The NAS Report and UPTE’S Response Rally

From the JULY 2012 SPSE-UPTE Monthly Memo The NAS Report and UPTE’S Response Rally By Jeff Colvin On February 15, 2012 the National Academies (NAS) National Research Council released a congressionally mandated Report on their year-long study of the management of the nation’s national security laboratories: Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). The strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) held a hearing on the NAS Report less than 24 hours after it was released. Motivating the study was the 2006-2007 transition of LANL and LLNL to private, for-profit monopoly management by Los Alamos National Security, LLC and Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The NAS was charged with studying the effects of the management transitions on the Labs’ scientific and national security missions. The basic conclusions of the NAS Report were that scientific productivity, operational efficiency, and employee morale have all declined since the management transitions; and that the new for-profit, monopoly management structure costs more --- the NAS Report gives a range of numbers between ~$210 Million and more than $300 Million as the added yearly cost. The NAS found that excessive formalities, checklists, and oversight by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) have put science at the Labs, and experimental science in particular, in jeopardy. The NAS Report attributes the decline of science at the Labs almost solely to excessive NNSA oversight, and completely misses the connection between excessive oversight and the milestone-driven Performance Bonus Incentive private company management structure. UPTE leaders and members have elaborated our arguments for why the for-profit monopoly management structure is at the root of the Labs’ problems in our written testimony to the HASC Hearing on 16 February. Our testimony can be seen in its entirety here. http://t.ymlp284.net/mhuhafajyuqakaubmafaembes/click.php In our later Response to the NAS Report, which we also submitted to Congress, we argue for de-privatization as the preferred solution to the problems identified in the Report, and even float a suggestion for how to get the de-privatization process started. Our Response can be seen in its entirety here. http://www.upte.org/spse/NASltr2_2012.pdf

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

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 wan...

Rumor corner

LLNS may have excluded the wrong people in last VSSOP? The exclusions were based on outdated job categories and related skills. ULM are now thinking that in the future, job categories and functional areas will have to be re-defined. The next VSSOP/ISP will be based on the new categories and functional areas. The questions I have are: 1) Why didnt they think of that before the transition. It seems like their style is “change things as you go”. Planning is out the window! 2) Who will give input on the new changes? The next RIF apparently is going to be more lucrative than the VSSOP. Depending on the length of employment, a RIFed person, not only gets their 1 week pay per year of service but also from 30 to 120 days notice, essentially 30 to 120 days pay. Please feel free to comment on the rumors or add new ones you actually heard.

Anonymous said…

I'm convinced the takeover by LLNS and LANS had absolutely nothing to do with saving any money in LLNL or LANL operation cost. The savings came from getting thousands of people off the UC pension plan and onto a worthless 401k especially in times of a recession. As these two private entities continue to keep your waged down the less they’ll have to pay you in the end. This dilemma had led many to now have to work until they’re 62-65 or older. The actuary tables tell a story of these employees dying shortly after retirement or better yet dying on the job. Again, LANS and LLNS win. Combine this with the fact DOE is someday is going to stop funding the TCP-1 pension program and PBGC is to be the scape goat for the LLC’s. In hindsight I have to give credit to those who planned this abortion. It was well thought out. It truly is all about money isn’t it.

7/31/2012 7:35 PM

Imagine people having to work to 62-65.

7/31/2012 9:21 PM

LLNS/Bechtel == LANS/Bechtel.

There is very little difference between the two for-profit companies.

They even have the very same members on their Board of Governors! It's all a big charade.

8/01/2012 9:49 PM

There was no doubt an interest to end the pension benefit. Even previous Secretaries would visit and claim that our benefit package was out of wack. However, this is much more serious. In order to cover the 401K, benefits, and new taxes, just to break even LLNL had to layoff 500 people or more immediately. Two years later, however LANL had gone from 8000 to 10000 employees, and LLNL went from 8000 to 6000, all round numbers. Now we face hard times, and LANL decries how bad they have it. Try starting from 6000 and reduce. In the mean time, the RFP and proposals both claimed huge cost savings from the business acumen of the newly provided Bechtel and other implants that would ensue in coming years. Need I finish this train of thought?

8/09/2012 2:57 PM

LLNL - The True Story -

Search This Blog