This space is not for comments on a post. If you want to comment on a post, wait until it is published.
Saturday, December 31, 2016
SUGGEST NEW TOPICS HERE
Place new topics here.
This space is not for comments on a post. If you want to comment on a post, wait until it is published.
This space is not for comments on a post. If you want to comment on a post, wait until it is published.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Budget question
Why is a Budget that's different from a Budget Request considered short-fall?
The programs are fine, for the most part they live within their budgets (except NIF).
Overhead, in particular the support functions, will need to be adjusted. End of story.
All the hubris reminds me of chicken little.
The programs are fine, for the most part they live within their budgets (except NIF).
Overhead, in particular the support functions, will need to be adjusted. End of story.
All the hubris reminds me of chicken little.
Any regrets?
So...for those of us who remain who were too chicken or unable to take the SSVSP for whatever reason .....regrets?
Thursday, May 23, 2013
UPF's cost may soar above $11B
UPF's cost may soar above $11B
By Frank Munger
From the Knoxville News Sentinel
May 21, 2013
For the past couple of years, the government has stood behind a cost range of $4.2 billion to $6.5 billion for the Uranium Processing Facility, but that range may not be able to contain the giant project's growing costs as the schedule gets pushed into the future and funding gets stretched out.
Todd Jacobson of Nuclear Weapons & Materials Monitor this week reported that, based on a Government Accountability Office briefing prepared for congressional committees, the cost of UPF could go beyond the $6.5 billion estimated cap and perhaps go well beyond it.
According to information in the GAO's 27-page briefing package, the "space/fit" problem that forced the UPF team to re-do the building's design to accommodate more equipment is a big part of the cost escalation. The GAO cited NNSA documents that say the space problem will add $540 million to the project's cost, delay the start of construction and delay the start of facility operations by 13 months.
A bigger impact on the overall cost, however, appears to be the possibility of the project getting significantly lengthened due to funding constraints.
The NNSA declined to comment on the GAO analysis or discuss any updates on the estimated cost range for the Uranium Processing Facility.
The GAO briefing notes that UPF cost estimates made in 2010-2011 timeframe were based on annual appropriations not subject to budget constraints. The NNSA, which placed the cost range at $4.2 billion to $6.5 billion in that time frame, also planned on potentially changing the year-to-year funding to meet the needs as the UPF moved from design to site prepration to construction to operations.
In the same period, the Army Corps of Engineers challenged the NNSA's estimated cost range for UPF and came up with a range that went up to to $7.5 billion. The Corps also did not foresee budgetary constraints, with the idea of the biggest funding load coming with $900 per million per year for UPF in four consecutive fiscal years.
Now, however, with schedules getting lengthened and some work getting deferred, the overall costs are reportedly climbing.
Under less-optimum funding profiles, with limited appropriations (between $200 million and $500 million annually), the overall cost of UPF could go up to $11.6 billion and stretch the project out until FY 2035 -- the GAO analysis of Corps of Engineers data suggests.
The GAO said the current cost range (up to $6.5 billion) for UPF does not include significant portions of the original scope.
The briefing report said the NNSA in October 2012 updated its point estimate -- the closest estimate to actual cost of UPF -- from $5.2 billion to $5.8 billion. The NNSA reportedly said it did not update the cost range, which includes contingency for unknowns, at that time because it's scheduled to get a complete review when the cost baseline is established for the Critical Decision-2 process (which the contractor plans to submit in September 2013).
The GAO concluded by saying it is "unclear" if the project's current cost range of $4.2B to $6.5B remains valid because:
-- NNSA's current "point estimate" is $6B as design cost for certain processing equipment has increased.
-- The space/fit issue ate up about 45 percent of the NNSA's contingency for the project and the NNSA had not accounted for such a risk.
-- Several identified project risks, "including all risks related to construction activities," are still out there and could require funding to overcome in the future.
