http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2013/05/developers-pitch-ideas-for-livermore.html
So sad...no vision..perhaps you should get new leadership
Friday, May 31, 2013
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Poor Employee Relations
Employee Relations
Why is it a sin to make life better for the rank & file employee (not the managers - they're doing fine).
Seems that basic employee relation efforts are non existent at the national lab LLCs.
Why is it a sin to make life better for the rank & file employee (not the managers - they're doing fine).
Seems that basic employee relation efforts are non existent at the national lab LLCs.
Downside of having a Union at LLNS.
J-Dog said...
This is the downside of having a Union at LLNS.
If you do not like LLNS management (I do) then this is the other side of the coin.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/28/NY-Union-Workers-Fed-Up-with-Bosss-2-Hour-Work-Day
This is the downside of having a Union at LLNS.
If you do not like LLNS management (I do) then this is the other side of the coin.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/28/NY-Union-Workers-Fed-Up-with-Bosss-2-Hour-Work-Day
Not classified and hasn't produced a Thing
Not classified and hasn't produced a Thing
This folks is a joke. It appeared in the Modesto Bee brought over to me by a neighbor. He was laughing and after I read the article so was I. NIF needs to stay the hell out of the newspapers until the actually do something useful for the nation instead of trying to get funds by lying to the press. Things like this are going to bite them in the ass cause people that know are going to tell the truth.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/22/beam_us_up_national_ignition_facility_star_trek
This folks is a joke. It appeared in the Modesto Bee brought over to me by a neighbor. He was laughing and after I read the article so was I. NIF needs to stay the hell out of the newspapers until the actually do something useful for the nation instead of trying to get funds by lying to the press. Things like this are going to bite them in the ass cause people that know are going to tell the truth.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/22/beam_us_up_national_ignition_facility_star_trek
LLNL, LLNS benefits compared to other DOE
LLNL, LLNS benefits compared to other DOE
This item is from the Pleasanton Weekly blog, might be of interest:
http://www.pleasantonweekly.com/square/index.php?i=3&d=&t=10508
Posted by cosmic-charlie, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on May 14, 2013 at 8:26 am
cosmic-charlie is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Don't I know it well!
Many years ago, the career employee was know as an "FTE" or Full Time Employee. And as an FTE, I was very concerned with the retirement structure and the promises made that went along with it.
At the time, with 10 years of service, I quit, out of those concerns, and found a better deal with Stanford (SLAC).
In the Stanford system, employee contributions of 10% or more, was matched in kind up to the 1st 10%, by Stanford.
This was an income reduction tax benefit, and was in real terms, a measurable entity. It was tangible, and real. Very different from some promise.
Bottom line? With 28 years of service to SLAC, my retirement began at the earliest moment to access all of the accumulated funds without early penalties.
With the promise the Lab made, my employment would had to have continued for an additional 6 1/2 years more until age 65 in order to have an equivalent stake, had I not changed jobs.
In addition, health care is a lifetime benefit thru SLAC, just as it was promised at the Lab so many years ago. The difference is, with the Lab moving into a hybrid partnership and away from the UC system, Stanford remains a private entity and BTW, is fully funded, whereas the Lab can modify any deal they want, for any reason, to maintain the bottom line. Hence big time lawsuits we are now seeing.
I maintain promises made should be kept, especially for loyal service over the long haul. If I were near retirement at the Lab, as I would soon be if not for the job change, there would be a great deal of concern about my retirement.
Remember, Lab employees historically did not contribute to Social Security (same as Federal Employees), so all of the eggs were in one basket as it were, and seemed, to this former Lab FTE, too risky to trust in a promise.
Never looked back
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Defined benefit retirement plans are relics of a bygone era
Read this article, substituting in TCP 1 for the name of the plan at each instance, and it could be coming soon to a Lab near you. Kudos to Parney for fighting the fight as long as possible, but all should see the foregone conclusion that the program can not continue and must be drastically restructured in order to have any chance at providing for the future.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/low-interest-rates-are-the-final-straw-for-many-company-pensions/2013/05/23/a83bf23a-adbc-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_story.html?hpid=z12
Read this article, substituting in TCP 1 for the name of the plan at each instance, and it could be coming soon to a Lab near you. Kudos to Parney for fighting the fight as long as possible, but all should see the foregone conclusion that the program can not continue and must be drastically restructured in order to have any chance at providing for the future.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/low-interest-rates-are-the-final-straw-for-many-company-pensions/2013/05/23/a83bf23a-adbc-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_story.html?hpid=z12
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.
Livermore Valley Open Campus
- Developers pitch ideas for 78 acres of Livermore Valley Open Campus
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.”
-
Anonymous said...
- May 23, 2013 at 6:10 AM
But they have no money and yet they do this and the NEO was full yesterday and they are hiring summer students. Amazing
-
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.
How does UC medical cost affect LLNS medical cost
Heads
up, LLNL and LANL employees. Do you suppose similar changes are headed
our way, under the guise of "substantially equivalent"?
[UC] Retiree health benefit changes coming in July
http://ucrpfuture.
[UC] Retiree health benefit changes coming in July
http://ucrpfuture.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
NIF in danger
Budget Contraction, Implications to NIF
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/05/lawrence-livermore-lab-voluntary-redundancy-10-employees
Gadzooks! From a 1.6B annual budget to 1.25B! Go any lower and they fall below the threshold of "too big to fail," meaning.
Where is that 1.5B that NIF is supposed to bring in from investors?
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/05/lawrence-livermore-lab-voluntary-redundancy-10-employees
Gadzooks! From a 1.6B annual budget to 1.25B! Go any lower and they fall below the threshold of "too big to fail," meaning.
