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.

LLNL un-diversity

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!