1. The weapons laboratories are Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). LLNL and LANL are weapons design laboratories while SNL is the engineering laboratory.]

  2. Brigadier General Anthony Tolin, USAF, Strategy and Policy, Joint Staff, private briefing on the Nuclear Posture to the National Security Subgroup of the Task Force, October 14, 1994.

  3. Steven Andreasen, Strategic and Nuclear Affairs, National Security Council, private briefing on Presidential Decision Directives to the National Security Subgroup of the Task Force, August 9, 1994.]

  4. Current weapons designs are secure, safe and reliable. There is no threat to the nation that would justify the development of a new nuclear weapon at this time. If weapons in the stockpile should develop problems that cannot be resolved, and that raise doubts about their reliability or safety, consideration could be given to the option of replacing them with modernized versions of earlier, very robust, well-tested designs. However, the safety and reliability record of the stockpile indicates the successful resolution of all past weapons problems; any future reliability or safety problems should be first analyzed and solved -- if possible -- by the replacement of specific components or addition of new safety features if needed.]

  5. The Jason Stewardship report entitled Science Based Stockpile Stewardship, August 10, 1994.

  6. Strategic Energy Research and Development Task Force, Chaired by Daniel Yergin, President, Cambridge Energy Research Associates.]

  7. Technology for a Sustainable Future, National Science and Technology Council, 1994

  8. "DOE Needs to Expand Use of Cleanup Technologies." GAO/RCED-94 - 9205 .

  9. "Cleaning Up The Department of Energy's Nuclear Weapons Complex," The Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC. May 1994. This reference contains an extended discussion of DOE 's managerial practices, its approach to risk assessment and to the incorporation of new technologies on remediation efforts.

  10. Ibid

  11. For example, after the forced shutdown of Rocky Flats, in the fall of 1989, acidic plutonium solutions were left in a half dozen tanks in one building, with concentrations up to 125 grams of plutonium per liter. They remain there to this day, with seals and gaskets deteriorating and occasional leaks occurring. It would have required 2 weeks to one month to process and eliminate the immediate risk. There is 70 miles of piping containing Pu-nitric acid solution with 30 kg of Pu in them.

  12. Business Week, Aug. 2, 1993.

  13. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators - 1993, Appendix 4-11, p. 346. The data referenced here are obtained from NSF-conducted surveys and should be interpreted with caution since DOE does not budget its research according to the categories used in the surveys. In reality, it is sometimes difficult to make the distinction between basic and applied research in those laboratories where the work is mainly applied R&D.]

  14. The same preference for the laboratories is true of the DOE R&D budget as a whole. The majority (62%) of all DOE-sponsored research and development is done in the DOE laboratories, with most of the rest being done at the universities (9% ), federal laboratories (8%) and industry (18%).

  15. These data were obtained from the responses of nine laboratories to a survey questionnaire prepared on the Panel's behalf. (INEL did not respond to the survey but does very little basic research.) The survey used the same definition of `basic research' that is used by the National Science Foundation: "The objective of basic research is to gain more complete understanding of the subject under study, without specific applications in mind. In industry, basic research is defined as research that advances scientific knowledge but does not have specific immediate objectives, although it may be in fields of present or potential commercial interest." An independent GAO survey of ten DOE laboratories found that 16% of their total R&D fell in the basic research category. The laboratories' responses to the Panel's and GAO's surveys indicate that they may see their R&D activity as more applied in nature than do the DOE respondents to the NSF survey referred to in Note 2.

  16. The panel attempted to determine in what proportions the different kinds of basic research described in the preceding paragraphs occur at the laboratories. According to the results of the survey carried out by the panel, basic research that is related to large user facilities accounts for 55% of all basic research at the laboratories; basic research that involves large interdisciplinary teams but that is unrelated to large user facilities accounts for another 34%; and general/single investigator basic research of the type most similar to university research accounts for the remaining 11%.

  17. Richard Nelson, Richard Rosenbloom, and William Spencer, "Shaping a New Era", November 1994 (DRAFT)

  18. Post-CRADA follow-up work at the laboratories would be classified as `work for others', for which the industrial partner is required to pay the full cost. Many industrial partners would at that point be inclined to pull the work back into their own facilities. Since the laboratories would then lose their DOE-budgeted CRADA financial resources, in the absence of independent review there might be a tendency for valid and successful CRADAs to continue beyond the completion of technology transfer and into product development or some other industrial activity.

  19. A technological development plan which outlines, over time, the evolution of technological capabilities and provides milestones by which progress can be measured.

  20. Fortune Magazine, November 14, 1994, pg. 146

To Table of Contents