"It is possible that additional funds will be needed to ensure there is sufficient contingency to complete the UPF within a cost range that meets NNSA's 85 percent confidence level," the GAO briefing states. "As part of the CD-2 process, NNSA plans to establish a firm cost baseline by June 2014."
By Frank Munger
From the Knoxville News Sentinel
May 21, 2013
For the past couple of years, the government has stood behind a cost range of $4.2 billion to $6.5 billion for the Uranium Processing Facility, but that range may not be able to contain the giant project's growing costs as the schedule gets pushed into the future and funding gets stretched out.
Todd Jacobson of Nuclear Weapons & Materials Monitor this week reported that, based on a Government Accountability Office briefing prepared for congressional committees, the cost of UPF could go beyond the $6.5 billion estimated cap and perhaps go well beyond it.
According to information in the GAO's 27-page briefing package, the "space/fit" problem that forced the UPF team to re-do the building's design to accommodate more equipment is a big part of the cost escalation. The GAO cited NNSA documents that say the space problem will add $540 million to the project's cost, delay the start of construction and delay the start of facility operations by 13 months.
A bigger impact on the overall cost, however, appears to be the possibility of the project getting significantly lengthened due to funding constraints.
The NNSA declined to comment on the GAO analysis or discuss any updates on the estimated cost range for the Uranium Processing Facility.
The GAO briefing notes that UPF cost estimates made in 2010-2011 timeframe were based on annual appropriations not subject to budget constraints. The NNSA, which placed the cost range at $4.2 billion to $6.5 billion in that time frame, also planned on potentially changing the year-to-year funding to meet the needs as the UPF moved from design to site prepration to construction to operations.
In the same period, the Army Corps of Engineers challenged the NNSA's estimated cost range for UPF and came up with a range that went up to to $7.5 billion. The Corps also did not foresee budgetary constraints, with the idea of the biggest funding load coming with $900 per million per year for UPF in four consecutive fiscal years.
Now, however, with schedules getting lengthened and some work getting deferred, the overall costs are reportedly climbing.
Under less-optimum funding profiles, with limited appropriations (between $200 million and $500 million annually), the overall cost of UPF could go up to $11.6 billion and stretch the project out until FY 2035 -- the GAO analysis of Corps of Engineers data suggests.
The GAO said the current cost range (up to $6.5 billion) for UPF does not include significant portions of the original scope.
The briefing report said the NNSA in October 2012 updated its point estimate -- the closest estimate to actual cost of UPF -- from $5.2 billion to $5.8 billion. The NNSA reportedly said it did not update the cost range, which includes contingency for unknowns, at that time because it's scheduled to get a complete review when the cost baseline is established for the Critical Decision-2 process (which the contractor plans to submit in September 2013).
The GAO concluded by saying it is "unclear" if the project's current cost range of $4.2B to $6.5B remains valid because:
-- NNSA's current "point estimate" is $6B as design cost for certain processing equipment has increased.
-- The space/fit issue ate up about 45 percent of the NNSA's contingency for the project and the NNSA had not accounted for such a risk.
-- Several identified project risks, "including all risks related to construction activities," are still out there and could require funding to overcome in the future.
"It is possible that additional funds will be needed to ensure there is sufficient contingency to complete the UPF within a cost range that meets NNSA's 85 percent confidence level," the GAO briefing states. "As part of the CD-2 process, NNSA plans to establish a firm cost baseline by June 2014."
Beam us up NIF!
