oversight

Nuclear Science: Performance of Participants in DOE's Inertial Confinement Fusion Program

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-03-15.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

I_-__-_-.._--_l-__-----~~-~.“”




    M a rc h                     I !I!)0




                                                 P e rfo rm a n c e o f
                                                 P a rti c i p a n ts i n D O E ’s
                                                 In e rti a l C o n fi n e m e n t
                                                 F u s i o n P ro g ra m




-_ ----                                    ---
G A O :‘R ( ‘1 5 1 )~ 9 0 -I 1 3 fj R
Gpi O
        l h i t ed    States
        General        Accounti n g                       Omce
        Washi n gton,          DC                    20548

        Resources,                   Communi t y,                and
        Economi c                   Devel o pment                Di v i s i o n


          B-210947

         March               15,199O

          The Honorabl e           Les                                            Aspi n
          Chai r man,     Commi t tee                                                  on    Armed          Servi c es
          House       of Representati v es
          Dear                   Mr.             Chai r man:
          On June                              30,    1989,          you requested               through                               House      Armed     Servi c es
          Commi t tee                             Report           101-121,       accompanyi n g                                     the     Defense
          Authori z ati o n                                 Act (P.L.         101-189),              that                            we exami n e       certai n
          aspects                              of the          Department         of Ener            y' s                           (DOE) Inerti a l
          Confi n ement                               Fusi o n          (ICF)   program.           7

          Speci f i c al l y ,                                 the                Commi t tee             report            requested                     that     we
                                 "revi e w      the performance                                          of KHS Fusi o n,                Inc.,         and
                                 the other          fi v e             parti c i p ants                         i n the        ICF program,                 to
                                 determi n e        the performance                                          of each        i n rel a ti o n             to
                                 the program               obj e cti v es                          of the           ICF program                   and the
                                 speci f i c      tasks                and mi l e stones                            that       have          been
                                 establ i s hed            for each                          parti c i p ant             i n support                 of the
                                 overal l       program                   obj e cti v es.l l
          We subsequentl y                                                met          wi t h    the Commi t tee                      to di s cuss                  the
          request         and                           agree                     on      what     approach      to                 take.
          The             Commi t tee            report               al s o     di r ected                      us to concentrate                       on the
          performance                     peri o d                of January                 1, 1987,                       through           June     30,
          1989,              and to coordi n ate                             our acti v i t i e s                          wi t h      those       of the
          Nati o nal                 Academy                 of Sci e nces                 to avoi d                    any dupl i c ati o n.                 The
          Commi t tee                 requested                     that       the Academy                          revi e w           the techni c al
          feasi b i l t y                 of the                  ICF concept,                    i n cl u di n g                  the progress             that
          the program' s                         parti c i p ants                     have        made              si n ce          the Academy' s
          1986             revi e w       of the                  ICF program.
          Thi s     request      was preci p i t ated                                                       by DOE' s                 al l e gati o n               that    the
          performance          of one of the                                                          si x  parti c i p ants                         in     the     ICF
          program,          EMS Fusi o n,           Inc.                                               (EMS),            "has       not            met      program

          1The                   total                ICF          program                   budget            for       fi s cal             year          1989      was   about
          $165                   mi l i o n.
           1
    B-210947


    expectati o ns."                                  KMS, a pri v ate                                  contractor,                       supports        the
    i n erti a l                nucl e ar               fusi o n    research                                experi m ents                     of the other
    parti c i p ants,                         mai n l y          by provi d i n g                             fusi o n                target       components
    for these                       experi m ents.
    Other                     parti c i p ants                          i n the program                           i n cl u de                  DOE' s             Lawrence
    Li v ermore,                                  Los Al a mos,                    and Sandi a                    Nati o nal                     Laboratori e s,                     the
    Naval                     Research                       Laboratory,                       and          the       Uni       v ersi t y                 of       Rochester.
    Laboratory                                    research                  performed                    by these                        ICF parti c i p ants
     i n vol v es                         usi n g            l a sers            or parti c l e                   beam accel e rators
        (referred                             to as l t dri v ersl l )                         to bombard                           ti n y       fusi o n              fuel
    capsul e s                             (referred                    to as          l t  argetsl l )                      i n         order          to        cause        a
    momentary                                  fusi o n             reacti o n.2                       Each        i s i n vol v ed                        wi t h
      i n vesti g ati n g                                 a di f ferent                      conceptual                           approach                 to ICF.               For
    exampl e ,                            Li v ermore                   and Rochester                           use gl a ss                      l a sers,               Los
    Al a mos                     uses                a gas l a ser,                    the Naval                       Research                       Laboratory                 is
    transi t i o ni n g                                   from a gl a ss                       to a gas                     l a ser            program,                  and
    Sandi a                      i s devel o pi n g                            a parti c l e                  beam accel e rator                                    to perform
    ICF tests.                                       Most           of the experi m ents                                   performed                       by these
    l a boratori e s                                    have          never          been              done       before:                      thus,              they       are on
    the              l e adi n g                     edge           of ICF technol o gy.
    SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
    In summary,                            we found                that           KMSI performance                                            duri n g                 the peri o d
    we revi e wed                          was mi x ed.                   Whi l e              KMS successful l y                                               performed
    some support                               tasks,            it had di f fi c ul t i e s                                         wi t h          other                  tasks
    mai n l y             because                      of probl e ms                transi t i o ni n g                                 to i t s                   new support
    rol e          i n the ICF program.                                           These                 transi t i o n                        probl e ms                      resul t ed
    i n unacceptabl e                                    performance                  by EMS on some of the tasks                                                                        that
    are the most                                i m portant             for support                                of the                   ICF program.                                 The
    nati o nal                l a boratori e s--Li v ermore,                                                Los Al a mos,                                 and Sandi a --
    accompl i s hed                            many          of thei r              research                           obj e cti v es,                             but        some
    obj e cti v es                   had to be dropped                                  or deferred,                                        or took                    l o nger
    than           pl a nned                   mai n l y        because               of i n suffi c i e nt                                     fundi n g                     and/or
    the compl e xi t y                                 of the obj e cti v es.                                      The Naval                         Research
    Laboratory                       and the Uni v ersi t y                                    of Rochester                                   met most                        of thei r
    obj e cti v es                   duri n g                our revi e w               peri o d.                             More            speci f i c al l y ,                         we
     found              the        fol l o wi n g:
    --       EMS'            current                   3-year              competi v el y                          awarded           contract                           wi t h DOE
             (si g ned             on           May        1,          1987)         represents                         a transi t i o n                              for EMS

    2DOE pl a ns         to use the                                       resul t s                of     thi s             research         to support
Y   nucl e ar       weapons        effects                                      studi e s              because                  of the si m i l a ri t y
    between         ICF l a boratory-scal e                                                     experi m ents                     and nucl e ar
    expl o si o ns.
    2
B-210947


       from                its                previ o us                            ICF program                             rol e ,              whi c h              al l o wed                   JKMS
     more                 i n vol v ement                                      and fl e xi b i l t y                                  i n i n i t i a ti n g                             and
     performi n g                                    ICF research.                                           Under                  the current                                contract,                     EMS
     supports                                 the efforts                                    of others,                             mai n l y               by suppl y i n g
     target                         components                                      for use i n ICF experi m ents.                                                                      Whi l e             EMS
     has been                                 abl e               to successful l y                                         perform                    many                 of the tasks
     where                       it has suffi c i e nt                                                staff                 and experti s e,                                        it has
     experi e nced                                      di f fi c ul t i e s                            i n some other                                      i m portant                         task
     areas.                              For exampl e ,                                      i n 1987                    and 1988,                          EMS l a boratory
     customers                                  compl a i n ed                               that            thei r                 progress                      had been                         sl o wed
     because                             of EMS' unacceptabl e                                                          performance                               on some target
     fabri c ati o n                                    and del i v ery                                 tasks --the                              mai n            pri o ri t y                     of the
     support                             contract.                                      EMS showed                          some              i m provement                              i n 1989             in
     areas                     that                  were previ o usl y                                         rated                 as unacceptabl e ,
     especi a l y                                    i m provi n g                            its       communi c ati o ns                                     wi t h              its
     l a boratory                                    customers.                                     However,                        progress                       i n a few target
      fabri c ati o n                                   and del i v ery                                 areas                   conti n ues                       to be sl o w                           and
     some probl e ms                                              sti l                    persi s t.                       Whi l e              EMS agrees                             wi t h           the
     compl a i n ts                                  of i t s                      customers                        on some tasks,                                          it ci t es
     di f fi c ul t i e s                                    i n transi t i o ni n g                                        to i t s                new ICF support
     rol e ,                   i n cl u di n g                               provi d i n g                   suffi c i e nt                         numbers                        and ski l
     mi x of staff                                           necessary                              to perform                              the type,                          vol u me,                 and
     pri o ri t y                             of work                          needed                 for some tasks.                                             KMS sai d                        it i s
     worki n g                           to sol v e                            these                staffi n g                      probl e ms.                             DOE has tri e d
     to better                                  di r ect                       EMS' efforts                                 by cl o ser                        moni t ori n g,
     formal                         progress                                 revi e ws,                 eval u ati o ns,                               and feedback.                                        DOE
     bel i e ves                              that                KMS has now had suffi c i e nt                                                                  ti m e               (3 years)
     and fundi n g                                      to overcome                                   any probl e ms                                associ a ted                            wi t h
     transi t i o ni n g                                         to i t s                    current                     ICF support                              rol e .                   KMS'
     contract                                wi t h               DOE expi r es                              i n 1990,                        at whi c h                       ti m e           DOE wi l
     recompete                                  the contract.
--    Li v ermore,                                  the             l e ad               l a boratory                          for the                          ICF gl a ss                          l a ser
     program,                                accompl i s hed                                     many            of i t s                      obj e cti v es                       duri n g
     January                             1, 1987,                             through                       June           30, 1989.                                       However,
      Li v ermore                                had to defer                                      some            i m portant                                target-physi c s
     experi m ents                                     mai n l y                      because                    of i n suffi c i e nt                                         fundi n g.                        The
     two other                                   maj o r                 l a boratori e s,                                 Los Al a mos                                    and Sandi a ,                         al s o
     ci t ed                      fundi n g                    probl e ms                          as reasons                                  for not meeti n g                                          some of
     thei r                       obj e cti v es.                                     Los Al a mos,                            the                  l e ad            l a boratory                           for
     gas                l a sers,                      al s o                 ci t ed              l a ck          of access                                  to other                     l a ser
       faci l i t i e s                              (whi l e                      devel o pi n g                      its                 own) and unanti c i p ated
     compl e xi t y                                 of experi m ents                                          as reasons                                   for i t s               program' s
     sl i p pi n g                           behi n d                    schedul e                          by 1 to 2 years.                                                   Sandi a ,                    the
     l e ad                  l a boratory                                 for the parti c l e                                            beam accel e rator
*    concept,                                al s o            ci t ed                  techni c al                       di f fi c ul t i e s                                 i n meeti n g
      its               obj e cti v es.                                       Sandi a ' s                     program                          al s o           sl i p ped                by 1 to 2
     years.                              The two other                                           smal l e r                ICF l a boratori e s,                                                l o cated
3




                                                                                                                                         ;; ,I’.   ’ a‘,:,                             ”
    B-210947


             at the Uni v ersi t y            of Rochester                  and the Naval                                  Research
             Laboratory,           met most          of thei r           obj e cti v es                      duri n g           the
             peri o d        that  we revi e wed.                A few obj e cti v es                              were
             accompl i s hed         l a ter    than    ori g i n al l y                pl a nned                  mai n l y        because
             of the compl e xi t y            of the experi m ents                             i n vol v ed.
    The Nati o nal                                Academy                             of Sci e nces                   revi e wed               the         ICF program                      in
    1986             and recommended                                                  that         program                  fundi n g          remai n             at the
    fi s cal                 year             1985                    l e vel ' i n                real           terms              to accompl i s h                        program
    obj e cti v es                       duri n g                          the subsequent                             5 years.                   Al t hough                      the
    Congress                        supported                                      ICF program                    fundi n g               at hi g her              l e vel s           than
    requested                         by the admi n i s trati o n,                                                    program                fundi n g             has not
    kept             pace             wi t h                i n fl a ti o n.                           Si n ce        the Academy' s                         1986
    recommendati o n                                      on fundi n g,                                there          has            been      more          than                 an $80
    mi l i o n                 l o ss               i n fundi n g                           compared                  wi t h           what        it woul d                     have
    been              at the                  1985                      fundi n g             l e vel . 3                   In i t s         January                1990
    i n teri m                 report                     on the ICF program,                                                  the Academy                   sai d               that
    good             progress                           had been                           made           si n ce           its        1986       revi e w              of the
    program,                        but           some obj e cti v es                                         were         not met because                               fundi n g
    had            fal l e n             si g ni f i c antl y                                 short               of the recommended                                    l e vel .
    OBSERVATIONS
    The overal l                              progress           of the ICF program                duri n g           January       1,
    1987,                         through         June        30, 1989,          has essenti a l y              kept        pace    wi t h
    the              l t l i m i t edl l          fundi n g        provi d ed        the program            and the
    di f fi c ul t y                        of the obj e cti v es                attempted.          If fundi n g
    conti n ues                           to be l i m i t ed,               then   the progress             i s l i k el y       to be
    affected.
    Most             of the si x                          parti c i p ants                     di d       not accompl i s h                 al l       of thei r
    pl a nned                    obj e cti v es                       or assi g ned                   tasks        for vari o us                 reasons.
    However,                         we bel i e ve                      that       compari s ons                   of performance                      among
    the         si x             parti c i p ants                          woul d        not be val i d                because              of the
    di f ferent                         functi o nal                       rol e     each             performs         i n the program                        (from
    maj o r            l e ad                l a boratory                     to support                  contractor),               di f ferent
    degree                  of di f fi c ul t y                            of obj e cti v es                   (from      conceptual                   research
    on the                  l e adi n g                 edge            of the            ICF technol o gy                  to mai n l y
    performi n g                             assi g ned                 support              tasks),            and di f ferent                    stages        of
    devel o pment                                 of parti c i p ant                     programs                (from      the more wel l -
    devel o ped                         gl a ss           l a ser            program                to the more             conceptual
    parti c l e                      beam accel e rator                              approach                 to ICF).



