Peer Review and Design Competition in the NNSA National Security Laboratories (2015) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 The Present: From 1992 Until Today
3 The Present: From 1992 Until Today
Pages 24-38
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 24... ...
At the same time, and for the same reasons, the three laboratories developed and implemented over time an extensive intra- and interlaboratory technical review methodology to enhance their confidence in the stockpile stewardship work that dominates the mission. Approximations to design competitions were also implemented in an attempt to reestablish practices that had been so successful during the Cold War.
|
From page 25... ...
The data generated are useful in peer reviews and for providing feedback to NEP designers, but these facilities and capabilities as a whole do not exercise the complete set of skills needed for actual design and engineering of an NEP. Sandia National Laboratories Tests of non-nuclear components and of subsystems and systems integrated with the delivery systems continued after the test ban.
|
From page 26... ...
In general, the processes used today for peer review of nuclear weapon designs or development plans are more formal and less ad hoc than they were during the Cold War. Then, as now, all three laboratories conducted a large number of technical and programmatic reviews using reviewers primarily from their own institutions, as can be seen from the definitions of peer review that are provided in Chapter 1.
|
From page 27... ...
Since the start of Stockpile Stewardship, the NEP design laboratories and SNL have evolved distinctly different approaches to peer review. Because of the NEP laboratories' reliance on simulations of complex physical processes, which are inherently imperfect, and SNL's ability to test a much larger portion of its work, it is reasonable for the three laboratories to have different approaches to peer review, as described here.
|
From page 28... ...
For interlaboratory peer reviews that include production issues, participation by technically qualified personnel from the applicable production agency would be appropriate. The other type of peer review at Sandia is internal reviews that are conducted to manage technical risk throughout a product's life cycle. The degree of rigor and the composition of the peer review panel are determined using a graded approach that depends on the degree of technical complexity and risk.
|
From page 29... ...
Interlaboratory peer review (IPR) involving all three laboratories is 7 "Nuclear weapons surety refers to the materiel, personnel, and procedures that con tribute to the security, safety, and reliability of nuclear weapons and to the assurance that there will be no nuclear weapon accidents, incidents, unauthorized weapon detonations, or degradation in performance at the target." Quoted from The Nuclear Matters Handbook: Expanded Edition, Nuclear Weapons Council, 2011, Washington, D.C., p.
|
From page 30... ...
These teams are formally IPR teams that report to the laboratory director and contain representatives from all three laboratories; their job is to vigorously challenge the assumptions and assessments made by a laboratory design team. In 2000, the joint DOD-NNSA Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC)
|
From page 31... ...
, which is part of the input to the annual assessment letter of the stockpile written by the LANL and LLNL directors. INWAP came about through the initiative of the NEP design laboratory directors and the NNSA in 2008, and it was subsequently authorized and funded by Congress.
|
From page 32... ...
This builds trust and collaboration while at the same time valuing the differences in technical approaches, tools, and expertise. • Because previous laboratory directors were personally involved in establishing INWAP, it is clear to all concerned that the heads of the NEP design laboratories value the benefit of alternative approaches and tools to inform their judgment.
|
From page 33... ...
For example, SNL has established the Nuclear Weapons External Advisory Board to give critical reviews and advice to Sandia; it reports to the SNL deputy director. It is composed of members of the Air Force, the Navy, the NEP laboratories, and the U.S.
|
From page 34... ...
, and on occasion without nuclear weapon experience, provided valuable insight into a problem that had not been fully recognized by the design laboratory. Some examples that were provided by the laboratories of the value of external peer review include the following: • Plutonium materials properties.
|
From page 35... ...
Peer review teams were formed to focus on partial component reuse, and a new option was identified that saved over $1 billion.21 Several additional examples involved deterioration of a system or component that was found during internal peer review. In selected cases, though, the concern was not completely addressed by the production team.
|
From page 36... ...
Los Alamos National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Recent interlaboratory competitions capture some of the flavor of the design competitions of the Cold War years, but there has been no recent design competition at the NEP laboratories that -- as often occurred during the testing era -- culminated in the actual production of a prototype to verify that the weapon design was producible or viable. One of the design studies was for a warhead to be included in a new Air Force cruise missile.
|
From page 37... ...
Although substantive improvements to both designs were discovered through this opposing team review, the fact that the results of the reviews were presented in such a forum, and somewhat early in the process, created deep-seated negative feelings on the part of the two NEP laboratories and mistrust of NNSA that still exists. These unfortunate aspects of the manner in which the RRW competition was conducted were compounded by the fact that the program was canceled by Congress before either design had been validated by completing engineering and manufacturing a prototype -- essential elements of any successful design competition.
|
From page 38... ...
38 PEER REVIEW IN THE NNSA LABORATORIES CONCLUDING COMMENTS Based on its extensive experience with nuclear weapons science and technology, the committee concludes that in the absence of nuclear testing, strong peer review and design competition create a higher level of confidence in the nation's stockpile than could be generated without them. The ultimate measure of success of peer review and design competition will be a sustained, competent, and creative workforce capable of responding to emerging challenges.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.