BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Suggest new topics here

SUGGEST NEW TOPICS HERE

Submit candidates for new topics here only. Stay on topic with National Labs' related issues. All submissions are screened first for ...

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Albuquerque Journal Urges Consideration of NNSA Dismantlement

Weapons Complex Monitor

November 27, 2012

Albuquerque Journal Urges Consideration of NNSA Dismantlement

Noting a string of security lapses and project management blunders, the Albuquerque Journal urged a bipartisan commission proposed by a pair of Senators to strongly consider scrapping the National Nuclear Security Administration in an editorial published Nov. 25. “The agency’s track record is appalling,” the Journal wrote. “Not only is it a questionable duplication to the DOE, it has turned the nuclear weapons complex into a bureaucratic quagmire that defies attempts at efficiency. Its inability to move forward with essential projects is itself a threat to our nuclear security.” Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) are planning to offer an amendment to the Senate version of the Fiscal Year 2013 Defense Authorization Act that would establish an “advisory panel” to study governance options for the NNSA, which has been beset by problems on major projects like the Uranium Processing Facility and a security upgrade at Los Alamos National Laboratory, endured an embarrassing security breach at the Y-12 National Security Complex, and angered some Republicans by deferring work on the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility at Los Alamos. The creation of the advisory panel would allow a compromise on controversial NNSA reform language that is in the House version of the Defense Authorization Act but has met resistance in the Senate. “Congress should approve the panel but demand a report with clear recommendations that either put this turkey on the chopping block or figure out how to make it earn its feed,” the Journal wrote.

The Journal’s suggestions appear to have at least some support. The newspaper quoted retiring Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) on the prospects of eliminating the NNSA, perhaps in favor of a move to the Pentagon or the creation of a standalone agency operating outside of the Department of Energy. “I’ve always had problems with the NNSA as another level of bureaucracy between the secretary of energy and the labs,” Bingaman said, according to the Journal. “It doesn’t give me any heartburn to think that we would revisit the decision to set up the NNSA. I think it would make some sense.”

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks a lot for nothing, Los Alamos!!!

UC had a sweet deal going on for decades managing the design labs by benign neglect, and it was thrown out due mostly to the screwups at LANL. In replacement a sweet deal was going on for the past several years for the new operators. Once again, it looks like it is going to get screwed up. And guess what, the main cause is our old friend LANL.

Ground hog day, all over again.

Anonymous said...

And guess what, the main cause is our old friend LANL.

Ground hog day, all over again.

November 29, 2012 5:54 PM

No worries, Anastasio, McMillan, and Knapp (all "from Livermore") are have been "turning everything around' at Los Alamos. Thanks Livermore!

Anonymous said...

to November 29, 2012 6:48 PM...

You're welcome! What a great opportunity that was to raise the average at both sites!

Anonymous said...

May I have the honor of being the executioner of traitor Tyler Przybylek? (metaphorically speaking)

It is time for HBS to do a case study on how to destroy from within national treasures that were the target of so many former enemies espionage.

Anonymous said...

It is amusing in a sad way to see the blame being placed on NNSA as an organization. Let's face reality here comrades, the problems of today were present before NNSA was created. While there is no obvious improvement in the situation after NNSA came along, it is way too late in the game to place blame for the score on a sub that took the field in the final period. The players on the field earlier set the stage. NNSA was not a change agent for better, but to saddle them with the burden of reversing decades of inbred culture turned out to be a task too hard.

Anonymous said...

This was a bad "experiment" designed by Sen. Pete Domenenic, to help provide a separate entity, from the DOE, what a mess this turned out to be. Just added another layer of bureaucratic BS to an already bloated system.

Anonymous said...

LLNL management and scientist would love to see NNSA dismantled and all of the administrators scattered to the wind. They see the lab as a Principal, rather as an Agent, not responsible for delivering to its customer or the taxpayer.

But think about how the lab manipulated politicians and the media to buy into the 10-year fusion pilot plant idea, really becoming an embarassment to this country. We are the laughing stock of the academic community for the way NIF scientists are "turning the knobs" as a principal way of performing science and pursuing discovery. Using reasons like "but the code says this," yet are unable to explain what is in the code, what models, what assumptions and constraints, what numerical approach, nothing but a befuddled and whimpering reply.