”
    3The          cumul a ti v e                            fundi n g           defi c i t               due to                 i n fl a ti o n                 i n cl u des
    the         peri o d         of              fi s cal               years                1986        through                     1989.
    4
B-210947


Wi t h      regard         to the target                      devel o pment               and             fabri c ati o n
support            now provi d ed                by KMS, DOE pl a ns                        to            recompete                   thi s
contract             i n the near                future.                 In desi g ni n g                   thi s           new
contract,               DOE shoul d              consi d er              ways     to mai n tai n                          acceptabl e
contractor               performance                    (such          as award           fees              for outstandi n g
performance                and wi t hhol d i n g                   award       fees         for             consi s tentl y
unacceptabl e                work    on certai n                       tasks).
Secti o ns             1 through                7 contai n               a more            detai l e d            di s cussi o n              of
the        resul t s       of our               work.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
To respond                   to your                request,              we i n tervi e wed                   ICF program
offi c i a l s             at DOE headquarters,                                     DOE' s    San Franci s co
Operati o ns                 Offi c e,              and i t s          Al b uquerque                 Operati o ns         Offi c e:
vi s i t ed         and hel d                di s cussi o ns                 wi t h      al l      of the ICF
parti c i p ants;                    and revi e wed                    perti n ent            i n ternal           documents
concerni n g                 program                obj e cti v es              and performance.                       We al s o
attended              al l        Nati o nal                   Academy          of Sci e nces              ICF conferences
hel d           at the parti c i p ants                             and coordi n ated                    our report            resul t s
wi t h          the Academy' s                      ICF study                panel .
In subsequent                        di s cussi o ns          wi t h    the Commi t tee,                              it was agreed
that         we woul d               not devel o p            our own i n dependent                                   cri t eri a     to
eval u ate           parti c i p ant                 performance,             but woul d                       revi e w           and
di s cuss         DOE' s             assessments              of the parti c i p ants                                wi t h       DOE and
the parti c i p ants                          and attempt            to expl a i n     and                     reconci l e
di f ferences.
As requested                         by the Commi t tee,                   we di d       not obtai n                      offi c i a l
agency             comments                on a draft              of thi s        report.                We di d ,                    however,
di s cuss            perti n ent               secti o ns          of our draft             report             wi t h
cogni z ant                DOE offi c i a l s                and ICF program                parti c i p ants                              and
have        i n corporated                     thei r        comments        as appropri a te.                              Our work
was performed                          between            August       1989    and February                    1990                    in
accordance                    wi t h       general l y           accepted          government                audi t i n g
standards.


We are sendi n g                   copi e s       of thi s                  report         to appropri a te
congressi o nal                  commi t tees:           the                Secretary         of Energy;           the
Di r ector,           Offi c e           of Management                        and Budget;           the Nati o nal
Academy         of Sci e nces;                 and other                      i n terested        parti e s,       i n cl u di n g
the        si x parti c i p ants               i n DOE' s                   ICF program.


5
B-210947



If you have                 any questi o ns,         pl e ase       contact        me at      (202)     275-
1441.         Maj o r          contri b utors   to          thi s   bri e fi n g     report       are   l i s ted
i n appendi x               I.
Si n cerel y            yours,




  6
                                                      CONTENTS
                                                                                                                           Pace
LETTER                                                                                                                           1
SECTION
    1         PROGRAM BACKGROUND                                                                                                 9
                  Inerti a l Confi n ement                                   Fusi o n                                            9

    2         KMS FUSION,          INC.                                                                                     16
                  Tasks       Assi g ned          Under                      the          ICF
                      Support            Contract                                                                           17
                  KMSI Performance                                                                                          19
    3         LAWRENCE LIVERMORE                                NATIONAL                LABORATORY                          25
                   Goal s /Obj e cti v es                                                                                   26
    4         LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL                                 LABORATORY                                                30
                  Goal s /Obj e cti v es                                                                                    30
    5         SANDIA NATIONAL                            LABORATORY                                                         32
                   Goal s /Obj e cti v es                                                                                   32
    6         UNIVERSITY                OF ROCHESTER                                                                        35
                   Goal s /Obj e cti v es                                                                                   35
    7         THE NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY                                                                                 37
                  Goal s /Obj e cti v es                                                                                    37
APPENDIX
    1         MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS                                TO THIS            BRIEFING                                 39
                REPORT
TABLE
  1.1         Parti c i p ants                   in      ICF      Program                                                   11
  1.2         ICF         Program     Actual                    Fundi n g        vs.            Constant
                      FY 1985     Level      of                 Effort--Operati n g
                      costs                                                                                                 13
  1.3         Total              ICF     Laboratory                    Program           Fundi n g                          14
  2.1         Low         KMS Performance                         on      a Few          Tasks             in   1987        19
  2.2         Unacceptabl e                      KMS Performance                         on          Several       Tasks
                  i n 1988                                                                                                  20
  3.1     *   LLNL           ICF       Fundi n g--Operati n g                           Costs                               26
                                                            7
                                             ABBREVIATIONS
AL        DOE Al b uquerque                                      Operati o ns                     Offi c e
CO2       carbon                di o xi d e
DOE       Department                             of Energy
FY        fi s cal              year
GAO       General                   Accounti n g                       Offi c e
ICF       Inerti a l                      Confi n ement                       Fusi o n
KrF       Krypton                    Fl u ori d e
KMS       KMS Fusi o n,                             Inc.
LANL      Los Al a mos                           Nati o nal                Laboratory
LLNL      Lawrence                        Li v ermore                  Nati o nal                  Laboratory
LMF       Laboratory                             Mi c rofusi o n                     Faci l i t y
NAS       Nati o nal                      Academy                  of Sci e nces
NRL       Naval             Research                         Laboratory
PBFA I    Parti c l e                     Beam Fusi o n                       Accel e rator                      I
PBFA II   Parti c l e                     Beam Fusi o n                       Accel e rator                      II
R&D       research                        and devel o pment
SAN       DOE San Franci s co                                        Operati o ns                       Offi c e
SNL       Sandi a               Nati o nal                       Laboratory
UR/LLE    Uni v ersi t y                          of Rochester                         Laboratory                   for   Laser
                   Energeti c s
                                                                                      SECTION                1
                                                                         PROGRAM BACKGROUND

INERTIAL                        CONFINEMENT                     FUSION
                   In         nucl e ar         fusi o n,           nucl e i          of i s otopes             such                        as hydrogen
col l i d e                   wi t h     each         other         at hi g h           speed,      uni t i n g                           and rel e asi n g                   l a rge
amounts                       of energy.                  Nucl e ar          fusi o n          has weapons                                physi c s         appl i c ati o ns
and al s o                       hol d s      promi s e           as a potenti a l y                    abundant                                source        of
el e ctri c i t y.
              Inerti a l           Confi n ement                     Fusi o n        (ICF)        uses           the energy                                            from a l a ser
or parti c l e                 beam        accel e rator                      to heat        and compress                        a ti n y                                         fuel
capsul e                 (a "targetIt)                contai n i n g               a mi x ture             of hydrogen                                         i s otopes
 (e.g.,           deuteri u m              and tri t i u m)                     to a very           hi g h          densi t y,                                  i n i t i a ti n g               a
fusi o n          reacti o n           throughout                      the fuel .               The        fusi o n            reacti o n                                           may yi e l d
an energy                  output          many          ti m es           greater         than          the ori g i n al                                      energy                   i n put,
a condi t i o n                known         as "hi g h                gai n ."
                  Several                di f ferent                  ki n ds         of l a sers               and parti c l e                        beam
accel e rators                             (known              as ttdri v ersl t                 because            they           "dri v el V                 the         fusi o n
reacti o n)                  are              used           by ICF researchers.                                  The DOE ICF parti c i p ant
l a boratori e s                         use         sol i d          state           gl a ss        l a sers,              krypton                fl u ori d e                     (KrF)
gas          l a sers,                 or parti c l e                     beam accel e rators.                                If the dri v er                               di r ectl y
bombards                  the            target                wi t h         energy,            the process                    i s known                      as       "di r ect
dri v e.l V               If           the         energy             i s fi r st              converted                  to X-rays                    whi c h              then         heat
and compress                             the target,                          the process                   i s cal l e d            "i n di r ect                      dri v e.l '
The DOE ICF                            program                 uses           both         approaches.
DOE' s                  ICF       Proqram
             The goal             of the               DOE ICF program                 i s to achi e ve          a smal l
thermonucl e ar                   expl o si o n               i n the l a boratory                for the purposes                  of
weapons              physi c s           studi e s,              for studi e s         of weapons          effects        on systems,
and as a possi b l e                            energy           source        i n the     l o ng    term.       Si x parti c i p ants
are     i n vol v ed           i n thi s               effort.
                Lawrence                    Li v ermore                  Nati o nal            Laboratory                        (LLNL)                   has the l a rgest
and most                      comprehensi v e                         ICF research                   program                    and functi o ns                                   as l e ad
l a boratory                      for gl a ss                  l a sers.              Los Al a mos                      (LANL)                   and Sandi a                        Nati o nal
Laboratori e s                           (SNL) have                      been       desi g nated                      as l e ad                  l a boratori e s                        for
the KrF gas                         l a ser             and parti c l e                   beam accel e rator                                     approaches,
respecti v el y .                                LLNL and LANL are operated                                              by the Uni v ersi t y                                       of
Cal i f orni a                    under              contract                 to DOE as nati o nal                                 weapons                        l a boratori e s.
SNL i s operated                                   by Sandi a                 Corporati o n,                       a subsi d i a ry                           of AT&T
Technol o gi e s.                               The Uni v ersi t y                    of Rochester' s                               Laboratory                             for Laser
Energeti c s                       (UR/LLE)                 i s a uni v ersi t y                     research                       faci l i t y                       and i s the
onl y           parti c i p ant                      wi t h         a compl e tel y                uncl a ssi f i e d                            program.                         The Naval
Research                      Laboratory                      (NRL) has the smal l e st                                    ICF research                                    program,

                                                                                              9
and EMS i s                          a pri v ate                     corporati o n                           mai n l y              provi d i n g                    support                   to        the
other fi v e                         parti c i p ants.
                 Tabl e                1.1 outl i n es                                 each             parti c i p ant' s                                 rol e         and the contractual
agreement                          it has wi t h                                DOE for ICF work.                                                 Fi v e             of the             ICF
parti c i p ants                                (LLNL,                   LANL,                SNL, UR/LLE,                                 and NRL) perform                                         experi m ents
that             are on the                               l e adi n g                  edge             of the                 ICF technol o gy:                                     most             of the
experi m ents                            they                  perform                    have             not been                       done                before.                   Thus,                 it i s
di f fi c ul t                    to esti m ate                                 the amount                             of ti m e                  and cost                      for some of the
experi m ents.                                     EMS i s the onl y                                       parti c i p ant                            that             operates                    under              a
contract                        awarded                        through                     competi t i v e                       bi d di n g.                          KMS' rol e                     as a
support                    contractor                                 i s uni q ue                      because                  it must                         perform                speci f i c
tasks              requested                              by other                        parti c i p ants                            i n a ti m el y                          manner                 wi t h
qual i t y               work                 so that                         research                     schedul e s                        can be met.                               The tasks
i n cl u de                target                    desi g n,                       devel o pment,                            fabri c ati o n,                            and del i v ery
servi c es,                       as wel l                         as other                     support                      for ICF target                                     experi m ents.                          DOE
and the                    l a boratori e s                                  that             KMS supports                                 revi e w                  KMS' progress                              twi c e    a
year.                  Thi s             i n cl u des                         a formal                     performance                                eval u ati o n                    sessi o n                 at the
end of each                              year                  for the current                                         3-year                 contract,                        whi c h              expi r es           in
Apri l             1990.                      DOE tol d                         us that                    it treats                          its             contractor,                           EMS, as
fai r l y              as the other                                      parti c i p ants,                                 but unl i k e                         the other
parti c i p ants,                                  it more                      formal l y                    and speci f i c al l y                                     eval u ates                       EMS'
performance                              on the tasks                                      it has been                           assi g ned.                             DOE does                     thi s
because                   EMSI rol e                                (mai n l y                to support                         others'                         efforts)                 i n the
program                     i s di f ferent                                  and i t s                  contractual                               rel a ti o nshi p                        i s di f ferent.
By assi g ni n g                              speci f i c                       tasks                to EMS and then                                          havi n g            the         l a boratori e s
formal l y                      eval u ate                         EMS' performance                                          on these                         tasks,              DOE can better
focus              the efforts                                     of EMS to meet                                     the needs                          of the nati o nal                                    program.




                                                                                                        10
' T abl e                1.1:        Parti c i m rrte         UY XCF Rwram
  Laboratory                                                                                                                 c!ontracttvpewi t hl X E
  DOE ICFLead
;aboratori e s
            Lawrence               Li v mm                  Sol i d    state gl a ss                 l a ser--               ManagementandOperati o ns
            Nati o nal             LaboraWry                Indi r ect      Dri v e
            Ins Al a mos               Nati o nal           Devel o pi r qKrFgasl a ser--                                    ManagementandOperati o ns
            Laboratory                                      Indi r ect         Dri v e
            Sandi a    Nati o nal                           Li g ht      Ion      Parti c l e          Beam                  ManagemantandOperati o ns
            Iaboratory                                      Accel e rator
  Non-LXX                    Laboratori e s
            Uni v ersi t y              of                  Sol i d      state gl a ss               l a ser--               Cooperati v e              Agzement
            Rochester                                       Di r ect       Dri v e                                           for research
            Naval Research                                  Starti n gKrFgasl a ser--                                        InteragencyAgreement
            Laboratory                                      Di r ect     Dri v e

  E)rogram support
  Contractor
            KMS Fusi o n,                 Inc.              Support   contractor                       for                   3-year             co&-pl u s-fi x ed-
                                                            other parti c i p ants                                           feewi t h             two possi b l e
                                                                                                                             l - year           extensi o ns:          awarded
                                                                                                                             competi t i v el y

  Source:                       DOE.
                        DOE' s            Offi c e            of Inerti a l               Fusi o n      (DOE/IF)       . -. manages     .-          -         the_. program.
                                                                                                                                                                        .
            In general ,                   DOE moni t ors                      the progress                 of i n di v i d ual                        parti c i p ants
            through           peri o di c                mi l e stone,             peer,           and topi c al                       revi e ws               (e.g.,     target
            physi c s,           dri v er              devel o pment,                etc.).            Al l           parti c i p ants                        attend
            quarterl y               program                 managers             meeti n gs          (attended                        as wel l               by
            representati v es                          from DOE/IF                 and the DOE Operati o ns                                           Offi c es),         and
            mai n tai n          regul a r               and          frequent            contact           wi t h          DOE.               Al l        provi d e      DOE
            wi t h      progress                   reports              and/or       program           bri e fi n gs.
                             DOE/IF               i s assi s ted                   by the DOE San Franci s co                                          (SAN) and
            Al b uquerque                           (AL) Operati o ns                        Offi c es.                 DOE/IF             provi d es                the
            l a boratori e s                         wi t h          techni c al             gui d ance,                whi l e          SAN and AL provi d e
            admi n i s trati v e                            oversi g ht.                    SAN oversees                        LLNL,        and        i n 1988              SAN
            assumed                responsi b i l t y                            from the DOE Nevada                                  Operati o ns                   Offi c e     for
            oversi g ht                of UR/LLE,                             NRL, and KMS.                      AL provi d es                      oversi g ht               for LANL
            and SNL.                   SAN and AL work wi t h                                         the parti c i p ants                          i n revi e wi n g             and
            approvi n g                proposed                        work        pl a ns,           hel p      wi t h           contract              admi n i s trati o n
            and          fundi n g               matters,                     and revi e w               program                efforts.                Representati v es
                                                                                                11
from SAN and AL revi e w                progress             reports,                                                     attend             program                meeti n gs
and revi e ws,         and mai n tai n        contact             wi t h                                            parti c i p ants                     through
tel e phone    cal l s     and occasi o nal           vi s i t s.
                  Features                   of      the         ICF        Proaram
             Program           decentral i z ati o n                       and l a boratory                                            autonomy               are
                                                                                                                                                          maj o r
characteri s ti c s                  of the ICF program.                                 For                              exampl e ,               LLNL,
                                                                                                                                                       LANL,      and
SNL are granted                      great               di s creti o n          i n defi n i n g                                research          and advanced
devel o pment                programs,                   al l o cati n g         resources,                                    and communi c ati n g
di r ectl y          wi t h      other               government              agenci e s.                                     NRL, UR/LLE,            and KMS
possess             a l e sser             degree                 of autonomy.
                The              program             al s o        features                       a mi x of cooperati o n                                 and
competi t i o n.                              The si x             parti c i p ants                       form a di s crete,                              cl o se-kni t
communi t y                       of sci e nti s ts                     who col l a borate                                    cl o sel y         and are extremel y
wel l - i n formed                            about           each            parti c i p ant' s                          strengths                 and weaknesses.
Many            have              spent           thei r           whol e                 careers               i n the program;                          some have
worked                     at     more          than          one parti c i p ant                                l a boratory.                      They         hel p          each
other                  wi t h       techni c al                 probl e ms,                       share               technol o gy               for commonl y                       needed
tasks,                     and      l o an        each          other               useful              equi p ment                       when      needed.                    On the
other                  hand,             they        are        i n obvi o us                       competi t i o n                       to maxi m i z e               thei r         share
of program                           fundi n g,               and to determi n e                                      whose              ICF dri v er            concept               is
more            l i k el y               to l e ad            to hi g h                   gai n .
JCF           Prosram                  Fundi n q
           ICF program                 fundi n g          has not kept                 pace           wi t h       the                                   constant                   fi s cal
year       1985       l e vel        of effort                 recommended             by the Nati o nal                                                     Academy                    of
Sci e nces          (NAS) i n i t s               1985/1986              revi e w        of the                ICF                                program.                       Fundi n g
was cut si g ni f i c antl y                     i n fi s cal            year        1986.               Usi n g                                  LLNL         i n fl a ti o n
i n dexes,          we found              that      cumul a ti v e             program            fundi n g                                       for operati n g
costs        over          the     4-year        peri o d           was about            $88 mi l i o n                                             l e ss          than           if the
fi s cal       year           1985     fundi n g          l e vel      had been             mai n tai n ed                                           i n real                  terms.l




