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
12/27/2019 11:11 AM"
Things that have gotten demonstrably better with modern manufacturing technology:
V-8 Engines
Mobile Phones
Refrigerators
Submarines
Stealth fighters
.
.
.
Pits? How would you know? They can't be tested!
This is from the JASON report (https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/pit.pdf):
As a result of the Los Alamos/Livermore efforts, JASON concludes that there is no evidence from the UGT analyses for plutonium aging mechanisms affecting primary perfor- mance on timescales of a century or less in ways that would be detrimental to the enduring stockpile.
The need for new pits is largely a fabrication of LANL for the purpose of funding a make-work pit facility. This debate has been going on for years with LANL winning the argument in the face of contradictory scientific evidence.