5
Idaho National Laboratory

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) is the lead program secretarial office (PSO) for the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and as such, a significant part of DOE’s management responsibility and budget is devoted to INL. In FY 2006, for example, the Idaho Facilities Management budget of $99 million accounted for about 19 percent of the total NE budget. The PSO responsibility will continue to be a major one for NE, since to achieve the mission assigned to it by DOE, INL, as a large and aging facility, requires repair and maintenance as well as investment in new capabilities to support the NE program. INL and NE have developed the Ten-Year Site Plan (DOE, 2006a) to guide management of the site facilities to deal with these issues. This chapter presents the committee’s conclusions and recommendations regarding the site plan and NE’s management of this important asset. The chapter begins with a brief background on the INL and the site and a more detailed discussion of the issues facing the laboratory.

BACKGROUND

The Idaho site was established as a center of nuclear energy research in 1950, when the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, the predecessor of DOE, obtained land from the U.S. Navy to establish the National Reactor Testing Station. Later, lands were added for use in developing and testing nuclear reactors and related facilities. The site became the first location at which nuclear reactors were built to test the concept of nuclear power as a source of energy for peaceful commercial applications. In 1951, the INL achieved one of the most significant scientific accomplishments of the century—the first use of nuclear fission to produce a usable quantity of electricity at the Experimental Breeder No. 1 (EBR-1). The EBR-1 is now a registered national historical landmark open to the public. In its 57-year history, scientists and engineers at the site designed, constructed, and operated 52 nuclear reactors.

During the 1970s, the site began a succession of changes in mission and program. In 1974 its name changed from the National Reactor Testing Station to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) to reflect its broadened mission into areas like biotechnology, energy and materials research, and conservation and renewable energy. The site name changed again in the spring of 1997 to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), reflecting a major refocusing of the laboratory’s work over the long term to engineering applications and environmental solutions for the United States. Thereafter, the site experienced declining support, and much of the activity was directed toward decontamination and disposal of its aging facilities. In July 2002, however, sponsorship of the site was formally transferred to DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, which became today’s NE. The move to NE supports the nation’s expanding nuclear energy initiatives, placing INL at the center of work to develop advanced Generation IV nuclear energy systems; nuclear energy/hydrogen coproduction technology; advanced nuclear energy fuel cycle technologies; and solutions to the Department of Homeland Security’s need for a secure national infrastructure. Finally, on February 1, 2005, the site became INL. This change reflects a move back to the laboratory’s historic roots in nuclear energy and national security. The vision for INL is to transform its assets and capabilities to become the world’s preeminent laboratory for nuclear energy research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) within 10 years.

INL is operated by the Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC (BEA), which consists of Battelle; BWX Technologies, Inc.; Washington Group International; the Electric Power Research Institute; and an alliance of university collaborators, led by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

FACILITY ISSUES AT INL

The INL site presents two challenges in the management of its physical facilities: (1) new or rejuvenated facilities are required to support the new mission and vision for the labora-



