Four Statesmen • The Nuclear Security Project:

“Toward a World Without Nuclear Weapons”“Toward a World Without Nuclear Weapons”– Wall Street Journal op-ed series

• “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons” January 4, 2007• “Toward a Nuclear Free World” January 15 2008• Toward a Nuclear-Free World , January 15, 2008• “How to Protect Our Nuclear Deterrent”, January 20, 2010• “Deterrence in the Age of Nuclear Proliferation”, March 7, 2011• “Next Steps in Reducing the Nuclear Risks”, March 5, 2013p g

– Two Goals:• Generating global momentum among governments,

political leaders and the public to build broadinternational support for the vision and steps to reducethe risks posed by nuclear weapons.

• Addressing the tough technical and policy issuesinvolved in taking concrete steps toward building a world without

12

involved in taking concrete steps toward building a world without nuclear weapons

12http://www.nuclearsecurityproject.org


TM

The NSP: 10 StepsThe NSP: 10 Steps• Work with leaders of countries with nuclear weapons to turn the goal of a

world without nuclear weapons into a joint enterprise;p j p ;• Discard Cold War posture of deployed nuclear weapons for U.S. and

Russian forces to reduce the danger of accidental, mistaken or unauthorized launch;

• Substantially reduce nuclear forces in all countries that possess them;y p ;• Eliminate short-range battlefield nuclear weapons designed to be forward

deployed;• Adopt a process to bring the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into effect;• Secure all nuclear weapons and materials globally to the highest possible p g y g p

standards;• Develop a new international system to manage the risks associated with

producing fuel for nuclear power;• Halt the production globally of plutonium and highly enriched uranium forHalt the production globally of plutonium and highly enriched uranium for

weapons purposes; phase out the use of HEU in civil commerce and remove weapons-usable uranium from research facilities around the world and render it safe;

• Redouble efforts to resolve regional conflicts that give rise to new nuclear

13

Redouble efforts to resolve regional conflicts that give rise to new nuclear powers; and

• Strengthen verification and enforcement capabilities.13http://www.nuclearsecurityproject.org/


TM

An Ominous Path to the Future?An Ominous Path to the Future?• The Obama Administration boldly reshaped the international nuclear dialogue

and U.S. National Security Policy since 2009 that set the stage for theand U.S. National Security Policy since 2009 that set the stage for the Administration’s strategy to reduce dependence on nuclear weapons and improve the control of nuclear materials worldwide

• The challenge to the U.S. and the global “nuclear community” is to prepare the ne t generation for a long and complicated f t re to achie e these goals b tnext generation for a long and complicated future to achieve these goals…but an ominous path to the future lies ahead with many intervening events:

o Continuing issues with, and inability to resolve the Iranian nuclear situation accompanied by concerns over a “break out” capability

o Continuing intransigence by North Korea (DPRK) and lack of transparency for their nuclear program

o Continuing geopolitical unrest in the Middle East with the rise of ISIS, and instability among major nation-states

o The changing relationship between Russia and the West over the Crimea and Ukraineo Nuclear weapons and delivery system modernization program plans for the NWSo Growing tensions over island territories in the East and South China seaso Aftermath of the Fukushima event and the impact on the global nuclear renaissance

1414

o Aftermath of the Fukushima event and the impact on the global nuclear renaissanceo Continuing global and U.S.- centric economic problemso Geopolitical unrest spreading in Africa complicated by the EBOLA crisis


TM

The Challenges Closer to Home• Administration focus on reducing the reliance on the nuclear

stockpile

The Challenges Closer to Home

stockpile• Unresolved issues with geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel• WIPP radiation incident resolution• General public fear of “things nuclear” and misinformation by publicGeneral public fear of things nuclear and misinformation by public

media• Lack of a consistent long-range strategy and mixed Congressional

support for the Nuclear Security Enterprise (NSE)pp y p ( )• Constant flow of critical reviews and reports of NSE• Morale issues and loss of mission focus for broader U.S. nuclear

enterprise including both NNSA and DoD• Long-term budget deficit issues• Global unrest and economic issues• Election-cycle driven policy makingy p y g• Retirements and shrinking pool of subject matter expertise• Lack of mentorships with aging workforce 15