l D OE, usi n g       sl i g htl y              l o wer                          i n fl a ti o n             i n dexes          from              a more        general
"nati o nal       defense"                  category,                                      cal c ul a ted             a cumul a ti v e                fundi n g         l o ss
of $65 mi l i o n                  duri n g         thi s                        peri o d.
                                                                                                   12
-a(Current-Year                     ~l l a rs               in   Mi l i o ns)
                                                                                drmul a ti v e                                                                              Di f ference
                                                                                                                    constant               Actual                            beween
Fi t i l                                   FY 85                                escal a ti o n                          FY 85            oP=i = i *
   *                      -                                                                                           l e vel                                               m
19EL                                   154.8                                            1.00                          154.8                     154.8                                    0.0
19 2 ' 6                               154.8                                            1.03                          159.4                     137.9                                  21.5
19 ,7                                  154.8                                            1.05                          162.5                     142.7                                  19.8
19818                                  154.8                                            1.11                          171.8                     151.0                                  20.8
1949                                                                                    Ad2                           181.1                     155.5                                  25.6
Total ,                                                                                 L!!z                         829.6                      741.9                                  8zl a
aI' ft converted                   to FY 1989                    dol l a rs,                     the        total    of thi s        col u mn           is   $112.5             mi l i o n.
No&:              IBesnoti n cl u decapi t al e gui p mentfundi n g.
sol + l r ce:           DOEandLawrence                              Li v ermore                        Nati o nal       I&oratory.
                                 Duri n g            the peri o d                fi s cal              year             1985-89,             UR/LLE' s ,              NRL' s ,         and
                KMS' share                       of total                   ICF program                       fundi n g               rose        from approxi m atel y                         16
                percent                   to approxi m atel y                             22 percent,                       whi l e        that         of the three                   DOE
                l a boratori e s                       has decl i n ed                      proporti o natel y .                             Si n ce       fi s cal           year          1986,
                LLNL             and        LANL budgets                       have           remai n ed                  fai r l y        constant,                but have                not
                kept             pace         wi t h       i n fl a ti o n.                   SNL budgets                           have     ri s en       modestl y               overal l
                but have                    been         cut back                recentl y .                         (See tabl e                  1.3.)
                              Total              fi s cal                year                    1985-89            fundi n g          for        the        l a boratori e s                  was   as
                fol l o ws:




                                                                                                                     13
Tabl e    1.3"        Total                      ICI? Lab0                      IYPKwramml n q
 (Current-ka.rJ.Ml a rs                               i n Mz:ons,

Fi s cal                                                                   LaboratorY
   Vear                       Jsi l J YLm                                  !i z ad    w                      uwL;LEa                       I<IuIs                B&&Lb
  1985                        73.2                43.9                   21.8                 3.9                     8.6                13.2                     164.6
  1986                        66.6                 32.1                  23.4                 2.8                     9.0                13.5                     147.4
  1987                        67.6                 30.5                  24.0                 3.8                     9.6                14.0                     149.5
  1988                        68.8                30.7                   29.5                 3.8                10.9                    14.4                     158.1
  1989                        67.7                31.5                   27.6                 4.8                13.6                    17.5                     162.7
aA smal l               proporti o n                 of UR/LLEl s                     ICF fundi n g                    is           non-DOE         fundi n g.
bFi g ures      i n cl u de            operati n gardcapi t al e qui ~ tfunds.                                                                           Total            does
not i n cl u de            $1-2 mi l i o n              ach              year,                  whi c h          is         hel d      at DOE
headquarters                 l e vel .
Note:             Rowsmaynottotal b ecauseofroundi n g.
source:                 Indi v i d ual               l a boratori e s.
    The          fi s cal          year             1990            Presi d ent' s                 Budget         request           was $168.9           mi l i o n
    for the                     DOE ICF             Program.                       Congressi o nal               commi t tees            di r ected           that
    fundi n g                   be $173.9               mi l i o n.                   However,            accordi n g             to DOE, the            fi n al
    appropri a ti o n                            may be sl i g htl y                      l o wer       due to a mandated                         Gramm-Rudman-
    Hol l i n gs                    defi c i t        reducti o n                   cut and other                     possi b l e      adj u stments                under
    consi d erati o n.
                      In the past                               few years,                           congressi o nal                                    commi t tees                      have         di r ected
    that              UR/LLE,                      NRL, and EMS recei v e                                                   addi t i o nal                        fundi n g               from DOE i n
    amounts                    speci f i c al l y                            desi g nated                              for them.                           The DOE nati o nal
     l a boratori e s                              cl a i m             that          the other                             three,                   especi a l y                       EMS, are adept
    at wi n ni n g                         addi t i o nal                      fundi n g                     recommendati o ns                                      from the Congress                                   at
    the expense                                  of the DOE l a boratori e s.                                                              However,                    si n ce            1983,            most         ICF
    parti c i p ants                               have             benefi t ted                           from funds                         added                 by the Congress                               to
    the            Presi d ent' s                           initial                   budget                     request.                             In fi s cal                  year            1989
    congressi o nal                                    commi t tees,                           however,                       added                  no funds                    to the budget                          but
    di r ected                    what                 amounted                    to a shi f t                             of funds                       from the DOE nati o nal
    l a boratori e s                               to the other                                parti c i p ants.                                     Si n ce            fi s cal             year           1988,
    total                ICF program                                fundi n g                  has remai n ed                               fai r l y               constant.                        When total
    program                    fundi n g                    does             not          i n crease,                         congressi o nal l y                                  di r ected                 fundi n g
       i n creases                   at one or more                                      l a boratori e s                                  mean            a shi f t               i n funds                  from
    other               l a boratori e s.                                    The Di r ector                                 of DOE' s                      ICF program                         tol d          us that
    program                    fundi n g                    shi f ts               among                   parti c i p ants                             are detri m ental                               to the
    program                    if they                      cause              the parti c i p ants                                         experi e nci n g                            cuts         to del a y
    achi e vi n g                    thei r                 obj e cti v es.                                On the other                                 hand,                it can be argued
                                                                                                           14
that             wi t hout           speci f i c al l y                     desi g nated             fundi n g,                   the non-DOE
l a boratori e s                      (UR/LLE                      and NRL) may not recei v e                                     a l f ai r l V    share      of
  fundi n g               i n di r ect                   competi t i o n               wi t h    the       l a rger               DOE nati o nal
 l a boratori e s.                         In the case                        of KMS, DOE bel i e ves                                  that      KMS@ fundi n g,
as a support                         contractor                          for the program,                         shoul d              be determi n ed            on
the basi s                    of the                   speci f i c          needs             of program              parti c i p ants                 for support
servi c es.
                 In fi s cal                   year       1989,       two l a boratori e s                                underwent            fundi n g       cuts
 from the                fi s cal                year        1988     budget           l e vel s :                    LLNL        ($1.1        mi l i o n),         and
SNL ($1.9                    mi l i o n).                    LANL' s      budget                 i n creased                   by $800,000.                 The non-
DOE l a boratori e s                                and KMS recei v ed                      more            substanti a l               i n creases            in
 fundi n g:                  NRL ($1 mi l i o n),                         UR/LLE                   ($2.7        mi l i o n),            and KMS ($3.1
mi l i o n).                     Thi s           has     led       to compl a i n ts                      from the DOE nati o nal
l a boratori e s                          that        some of thei r                 experi m ents                           had to be del a yed                  and
obj e cti v es                   postponed.
             In
              addi t i o n,               DOE and some parti c i p ants                tol d        us                                that       whi l e
reasonabl e               competi t i o n       i s heal t hy,       the       current       i n tense                                        competi t i o n
for fundi n g               i s perhaps         becomi n g     counterproducti v e.
              Future            ICF program                   pl a ns        i n cl u de              a Laboratory                  Mi c rofusi o n
Faci l i t y             (LMF)             where  parti c i p ants                            woul d     perform              ICF target
experi m ents                   desi g ned        to achi e ve                         a hi g h-gai n                fusi o n       reacti o n.              DOE
woul d          sel e ct            one of the vari o us                               l a ser        or parti c l e              beam approaches
as the dri v er                          to be used                i n the LMF.                       DOE may make                  its         LMF dri v er
sel e cti o n              i n the mi d -           to l a te                1990s.                   The DOE ICF l a boratori e s                                are
currentl y                devel o pi n g          thei r               respecti v e                   LMF dri v er              approaches,                hopi n g
that          DOE wi l                   sel e ct thei r               concept,
               NAS revi e wed                   the DOE ICF program                                 i n 1985/1986            and recommended
future              di r ecti o ns              and pri o ri t i e s                  for the                 ICF program.2              The
Congress                   requested               that            NAS revi e w           the program                 agai n      i n 1989/1990.
The NAS i n teri m                          report             i n January              1990           agai n     has recommendati o ns
for future                         ICF program                 di r ecti o ns.              NAS' maj o r              recommendati o ns              in
its       i n teri m                 report        i n cl u de               more   concentrati o n                 on target-physi c s
experi m ents                        and the termi n ati o n                        of the Centuri o n-Hal i t e                         program.
NAS pl a ns                     to i s sue         a fi n al                 report     on the                ICF program        l a ter       i n the
fal l          of 1990.




2Revi e w            of        the     Denartment                  of      Enerqvl s              Inerti a l              Confi n ement                   Fusi o n
Prooram,                  Nati o nal        Academy                of      Sci e nces,              Mar.          1986.
                                                                                  15
                                                                                     SECTION                Z
                                                                          JCMS FUSION,                          INC.


                 KMS i s the onl y                                    pri v ate           contractor                          i n the              ICF program.                       KMS
was a pi o neer                            duri n g                   the earl y              years                    of fusi o n                 research                and hol d s
many             patents               i n thi s                      area.           DOE has contracted                                           wi t h           KMS to support
the nati o nal                         ICF program.                                  DOE' s             contract                    wi t h         KMS, si g ned                 on
May 1, 1987,                            i s a cost-pl u s-fi x ed-fee                                                     contract                 awarded               through
competi t i v e                   bi d di n g.                           Accordi n g              to DOE, KMS mai n l y                                         supports            the
research                 and devel o pment                                      efforts                 of the other                         parti c i p ants                    i n the
ICF program.                                Four                   of the parti c i p ants--LLNL                                             LANL,                  SNL, and
UR/LLE --currentl y                                        use KMSI support                                      servi c es.               i       KMS provi d es                   these
parti c i p ants                       wi t h              target               component                      devel o pment,                          fabri c ati o n,
del i v ery              servi c es,                               and other              research                        support            servi c es.                     KMS'
current                contract                       wi t h              DOE represents                               somewhat              of a transi t i o n                        for
KMS from                 its           previ o us                         ICF program                        rol e ,          whi c h        al l o wed                 KMS more
i n vol v ement                   and             fl e xi b i l t y                    i n i n i t i a ti n g                       and performi n g                         ICF
research                 and devel o pment                                       (R&D).
           Under           thi s       l a test            contract,             whi c h      refl e cts                the changi n g                            needs
of the program,                        the support                    contractor               (i n      thi s          case            KMS) i s
requi r ed           to mai n l y                support           the research                   efforts               of others,                            for
exampl e ,           suppl y i n g               target          components                for others                   to use               i n thei r
ICF experi m ents.                            Al t hough           KMS has successful l y                               performed                        some
tasks          under            thi s       contract,              the necessary                     transi t i o n                   to thi s
current            contract                 has caused                KMS some di f fi c ul t i e s                               i n provi d i n g                    the
numbers            of staff                 and ski l              mi x necessary                    to perform                       the type,
vol u me,          and pri o ri t y                   of work           needed           for other                  tasks.                The l o ss                   of
some key techni c al                             personnel              has      further             aggravated                       the         si t uati o n.
In addi t i o n,                   the      current            contract            has necessi t ated                                a rol e             change            on
the part             of KMS from bei n g                           more        of an i n i t i a tor                    and performer                               of
fusi o n         research              to now ful f i l i n g                      a supporti v e,                      al b ei t             i m portant,
rol e       i n the program.
              These          transi t i o n              probl e ms          have          been     refl e cted                 i n l a boratory
compl a i n ts               about          KMSI performance                           on some tasks                   duri n g            the peri o d
that           we revi e wed.                  Speci f i c al l y ,               l a boratory               rati n gs             of KMS'
performance                    duri n g        May 1, 1987,                    through          June            30, 1989,2                    ranged          from
l p oortl         to ttoutstandi n g,tl                             wi t h unacceptabl e                  performance                      on several
tasks           consi d ered                by the l a boratori e s                          as i m portant                   or cri t i c al              to
the progress                     of thei r               respecti v e             programs.                  In those                cases           where