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 58
5 idaho National laboratory the National Reactor Testing Station to the Idaho National The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Engineering Laboratory (INEL) to reflect its broadened Nuclear Energy (NE) is the lead program secretarial office mission into areas like biotechnology, energy and mate- (PSO) for the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and as such, rials research, and conservation and renewable energy. a significant part of DOE’s management responsibility and The site name changed again in the spring of 1997 to the budget is devoted to INL. In FY 2006, for example, the Idaho Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Facilities Management budget of $99 million accounted for (INEEL), reflecting a major refocusing of the laboratory’s about 19 percent of the total NE budget. The PSO respon- work over the long term to engineering applications and sibility will continue to be a major one for NE, since to environmental solutions for the United States. Thereafter, achieve the mission assigned to it by DOE, INL, as a large the site experienced declining support, and much of the and aging facility, requires repair and maintenance as well activity was directed toward decontamination and disposal as investment in new capabilities to support the NE program. of its aging facilities. In July 2002, however, sponsorship INL and NE have developed the Ten-Year Site Plan (DOE, of the site was formally transferred to DOE’s Office of 2006a) to guide management of the site facilities to deal with Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, which became these issues. This chapter presents the committee’s conclu- today’s NE. The move to NE supports the nation’s expand- sions and recommendations regarding the site plan and NE’s ing nuclear energy initiatives, placing INL at the center of management of this important asset. The chapter begins work to develop advanced Generation IV nuclear energy with a brief background on the INL and the site and a more systems; nuclear energy/hydrogen coproduction technol- detailed discussion of the issues facing the laboratory. ogy; advanced nuclear energy fuel cycle technologies; and solutions to the Department of Homeland Security’s need BacKGroUNd for a secure national infrastructure. Finally, on February 1, 2005, the site became INL. This change reflects a move The Idaho site was established as a center of nuclear en- back to the laboratory’s historic roots in nuclear energy ergy research in 1950, when the U.S. Atomic Energy Com- and national security. The vision for INL is to transform its mission, the predecessor of DOE, obtained land from the U.S. assets and capabilities to become the world’s preeminent Navy to establish the National Reactor Testing Station. Later, laboratory for nuclear energy research, development, and lands were added for use in developing and testing nuclear demonstration (RD&D) within 10 years. reactors and related facilities. The site became the first loca- INL is operated by the Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC tion at which nuclear reactors were built to test the concept of (BEA), which consists of Battelle; BWX Technologies, nuclear power as a source of energy for peaceful commercial Inc.; Washington Group International; the Electric Power applications. In 1951, the INL achieved one of the most sig- Research Institute; and an alliance of university collabora- nificant scientific accomplishments of the century—the first tors, led by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. use of nuclear fission to produce a usable quantity of electric- ity at the Experimental Breeder No. 1 (EBR-1). The EBR-1 is now a registered national historical landmark open to the FaciliTY issUes aT iNl public. In its 57-year history, scientists and engineers at the The INL site presents two challenges in the management site designed, constructed, and operated 52 nuclear reactors. of its physical facilities: (1) new or rejuvenated facilities are During the 1970s, the site began a succession of changes required to support the new mission and vision for the labora- in mission and program. In 1974 its name changed from 

