Defense programs business practices re-engineering QFD exercise

Integrating technology readiness levels (TRL) into the management of engineering projects is critical to the mitigation of risk and improved customer/supplier communications. TRLs provide a common framework and language with which consistent comparisons of different technologies and approaches can be made. At Sandia National Laboratories, where technologies are developed, integrated and deployed into high consequence systems, the use of TRLs may be transformational. They are technology independent and span the full range of technology development including scientific and applied research, identification of customer requirements, modeling and simulation, identification of environments, testing and integration. With this report, we provide a reference set of definitions for TRLs and a brief history of TRLs at Sandia National Laboratories. We then propose and describe two approaches that may be used to integrate TRLs into the NW SMU business practices. In the first approach, we analyze how TRLs can be integrated within concurrent qualification as documented in TBP-100 [1]. In the second approach we take a look at the product realization process (PRP) as documented in TBP-PRP [2]. Both concurrent qualification and product realization are fundamental to the way weapons engineering work is conducted at this laboratory and the NWC (nuclear weapons complex) as a whole. Given the current structure and definitions laid out in the TBP-100 and TBP-PRP, we believe that integrating TRLs into concurrent qualification (TBP-100) rather than TBP-PRP is optimal. Finally, we note that our charter was to explore and develop ways of integrating TRLs into the NW SMU and therefore we do not significantly cover the development and history of TRLs. This work was executed under the auspices and direction of Sandia's Weapon Engineering Program. Please contact Gerry Sleefe, Deputy Program Director, for further information.

The environment is very important in the aspects of peace because when we destroy our resources and our resources become scarce, we fight over that.I am working to make sure we don't only protect the environment, we also improve governance.

This paper introduces an innovative approach to enhancing the quality of electronic component assembly through real-time, inline inspection utilizing AI-powered deep learning techniques. The primary objective is to ensure that each component meets the highest manufacturing standards, specifically adhering to IPC-A-610 and IPC-J-STD-001 criteria. The methodology leverages the existing infrastructure of pick-and-place machines to capture high-resolution images of electronic components during the assembly process. These images are analyzed in real-time by advanced AI deep learning algorithms, which are designed to detect defects such as damage, corrosion, and structural irregularities in the components and their leads. This AI-driven solution shifts quality assurance from a reactive to a proactive approach. Key elements of the proposed method include the integration of AI deep learning technology, real-time defect detection, and strict adherence to industry standards. By embedding inline inspection capabilities into the electronic component assembly workflow, manufacturers can proactively identify and rectify defects during the assembly process, thereby significantly enhancing overall manufacturing quality and reliability. This proactive approach anticipates defects before they manifest, leading to fewer production disruptions, smoother production flow, and ultimately, cost savings. This paper presents various examples of defective components, illustrating different types of defects identified using AI deep learning methods. Through practical applications and results, this research provides valuable insights for optimizing electronic component assembly processes. The adoption of AI technologies in EMS elevates production efficiency and ensures unparalleled quality, positioning manufacturers to achieve higher standards in electronic manufacturing.

Chapter 1 Introduction: Linking Nuclear Legacies and Communication Studies Part 2 The Discourse of Officials and Stakeholders of Nuclear Weapons Production Chapter 3 Convergence and Divergence in the Public Dialogue on Nuclear Weapons Cleanup Chapter 4 Becoming Hanford Downwinders: Producing Community and Challenging Discursive Containment Chapter 5 Regional Communication and Sense of Place Surrounding the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Part 6 Organizing the Past, Present, and Future of Nuclear Weapons Production Chapter 7 Cold War Triumphant: The Rhetorical Uses of History, Memory, and Heritage Preservation within the Department of Energy's Nuclear Weapons Complex Chapter 8 TRUTH is Generated HERE: Knowledge Loss and the Production of Nuclear Confidence in the Post-Cold War Era Chapter 9 (Forever) At Work in the Fields of the Bomb: Images of Long Term Stewardship in Post-Cold War Nuclear Discourse Part 10 Critical Response Chapter 11 Response: Nuclear Legacies and Opportunities for Politically and Ethically Engaged Communication Scholarship