TM

DOE Today (with NNSA) “The only constant is change”DOE Today (with NNSA) y g- Heraclitus of Ephesus

Associate Deputy Secretary Bruce Held*Chair, Security Committee

Secretary Moniz reorganized the Department in July of 2013 with the creation of a new Under Secretary position for Management & Performance – Beth Robinson (NASA) was nominated for the position

New NNSA Management Team –General Frank Klotz and D F kli

Mik k

General Frank Klotz and Madelyn Creedon – Klotz was confirmed on April 8th and sworn in on April 17th as the new Administrator. Ms. Creedon was confirmed on July 23rd, and sworn in on August 7th.

Dr. Franklin “Lynn” M. Orr,

Jr. nominated to Under Secretary

for Science & Energy

Mike Lempke Named Acting Chief Security Officer for NNSA*

Renamed Office of Independent Enterprise Assessments (IEA) to be headed by Glenn Podonsky

Dennis Miotla is Chief Security

Officer for Science & Energy

as well as COO and Principal

Deputy Assistant S t f NE*

16* Member of the new DOE Security Committee

Brig. Gen. Jimmy McMillian is Chief Security Officer for M&P in

addition to his role as Director for S&S and Emergency

Management within office of EM*

Secretary for NE* Still under development. Matt Moury will be Acting Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security, supported by Steve Kirchhoff, Director of the HSS Office of Resource Management. These are functions previously in HSS


TM

Commission to Review DOE LabsCommission to Review DOE Labs• S. 1245, FY14 Consolidated Appropriations Act:

– Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the Energy Department’s National Laboratories

“The Commission shall address whether the 12 Department of Energy’s national laboratories:(A) are properly aligned with the Department’s strategic priorities;(B) h l ll d t d d l b l d i i th t t il(B) have clear, well understood, and properly balanced missions that are not unnecessarily redundant and duplicative;(C) have unique capabilities that have sufficiently evolved to meet current and future energy and national security challenges;(D) are appropriately sized to meet the Department’s energy and national security(D) are appropriately sized to meet the Department s energy and national security missions; andE) are appropriately supporting other Federal agencies and the extent to which it benefits DOE missions.”

“The Commission shall also determine whether there are opportunities to moreThe Commission shall also determine whether there are opportunities to more effectively and efficiently use the capabilities of the national laboratories, including consolidation and realignment, reducing overhead costs, reevaluating governance models using industrial and academic bench marks for comparison, and assessing the impact of DOE’s oversight and management approach. In its

l i h C i i h ld l id h d ff i f

17

evaluation, the Commission should also consider the cost and effectiveness of using other research, development, and technology centers and universities as an alternative to meeting DOE’s energy and national security goals.”

17


TM

Commission to Review DOE LabsCommission to Review DOE Labs• Co-chairs:

– Jared Cohon, President Emeritus and Professor of Civil and Environmental ,Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University

– T.J. Glauthier, formally the Deputy Secretary and Chief Operating Officer of the Energy Department and currently President of TJG Energy Associates, LLC, an energy consulting firm

M b hi• Membership:– Norman Augustine, Chairman of the U.S. Human Space Flight Plans

Committee, NASA and Former Chairman, Lockheed Corporation– Martin Wanda Austin, President and CEO, The Aerospace Corporation

Charles Elachi Director of Jet Propulsion Laboratory NASA– Charles Elachi, Director of Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA– Paul Fleury, Frederick W. Beinecke Professor of Engineering and Applied

Physics, Yale University– Susan Hockfield, Professor of Neuroscience and President Emerita, MIT– Richard Meserve, President, Carnegie Institution for Science and Chair of , , g

the Environmental Stewardship Subcommittee of Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB)

– Cherry Murray, Dean, Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS)

