Alt. Galvin Report, ExecSumm,w/memo

[Greg Bischak <ncecd@igc.org>]

To: Concerned parties
From: Jim Bridgman, National Commission for Economic Conversion & 
Disarmament (ECD), 202/728-0815; fax:202/728-0826
Date: 2/10/95
Re: Alternative Galvin Report

The Executive Summary of the Alternative Galvin Report follows. The 
full report, except for graphs which cannot be emailed, is in a separate 
email message. Kudos to everyone who contributed to the report! 

On Feb. 1, the official release of the Galvin Report was preceded by 
an impromptu press conference on the Alternative Galvin Report. Ann 
Markusen of PRIE, Bill Weida of Colorado College & ECAAR, Jackie 
Cabasso of Western States Legal Foundation, and Greg Bischak of ECD 
spoke to a crowd of about 15 reporters. Additional comments were 
given during the break and during the Official Public Comment 
Period.

The Washington Post and NY Times articles on Galvin did not mention 
us. Defense News quoted Bill Weida twice (yea!) but did not mention 
the report. If you know of any press hits, please let us know.

If you want copies of the official Galvin Report, you can have it 
emailed to you (only if you can download binary files) by contacting 
Sean McDonald (DOE) at 202/586-6032 or by email : 
sean.mcdonald@hq.doc.gov. If you want a hardcopy, call 202/586-
5575. Be sure to ask for the full packet, including "Volume II: 
White Papers"(an overview/backgrounder of DOE labs, and other 
helpful fact sheets.

To respond to the Galvin Report, send comments postmarked or faxed 
NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 15, to:
Galvin Task Force
Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, AB-1 U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585
Fax: 202/586-6279

The Military Production Network and ECD is working together to send 
the Alternative Galvin Report to the Galvin Commission, the Energy 
Secretary, the President (or better, VP Gore), and select members of 
Congress. In addition, at a recent Washington Economic Conversion 
Working Group meeting, it was decided that a SIGN-ON LETTER 
specifically commenting on the official Galvin report should 
accompany the report. ECD is working on drafting that letter. Any 
comments and suggestions would be welcome. We will circulate the 
letter for sign-ons ASAP.

An Alternative To The Galvin Report
On Futures for the DOE Nuclear Weapons 
Laboratories

February 1, 1995

GRAPH ON EXPENDITURES AT DOE WEAPONS LABS BY (MISSING)

Prepared By:

William J. Weida 
Director, Community Education Campaign For
Employment Alternatives At Defense Nuclear Sites
Economists Allied For Arms Reduction
Professor, The Colorado College 

Ann Markusen
Director, Project on Regional and Industrial Economics
Professor, Rutgers University

The Galvin Commission excluded many ordinary citizens who would have 
liked to contribute to this important process. This alternative 
report was generated by a task force of citizens, drawn both from 
communities hosting DOE facilities and those supporting the labs 
through taxes, who are concerned that DOE's labs be reorganized to 
yield the optimal economic and security returns for the United 
States.

Our recommendations are based upon the legitimate security and 
deterrence needs of the U.S. in light of our treaty obligations, the 
need for basic science research, our lagging pace toward 
sustainability, the need for applied research on non-defense 
problems, and the economic impact DOE has had in the past and could 
have in the future. We acknowledge Secretary O'Leary's role in 
moving DOE toward a more open and responsive environment, and we 
endorse the initial steps Los Alamos National Laboratory has taken 
to have Motorola evaluate its management. Many of the weaknesses 
noted in this report were brought to light through these actions.

These citizens' organizations listed below, both local and national, 
agree that nuclear weapons design work should cease for a variety of 
reasons which range from the ethical to the expedient and that it 
should be replaced with a limited curatorship of nuclear weapons 
technologies related to dismantlement and monitoring. These groups 
also generally support appropriate research and development for a 
sustainable society as an alternative to current weapons Lab 
programs, and they believe that missions associated with achieving a 
sustainable society must be allocated across a diverse set of 
institutions--government labs, universities, non-profits, business 
firms and community groups--each of which offers unique 
capabilities.

20/20 Vision Nation Project
Alliance for Peaceful Alternatives
American Friends Service Committee, Denver, CO
Arizona Council for Economic Conversion
California Peace Action
Campaign for New Priorities
Center for Economic Conversion
Church of the Brethren, Washington Office
Citizens for Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping, Albuquerque, NM
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, Santa Fe, NM
Connecticut Peace Action
Economists Allied For Arms Reduction, New York, NY
Fund for New Priorities in America
Greenpeace
Knolls Action Project, Albany, NY
Los Alamos Study Group, Santa Fe, NM
Maine Economic Conversion Project
Massachusetts Peace Action
Military Toxics Project, Sabbatus, ME
Minnesota Jobs With Peace
National Commission for Economic Conversion and Disarmament
National Commission on Economic Conversion and Disarmament, Washington, DC
NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
New Mexico Alliance, Espanola, NM
Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, Oak Ridge, TN
Peace Action
Peace Action, Delaware Valley
Peace Action, Washington
Rural Alliance for Military Accountability, Questa, NM
Southwest Research and Information Center, Albuquerque, NM
St. Louis Economic Conversion Project
The 21st Century Project
The Military Production Network, Seattle, WA
The Western States Legal Foundation, Oakland, CA
Tri-Valley CAREs, Livermore, CA
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, Washington Office
Women's Action for New Directions

