The University of California (UC) continues its reign in running the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The announcement was finally made on Friday, June 8, 2018, by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) that UC will continue to manage the lab since it was founded in 1943.
UPTE's 6/15/2018 Press Release:
UPTE applauds the new LANL contract that supports research, development and employees not profits. UPTE offers to work with Triad to improve safety and urges them to adopt two structural reforms. By persuading the decision makers in Washington to reform the bidding criteria, the union leadership at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory successfully advocated that the bids emphasize science and worker safety. The proposed 1% fixed fee, rather than a higher and variable performance bonus, sets a promising precedent for a safer operating contract for LANL and LLNL. A low fixed fee also increases the support for i nnovativ e science by reducing profit margins.
29 comments:
But, but, but.... UC is not in charge. Battelle is.
"The University of California (UC) continues its reign in running the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)."
Excellent.
This praise is very premature by UPTE. I think UPTE should waited to determine if TRIAD will improve the treatment of workers, morale, and benefits at LANL. There was no mention of these key factors that have eroded under LANS.
Also, the TCP-1 funding target at LANL has declined by 6% for the past 4 years (from 122% to 106%) due to the abysmal management of the fund by LANS. At this rate the TCP-1 pension will be handed over to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) aka the U.S. government and the government will pay less pension benefits to all TCP-1 folks. Read the TCP-1 Annual Notice folks; the notice is full of warnings. The government will take over TCP-1 and dole out minimal benefits in 6 years at this current negative slope.
UPTE is entirely irrelevant.
But, but, but.... UC is not in charge. Battelle is.
June 29, 2018 at 9:53 AM
All three partners are equal. They have made this very clear.
I agree that LANS treated workers poorly, but your "analysis" of the LANS pension is pure bunk.
First of all, how is 122 to 106 a 6% drop? It's not 6% total and it's not 6% per year. Arithmetic challenged much?
106% is OVER-funded, not under-funded.
Erisa rules apply. If the pension drops below 80%, pension funding must be increased. Your 6 years to government takeover is therefore a fabricated falsehood.
Read "LANS Pension: Is it Safe" by Lee Munson in the LA Daily Post. Lee is the CIO of Portfolio Wealth Managers with $280 million in assets. I'll save you the trouble of actually learning something about pensions and jump to the conclusion - the LANS pension IS safe.
11:42 Don't think so. Somebody has to be in charge and since Triad is incorporated at Battelle's HQ in Ohio I'm betting on Battelle. Do you really think UC will be an equal partner when UC screwed up everything they touched except Science? We'll know who is in charge when we see which organization has the Director's slot and which of the three gets the most votes on their Board of Directors.
Do you really think UC will be an equal partner when UC screwed up everything they touched except Science?
What did UC screw up? Bechtel screwed up plenty but not UC. By the way you do know that LANL is a science lab, kinda important which is why UC is back. Also why would would one of the groups need to be in charge, why not have all three equal. In any case UC is likely to have more say in LANL than they ever did with LANS.
So the protest period must be over. It looks like UC is in for the win!!!! Yeah
Anyone who thinks UC will be in charge of the Triad contract is delusional. NNSA specifically did not allow that in the contract. Get a clue.
"Anyone who thinks UC will be in charge of the Triad contract is delusional. NNSA specifically did not allow that in the contract. Get a clue."
Lets see, you said no credible team would bid, you said UC would never bid, you and you said Battelle would never team with UC.
I think when it comes to delusion you should look at yourself. Triad is three equal parts, heck it is even in the name "Triad" try looking that up and yes UC was part of the winning bid. Most people at LANL think UC may play and even bigger role now that Bechtel is gone. NNSA is in fact very happy with UC and many of the things that UC did in the past which is one of the reasons UC was part of the winning team.
Looking at your track record for predictions it would seem that you are the one who needs to get a clue.
Lets see, you said no credible team would bid, you said UC would never bid, you and you said Battelle would never team with UC.