Where is that 1.5B that NIF is supposed to bring in from investors?
Nuclear Energy Industry Congratulates Moniz on Confirmation as Secretary of Energy
Nuclear Energy Industry Congratulates Moniz on Confirmation as Secretary of Energy
WASHINGTON, May 16, 2013 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The U.S. Senate today approved the nomination of Ernest J. Moniz, director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Energy Initiative, as Secretary of Energy. The Nuclear Energy Institute's president and chief executive officer, Marvin Fertel, made the following comments in response to the confirmation.
"We congratulate Dr. Moniz on his confirmation as Secretary of Energy and look forward to working with him to ensure that nuclear energy continues to play a vital role in our nation's energy and environmental policy.
"Sustained economic growth requires affordable, reliable electricity supplies. Nuclear energy is uniquely capable of adding significant amounts of electricity to the grid around the clock without emitting any greenhouse gases. Dr. Moniz recognizes this reality, and we expect that nuclear energy technologies will be part of a diverse portfolio of electricity options DOE supports to strengthen our nation and its economy in an environmentally sound manner.
"Among the emerging technologies that merit greater Energy Department support are the small reactor designs that will have a variety of applications -- from desalinization of water to industrial process heat to electricity production that can be increased incrementally, roughly 300 megawatts at a time. We have welcomed the agency's establishment of a public-private, cost-shared licensing program for small reactors. But it is important that DOE meet its funding commitments at the pace needed to expeditiously develop at least two small reactor designs as Congress has stipulated. DOE's fiscal 2014 budget request doesn't do that.
"Similarly, DOE should fulfill its commitments to the Russian Federation and the state of South Carolina with timely completion of the mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility being built at the Savannah River Site. The project increases employment in the region at the same time that it advances the conversion of nuclear weapons into reactor fuel that will produce electricity and further sustain U.S. economic growth.
"Having served on the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, Dr. Moniz has a clear sense of the course our nation should take to safely, securely and successfully manage commercial used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from U.S. defense programs over the medium and long terms. This includes development of a repository for long-term disposal and, pending permanent disposal, development of consolidated storage facilities for used nuclear fuel at volunteer sites. It remains imperative, in accordance with existing law, that the Department of Energy resume efforts to license the planned repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
"We urge Dr. Moniz to move expeditiously on this and other nuclear energy priorities for the betterment of our nation's energy security."
WASHINGTON, May 16, 2013 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The U.S. Senate today approved the nomination of Ernest J. Moniz, director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Energy Initiative, as Secretary of Energy. The Nuclear Energy Institute's president and chief executive officer, Marvin Fertel, made the following comments in response to the confirmation.
"We congratulate Dr. Moniz on his confirmation as Secretary of Energy and look forward to working with him to ensure that nuclear energy continues to play a vital role in our nation's energy and environmental policy.
"Sustained economic growth requires affordable, reliable electricity supplies. Nuclear energy is uniquely capable of adding significant amounts of electricity to the grid around the clock without emitting any greenhouse gases. Dr. Moniz recognizes this reality, and we expect that nuclear energy technologies will be part of a diverse portfolio of electricity options DOE supports to strengthen our nation and its economy in an environmentally sound manner.
"Among the emerging technologies that merit greater Energy Department support are the small reactor designs that will have a variety of applications -- from desalinization of water to industrial process heat to electricity production that can be increased incrementally, roughly 300 megawatts at a time. We have welcomed the agency's establishment of a public-private, cost-shared licensing program for small reactors. But it is important that DOE meet its funding commitments at the pace needed to expeditiously develop at least two small reactor designs as Congress has stipulated. DOE's fiscal 2014 budget request doesn't do that.
"Similarly, DOE should fulfill its commitments to the Russian Federation and the state of South Carolina with timely completion of the mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility being built at the Savannah River Site. The project increases employment in the region at the same time that it advances the conversion of nuclear weapons into reactor fuel that will produce electricity and further sustain U.S. economic growth.
"Having served on the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, Dr. Moniz has a clear sense of the course our nation should take to safely, securely and successfully manage commercial used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from U.S. defense programs over the medium and long terms. This includes development of a repository for long-term disposal and, pending permanent disposal, development of consolidated storage facilities for used nuclear fuel at volunteer sites. It remains imperative, in accordance with existing law, that the Department of Energy resume efforts to license the planned repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
"We urge Dr. Moniz to move expeditiously on this and other nuclear energy priorities for the betterment of our nation's energy security."
Managers who ran that illegal lay off should be fired
I agree with the comment that the Managers who ran that illegal lay off
should be fired - starting with the LIRC committee comprised of:
Bruce Warner, Art Wong, Gaby Odell, Marina Gonzalez, Bob Perko, and Renee Breyer - high dollar folks of which at least one of them as been double dipping since October 2007. They are an embarrassment to the Lab posing as competent leaders -let them feel the pain of having your career stripped out from under them - they are all over 50 - let them see how quick they can find another job in this economy.
Bruce Warner, Art Wong, Gaby Odell, Marina Gonzalez, Bob Perko, and Renee Breyer - high dollar folks of which at least one of them as been double dipping since October 2007. They are an embarrassment to the Lab posing as competent leaders -let them feel the pain of having your career stripped out from under them - they are all over 50 - let them see how quick they can find another job in this economy.
Does anyone have a link for the LLNS latest employee handbook?
Does anyone have a link for the LLNS latest employee handbook? Specially
interested in the latest layoff sections and disability layoff info.