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/22/beam_us_up_national_ignition_facility_star_trek?page=0,1
Excerpts:
While NIF has conducted more than 1,000 laser "shots" and set multiple records for laser power -- including a 500-terawatt shot on July 5, 2012 -- the latest goal of achieving ignition by October 1, 2012 (set in 2009) came and went. For reasons unknown, the laser's energy is only generating pressures in the target of 150 billion times the Earth's atmosphere -- about half of what is required for ignition. Moses told the San Francisco Chronicle earlier this month that he cannot predict when -- or if -- ignition will ever be achieved. "Our goal is of course ignition," he said. "The goal is to get there or understand why you don't." Moses estimates that total costs have reached $5 billion, although a local grassroots watchdog organization asserts costs are closer to $7.5 billion, because the laboratory has been allowed to charge some of NIF's costs to other programs. NIF's current annual costs are at least $400 million. (By comparison, the estimated budget for Star Trek Into Darkness was $190 million.)
Although NIF's weapons-related role may be fading, thanks to growing congressional frustration with slipping deadlines, a failure to achieve its primary objective, and the budgetary effects of sequestration, Star Trek has given some NIF personnel a brief bit of glory, albeit in a way that foreshadows a less than rosy future. As Simon Pegg, who plays Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott ("Scotty"), explained to io9.com, "All of those guys with red shirts in the warp core [are] all just guys from NIF who just wanted to be in Star Trek. Bruno [Van Wonterghem], the project leader there, who is the guy who will discover fusion and will go down as the next Edison" is in the background. If Moses, Van Wonterghem, and their colleagues are true Trek aficionados, the irony won't be lost on them. In Star Trek lore, anonymous crewmembers wearing red shirts are usually the first to die.
Excerpts:
While NIF has conducted more than 1,000 laser "shots" and set multiple records for laser power -- including a 500-terawatt shot on July 5, 2012 -- the latest goal of achieving ignition by October 1, 2012 (set in 2009) came and went. For reasons unknown, the laser's energy is only generating pressures in the target of 150 billion times the Earth's atmosphere -- about half of what is required for ignition. Moses told the San Francisco Chronicle earlier this month that he cannot predict when -- or if -- ignition will ever be achieved. "Our goal is of course ignition," he said. "The goal is to get there or understand why you don't." Moses estimates that total costs have reached $5 billion, although a local grassroots watchdog organization asserts costs are closer to $7.5 billion, because the laboratory has been allowed to charge some of NIF's costs to other programs. NIF's current annual costs are at least $400 million. (By comparison, the estimated budget for Star Trek Into Darkness was $190 million.)
Although NIF's weapons-related role may be fading, thanks to growing congressional frustration with slipping deadlines, a failure to achieve its primary objective, and the budgetary effects of sequestration, Star Trek has given some NIF personnel a brief bit of glory, albeit in a way that foreshadows a less than rosy future. As Simon Pegg, who plays Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott ("Scotty"), explained to io9.com, "All of those guys with red shirts in the warp core [are] all just guys from NIF who just wanted to be in Star Trek. Bruno [Van Wonterghem], the project leader there, who is the guy who will discover fusion and will go down as the next Edison" is in the background. If Moses, Van Wonterghem, and their colleagues are true Trek aficionados, the irony won't be lost on them. In Star Trek lore, anonymous crewmembers wearing red shirts are usually the first to die.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC
Age Discrimination Trial Date Set in Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC
by Gary Gwilliam on May 21, 2013
A trial date of September 9, 2013 has been set in the second phase of our case Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Robert Freedman set the trial date at a May 16th hearing. In Phase One of the trial, an Alameda County Jury returned a verdict in favor of the first five plaintiffs in the case for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The award is $2.7 million for plaintiffs Elaine Andrews, Marian Barraza, Mario Jimenez, Greg Olsen, and James “Rocky” Torrice. The next phase involves age discrimination claims.
Age Discrimination at Lawrence Livermore Lab
The second phase of Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC (LLNS) includes the first five test plaintiffs’ claims for age discrimination. All 130 plaintiffs in this case have remaining claims for age discrimination. The jury’s findings during the upcoming trial will impact the remaining 125 plaintiffs’ age discrimination claims.
Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore Lab Hearing June 3, 2013
During the initial May 16th hearing, attorneys for Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC argued that they need considerable additional discovery before they will be prepared to try the second phase of the case. Included in this additional discovery are depositions of all 130 plaintiffs.