Looking at your track record for predictions it would seem that you are the one who needs to get a clue.
July 2, 2018 at 6:42 AM
Interesting since I have never said any of those things and am obviously not the person you are intending to slander. It's ok, I can take your garbage. Whatever.
July 2, 2018 at 6:09 PM
So are finally coming to terms that UC was successful in its bid? Are you also coming to accept that maby UC's past performance and how it dealt with certain things or certain people may have actually been looked upon favorably by NNSA? It is time for you to accept these things and move on with your life.
9:31 wrote "What did UC screw up?". 9:31 should read the LANS performance evaluation reports. UC got middling to poor performance scores on everything except Science. 9:31 has always falsely blamed Bechtel for LANS screwing up but Bechtel was never in charge, UC always was. LANS screwed up, UC was in charge, therefore UC screwed up. That's why UC is no longer in charge of LANL - and even 9:31 admits this. If Triad is really an equal partnership (doubtful), then UC is only 1/3 in charge, aren't they?
Someone DOES have to be in charge as someone will be the new Director - that person is ultimately the person who is in charge.
July 5, 2018 at 9:47 AM
What do you bet the Director will be a LANL person?
The point is UC is essentially in charge, they have all the experience all the people and pretty much lead the bid. NNSA wanted UC to stay and liked what they did with LANS. Even if you go with all UC did good was science, if you consider that LANL is a science lab that is same thing as saying UC ran the lab well. Things are starting to converge. Things are looking great for LANL. Another thing you might want to consider in UC's favor is how they dealt with certain people and certain things over the years. If you know the history of UC and what has happened over the last 20 years you will see why NNSA appreciates UC so much.
If you know the history of UC and what has happened over the last 20 years you will see why NNSA appreciates UC so much.
July 5, 2018 at 12:10 PM
I personally know the "history of UC" since 1977, and I know how much ERDA, DOE, and NNSA appreciated UC's performance at LANL at some times, and how embarrassed and angry ERDA, DOE, and NNSA were at UC's performance at LANL at other times. Any attempt to whitewash UC's performance over the years is just asinine and juvenile. You are trying so hard one wonders if you are trying to convince yourself.
UC, while generally good, was an absolute disaster in their support of Nanos and his tyranical treatment of subordinates.
"I personally know the "history of UC" since 1977, and I know how much ERDA, DOE, and NNSA appreciated UC's performance at LANL at some times, and how embarrassed and angry ERDA, DOE, and NNSA were at UC's performance at LANL at other times. Any attempt to whitewash UC's performance over the years is just asinine and juvenile. You are trying so hard one wonders if you are trying to convince yourself.
July 5, 2018 at 7:09 PM"
I am not buying it. I don't think you know UC or LANL history, you have no idea what happened with UC and or how DOE felt. Some of us do know. As for evidence, well UC won the contract twice in a row which is kind tells you all you need to know. As for trying to convince oneself of anything that sounds like you since your hatred of UC appears to be very personal and has clouded your ability to think rationally about these issues. Since your ability to reason is beyond compromised it also means that you cannot have any "personal knowledge" of the history of UC because no matter what the truth is you will have to see it your own way. Face the truth UC won, NNSA is happy with UC, DOE is happy with UC, and the people at LANL are happy with UC. Let it go.
UC, while generally good, was an absolute disaster in their support of Nanos and his tyranical treatment of subordinates.
July 6, 2018 at 6:54 AM
I am not sure I agree with you that UC supported Nanos, at the time Nanos came in the rumor where that UC did not want to have anything to do with but DOE forced it upon them. Another rumors is that UC waned to get rid of Nanos right away after the lab shutdown but DOE would not allow this since it would make DOE look bad, and DOE wanted to keep Nanos on further but UC said it would walk away from the contract if they could not get rid of Nanos which was the reason he was eventually forced out. Much of this is only speculation however I do know several UC people who where hight up during this time and I know how really hated Nanos. Maybe there was some secret UC people that liked him but I never meet one, not to mention it makes no sense for a University to support a non-scientist military type. Finally if UC supported him so much why would the get rid of him anyway? The only place I have ever read or heard someone say UC supported Nanos was on this blog. Even when Dynes came to LANL not longer after the shutdown if you read between the lines at his talk you could tell that he really did not like Nanos.