Waste of money
Why is LLNS paying a time and material contractor to remove trees and
level dirt for LVOC. They could not get a contractor out here to do it
for one price? Seems like a very expensive way to get the work done.
Monday, May 13, 2013
Age discrimination suit: it is only the beginning!
Details about the age discrimination suit. This is only the beginning for LLNS
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/jury-awards-27-m-against-lawrence-livermore-lab-for-wrongfully-terminating-long-time-employees-in-2008-207236961.html
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/jury-awards-27-m-against-lawrence-livermore-lab-for-wrongfully-terminating-long-time-employees-in-2008-207236961.html
New NNSA office to plan budgets
- NEWS FLASH: New NNSA office to plan budgets
New Program Review and Analysis Office to Improve NNSA’s Budgeting and Planning Capabilities, Increase Accountability
May 7, 2013
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) today announced the creation of the Office of Program Review and Analysis (PR&A) to serve as an independent broker of strategic information and analysis across NNSA’s programs. PR&A will provide NNSA’s administrator and senior leadership with independent analytical advice regarding strategic and programmatic resource allocations. The creation of the office is designed to improve NNSA’s ability to budget and plan, and to increase accountability for programmatic goals and ideas.
Dr. Steven Ho has been named director of the new Office of Program Review and Analysis (PR&A). Prior to joining NNSA, Ho served for more than eight years in the Office of the Secretary of Defense Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (OSD-CAPE) where he was instrumental in restructuring several major defense acquisition programs. He most recently led the OSD-CAPE review of the B61 Life Extension Program.
“With the creation of PR&A, we can significantly improve how we plan and analyze our budget requirements to ensure the best use of our resources,” said NNSA Acting Administrator Neile Miller. “Modernizing our operations means rethinking old ideas about what works and what doesn’t. Steve Ho and our new Office of Program Review and Analysis will be an independent broker conducting analysis for NNSA programs and cross-cutting issues and translating that analysis into options.”
PR&A, in conjunction with NNSA’s Budget Office, will manage the annual development of the Future Years Nuclear Security Plan (FYNSP). Based on the approach taken by the Department of Defense to prioritize its needs, PR&A will provide NNSA leadership with the ability to make decisions from a set of well-developed and vetted options, while also ensuring that NNSA’s work reflects the Administration’s priorities and the President’s budget request.
-
GAO Releases More Details on Contested Y-12/Pantex Contract
GAO Releases More Details on Contested Y-12/Pantex Contract
Nuclear Street News Team
Mon, May 13 2013 6:25 AM
Questionable procurement decisions at the National Nuclear Security Administration have emerged with the release of a ruling on a contested contract awarded for management of the Y-12 and Pantex sites. Babcock & Wilcox currently oversees the sites and was among the bidders that challenged the award to a Bechtel-led consortium called Consolidated Nuclear Security in January. The Government Accountability Office, which hears appeals of federal contract decisions, announced its recommendation to reopen the contract process earlier but only recently released its detailed reasoning for doing so.
In its ruling, the GAO stated, "We sustain the protests based on the agency’s failure to reasonably evaluate the feasibility and size of the offerors’ proposed cost savings, as required by the terms of the solicitation." It noted that the source selection authority – the official in charge of picking the winning bidder – changed days before the award. Earlier, NNSA staff evaluated the likelihood that cost savings proposed in each bid would actually be realized. But, the GAO said, the new SSA "acknowledged that he did not perform any independent cost savings analysis, and further testified that he was unaware that various portions of the proposed cost savings had been evaluated by the CSAC (the agency’s own 'financial management specialists') as 'not reasonable,' 'partially reasonable,' or 'cannot determine.'" The amounts of the questionable savings associated with each bid were redacted from the ruling released to the public. Nonetheless, the GAO said NNSA should have considered them and sought additional information where appropriate. In its conclusion, the ruling read, "We also recommend that, based on that evaluation, the agency make a new source selection decision taking into consideration the relative size of the offerors’ feasible cost savings."
http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2013/05/13/gao-releases-more-details-on-contested-y_2d00_12_2f00_pantex-contract-051302.aspx
Nuclear Street News Team
Mon, May 13 2013 6:25 AM
Questionable procurement decisions at the National Nuclear Security Administration have emerged with the release of a ruling on a contested contract awarded for management of the Y-12 and Pantex sites. Babcock & Wilcox currently oversees the sites and was among the bidders that challenged the award to a Bechtel-led consortium called Consolidated Nuclear Security in January. The Government Accountability Office, which hears appeals of federal contract decisions, announced its recommendation to reopen the contract process earlier but only recently released its detailed reasoning for doing so.
In its ruling, the GAO stated, "We sustain the protests based on the agency’s failure to reasonably evaluate the feasibility and size of the offerors’ proposed cost savings, as required by the terms of the solicitation." It noted that the source selection authority – the official in charge of picking the winning bidder – changed days before the award. Earlier, NNSA staff evaluated the likelihood that cost savings proposed in each bid would actually be realized. But, the GAO said, the new SSA "acknowledged that he did not perform any independent cost savings analysis, and further testified that he was unaware that various portions of the proposed cost savings had been evaluated by the CSAC (the agency’s own 'financial management specialists') as 'not reasonable,' 'partially reasonable,' or 'cannot determine.'" The amounts of the questionable savings associated with each bid were redacted from the ruling released to the public. Nonetheless, the GAO said NNSA should have considered them and sought additional information where appropriate. In its conclusion, the ruling read, "We also recommend that, based on that evaluation, the agency make a new source selection decision taking into consideration the relative size of the offerors’ feasible cost savings."
http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2013/05/13/gao-releases-more-details-on-contested-y_2d00_12_2f00_pantex-contract-051302.aspx
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Plutonium Shots on NIF.
