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
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Thursday, May 1, 2014
DOE/NNSA wants a return to a public interest model
DOE/NNSA wants "a return to a public interest model" and is concerned about paying more now and getting less. Combined with the floated 3% to 1% operating fee reduction idea, are we looking at a return to UC or UC and other non profit running LLNL and LANL in 1-3 years time?
UC wants nothing to do with running LANL or LLNL without "partners" to deflect some of the criticism that it would be a return to the "bad old days" of absentee management. A university consortium, maybe. UC by itself, never.
6 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I think the model that the University of Chicago created for Argonne Lab is the best option for replacing LLNS.
This is a solely university owned LLC - "Argonne is operated by UChicago Argonne, LLC together with team member Jacobs Engineering Group Inc."
It satisfies the DOE RFP requirement that the Lab be operated as a "separate" business entity by the contractor. It provides the university with liability protection, allows for "teaming" with industrial partners for specific activities and reasonable compensation for their efforts, but keeps them from dominating the relationship.
It also very similar to how Lockheed Martin runs Sandia National Lab through an LLC (Sandia Corporation) solely owned by LM.
Don't hold your breath on this one. DOE wanted to go back to public interest model but the Congress will not allow it. They are all under the big corporation lobby.
A few well placed call from the powerful "Bechtelian Brotherhood" to Congress and this talk of dropping the NNSA labs' annual profit fees from 3% down to 1% will be quickly nipped in the bud.
This issue will quickly be forgotten. Carry-on and remember to give 110%. Your manager's annual 20% bonus depends on your hard work.
With a reasonable transfer of liability, and with the recent ethics scandal, radiative drum leak issue, and NIF failure, maybe the "pay more and get less" model will give way to a non-profit UC + other University management of the labs once again.
6 comments:
I think the model that the University of Chicago created for Argonne Lab is the best option for replacing LLNS.
This is a solely university owned LLC - "Argonne is operated by UChicago Argonne, LLC together with team member Jacobs Engineering Group Inc."
It satisfies the DOE RFP requirement that the Lab be operated as a "separate" business entity by the contractor. It provides the university with liability protection, allows for "teaming" with industrial partners for specific activities and reasonable compensation for their efforts, but keeps them from dominating the relationship.
It also very similar to how Lockheed Martin runs Sandia National Lab through an LLC (Sandia Corporation) solely owned by LM.
Jacobs Engineering Group IS Bechtel, BTW.
Don't hold your breath on this one. DOE wanted to go back to public interest model but the Congress will not allow it. They are all under the big corporation lobby.
A few well placed call from the powerful "Bechtelian Brotherhood" to Congress and this talk of dropping the NNSA labs' annual profit fees from 3% down to 1% will be quickly nipped in the bud.
This issue will quickly be forgotten. Carry-on and remember to give 110%. Your manager's annual 20% bonus depends on your hard work.
With a reasonable transfer of liability, and with the recent ethics scandal, radiative drum leak issue, and NIF failure, maybe the "pay more and get less" model will give way to a non-profit UC + other University management of the labs once again.
Packaging TRU waste for shipment is not an activity that any university would consider appropriate. That requires a Bechtel.
Post a Comment