OCR for page 58
 IDAHO NATIONAL LAbORATORY tory and (2) NE/INL is the landlord for a large, multitenant • The INL Business Plan disaggregates the broad objec- site in deteriorating condition. Each of these challenges is tives into business lines and the laboratory capabilities that described briefly below. distinguish it. While the Business Plan has not yet been made public, the committee discussed it extensively with INL and DOE staff and found it to be consistent with the Ten-Year Building scientific and engineering capability Site Plan and the Strategic Plan. INL’s Strategic Plan (DOE, 2006b, p. 3) states its as- signed mission as “ensur[ing] the nation’s energy security It is important to note that the formal INL plan documents with safe, competitive, and sustainable energy systems and were all prepared by INL staff. The committee recognizes unique homeland security capabilities.” The laboratory’s and emphasizes the need for NE and ID to fully participate in vision is that, “within ten years, INL will be the preemi- the planning activity and to eventually agree on what activi- nent national and international nuclear energy center with ties are to be carried out and the schedule. synergistic, world-class, multi-program capabilities and To summarize this sequence of plans, it is useful to dis- partnerships.” To achieve its ambitious goals, INL must tinguish between facilities needed to support the capabili- attract and retain world-class scientists and engineers in a ties envisioned for the laboratory and those that would be multiplicity of engineering and scientific disciplines. INL constructed by programs that might locate at the site, in part must have a budget to acquire and maintain state-of-the-art because of those capabilities. The latter, for example, might facilities and equipment that will be used by researchers of be the reactor or reprocessing demonstration facilities for the the highest technical competence to lead the development Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) or the prototype of and sustain nuclear power as a valued energy option of a Generation IV reactor for process heat applications. Site nationally and internationally.1 tenants other than NE might also build facilities there–for To specify the facilities and other capabilities required to example, the Department of Homeland Security or the U.S. realize its vision, INL has prepared three plans, all of which Navy. INL will compete with other laboratories for these the committee has carefully studied and discussed with NE program facilities. and INL management. Given the relatively large fraction of a PSO’s budget that must be devoted to landlord-related activities at a site,2 it is • The INL Strategic Plan sets out 18 specific objectives most important to closely couple the project-related facilities that support the vision. Figure 5-1 reproduces the strategy and those needed to achieve world-class status for the labo- map from the plan that specifies these objectives and the rela- ratory and attract capable personnel. Advanced computing tionship among them. The Strategic Plan has been approved capabilities, or highly technical facilities such as test reactors by NE and, according to the Idaho Operations Office (ID), or postirradiation examination laboratories and hot shops is entirely consistent with the statement of work contained are examples. These facilities are very expensive to obtain in the operating contract with BEA. and keep operational and up to date, so there is a continu- • The Ten-Year Site Plan presents the building-by-build- ing burden on the PSO—first, for a large initial investment ing, year-by-year actions recommended to acquire the facili- and then for the expense of long-term support. Thus the ties that INL requires for its mission. Appendix B of the plan PSO needs to utilize a strategy of making sure facilities to lists all of the facilities the laboratory believes it needs for establish world-class capabilities closely overlap with those its mission and programs. The Ten-Year Site Plan available needed for specific projects. This suggests that investments in to the committee was prepared in June 2006 and is currently those types of capabilities and facilities need to be paced and being updated to ensure consistency with the INL Business scheduled so they match project needs, and the capabilities Plan. As a result, the documented track from strategy to provided should be developed based on specifications that business plan to detailed facilities plan is not as tight as it satisfy specific project needs. might be. Based on its site visit and discussions with labora- As an example, NE has indicated a potential need for tory and ID management, however, the committee concludes major computation and simulation capabilities. This is analo- that there are no major inconsistencies. Indeed, as a matter gous to the need for similar capability in DOE’s National of process, the logical progression of plans that INL has Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Weapons Stock- developed and is developing present a clear picture of what pile Stewardship Program. The needs of the specific weapons laboratory management believes is necessary to become simulation and modeling projects were first established to “the preeminent, internationally recognized nuclear energy define the minimum capability needed for those projects. research, development, and demonstration laboratory.” 2 Informal discussions with DOE’s National Nuclear Security Adminis- 1 INL also intends to build capability to support the Department of Home- tration (NNSA) personnel associated with managing their laboratories indi- land Security. According to materials supplied to the committee by DOE on cated this could range up to 50 percent. In general, the NNSA laboratories November 28, 2006, National and Homeland Security funding in FY 2006 are in a more stable state than INL and require less “landlord” funding. This was 15 percent ($104 million) of the total INL business volume, $686 mil- is because of the very high proportion of aging and obsolete facilities at INL lion. However, this report focuses on the DOE program at the laboratory. to be eliminated and the many new facilities to be added.

OCR for page 58
0 FIGURE 5-1 INL strategy map provides a simple method of communicating the interdependent strategies being pursued to achieve its vision. The Strategic Plan is organized accord- ing to this map. SOURCE: DOE (2006b). fig 5-1 Landscape

