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.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
LANS Fails, Will LLNS
Is this an indication of what's to come of LLNL as it did LANL?
Los Alamos National Security receives bad marks for management, environmental work Sue Vorenberg | The New Mexican
3/24/2008 - 3/25/08
If payments were grades, then Los Alamos National Security, which operates Los Alamos National Laboratory, might find itself getting a harsh parental scolding for its 2007 performance evaluation from the National Nuclear Security Administration.
Sure, four A grades aren't bad, and the one B and three C's are decent enough. But then there are the five F's — which, if LANS were a high-school student, would likely lead to weeks of no video games and a good, long grounding.
Those 13 grades — which are actually payment levels for various work areas — hit LANS in the wallet for about $15 million.
Out of the total possible fee of $73.3 million, with only $22 million guaranteed, LANS earned $58.2 million, according to the National Nuclear Security Administration Fiscal Year 2007 Performance Evaluation Report.
That's $15 million short of what it could have earned.
Still, LANL Director Michael Anastasio said it's unfair to compare the LANS performance fees from 2007 to grades.
"I know some people view this as a grade, but I don't agree with that," Anastasio said. "These are a set of objectives, and this is NNSA's way of telling us their priorities. They have a pretty high standard of what they want us to achieve."
The NNSA, which manages nuclear weapons programs for the government, gave LANS low scores for leadership, management, environment and safety, and cited leaks of classified materials and safety incidents with plutonium.
Most of the issues brought up in the evaluation have already been fixed, or are much closer to being resolved than they were in 2007, Anastasio added.
"I think we're making real strides," Anastasio said.
From Doug Roberts' point of view as a former 20-year-employee at LANL, the 13 grades make LANS's big brother, the University of California, which ran the lab until mid-2006, look downright stellar, he said.
Roberts ran a blog from December 2004 to June 2006 called lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com, which chronicled problems and issues while the lab's contract went through the bidding process.
"I'd say, based on the report, that LANS is doing a worse job up there than UC was doing," Roberts said. "And UC had a long list of operational problems."
Some of UC's problems were reports of missing computer disks, later to be attributed to an accounting error, a laser-related injury to an intern and other security leaks, Roberts said.
Roberts said he's still somewhat mystified as to why LANS, which includes UC as a partner, along with Bechtel, BWX Technologies and Washington Group International, was awarded the lab's seven-year operations contract that started in 2006, rather than Lockheed Martin Corp.
"It seems to me that Lockheed Martin would have been a better choice," Roberts said, noting that company's relatively clean record for safety and security while running Sandia National Laboratories. "It sounds like most of the problems from UC have remained, and that LANS has even created some new ones."
LANS's seven-year contract can be extended year by year after the initial contract period, depending on NNSA's assessment of the contractor, said Roger Snyder, acting deputy site manager in the Los Alamos NNSA office.
Funds for performance incentives will be the same in 2008, but NNSA requires different goals to get those funds as part of its evaluation each year, Snyder said.
The area in the evaluation where LANS earned the least possible money in 2007 was in Leadership and Management Integration, where it got only 35 percent of its possible fee, falling about $6.6 million short.
Mostly, that low grade was because of problems ramping up cyber security after classified information was found on a thumb drive at the home of a former LANL subcontractor, and a failure to integrate security-related projects and activities across the lab, the report said.
"The length of time it has taken the Laboratory to resolve cyber security organizational issues that included establishing an effective organizational structure, selecting and empowering permanent leadership and developing integrated corrective action plans, etc., did not reflect adequate urgency or focus required for the situation," the report said.
That category is vaguely defined, however, Anastasio noted, and the fee became based on a catch-all of issues that NNSA wanted LANS to deal with.
"There was not a lot of definition in what it took to succeed in that area," Anastasio said. "I think that's why we didn't earn the bulk of the fee. They also said they were happy with our management team. But there were some areas where they wanted faster progress."
The lab also scored poorly in the areas of Environmental Programs and Operations, and Safety and Health, with 58 percent and 53 percent, respectively.
Pete Stockton, a senior investigator at POGO, a government watchdog group, said that didn't surprise him. He noted there were incidents in 2007 of plutonium contamination in Technical Area 55, LANL's high-security nuclear area.
"In terms of LANS, I think there were some huge failures this year," Stockton said. "They had a lot of contaminations at TA55. In one, a guy accidentally broke his glove with a screwdriver in a glove box when he was working on plutonium. His hand was contaminated."
Anastasio admitted there were indeed some serious problems in 2007, but he emphasized that LANS is working to fix them and make things as safe and secure as possible at LANL.
"We had a few incidences where we had workers in glove boxes that got an uptake in plutonium," Anastasio said. "The thumb drive, also, was a very low point for us. But I think we've responded to those and we're improving."
Anastasio also noted some of the high points in the evaluation — including LANS's four A's, in the Weapons Program, Weapons Quality Assurance, Threat Reduction and Multi-Site Performance areas.
One of the lab's biggest accomplishments since LANS took over, he said, was making the first nuclear bomb core, called a pit, since the Rocky Flats facility in Colorado was shut down in 1989.
LANL produced 11 of them in 2007, Anastasio said.