Although attorneys for LLNS attempted to persuade Judge Freedman to delay the trial, he ordered the September 9, 2013 trial date to remain on the calendar. In addition, Judge Freedman ordered a further hearing on June 3, 2013 to discuss the logistical issues involved in the age discrimination case.
Plaintiffs represented by Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer are ready, willing, and able to try the case on September 9, 2013.
Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer
If you are interested in information regarding this case or if you have questions about legal issues with your employment, please contact attorney J. Gary Gwilliam or attorney Randall E. Strauss of the law firm of Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer 510-832-5411.
by Gary Gwilliam on May 21, 2013
A trial date of September 9, 2013 has been set in the second phase of our case Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Robert Freedman set the trial date at a May 16th hearing. In Phase One of the trial, an Alameda County Jury returned a verdict in favor of the first five plaintiffs in the case for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The award is $2.7 million for plaintiffs Elaine Andrews, Marian Barraza, Mario Jimenez, Greg Olsen, and James “Rocky” Torrice. The next phase involves age discrimination claims.
Age Discrimination at Lawrence Livermore Lab
The second phase of Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC (LLNS) includes the first five test plaintiffs’ claims for age discrimination. All 130 plaintiffs in this case have remaining claims for age discrimination. The jury’s findings during the upcoming trial will impact the remaining 125 plaintiffs’ age discrimination claims.
Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore Lab Hearing June 3, 2013
During the initial May 16th hearing, attorneys for Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC argued that they need considerable additional discovery before they will be prepared to try the second phase of the case. Included in this additional discovery are depositions of all 130 plaintiffs.
Although attorneys for LLNS attempted to persuade Judge Freedman to delay the trial, he ordered the September 9, 2013 trial date to remain on the calendar. In addition, Judge Freedman ordered a further hearing on June 3, 2013 to discuss the logistical issues involved in the age discrimination case.
Plaintiffs represented by Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer are ready, willing, and able to try the case on September 9, 2013.
Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer
If you are interested in information regarding this case or if you have questions about legal issues with your employment, please contact attorney J. Gary Gwilliam or attorney Randall E. Strauss of the law firm of Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer 510-832-5411.
Search for a Sandia director
A national search will soon be underway for a Sandia Director of Pulsed
Power Sciences, as the current Director is taking a different position
within Sandia.
This may be an opportunity for someone taking the LLNL VSP who has a few remaining career years.
This may be an opportunity for someone taking the LLNL VSP who has a few remaining career years.
Furlough rumours
Furloughs, the word on the rumor front 40 million short fall.
When?
Who?
How long ?
When?
Who?
How long ?
Feds: 3 scientists conspired to take Chinese bribes for their U.S. research
Feds: 3 scientists conspired to take Chinese bribes for their U.S. research
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/21/us/new-york-researchers-charged
New York (CNN) -- Three university researchers working on medical technology are facing federal charges -- and up to 20 years in prison if convicted -- for allegedly taking Chinese money for their U.S.-funded research, according to federal authorities.
Their research was partially funded by a multimillion dollar National Institutes of Health grant, according to a criminal complaint.
The three -- Yudong Zhu, 44 of Scarsdale, and Xing Yang and Ye Li, both 31 of Hartsdale -- are each charged with one count of commercial bribery, according to the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan. Zhu is also charged with one count lying about conflicts of interests in a federal research grant.
The three are Chinese nationals, according to a statement from the U.S. attorney's office. It was not clear from the statement what their status was while working in the United States.
"Instead of working exclusively for a New York research institution, the defendants took bribes to acquire research for the benefit of both a Chinese competitor and a Chinese government institution," said FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge George Venizelos said.
The U.S. attorney's statement described the three as "researchers who worked on improving MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) technology at a university in New York, New York." Although the statement did not name the university, the website of the New York University School of Medicine identifies Zhu as an associate professor conducting research focused on improving MRI technology.
