Two anonymous contributions on pension contributions:
1)
Since LLNL is looking at employee contribution for next year what percentage did the LANL employees have to start contributing and what's the increase every years after that. Is it going to start at 2% and then go to 16% like was dicussed during the transition. We all want to know at LLNL how much we should bend over.
2)
I hear UC has started deducting 4%from everyone's paycheck and they're going to follow CalPer's plan of increasing that 5% to 7% and up as time goes on. This took affect 4/15/2010. LLNS should start shortly. With LLNS retirement plan being $408M short I'd say 4% would be a good start and then as years go on maybe we can get it up to 16% as was talked about during the transition at which time they said, "not at this time". What a CYA statement. Someone please tell LLNL what LANS started at and what their project pay cuts are.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Global warming profiteering.
Anonymously contributed:
Looks like DOE executives aren't above joining in with the growing "for-profit" Bechtel/BWXT LLC sleaze fest!....
-
More Global Warming Profiteering by Obama Energy Official
Surprising documents made available to this author reveal that Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi has a huge financial stake in companies likely to profit from the Obama administration’s “green” policies.
Zoi, who left her position as CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection — founded by Al Gore — to serve as assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, now manages billions in “green jobs” funding. But the disclosure documents show that Zoi not only is in a position to affect the fortunes of her previous employer, ex-Vice President Al Gore, but that she herself has large holdings in two firms that could directly profit from policies proposed by the Department of Energy.
pajamasmedia.com/blog/
more-global-warming-profiteering-
by-obama-energy-official/
Looks like DOE executives aren't above joining in with the growing "for-profit" Bechtel/BWXT LLC sleaze fest!....
-
More Global Warming Profiteering by Obama Energy Official
Surprising documents made available to this author reveal that Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi has a huge financial stake in companies likely to profit from the Obama administration’s “green” policies.
Zoi, who left her position as CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection — founded by Al Gore — to serve as assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, now manages billions in “green jobs” funding. But the disclosure documents show that Zoi not only is in a position to affect the fortunes of her previous employer, ex-Vice President Al Gore, but that she herself has large holdings in two firms that could directly profit from policies proposed by the Department of Energy.
pajamasmedia.com/blog/
more-global-warming-profiteering-
by-obama-energy-official/
Saturday, April 24, 2010
White House Says Door Not Closed to Nuclear Warhead Replacement
Anonymously contributed:
White House Says Door Not Closed to Nuclear Warhead Replacement
Thursday, April 22, 2010
By Martin Matishak
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON -- A key White House official yesterday reaffirmed that the Obama administration had not closed the door on replacement of nuclear warheads, but that it was more likely to use less-controversial means for maintaining the U.S. strategic arsenal (see GSN, April 15).
"If necessary, if we have to do replacement in order to maintain [U.S. nuclear] forces, then the president has that option available to him," Gary Samore, senior White House coordinator for WMD counterterrorism and arms control, said yesterday during an event at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
"I don't think it will be, frankly," he added. "From what I understand ... refurbishment and reuse will be perfectly fine for the foreseeable future. But if I'm wrong, and replacement becomes necessary, the president has the option to do that."
http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/
nw_20100422_3638.php
White House Says Door Not Closed to Nuclear Warhead Replacement
Thursday, April 22, 2010
By Martin Matishak
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON -- A key White House official yesterday reaffirmed that the Obama administration had not closed the door on replacement of nuclear warheads, but that it was more likely to use less-controversial means for maintaining the U.S. strategic arsenal (see GSN, April 15).
"If necessary, if we have to do replacement in order to maintain [U.S. nuclear] forces, then the president has that option available to him," Gary Samore, senior White House coordinator for WMD counterterrorism and arms control, said yesterday during an event at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
"I don't think it will be, frankly," he added. "From what I understand ... refurbishment and reuse will be perfectly fine for the foreseeable future. But if I'm wrong, and replacement becomes necessary, the president has the option to do that."
http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/
nw_20100422_3638.php
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Jury Clears Lab of Trade Secret Theft
Anonymously contributed:
Jury Clears Lab of Trade Secret Theft
http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_14915314
Jury Clears Lab of Trade Secret Theft
http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_14915314
Monday, April 19, 2010
Testing nukes without blowing up bombs
Anonymously contributed:
I didn't realize that Obama even knew Ed Moses, but I'm glad he has confidence in him.