OCR for page 58
 IDAHO NATIONAL LAbORATORY managing site infrastructure This then became the target for the computing facilities and capability to be provided, and funding was sought on BEA is also responsible for management of the overall this basis. In addition, as the technical programs were fur- site and its infrastructure. As noted earlier, the site infra- ther developed and refined, the additional computational structure is old and deteriorating. About 45 percent of it is capability was defined and used to create a funding pro- under the jurisdiction of DOE’s Office of Environmental file over several years. This approach provides a credible Management, which is responsible for decontamination, metric for infrastructure investments, for projecting future decommissioning, and disposal of assets no longer required needs, and for replanning or adjustments as time passes for INL’s present mission. NE is responsible for maintaining and actual budgets and technology needs change (DOE, or closing the balance. As a first goal, INL/BEA is committed 2007a). to eliminating 1.1 million ft2 of existing space during the 10- Whether or not the site becomes home to any of these year horizon of the site plan. The result would be to reduce program facilities, however, the INL facilities should be the space under NE active stewardship at the site by about configured to efficiently support the laboratory’s ongoing one-third from the present 3.2 million ft2. mission. The laboratory plan would group these facilities A second goal is to maintain the remaining infrastructure into three campuses: in good condition. DOE employs several metrics to assess the condition of infrastructure. At INL, these metrics rank • The Science and Technology Campus would consoli- the overall condition of the facilities as adequate and the date a wide variety of scientists and research facilities into a overall utilization as good. However, the deferred mainte- single area in Idaho Falls. Presently, much of the INL scien- nance backlog is high in relation to the value of the assets tific and engineering staff is scattered among 36 buildings in involved. In FY 2004 the ratio stood at 11.8 percent for INL’s Idaho Falls or work at the site itself. Most of INL’s scientific nonprogrammatic assets; the DOE target for this ratio is 2 to and engineering staff would be located at the new campus, 4 percent (see Table 5-1). NNSA also maintains a target ratio and their research would cover all of INL’s lines of business. of roughly 2 to 4 percent for its laboratories but has struggled The new campus would house administrative offices as well to achieve this. as research laboratories. • The Reactor Technology Complex would focus on test- assessmeNT oF The TeN-Year PlaN ing of advanced and proliferation-resistant fuels for NE, the U.S. Navy, and other users. Nearly half of the buildings at The Ten-Year Site Plan recommends a series of invest- this site were built before 1967. The new Reactor Technol- ments to bring the site into compliance with the INL vision ogy Complex would be built around the existing Advanced and DOE’s goals for infrastructure management. While the Test Reactor (ATR), which would have an upgraded mission committee has not attempted to analyze the Ten-Year Plan in capability to support an extended life. detail, it has been able to test it for reasonableness in reaching • The Material and Fuels Complex would be the center both objectives. of research on new reactor fuels, the nuclear fuel cycle, and related materials. It would incorporate and modernize a Building scientific and engineering capability number of existing facilities for this purpose. Over half of the existing buildings at this site are more than 30 years old. INL’s plans for building the scientific and engineering ca- pability needed to realize its vision are logically constructed BEA, the operating contractor, expects to build or upgrade and link broad visions with clear and consistent objectives. 400,000 ft2 of space in implementing these plans over the The Business Plan and the Ten-Year Site Plan, while still in next 10 years. flux, appear systematically to translate the strategy into spe- cific capabilities and facilities plans. The committee has also TABLE 5-1 Comparison of Multipurpose Laboratory Infrastructure Conditions and Uses Laboratory Asset Utilization Index Asset Condition Index Deferred Maintenance Ratio (%) Idaho National Laboratory 0.95 0.92 11.8 Argonne National Laboratory 0.96 0.96 2.0 Brookhaven National Laboratory 0.97 0.83 1.9 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 0.97 0.92 2.0 Oak Ridge National Laboratory 0.98 0.92 2.0 SOURCE: DOE (2006c).