The criminal complaint said Zhu recruited the other two scientists to aid him in the MRI research.
The defendants had undisclosed ties with a Chinese medical imaging company and a Chinese government-sponsored research institute conducting the same MRI research, according to federal authorities. The scientists allegedly shared private information stemming from their research in the United States with those Chinese institutions.
"As alleged, this is a case of inviting and paying for foxes in the henhouse," U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said Monday.
The researchers allegedly accepted thousands of dollars for travel, tuition and rent.
Zhu and Yang were arrested at their residences in New York Sunday, according to the U.S. attorney's office. Li is believed to have traveled to China before charges were brought.
Zhu and Yang appeared in court Monday and were both released on bond, according to Zhu's lawyer, Robert Baum.
"Many of the government's statements in the bail hearing misinterpreted facts which are actually consistent with his innocence," Baum told CNN Tuesday.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/21/us/new-york-researchers-charged
New York (CNN) -- Three university researchers working on medical technology are facing federal charges -- and up to 20 years in prison if convicted -- for allegedly taking Chinese money for their U.S.-funded research, according to federal authorities.
Their research was partially funded by a multimillion dollar National Institutes of Health grant, according to a criminal complaint.
The three -- Yudong Zhu, 44 of Scarsdale, and Xing Yang and Ye Li, both 31 of Hartsdale -- are each charged with one count of commercial bribery, according to the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan. Zhu is also charged with one count lying about conflicts of interests in a federal research grant.
The three are Chinese nationals, according to a statement from the U.S. attorney's office. It was not clear from the statement what their status was while working in the United States.
"Instead of working exclusively for a New York research institution, the defendants took bribes to acquire research for the benefit of both a Chinese competitor and a Chinese government institution," said FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge George Venizelos said.
The U.S. attorney's statement described the three as "researchers who worked on improving MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) technology at a university in New York, New York." Although the statement did not name the university, the website of the New York University School of Medicine identifies Zhu as an associate professor conducting research focused on improving MRI technology.
The criminal complaint said Zhu recruited the other two scientists to aid him in the MRI research.
The defendants had undisclosed ties with a Chinese medical imaging company and a Chinese government-sponsored research institute conducting the same MRI research, according to federal authorities. The scientists allegedly shared private information stemming from their research in the United States with those Chinese institutions.
"As alleged, this is a case of inviting and paying for foxes in the henhouse," U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said Monday.
The researchers allegedly accepted thousands of dollars for travel, tuition and rent.
Zhu and Yang were arrested at their residences in New York Sunday, according to the U.S. attorney's office. Li is believed to have traveled to China before charges were brought.
Zhu and Yang appeared in court Monday and were both released on bond, according to Zhu's lawyer, Robert Baum.
"Many of the government's statements in the bail hearing misinterpreted facts which are actually consistent with his innocence," Baum told CNN Tuesday.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Classified data in the Jianyu Huang fraud case?
Classified data in the Jianyu Huang fraud case?
Roughly one year ago, Jianyu Huang, a former employee of Sandia National Labs was charged with multiple counts of federal contract fraud allegedly committed during his employment by Sandia. The Albuquerque Journal reported on June 6, 2012:
“The indictment says Huang on five separate occasions between January 2009 and this February sold at least $25,000 worth of “equipment, materials, the time and work product of (Sandia) staff, and intangible property, including the right to determine what work is performed at (Sandia,) and Sandia’s proprietary interest in intellectual property developed” at the labs.”
“The sixth count in the indictment alleges Huang lied to a Sandia counterintelligence officer, whom he told he would not take a lab-owned laptop computer with him on a trip to China last July. The indictment says Huang took the Sandia laptop on that trip.”