Next thing you know we'll be getting limitless energy from banana peels and BS, too.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/16/nuclear.testing/
I didn't realize that Obama even knew Ed Moses, but I'm glad he has confidence in him.
Next thing you know we'll be getting limitless energy from banana peels and BS, too.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/16/nuclear.testing/
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Poll results
DO you think LLNS really cares about your safety?
- Yes : 5
- No: 2
- Only if it benefits them: 17
- Yes : 5
- No: 2
- Only if it benefits them: 17
NNSA Announces Special Tools & Processes for B53 Dismantlement
NNSA Announces Special Tools & Processes for B53 Dismantlement
Prhttp://www.yourindustrynews.com/nnsa+announces+special+tools+%26+processes+for+b53+dismantlement+program_48047.htmlogram
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) today announced that its Pantex Plant has developed a new process and special tooling that will accelerate dismantlement of the B53weapons system.
NNSA’s SS-21 process fully integrates the weapon system with the facility, tooling, operating procedures and personnel involved in the dismantlement program to form a safe, efficient and effective operating environment.
D’Agostino said the B53 is very large and difficult to take apart. “You don’t attack these things with a screwdriver and a crescent wrench,” he said.
With the design and fabrication of tooling and procedures complete, the project team is expected to receive authorization to begin disassembling the B53 after NNSA completes an extensive safety review that includes approval of a Documented Safety Analysis and completion of a Nuclear Explosive Safety Study.
80+% of the 53 stockpile have already been dismantled & for these remaining few we’ve developed a whole new process & tooling to “accelerate dismantlement”. We’ve conducted numerous NES studies over the years & I can’t ever recall using a screwdriver & crescent wrench to disassemble a 53. Nor do I recall anyone at LANL/SNL/DOE/NNSA saying the existing process at the time was unsafe.
If the Seamless Safety for the 21st Century (SS-21) is so much better, why is it still necessary for NNSA to complete an extensive safety review that includes approval of a Documented Safety Analysis and completion of a Nuclear Explosive Safety Study?
If the Seamless SS-21 process is so wonderful why do PTs at PX refer to it as an endless, mind-numbing process of delays?
An insignificant workload that in the recent past took a few months to complete now requires several months to complete even with a so-called “accelerated dismantlement” process. A 10-fold increase in the cost to do the work is not mentioned anywhere.
Now, if we can just reduce the speed limit on our highways to 5mph we can be so much safer.
Prhttp://www.yourindustrynews.com/nnsa+announces+special+tools+%26+processes+for+b53+dismantlement+program_48047.htmlogram
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) today announced that its Pantex Plant has developed a new process and special tooling that will accelerate dismantlement of the B53weapons system.
NNSA’s SS-21 process fully integrates the weapon system with the facility, tooling, operating procedures and personnel involved in the dismantlement program to form a safe, efficient and effective operating environment.
D’Agostino said the B53 is very large and difficult to take apart. “You don’t attack these things with a screwdriver and a crescent wrench,” he said.
With the design and fabrication of tooling and procedures complete, the project team is expected to receive authorization to begin disassembling the B53 after NNSA completes an extensive safety review that includes approval of a Documented Safety Analysis and completion of a Nuclear Explosive Safety Study.
80+% of the 53 stockpile have already been dismantled & for these remaining few we’ve developed a whole new process & tooling to “accelerate dismantlement”. We’ve conducted numerous NES studies over the years & I can’t ever recall using a screwdriver & crescent wrench to disassemble a 53. Nor do I recall anyone at LANL/SNL/DOE/NNSA saying the existing process at the time was unsafe.
If the Seamless Safety for the 21st Century (SS-21) is so much better, why is it still necessary for NNSA to complete an extensive safety review that includes approval of a Documented Safety Analysis and completion of a Nuclear Explosive Safety Study?
If the Seamless SS-21 process is so wonderful why do PTs at PX refer to it as an endless, mind-numbing process of delays?