Executive Summary

The Situation:
* The U.S. cannot continue at current levels of resource waste and 
ecological destruction.
* National support for all federally funded research and development 
is declining.
* The need for nuclear weapons research no longer exists and 
continued weapons RD&T is contrary to stated Lab and national goals 
of "reducing the global nuclear danger."
* With the current moratorium on nuclear testing and the diminished 
superpower nuclear threat, any nuclear dangers we face are best 
reduced by mutual disarmament and increased nonproliferation 
efforts.
* Large new national and international markets would be served by a 
shift of national mission toward an efficient and sustainable 
economy.

The Problem:
* The weapons Labs' budgets rose disproportionately in the 1980s, 
partly to fund the unsuccessful Star Wars effort, and have gone down 
only marginally since that time. Downsizing, reorientation and 
release of the resources to the larger economy are imperative.
* Historically, the Labs have been poor neighbors to surrounding 
communities--both those that predated the Labs' existence and those 
that were created to support the sites.
* Management at the weapons Labs has created fundamental problems 
the Labs must confront before successful conversion can be 
accomplished.
* To maintain and decrease nuclear stockpiles, dismantle nuclear 
weapons, ensure nuclear safety, pursue nonproliferation, and 
responsibly address nuclear waste and related environmental damage 
requires a budget of about one third of the present weapons Lab's 
budgets.
* Remaining Lab capabilities, including highly educated personnel, 
sophisticated--albeit specialized--equipment, and a reservoir of 
research practices, technologies and ideas must be "converted," 
either publicly or privately, to other pressing societal needs.
* There is serious doubt that successful Laboratory conversion can 
coexist with a weapons program of any significant size.
* Secrecy and its accompanying security apparatus inhibits good non-
defense research and hampers efficiency in redeploying Lab resources 
toward new missions and commercial work.
* Technology transfer programs mounted to address national 
competitiveness are vulnerable to increasing controversy within the 
business community over fairness of opportunity and access, and to 
popular discouragement over the inability to enforce the U.S. 
preference clause to ensure taxpayer money creates jobs in the U.S., 
not abroad.
* The Labs' capabilities could be oriented in part to new national 
missions, but to date these appear to have been opportunistically 
promoted as "technology push" programs rather than as responses to 
"public pull" or "market pull" initiatives.
* To maintain high Lab budgets, Lab managers have emphasized 
technology transfer and new missions in their conversion efforts 
rather than attempts to transform the Labs into incubators to help 
scientists and engineers, technologies and ideas, and even Lab 
facilities to spin off and enter the commercial arena.

The Solution:
* Nuclear weapons-related activity at the Labs should be re-oriented 
toward post-Cold War realities: dismantlement and monitoring of 
remaining stockpiles. Civilian control of nuclear weapons must be 
maintained. The Labs should not be placed under the DoD.
* Most expenditures for weapons research are sunk costs. Conversion 
will require significant shutdown and consolidation of facilities.
* "Deterrence by capability," if deemed prudent after a thorough and 
public policy debate, can be assured through retention of small-
scale capital equipment and the personnel responsible for 
dismantlement and monitoring.
* Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship (SBSS) should not be 
implemented as currently envisioned by DOE because of its 
proliferation potential and unjustified costs.
* Specialization in applied science research uniquely positions the 
weapons Labs to contribute to projects central to the transition to 
a sustainable economy.
* The Labs should be given responsibility to pursue publicly-funded 
sustainability projects where they are uniquely qualified and should 
be encouraged to compete with other institutions (universities, 
businesses) for other projects.
* Technology transfer programs, especially those involving 
Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) where 
taxpayers pay for research and private companies are given 
proprietary rights, should be seen as transitional and should be 
transformed in the longer run into either full pay-as-you-go 
programs on the part of the business partners or spin-offs of 
personnel, facilities and technologies.
* The Labs should devote more resources during transition to efforts 
to help move scientists and engineers, managers, facilities, 
technologies and ideas out of the Labs and into the larger economy, 
through entrepreneurial training and leave programs, equity 
investments, judicious management of patents and licensing, and more 
extensive marketing of Lab capabilities.

The Savings:
* A substantial amount could be saved by re-orienting the Labs: over 
$4 B could be saved in four years from the Defense Programs budget 
alone.
* Further budget cuts can be realized as the stockpile continues to 
shrink under new international agreements.
* Some of these savings could pay for energy, security, and 
sustainable society programs at the Labs, and for other government 
programs elsewhere.