T o part st d ith first report d e Febr ar 1 2015

18

• Two part study with first report due February 1, 2015

18http://energy.gov/labcommission/commission-review-effectiveness-national-energy-laboratories


TM

Commission to Review DOE LabsCommission to Review DOE Labs

• About the Commission:o Section 319 of the Consolidated Appropriations

Act, 2014, Public Law No. 113-76 established theCommission to Review the Effectiveness of theNational Energy Laboratories. The Commissionwill review whether the DOE national laboratorieswill review whether the DOE national laboratoriesare properly aligned with the Department’sstrategic priorities, have clear and balanced missions,have unique capabilities to meet current energy and national security challenges, are appropriately sized to meet the Department’s energy and national security missions,appropriately sized to meet the Department s energy and national security missions, and are appropriately supporting other Federal agencies. The Commission will also look for opportunities to more effectively and efficiently use the capabilities of the national laboratories and analyze the effectiveness of the use of laboratory directed research and development (LDRD) to meet the Department's science, energy and national security goals.

o The Commission may form subcommittees to undertake fact-finding and analysis on specific topics. The Commission will report its findings and conclusions to the Secretary of Energy and the Committees on Appropriations of the House of R t ti d th S t Th d ti f th C i i l l d i

19

Representatives and the Senate. The duties of the Commission are solely advisory.



TM

Commission to Review DOE LabsCommission to Review DOE Labs

• Charter:o Two phases are planned for the Commissiono Two phases are planned for the Commission

In Phase 1, the objective of the Commission is to address whether the Department of Energy's (DOE) national laboratories are properly aligned with the Department's strategic priorities; have clear, well understood, and properly balanced missions that are not unnecessarily redundant and duplicative; have unique capabilities that have sufficiently evolved to meet current and future energy and nationalsufficiently evolved to meet current and future energy and national security challenges; are appropriately sized to meet the Department's energy and national security missions; and are appropriately supporting other Federal agencies and the extent to which it benefits DOE missions.

For Phase 2, the Commission shall also determine whether there are opportunities to more effectively and efficiently use the capabilities of the national laboratories,more effectively and efficiently use the capabilities of the national laboratories, including consolidation and realignment, reducing overhead costs, reevaluating governance models using industrial and academic bench marks for comparison, and assessing the impact of DOE's oversight and management approach. In its evaluation, the Commission should also consider the cost and effectiveness of using other research, development, and technology centers and universities as an g , p , gyalternative to meeting DOE's energy and national security goals.

o The Commission shall analyze the effectiveness of the use of laboratory directed research and development (LDRD) to meet the Department of Energy's science, energy, and national security goals.

o The Commission will submit a report containing the Commission's findings and conclusions

20

p g gto the Secretary of Energy, the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and the Senate.



TM

NNSA Today “The only constant is change”NNSA Today y g- Heraclitus of Ephesus

With the recent confirmation of the NNSA Administrator and his Principal Deputy

Under Secretary for Nuclear Security & Administrator, NNSALt Gen Frank G. Klotz, USAF (Ret)

his Principal Deputy Administrator, NNSA is now prepared to implement functional and strategic changes to address concerns by Congress.

Associate Principal Deputy AdministratorWilliam White (Acting)

Chief of StaffJanis Greene

Office of Science and PolicyDimitri Kusnezov

NA-1

Office of Civil Rights Debra Parrish

Principal Deputy Administrator: Madelyn R. Creedon

Brig. Gen Stephen Davis named to PADA for Military Applications on 9/19/14 l i

Associate Admin.for Acquisition &

Project Management

Robert B. Raines

Associate Admin. for External Affairs

Clarence Bishop

Deputy Admin. for Defense Nuclear

Nonproliferation

Anne M. Harrington

Deputy Admin. for Naval Reactors

Admiral John M. Richardson,

USN

Deputy Admin.for DefensePrograms

Donald L. Cook

Office of GeneralCounsel

Bruce Diamond

NA 1

Jeffery Johnson

9/19/14, replacing Brig. Gen James Dawkins

Assoc. Admin.for Management &

Budget

Assoc. Admin. for Safety & Health &

Chief, Defense Nuclear

Assoc. Admin. for Def. Nuclear Security & Chief, Defense Nuclear

S it

Assoc. Admin.for Information Mgmt.

