Skip to main content

UT and A&M plan to not team up together on LANL bid

http://www.chron.com/local/education/campus-chronicles/article/A-M-UT-may-compete-over-Los-Alamos-bid-12308718.php


Texas A&M University System regents last week authorized an administrator to explore the development of a proposal to manage and operate the laboratory, the facility responsible for the safety and reliability of the country’s nuclear weapons.

The U.S. Department of Energy – headed by Energy Secretary Rick Perry, a prominent Texas A&M University alumnus – issued an official request for proposals on Wednesday. Bids are due on Dec. 11. (A&M said this week it had not contacted Perry about the competition.)

Both systems said they’d be open to partnering with academic and business entities – but it appears unlikely that they’ll team up for the bid.

UT Vice Chancellor David Daniel said in a statement this week that UT could “not identify a role” for the A&M system had "elected not to partner with them on Los Alamos.”

He acknowledged, however, that UT is working out “a number of details” still.

Some lab observers say even the best new management won't be able to rectify the facility's issues, including what they call a culture of secrecy that prevents accountability.

The complex facility has seen high-profile safety and security concerns over several decades, including reports of missing property and fraud.

The company had not always resolved "significant and long-standing nuclear safety deficiencies," according to a DOE memo from July 2015. When the company could not address safety concerns, it had to suspend some activities between 2013 and 2015.
That memo also said LANS struggled to implement multiple critical nuclear safety management requirements.

Later that year, officials announced that Los Alamos' contract would not be extended after low performance, the Associated Press reported.

Comments

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...