l T he          l a boratori e s                      (LLNL,             LANL,             SNL, and UR/LLE)         are                                  referred              to             as
KMS'           l a boratory                    t' c ustomerstt               by            DOE and the respecti v e                                          l a boratori e s.
2Duri n g     January        1, 1987,        through    May 1, 1987,    KMS was                                                                               transi t i o ni n g
from      its   ol d  contract          and prepari n g     for the new contract                                                                                        whi c h
started       on May 1, 1987.                We are not aware      of any offi c i a l                                                                                        rati n g             of
KMS' *performance              duri n g    the January      1 to May 1 peri o d.
                                                                                             16
KMS agrees                       wi t h         negati v e                   task         performance                                    eval u ati o ns,                          it       ci t es
mai n l y  the                   transi t i o n                      probl e ms             noted     above                                as reasons.
                The           DOE contract                              wi t h       KMS i s a 3-year                                 cost-pl u s-fi x ed-fee
contract                      wi t h       the possi b i l t y                                      of 2 addi t i o nal                       opti o n          years.              Thi s
$44.4              mi l i o n              contract                         i s due to expi r e                              i n Apri l                 1990.3            It i s a
l e vel - of-effort                                   contract                  i n whi c h                    KMS provi d es                    the         ICF program                  wi t h
an agreed-upon                                  number                  of hours                        of effort               whi c h          are appl i e d                  to
authori z ed                         tasks              speci f i e d                by the ICF l a boratori e s                                             and KMS i t sel f .
KMS' congressi o nal l y                                              recommended                            operati n g              budget               for fi s cal             year
1989            i s $16.8                  mi l i o n                    ($2.4           mi l i o n                 hi g her          than           requested              by DOE).
Accordi n g                      to KMS, it provi d ed                                              its        DOE customers                        wi t h      approxi m atel y
1,267              person                months                     (192,221                 hours)                  of support                  servi c e          i n fi s cal
year            1989.                  KMS offi c i a l s                          sai d                that         the DOE contract                           represents
approxi m atel y                           75 percent                           of KMS' busi n ess.
               In       the         rest  of                 thi s           secti o n,                     we di s cuss                          the        types                 of       ICF          tasks
assi g ned                to        KMS and                  the           accompl i s hment                          of                 these             tasks.
TASKS ASSIGNED UNDER
THE ICF SUPPORT CONTRACT
                KMS performs                         the   fol l o wi n g    categori e s                                                    of     tasks,               as         they               are
requested              (through                        the DOE contracti n g                                                    offi c er)              by         the             ICF
l a boratori e s:
               --      Catesorv                    ItA" Tasks:                         Target                           technol o gy                 devel o pment                               and
                       fabri c ati o n                 acti v i t i e s,                           i n cl u di n g                       devel o pment,                            eval u ati o n,
                       characteri z ati o n,                                   and        del i v ery                           of       ICF targets.
               --      Catesorv     rl B M Tasks:                                      R&D support            for                                 target             experi m ents                           to
                       be performed        at other                                     ICF l a boratori e s.
               --       Cateqorv                   IrCM Tasks:                         Operate         and mai n tai n                                         government-
                        furni s hed                  equi p ment,                      i n cl u di n g    a l a ser                                     and      rel a ted
                        equi p ment                  for testi n g                          ICF targets.4
               --      Cateaorv                  "Dtt Tasks:         Theoreti c al                                                  pl a sma/target                          i n teracti o n
                       and       i m pl o si o n        physi c s      model i n g                                              i n support                   of         target
                       devel o pment                 for experi m ents                                                  at      other         l a boratori e s.


3The     DOE contracti n g                                      offi c er              tol d                us that                     the         contract                       is      expected
to be ful l y       costed                              out             (the         $44.4                  mi l i o n                  wi l          have           been                spent)              by
February      1990.
4Accordi n g           to DOE, KMS' l a ser  work                                                                wi l          be phased          out                         in         1990
because           the    ICF program   has no need                                                                      for thi s     KMS work.                                         NAS has
al s o       recommended       that  KMS' ICF l a ser                                                                     work    be termi n ated.


                                                                                                 17
                --       Cateaorv                         "E" Tasks:                   Techni c al                        and          management                            support               for
                         category                         A through                  D tasks.
Most             of the requests                           for EMS work                     are category                        IrA" tasks            fol l o wed
by tl B Vl tasks.                         Among            the tasks,                   category               tl A " fol l o wed               by trBrl has
the hi g hest                 pri o ri t y.                   Speci f i c al l y ,                 accordi n g                  to DOE, the hi g hest
pri o ri t y            task           area            under     the support                       contract                  i s target            component
 fabri c ati o n              and del i v ery                     for the pri n ci p al                               target         users         i n the
program              (i . e.,             LLNL,            UR/LLE,                 LANL,      and SNL).5                        If these           components
are not del i v ered                               on schedul e                      or are of i n feri o r                        qual i t y,          the
l a boratori e s                  are not abl e                         to meet             thei r         obj e cti v es                   and thus,
overal l            program                 obj e cti v es                   may be del a yed.
                The procedure                                              that          has been               fol l o wed                 to devel o p                           an annual
work            pl a n                     of tasks                        to be performed                              by EMS i n cl u des                                  the
l a boratori e s'                                        annual l y                    submi t ti n g             thei r             needs,                    pri o ri t y,               schedul e s,
and resources                                            esti m ates                     for tasks                to the               l e ad             l a boratory
representati v e                                            l o cated                  at LLNL.                 The l e ad                  l a boratory                           representati v e
works                 wi t h                   the other                        l a boratori e s                  and KMS to order                                           the pri o ri t i e s
among                  the                 requested                         tasks               and drafts                 a work                 pl a n                (a l i s t        of
authori z ed                                   tasks                 to be performed).6                                     The ICF Proj e ct                                      Manager            and
the contracti n g                                                offi c er               at the DOE San Franci s co                                                     Operati o ns                Offi c e
then              get                 i n vol v ed,                        and a copy                      of the draft                          work              pl a n           i s sent          to
 al l ,           i n cl u di n g                           KMS, for suggested                                    changes                    and comments.                                 After
 several                         i t erati o ns                            and negoti a ti o ns,                            the annual                             work            pl a n       for KM.9
  i s fi n al i z ed.                                       The work                     pl a n         i s then            approved                      by the DOE
 contracti n g                                    offi c er                  as work                  that      EMS i s ordered                                    to and authori z ed
 to perform.                                        The approved                                 annual         work          pl a n             and any subsequent
 changes                         to thi s                        pl a n          are i n corporated                           i n to             the contract.                                  The work
 pl a n           process                           may take                         several               months           to compl e te.
           The San Franci s co                  Operati o ns                      Offi c e' s               ICF Proj e ct                                Manager,
wi t h     i n put         from EMS, EMS' l a boratory                                      customers,                       the              l e ad          l a boratory
representati v e,                 and DOE headquarters                                      ICF program                        offi c i a l s ,
moni t ors          EMS' progress               toward                  meeti n g                its    obj e cti v es.                                  Accordi n g           to
DOE, a l - to a-day                   meeti n g           i n vol v i n g                   al l      of the                 ICF l a boratori e s
 (that          use EMS servi c es),               DOE, and EMS i s hel d                                             at mi d -year                                to revi e w
and redi r ect,                if necessary,                   EMS efforts.                             The           l a test                     mi d -year
progress            revi e w      was hel d        on September                                  7-8,       1989.7                     Accordi n g                       to

5NRL            makes              its            own          target             components.
' D uri n g              thi s              process,                    EMS and the                        l a boratori e s                         may          al s o          di r ectl y
di s cuss                speci f i c ati o ns                            and di f fi c ul t i e s                             of tasks                    to         hel p            reach
agreement                      on the ti m i n g                           and pri o ri t y                          of       tasks.
7We revi e wed                             al l           of      the year-end                   eval u ati o n           reports               on EMS'
performance                              and       al l          mi d -year           progress                  reports       for the performance
peri o d     of                 May 1,                    1987,          through          June              30, 1989,         i n cl u di n g               al l
l a boratory                      i n puts                     to al l       of these              reports.               We al s o             di s cussed                                        EMS'
performance                            wi t h             al l      of the       l a boratori e s                     and wi t h              KMS.
                                                                                                    18
    DOE, at the end of each                                         contract                 year,           it asks          the l a boratori e s                     to
    eval u ate            EMS' performance                                on each               task         performed            for them                duri n g
    the year.                    Then,           thi s          performance                       i s di s cussed             among       al l       i n vol v ed
    at a l - to 2-day                            meeti n g            hel d         at the end of each                            year.            DOE then
    wri t es          a formal                eval u ati o n                of KMS' annual                         performance                 based             on the
    i n put         from the             l a boratori e s                       and the di s cussi o ns                         at the mi d -year
    progress              revi e w            and the annual                          eval u ati o n               meeti n g.           Two formal
    eval u ati o ns                had been                  hel d       duri n g           the peri o d                we revi e wed--one                         for
    tasks           performed                 i n 1987               (a parti a l - year                       contract           started             i n May
    1987)           and one            for tasks                    performed                    i n 1988.
    EMS'                PERFORMANCE
                        Whi l e               KMS has successful l y           conducted                        many  tasks         assi g ned                    to        it
    duri n g                      the         course    of the current           contract,                        its performance                   in
    several                         cruci a l        ICF program       support         areas                    has been     bel o w           that
    requi r ed                        to adequatel y           support       the needs                        of the     ICF l a boratori e s.
     Performance                           in    1987
                  Duri n g           the      fi r st       parti a l                year         (May-Dec.           1987)         of the support
    contract,                l a boratori e s                  assi g ned                 23 tasks          wi t h      vari o us             pri o ri t i e s       to
    KMS.           EMS successful l y                         conducted                     many       of these           tasks,              whi c h          were  a
    mi x        of mai n l y             target           fabri c ati o n                    (Category             A) tasks           fol l o wed                by R&D
    support-type                       tasks           (Category                B).           EMSI l a boratory                   customers                    rated
    EMS' overal l                      performance                      i n 1987            as adequate               to good,                wi t h
    performance                      on three             tasks             rated           as nunacceptabl e t'                    or "margi n al . "
    Speci f i c            rati n gs              ranged           from         ' t unacceptabl e "                 to "outstandi n g."
Tabl e         2.1:                 Lm    KMS Performance                    on a Few Tasks             in   1987
         Pri o ri t y                                                                                                    Laboratory
         -                                                                                                          rati n cfof             EMS
                 A                              Taryet     del i v eri e s            to LANL                       Unacceptabl e
                 A                              Large fuel               capsul e       devel o pment               Unacceptabl e
                                                for SNL
                  B                             Cryogeni c target                   technol o gy                    Margi n al a dequate
                                                for uR/LLE
Note:          Accordi n gtoDoE          records,     therewere             c&egoryAtasks,                                                    9 B, and1C
assi g ned        to KMS i n 1987.          KMstperformanceonothertas~wasratedas
ttacceptabl e tt           to ttgoodtt or Very gccdt' wi t h one ' t outstandi n g.t'
Saurce:                   DOE.
               LANL,     SNL, and UR/LLE             offi c i a l s                                   sai d  that      the                 tasks          shown     in
    tabl e       2.1    (as wel l     as other         Category                                       A and B tasks                        successful l y
    performed          by EMS) were        i m portant              to                              thei r   programs,                       and EMSI
    margi n al       or unacceptabl e            performance                                          on these      tasks                    affected           the
                                                                                          19
    progress            of thei r                research                programs.            KMS sai d                that         the    LANL target
    del i v ery         task        was cri t i c al                     to LANL' s         program            and bel i e ved                it had
    parti a l y           met the obj e cti v es.                               IQ% sai d         the task                    for SNL was
    i m portant,             but        it di d             not have            as hi g h       a pri o ri t y                  as some other
    tasks        for other                l a boratori e s.                     KMS tol d         us that                   the UR/LLE          task
    shoul d        not be consi d ered                               i n our revi e w           because                 it i s real l y            a 1986
    task.          UR/LLE           tol d          us that               it was started               i n 1986,                   but that         KMS'
    margi n al          performance                       contri b uted            to UR/LLE' s                del a yi n g             some cri t i c al
    cryogeni c            experi m ents.                          UR/LLE        compl e ted         these             experi m ents             in
    fi s cal       year        1988.
     Performance                       in         1988
                              In 1988            KMS encountered                         the                fi r st ful l          year     of the           ri g ors         and
    di f fi c ul t i e s                         of havi n g         to support                                 the
                                                                                                                  agreed-upon                 schedul e               and
    pri o ri t i e s                          of the       other        l a boratori e s.                           Accordi n g             to DOE records,
    the                  l a boratori e s                requested               that                  KMS perform                 27 tasks         duri n g            1988.
    Ei g ht                     of these            tasks        were          cancel l e d                   or otherwi s e                not
    undertaken/performed                                         for vari o us                          reasons.              The remai n i n g                   19 tasks
    were:                         11 Category                A tasks              (e.g.,                  target          fabri c ati o n             for others),                 7
    Category                              B tasks         (R&D support                      for           others'           experi m ents),                  and 1
    Category                              C task      for LLNL.                  Al t hough                   EMS successful l y                    performed                 many
    of these                              tasks,      EMS' performance                                  was unacceptabl e                     on some of the
    tasks                       that          are the most             i m portant                        to the support                    of the           ICF
    program.                                 (See tabl e         2.2.)
Tabl e         2.2:         Unacceotabl e                     EMS Performance                              on Several          Tasks       i n 1988
  Pri o ri t y                                                                                                                    Laboratory                                  IUYS'
  CatesOry                                                                   m                                               rati n c     of KMSa                  sel f       rati n g
             A                          Pol y mer     capsul e                        devel o pment                          Unacceptabl e                        Bel C XJ
                                        forLl N L,LANL,UR/LIE                                                                                                     average
             A                          Cryotargettechnol o gy                                                               Unacceptabl e                        Sl O W
                                        (experi m ental p o*i o n                                 onl y )
             A                          Target             del i v eri e s                 to IANL                           Unacceptabl e                        Foorto
                                                                                                                                                                  average
             A                          Capsul e              characteri z ati o n                                           Unacceptabl e                        Unacceptabl e
                                        technol o gy               devel o pment                      for

