Skip to main content

NNSA Requests Another $55.9M For LANL, LLNL Retiree Pension Payment

Image
By scooby
NNSA Requests Another $55.9M For LANL, LLNL Retiree Pension Payment The National Nuclear Security Administration needs an extra $55.9 million to make a paymen tto the University of California Retirement Plan, according to a reprogramming request submitted to Congress Tuesday. The reprogramming request was coupled with an appeal to reprogram another $2.5 million to finish designing Los Alamos National Laboratory’s Low Level Waste building, a key part of the lab’s Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility (RLWTF) project that the Department of Energy said would have to be shut down without the extra funds. The additional money for Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory retiree pensions is on top of $22.8 million DOE already requested as part of a nonproliferation reprogramming request in August. The agency said the funds are needed because recently approved changes to the University of California’s defined benefit pension plan increased assumptions on how long people will live and sequestration reduced the available funding for the payment. According to a letter from DOE Deputy Chief Financial Officer Alison Doone, a variety of sources will cover the reprogramming, including the completion of projects under budget, unearned contractor fee, and funding that was set aside for work that did not come about, including $3.4 million from the cancellation of the Secure Transportation Asset Agent Candidate Training

Comments

Anonymous said…
Remember, NNSA is contracturally obligated to do this for LLNL employees who retired from the UC system at transition. They have no such obligation to LLNS pension plan.
9/27/2013 10:34 AM
Anonymous said…
I guess they'll just have to take it out of the $2.1B LLNL gets to operate on and implement another SSVSP or RIF shortly. They still have until Dec 24th to get it done. Maybe another 700 employees to go and we can balance the 2014 budget?
9/28/2013 4:44 AM
Anonymous said…
10:34, NNSA does indeed have a legal obligation to the LLNS pension plan, it has been posted at least a few times. Some choose to ignore it, but if you research it, it's there.
9/28/2013 2:25 PM
Anonymous said…
Please dear god sight your sources when you post articles from other news sources!!!!
10/01/2013 10:10 AM
Anonymous said…
This was the information supplied by LLNL before the transition:

LLNS is legally required to make the necessary contributions to the plan and would be reimbursed for those contributions under the contract between LLNS and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which is a part of the United States Government under the Department of Energy. NNSA is contractually obligated to reimburse the pension costs under the contract. NNSA's contract with LLNS also requires that at the end of the LLNS contract, the responsibility for the pension plan be transferred to the entity which is awarded the follow-on contract with NNSA or, if there is no such entity, the contract be extended with LLNS so the payment of the costs of continuing the benefits can be made by NNSA. NNSA thus has an ongoing obligation to reimburse the allowable TCP1 pension plan costs in the future.
10/01/2013 7:27 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
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...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
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.
124 comments
Read more

LLNL un-diversity

By scooby
Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!
79 comments
Read more