"We also made a scientific case for to procure the Roadrunner Supercomputer, which was subjected to outside review and approved," Anastasio said.
And while there were some notable injuries, overall LANL's on-site injury rate dropped 30 percent from 2006, he said.
Mike Burns, deputy associate director for Threat Reduction, also noted that LANS got 100 percent of its fees in his areas, which focus on preventing the spread of nuclear materials, fighting nuclear and biological terrorism and developing new detection technologies.
"The Threat Reduction part did so well, I believe, because it's a growing and important part of the laboratory and it has a good amount of attention and skill," Burns said. "The laboratory in general is very excited and interested in these non-nuclear-weapons-type programs, so we really wanted to do well."
U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici said he thought the report was "fair" to LANS, "given the challenges the new management had in taking over this laboratory contract."
In an e-mail to The New Mexican, he noted that morale at Los Alamos has been improving, and he noted LANS progress in stockpile stewardship, supercomputing and nuclear nonproliferation.
"As new management has made security a priority and employed top-notch procedures to protect the lab's classified information, I expect LANL will continue to provide a safe and reliable environment for cutting edge science," Republican Domenici said in the e-mail.
U.S. Rep. Tom Udall, a Democrat running for Domenici's seat in the Senate, noted that LANS should continue to focus on security and to make the review process "as transparent as possible."
"Security at the lab is one ongoing issue, which must continue to be addressed by LANS," Udall said in an e-mail to The New Mexican.
And for his part, Anastasio said people should understand that there's a lot more going on behind the funding levels than a simple grade can reveal.
"I think if you're going to grade LANS, it should be overall on how the lab's doing," Anastasio said. "I think the lab is doing very well."
Contact Sue Vorenberg at 986-3072 or svorenberg@sfnewmexican.com.
AT A GLANCE
Los Alamos National Security LLC, which operates Los Alamos National Laboratory, didn't score as well as it could have financially for operating the lab in fiscal 2007. Out of the total possible fee of $73.3 million, with only $22 million guaranteed, LANS earned $58,208,986, according to the National Nuclear Security Administration Fiscal Year 2007 Performance Evaluation Report. Here are the fees earned by LANS in specific areas in the report and the percetn of the actual fee allocation that was earned:
1 comment:
Los Alamos National Security receives bad marks for management, environmental work
Sue Vorenberg | The New Mexican
3/24/2008 - 3/25/08
If payments were grades, then Los Alamos National Security, which operates Los Alamos National Laboratory, might find itself getting a harsh parental scolding for its 2007 performance evaluation from the National Nuclear Security Administration.
Sure, four A grades aren't bad, and the one B and three C's are decent enough. But then there are the five F's — which, if LANS were a high-school student, would likely lead to weeks of no video games and a good, long grounding.
Those 13 grades — which are actually payment levels for various work areas — hit LANS in the wallet for about $15 million.
Out of the total possible fee of $73.3 million, with only $22 million guaranteed, LANS earned $58.2 million, according to the National Nuclear Security Administration Fiscal Year 2007 Performance Evaluation Report.
That's $15 million short of what it could have earned.
Still, LANL Director Michael Anastasio said it's unfair to compare the LANS performance fees from 2007 to grades.
"I know some people view this as a grade, but I don't agree with that," Anastasio said. "These are a set of objectives, and this is NNSA's way of telling us their priorities. They have a pretty high standard of what they want us to achieve."
The NNSA, which manages nuclear weapons programs for the government, gave LANS low scores for leadership, management, environment and safety, and cited leaks of classified materials and safety incidents with plutonium.
Most of the issues brought up in the evaluation have already been fixed, or are much closer to being resolved than they were in 2007, Anastasio added.
"I think we're making real strides," Anastasio said.
From Doug Roberts' point of view as a former 20-year-employee at LANL, the 13 grades make LANS's big brother, the University of California, which ran the lab until mid-2006, look downright stellar, he said.
Roberts ran a blog from December 2004 to June 2006 called lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com, which chronicled problems and issues while the lab's contract went through the bidding process.
"I'd say, based on the report, that LANS is doing a worse job up there than UC was doing," Roberts said. "And UC had a long list of operational problems."
Some of UC's problems were reports of missing computer disks, later to be attributed to an accounting error, a laser-related injury to an intern and other security leaks, Roberts said.
Roberts said he's still somewhat mystified as to why LANS, which includes UC as a partner, along with Bechtel, BWX Technologies and Washington Group International, was awarded the lab's seven-year operations contract that started in 2006, rather than Lockheed Martin Corp.
"It seems to me that Lockheed Martin would have been a better choice," Roberts said, noting that company's relatively clean record for safety and security while running Sandia National Laboratories. "It sounds like most of the problems from UC have remained, and that LANS has even created some new ones."
LANS's seven-year contract can be extended year by year after the initial contract period, depending on NNSA's assessment of the contractor, said Roger Snyder, acting deputy site manager in the Los Alamos NNSA office.
Funds for performance incentives will be the same in 2008, but NNSA requires different goals to get those funds as part of its evaluation each year, Snyder said.