OCR for page 58
 REVIEW OF DOE’S NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM reviewed the work statement for the operating contractor, ing funding, and maintenance work has been deferred to BEA, and finds that the planning is consistent with the work support more pressing issues. Other PSOs—for example, statement. Its interviews with laboratory personnel, ID, and NNSA—have had similar difficulties and have evolved ap- NE have not revealed any disagreement with this hierarchy proaches to reduce the balance, including limited periods of plans, at least conceptually. of specific investment in facilities to obtain or reestablish The committee has also examined these plans for consis- needed levels of performance. In addition, activities at other tency with the research program the committee recommends national laboratories have been graded so that maintenance elsewhere in this report. The Business Plan lists “distinguish- in direct support of facilities critical to particular programs ing capabilities” and “distinguishing performance” for INL. is ensured; maintenance of needed, but not program-critical, The committee reviewed these capabilities and performances facilities is funded next (an example is fire protection), and for consistency with the specific programmatic plans. Over- other facilities receive the lowest priority. all, it concludes that the high-level objectives stated in the Ten-Year Site Plan are generally consistent with the program resources available to implement the Plan objectives. However, the committee emphasizes the impor- tance of directly attaching facilities’ capabilities to specific The Idaho Facilities Management Account requested $95.3 programs. Tighter coupling is needed for two reasons. First, million in FY 2007 for support of the INL site (DOE, 2007b). particularly in view of tight budgets for the foreseeable The FY 2008 request is $104.7 million. This account appears future, NE needs to ensure facilities at INL do not dupli- to be the chief source of funding for infrastructure support, cate those at other laboratories. Second, close attention is although another $129 million is requested in FY 2008 for needed to ensure facility dollars at INL are closely coupled safety, security, and the management of radiological facilities. to specific programs and projects and the requirements are The FY 2007 request is shown in Table 5-2. derived from the needs of the program/project, in terms of This account contains funds for building capacity and for both capability and timing. infrastructure management. In FY 2007, it contains no new capital expenditures or general plant projects funding. Other funds come through the indirect charge INL makes managing the infrastructure on program funding. The FY 2007 budget for INL is shown As noted above, DOE measures several aspects of infra- in Table 5-3. structure condition and use. The committee has compared Of these, only the space cost looks much like a facility the metrics for INL with those of other multipurpose labo- charge. INL’s laboratory-directed research and development ratories, as shown in Table 5-1. (LDRD) is in the mid-range of the national labs, with the It appears from these data that the metrics for the utilization NNSA labs leading the pack (see Table 5-4). However, the and condition of INL’s assets are within a range comparable to committee considers that INL is a lead technology labora- that of other national laboratories. However, deferred mainte- tory, more like the NNSA lead technology laboratories (Los nance is clearly out of line. The Ten-Year Site Plan estimates Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, that an investment in maintenance of $150 million to $175 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) than the more million per year would bring deferred maintenance within the general-purpose DOE laboratories such as Oak Ridge high end of the target range by 2014. While the committee has National Laboratory or Argonne National Laboratory. The not made an independent estimate, the high level of deferred percentage of total funding spent on LDRD at the NNSA maintenance at INL would seem to require significant invest- laboratories is about twice that at INL, and the total funding ments to achieve parity with other DOE assets. allocated to LDRD at these laboratories is 4.5 to 6 times It appears the ratio is high at INL because the facility more. The committee also notes that INL is just starting a tends to be underfunded: There are many projects seek- steep climb to establish its prominence and capability as the TABLE 5-2 FY 2007 Request for the Idaho Facilities Management Account (millions of dollars) Account MFC RTC Sitewide ATR Life Extension Infrastructure 29.7 11.6 15.9 18.5 Capital projects 0.6 5.0 2.3 Operating projects 0.2 0 0.4 0 Capital equipmenta 0.3 0.2 2.4 1.4 NOTE: ATR, Advanced Test Reactor; MFC, Material Fuels Complex; RTC, Reactor Technology Center. aExcept for the ATR life extension, all capital equipment funding in FY 2007 is carryover from FY 2006. SOURCE: Materials supplied to the committee by DOE on November 28, 2006.