& CIO

Assoc. Admin. & Dep. Under Sec. for Counterterrorism &

C t lif ti

Assoc. Admin.for Emergency

Operations

Assoc. Admin. for Infrastructure &

Operations

NA-10 NA- 20 NA-30 NA-EA NA-GC NA-APM

ynamed as CDNS on 9/22/14

Adm. Krol retired after 40 years of service in October 2014

Robert Nassif(Acting)

C e , e e se uc eaSafety

Don Nichols

Security

Douglas Dearolph(Acting)

Wayne Jones (Acting)

Counterproliferation

Steven AokiJoseph J. Krol James McConnell(Acting)

Li

NA-40 NA-70 NA-80 NA-MB NA-IM NA-SHNA-00

21

Los AlamosField Office

Kim Davis Lebak

LivermoreField Office

Nicole Nelson-Jean (Acting)

Savannah RiverField Office

David Alldridge (Acting)

Kansas CityField Office

Mark Holecek

SandiaField Office

Geoffrey Beausoleil

NNSA ProductionOffice

Steven C. Erhart

NevadaField Office

Steven Lawrence


TM

Congressional Advisory Panel on NNSACongressional Advisory Panel on NNSA• Section 3166, FY13 Defense Authorization Act:

“There is established a congressional advisory panel to be– There is established a congressional advisory panel to be known as the ‘Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise’…The purpose of the advisory panel is to examine options and make recommendations for p prevising the governance structure, mission, and management of the nuclear security enterprise.”

– Membership: G Ri h d Mi ( h i ) N A ti ( h i ) Gen. Richard Mies (co-chair) Norm Augustine (co-chair) Rep. Heather Wilson Dr. Michael Anastasio* Rep. Ellen Tauscher Rep. John Spratt Rep. David Hobson Adm. Kirkland Donald Frank Miller William Schneider T.J. Glauthier Gregory Jaczko

• Panel start delayed due to Sequestration180 D R d f

22

– 180 Day Report due after start – Final Report was originally due February 1, 2014

22


TM

Congressional Advisory Panel StatusCongressional Advisory Panel Status• Preliminary Congressional Hearings held March 26, 2014

"Unfortunately, the unmistakable conclusion of our fact-finding is that, as implemented, the NNSAUnfortunately, the unmistakable conclusion of our fact finding is that, as implemented, the NNSA experiment" involving creation of a semi-autonomous organization has failed.“

Norm Augustine, Co-Chair

• Systemic disorders Identified:Loss of Sustained National Leadership Focus. The fundamental underlying cause of this erosion has been a lack of

tt ti t l i b i l d hi b th i ili d ilit b th t d tattention to nuclear weapon issues by senior leadership-both civilian and military - across both past and presentAdministrations and Congresses.

A Flawed DOE/NNSA Governance Model. Second, the current NNSA governance model is fundamentally flawed. NNSA has not established effective leadership, policy, culture or integrated decision-making. Indeed, the design and implementation of NNSA has led to redundancies, confused authorities, and weakened accountability.

Sound Management Principles are Lacking. Both DOE and NNSA lack clearly defined and disciplined exerciseof roles, responsibilities, authorities, and accountability aligned to NNSA's mission deliverables. Too many people can stop mission essential work for a host of reasons and those who are responsible for getting the work done often find their decisions ignored or overturned.

Dysfunctional M&O Relationship. The trusted partnership that historically existed between the laboratories and DOE/NNSA h d h d d h d d ' l h d i lDOE/NNSA headquarters has eroded over the past two decades to an arm's length, customer-to-contractor adversarial relationship…

Uneven Collaboration with Customers. There is no affordable, executable joint DOD-DOE vision, plan, or program for the future of nuclear weapons capabilities. This is, at once, a cultural and communications divide.