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population.
Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They want to pursue ignition, let them do their stupid ignition experiments. Atleast the community is safe. We all saw from the LANL release that mistakes happen. NNSA needs to manage its risk taking into consideration THE HUGE POPULATION nearby the lab. We can't tolerate this kind of stupidity.
Moniz alternates
It seems like its taking a very long time to find a new head of NNSA. I
wonder if the delay in confirming Moniz as DOE Secretary has held up the
NNSA job or are they just having trouble finding someone to volunteer
for this kamikaze mission.
Here are some people I'd be okay with at the top of NNSA:
Aston Carter (DOD Deputy Secretary)
Steven Koonin (former DOE Undersecretary for Science, current Jason and LLNS Board member)
Andrew Weber (DOD Asst Sec for Nuclear, Chemical, Biological Programs)
Michele Flournoy (former DOD Undersecretary for Policy)
Bruce Goodwin
Here are some people I'd be okay with at the top of NNSA:
Aston Carter (DOD Deputy Secretary)
Steven Koonin (former DOE Undersecretary for Science, current Jason and LLNS Board member)
Andrew Weber (DOD Asst Sec for Nuclear, Chemical, Biological Programs)
Michele Flournoy (former DOD Undersecretary for Policy)
Bruce Goodwin
Moniz soon to be confirmed
Looks like the new Secretary of Energy will be in place soon...
--------
Senate to vote on Energy secretary nomination
By Ben Geman - 05/10/13
The Hill
The Senate is slated to vote next week on Ernest Moniz, President Obama’s nominee to run the Energy Department.
Lawmakers reached an agreement Thursday to proceed with the vote on Moniz, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist who served as undersecretary of Energy in the Clinton administration. It will occur as early as Tuesday.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) had been holding up a vote over his concerns about federal management of a program in his state to transform weapons-grade plutonium into fuel.
But the Senate’s “unanimous consent” agreement reached Thursday to allow the vote to proceed means Graham has lifted the procedural block on Moniz. Graham’s office did not comment Friday morning.
Graham had suggested Thursday that a resolution was in the works.
Moniz, once the Senate votes, is expected to win easy confirmation. He will replace former Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Moniz directs the MIT Energy Initiative.
--------
Senate to vote on Energy secretary nomination
By Ben Geman - 05/10/13
The Hill
The Senate is slated to vote next week on Ernest Moniz, President Obama’s nominee to run the Energy Department.
Lawmakers reached an agreement Thursday to proceed with the vote on Moniz, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist who served as undersecretary of Energy in the Clinton administration. It will occur as early as Tuesday.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) had been holding up a vote over his concerns about federal management of a program in his state to transform weapons-grade plutonium into fuel.
But the Senate’s “unanimous consent” agreement reached Thursday to allow the vote to proceed means Graham has lifted the procedural block on Moniz. Graham’s office did not comment Friday morning.
Graham had suggested Thursday that a resolution was in the works.
Moniz, once the Senate votes, is expected to win easy confirmation. He will replace former Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Moniz directs the MIT Energy Initiative.
The potential and pitfalls of societal verification
The
idea that ordinary people might contribute to verification of arms
control treaties is not new, but powerful and portable electronic
devices have spread so widely in recent years that societal verification
now seems an imminent reality. Motivated individuals might, for
instance, collect treaty-relevant data through onboard sensors that
smartphones can carry and then transmit the information to multilateral
verification bodies or, as is already happening, share it online Our
new roundtable explores the potential, and pitfalls, of societal
verification. Three articles have just been posted, with more to come
over the next few weeks. I hope you find it of interest.
Best,
Janice
The potential and pitfalls of societal verification: http://www.
Janice Sinclair
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Age discrimination law suit in favor of plaintiffs
The age discrimination law suit seems to have been decided in favor of
the plaintiffs. Wonder if LLNS will follow the UC example of appealing
judgements until the awards are doubled.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/tri-valley-times/ci_23219268/lawrence-livermore-lab-must-pay-five-former-employees
http://www.contracostatimes.com/tri-valley-times/ci_23219268/lawrence-livermore-lab-must-pay-five-former-employees
Where are the bikes?
I know that given l the recent news this qualifies as low priority. But
what happened to the new gear drive lab bikes? They're all parked over
by fleet services
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Seeking advice
I'm defending my phd next week and considering a staff job at llnl, for which I'm being courted.
Good idea?
Terrible idea?
Better off at a university with a low paying post-doc?
Why?
I'm asking you because the blog makes it seems like the lab is literally falling apart at the seams. How much truth is there in that?
Hey LANL and Sandia!
During the LLNL All Hands meeting, the Director briefly discussed employee contributions to TCP-1. He commented that he was encountering the argument "LANL and Sandia both did it (raised employee contributions to 7%, I think), why can't you?"
Can some of you LANL and Sandia folks please comment on what your contribution rate is to your defined-benefit plans?
VSIP in the news
http://www.contracostatimes.com/contra-costa-times/ci_23201898/lawrence-livermore-lab-looking-voluntary-layoffs
Lawrence Livermore lab looking for voluntary layoffs
LIVERMORE -- To prepare for projected budget challenges in 2014, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory is offering buyouts to as many as 600 workers willing to take a voluntary layoff.
The Self-Select Voluntary Separation Program plan was announced by lab Director Parney Albright at an "all-hands" meeting with employees Wednesday. In that scenario, the lab would pay qualified employees a severance package of one week of salary per year of service for up to 26 weeks.