             B                          Cal i b rati o n                     servi c f2s        for         SNL              Unacceptabl e                        Unacceptabl e
aA few A and                  B tasks              were          cancel l e d               at mi d -year              because           of a l a ck         of progress.
Saurce:               E)oE, ICFl a boratory,                                     andKMSdocumen                 ts, i n cl u di n g                 a EMS document
                      commenti n gonperti n entsecti o ns                                                   of ourdraftreport.
                  One         of       these    tasks--       target                                   component                 del i v eri e s             to            LANL--had
    al s o        been             rated     as unacceptabl e                                          i n 1987.                 EMS tol d              us        it         gave    gl a ss
                                                                                                      20
target                 component                        del i v eri e s                 to LLNL pri o ri t y                                over                  LANL' s                  requests
 i n 1987                and              1988          because                it consi d ered                           LLNLl s                 program                         more
  i m portant                     si n ce             it was further                           al o ng            at thi s                  poi n t                   i n ti m e.                   KMS
sai d            it di d                  not have                      enough         personnel                    to gi v e                    equal                   pri o ri t y               to
LLNL and LANL.                                        LANL sai d                 that          these              target                del i v eri e s                               were very
i m portant                       to the progress                                of i t s              program                  (wi t hout                        them                experi m ents
coul d             not be done),                                     and sai d            that            KMS recei v ed                             enough                       fundi n g             to
gi v e           equal                consi d erati o n                        to al l             of i t s             l a boratory                              customers.                            KMS
agreed                 that               the del i v eri e s                       were            i m portant                  to the progress                                              of LANL' s
program.                          LLNL compl i m ented                                 KMS on i t s                     gl a ss             target                       component
del i v eri e s,                         but          compl a i n ed                that           KMS sti l                     coul d                  not provi d e                            the         ICF
program                  wi t h              good          pol y mer             target                components,                          even                  though                    LLNL had
transferred                              thi s          technol o gy                   to KMS.                    Pol y mer                 target                       components                         are
becomi n g                   i n creasi n gl y                            more      i m portant                  to the                 ICF program                                     than        gl a ss
target                 components.                                   KMS agreed                that           the target                             del i v ery                        tasks            and
pol y mer                devel o pment                               tasks       were very                    i m portant                        to the                      l a boratori e s
and the progress                                        of the ICF program.                                         However,                         KMS tol d                          us that               the
capsul e                 characteri z ati o n                                  task         was onl y                   a medi u m                       pri o ri t y                      task.
                 KMS management                       offi c i a l s                   stated               that            they             di d       not agree                wi t h
parts              of the        1988          eval u ati o n                       process,                  especi a l y                          not bei n g           i n formed
before                the eval u ati o n                     meeti n g                 as to what                       the          l a boratori e s'                    speci f i c
rati n gs               were     on each                 task,                  and the              "l o ng            ti m e"              it took            after            the
meeti n g               to get detai l e d                             wri t ten             feedback.                        KMS offi c i a l s                    sai d             in
1987             that      they          were        provi d ed                     copi e s             of these                    rati n gs              before             the
meeti n g.                 Otherwi s e,                  accordi n g                      to DOE, the 1988                                        process          was very
si m i l a r            to that            of 1987.                           DOE tol d              us that                  KMS shoul d                     be aware                   of
how it i s performi n g                                   on each                   task         through                   mai n tai n i n g                  good
communi c ati o ns                      wi t h        its              l a boratory                  customer.                             KMS had been
cri t i c i z ed             i n the past                            for poor                communi c ati o n                             on some tasks.                            A
need             for KMS to i m prove                                  communi c ati o ns                        wi t h          its              customers           was al s o
noted              i n Jul y         1988        by KMS I Vi c e                             Presi d ent                    for Fusi o n                    Programs.
                   Despi t e                 KMS' di s agreement                                   wi t h           parts                of the                   1988              process,
   i n ternal                  documents                       provi d ed              by KMS and a KMS cri t i q ue                                                                of parts         of a
draft                secti o n                of our report                            i n di c ate                   that               some KMS personnel
    fami l i a r               wi t h         these              tasks            and KMS management                                                  agree              wi t h          many    of the
 l a boratori e s'                            posi t i v e                and negati v e                            rati n gs.                           (See tabl e                       2.2.)       In
addi t i o n,                       KMS documents                           show conti n uous                                  di f fi c ul t i e s                              i n staffi n g
some tasks                            wi t h          the adequate                          number                  of peopl e                          possessi n g                       the
correct                    ski l s .                       These          and other                       KMS documents                                   al s o            i d enti f y         the
l o ss             of key techni c al                                   personnel                     as a reason                                   for di m i n i s hed
performance                              on some tasks.                                In addi t i o n,                            KMS' Vi c e                           Presi d ent             for
Admi n i s trati o n                            tol d            us that               KMS i s understaffed                                                    i n most                  of those
areas                where                it recei v ed                     negati v e                    rati n gs                 from the                        l a boratori e s.
Performance                           in        1989
          The mi d -year        revi e w           i n 1989       showed            that                                                      KMS' performance                  had
somewhat        i m proved,        i n cl u di n g        its     communi c ati o n                                                             wi t h     its     l a boratory
customers.              Some i m provements                  were     accompl i s hed,                                                                 i n part,           by
putti n g     some tasks           on hol d            for several                months                                                       whi l e     concentrati n g
                                                                                                    21
 resources               on l o ng-unaccompl i s hed                                   tasks.          For exampl e ,                                    KMS
 sati s factori l y                     met LANL' s               request                for target                   components                              after         bei n g
rated               as unacceptabl e                    on thi s                task       i n 1987          and 1988.                                   KMS was abl e
to do thi s ,                   i n part,           by putti n g                     off target              del i v eri e s                             to LLNL,               and
as a resul t ,                       LLNL mi s sed              some opportuni t i e s                           to conduct                                some
experi m ents                    i n Apri l .               KMS sai d                it gave        LANL pri o ri t y                                    for target
del i v eri e s               duri n g        the       fi r st         hal f          of 1989         and woul d                   gi v e                    LLNL
pri o ri t y           duri n g          the      second            hal f .              LLNL offi c i a l s                 sai d                       they
understood                    that       KMS needed                 to gi v e              IANL pri o ri t y                 duri n g                         thi s      peri o d
and KMS was abl e                           to del i v er               gl a ss          target        components                       to                 LLNL     l a ter
i n the year.
             DOE sai d                  that         KMS was more                            responsi v e                    i n 1989,8                        but        a few
tasks         sti l                 remai n          unaccompl i s hed,                             al t hough                  progress                        i s now bei n g
made.               KMS can now do the SNL cal i b rati o n                                                                task.                (See tabl e                        2.2.)
However,                    SNL wai t ed               over             7 months,                  became                  frustrated                          wi t h         KMS, and
deci d ed                to contract                   outsi d e              the program                               for thi s              cal i b rati o n
servi c e.                   KMS sti l                 was unabl e                       to del i v er                     acceptabl e                         pol y mer
target              shel l s            to LLNL and UR/LLE.                                         LLNL compl a i n ed                                 that            KMS i s over
1 year              l a te          i n pol y mer                shel l         del i v eri e s.                           UR/LLE             became                    frustrated
wi t h       KMS' sl o w                    progress               and modi f i e d                        exi s ti n g             Japanese                          technol o gy
to make                  its        own pol y mer                  shel l s .                    In addi t i o n,                    compl a i n ts                       sti l
persi s t                concerni n g                the qual i t y                      of some                  of KMS' cryogeni c                                      target
technol o gy                   work.
          Thus,              KMS must                  conti n ue                    to make      progress        i n order               to meet             some
of the demands                                of thi s             contract.               The someti m es             competi n g              demands
of the           l a boratori e s                      force                KMS to negl e ct               some tasks            to serve                 others
whi l e      it transi t i o ns                          i t sel f                 to the ri g ht          number      and mi x              of peopl e
to servi c e                  the contract.                                 KMS tol d        us that          it i s progressi n g                        in
thi s     transi t i o n,                          but bel i e ves                     it may not be fast                enough              to meet             the
expressed                 needs                  of the            l a boratori e s.                DOE tol d        us that               it bel i e ves
KMS has had                       suffi c i e nt                  ti m e            (now about        3 years)         and       fundi n g             to
sol v e      its          transi t i o n                 probl e ms.g
             Further      frustrati n g              KMS' adj u stment                                            to i t s    new rol e        i n the ICF
program            is its     bel i e f         that   the current                                            DOE contract,           whi c h
emphasi z es          support               for the experi m ental                                               work      of others,         may erode
KMS' abi l i t y          and resources                to i n i t i a te                                      and do some of the                  i n -house
ICF experi m ental                      work    that   it has done                                            i n the past.           However,

8The          meeti n g      to formal l y                             eval u ate               KMSI          performance                       in       1989          took
pl a ce        i n mi d -February                             1990.
' K MS was al e rted                            to thi s        needed           transi t i o n            duri n g      contract
negoti a ti o ns     in                      November           1986       and tol d               DOE i n March             1987          that     it
was redi r ecti n g                          its      efforts          toward               target       technol o gy          tasks            and away
  from experi m ents                            and theory             as part                  of thi s     needed        transi t i o n.             KMS
has recei v ed       more                         funds       each       year        through             congressi o nal
 recommendati o ns                           then       requested             i n the Presi d ent' s                     budget.

                                                                                         22
accordi n g            to         DOE and              the ICF l a boratori e s,                  a need           no l o nger               exi s ts
 for thi s           type           of work                 from DOE' s        support        contractor.                     DOE says                it
 i s necessary                    to keep              the efforts             of i t s     support            contractor                   (whether
KMS or someone                        el s e)          di r ectl y       focused         on the pri o ri t i e s                of the                ICF
l a boratori e s                  through              assi g ned        tasks       i n order        to get            ful l     dol l a r
val u e          from the             work           that          the contractor           does.
                A recent                  exampl e             shows           KMS' frustrati o n                        wi t h        its     new rol e .
Accordi n g                to DOE, KMS performed                                        unauthori z ed                   work          between          May and
September                  1989             at a cost                  of about                  $195,000.               DOE had di r ected                    KMS,
i n the             1989          work          pl a n,            to di s conti n ue                    certai n           cryogeni c
experi m ental                         work.              Duri n g           the mi d -year                   progress            revi e w         in
September                  of 1989,                     DOE di s covered                         that      KMS had conti n ued                        the work
wi t hout              authori z ati o n.                            After          consi d eri n g                the matter,                 however,          DOE
deci d ed              not to di s al l o w                          payment              for thi s               work.         Instead,              DOE
prepared                 a revi s ed                    task         assi g nment                   to desi g nate              the task              as a KMS
di s creti o nary                         task,           and accepted                       the work.                  DOE tol d           us that          the
work            was redesi g nated                             under           a provi s i o n                of the contract                     whi c h
al l o ws           5 percent                    of the contract                             ti m e      to be al l o cated                    to authori z ed
tasks             that         KMS wi s hes                    to perform.
               The DOE San Franci s co                             Operati o ns                  Offi c e' s                ICF Proj e ct             Manager
responsi b l e                     for moni t ori n g              KMSI acti v i t i e s                       tol d          us that         he and the
contracti n g                      offi c er        deci d ed        not to di s al l o w                           payment               for thi s          work
because                they          percei v ed              some overal l               i n terest                    i n the work              as wel l          as
a desi r e               to see what                  KMS had accompl i s hed.                                      Al s o,       si n ce     KMS was
wel l          i n to       the experi m ents,                     they         deci d ed             to al l o w               KMS to fi n i s h.                  In
addi t i o n,               the manager                   and the contracti n g                              offi c er            thought           that        the
i s sue             was not worth                   pursui n g          and woul d                 further                  exacerbate              strai n ed
rel a ti o ns               wi t h           KMS.
             KMS' ICF Program                                Di r ector            tol d        us             that    KMS chose         to do thi s
work         wi t hout        the            authori z ati o n                     of the                  DOE contracti n g             offi c er
because              KMS bel i e ved                    that            thi s      work         i s i m portant                   to the        l o ng-term
goal         of the          ICF program,                            and cruci a l                   to the survi v al                 of KMS as a
pri v ate            company              and as a conti n ui n g                               parti c i p ant                i n the     ICF program.
He sai d             he was aware                       that            DOE coul d              di s al l o w           payment        for the work.
KMS management                       l a ter            deni e d              that       they              bel i e ved       they    were            not
authori z ed              to do thi s                       work.
             Under      the terms                 of the contract                 wi t h          KMS, we bel i e ve           that     DOE
coul d         have     rej e cted              and di s al l o wed           pa ment              for the unauthori z ed
work,          but was not               requi r ed              to do so. 18               In choosi n g           to accept         the
work,          DOE became            obl i g ated                to pay     for it and cannot                       now equi t abl y
seek         to recover            the payment                     made.      We bel i e ve,              however,        that       DOE' s
deci s i o n        to desi g nate                  the task             as a di s creti o nary                task     and accept
the work            i s counterproducti v e                           to DOE' s          desi r e      to focus         and control


l o The       contract               that           KMS operates                        under              provi d es          no   awards       for
excepti o nal                  performance              or penal t i e s                             for         unacceptabl e           performance.
                                                                                   23
the     acti v i t i e s                of KMS for             the      benefi t         of    the      other            parti c i p ants         and
the     nati o nal                  program.
            DOE‘s               Di r ector           of Inerti a l              Fusi o n       tol d         us that       DOE has deci d ed
to recompete                           the   ICF support                 contract            that        KMS now hol d s.               He sai d
that        DOE            has been           di s sati s fi e d             wi t h      aspects              of KMS’ performance.
However,                   accordi n g             to the di r ector,                    DOE' s        deci s i o n      to recompete            the
contract                   was made mai n l y                    because            the term           of the contract             wi l      be
compl e ted                  i n 1990,             it i s a competi t i v el y                       awarded         contract,          and the
scope        of            work          has changed.11




"For               exampl e ,             accordi n g         to DOE, the contractor                            wi l             not need    to
perform                l a ser-assi s ted                 experi m ents  under    the                    new           ICF       contract.
                                                                             24
                                                                                           SECTION                  3



                  The Uni v ersi t y                          of Cal i f orni a                  manages           and operates                  the    Lawrence
Li v ermore                 Nati o nal                      Laboratory                for DOE.                 LLNL has the               l a rgest         and
most              comprehensi v e                           ICF research                     program           i n the Uni t ed                States       and i s
the           si t e      for Nova,                         the worl d ' s              l a rgest         gl a ss        l a ser.         Duri n g        part   of
the peri o d                    that       we               revi e wed            (Jan.           1, 1987,           through         June           30, 1989),
LLNL used                   its        annual                     budget         of about             $65 mi l i o n              and 340 personnel
to mai n tai n                    a bal a nced                         three-pronged                  approach                to meet          ICF program
obj e cti v es.
              Thi s         approach                             consi s ted                 of dri v er-target                              physi c s               tests                  on the
Nova          l a ser,            cl a ssi f i e d                            underground                          ICF target                tests            (cal l e d                   the
tfHal i t etV             program),1                               and dri v er                         research               and devel o pment.                                   However,
accordi n g                 to LLNL offi c i a l s ,                                         l i m i t ed                program           fundi n g             led            them               to
adopt              a strategy                                 of shi f ti n g                emphasi s                     among        the three                    el e ments                       of
thei r             program.                           Thi s            caused              them to del a y                          some pl a nned                       obj e cti v es
for Nova                  experi m ents                                and dri v er                       devel o pment.                     Subsequentl y ,                               because
of a combi n ati o n                                          of rapi d               progress                     on Hal i t e           coupl e d              wi t h              shri n ki n g
fundi n g,                they              deci d ed                     to stop                 the underground                            tests.                  In addi t i o n,
these              budget             constrai n ts                               and,            to a l e sser                     extent,              LLNL' s                choi c e                 of
where              to put              l i m i t ed                    fundi n g             wi t hi n                its      program,                affected                     the LLNL
Nova program' s                                   abi l i t y                to meet                    some         i m portant             goal s          recommended                                 by
the Nati o nal                        Academy' o f                              Sci e nces                  in its             1986       report             on the                     ICF
program.2
                     LLNL,          however,                   was abl e          to accompl i s h                                 most             of the             revi s ed
obj e cti v es                      it set for i t sel f                          wi t h           the            l i m i t ed                fundi n g.                 For
exampl e ,                      the      combi n ati o n                 of resul t s                      from LLNL underground
experi m ents                         i n 1987                 and Nova experi m ents                                          between                 1987          and 1989            has
enabl e d                     the     ICF program                     to progress                         at a faster                               rate      than
anti c i p ated.                            However,                even       wi t hi n               its               ttscoped-backl l                    pl a n,             LLNL
sti l                     had     to defer                a few i m portant                           experi m ents                               and acti v i t i e s
because                       of a conti n ui n g                     decrease                  i n fundi n g                        rel a ti v e              to the
i n creasi n g                      compl e xi t i e s                and costs                    of experi m ents,                                     the di f fi c ul t y                of
some obj e cti v es,                                   LLNL' s        management                      deci s i o ns                      concerni n g                    where        to
put            l i m i t ed           fundi n g,                 and other               i n terveni n g                           events.