An insignificant workload that in the recent past took a few months to complete now requires several months to complete even with a so-called “accelerated dismantlement” process. A 10-fold increase in the cost to do the work is not mentioned anywhere.
Now, if we can just reduce the speed limit on our highways to 5mph we can be so much safer.
Legal Action To Start
Anonymously contributed:
Lab Retirees: Funds Raised, Legal Action To Start
By The Independent
The UC Livermore Lab Retiree Group has raised enough money to begin legal efforts to try to regain membership in University of California health plans, group leader Joe Requa announced.
He said that a formal contract will come first. “Lawyers work on court time, which seems to run much slower than real time, so there may be a short delay before that (legal action) happens,” he wrote in an email.
The financial target was $150,000, which attorneys told the retiree group would be needed to support the initial phase of the legal effort. The target has now been reached, prompting Requa to joke that he should be able to proclaim “mission accomplished” as President Bush famously did seven years ago ¬ only to see the Iraq war continue for years more.
The legal effort will also be a continuing one and in time may require still more funds, Requa said. “Unfortunately, we just won one battle. I expect the war to persist for some time so I will need your continued help.”
The retiree group’s law firms are developing strategy now. First steps are likely to involve opening a court case aimed at uncovering documents and policy statements that bear on the decision to remove Lawrence Livermore Lab retirees from UC group health coverage.
The retirees were covered by the University’s group plans under a succession of contracts that began in 1952 and ended at the beginning of 2008, when a for-profit contractor took over Laboratory management from University of California. The new contract specified benefits “substantially equivalent” to UC’s group plans. However, the contract wording was changed a year later under circumstances that have never been explained to retirees.
The new health arrangements have come across as a patchwork of plans that appear to abandon individual retirees to fend for themselves in a complex system. Retirees share painful stories with one another about former colleagues or their spouses who have been unable to obtain service from the health consulting firms that now separate retirees from the Laboratory and University that once took an interest in their welfare.
Not all retirees report dissatisfaction in the current year. Some are paying no more for health care than in the past. However, concern remains for the future, that being forced out of UC group plans and into individual plans will make them vulnerable to rapid price hikes or even to being dropped as they age and require more care.
Lab Retirees: Funds Raised, Legal Action To Start
By The Independent
The UC Livermore Lab Retiree Group has raised enough money to begin legal efforts to try to regain membership in University of California health plans, group leader Joe Requa announced.
He said that a formal contract will come first. “Lawyers work on court time, which seems to run much slower than real time, so there may be a short delay before that (legal action) happens,” he wrote in an email.
The financial target was $150,000, which attorneys told the retiree group would be needed to support the initial phase of the legal effort. The target has now been reached, prompting Requa to joke that he should be able to proclaim “mission accomplished” as President Bush famously did seven years ago ¬ only to see the Iraq war continue for years more.
The legal effort will also be a continuing one and in time may require still more funds, Requa said. “Unfortunately, we just won one battle. I expect the war to persist for some time so I will need your continued help.”
The retiree group’s law firms are developing strategy now. First steps are likely to involve opening a court case aimed at uncovering documents and policy statements that bear on the decision to remove Lawrence Livermore Lab retirees from UC group health coverage.
The retirees were covered by the University’s group plans under a succession of contracts that began in 1952 and ended at the beginning of 2008, when a for-profit contractor took over Laboratory management from University of California. The new contract specified benefits “substantially equivalent” to UC’s group plans. However, the contract wording was changed a year later under circumstances that have never been explained to retirees.
The new health arrangements have come across as a patchwork of plans that appear to abandon individual retirees to fend for themselves in a complex system. Retirees share painful stories with one another about former colleagues or their spouses who have been unable to obtain service from the health consulting firms that now separate retirees from the Laboratory and University that once took an interest in their welfare.
Not all retirees report dissatisfaction in the current year. Some are paying no more for health care than in the past. However, concern remains for the future, that being forced out of UC group plans and into individual plans will make them vulnerable to rapid price hikes or even to being dropped as they age and require more care.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Review of performance reviews
Contributed anonymously:
Here's a familiar story:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB127093422486175363.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsFifth
"It's time to finally put the performance review out of its misery.