The program began Wednesday and is being offered to all career full-time employees until May 23.
"This is a Fiscal Year 2014 pre-emptive strike if you will," said lab spokeswoman Lynda Seaver. "We received the budget proposal, and even with the way it stands, we're going to have some challenges with our workforce."
According to Seaver, as currently drawn up, President Barack Obama's budget request for Fiscal Year 2014 allocates $1.48 billion to the lab. Factoring in sequestration, Seaver said the figure represents about a 10 percent cut from the lab's 2013 budget. The next fiscal year begins Oct. 1.
Albright said that by implementing the voluntary program now, the lab would get a jump on what is expected to be an "uphill battle in Congress this summer, with continuing debates about reducing federal spending, a possible FY14 sequester and the debt ceiling," according to a news release.
After the application deadline and an eight-day review process, exits from the lab are scheduled for June 13. Employees who apply and are approved can collect the payouts in a lump sum or through bi-weekly payments. Employees who have been approved and change their minds have seven days to rescind.
Seaver said the lab has "no target" for how many jobs must be eliminated or dollars saved through voluntary layoffs. "This is a voluntary separation," Seaver reiterated. "We're hoping enough people apply."
Although not in play now, involuntary layoffs are not off the table, Seaver said.
After the voluntary separations are done, the lab will review its staffing situation, she said.
The voluntary separation program was approved by the National Nuclear Security Administration.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
All-hands wednesday
LLNL News Online
5/7/13
Director Parney Albright will hold an all hands meeting to update employees on the FY 13 and proposed FY 14 budgets, and how the Lab plans to respond.
Albright's presentation, open to all employees, takes place Wednesday, May 8 at 1:30 p.m. in the Bldg. 123 auditorium.
The talk also will be carried live on LAB TV Channel 2 and Webcast LLTN.
Those who cannot attend the talk are encouraged to watch as groups from conference rooms to reduce the load on the LLTN servers and Laboratory network.
NNSA Hearing Prepared Statements to Rip Apart
NNSA Hearing Prepared Statements to Rip Apart
http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/hearings/event.cfm?eventid=eb2dbb8bae5cb4473ed032dddec4ee1e
Anastasio For NNSA Panel
GOP Picks Former LANL, LLNL Director Anastasio For NNSA Panel
Todd Jacobson – Nuclear Weapons & Materials Monitor
May 3, 2013
Former Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Director Michael Anastasio has been picked by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) as the 12th and final member of the Congressionally mandated panel on NNSA governance, though there remains no clear timetable for the panel to begin its work. The choice of Anastasio was outlined in a notice posted in the Congressional Record late last week. The governance panel was created by Congress in the Fiscal Year 2013 Defense Authorization Act as a bipartisan compromise to address controversial NNSA reform language passed by the House that would have increased the autonomy of the agency while streamlining directives and regulations, eliminating oversight from DOE’s Office of Health, Safety and Security and moving the agency toward performance based oversight. Due to opposition from labor unions, the Administration, Senate Democrats, and even Republican leadership on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, most of the House-passed reform provisions were stripped from the bill in favor of the creation of the panel. The panel is required to finish an interim report by the end of June and complete its report Feb. 1, 2014, but funding issues have delayed efforts to get the panel off the ground and its members have yet to meet.
Anastasio is the only former laboratory director on a panel largely dominated by former lawmakers and energy and defense officials. He headed up Livermore from 2002 to 2005 before taking over as the director of Los Alamos from 2005 to 2011. Anastasio shepherded the lab through the transition to private management by Bechtel-led Los Alamos National Security, LLC, at a time that the lab was trying to strengthen safety and security practices that had led to several embarrassing incidents. But during the end of his tenure, he advocated that the lab be given more freedom from sometimes burdensome federal management—one of the issues that the panel is expected to tackle. In 2011, Anastasio told a National Academy of Sciences panel that despite strides in the areas of safety and security, “I don’t see that trust level has changed in a significant way or a positive way.” He also suggested that the NNSA “spend more energy enabling our success and less energy managing us.”
Democratic lawmakers also announced late last week that former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine will serve as the co-chair of the panel alongside former Strategic Command chief Richard Mies, who was selected earlier by Republican lawmakers to head up the committee. Other members of the panel include former New Mexico Rep. Heather Wilson (R), former California lawmaker and State Department official Ellen Tauscher (D), former South Carolina lawmaker John Spratt (D), and former Ohio lawmaker David Hobson (R). Also included on the panel are former NNSA Naval Reactors chief Adm. Kirkland Donald, former Bush Administration national security expert Frank Miller, former Reagan Administration Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance, Science and Technology William Schneider, former Deputy Energy Secretary T.J. Glauthier and former Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko.
Bloomberg Article on NIF
Bloomberg Article on NIF
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-03/fusion-scientists-see-progress-as-obama-shows-no-ardor-correct-.html
Excerpts:
Moses, 63, wants to raise $1.5 billion, partially from utilities and suppliers, to get commercial fusion technology ready. In a possible prototype, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PCG) and others agreed in December to pay the Livermore lab $150 million to use its supercomputers for improving California’s electricity grid. Wealthy individuals may contribute, and some have expressed interest, Moses says, declining to name them.
Detractors say cost estimates are meaningless because they involve technologies not yet invented.
“Moses is destroying his credibility,” says Burton Richter, a retired Stanford University physics professor.
The Energy Department itself has trimmed expectations:
“Experience shows we didn’t have as good an understanding of the physics as we thought,” says David Crandall, who retired in March as the department’s senior fusion adviser.