l L ANL              has       a compani o n                        underground                           ICF           target              test            program                  cal l e d
 tl C enturi o n.l l
 2NAS made          these     recommendati o ns                                                    i n concert       wi t h          a recommendati o n
that      ICF program           fundi n g        be                                    sustai n ed           at the         fi s cal       year           1985
l e vel .     Thi s       has not happened,                                                    mai n l y     because            program         fundi n g                                        has
not ke@t         up wi t h      i n fl a ti o n.
                                                                                                  25
           SOATS/OBJECTIVES
                                  LLNL determi n es                      its           goal s                    and obj e cti v es                                   for i t s            ICF program
           on the basi s                                 of techni c al                  pri o ri t y,                              schedul e ,                       and ICF budget.                                       LLNL
              offi c i a l s                 tol d            us that          programmati c                                        goal s          typi c al l y                     take                 3 to 5
           years                      to compl e te                  and speci f i c                             del i v erabl e s                         as part                    of the goal s
           are to be accompl i s hed                                           wi t hi n                      a fi s cal                    year.                     LLNL offi c i a l s
           emphasi z ed                          that           it i s very                   di f fi c ul t                          to meet                    pl a nned              goal s                 wi t hout
           consi s tent                         dependabl e                  fundi n g                    --LLNLl s                        ICF fundi n g                          has been                     steadi l y
           decreasi n g                          si n ce          1985      mai n l y                    because                      it has not kept                                   pace                wi t h
            i n fl a ti o n.                          (See tabl e              3.1,                 l a st                two col u mns.)                                  Usi n g         i n fl a ti o n
             i n dexes                   of LLNL offi c i a l s ,                            we found                               that          thei r                program                 has             l o st          a
           cumul a ti v e                       total             of $32.5               mi l i o n                         i n operati n g                             funds           compared                         wi t h
           its               fi s cal          year             1985     fundi n g                       l e vel                 i n real                terms.3                      LLNL offi c i a l s
           al s o                stated              that         the cost               of conducti n g                                        research                     i n creased                       by 17.5
           percent                       from            1985        to 1989.
                            LLNL' s              mai n               goal s           for i t s        program                    have         been          to (1) study                         and
           appl y             the       sci e nce                       and technol o gy                   necessary                      to achi e ve                        hi g h-gai n            ICF
           and            (2) devel o p                       ICF mi l i t ary                     and ci v i l a n                    appl i c ati o ns.                                These      are
           pursued                  through                   a mi x              (dependi n g             on fundi n g)                          of the              fol l o wi n g:                 ICF
           target-physi c s                               experi m ents                        on Nova,             underground                            experi m ents
           desi g ned                 to study                          characteri s ti c s                   of ICF targets,                                  dri v er                  research
           and devel o pment,                                        and to a much more                              l i m i t ed              extent,                studi e s                to
           determi n e                  the             feasi b i l t y                     of usi n g             ICF for mi l i t ary                               and             for
           ci v i l a n               appl i c ati o ns                           (e.g.,           a fusi o n-powered                                  reactor).                         LLNL
           offi c i a l s               make              the deci s i o n                       as to the amount                                 of fundi n g                        and
           pri o ri t y               that              each                of these             areas        recei v e                wi t hi n             thei r                program.
            (See tabl e                        3.1.)
                                                                                  -0nerati n c                  Costs

                                                                                                                                                                 ICF                          Total                  constant
Fi s cal                      Dri v er                               Nova                            Target                                                   speci a l                     actual                     FY 85
                           technol o gy                        ex?xri . ments                        desi s t                  Hal i t e                      studi e s                       di L x!&                 l e vel
1985                             10.2                                  30.4                             9.1                       16.3                            1.3                          67.2                       67.2
1986                               7.6                                 36.8                             8.8                         9.0                           1.1                          63.4                       69.2
1987                               7.7                                 27.0                             9.0                       22.2                            0.8                          66.6                       70.6
1988                             14.3                                  35.3                             9.3                         4.4                           2.8                          66.2                       74.6
1989                             14.7                                  36.0                             9.5                         0.8                           3.3                          64.3                       78.6
Note:                Rcwsmay                  nottotal b ecause                                 of roundi r q.
source:                    LJXL.



   31f converted                           to F' Y 1989 dol l a rs,                               the         cumul a ti v e               l o ss        is
   approxi m &l y                          $42.5 mi l i o n.
                                                                                                                  26
I Nova              Goal s
                 LLNL breaks                               its         Nova goal s                i n to                three        categori e s:                       (1) l a ser
) operati o ns,                          mai n tenance,                          and i m provements                                (e.g.,           repl a ci n g
  contami n ated                               gl a ss)4;                 (2) experi m ents;                                and       (3) di a gnosti c s.                           Duri n g
  the peri o d                        we revi e wed,                           LLNL sci e nti s ts                            accompl i s hed                     many       i m portant
  tasks            i n cl u di n g                      Nova preparati o n                             and i m portant                          target-physi c s
  experi m ents.                                   However,                accordi n g                 to LLNL offi c i a l s ,                                they        had to
  defer            some               i m portant                      experi m ents                    (i n cl u di n g,                   for exampl e ,                   cryogeni c
  target                experi m ents,                             Nova          l a ser        beam smoothi n g                              and some l a ser/
  target                di a gnosti c                         devel o pments,                     and some demonstrati o ns                                             of
  capabi l i t y                      at certai n                        wavel e ngths)                         because              of conti n ued                     decreasi n g
  fundi n g                  and          i n creasi n g                   costs            of experi m ents.                                 Nova was the hi g hest
  funded                category                         for LLNL' s                    program                  from         1985          through               1989.
                  KMS makes                       the gl a ss                 shel l s                for fusi o n                   targets                         to be used                     in
     Nova         experi m ents.                           LLNL transferred                                    thi s             technol o gy                          to KMS and no
     l o nger         makes               gl a ss          shel l s .                     LLNL makes                      pol y mer                  shel l s ,                  whi c h          are
     becomi n g             more               i m portant                 than             gl a ss         i n ICF research                                         experi m ents.
     About          2 years                    ago,        LLNL transferred                                    the pol y mer                            technol o gy                          to KMS.
     However,               KMS has been                              unabl e               to make pol y mer                               shel l s                   to meet                  LLNL' s
     needs          and          i s over                a year               behi n d                its      promi s ed                   del i v ery                      date.                Thus,
     LLNL must                  conti n ue                 to make                     its          own and has al s o                                 made              shel l s               for
     UR/LLE,              whi c h             has si m i l a r                  needs.                    LLNL sai d                    the transfer                                   was
     strai g ht             forward,                     but KMS tri e d                              to add too many                                   i m provements                            to the
     technol o gy                    (i n         an effort                   to bui l d                  a corporate                           experti s e                        i n thi s
     area)          rather                than           meet           the            i m medi a te              needs              of i t s                   l a boratory
     customer.                      LLNL has gi v en                            KMS hi g h                  marks                on gl a ss                     shel l            del i v ery
     but has rated                            KMS as poor                       on pol y mer                       shel l            devel o pment.
     Hal i t e            Tests
                 Accordi n g                         to            LLNL offi c i a l s ,                             they            emphasi z ed                     Hal i t e
     underground                        tests                      i n fi s cal                    years             1985,               1986,         and 1987.                          However,
     thi s       was done                       at            the expense                              of gi v i n g                 Nova         experi m ents                     and dri v er
     devel o pment                      l o wer                    pri o ri t y             because                    of l i m i t ed                 funds.                    Each
     underground                        Hal i t e                      test          cost              LLNL about                        $30 mi l i o n.                         LLNL chose              to
     end i t s           di r ect                      parti c i p ati o n                             i n the underground                                      testi n g           ahead             of
     schedul e                in         l a te               1987.                  LLNL offi c i a l s                             tol d        us thi s                    was done
     because             they                 bel i e ved                       that        l i t tl e              more             coul d         be l e arned                    from Hal i t e
     for the             amount                        of fundi n g                       needed               and the techni c al                                        ri s k     i n vol v ed.
     LLNL offi c i a l s                               shi f ted                  the         fundi n g                previ o usl y                   al l o cated                 for the
     Hal i t e       program                           to Nova                    experi m ents                        and dri v er                    technol o gy.                             (See
     tabl e        3.1.)


     l N ova       l e nses            were     found      to be contami n ated                                                       wi t h   mi c roscopi c
     pl a ti n um           chi p s.          LLNL had to repl a ce                 thi s                                         gl a ss      before             Nova         coul d
     be operated                     at ful l       power.         Repl a cement          of                                           the gl a ss            and
     preparati o n                   of Nova        took     about         2 years,       but                                             LLNL was abl e                    to use
     the reduced-powered                            Nova     to do experi m ents                                                      duri n g       thi s        peri o d.
                                                                                                   27
    Dri v er                  Goal s
                     Wi t h                    the
                                             advent                     of the Laboratory                                           Mi c rofusi o n                     Faci l i t y' s
    becomi n g                    an i m portant                          near-term                         goal            i n the                 ICF program                               and LLNL
    management' s                          desi r e                to mai n tai n                           a sound                     dri v er             technol o gy                           program,
    LLNL           shi f ted               some of i t s                                 funds          i n 1988                    and 1989                   from termi n ated
    underground                          tests               to the devel o pment                                           of a possi b l e                            dri v er                    for the
    LMF.                Fundi n g             for dri v er                              devel o pment                       was i n creased                             by about                        70
    percent                  over          the           1987             l e vel . 5                     (Fundi n g                     for Nova                experi m ents
      i n creased                   by 30 percent                                   over           the          1987           l e vel . )                   LLNL' s                   dri v er
    devel o pment                        effort                 has            i n cl u ded                 not onl y                       tests            for hi g h                       gai n        for
    mi l i t ary/weapons                                 purposes,                           but       l o oki n g                  ahead             i n to         the                future,              LLNL
    i s al s o               now doi n g                      studi e s                    of whi c h                dri v er                  may be best                             to eventual l y
    power               a nucl e ar                    fusi o n                pl a nt             for commerci a l                                 power.                  Most                  of the
    dri v er              technol o gy                       subtasks                         that          LLNL had set                              for i t sel f                           were         met.
    However,                      a few i m portant                                     ones         were            deferred                       because                 of a decrease
     i n ICF program                               fundi n g                   and the di f fi c ul t y                                        of some obj e cti v es,                                       i . e.,
    they           wi l             take          l o nger                than                expected.
I   LLNL and the                                              NAS
    Recommendati o ns
              Recommendati o ns                                         made by the NAS panel                               in its         1985/1986             revi e w
    have      determi n ed                       the thrust                       of the nati o nal                        ICF program.                    Even
    though           LLNL has accompl i s hed                                           much         i n al l          three       el e ments            of i t s
    program            duri n g          the past                             few years,                 program           budget          constrai n ts                and,
    to a l e sser               extent,                               LLNL' s     choi c e        of where                 to put          l i m i t ed     funds
    have      hi n dered               the Nova program' s                                    abi l i t y              to meet           speci f i c        NAS
    recommendati o ns,                                 i n cl u di n g            i m portant                experi m ents               to anal y ze            the
    hydrodynami c                 i n stabi l i t i e s                           of fusi o n                targets.
                At the ti m e                         of the           1986         NAS report,                                  LLNL had a three-pronged
    program             consi s ti n g                    of Nova experi m ents,                                              Hal i t e          underground                        tests,
    and dri v er                  devel o pment.                           NAS recommended                                       that       LLNL gi v e                Hal i t e           and
    Nova        experi m ents                         top pri o ri t y                   wi t h            onl y               Ira modest              expl o ratory
    effort          i n . . . advanced                                     gl a ss          l a ser              devel o pment                        . . . .I'                     NAS
    recommended                        that           ICF fundi n g                  stay                at the                  1985       l e vel            ($67       mi l i o n              in
    operati n g                 funds              i n 1985            dol l a rs                for LLNL)                            to accompl i s h                 thi s .
    Fundi n g,              however,                    has sl o wl y                eroded                   to where                   LLNL' s              1989         operati n g
    fundi n g           i s about                     $55 mi l i o n                 i n 1985                    dol l a rs.                     Because             of thi s              l a ck
    of fundi n g,                      LLNL scoped                     back           its             program                    i n 1987.               In addi t i o n,
    LLNL offi c i a l s                       tol d         us that                two other                          events             i n 1987               caused                them to
    further             al t er             thei r          ICF program                          pl a n,               i . e.,
                     SW
                                   a conti n ued                            erosi o n                     in        LLNL             fundi n g       due l a rgel y                      to
                                   t' c ongressi o nal                                  redi r ecti o n                         of         funds     from LLNL                     to         EMS,          UR,
                                   NRL, and                            SNLA,"             and

    5LLNL                 offi c i a l s                            sai d       that              some              of       its      dri v er           technol o gy                    al s o
    i n cl u des                           acti v i t i e s                 di r ected                         at        supporti n g              the       exi s ti n g                Nova
     faci l i t y.
                                                                                                                     28
                --      LLNL' s         deci s i o n                that           it had l e arned             what           it needed          from
                        Hal i t e       experi m ents                       (gi v en         the benefi t /cost                   and techni c al
                        ri s k),        and gi v en                   that           resources       were        l i m i t ed,         LLNL
                        offi c i a l s              deci d ed            it woul d             be more benefi c i a l                  to
                        di s conti n ue                   Hal i t e        and put thi s             money             i n to     Nova    and dri v er
                        devel o pment.
Thus,               i n 1988                and        1989,                 LLNL          offi c i a l s                 made         a program                        management
deci s i o n              to shi f t                   funds                 that          had previ o usl y                           been           al l o cated                for
Hal i t e              to Nova                 operati o ns                       and        experi m ents,                       dri v er                  devel o pment,             and
speci a l                ICF studi e s                       i n cl u di n g                 the LMF and mi l i t ary                                          and ci v i l a n
appl i c ati o ns                         of ICF.                     However,                   much           of the             shi f ted                   fundi n g          went
i n to            these          l a tter              two efforts                            (see          dri v er           devel o pment                            and speci a l
studi e s,                tabl e               3.1),              whi c h            the            1986        NAS panel                    consi d ered                      a low
pri o ri t y,               and             i n the case                          of       the speci a l                     studi e s                 (a total                 of about
 $6 mi l i o n                   dol l a rs               i n 1988-89),                                  no pri o ri t y.
                 Thus,      some       i m portant                  Nova experi m ents                      sti l               remai n
unaccompl i s hed,                     mai n l y          because            of decreasi n g                        program                  fundi n g;          but
al s o           to some extent                     because               of LLNL' s              management                    deci s i o n
concerni n g                where         to put            avai l a bl e              fundi n g.             Accordi n g                      to LLNL
offi c i a l s ,            thei r         fundi n g          deci s i o ns              were           made to create                              a bal a nced
program                between         the Nova               l a boratory                    experi m ents                   program                  and LMF
devel o pment                     so that           the target               physi c s                and LMF desi g n                         mi l e stones
coul d             be compl e ted                on a mutual l y                   consi s tent                   schedul e .                       However,         due
to the reduced                       fundi n g,             LLNL now pl a ns                          to compl e te                     these            Nova
mi l e stones                l a ter      and         i n a somewhat                     di f ferent                fashi o n                from the pl a n
recommended                       by NAS.
                 In     its       i n teri m              report              i s sued          i n January                         1990,               NAS recommended
droppi n g                 the Hal i t e/Centuri o n                                   program                     (because                 of past                 program
successes                      and l a ck             of funds                     for addi t i o nal                           experi m ents)                        and
concentrati n g                          l i m i t ed            resources                 on l a ser-target                                  physi c s
experi m ents,                         mai n l y         on Nova.                      NAS al s o                    commented                  that             LLNL' s
deci s i o n               to concentrate                            some of i t s                      l i m i t ed              resources                      on
devel o pi n g                   a dri v er               for an LMF has hel p ed                                          di s tract                   LLNL          from
accompl i s hi n g                       some         i m portant                    Nova       experi m ents.                                DOE offi c i a l s                 tol d
us that                 the nati o nal                      l a boratori e s,                      i n cl u di n g                  LLNL,               are al l o wed             much
autonomy                    i n deci d i n g                the al l o cati o n                         of funds                    wi t hi n             thei r          programs
and that                   the devel o pment                             of an LMF i s an i m portant                                                   goal          to the         ICF
program.