During the 2000 presidential election, in that time before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the stump speeches of George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, focused on protecting Social Security, saving American education, expanding Medicare, raising or lowering taxes, and readying the military. If science was mentioned at all, it was usually in the context of missile defense, global warming, or Gore’s role in creating the internet. With the exception of the debate over stem-cell research, science remains a background topic in the current campaign. Democratic candidate John Kerry has occasionally highlighted US science policy and used it against President Bush, charging that the administration has put politics and ideology ahead of science. “Let scientists do science again,” a headline on the Kerry election website says.Bush has responded, primarily through his science adviser, John Marburger, by pointing to the 44% increase in federal R&D since fiscal year 2001 and the record $132 billion in the administration’s FY 2005 R&D budget. “Kerry ignores President Bush’s record science investments,” reads a headline on the Bush reelection website.Kerry answers by noting that most of the R&D money is going for weapons systems and defense spending related to the war in Iraq, not basic science programs. Marburger and other administration officials point to several R&D initiatives, including new nanotechnology centers, the Moon/Mars space initiative, and the program to develop hydrogen fuel technology. In an effort to get the candidates to specifically address questions of interest to the science community, Physics Today has continued a tradition begun in 1976; it asked Bush and Kerry nine questions covering a range of science topics. Their answers, sometimes direct and sometimes vague, show fundamental differences on several key issues.On missile defense, Bush says his request of $10 billion in FY 2005 for development and deployment of such a system fulfills a pledge he made to the American people. Kerry says we should not be “falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system.”On global warming, Kerry talks of both near- and long-term programs to deal with the problem. Bush promotes his “comprehensive climate change strategy.” The candidates also address a host of other issues ranging from space exploration to energy policy. During the 2000 presidential election, in that time before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the stump speeches of George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, focused on protecting Social Security, saving American education, expanding Medicare, raising or lowering taxes, and readying the military. If science was mentioned at all, it was usually in the context of missile defense, global warming, or Gore’s role in creating the internet. With the exception of the debate over stem-cell research, science remains a background topic in the current campaign. Democratic candidate John Kerry has occasionally highlighted US science policy and used it against President Bush, charging that the administration has put politics and ideology ahead of science. “Let scientists do science again,” a headline on the Kerry election website says.Bush has responded, primarily through his science adviser, John Marburger, by pointing to the 44% increase in federal R&D since fiscal year 2001 and the record $132 billion in the administration’s FY 2005 R&D budget. “Kerry ignores President Bush’s record science investments,” reads a headline on the Bush reelection website.Kerry answers by noting that most of the R&D money is going for weapons systems and defense spending related to the war in Iraq, not basic science programs. Marburger and other administration officials point to several R&D initiatives, including new nanotechnology centers, the Moon/Mars space initiative, and the program to develop hydrogen fuel technology. In an effort to get the candidates to specifically address questions of interest to the science community, Physics Today has continued a tradition begun in 1976; it asked Bush and Kerry nine questions covering a range of science topics. Their answers, sometimes direct and sometimes vague, show fundamental differences on several key issues.On missile defense, Bush says his request of $10 billion in FY 2005 for development and deployment of such a system fulfills a pledge he made to the American people. Kerry says we should not be “falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system.”On global warming, Kerry talks of both near- and long-term programs to deal with the problem. Bush promotes his “comprehensive climate change strategy.” The candidates also address a host of other issues ranging from space exploration to energy policy. 1Section:ChooseTop of page1 <<BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Missile defense: The present administration is requesting more than $10 billion this year for development and deployment of a missile defense system. Many scientists say the system, given current and foreseeable technology, cannot be effective. What proof of effectiveness should be required before the system is fully deployed? Given the low-tech nature of terrorist attacks and the limited missile capabilities of North Korea and other hostile nations, does missile defense continue to be a wise investment? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1Bush <<Kerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryOur policy is to develop and deploy, at the earliest possible date, a weapons system that would defend the United States homeland against nuclear attack, including ballistic missile defenses drawing on the best technologies available. Early in my administration, I called for the examination of the full range of available technologies and basing modes for missile defenses that could protect the United States, our deployed forces, and our friends and allies.The FY 2005 Defense Appropriations Act provides $10 billion that I requested for systems to defend against the threat from ballistic missiles. Later this year, the first components of America’s missile defense system will become operational, and we are on schedule for the next stages of the project. My administration will develop and deploy the technologies necessary to protect our people, fulfilling a pledge I made to the American people more than four years ago.KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry <<2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryA missile defense that works is a wise investment, but one that pours money into defenses at the expense of other immediate national security needs is not. And that’s what this administration has done. Missile defense should be one element of a comprehensive national security strategy. But a single-minded focus on this technology and the threat it is designed to meet ignores the very real danger of terrorism and our greatest danger—terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.John Edwards and I will be committed to developing a missile defense system that works, is fully tested, and geared to the threats we face. But I will refocus our efforts on preventing the spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and dramatically accelerating the security of nuclear weapons and material in Russia and around the world. We will not sit by, falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system, while these threats continue to fester.2Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2 <<BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Climate change: Virtually all reputable research in recent years has reinforced the scientific conclusion that global warming is a real and growing crisis caused, at least in part, by the burning of fossil fuels. Do you accept that scientific consensus? Under what circumstances would you regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2Bush <<Kerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryGlobal climate change is a serious long-term issue. In 2001, I asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to provide the most up-to-date information about the science of climate change. The academy found that considerable uncertainty remains about the effect of natural fluctuations on climate and the future effects climate change will have on our environment.My administration is now well along in implementing a comprehensive climate change strategy to advance the science, expand the use of transformational energy and carbon sequestration technologies, and mitigate the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and in partnership with other nations. I created the new US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) to refocus the federal government’s climate research