Fi l R t t d i J 2014 b t h b d l d

23

• Final Report was expected in June, 2014, but has been delayed• “Bold Recommendations” requested by Congress

23Archived video: http://armedservices.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=317Testimony: http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/hearings-display?ContentRecord_id=0093295E-8F29-41E0-9BD1-4ED8A982178A


TM

Paul Robinson on the Future of the Complex*Paul Robinson on the Future of the Complex

“Personally, and after many years of believing that it was important to keep the nuclear weapons design, development,

and production separate from the Defense Department, I have now reached the point that I believe it is worth

considering removing the weapons responsibilities from DOE and placing it as a new agency within the DoD. The presence of a uniformed military could provide a continuity that has been lacking as different administrations came and went. The nation’s nuclear deterrent has only suffered from

these short-term upheavals in what must be a long-term

*Response to questions of House Arms Services Committee, Summer, 2008

p gcommitment.”

2424

More recently: “I believe we are now in a period that ought to be described asStrategic Nuclear Confusion”

National Atomic Testing Museum Annual meeting, Nov. 20, 2014


TMWhere Does All of this Lead?The Nuclear Challenges of the 21st Century• Keeping nuclear materials around the globe secure and out of

the hands of entities wishing to have access to them for

The Nuclear Challenges of the 21 Century

the hands of entities wishing to have access to them for nefarious purposes

• Controlling the spread of dual-use nuclear technologies, especially uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessingespecially uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing

• Completing the “back-end” of the nuclear fuel cycle with the safe and secure handling and disposition of spent fuel from nuclear power reactorsnuclear power reactors

• The legacy of high-level nuclear waste left from the buildup of nuclear stockpiles during the Cold War

• Developing nuclear power that is proliferation resistant and• Developing nuclear power that is proliferation-resistant and accepted by the general public as safe, economically viable and environmentally friendly

25

It is up to the new generation to accept these challenges to ensure the future safety and security of the world


TM

The Legacy ChallengesThe Legacy Challenges• Keeping nuclear materials around the globe secure and out of the

hands of entities wishing to have access to them for nefarioushands of entities wishing to have access to them for nefarious purposes– Global cooperation for the reduction and safeguarding of nuclear

materials– Technologies to enhance detection and protection– National Technical Means to verify treaty compliance and identify

clandestine activities– Fissile Material Cutoff TreatyFissile Material Cutoff Treaty– Nuclear Forensics– Containment of rogue states intent on building nuclear weapons– Use of social media to create a world-wide network of observers and

reporters– Diplomatic and societal changes to reduce conflicts and their causes,

including climate change impacts, poverty, disease, hunger and waterWorkforce development next generation of “Nuclear Stewards”– Workforce development – next generation of Nuclear Stewards

26


TM

The Legacy ChallengesThe Legacy Challenges• Controlling the spread of dual-use nuclear technologies,

especially uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessingespecially uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing– Containing emerging nuclear states through international efforts– Control of exports associated with nuclear technologies– CybersecurityCybersecurity– Technologies to enhance detection and protection– National Technical Means to verify treaty compliance and

identify clandestine activitiesy– Strengthening role of Nuclear Suppliers Group– International Fuel Bank– Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty– Use of social media to create a world-wide network of observers

and reporters– Workforce development – next generation of “Nuclear

Stewards”Stewards

27


TM

The Legacy ChallengesThe Legacy Challenges• Completing the “back-end” of the nuclear fuel cycle with the

safe and secure handling and disposition of spent fuel fromsafe and secure handling and disposition of spent fuel from nuclear power reactors– Not-in-my-backyard societal issues and public education– Long-term secure storage solutions with both scientific and– Long-term secure storage solutions with both scientific and

public acceptance– Technology developments – breeder reactors– Small Modular ReactorsSmall Modular Reactors– International Fuel Bank– Use of social media to create an informed and supportive public – Workforce development – next generation of “Nuclear– Workforce development – next generation of Nuclear

Stewards”