                                                                                                 29
                                                                                                                SECTION                   4
                                                                        LOS ALAMOS                                NATIONAL                    LABORATORY

              Los Al a mos              Nati o nal             Laboratory                   i n Los Al a mos,                        New Mexi c o,                       is
the desi g nated                     ICF l e ad           l a boratory                   for ICF gas                       l a ser             concepts             and
i s currentl y                 devel o pi n g             a KrF gas                 l a ser             cal l e d           "Aurora,"                   to be used
pri m ari l y             for i n di r ect-dri v e                       target            experi m ents.                          Duri n g             the earl y
 197Os,           LANL devel o ped                      a dri v er            program                 based          on a carbon                        di o xi d e
  (CO2) l a ser,               but            abandoned            it i n the mi d -1980s                                  when          it became                  cl e ar
that          the    l o ng      wavel e ngths                   associ a ted                  wi t h             CO2 l a ser           l i g ht            were
unworkabl e                 for ICF experi m ents.                                Duri n g              the earl y                 to mi d -1980s,
LANL made                 the transi t i o n                   to i t s         current                 Aurora             appr0ach.I
                   The         Uni v ersi t y                               of Cal i f orni a             has a cost-pl u s-management-
al l o wance                       contract                              wi t h      DOE for operati o ns                   and management           of LANL.
LANL' s                  total                 annual                       ICF program            budget        (capi t al        and operati o ns)           has
remai n ed                     rel a ti v el y                              constant          at sl i g htl y        over       $30 mi l i o n       si n ce
fi s cal                 year                1987.                       In fi s cal          year         1989,   LANL had approxi m atel y                 135
staff                  supporti n g                   the                       ICF program.
GOALS/OBJECTIVES
                 LANL' s                 ICF obj e cti v es                                               i n cl u de                  three        areas:                     capsul e
performance                                (i n cl u di n g                              underground                                   target         experi m ents                          wi t h       the
cl a ssi f i e d                      Centuri o n                              Program),                                 l a ser-dri v er                  devel o pment,                             and
l a ser-target                                 i n teracti o n                                      physi c s.                         In fi s cal           year                1989,              70 percent
of the LANL ICF budget                                                                   supported                              KrF l a ser             devel o pment.                                The
remai n i n g                    30 percent                                    went                   to the                    Centuri o n             Program                    or to other                       ICF
experi m ents.                                      LANL achi e ved                                            onl y            some of i t s                  fi s cal                 year          1987-89
obj e cti v es                        wi t hi n                       the ori g i n al                                   ti m e             frames,        owi n g               to a l a ck                 of
access                  to l a ser                          faci l i t i e s                                (whi l e               compl e ti n g            Aurora);                        del a ys            in
target                  di a gnosti c s,                                     desi g n,                         and            fabri c ati o n;                i n suffi c i e nt                        fundi n g;
and unanti c i p ated                                                 compl e xi t y                                of        experi m ents.                       Al s o,              KMS' fai l u re                  to
provi d e                    LANL wi t h                              target                        components                             duri n g     1987             and 1988
contri b uted                            to LANL' s                                 i n abi l i t y                           to perform                some experi m ents,                                      and
thus             hel p ed                sl o w               LANL' s                           program.
                   Cansul e                       Performance
         The capsul e                       performance                                                         area        i n cl u des          target           experi m ents
under      the cl a ssi f i e d                      Centuri o n                                                 Program                   for underground                     nucl e ar
tests      i n vol v i n g                ICF targets,                                                        as wel l                  as some experi m ents                         performed
on LLNL' s                 Nova      l a ser.                LANL                                           accompl i s hed                   about        one-hal f             of i t s
fi s cal        year           1987-89            obj e cti v es                                                 i n the capsul e                        performance                     area

l T he              Naval                  Research                      Laboratory             i s currentl y                                               transi t i o ni n g                      from a
smal l                gl a ss               l a ser                 to a smal l              KrF l a ser       cal l e d                                         "NIKE,"                 to      be       used
 for           di r ect-dri v e                                   target         experi m ents.

                                                                                                                          30
    wi t hi n      proj e cted             ti m e         frames.                    However,                     some obj e cti v es                        were
    del a yed        owi n g       to a l a ck                 of access                     to l a ser                   faci l i t i e s.                  LANL was to
    use LLNL' s                Nova l a ser,                 pendi n g               compl e ti o n                   of Aurora,                         but an 18-
    month        cutback           of Nova                operati o ns                  whi l e                 contami n ated                      l a ser      gl a ss       was
    repl a ced,              and a del a y                i n getti n g                 Aurora                    ready                   to operate           caused          a
    sl i p page           i n LANLl s             schedul e d                     work.              A number                       of experi m ents                     begun
    i n fi s cal             years     1987           and 1988                     were          unfi n i s hed                           as of fi s cal             year
    1989,        because           of ongoi n g                  di f fi c ul t y                     i n obtai n i n g                      access          to Nova           or
    because          thei r        compl e xi t y                 exceeded                   earl i e r               expectati o ns.
/   Laser-Dri v er                       Devel o nment
                   Thi s                area         i n cl u des           experi m ents               necessary                   to bri n g              the Aurora
    KrF l a ser                         on-l i n e               and pursue             LMF dri v er               devel o pment.                         LANL
    offi c i a l s                      tol d        us that              key technol o gy                     areas             for KrF l a sers                 have
    been           i d enti f i e d                       and detai l e d               programs               are bei n g              devel o ped             for those
    areas.                       Accordi n g                     to LANL offi c i a l s ,                 al l       obj e cti v es                 i n thi s
    category                        were           accompl i s hed                  1 year       l a te          because              of i n suffi c i e nt
    fundi n g                    duri n g             fi s cal       years            1987     and        1988.
                  hasex-Taraet                          Interacti o n
                   Thi s              area           i n vol v es                experi m ents                         i n dri v er-target                     i n teracti o n
    such           as pl a sma                      physi c s.                     Al l      obj e cti v es                    i n thi s         area          are ei t her
    unfi n i s hed                      or were                   del a yed.                 Al l           fi s cal          year         1987        experi m ents                    were
    sti l              unfi n i s hed                         as of fi s cal                      year               1989      because           of i n suffi c i e nt
    fundi n g                  or l o ss                  of access                     to Nova when                        it was shut                   down.                Some
    fi s cal             year              1988               experi m ents                  are unfi n i s hed                          for the same                        reasons.
    One fi s cal                        year              1988           experi m ent                   was compl e ted                      i n fi s cal               year          1989.
    One fi s cal                        year              1988           and one fi s cal                              year       1989       experi m ent                   have        been
    del a yed                 unti l            fi s cal                 year           1990        so they                 can be performed                            on the
    Aurora               KrF l a ser.
    NAS Vi e ws
                       In 1986              NAS recommended                     the j o i n t          LLNL-LANL                     underground
    testi n g                 program             (Hal i t e/Centuri o n)                     as the number-one                                        pri o ri t y               for
    the DOE ICF program.                                         It al s o        noted         that           upon       compl e ti o n,                                  Aurora
    woul d               have       to successful l y                       demonstrate                pul s e          shapi n g.                             Al t hough             not
    anti c i p ati n g                      that     thi s          woul d      provi d e         i m medi a te               target                       i m pl o si o n
    capabi l i t y,                   NAS encouraged                        LANL to conti n ue                        KrF l a ser                          devel o pment
    as an i m portant                            ICF contri b uti o n.                        In i t s           1990         i n teri m                        report,              NAS
    recommended                       droppi n g               the Hal i t e/Centuri o n                         effort,                 bel i e vi n g                       enough
    had been                    accompl i s hed,                    gi v en     the hi g h           cost           of the program.                                           NAS
    al s o             recommended                 that          LANL fi n i s h           Aurora              and start                    doi n g                     ICF target
    i m pl o si o n               experi m ents                  usi n g      Aurora.




                                                                                              31
                                                                                        SECTION                  5
                                                              SANDIA               NATIONAL                    LABORATORY

              Sandi a                Nati o nal              Laboratory                 i n Al b uquerque,             New Mexi c o,                   i s the
desi g nated                    l e ad          l a boratory                  for devel o pment                of the parti c l e                 beam
accel e rator                        approach                for the DOE ICF program.                               SNL has constructed
the        Parti c l e                 Beam Fusi o n                 Accel e rators                   (PBFA) I and II to determi n e
the        feasi b i l t y                      of usi n g           l i g ht       ion      beams         as a dri v er          to i g ni t e              ICF
targets.                      Thus            far,         the program                   i s sti l         i n the devel o pmental                         state
and presentl y                             i s attempti n g                     to focus           beams       and shape          beam pul s es.
As of fi s cal                         year            1990,       SNL has not yet attempted                              target          i m pl o si o n
experi m ents.
                  Sandi a             Corporati o n,                             a subsi d i a ry                        of AT&T Technol o gi e s,
operates                     SNL under                         a 5-year                 renewabl e                       no-profi t ,                        no-fee              contract
wi t h            DOE.              Sandi a ' s                   ICF program                         currentl y                    has 93 staff,                                wi t h
contractors                           provi d i n g                      another               60 personnel .                                    Ni n ety-fi v e                     percent           of
the           fi s cal              year            1989           SNL ICF budget                                  was spent                            on PBFA II, whi l e                          the
remai n i n g                    5 percent                        went           toward              devel o pi n g                     a Laboratory                             Mi c rofusi o n
Faci l i t y                 dri v er               concept.                         SNL i s adapti n g                             Hermes                    III,          a nucl e ar
weapons                   effects                   si m ul a tor                    at SNL, to become                                         a l i g ht             ion        dri v er
concept                   for the                   L&IF.                Total          ICF program                            fundi n g                   (capi t al                and
operati o ns                        cost)              has          i n creased                   i n current                       dol l a rs                   from         $23.4
mi l i o n                i n fi s cal                     year            1986         to $27.6                    mi l i o n                     i n fi s cal               year            1989.
In response                           to congressi o nal                                  di r ecti v e,                       DOE has cut back                                      SNL ICF
fundi n g                 twi c e.                  Capi t al                  funds          have              remai n ed                     fai r l y            constant                 si n ce
fi s cal               year           1987,                but           operati n g                  funds              have             i n creased                     except              for a
fi s cal               year           1989              cut.
GOALS/OBJECTIVES
                SNL ICF obj e cti v es                  are di v i d ed               i n to          ei g ht       program           el e ments,
i n cl u di n g        such          areas     as PBFA II base                             operati o ns;                ion       beam        focusi n g
and source                devel o pment,                di a gnosti c s               R&D, and LMF dri v er
devel o pment.                     Most    of these                   are consi d ered                         to be i n expl o ratory
devel o pment,                 whi c h     exami n es                 the     future           feasi b i l t y               of concepts.
However,             LMF dri v er            devel o pment                    efforts              are consi d ered                   to be i n
advanced             devel o pment,               whi c h             attempts             to prove               the uti l i t y             of a
concept            through             an actual               tested           system.
               SNL achi e ved              many            of i t s              fi s cal             year                1987-89            program
obj e cti v es          wi t hi n          the ori g i n al l y                           proj e cted                         ti m e     frames.          Of those
not met wi t hi n                    the ori g i n al                  ti m e             frames,                 most               were      due to three
factors:             (1) greater                         than        anti c i p ated                       compl e xi t y                    of the
experi m ents,                    (2) i n suffi c i e nt                         fundi n g,                and                 (3) phasi n g          out
experi m ents              because               of changed                          program               pri o ri t i e s.                      Some of those
under           (1) and             (2) were               compl e ted                    i n l a ter                     fi s cal         years,       whi l e
others           are sti l              i n progress.                                The detai l s                            are as fol l o ws:


                                                                                                32
Comnl e xi t v                  of        Obj e cti v es
             Techni c al                         di f fi c ul t i e s                 i n devel o pi n g                 a source           to produce
posi t i v e             Li t hi u m                       i o ns        used      i n the           l i g ht        ion   accel e rator                  concept
have         hampered                      SNL i n meeti n g                             some obj e cti v es                  wi t hi n       proj e cted         ti m e
frames.                  SNL pl a ns                                  to devel o p         an i o n           source       i n 1990.                 SNL has al s o
had di f fi c ul t y                             i n focusi n g                    the parti c l e                   beam accel e rator                     on an ICF
target            wi t h             suffi c i e nt                        power         densi t y            to perform                ICF target
experi m ents.
Insuffi c i e nt                        Fundi n q
            In mi d -year                    1987,          congressi o nal                          commi t tees                reduced             the si z e     of
the ori g i n al                 fi s cal            year       1987               SNL ICF fundi n g.                            The fi n al            fi s cal
year        1987       fundi n g               remai n ed             sl i g htl y              hi g her          than           i n fi s cal           year
1986,            but was substanti a l y                                    l o wer        than           the ori g i n al                fi g ure          SNL had
budgeted             for.                 In fi s cal           year               1989,        the SNL ICF                      budget            was
approxi m atel y                      $1.9       mi l i o n           l o wer            than          i n fi s cal              year          1988.
                Accordi n g                         to the SNL ICF Program                                          Di r ector,               the fi s cal         year
1987            fundi n g                    l o ss       was a resul t                          of a shi f t                  i n ICF program                funds         from
other             l a boratori e s                           (i n cl u di n g                   SNL) to EMS.                       In fi s cal           year      1989,
funds             were                shi f ted             from SNL and LLNL to EMS, UR/LLE,                                                         and NRL to
 i m pl e ment                   hi g her               congressi o nal l y                            desi g nated                fundi n g      for those               three
l a boratori e s.                                   The ICF Program                              Di r ector               at SNL esti m ated                  that        the
SNL ICF program                                       was sl o wed                          1 to 2 years                   (e.g.,           due to del a ys             and
restructuri n g                                   program                 pri o ri t i e s)              by havi n g               to adj u st             to the
 fundi n g                shi f ts.
Chansed              Pri o ri t i e s
                 SNL deci d ed                   recentl y        to swi t ch           its             LMF dri v er               devel o pment
efforts                from PBFA II to the Hermes                                     III concept.                             Therefore,                   SNL
di s conti n ued                    pul s e-shapi n g               experi m ents                     by a beam-bunchi n g                               method   on
PBFA II.                   Three             fi s cal      year         1986      and 1987                 obj e cti v es                i n vol v i n g        PBFA
II pul s e               shapi n g               by beam-bunchi n g                 experi m ents                         were     dropped.                   SNL
then             began       pul s e-shapi n g                  experi m ents               i n si d e            the target.
                 SNL offi c i a l s                  stated               that       al t hough                 EMS1 fai l u re              to provi d e              SNL
wi t h           requested               techni c al                    support             was not a l a rge                       factor           i n SNL not
meeti n g              some program                      obj e cti v es                   on ti m e,              it di d       hel p        sl o w      SNL' s
program                duri n g          thi s         peri o d.                 For exampl e ,                     SNL' s      ICF di r ector                  stated
i n Jul y              1988         that          EMS work                   seems          to cost               SNL more            i n l o st
producti v i t y                     (tasks            were many months                                 l a te)       than      EMS i s budgeted
for.               He sai d           the program                         i s payi n g             dearl y            for l a ck           of EMS
performance.                           SNL had to contract                                    outsi d e             for servi c e                EMS was to
provi d e.                    The di r ector                     sai d         he di d          thi s           because         tasks            were     not
done,              so he had to compensate                                         for EMS' l a ck                      of performance.