programs, for which my 2005 budget seeks nearly $2 billion to fund research across the federal government. The NAS endorsed the CCSP strategic plan, noting that it “articulates a guiding vision, is appropriately ambitious, and is broad in scope.”I also committed the nation to a goal of reducing American greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over the next 10 years, which would prevent more than 500 million tons of carbon emissions through 2012. To help achieve this goal, I created the Climate Vision program in 2003 to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by energy-intensive industrial sectors. Participants in the Climate Vision program account for between 40 and 45% of US greenhouse gas emissions. I have strongly supported over $4 billion in tax incentives for renewable and energy-efficient technologies, including wind and solar energy and hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles. Also, in April 2003, my administration raised the fuel economy standards for light trucks and SUVs [sport utility vehicles] for the first time since 1996, saving 3.6 billion gallons of gasoline. And in my 2003 State of the Union [address], I announced a $1.7 billion hydrogen fuel initiative to accelerate research that could lead to hydrogen-powered, no-emission vehicles within a generation.Additionally, my administration is participating in robust international partnerships to promote clean, renewable, commercially available fusion energy and to construct the $1 billion FutureGen project, which will test the latest technologies to generate electricity, produce hydrogen, and sequester greenhouse gas emissions from coal. KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry <<3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryI recognize the risk of climate change, and I have outlined a balanced set of programs that will have impact both in the near term and over the long term. My plan will also provide balanced support for technology that can increase the efficiency and cut greenhouse emissions in transportation systems, buildings, and industry that are attractive to consumers and US producers. Our programs will encourage the use of renewable fuels such as ethanol and renewable electric generation that produce little or no net greenhouse gases. I will expand the production tax credit for wind and biomass energy to cover the full array of renewable energy sources and increase Department of Energy (DOE) research into renewable energy sources and their applications. And I will propose an aggressive program of research, standards, and incentives to accelerate electric generation from renewable energy. Clean coal technology can play a critical role, given technology to cut carbon dioxide emissions.My plan would encourage energy efficiency with programs such as updated fuel efficiency standards, new tax incentives for automakers to build the new, more efficient automobiles of the future, and tax incentives for families to purchase more energy-efficient cars, trucks, and SUVs.3Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3 <<BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Science investment: There is concern in the science and economic communities that the US is losing its world leadership in the sciences, which they say bodes ill for future economic growth and global competitive-ness. To address that concern, should the US increase funding for basic science, and should the administration fully fund the 2001 bill, signed by the president, to double NSF’s budget? How would you reinvigorate science education for US-born students? What is the role of foreign scientists and students in the US scientific enterprise? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3Bush <<Kerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryIncluding my FY 2005 budget request, total federal R&D investment during the first term will have increased 44% to a record $132 billion in 2005. My FY 2005 budget request commits 13.5% of total discretionary outlays to R&D, the highest level in 37 years. In the context of the overall economy, federal R&D spending in the FY 2005 budget is the greatest share of GDP [gross domestic product] in over 10 years. Funding for basic research, the fuel for future technology development, is at an all-time high of $26.8 billion in FY 2005, a 26% increase over FY 2001. Funding for NSF during the four years of my administration has increased 30% over FY 2001 to $5.7 billion in FY 2005. NSF’s broad support for basic research, particularly at US academic institutions, provides not only a central source for discovery in many fields but also encourages and supports development of the next generation of scientists and engineers. Moreover, in fulfilling its mission, NSF has used its funding efficiently and effectively.As for the American scientific enterprise, it is important in this information and technological age that our students receive a first-rate science education, just as they receive quality instruction in reading, writing, and math. The federal government has no control over local curricula, and it is not my job to tell states and local boards of education what they should teach in the classroom. Nevertheless, the No Child Left Behind Act, one of my proudest legislative achievements this term, is improving our schools and, consequently, the teaching of science. NCLB requires, for the first time, assessments in science to give us better information about how our students are performing and how to improve instruction in science. I have also proposed creating the Presidential Math and Science Scholars Fund to provide $100 million in grants to low-income students who study math or science. This will ensure that America’s graduates have the training they need to compete for the best jobs of the 21st century.I also value the contributions that foreign scientists and students make to our nation’s scientific enterprise, while recognizing the importance of safeguarding our security. We will continue to welcome international students and scientists while implementing balanced measures to end abuses of the student visa system. My administration has already achieved several notable successes in reducing delays now being experienced by some visa seekers. We have increased security while speeding up the clearance process; approximately 1000 back-logged applications have already been cleared out.KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry <<4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryFor three years, the Bush administration has squandered America’s leadership in the world, putting politics before science and doing nothing to create jobs while our workers fall further behind. The administration has proposed cuts for scientific research and grossly distorted and politicized science on issues from mercury pollution to stem-cell research. This approach not only limits the research that our scientists are doing today, it undermines important discoveries of tomorrow and threatens America’s critical edge in innovation. I will reverse this course by restoring America’s scientific leadership, helping find new cures, moderating healthcare costs, and developing new technologies that will create good jobs. I will boost support for the physical sciences and engineering by increasing research investments in agencies such as NSF, the National Institutes of Health, DOE, NIST, and NASA. This funding will help with the broad areas of science and technology that will provide the foundations for economic growth and prosperity in the 21st century.4Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4 <<BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Nuclear weapons: Does the US need to develop a new class of nuclear weapons to deal with the changing threats of the 21st century? Is there any circumstance in which you would support the resumption of nuclear testing? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4Bush <<Kerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryThe Nuclear Posture Review, released by my administration in January 2002, noted that the nation’s nuclear infrastructure had atrophied since the end of the cold war and that the evolving security environment requires a flexible and responsive weapons complex infrastructure. To that end, my FY 2005 budget reflects an increase over the 2004 enacted level in the weapons activities account, which encompasses the stockpile stewardship programs. There is no current need for testing due to the sophistication of computer modeling and other new technologies, but we must maintain the capability to test in case such testing becomes necessary in the future to ensure the safety and reliability of our defensive arsenal. We have not identified any need for developing new nuclear weapons. KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry <<5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryNo, and a Kerry–Edwards administration will stop this administration’s program to develop a new class of nuclear weapons. This is a weapon we don’t need, and it undermines our ability to persuade other nations to forego development of these weapons.5Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5 Nuclear There is serious concern many that could or a nuclear in a US Do you the US is doing to and control of nuclear weapons and material both in the US and BushSection:ChooseTop of administration in has more to and control nuclear weapons and material than US weapons and are and both the Department of Defense and are to make more My administration has increased funding to weapons and material in the Union and has by years the schedule the administration for security in We are with Russia to end the production of and to weapons for of weapons. the my administration the to or and material We have already weapons material from several our in its for nuclear weapons. To against we the international in a global effort to account and of sources that could be used in such We activities in over 40 on this as well as with international the Energy the the and the of Defense we have dramatically our ability to that could be a threat to us and to our friends and my administration the billion initiative to support and nuclear safety in the This of the international is to a more of nation’s highest must be preventing from to nuclear weapons and the material to make We must in a global partnership with other nations to prevent the spread of these weapons. the Bush administration’s have in the have the we need to advance our security. September they have not nearly to and on the while the nuclear from and North Korea have Our security requires an immediate change of I have proposed a comprehensive strategy to of weapons and including an of programs to all nuclear weapons and within the and at research in the within four production of new material for nuclear weapons by a global on production of new of nuclear weapons and by development of the new generation of nuclear accelerating in US and nuclear and reducing of in nuclear weapons programs in hostile including by with North Korea to ensure the and of its nuclear weapons program and a global effort to prevent from the necessary to build nuclear weapons. international efforts to by and and as well as improving the security a presidential to prevent nuclear terrorism who will focus on a effort to all nuclear weapons and around the world and prevent a nuclear terrorist of Energy than of and have not in a comprehensive US energy policy. years into the future, what do you the US energy should How would you the US in that BushSection:ChooseTop of and energy is critical to America’s and homeland security. We will be more and more we are on foreign sources of energy. The of a comprehensive and balanced national energy policy has been one of my During my first in I proposed a national energy policy that would our energy production and systems, reduce our on foreign promote efficiency and increase domestic production from all of energy including renewable energy and continue to our economy and create new jobs. We will continue to with on the energy to the administration has nearly all of the more than in the comprehensive national energy policy that not as increasing reliability R&D to help prevent and the to its of million to provide energy security in case of of have proposed an program of research, and standards that would increase the efficiency of energy use and use of new energy sources that can ensure a and while reducing the risk of climate change. The program would be supported in by a billion energy security and from federal and gas the in by I have to around the and a of that can meet US needs both in the term and for in the Given the long time required to over energy investments such as of and trucks, industrial and we must a broad set of new technologies as as possible we have any of US energy use in the near term, many of the most control systems, and other technologies to improve the energy of buildings, and industrial that the US to reduce its on from the and I will set for fuels such as I will support research and incentives that will dramatically increase use of from wind and other renewable And I will encourage development of technology and nuclear generation with high standards for stewardship and of Nuclear recent by that nuclear is the best energy source to meet the US while protecting the renewable energy can be deployed on a Do you increasing the use of nuclear If what would you do with the BushSection:ChooseTop of support the further development of nuclear technologies as a clean, and to meet this nation’s future energy Nuclear for of our This which no pollution or greenhouse gas can play an expanding role in our energy future while the we with energy national energy policy several to encourage increased use of nuclear and to the that through the Nuclear my administration is with industry to the for an of a new US nuclear within the next years. through the the United States is with around the to develop a next generation of more and more nuclear that can also produce hydrogen and my administration has made a to the nuclear and the of a long-term at We are ahead with the of a to the Nuclear at the end of this administration is also committed to and in new technologies that will change the we generate I committed the United States to the international fusion energy as in is a important to test the of nuclear fusion as a source of and the of a nearly source of energy the that long-term of Nuclear can play an role in energy while reducing the risk of climate key such as nuclear nuclear and security must be John Edwards and I will ensure safety and science We George Bush’s plan to over the of a Kerry–Edwards administration will on science. John Edwards and I do not support as a nuclear and will that nuclear and transportation only on the of science and that to and the John Edwards and I will George Bush and to from a for an NAS study to is the as to long-term and or some other technology. an international to scientific for nuclear and nuclear from terrorist John Edwards and I will improve and security at nuclear In we will nuclear to to improve including measures to reduce to the an of National National Nuclear the national weapons continue to be with security spending and What would you to improve at the Does the current plan of the to the risk of the in the of the war on BushSection:ChooseTop of national are doing to deal with the threats of the 21st are a in our efforts to improve homeland are the source of technological and are helping the war on With their at the highest level in years, National National and National are also on the edge of defense research, protecting the nation’s infrastructure from terrorist attacks, and developing a that the of a nuclear This is we billion on weapons research and production in FY 2004 and I for billion for We must and security My administration has made effort to improve the the weapons do and one of efforts is that in all areas of central to the war on we can use our more and focus on his or of national play a critical role in our nuclear weapons stockpile and that our nation’s nuclear weapons are and The national also have an important role in preventing the spread of weapons of mass and in science for our nation’s have a of our nation’s but this record has been by and security at the has been John Edwards and I are committed to and and restoring the at these critical national of is being to the long-term of to the and Many scientists the will money from science How do you the importance of science exploration What is the funding between the BushSection:ChooseTop of I announced my for the future of America’s space exploration this will the of both and science will as to the and other vehicles continue to their and of to we have systems on and around a system and one on its to the for cannot be by the most or the most We need to and and for And only are of to the by space we our on the we are developing a new exploration to our This will be by and its first no than will to the as as and no than and use it as a for the We will with to the and for future will with the goal of and there for of Edwards and I will continue America’s long tradition of leadership in and space exploration as of a program to broad for this will not to programs such as the Bush administration’s Program that from in the with no or will in new programs to set by scientific in and other Our administration will on the of the scientific to the most for research and the most for these the of or are most to the 2004 American of