Congress is getting tougher, too. The NNSA has spent about $6 billion to build and run the NIF. Lawmakers were planning to press the NIF in May for measurable goals for reaching ignition, people familiar with the situation say.
Obama wants to cut the NIF budget to $329 million in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 from the prior $409 million. The NIF may close the gap by charging outside researchers to run basic science experiments, such as how elements like iron behave under extreme pressure. Moses is allocating time slots with the facility and its laser into 2022.
For now, the ITER is the U.S. government’s preferred path to civilian electricity compared with other fusion choices, says Chris Deeney, the NNSA’s assistant deputy administrator.
Deeney’s thinking puts Moses’s work at odds with the prevailing U.S. sentiment.
A smaller version of an ITER-style machine, in Culham, England, produced 16 megawatts of power after consuming 24 megawatts to get the reaction started.
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP21)
MAP-21
Buried in a transportation bill called MAP-21 (passed last June by Congress) is the root of the confusion regarding pension valuation/liability. Link below is an analysis from vanguard explaining details.
Key Points:
- Congress changed the interest rate used to project pension liabilities from a 2-year avg to a 25-year average.
- They required a significant increase in PBGC contributions.
https://institutional.vanguard.com/iam/pdf/REGC21.pdf
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Accused Chinese spy charged with downloading porn, not NASA secrets
Accused Chinese spy charged with downloading porn, not NASA secrets
Source:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/3/4296096/bo-jiang-accused-chinese-spy-arrested-for-porn-not-espionage
Bo Jiang, the Chinese national accused of spying on NASA, was formally charged in a Virginia court this week — not for conducting espionage, but for downloading porn and pirated movies to his computer. A former research contractor at NASA's Langely Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, Jiang was originally indicted on March 20th, when federal investigators arrested him just before he departed on a one-way ticket from Washington, DC to Beijing. At the time, authorities accused Jiang of sharing sensitive information with the Chinese government — he had a NASA-issued laptop with him at the time of his in-flight arrest — but as Bloomberg Businessweek reports, it now appears that their fears were unfounded.
On Thursday, Jiang plead guilty to misdemeanor charges for violating NASA's computer security rules. Authorities say they uncovered sexually explicit materials and illegally downloaded movies on the computer seized at Dulles International Airport, but found no sensitive or proprietary information. Jiang had initially been charged of providing false statements about the contents of his computer, but US Assistant Attorney General Gordon Kromberg said those accusations have since been resolved.
"DR. JIANG IS RELIEVED THIS ORDEAL IS OVER."
"None of the computer media that Jiang attempted to bring to the PRC [People's Republic of China] on March 16, 2013, contained classified information, export controlled information, or NASA proprietary information," reads a statement of facts filed the case, which was heard in a federal court in Newport News, Virginia.
"Dr. Jiang is relieved this ordeal is over," Fernando Groene, Jiang's lawyer, said in an interview with Bloomberg Businessweek. "Although he was accused in arena of public opinion and in the halls of Congress, once due process was given he was cleared of any and all allegations that he was a spy."
Jiang's initial arrest was spearheaded by Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA), who earlier this year said that NASA whistleblowers were concerned about potential leaks from foreign nationals. In a subsequent hearing at the House Appropriations subcommittee, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden identified Jiang as one of 281 foreign born employees accused of posing security threats. The 31-year-old researcher lost his job at NASA in December, after returning from a month-long trip to China.
"I REMAIN CONCERNED."
In a statement released this week, Wolf said he still has concerns over why Jiang was allowed to leave the country with a NASA-issued computer.
"I remain concerned that neither the prosecutors nor NASA have addressed the original question of why a NASA laptop was inappropriately provided to a restricted foreign national associated with ‘an entity of concern’ and why he was allowed to take the laptop and all of its information back to China last December," the congressman said in an e-mail to Bloomberg Businessweek.
Friday, May 3, 2013
Russia builds up nuclear forces as US builds down...
Russia builds up nuclear forces as US builds down...
========================
* Inside the Ring: Russia builds up, U.S. down *
Bill Gertz-The Washington Times Wednesday, May 1, 2013
As the Obama administration prepares to launch a new round of strategic nuclear missile cuts, Russia’s strategic nuclear forces are undergoing a major modernization, according to U.S. officials.
Russia's military announced last month that as part of the nuclear buildup, Moscow later this year will deploy the first of its new intercontinental ballistic missiles called the Yars-M.
Details of the missile are being kept secret, but it has been described as a fifth-generation strategic nuclear system that Russian officials say will be able to penetrate U.S. missile defenses using a new type of fuel that requires a shorter burn time for booster engines.
....By comparison, President Obama is expected to announced soon that he will seek a new round of talks with Russia aimed at cutting U.S. nuclear forces even further than the 1,550 deployed warheads under the 2020 New START treaty.
The cuts are expected to be justified under a Pentagon strategic review that was completed months ago but withheld from release. That report is expected to suggest that U.S. warhead levels could be cut to as few as 1,000, causing critics to say the administration is undermining U.S. deterrence and the ability to extend the nuclear umbrella to European and Asian allies.
Rep. Mike Rogers, Alabama Republican and chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces, said in a recent speech that the administration is short between $1 billion and $1.6 billion that was promised in 2010 for nuclear modernization.
Among nuclear programs in trouble are a new strategic submarine, life extension programs for B-61, W-76 and W-88 nuclear warheads and a long-range standoff nuclear cruise missile. A needed plutonium facility in New Mexico was also canceled, Mr. Rogers said.
The Pentagon also postponed a test launch of a Minuteman III ICBM last month over concerns that it might be misconstrued as an attack on North Korea, which threatened nuclear missile attacks on the United States.