                                                                                     33
          Vi e wg
            In 1986 NAS commended                             l i g ht               i o n research                        as havi n g                potenti a l
 to become           the l e ast                costl y       ICF dri v er,                                   and recommended                     that            it
 conti n ue        to have             hi g h       ICF program                           pri o ri t y.                   However,            duri n g               the
past        3 years,         SNL has encountered                                          techni c al               probl e ms            i n attempti n g
to prove           the feasi b i l t y                    of the l i g ht                                i o n parti c l e           accel e rator                       for
  ICF experi m ents.                        In i t s January                         1990               i n teri m         report,            NAS reserved
j u dgment         on the techni c al                       feasi b i l t y                             of the l i g ht              i o n approach,
 sayi n g       it woul d          address              those               i s sues                  in its         fall        1990         fi n al             report
usi n g       data     through                the summer                    of 1990.




                                                                                    34
                                                                                              SECTION                   6
                                                                       UNIVERSITY                           OF ROCHESTER

            The Uni v ersi t y                          of Rochester                    has operated                               the Uni v ersi t y                            of
Rochester                Laboratory                        for Laser                Energeti c s                    si n ce             1970.             Of the                      si x
ICF parti c i p ants,                            UR/LLE i s the onl y                             uni v ersi t y                        research                  faci l i t y
and the            onl y           compl e tel y               uncl a ssi f i e d                 faci l i t y                      i n the        DOE ICF
program.                 As such,                  it provi d es                    research                   opportuni t i e s                        for graduate
students               and other                   researchers.                         URJLLE                 uses             its       Omega           gl a ss                l a ser
 for di r ect              dri v e             spheri c al                target          experi m ents.                                UR/LLE            has
esti m ated              it woul d                 need        approxi m atel y                       $48 mi l i o n                        i n addi t i o nal
 funds        over         the         next             few years                 to i n crease                     the power                    of the Omega
l a ser       by a factor                        of 7.5.                  Except          for a prel i m i n ary                                 desi g n                    study,
the        Congress                has         not appropri a ted                         funds                for the upgrade.
                 UR/LLE               operates                       under                     a mul t i - year                            research                      Cooperati v e
Agreement                      wi t h              DOE.              UR/LLE                         i s currentl y                           i n the thi r d                           year          of the
current                    5-year                  Cooperati v e                              Agreement                       entered                  i n to               i n fi s cal               year
1988.                   The       Cooperati v e                           Agreement                              contai n s                     an annual                       work          pl a n        wi t h
the goal s /obj e cti v es                                           that                UR/LLE                  pl a ns               to achi e ve                        i n the            comi n g
year.                   Most          of UR/LLE' s                             ICF program                                 fundi n g                 comes                 from DOE, but a
smal l             amount                   (si n ce             fi s cal                     year             1988           l e ss            than              10 percent)                        comes
from non-DOE                               sponsors,                      i n cl u di n g                        New York                       State                  energy             research
authori t i e s                       and uti l i t i e s.                                          UR/LLE               researchers                              al s o        recei v e              some
non-ICF                    funds              di r ectl y                 from such                              organi z ati o ns                                as DOD and NAS, who
pay            for some work                                done           for them by the                                              LLE researchers.                                      Total             ICF
fundi n g                   (DOE and non-DOE                                        sources)                          has          ri s en           from                $9 mi l i o n                 in
fi s cal                year          1986                to $13.6                       mi l i o n                   i n fi s cal                   year                1989.              DOE ICF
fundi n g                  has        ri s en               from $7.7                               mi l i o n             to $12.9                    mi l i o n                  i n the             same
ti m e           peri o d.
              In fi s cal              year                       1989,              UR/LLEl s        Cooperati v e                                      Agreement          supported
90 staff              (sci e nti s ts,                                    engi n eers,           and techni c i a ns                                         and research
associ a tes).                        UR/LLE                         al s o          has approxi m atel y                   26                           other     staff.            It
empl o ys         approxi  m  atel  y                                     50 undergraduate                         students                                on a part-ti m e
basi s ,        and provi d es                                    full             or parti a l           assi s tance                                   to about         30 graduate
students.
GOALS/OBJECTIVES
                 UR/LLE' s                       annual              work                  pl a ns            contai n ed                   seven           maj o r               obj e cti v es
duri n g             the peri o d                           fi s cal                    year           1987-89.                    These                seven            obj e cti v es
i n cl u ded                  such               areas             as beam                         focusi n g                 and smoothi n g,                           devel o pment                    of
di a gnosti c                           techni q ues,                       and creati n g                                a cryogeni c                      target                      capabi l i t y.
UR/LLE               offi c i a l s                     tol d           us that                        they            achi e ved                   all     but          one of these
obj e cti v es                          duri n g            the         ori g i n al l y                        proj e cted                     ti m e      frames.                           UR/LLE
offi c i a l s                      sai d          they            underesti m ated                                    the di f fi c ul t i e s                          i n devel o pi n g
the            cryogeni c                        target              capabi l i t y,                            whi c h           was schedul e d                            to be
compl e ted                         i n fi s cal                   year                  1987.                Accordi n g                   to UR/LLE                    offi c i a l s ,               they
al s o           overesti m ated                                KMSI abi l i t y                              to provi d e                      UR/LLE            wi t h                cryogeni c
                                                                                                       35




                                                                                                                  I”
techni c al                      support                    for target                            devel o pment.                     Therefore,         thi s
obj e cti v e                    was not                    achi e ved                   unti l             8 to              9 months       l a ter  duri n g                                         fi s cal
year            1988.                Offi c i a l s                    stated                     that        they             have    now achi e ved          al l                                        seven
obj e cti v es.
Pol v mer                 Tarcet                  Fabri c ati o n
                   Program                 offi c i a l s                          tol d              us that                    one maj o r          goal                  not             i n cl u ded
among                 the        seven                    obj e cti v es                         remai n s                unful f i l e d:                        obtai n i n g                          a
rel i a bl e                   suppl y                    of pl a sti c                          pol y mer                target             shel l s             essenti a l                            for
further                   di r ect-dri v e                               Omega                   l a ser          experi m ents.                        KMS i s responsi b l e
for devel o pi n g                                 these                 pl a sti c                      shel l s                to UR/LLEl s                  stri n gent
speci f i c ati o ns.                                       However,                           because               of techni c al                     di f fi c ul t i e s,                                KMS
has not been                               abl e                 to meet UR/LLE' s                                        needs.               UR/LLE                    offi c i a l s                    sai d
they               have          experi e nced                                di f fi c ul t y                    i n obtai n i n g                   qual i t y                        pol y mer
targets                   from KMS, forci n g                                                  UR/LLE             offi c i a l s               to rel y                     on LLNL to
provi d e                 them             a l i m i t ed                          number                  of pol y mer                    targets               manufactured                                    when
LLNL has ti m e                               to do thi s .
                   However,                  i n November                         1989,               UR/LLE              made           its       own "breakthrought
i n pol y mer                   shel l                 manufacturi n g.                                  Usi n g          adapted                Japanese              technol o gy,
 it produced                       its              own pl a sti c                        pol y mer              shel l s         that             met i t s           stri n gent
speci f i c ati o ns.                                  UR/LLE            offi c i a l s                   tol d           us it requi r ed                       onl y          1 staff
month                 of thei r                 ti m e      to adapt                         thi s        technol o gy.                          KMS had not seemed
as i n terested                             i n pursui n g                       the adapti o n                           of the Japanese                           technol o gy
as UR/LLE,                      but UR/LLE                         sai d                it wi l                offer          to transfer                      the pol y mer
technol o gy                    to KMS.                     However,                        UR/LLE               sai d        it wi l                    rel y   on LLNL to
provi d e                the      fi n i s hed                pl a sti c                     coati n g               for these                   shel l s .            KMS i s al s o
abl e              to do thi s ,                       but,        accordi n g                         to UR/LLE                offi c i a l s ,               LLNL' s
techni q ue                  i s better.
NAS Vi e ws
            In i t s               1986     report          NAS commended       UR/LLE                                                              for i t s         work.                           The           NAS
1990        i n teri m               report        agai n      prai s ed  UR/LLE     for                                                            its    fi s cal         year
1987-89                accompl i s hments                   and recommended       that                                                              UR/LLE          proceed                           wi t h
upgradi n g                the Omega               l a ser.




                                                                                                        36
c




                                                                                                  SRCTION                  7



                        The U.S. Naval                   Research                     Laboratory                  has been                                    part         of     the         ICF
        research               program           si n ce          1972.                 NRL has an i n teragency                                                         agreem ent
        wi t h          DOE for thi s                work        and concentrates                                 its     efforts                                      m ai n l y        on
        sol u ti o ns             to questi o ns                 i n vol v i n g               the use of l a ser                                               beams             to di r ectl y
        i l u m i n ate             a fusi o n           fuel             target            wi t h         enough         energy                                     for i m pl o si o n                 of
        the target.                    NRL has the                        smal l e st              operati n g            budget                                    i n the           ICF
        program            --$4.5       m il ion              i n fi s cal                  year            1989      and      17                             ful l            or part-tim e
        personnel .
     ' GOALS/OBJECTIVES
                      NRL          determ i n es,                        wi t hi n                    the constrai n ts                        of program                 resources,
        the         speci f i c                  experi m ents,                            tasks,                  and      subtasks                that     i t        m ust      com pl e te
        to eventual l y                            accom pl i s h                       its               m ai n     goal          of resol v i n g              basi c         questi o ns
         i n vol v i n g             l a ser-target                              i n teracti o ns                         occurri n g               i n ICF experi m ents.
        NRL al s o                 determ i n es                    the               schedul e                    and l e ngth                of tim e          its        tasks           wi l
        take.               Thi s           i s di f fi c ul t                          because                    m any of the goal s                      are           research
        goal s             whi c h          have           not been                        previ o usl y                    attem pted.                  NRL gi v es               DOE an
        annual              work            pl a n         for i t s                    acti v i t i e s.                     DOE revi e ws               and approves                           thi s
        pl a n           and then                  uses           vari o us                   m eans               to m oni t or               NRL' s     progress,
        i n cl u di n g              quarterl y                     ICF program                                  m anagers            m eeti n gs,          progress
        reports,                   techni c al                    revi e ws,                          and peer              revi e w.
                    Duri n g             the peri o d                    of January         1987          through          June     1989,             NRL had
        an ICF gl a ss                      l a ser         experi m ent            program            and was transi t i o ni n g                          to a
        KrF gas              l a ser             pr0gram .l                  M ost goal s        that         NRL set           for   i t sel f             duri n g
        thi s       peri o d             were          m et,        al t hough        a few were                 m et l a ter       than          initial y
        esti m ated                  because              of the di f fi c ul t y                of som e experi m ents                         and,          in
        som e cases,                     because              of i n suffi c i e nt              fundi n g.
    : Gl a ss             Laser              Experi m ents
                               NRL' s           gl a ss             l a ser          program           emphasi z ed                         two       topi c s:                 experi m ents
        to measure:                                     (1) the hydrodynam i c                                i n stabi l i t i e s                          caused             i n the
         fusi o n                      target            when               hi t     by a l a ser             beam                  and        (2) the              effect              that
         i m provi n g                        the        qual i t y                of the      l a ser             beam               has        on l a ser-pl a sm a
        i n stabi l i t i e s.                                   M ost           of NRL' s          experi m ents                           were        com pl e ted                i n the
        tim e                  initial y                   esti m ated                   by NRL.              However,                        a few took                   l o nger           than
        expected                           because                  of the di f fi c ul t y                        of the                   experi m ents.




        l S om e         of   NRL' s             $4.5                 m il ion           operati n g                           budget              for FY 1989           is                bei n g
        used           for    necessary                            bui l d i n g         m odi f i c ati o n                        and            equi p m ent i n vol v ed
        wi t h         NRL' s     transi t i o n                                 to   a smal l               KrF           program .
                                                                                                          37
NRL' s            KrF          Gas         Laser              Prosram
                     NRL' s        other         mai n                 endeavor                     has been              the desi g n                         of     its        KrF
l a ser,               to be cal l e d                        ' I NIKE It and                            to a l e sser                   extent,                    the       support     of
LANL' s                Aurora             KrF l a ser                            pkogram:                  To support                    its               KrF      program,          NRL
desi g ned                      and procured                           l a ser             components                   and i n i t i a ted                         constructi o n
of an encl o sure                             for the new NIKE l a ser.                                                     In addi t i o n,                          NRL was
tasked                 wi t h        the responsi b i l t y                                         of desi g ni n g,                   bui l d i n g,                    and
 i n stal l i n g                  an osci l a tor                                 at LANL to support                              the Aurora                            KrF program.
NRL was l a te                         i n compl e ti n g                              thi s          task        because                of techni c al
di f fi c ul t i e s                   and       i n suffi c i e nt                               funds.              The Di r ector                           of     LANL' s  ICF
program                     tol d      us thi s                   di d             not cause                 a probl e m                 for hi s                   program.
DOE, i n gi v i n g                        approval                              for NRL' s                KrF program,                            ordered              NRL to work
cl o sel y                  wi t h     LANL,            the                 l e ad         l a boratory                 for gas                     l a sers.
               NRL' s         ICF di r ector       tol d    us the Congress              recommended                 that     NRL
reCf2i . W               $4.5    mi l i o n  i n fi s cal       year        1989   for i t s   KrF program,                   an
 i n crease                of $1 mi l i o n      over     that        requested       by DOE.        Fundi n g            was
shi f ted                from the three          DOE l a boratori e s            to accommodate                thi s
i n crease.
NAS Vi e ws
           Accordi n g                        to NAS, NRLl s                  studi e s     of the physi c s                       of di r ect
dri v e,          i n cl u di n g                 studi e s             of target       hydrodynami c         i n stabi l i t i e s,           and
its      devel o pment                          of techni q ues                 for i m provi n g     l a ser        beam qual i t y           have
added        much                 val u abl e               knowl e dge         to the ICF program.                          NAS has endorsed
the devel o pment                               of a smal l                KrF l a ser      program        at NRL.




                                                                                                  38
APPENDIX I                                                                     APPENDIX I




WASHINGTON.              D.C.
Robert   E. Al l e n,          Jr.,         Assi s tant         Di r ector
Jack   H. Paul ,       Eval u ator-i n -Charge
Mark M. Mi c kel s en,              Eval u ator
Dr. Duane     G. Fi t zgeral d ,                    Nucl e ar     Engi n eer




  (3018%3)

                                                                39
                                                                     .   ..“.   l_l,.   “.   -._.   _   -.--.   -...-.-.-----   -..---_-l - _-.-.-~   -_-_-.--_
..I   ._..___   I   .__-   l_l .   “I   .I   I,.   .l””l   ,I   _I
I   ..-...^.
         -. .-.
             .-.-.---.-
                 - ..-... -..-
                           --    _-.._-.-..-
                                      _”