The area in the evaluation where LANS earned the least possible money in 2007 was in Leadership and Management Integration, where it got only 35 percent of its possible fee, falling about $6.6 million short.
Mostly, that low grade was because of problems ramping up cyber security after classified information was found on a thumb drive at the home of a former LANL subcontractor, and a failure to integrate security-related projects and activities across the lab, the report said.
"The length of time it has taken the Laboratory to resolve cyber security organizational issues that included establishing an effective organizational structure, selecting and empowering permanent leadership and developing integrated corrective action plans, etc., did not reflect adequate urgency or focus required for the situation," the report said.
That category is vaguely defined, however, Anastasio noted, and the fee became based on a catch-all of issues that NNSA wanted LANS to deal with.
"There was not a lot of definition in what it took to succeed in that area," Anastasio said. "I think that's why we didn't earn the bulk of the fee. They also said they were happy with our management team. But there were some areas where they wanted faster progress."
The lab also scored poorly in the areas of Environmental Programs and Operations, and Safety and Health, with 58 percent and 53 percent, respectively.
Pete Stockton, a senior investigator at POGO, a government watchdog group, said that didn't surprise him. He noted there were incidents in 2007 of plutonium contamination in Technical Area 55, LANL's high-security nuclear area.
"In terms of LANS, I think there were some huge failures this year," Stockton said. "They had a lot of contaminations at TA55. In one, a guy accidentally broke his glove with a screwdriver in a glove box when he was working on plutonium. His hand was contaminated."
Anastasio admitted there were indeed some serious problems in 2007, but he emphasized that LANS is working to fix them and make things as safe and secure as possible at LANL.
"We had a few incidences where we had workers in glove boxes that got an uptake in plutonium," Anastasio said. "The thumb drive, also, was a very low point for us. But I think we've responded to those and we're improving."
Anastasio also noted some of the high points in the evaluation — including LANS's four A's, in the Weapons Program, Weapons Quality Assurance, Threat Reduction and Multi-Site Performance areas.
One of the lab's biggest accomplishments since LANS took over, he said, was making the first nuclear bomb core, called a pit, since the Rocky Flats facility in Colorado was shut down in 1989.
LANL produced 11 of them in 2007, Anastasio said.
"We also made a scientific case for to procure the Roadrunner Supercomputer, which was subjected to outside review and approved," Anastasio said.
And while there were some notable injuries, overall LANL's on-site injury rate dropped 30 percent from 2006, he said.
Mike Burns, deputy associate director for Threat Reduction, also noted that LANS got 100 percent of its fees in his areas, which focus on preventing the spread of nuclear materials, fighting nuclear and biological terrorism and developing new detection technologies.
"The Threat Reduction part did so well, I believe, because it's a growing and important part of the laboratory and it has a good amount of attention and skill," Burns said. "The laboratory in general is very excited and interested in these non-nuclear-weapons-type programs, so we really wanted to do well."
U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici said he thought the report was "fair" to LANS, "given the challenges the new management had in taking over this laboratory contract."
In an e-mail to The New Mexican, he noted that morale at Los Alamos has been improving, and he noted LANS progress in stockpile stewardship, supercomputing and nuclear nonproliferation.
"As new management has made security a priority and employed top-notch procedures to protect the lab's classified information, I expect LANL will continue to provide a safe and reliable environment for cutting edge science," Republican Domenici said in the e-mail.
U.S. Rep. Tom Udall, a Democrat running for Domenici's seat in the Senate, noted that LANS should continue to focus on security and to make the review process "as transparent as possible."
"Security at the lab is one ongoing issue, which must continue to be addressed by LANS," Udall said in an e-mail to The New Mexican.
And for his part, Anastasio said people should understand that there's a lot more going on behind the funding levels than a simple grade can reveal.
"I think if you're going to grade LANS, it should be overall on how the lab's doing," Anastasio said. "I think the lab is doing very well."
Contact Sue Vorenberg at 986-3072 or svorenberg@sfnewmexican.com.
AT A GLANCE
Los Alamos National Security LLC, which operates Los Alamos National Laboratory, didn't score as well as it could have financially for operating the lab in fiscal 2007. Out of the total possible fee of $73.3 million, with only $22 million guaranteed, LANS earned $58,208,986, according to the National Nuclear Security Administration Fiscal Year 2007 Performance Evaluation Report.
Here are the fees earned by LANS in specific areas in the report and the percetn of the actual fee allocation that was earned:
Contractor Assurance: $1,639,157; 49 percent
Environmental Programs & Ops: $2,110,508; 58 percent
Facilities Management: $393,247; 44 percent
Leadership/Management Integration: $3,538,348; 35 percent
Multi-Site Performance: $4,114,811; 90 percent
Nuclear & High Hazard Ops: $3,975,086; 76 percent
Project Management: $1,995,850; 73 percent
Safeguards and Security: $2,391,331; 89 percent
Safety and Health: $960,551 53 percent
Science, Technology and Engineering Excellence: $3,440,923; 77 percent
Threat Reduction: $3,053,952; 100 percent
Weapons Program: $7,181,224; 98 percent
Weapons Quality Assurance: $1,429,994; 100 percent
Post a Comment