“I find this deeply concerning, given the sorry state of the nuclear modernization commitments made during the last round,” Mr. Rogers said of plans for additional nuclear cuts...
---
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/1/
inside-the-ring-russia-builds-up-us-down
Who is LLNS, and who controls it?
Who is LLNS, and who controls it?
From llnsllc.com
Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS) is managed by a board of governors, a group of key scientific, academic, national security and business leaders from the LLNS partner companies.
Chairman - Norman Pattiz. A UC Regent and chairs the Regents’ Committee on Oversight of the DOE Laboratories for LANL, LLNL, and LBNL. He is the Founder and Chairman Emeritus of Westwood One.
Vice Chairman - Craig Alber. President of Bechtel Systems & Infrastructure, Inc. and Senior Vice President of Bechtel Group, Inc.
Steven Beckwith is the UC’s vice president for research and graduate studies.
William Frazer is senior vice president, emeritus of UC and professor of physics emeritus, UC Berkeley.
John Gordon served as the first administrator of NNSA and undersecretary of the DOE, responsible for the nation’s nuclear weapons program.
John Howanitz is the general manager of Nuclear Security & Allied Governments for Bechtel National, Inc.
Donald Kintzer is currently associated with Korora Partners, a Silicon Valley based consulting company focused on general business advisory and executive coaching/mentoring services. He currently serves as a member of the LBNL Contract Assurance Council.
Steven Koonin served as the second Under Secretary for Science at DOE, spent 5 years as Chief Scientist for BP, 10 years as Caltech Provost. He is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the JASON advisory group.
Glenn Mara is the vice president laboratory management, UC Office of the President. He is responsible for the University's management oversight of LLNL, LANL, and LBNL.
Richard Mies is the president and chief executive officer of Hicks and Associates, Inc. He serves concurrently as the deputy group manager of the Transformation, Training, Test and Logistics Group at SAIC.
David Pethick is president of the Energy & Environment Business Group of URS Corporation's Washington Division.
Ellen Tauscher is Strategic Advisor for Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC. Tauscher served as a Special Envoy for Strategic Stability and Missile Defense with the State Department and as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. She represented California’s 10th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives, chaired the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.
Bruce Varner is a UC Regent.
Jeff Wadsworth is the senior executive responsible for Battelle’s laboratory management business. He was the director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He served 10 years as a senior manager at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
David Walker is a senior vice president and manager of the functions and finance in Bechtel's U.S. Government business unit.
Craig Weaver is Managing Director of Bechtel Management Company Limited the UK subsidiary of Bechtel Systems and Infrastructure Inc.
-----------
By my count;
University of California = 5
Bechtel = 4
URS = 1
Battelle = 1
Independent = 5
So isn't UC the controlling partner in LLNS?
NIF shifts priorities
http://www.kqed.org/news/story/2013/05/01/120178/after_failed_attempts_at_nuclear_fusion_nif_shifts_priorities?category=bay+area
LLNL, the employees, and the management are finally paying for their sins of the past. Even just hitting the alpha heating milestone would have been a victory, washing away all of those sins. Failure due to confirmation bias and self-delusion. Too bad.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Atherton in, Moses out
NIF Reshuffle: Atherton In, Moses Out
http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/2013/04/new-director-and-mission-transition-at-nif.html
I think some of you bloggers called this one (albeit for incorrect reasons).
Doesn't look like a huge reshuffle anyways. Moses is still PAD for the directorate. Plus he's also been NIF director for SO LONG.
April 29, 2013 at 5:52 PM
Anonymous said...
April 29, 2013 at 5:52 PM
Isn't it amazing how in a time when all the worker bees are taking pay cuts, getting laid off and taking it in the shorts in almost anyway possible ULM finds a way to promote one of their own kind to a position giving due cause for a BIG pay raise and to get that salary up just prior to retirement. And they wonder why people hate them.
April 29, 2013 at 7:09 PM
Anonymous said...
And they wonder why people hate them.
April 29, 2013 at 7:09 PM
Not everyone hates them. Hate is an emotion that negates thought and reason. If you hate, you lose. Try opposing your adversary with more intelligence and cleverness.
April 29, 2013 at 9:42 PM
Anonymous said...
Just remember that Ed did his job well. He may not have the tact and social adeptness of a Fortune 500 executive. He may be a total a-hole to many but to others he was a effective leader. If the worst we can say about Ed is that he is unlikeable, that's a good sign that he is probably the guy you want to solve your very hard problems and run you high risk complex projects.
April 29, 2013 at 11:00 PM
Anonymous said...
April 29, 2013 at 9:42
I think everyone needs to understand their position in life as well as many other people much higher in the food chain that this dude.
April 30, 2013 at 3:24 AM
Anonymous said...
Say what you want about Ed but he is a great man. History will be the ultimate judge not small minds. Fusion will power the future it just may take awhile. I would say that in 100 years people will look at Ed on manner as Einstein, Dirac, and Teller. That is some legacy. You can also say what you want about NIF but NIF works.
April 30, 2013 at 6:27 AM
Anonymous said...
April 30, 2013 at 6:27 AM
Okay enought butt sniffing. the question all are concerned about is this. Is Parney going to announce a VSP on Thursday 5-2-2013 and is he going to let as many people who want to go leave by the end of June. That is what everyone I know wants the answwer to and they want it soon. I have never seen more excitement at LLNL than during this waiting period for those gates to open. I'm getting phone call after phone call asking the same question.
April 30, 2013 at 11:39 AM
Anonymous said...
April 30, 2013 at 11:39 AM:
Yes. No. Happy now?
