Skip to main content

Where is the report?

This report was due by October 1. Does someone know if the panel has even ever met? http://www.nucleardiner.com/index.php/archive/item/nnsa-governance-panel-named What is done in intractable situations that Congress can no longer ignore is that a committee is formed, and Congress formed the Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance Structure of the National Nuclear Security Administration. The panel’s charter is to assess the feasibility and advisability of, and make recommendations with respect to, revising the governance structure of the National Nuclear Security Administration to permit the Administration to operate more effectively. A report is required 120 days after the panel members have been named. They now have all been named, so the report is due a little before October 1. The twelve members of the panel have been selected. They are: Co-Chairs: Former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine and former Strategic Command chief Richard Mies. Augustine was selected by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) and House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA) Mies was selected earlier by Republican lawmakers. Four former legislators: Heather Wilson (R-NM), Ellen Tauscher (D-CA, and State Department official), John Spratt (D-SC), and David Hobson (R-OH). 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; former Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko, and former Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Director Michael Anastasio. A number of similar panels have been convened over the years to address the direction and governance of the national laboratories, particularly the nuclear weapons laboratories. They have contributed little to improvements in morale and organization within the laboratories or the effective use of taxpayer money. There is no reason to expect anything else from this panel.

Comments

Anonymous said…
The final sentences say it all.
There have been lots of these studies, panels, groups, reports, etc. in the past and little change has resulted. Why should anyone think that this time will be any different?
Anonymous said…
The IG report on SNL/LANL/ORNL payments to Wilson was advertised as part I. Should be timely to see the part II if it comes out anytime soon. Probably nothing to it, but the press reports made it look pretty bad, especially for Los Alamos.

Popular posts from this blog

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...

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.

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.