(http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/06/06/abqnewsseeker/updated-ex-sandia-scientist-pleads-not-guilty-to-stealing-data.html)
UPI reported on June 5, 2012 that: “He did not have access to classified national security information, Sandia National Labs said.” (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/06/05/Sandia-Labs-worker-arrested/UPI-43381338915993/#ixzz2TmiqTlsS)
But on May 15, 2013, the Assistant U.S. attorney, Jonathon M. Gerson, filed a “Motion for entry of stipulated protective order” that states:
“This case involves “Restricted Data,” “Formerly Restricted Data,” and other information that has been classified in the interest of the national security and subject to the provisions of CIPA.”
But “Restricted Data” and “Formerly Restricted Data” are specific to classified information about atomic weapons. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restricted_Data)
So what is going on?
How could the trial of a person without “access to classified national security information” involve “Restricted Data” and “Formerly Restricted Data”?
Roughly one year ago, Jianyu Huang, a former employee of Sandia National Labs was charged with multiple counts of federal contract fraud allegedly committed during his employment by Sandia. The Albuquerque Journal reported on June 6, 2012:
“The indictment says Huang on five separate occasions between January 2009 and this February sold at least $25,000 worth of “equipment, materials, the time and work product of (Sandia) staff, and intangible property, including the right to determine what work is performed at (Sandia,) and Sandia’s proprietary interest in intellectual property developed” at the labs.”
“The sixth count in the indictment alleges Huang lied to a Sandia counterintelligence officer, whom he told he would not take a lab-owned laptop computer with him on a trip to China last July. The indictment says Huang took the Sandia laptop on that trip.”
(http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/06/06/abqnewsseeker/updated-ex-sandia-scientist-pleads-not-guilty-to-stealing-data.html)
UPI reported on June 5, 2012 that: “He did not have access to classified national security information, Sandia National Labs said.” (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/06/05/Sandia-Labs-worker-arrested/UPI-43381338915993/#ixzz2TmiqTlsS)
But on May 15, 2013, the Assistant U.S. attorney, Jonathon M. Gerson, filed a “Motion for entry of stipulated protective order” that states:
“This case involves “Restricted Data,” “Formerly Restricted Data,” and other information that has been classified in the interest of the national security and subject to the provisions of CIPA.”
But “Restricted Data” and “Formerly Restricted Data” are specific to classified information about atomic weapons. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restricted_Data)
So what is going on?
How could the trial of a person without “access to classified national security information” involve “Restricted Data” and “Formerly Restricted Data”?
Is NIF trying to catch a greased pig at the Rodeo?
Is NIF trying to catch a greased pig at the Rodeo?
Simulations Uncover Obstacle to Harnessing Laser-Driven Fusion:
Under Realistic Conditions, Hollow Cones Fail to Guide Energetic Electrons to Fuel
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Don Cook named acting NNSA administrator
Don Cook named acting NNSA administrator:
http://blogs.knoxnews.com/munger/2013/05/neile-miller-announces-her-dep.html#more
http://blogs.knoxnews.com/munger/2013/05/neile-miller-announces-her-dep.html#more
Friday, May 17, 2013
Feinstein and NIF... Kiss of Death!!!
Feinstein and NIF... Kiss of Death!!!
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Feinstein-declines-to-halt-NIF-budget-cuts-4523794.php
Feinstein declines to halt NIF budget cuts
Congressional supporters of the multibillion-dollar National Ignition Facility in Livermore called on Sen. Dianne Feinstein this week to help save the huge laser experiment from $110 million in budget cuts proposed by the Obama administration.
In a quick response Thursday, the California Democrat turned them down, saying that it's high time to "reassess" the project's experimental efforts to assure the safety of the nation's nuclear arsenal and create sustainable fusion energy that have proved unsuccessful so far.
Feinstein is a member of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee and chairs its subcommittee on energy and water development.
She rejected their request to support NIF's request for $486.6 million for the coming year, saying it "is hard to justify" as there is no "clear path forward for achieving ignition."