28


TM

The Legacy ChallengesThe Legacy Challenges• The legacy of high-level nuclear waste left from the

buildup of nuclear stockpiles during the Cold Warbuildup of nuclear stockpiles during the Cold War – Long-term secure storage – Yucca Mountain resolution– Quick solution to WIPP issues– Hanford Tank Farm Waste Treatment Plant Project

resolution – 53 million gallons– Public perceptions and educationp p– Savannah River MOX technologies– Use of social media to create an informed and supportive

publicpublic– Workforce development – next generation of “Nuclear

Stewards”

29


TM

The Legacy ChallengesThe Legacy Challenges• Developing nuclear power that is proliferation-resistant and

accepted by the general public as safe economically viableaccepted by the general public as safe, economically viable and environmentally friendly– Enhanced risk management assessments for nuclear reactors

• Enhanced security for Spent Fuel pondsEnhanced security for Spent Fuel ponds• Redundant Power Systems for cooling• Catastrophic event scenarios

– Next generation “safe” reactorsg– Small Modular Reactors– Public perceptions and education– Use of social media to achieve and informed and supportive pp

Public– Workforce development – next generation of “Nuclear

Stewards”

30


TM

How Can You Help?How Can You Help?• Within your sphere of influence: mentor, support, and encourage the

younger generation – throw down the “nuclear gauntlet” andyounger generation throw down the nuclear gauntlet and challenge them to pick it up

• Work with your employers/agencies and political representatives to encourage them to support the next generation of nuclear stewards – this should not be a partisan issue

• Participate in professional association efforts to engage the younger generation (INMM, ANS, HPS, etc.)

• Stay engaged with public and higher education – Next Generation Science Standards, Common Core, STEM initiatives, technology in the classroom….etc.U S i l M di t h i d th i f• Use Social Media to share your experiences and enthusiasm for a future of hope, prosperity and peace and help the general public understand, in their language, the science and the facts

31


TMThrowing Down the Gauntlet Throwing Down the Gauntlet to the Next Generation of to the Next Generation of

NuclearNuclear Stewards:Stewards:Nuclear Nuclear Stewards:Stewards:The Enduring Nuclear LegacyThe Enduring Nuclear Legacy

P t P t d

Five minutes is too close

Past, Present and…Future?

2014Th hi i i d“It is still five minutes to midnight.

Since the end of World War II, the Bulletin has focused on the interface between scientific discovery and self-governance. Humanity has been sorely tested during its attempts to control the implements of nuclear warfare. The difficulties of managing dangerous technology are perhaps even more challenging when the threat is not the fierce immediacy of atomic explosion, but slow, creeping dangers like rising carbon-dioxide levels or increased access to dual use science

These are historic times…we need to use all of our collective knowledge,

wisdom, and imagination, to ensure that there is no question mark at the access to dual-use science.

In 2013, the world saw new evidence of a dangerous but familiar trend: Technology outpaced humanity’s capacity to understand or control it, even as many citizens continued—for a wide variety of reasons—to lose faith in the institutions upon which they must rely to make scientific innovation work for rather than against them. This is a trend that must be reversed if society is to gain control over the science it produces.

Technological changes are outpacing humanity’s ability to manage

that there is no question mark at the end of the road…our national security hangs in the balance

32

For electronic copies of this presentation email Jack Jekowski: [email protected]; visit ITP’s website: (http://www.itpnm.com) and click under “What’s New”

Technological changes are outpacing humanity s ability to manage them in ways that ensure our safety and security. As always, new technologies hold the promise of doing great good, supplying new sources of clean energy, curing disease, and otherwise enhancing our lives. From experience, however, we also know that new technologies can be used to diminish humanity and destroy societies. We can manage our technology, or become victims of it.

The choice is ours, and the Clock is ticking..”

Throwing Down the Gauntlet to the Next Generation ... · – Spring 2011 – Preparing for Social...

Documents

Transcript of Throwing Down the Gauntlet to the Next Generation ... · – Spring 2011 – Preparing for Social...