April 30, 2013 at 2:56 PM
Anonymous said...
Of course this thread will disappear as soon as Scooby wakes up.
April 30, 2013 at 9:52 PM
Anonymous said...
Is there any more to the shakeup? Some of the more important corrections need to be made at the lower levels of management, particularly at the project management level.
May 1, 2013 at 12:48 AM
Anonymous said...
April 30, 2013 at 9:52 PM
This thread will not disappear since there is nothing here that being said that bad except for some nincompoop thinking that Ed Moses is going to be looked upon like a Teller, Einstein, Dirac. These three did something that works and for the good of the nation.
May 1, 2013 at 6:49 AM
Anonymous said...
This thread will not disappear since there is nothing here that being said that bad
May 1, 2013 at 6:49 AM
Did you read the capitalized, highlighted, red warning banner at the top post?? Scooby regularly (when he gets around to it) deletes any comments that in his opinion do not deserve top post status. Get a clue.
May 1, 2013 at 8:40 AM
Anonymous said...
May 1, 2013 at 8:40 AM
I'm thinking Scooby may be interested in the VSP and may just want the rest of the world and all the "real" people at LLNL who want to leave know what is going on.
May 1, 2013 at 10:11 AM
Anonymous said...
I would say that in 100 years people will look at Ed on manner as Einstein, Dirac, and Teller. That is some legacy. You can also say what you want about NIF but NIF works.
April 30, 2013 at 6:27 AM
I feel sorry for these guys hanging onto the Titanic as it's sinking. Let go, save yourself.
May 1, 2013 at 4:50 PM
Anonymous said...
I would say that in 100 years people will look at Ed on manner as Einstein, Dirac, and Teller. That is some legacy. You can also say what you want about NIF but NIF works.
April 30, 2013 at 6:27 AM
Einstien, Dirac, and Teller are laughing their asses off now.
May 1, 2013 at 5:04 PM
Anonymous said...
I don't have any respect for Moses after he yelled at me for sitting in "his chair" which DOE/NNSA bought him.
May 1, 2013 at 5:18 PM
Anonymous said...
Ed Moses, an American hero..... in his own mind.
May 1, 2013 at 5:26 PM
Anonymous said...
"I don't have any respect for Moses after he yelled at me for sitting in "his chair" which DOE/NNSA bought him.
May 1, 2013 at 5:18 PM"
Why in hell where in his f*cking chair? You deserved to be yelled at. How would you like some little pissant sitting in you chair?
May 1, 2013 at 5:46 PM
Anonymous said...
Hahaha you got told to GTFO of his chair. What were you thinking anyways? You should have known better. I bet nobody told you, just so that they can watch you get the "treatment." hahahaha
May 1, 2013 at 5:54 PM
Anonymous said...
Ed would have gotten credit for ignition had his designers and scientists had not let him down. But now that he has been retasked, his legacy regarding the pursuit of ignition is final. He gets credit for a successful build and for playing his part (as with many others). But someone else will get all the glory whenever and wherever ignition-in-a-lab is achieved.
May 1, 2013 at 5:59 PM
Anonymous said...
I heard from multiple sources (as well as references somewhere in this blog) about defecation in the elevator in the NIF building. This must have been during the last layoffs. I hope they caught the perpetrator. Can't be stinking up a place like that.
May 1, 2013 at 6:04 PM
Anonymous said...
Teller does not belong in the same sentence as Einstein and Dirac.
Ed Moses is just an engineer.
May 1, 2013 at 7:15 PM
Anonymous said...
" Teller does not belong in the same sentence as Einstein and Dirac.
Ed Moses is just an engineer."
First off, no Teller means no Livermore. Teller also made the "super". The super may have saved the United States. It is hard to compare Einstein, Dirac and Teller. They all had Noble prizes, and all had great scientific contributions. Teller went beyond science that he also had a great impact on politics and the Nation. Star Was which was Tellers dream is what brought down the Soviets. This man won the cold war.
May 1, 2013 at 8:22 PM
Anonymous said...
Star Was which was Tellers dream is what brought down the Soviets. This man won the cold war.
May 1, 2013 at 8:22 PM
Uh, what current US defense system is "star wars" derived?? Yeah, none. Bad history. The Soviets were defeated by their own economic disaster. Just as the US will be.
May 1, 2013 at 8:46 PM
Anonymous said...
The bad grammar leads me to believe that the above message includes a phishing link that was set up by hackers/phishers from Asia. The specific grammar errors are typical of phishing attempts from that region, specifically China.
May 2, 2013 at 2:33 AM
Anonymous said...
Odd considering the link is to India, which has a large English speaking population.
May 2, 2013 at 2:34 AM
Anonymous said...
Teller should have quit while he was ahead (during his glory days). Instead he kept going on spawning the likes of Lowell wood and other con artists.
May 2, 2013 at 2:54 AM
Anonymous said...
"Teller should have quit while he was ahead (during his glory days). Instead he kept going on spawning the likes of Lowell wood and other con artists.
May 2, 2013 at 2:54 AM"
Lowell Wood is a great man. What have you ever done?
May 2, 2013 at 7:32 AM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Well...because this blog is for "real" information of LLNS that only "real" employees would pass on to employees...This is not about science, this is about grading the management of the LLNS in these present days. If there were no transition to LLNS, this blog would never be here.
LLNL was a good place to work. The transition to LLNS was the mistake of the century in every sense.
What this tells me is LLNL The True Story will go on until LLNL is no longer under a private contractor like LLNS and goes back to being a facility which offer a pension exactly like the OLD UC pension program. As long as it is an "at will" society you have seen the best years LLNL will ever be.