The electronic components business within the Nuclear Weapons Complex spans organizational and Department of Energy contractor boundaries. An assessment of the current processes indicates a need for fundamentally changing the way electronic components are developed, procured, and manufactured. A model is provided based on a virtual enterprise that recognizes distinctive competencies within the Nuclear Weapons Complex and at the vendors. The model incorporates changes that reduce component delivery cycle time and improve cost effectiveness while delivering components of the appropriate quality.

As deputy assistant secretary for research, development, and simulation in the US Department of Energy Office of Defense Programs, Gil Weigand provides programmatic and policy direction for the DoE's nuclear weapons research, development, and simulation work. In partnership with the national labs, he leads the effort to preserve the technology base and develop programs for the surety, reliability, military effectiveness, and credibility of the nation's nuclear-weapons stockpile.Prior to this job, Weigand was deputy assistant secretary for strategic computing and simulation and a senior information officer for the DoE Office of Defense Programs, where he led advanced initiatives in high-performance computer simulation, computation, and communications. In particular, he was responsible for directing the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative, which has created leading-edge computational modeling and simulation tools necessary to move from test-based to simulation-based assessment and certification. The ASCI initiative is based on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, an international treaty to move toward no nuclear testing announced by President Bill Clinton on 11 August 1995.Paul Messina now manages ASCI as DoE deputy assistant secretary for advanced simulation and computing for defense programs. He is on a two-year leave from the California Institute of Technology, where he is assistant vice president for scientific computing, a faculty associate in scientific computing, and director of the Center for Advanced Computing Research. He has a joint appointment at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory as manager of high-performance computing. Messina is also on leave from the position of chief architect for the National Partnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure, where he established and led the Scalable I/O Initiative.Editor-in-chief George Cybenko recently talked to Weigand and Messina about their roles in ASCI and the Alliance Program, and their thoughts about where the high end of computational performance is headed.