I do agree that Nanos was a disaster.
Dynes and Foley sure tried to prop Nanos up.
July 6, 2018 at 3:07 PM
I don't really care whether you choose to "buy" something. And your conclusion that I hate UC is so off base as to be laughable. WTH did you get that from what I posted?? Your consistent misspellings and grammar mistakes tell me you are not the "in the know" person you claim to be, but probably not even an employee or former employee of LANL, which tends to hire a better class of person. Regardless, the fact is that I do not hate UC, I just refuse to sugar-coat their history at LANL, because I lived it, from post-doc through middle management, for over 30 years.
Currently I am enjoying a very generous and very much appreciated UC pension. Why would that make me hate UC? Nonsense.
You sound like you might be the famous Bechtel a-kisser who has converted to a UC a-kisser. Neither is a pretty picture.
Both Dunes and Foley absolutely supported Nanos. Also a retired admiral, Bob Foley was 100% on board with his buddy’s idea to show those scientists their place. As for Dynes, he was just a spineless weasel, who found it more expedient to pile on and repeat the “Cowboy Scientists” fiction that Nanos had manufactured for the DOE and the press. I was in the auditorium when those two came out to LANL for a townhall with the staff. It’s embarrassing to recall what they were saying.
Dynes and Foley sure tried to prop Nanos up.
July 6, 2018 at 7:27 PM
I think you will have a hard time finding anyone who thinks Dynes "proper" up Nanos. Not sure about Foley. If you where around during the Nanos time you would have heard the rumors that DOE forced this on UC. Again UC supporting someone like Nanos never made any sense. Hey I know that you need to see UC as the bad guys but they are not and never have been. Perhaps even the issue you have with UC have more to do with you than UC. Just something for you to think about. In any case UC is back and hear to stay!
Please, please, get over this “cowboy comment”. It doesn’t matter anymore.
It matters a great deal to the families of those individuals who died because of it. It also matters to those whose careers were destroyed because of it. It also matters to those of us who do not want to repeat the history that nearly destroyed this Lab.
July 7, 2018 at 7:14 AM
The Rah Rah UC jerk is back. He used to be the Bechtel jerk but got converted.
July 7, 2018 at 7:06 PM
Nobody died because of a stupid statement by Nanos. That comment just negates all of the truth and the pathos of the entire episode. If you lived through it you should know enough to not pretend everything was black and white. There were lots of false statements, false trails, and false coverups in the whole thing. Dumb, stupid moves and accusations on all sides. Many, many unintended consequences to live with for everyone involved.
"Please, please, get over this “cowboy comment”. It doesn’t matter anymore.
July 7, 2018 at 11:11 AM"
Is that you Pete? You realize that you can't rewrite your shameful history here. I see that you are hoping for the next best thing, that it be forgotten.
"It matters a great deal to the families of those individuals who died because of it. It also matters to those whose careers were destroyed because of it. It also matters to those of us who do not want to repeat the history that nearly destroyed this Lab.
July 7, 2018 at 7:06 PM"
Could not have put it better myself.
"The Rah Rah UC jerk is back."
So someone pointing out the fact that UC has won the contract again is rah rah? I hate to tell you but most folks at LANL wanted UC to stay on and have been happy with UC. One could just as well say there is a "cringe obssesed UC hater jerk" is back or just never went away. The UC haters are pretty well known if you look at the local news and they all have a personal axe to grind. Has it ever occurred to you that your views might be a tad bit clouded by personal issues?
Post a Comment