**\[DNFSB LETTERHEAD\]**

May 10, 2007

The Honorable William C. Ostendorff

Acting Administrator

National Nuclear Security Administration

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585-0104

Dear Mr. Ostendorff:

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) received a letter
from the Assistant Deputy Administrator for Military Application and
Stockpile Operations on March 13, 2007, reporting completion of the
three remaining commitments listed in Revision 1 to the Department of
Energy's (DOE's) Implementation Plan for the Board's Recommendation
98-2, *Safety Management at the Pantex Plant*. The Board recognizes
DOE's efforts to improve the quality and consistency of the process by
which the design agencies develop and provide safety-related information
to the Pantex Plant (Commitment 4.2.2), and to implement a Seamless
Safety for the 21^st^ Century process for a weapon system with an
insensitive main charge high explosive (Commitment 4.4.6). The third
open commitment (Commitment 4.5.1), which states that DOE will provide
an assessment of actions taken in response to Recommendation 98-2, was
covered in a Final Assessment Report attached to DOE's letter. This
report does not meet the Board's expectations for the completion of
Commitment 4.5.1, as described below.

In a December 15, 2006, letter to the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), the Board requested that the Final Assessment
Report include NNSA's plans and criteria for review and approval of the
design agencies' expert elicitation, expert judgement, and peer review
processes as specified in DOE-NA-STD-3016-2006, *Hazard Analysis Reports
for Nuclear Explosive Operations*. The Final Assessment Report expresses
NNSA's intent to evaluate the implementation of the revised standard
within 6 months of a determination that its implementation has occurred.
The report does not provide the key information requested in the Board's
letter, namely, a description of the review plan that includes criteria
NNSA will use to judge the adequacy of critical design agency processes
for use in the development and documentation of weapon response
information for Pantex.

The Board has learned that Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
(LLNL), Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories
do not plan to implement an expert elicitation process as described in
the revised DOE-STD-3016. The Board disagrees with this path forward and
questions whether DOE-STD-3016 is in fact being implemented. In
developing and evaluating weapon response information, the design
agencies will render technical judgements that warrant the use of a more
formalized and rigorous expert elicitation process. The revised
DOE-STD-3016 states that the use of expert elicitation should be
considered in the following situations, derived from nuclear industry
standards:

-   Empirical data are not reasonably obtainable or the analyses are not
    practical to perform.

-   Multiple diverse sources of applicable data must be assessed.

-   Uncertainties are large or significant.

-   Technical judgements are required to assess whether calculations are
    appropriately conservative.

-   Source data include the use of unpublished, unreviewed, or draft
    information.

As an example of the need for expert elicitation, the first and fourth
items listed above were applicable to a recent Information Engineering
Release (IER) from LLNL to the Pantex Plant on indirect lightning
hazards. In an attempt to clarify a preliminary analysis by Sandia
National Laboratories that calls into question the adequacy of the
existing lightning protection scheme at Pantex, the IER states: "\...it
is premature to interpret this analysis as being actionable for Pantex."
Consequently, no immediate action was required by Pantex to address
indirect lightning hazards. LLNL personnel stated that this
determination was based on its experience and expert judgement and did
not attempt to resolve differences in technical judgement with Sandia
National Laboratories. In the judgement of the Board, this is precisely
the type of scenario where an expert elicitation process would provide
the most benefit.

Additionally, during its recent visit to LLNL, the Board found that NNSA
has not succeeded in communicating expectations to its field elements
regarding the requirement for NNSA review and approval of design agency
processes described in the revised standard. LLNL plans to implement the
revised standard through upgrades to its Quality Implementing
Guidelines, which are action elements of the LLNL Nuclear Weapons
Program Quality Assurance Plan. These guidelines are not formally
reviewed or approved by NNSA or its site office, and their use as an
implementation medium would therefore not comply with the requirements
specified in the revised standard for NNSA approval of expert
elicitation, expert judgement, and peer review processes used in
developing weapon response information.

In a briefing to the Board on April 17, 2007, NNSA representatives
agreed that there are circumstances in which the use of an expert
elicitation process by the design agencies would be appropriate to
ensure the adequacy of weapon response information. The NNSA
representatives further stated that NNSA planned to convene a workshop
in the coming months in an effort to clarify implementation of the
revised DOE-STD-3016 and communicate NNSA's expectations to the design
agencies. The Board believes it would be advantageous for NNSA to
articulate its expectations in advance of the proposed workshop.

The Board still requires the information requested in its letter of
December 15, 2006.

Therefore, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2286b(d), the Board requests a report
providing the following information within 30 days of receipt of this
letter:

1.  Clarification of NNSA's expectations for the implementation of
    expert elicitation, expert judgement, and peer review processes by
    the design agencies in accordance with the revised DOE-STD-3016.

2.  NNSA's plans and criteria for review and approval of the design
    agencies' processes for expert elicitation, expert judgement, and
    peer review by NNSA's field elements and NNSA headquarters.

3.  NNSA's schedule for implementation of the revised DOE-STD-3016.

Sincerely,

***A. J. Eggenberger***

***Chairman***

c: The Honorable Thomas P. D'Agostino

Mr. Mark B. Whitaker, Jr.