In many manufacturing environments, such as the nuclear weapons complex, emphasis has shifted from the regular production and delivery of large orders to infrequent small orders. However, the challenge to maintain the same high quality and reliability standards while building much smaller lot sizes remains. To meet this challenge, specific areas need more attention, including fast and on-target process start-up, low volume statistical process control, process characterization with small experiments, and estimating reliability given few actual performance tests of the product. In this paper we address the issue of low volume statistical process control. We investigate an adaptive filtering approach to process monitoring with a relatively short time series of autocorrelated data. The emphasis is on estimation and minimization of mean squared error rather than the traditional hypothesis testing and run length analyses associated with process control charting. We develop an adaptive filtering technique that assumes initial process parameters are unknown, and updates the parameters as more data become available. Using simulation techniques, we study the data requirements (the length of a time series of autocorrelated data) necessary to adequately estimate process parameters. We show that far fewer data values are needed than is typically recommended for process control applications. We also demonstrate the techniques with a case study from the nuclear weapons manufacturing complex.

3 - Department of Energy Locations

The purpose of this White Paper is to outline the benefits we expect to receive from Model-Based Engineering and Manufacturing (MBE/M) for the design, analysis, fabrication, and assembly of nuclear weapons for upcoming Life Extension Programs (LEPs). Industry experiences with model-based approaches and the NNSA/DP investments and experiences, discussed in this paper, indicate that model-based methods can achieve reliable refurbished weapons for the stockpile with less cost and time. In this the paper, we list both general and specific benefits of MBE/M for the upcoming LEPs and the metrics for determining the success of model-based approaches. We also present some outstanding issues and challenges to deploying and achieving long-term benefit from the MBE/M. In conclusion, we argue that successful completion of the upcoming LEPs--with very aggressive schedule and funding restrictions--will depend on electronic model-based methods. We ask for a strong commitment from LEP managers throughout the Nuclear Weapons Complex to support deployment and use of MBE/M systems to meet their program needs.