OCR for page 58
 IDAHO NATIONAL LAbORATORY TABLE 5-3 FY 2007 Budget for the Idaho National Laboratory (millions of dollars) Account Funding Description General and administrative 131.9 Primarily management systems costs and fixed costs like fees, taxes, and insurance Laboratory-directed research and development 21.1 Long-term research initiatives Program development 9.2 Business line development Organization management 49.7 Management overhead Space 44.5 Common use facilities and space management Common support 23.8 Infrastructure services line buses, cafeteria, fire, and landfill SOURCE: Materials supplied to the committee by DOE on November 28, 2006 TABLE 5-4 Reported FY 2006 Overall Laboratory Costs and LDRD Costs at Participating DOE Laboratories (millions of dollars) Laboratory LDRD Costs Total Laboratory Costs LDRD Fraction (%) Laboratory WFO Costs Argonne National Laboratory 22.9 495.9 4.62 126.5 Brookhaven National Laboratory 11.1 420.0 2.64 75.8 Idaho National Laboratory 21.1 685.7 3.08 305.9 Los Alamos National Laboratory 125.4 2,022.0 6.20 254.1 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 18.6 485.6 3.84 119.8 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 93.9 1,418.9 6.61 329.7 Oak Ridge National Laboratory 24.2 879.3 2.75 228.2 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 27.6 660.2 4.17 243.7 Sandia National Laboratories 131.7 2,077.2 6.34 764.9 NOTE: LDRD, laboratory-directed research and development; WFO, work for others. SOURCE: DOE (2006d). lead laboratory for nuclear technology in the DOE complex, INL’s current vision. INL has been further short-changed in while the NNSA laboratories are already established. Since that it has not received sufficient funding to stay even with LDRD funds are so important for attracting and motivating the other national laboratories in terms of maintenance and the kind of people needed to achieve a strong capability, NE funding of known efforts, which include commitments to the should consider expanding the availability of LDRD funds state of Idaho for the cleanup of certain state facilities. NE at INL. should consider expanding the availability of LDRD fund- INL is attempting to set up ATR as a user facility. This ing at INL; the target range should be competitive with or would produce some revenue, but only at an incremental cost greater than that of the NNSA lead technology laboratories, level. 6-8 percent. Finding 5-3. The NE/INL budgeting system and the budget FiNdiNGs aNd recommeNdaTioNs documents themselves are opaque and hard to understand. It The committee finds as follows: is difficult to trace budget amounts to particular projects and programs and to specific activities within the INL subbudget. Finding 5-1. Overall the committee considers that INL is The committee observes that the de facto budget process an important facility and provides important capabilities to seems to be that INL and the direct overseers at ID and NE support NE’s mission, which is to use nuclear technology come up with a list of tasks they consider to be desirable or to provide the United States with safe, secure, environmen- needed in a given year, and then NE senior management al- tally responsible, and affordable energy. INL has developed locates some fraction of the overall NE budget that remains a strategic vision and a long-term (10 years) plan for this after allocations are made to other high-priority programs. purpose. The sum assigned to the INL facilities budget is then dis- tributed over the original task list so that the highest priority Finding 5-2. The funding being provided to INL by NE is tasks are funded and the others are postponed. substantially less than what is needed to be consistent with

OCR for page 58
 REVIEW OF DOE’S NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM iNl Facilities Baseline, Vision and Plan Finding 5-4. A much more transparent, structured, and jointly supported (by NE, ID, and INL-BEA) planning and Recommendation 5-4. NE, ID, and INL (BEA) should es- budgeting process is needed. This will ensure that all par- tablish an agreed-on multiyear, resource-loaded, high-level ties are in full agreement about the long-term plan and that schedule and plan for the INL facilities, such as the Primav- budget decisions are made more carefully and on a more era Project Planner (P3). This plan should establish the level balanced basis. It will also enhance the credibility of the bud- of funding needed from NE, recognizing the contributions get and its bases to reviewers in Congress and the Office of expected from other agencies that use the site and funding Management and Budget and will, in the long term, provide from projects located at INL. It should be based on funding more stable and effective funding for the agreed-on plan. levels that are practical for the foreseeable future, not a wish list. It should be used for developing an annual budget for the Finding 5-5. NE has limited experience of being the PSO INL facilities and should be updated annually as part of the for a national laboratory. As such, its procedures for this budget cycle. This will support directly assessing the effect responsibility are not yet well defined. NE could benefit of annual budget changes and answering questions on the from discussions with other organizations at DOE (e.g., the impact of additional money or the effect of shortfalls. Office of Science and NNSA) with longer-standing, more mature PSO efforts. Recommendation 5-5. The initial version of this plan should be based on the current BEA baseline assessment, vision, The committee’s recommendations fall into three broad and supporting Ten-Year Site Plan. This does not mean that categories: improve the NE organization to better discharge the committee gives the BEA plan and documents across- its responsibility as the lead PSO for INL; establish a joint the-board endorsement. Rather, these documents appear to baseline vision and plan for INL; and modify the form of the contain the most complete and up-to-date information avail- INL facilities budget documentation to improve credibility able, and their structure is such that there is reasonably good and usefulness. traceability from objective to needed funding. They should pay attention to the connections between major programs and Ne as the lead Program secretarial office for iNl facilities. In particular, the capability and timing of facilities should be tightly tied to the program needs. Recommendation 5-1. NE should set up and document a process for evaluating alternative approaches for accomplish- Recommendation 5-6. For INL to accomplish its expected ing NE-sponsored activities, assigning the tasks appropri- mission, a number of large, sophisticated, and unique fa- ately, and avoiding duplication. For example, although INL cilities will be needed. These could include large hot cells is identified as the lead laboratory for nuclear-energy-related and associated laboratories for postirradiation examination tasks, this does not mean that all such work is to be assigned of materials and test reactors such as the ATR. The intent to INL. Rather, NE should take into account the existing is for INL to have magnet facilities attracting researchers skills and facilities and make best use of available and new and industrial users. For these facilities to attract users, the resources. The basis for the decision should be clear to INL full costs cannot be charged, and the user would pay only and the other laboratories and facilities. the justified incremental costs associated with use. This arrangement is typical of user facilities in the Office of Sci- Recommendation 5-2. NE should set up a formal, high- ence laboratories. The result is that the user facilities must level working group jointly with ID and INL (BEA). also receive dedicated funding from the PSO. NE and INL Consideration should be given to also having one or more have begun work to make the ATR at INL into such a user knowledgeable outsiders participate on an ongoing basis to facility. The committee endorses this approach for ATR and provide a wider perspective. This joint group would review recommends as follows: the long-term project plan recommended below and serve as a forum for discussion and resolution of issues, such as • NE should promptly address the inclusion of needed changes to the plan and the best way to make the inevitable funding to support the base costs of the ATR in the INL fa- adjustments that will be needed. It will also be a ready source cilities funding and develop an equitable basis for allocating of informal, expert advice to NE senior management on INL justified user costs over the longer term. facilities management. • As they develop a long-term plan for INL facilities, NE and INL should consider hosting other key capabilities—say, Recommendation 5-3. NE should meet with DOE and hot cells—as user facilities. Any such user facilities should NNSA organizations that are PSOs for other laboratories to be separately identified. review and discuss their practices and processes. Based on • NE and INL should include LRDR tasks associated the lessons they learned, it should develop and document its with establishing and strengthening INL personnel capability own internal processes and procedures for discharging its in the INL baseline, vision and plan. responsibilities as the PSO for INL.