This corporate sham is one of the most insidious, most damaging, and yet most ubiquitous of corporate activities. Everybody does it, and almost everyone who's evaluated hates it. It's a pretentious, bogus practice that produces absolutely nothing that any thinking executive should call a corporate plus."
Why not let's form a committee, redesign the process, and make it "better" instead! Oh, I guess we just finished doing that...
Here's a familiar story:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB127093422486175363.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsFifth
"It's time to finally put the performance review out of its misery.
This corporate sham is one of the most insidious, most damaging, and yet most ubiquitous of corporate activities. Everybody does it, and almost everyone who's evaluated hates it. It's a pretentious, bogus practice that produces absolutely nothing that any thinking executive should call a corporate plus."
Why not let's form a committee, redesign the process, and make it "better" instead! Oh, I guess we just finished doing that...
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Tri-Lab Directors' Statement on the Nuclear Posture Review
Anonymous said...
Joint Statement from Los Alamos Director Michael Anastasio, Lawrence Livermore Director George Miller, and Sandia Director Tom Hunter
Los Alamos, New Mexico, April 9, 2010—The directors of the three Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Laboratories—Dr. George Miller from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Dr. Michael Anastasio from Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Dr. Tom Hunter from Sandia National Laboratories—today issued the following statement on the Nuclear Posture Review:
“A key responsibility of the three Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Laboratories—Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories—is to provide technical underpinnings that ensure the safety, security, and effectiveness of the United States’ nuclear deterrent. The recently released Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) provides the Administration’s policy framework and path forward for ensuring that ‘the nation's nuclear weapons remain safe, secure and effective.’
“We believe that the approach outlined in the NPR, which excludes further nuclear testing and includes the consideration of the full range of life extension options (refurbishment of existing warheads, reuse of nuclear components from different warheads and replacement of nuclear components based on previously tested designs), provides the necessary technical flexibility to manage the nuclear stockpile into the future with an acceptable level of risk. We are reassured that a key component of the NPR is the recognition of the importance of supporting ‘a modern physical infrastructure —comprised of the national security laboratories and a complex of supporting facilities—and a highly capable workforce with the specialized skills needed to sustain the nuclear deterrent.’”
News Release
April 10, 2010 8:54 AM
Joint Statement from Los Alamos Director Michael Anastasio, Lawrence Livermore Director George Miller, and Sandia Director Tom Hunter
Los Alamos, New Mexico, April 9, 2010—The directors of the three Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Laboratories—Dr. George Miller from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Dr. Michael Anastasio from Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Dr. Tom Hunter from Sandia National Laboratories—today issued the following statement on the Nuclear Posture Review:
“A key responsibility of the three Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Laboratories—Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories—is to provide technical underpinnings that ensure the safety, security, and effectiveness of the United States’ nuclear deterrent. The recently released Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) provides the Administration’s policy framework and path forward for ensuring that ‘the nation's nuclear weapons remain safe, secure and effective.’
“We believe that the approach outlined in the NPR, which excludes further nuclear testing and includes the consideration of the full range of life extension options (refurbishment of existing warheads, reuse of nuclear components from different warheads and replacement of nuclear components based on previously tested designs), provides the necessary technical flexibility to manage the nuclear stockpile into the future with an acceptable level of risk. We are reassured that a key component of the NPR is the recognition of the importance of supporting ‘a modern physical infrastructure —comprised of the national security laboratories and a complex of supporting facilities—and a highly capable workforce with the specialized skills needed to sustain the nuclear deterrent.’”
News Release
April 10, 2010 8:54 AM
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Nuclear posture review
Alarm over shortage of nuclear experts
Anonymously contributed:
An interesting article at:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/04/03/alarm_over_shor
tage_of_nuclear_experts
The gist of the article is the fact that the population supporting the weapons
complex is getting older and is not being replaced.
"To narrow the gap, the Obama administration is proposing to boost a series of
programs - including cash bonuses and tuition reimbursement - to persuade a new
generation of students to earn degrees in nuclear physics, engineering, and
other related disciplines and choose a career in weapons work, according to
budget documents. The nuclear security agency has also established guidelines
requiring contractors that run its weapons laboratories - currently on the order
of 30,000 - to recruit and train more workers."