Over the past few decades, many studies of actinides in glasses and ceramics have been conducted that have contributed substantially to the increased understanding of actinide incorporation in solids and radiation effects due to actinide decay. These studies have included fundamental research on actinides in solids and applied research and development related to the immobilization of the high level wastes (HLW) from commercial nuclear power plants and processing of nuclear weapons materials, environmental restoration in the nuclear weapons complex, and the immobilization of weapons-grade plutonium as a result of disarmament activities. Thus, the immobilization of actinides has become a pressing issue for the twenty-first century (Ewing, 1999), and plutonium immobilization, in particular, has received considerable attention in the USA (Muller et al., 2002; Muller and Weber, 2001). The investigation of actinides and

The Department of Energy (DOE) operates 17 major facilities to develop and produce nuclear weapons. The facilities, which together are termed the weapons complex,'' include laboratores that design and test the weapons and components; materials for use in weapons; and weapons production facilities that either produce various components or assemble them into completed weapons, or both. This report, which was requested of the National Research Council by DOE at the direction of Congress, sets out an assessment of various management, environmental, health, and safety issues melting to the operation of the complex. An examination of the weapons complex is an immense undertaking. The facilities are located throughout the United States, and each of the major facilities is a huge and sophisticated operation. The total budget of the complex for FY 1990 amounts to some $10 billion and involves a staff of some 80,000 people working for the Department and its contractors. The Department confronts a variety of problems in connection with its stewardship of the complex. Many of the facilities are old, and maintenance over the years has been inadequate. There is a legacy of environmental contamination that must be addressed. Moreover, DOE must be prepared to operate under close public scrutiny and in compliance with environmental and safety standards that have become increasingly stringent over time. 42 refs., 8 figs., 4 tabs.

The Transportation Technologies Group (TTG) of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is currently tasked, by National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Service Center (SC), Office of technical Support (OTS), National Security Department (NSD), Packaging Certification Division (PCD), to revise the Defense Programs’ Safety Guide 100 (SG-100). SG-100, formally entitled “Design Guide for Packaging and Offsite Transportation of Nuclear Components, Special Assemblies, and Radioactive Materials Associated with the Nuclear Explosives and Weapons Safety Program” is being revised to reflect current regulations as well as to incorporate lessons learned over the past several years. SG-100 was last published in 1994 as Revision 1, and has served as the key guidance document for the development of Defense Programs’ Type B package designs as well as their testing and testing and certification. Since that time, there have been two major revisions to the U.S. packaging and transportation regulations (due to revisions to US federal regulations, IAEA guidelines, and national standards), re-engineering of the DOE establishing the semi-autonomous NNSA, as well as numerous improvements in the analytical tools and methodologies used in package design and confirmatory review. This revision to SG-100 will capture these changes as well as reflect various lessons learned from certification reviews which have taken place over the past decade. TTG has also been tasked by PCD to present a workshop based on the revised SG-100 in September 2004.

The article deals with the results and achievements of Ural scientists in studying the nuclear industry history. Public interest in detailed, scientifically based coverage of the construction, development and operation of enterprises in the nuclear weapons complex has always existed, but the development of this initiative was hampered by the special secrecy of archival materials on the activities of all enterprises and organizations related to the development and serial production of nuclear charges and ammunition. Only the socio-ideological changes caused by perestroika led to the declassification of archival funds, making them available for research. This situation has led to an increase in the number of publications on the nuclear project topic, including publications of Ural scientists.

Competitive pressures force the electronics industry to keep costs down and to reduce product development cycle times. These goals must be accomplished while maintaining product quality and keeping up with current technology. Increasingly, electronics companies are collaborating with other companies to achieve their business goals and to stay competitive. This has taken the form of outsourcing entire operations and services in addition to outsourcing certain components. Such efforts result in a distributed manufacturing environment and places increased stress on the information infrastructure, requiring firms to implement technological changes in order to compete using these business and enterprise practices. The Electronics Agile Manufacturing Research Institute (EAMRI) at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute was formed to develop tools to support distributed electronics manufacturing environments. As part of this effort, the EAMRI has developed a cycle time estimation model that determines the cycle time or time duration for a PCB assembly before its realization. We model the PCB as going through three stages of realization: design, resource planning, and manufacturing. The cycle time model provides an estimate for each phase based on information available about the PCB before that phase has commenced. This model allows for greater flexibility and insight into planning the PCB development process and in allocating the resources to assure that each PCB meets its schedule. This paper details the development of cycle time estimation models and describes their potential use in a collaborative, distributed manufacturing environment.