"NIF has failed twice to achieve its stated goal of achieving ignition," Feinstein noted - in 2010 and again in 2012. Her committee had appropriated "close to $1 billion" to speed those efforts, she said, but the money was never meant to cover beyond those two years.
"It is impossible at the moment to predict whether ignition can be achieved," Feinstein said, and "now is the perfect opportunity to reassess the goals of this program."
She said she has asked the project's leaders at Livermore and at the National Nuclear Security Administration, who oversee the NIF, to develop "clear and measurable goals to track progress in achieving ignition and meet the needs of the stockpile stewardship program."
"I asked for new milestones and program goals more than six months ago and still have not received them," Feinstein said.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Feinstein-declines-to-halt-NIF-budget-cuts-4523794.php
Feinstein declines to halt NIF budget cuts
Congressional supporters of the multibillion-dollar National Ignition Facility in Livermore called on Sen. Dianne Feinstein this week to help save the huge laser experiment from $110 million in budget cuts proposed by the Obama administration.
In a quick response Thursday, the California Democrat turned them down, saying that it's high time to "reassess" the project's experimental efforts to assure the safety of the nation's nuclear arsenal and create sustainable fusion energy that have proved unsuccessful so far.
Feinstein is a member of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee and chairs its subcommittee on energy and water development.
She rejected their request to support NIF's request for $486.6 million for the coming year, saying it "is hard to justify" as there is no "clear path forward for achieving ignition."
"NIF has failed twice to achieve its stated goal of achieving ignition," Feinstein noted - in 2010 and again in 2012. Her committee had appropriated "close to $1 billion" to speed those efforts, she said, but the money was never meant to cover beyond those two years.
"It is impossible at the moment to predict whether ignition can be achieved," Feinstein said, and "now is the perfect opportunity to reassess the goals of this program."
She said she has asked the project's leaders at Livermore and at the National Nuclear Security Administration, who oversee the NIF, to develop "clear and measurable goals to track progress in achieving ignition and meet the needs of the stockpile stewardship program."
"I asked for new milestones and program goals more than six months ago and still have not received them," Feinstein said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
May 22, 2013
Blanca Torres
San Francisco Business Times
Nineteen entities responded to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s call for ideas on how to develop 78 acres of land at the lab.
The land is part of the LLNL and Sandia National Laboratories' Livermore Valley Open Campus project to facilitate businesses to make use of the labs’ research and technology.
Last month, LLNL issued a request for information from developers interested in building facilities such as office and lab space at the Open Campus.
“It’s taken some time, but we’re really exicted that the Department of Energy approved our going forward to find developers,” said Buck Koonce, a senior University of California adviser at LLNL working on the Open Campus project.
Respondents to the RFI were contractors, developers and consulants including Rudolf & Sletten Inc., Robinson Mills & Williams Inc., HDR Architecture, BKF Engineers and OLMM Consulting Engineers. See the full list here.
The entire Open Campus will include 110 acres of which LLNL controls 78. The total build out of the Open Campus could take up to 30 years and include up to 3 million square feet of space.
Koonce said he expects LLNL to start with an initial phase of three or four buildings, but exactly how the campus will materialize is yet to be determined. The lab has built infrastructure and hired FLAD Architects to design a master plan for the campus, but will rely on private developers for the individual buildings.
The RFI said the lab would like see facilities such as a high performance computing center, office buildings, educational centers, and a research collaboration center.
Koonce said the lab will review all the responses and then determine how to proceed. One option is put out a request for proposals and select projects from that pool to get construction in 2014.
“We’ve done the upfront work to make it easier for a developer to come and put in their projects,” he said. “We’ve been working with DOE for the development of the projects, so we don’t expect years of delay. The DOE has approved (the Open Campus) and is encouraging us to make their land available. We’re excited for the new Open Campus to be realized.”
But they have no money and yet they do this and the NEO was full yesterday and they are hiring summer students. Amazing