I'd like to see that guideline, what are the penalties to the labs if they can't
recruit people? Will LLNS and LANS not receive bonus money because they can't
convince people to work here versus other areas that don't have the bureaucracy
the NNSA has created.
How about cash bonus for us still working here to re-up, like an incentive shown
to those in the military (and kudos to those folks!).
I love the part of the article that states that average age of the 3,000
employees at NNSA is 47 and a full quarter of them will reach retirement age by
2012. That leaves 75% of them to continue the mis-management of the complex.
And if they retire at 60, that means 13 more years of these folks boys and
girls. It will be a race, can the complex survive 13 years or will they need
fresh blood to make the collapse occur sooner?
An interesting article at:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/04/03/alarm_over_shor
tage_of_nuclear_experts
The gist of the article is the fact that the population supporting the weapons
complex is getting older and is not being replaced.
"To narrow the gap, the Obama administration is proposing to boost a series of
programs - including cash bonuses and tuition reimbursement - to persuade a new
generation of students to earn degrees in nuclear physics, engineering, and
other related disciplines and choose a career in weapons work, according to
budget documents. The nuclear security agency has also established guidelines
requiring contractors that run its weapons laboratories - currently on the order
of 30,000 - to recruit and train more workers."
I'd like to see that guideline, what are the penalties to the labs if they can't
recruit people? Will LLNS and LANS not receive bonus money because they can't
convince people to work here versus other areas that don't have the bureaucracy
the NNSA has created.
How about cash bonus for us still working here to re-up, like an incentive shown
to those in the military (and kudos to those folks!).
I love the part of the article that states that average age of the 3,000
employees at NNSA is 47 and a full quarter of them will reach retirement age by
2012. That leaves 75% of them to continue the mis-management of the complex.
And if they retire at 60, that means 13 more years of these folks boys and
girls. It will be a race, can the complex survive 13 years or will they need
fresh blood to make the collapse occur sooner?
Sunday, April 4, 2010
In the name of safety and security!
The following was an anonymous comment in a recnet post and deserves to be its own post:
DOE oversight is broken. The worthless bureaucrats keep adding more and more meaningless requirements in order to perpetuate their existence.
This white-collar welfare in the name of safety and security results in the cost of doing business as a DOE organization being much more than the private sector.
We just had numerous people working all last week doing paperwork for a 15-minute repair that was about as risky as changing the doorbell button. We have to protect against nonsense security risks.
Eventually they will kill off all work. The only good thing about that will be that these parasites will then die also.
DOE oversight is broken. The worthless bureaucrats keep adding more and more meaningless requirements in order to perpetuate their existence.
This white-collar welfare in the name of safety and security results in the cost of doing business as a DOE organization being much more than the private sector.
We just had numerous people working all last week doing paperwork for a 15-minute repair that was about as risky as changing the doorbell button. We have to protect against nonsense security risks.
Eventually they will kill off all work. The only good thing about that will be that these parasites will then die also.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Probe Sought of U.S. Lab Security Plan
Contributed anonymously:
Probe Sought of U.S. Lab Security Plan
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
A pair of Republican lawmakers on Monday requested a review of an Obama administration plan to alter security and safety management rules governing U.S. national laboratories, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Nov. 17, 2009).
Situations at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California in recent years have demonstrated the need for security and safety reforms at such facilities, the lawmakers said (see GSN, March 26, 2009; Associated Press/Albuquerque Journal, March 31).
imo, if there's a need for continued reforms at these (or any other sites), DOE/NNSA has hired the wrong contractor. And, as you know, the DOE/NNSA hires other contractors to tell the site contractor what they're doing wrong & how it should really be done.
Probe Sought of U.S. Lab Security Plan
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
A pair of Republican lawmakers on Monday requested a review of an Obama administration plan to alter security and safety management rules governing U.S. national laboratories, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Nov. 17, 2009).
Situations at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California in recent years have demonstrated the need for security and safety reforms at such facilities, the lawmakers said (see GSN, March 26, 2009; Associated Press/Albuquerque Journal, March 31).
imo, if there's a need for continued reforms at these (or any other sites), DOE/NNSA has hired the wrong contractor. And, as you know, the DOE/NNSA hires other contractors to tell the site contractor what they're doing wrong & how it should really be done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)