Skip to main content

DOE/NNSA wants a return to a public interest model

DOE/NNSA wants "a return to a public interest model" and is concerned about paying more now and getting less. Combined with the floated 3% to 1% operating fee reduction idea, are we looking at a return to UC or UC and other non profit running LLNL and LANL in 1-3 years time?
Anonymous said...
UC wants nothing to do with running LANL or LLNL without "partners" to deflect some of the criticism that it would be a return to the "bad old days" of absentee management. A university consortium, maybe. UC by itself, never.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I think the model that the University of Chicago created for Argonne Lab is the best option for replacing LLNS.

This is a solely university owned LLC - "Argonne is operated by UChicago Argonne, LLC together with team member Jacobs Engineering Group Inc."

It satisfies the DOE RFP requirement that the Lab be operated as a "separate" business entity by the contractor. It provides the university with liability protection, allows for "teaming" with industrial partners for specific activities and reasonable compensation for their efforts, but keeps them from dominating the relationship.

It also very similar to how Lockheed Martin runs Sandia National Lab through an LLC (Sandia Corporation) solely owned by LM.
Anonymous said…
Jacobs Engineering Group IS Bechtel, BTW.
Anonymous said…
Don't hold your breath on this one. DOE wanted to go back to public interest model but the Congress will not allow it. They are all under the big corporation lobby.
Anonymous said…
A few well placed call from the powerful "Bechtelian Brotherhood" to Congress and this talk of dropping the NNSA labs' annual profit fees from 3% down to 1% will be quickly nipped in the bud.

This issue will quickly be forgotten. Carry-on and remember to give 110%. Your manager's annual 20% bonus depends on your hard work.
Anonymous said…
With a reasonable transfer of liability, and with the recent ethics scandal, radiative drum leak issue, and NIF failure, maybe the "pay more and get less" model will give way to a non-profit UC + other University management of the labs once again.
Anonymous said…
Packaging TRU waste for shipment is not an activity that any university would consider appropriate. That requires a Bechtel.

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.

tcp1 looking good

I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...