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...
Comments
The report does say one thing that is right in that NNSA does not leak something unless they have opinion on what they want and what they want is to not have pits being made at LANL. The money savings may be one part but the bigger issue is that LANL has shown that it has serious issues in terms of safety, work efficiency, and declining quality of the workforce. This is on top of issues that Santa Fe will fight tooth and nail against pit production at LANL. Things have been falling apart at LANL and everyone knows it, do you really think it is good idea to have them now run a large risky facility that can only function well if it has top people working in at it? This is a serious question can we trust the modern LANL to do this? The sad thing is that NNSA no longer trusts LANL but the NNSA is partially to blame for making LANL what it is today.
Welcome to the future of LANL where it looks more and more like LLNL.
January 27, 2018 at 4:48 PM
In case you have noticed LLNL just got the highest score possible, maybe just maybe if LANL became more like LLNL it would also get a good score. Just something to think about.
So moving pit production to a NNSA Production site has always been in the cards - keeping it at LANL was never the plan.
Let’s evaluate this for what it actually is: incompetent NNSA middle managers who have consistently lied to the DoD and have neither the budget, abilities or skills to do their jobs.
I agree. The simple rule of thumb is take the NNSA number and multiply by PI (3.14159...) to get the actual cost. I have found this to be correct in many cases over the years. The simple reason why is that the NNSA forgets to add a factor for putting up with the oppressive oversight and ridiculous requirements it imposes just for reporting work (not actually doing work).