OCR for page 58
 IDAHO NATIONAL LAbORATORY Form and content of the iNl Facilities Budget or clearly referenced in the budget. Traceability to a living, documentation readily updated overall plan and schedule will also help in this regard. Recommendation 5-7. NE, ID, and INL (BEA) should • The amount and sources of indirect funding at INL improve the form and content of the INL facilities budget used to support facilities-related expenditures should be documentation. Currently, a wide variety of documents need clarified. to be reviewed to understand the budget and its basis, and • Work funded by government agencies other than NE even then discussions with the main participants are neces- should be explicitly accounted for, along with the attendant sary. NE, ID, and INL (BEA) need to decide on the final impacts on resources needed to maintain and enhance INL form for the budget documentation, and both the Office facilities. The costs of managing for multiple users should of Science and NNSA documentation would be worthy of also be shown. emulation. The improved budget documentation should have the following attributes: reFereNces • Budget items should be readily traceable to specific Department of Energy (DOE). 2006a. Idaho National Laboratory Ten-Year items in the overall plan and schedule. Site Plan. August. • Big-ticket items that affect the budgets—for example, DOE. 2006b. INL Strategic Plan: Leading the Renaissance in Nuclear Energy. Summer. the resolution of cleanup commitments with fixed future end DOE. 2006c. Laboratory Plan FY2007-2011. dates—should be explicitly identified and accounted for in DOE. 2006d. FY 2006 Report to Congress, Laboratory Directed Research funding plans. and Development at the DOE National Laboratories. • The impact of budget amounts on maintenance items DOE, National Nuclear Security Administration. 2007a. NNSA Stockpile should be documented. For example, it appears maintenance Stewardship Plan, (Unclassified) Final Coordination Draft–Working papers (April 2). is chronically underfunded, the maintenance backlog is ris- DOE. 2007b. Department of Energy FY 2007 Congressional Budget ing, and the backlog appears to be out of line with that of Request. other comparable national laboratories. Data that allow dis- cerning trends and drawing comparisons need to be provided