Dismantle NNSA? yeah sure. But just remember to take out the other trash also, while we're at it. Do it all at once. Get all the unpleasantness over all in one fell swoop.

Anonymous said...

You can thank Rich Mah for helping to lose the UC contract at Los Alamos! NNSA will be replaced with another top heavy arm of the government, why not just put all of the labs under the DOD?

Anonymous said...

why not just put all of the labs under the DOD?

December 1, 2012 9:02 AM

Illegal under current law (Atomic Energy Act).

Anonymous said...

11:31 AM has tried to post this before and it is still a red herring.

Anonymous said...

11:31 AM has tried to post this before and it is still a red herring.

December 1, 2012 2:13 PM

Red Herring: "something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue."

So how is this a "red herring"?? It is a fact that the AEA transferred design and development of nuclear weapons to the AEC and therefore to its successors ERDA and DOE. There is no provision in US law for the DoD to control those activities. All those who want to work for DoD, raise your hands. You are idiots for wanting to be US government employees. When DoD is cut 25% by sequestration, you will change your tune. Government employees are cheap fodder for debt reduction. Contractors keep the government running.

Anonymous said...

"You are idiots for wanting to be US government employees."

A Congressional Budget Office study published in January found that the federal retirement package was 2.7 times more generous than what is paid by large private-sector firms.

Anonymous said...

A Congressional Budget Office study published in January found that the federal retirement package was 2.7 times more generous than what is paid by large private-sector firms.

December 2, 2012 8:51 AM

Only relevant if you retain your government job through the upcoming sequester, and the equally severe cuts to follow.

Anonymous said...

A Congressional Budget Office study published in January found that the federal retirement package was 2.7 times more generous than what is paid by large private-sector firms.

December 2, 2012 8:51 AM

But is it 2.7 times more generous than TCP-1?

Anonymous said...

NNSA is getting ready to offer Feds a $25,000 incentive to retire. We expect to hear the details in a week or so. For the old time Feds (mid-1980s and earlier hires), many are expect to say `goodbye'.

Anonymous said...

"They see the lab as a Principal, rather [than] as an Agent, not responsible for delivering to its customer or the taxpayer."

I agree wholeheartedly. I don't know if it is the principal cause of the problem, but it must be a major factor.

Anonymous said...

A Congressional Budget Office study published in January found that the federal retirement package was 2.7 times more generous than what is paid by large private-sector firms..

and you wonder why taxpayers don't want to pay more?

Here is a great first compromise to start the ball rolling.

Anonymous said...

Nah, its too narrow a cut. How about a 5% across the federal government employee and contractor compensation cut, followed by 2 -3 years of freezes.

Nobody loses their job and the budget deficit for 2013 drops by $100B.

Another $100B from high earners per O'bama.

Raise retirement age to 70 and the medicare age to 68 for all under 50 and another $200b is saved.

Growth in revenues gets $100B and you are 1/2 way there.

A 2% non-compensation mandated reduction gets another $30b.

Getting out of Afghan gets $50B.

An easy 60% reduction in the yearly deficit by a fool in an armchair. What the hell do the federal elected officials do with their time? This is easy.

Anonymous said...

Let's see, the women guard their prerogatives and the men chase skits?

Anonymous said...

the men chase skits?

December 2, 2012 4:56 PM

Yep, nothing like a pretty skit.

Anonymous said...

Post 4:53 PM sounds like something right out of the Ryan Plan. Heck, why not do it and just get it over with as 4:53 suggests.

Everyone knows that severe cuts in government spending are going to be necessary. The longer we wait to take reparative action, the more severe the cuts will be when they are finally implemented. I'll take 4:53's plan. At least it gets things moving, minimizes painful job losses and starts us in the right direction. Our nation is in serious decline and needs to pull out of the budgetary nose dive.

Anonymous said...

Everyone knows that severe cuts in government spending are going to be necessary.

December 4, 2012 6:29 PM

Yes, but that in no way means that they will actually be done. They are politically impossible.

Anonymous said...

Reorganizing NNSA is not necessary. It can simply be eliminated. It is redundant.

Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days