The Sandia National Laboratories has not fully implemented its system to track “nuclear safety soft spots,” or nuclear weapons safety-related design issues, the Department of Energy Inspector General’s Office (IG) found in a report released Monday.
The report said that while Sandia developed a process to track these safety issues, it did not fully implement this system, which did not always contain updated information on soft spots for all weapon systems.
While agreeing with the IG’s recommendations to address the situation, Sandia management “noted that the report findings did not indicate that weapon systems have unaddressed safety concerns or that nuclear safety requirements are not met,” according to the IG.
In 2008, Sandia’s Surety Assessment, Engineering, and Analysis Center found 23 high-priority nuclear safety soft spots, along with unfinished or zero plans to resolve those issues, the IG said. It also said Sandia did not have a formal tracking system to log the actions taken or planned to address the problems.
Sandia in 2008 developed a soft spot general engineering document that listed “agreed-upon, prioritized soft spots and their dispositions for each active weapon system,” but those documents had not been updated as required since 2011, the IG said. Moreover, a program initiated in 2011 to improve the system “languished for several years without a defined scope or firm completion date,” according to the report.
The IG reviewed 85 of the 143 soft spots in the formal tracking system covering all weapons systems and found that some updated information Sandia found through studies and tests did not appear in the general engineering documents for at least 36 soft spots. This included, for example, lightning test results that “revealed new information to further characterize a soft spot common to at least four weapon systems.”
The IG said a well-maintained tracking system is necessary to document design weaknesses and counter loss of knowledge in the event of employee turnover. The report recommended that NNSA’s Sandia Field Office manager ensure development of a project plan with a firm completion date for the general engineering document improvement project. Management agreed to develop the plan and resume updating the tracking system.
Sandia spokeswoman Sue Holmes said by email that the “existence of a soft spot does not mean nuclear safety requirements are not met.”
“Although the [NNSA] mandates nuclear safety requirements, there is no specific requirement to identify or report soft spots,” Holmes said. “Sandia itself developed the rigorous soft spot reporting methods, and identifies, analyzes and decides what, if anything, should be done about any given soft spot.”
“The issues identified are primarily ones of centralizing and standardizing documents to track and report soft spots. They do not reflect on nuclear safety requirements, which have been and will continue to be met. Sandia will continue to identify and address soft spot issues while finishing the effort to improve the centralized general engineering document system,” Holmes said.
