Anonymously contributed:
http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20100331_3885.php
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
NNSA merging contracts
Anonymously contributed:
With NNSA merging the contracts to run Pantex and Y-12 into one contractor, I really wonder why this is not done for LANL ($79 million max fee a yr) and LLNL ($53 million max a yr). The front company LLCs - LANS and LLNS - are basically the same people, but as separate contracts are getting over a combined $100 million to run both labs. The same thing UC did for $10 million a year. Where is the taxpayer outrage at this bilking of the US Treasury. I bet you could merge the two Lab contracts and set the combined fee at $60 million a year, and LANS/LLNS would still bid to run LANL and LLNL, saving $720 million over ten years.
-----
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Contract will cut Pantex costs
$875M savings would be spread among plants
By Jim McBride
Top National Nuclear Security Administration officials announced their contract acquisition strategy for Pantex and other facilities Friday and said the contract reforms would save an estimated $875 million over a decade.
Pantex, located about 17 miles northeast of Amarillo, assembles, dismantles and modifies nuclear weapons. The five-year contract for B&W Pantex, which manages and operates the plant for the federal government, will expire in September.
Under contract reforms announced Friday, the NNSA will conduct a bidding competition for a single contract to manage Tennessee's Y-12 National Security Complex, which produces uranium parts for warheads, and the Pantex Plant. The reforms also include a contract option to manage tritium operations performed at South Carolina's Savannah River Site...
..."Together, these moves demonstrate our commitment to be good stewards of taxpayers' money and we hope will enable NNSA to improve the efficiency of its operations," Harencak said. "Consolidating the management of multiple production sites under a single contractor will provide opportunities to improve performance while reducing costs."
Harencak said the contract changes will affect the management contract at Pantex and other weapons facilities, but he said that existing missions at those sites wouldn't change.
http://www.amarillo.com/stories
/032710/new_news3.shtml
With NNSA merging the contracts to run Pantex and Y-12 into one contractor, I really wonder why this is not done for LANL ($79 million max fee a yr) and LLNL ($53 million max a yr). The front company LLCs - LANS and LLNS - are basically the same people, but as separate contracts are getting over a combined $100 million to run both labs. The same thing UC did for $10 million a year. Where is the taxpayer outrage at this bilking of the US Treasury. I bet you could merge the two Lab contracts and set the combined fee at $60 million a year, and LANS/LLNS would still bid to run LANL and LLNL, saving $720 million over ten years.
-----
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Contract will cut Pantex costs
$875M savings would be spread among plants
By Jim McBride
Top National Nuclear Security Administration officials announced their contract acquisition strategy for Pantex and other facilities Friday and said the contract reforms would save an estimated $875 million over a decade.
Pantex, located about 17 miles northeast of Amarillo, assembles, dismantles and modifies nuclear weapons. The five-year contract for B&W Pantex, which manages and operates the plant for the federal government, will expire in September.
Under contract reforms announced Friday, the NNSA will conduct a bidding competition for a single contract to manage Tennessee's Y-12 National Security Complex, which produces uranium parts for warheads, and the Pantex Plant. The reforms also include a contract option to manage tritium operations performed at South Carolina's Savannah River Site...
..."Together, these moves demonstrate our commitment to be good stewards of taxpayers' money and we hope will enable NNSA to improve the efficiency of its operations," Harencak said. "Consolidating the management of multiple production sites under a single contractor will provide opportunities to improve performance while reducing costs."
Harencak said the contract changes will affect the management contract at Pantex and other weapons facilities, but he said that existing missions at those sites wouldn't change.
http://www.amarillo.com/stories
/032710/new_news3.shtml
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Nuclear Labs Raise Doubts Over Viability of Arsenals
Anonymously contributed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/us/27nuke.html
In a challenge to the White House, the nation’s nuclear weapons laboratories have warned Congress that federal programs to extend the life of the nation’s aging nuclear arsenal are insufficient to guarantee the viability of the weapons for decades to come.
I can't see that this warning from the Labs will have any influence on Obama since he's already cut any funding for RRW/WR1 & is pushing hard for ratification of CTBT.
The JASONS have stated their opinion & so have the Labs. POGO accuses the Labs of "defending their turf" - Isn't that exactly what POGO is doing?
Why is it the "experts" on NEs are always from someplace other than our Labs?
Maintaining older NE's that do not provide the best safety & security technology makes no sense to me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/us/27nuke.html
In a challenge to the White House, the nation’s nuclear weapons laboratories have warned Congress that federal programs to extend the life of the nation’s aging nuclear arsenal are insufficient to guarantee the viability of the weapons for decades to come.
I can't see that this warning from the Labs will have any influence on Obama since he's already cut any funding for RRW/WR1 & is pushing hard for ratification of CTBT.
The JASONS have stated their opinion & so have the Labs. POGO accuses the Labs of "defending their turf" - Isn't that exactly what POGO is doing?
Why is it the "experts" on NEs are always from someplace other than our Labs?
Maintaining older NE's that do not provide the best safety & security technology makes no sense to me.
View on 200 re-classification
Contributed by the Pooper Scooper:
I recently posted about the changeover from discipline based job classification to the MTS classification at LLNL.
See
http://dogchurch.blogspot.com/2010/02/mts.html
Feel free to link to it from your LLNL the True Story blog.
I recently posted about the changeover from discipline based job classification to the MTS classification at LLNL.
See
http://dogchurch.blogspot.com/2010/02/mts.html
Feel free to link to it from your LLNL the True Story blog.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Opinion on blog moderation
Anonymously contributed:
I see someone complained that the term "fanboi" was insulting and you removed a post involving that term.
I was quite surprised to see that. Especially given snide comments from others about "best and brightest indeed" and another thread mentioning the term "hayseed".
Last time I checked, fanboi was merely a term for ardent enthusiast and not an insult.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fanboi
I'm not about to demand that someone using the term "hayseed" be purged either. I'm over 21 and not going to get my little feelings hurt. In fact, it made for a good tongue-in-cheek reply to that comment.
Naturally it is your blog and your rules. I've done my bit to help keep it alive, but have no interest in staying around if some people are allowed to make personal attacks and then go running to you for "moderation". Is the playing field even or not?
I see someone complained that the term "fanboi" was insulting and you removed a post involving that term.
I was quite surprised to see that. Especially given snide comments from others about "best and brightest indeed" and another thread mentioning the term "hayseed".
Last time I checked, fanboi was merely a term for ardent enthusiast and not an insult.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fanboi
I'm not about to demand that someone using the term "hayseed" be purged either. I'm over 21 and not going to get my little feelings hurt. In fact, it made for a good tongue-in-cheek reply to that comment.
Naturally it is your blog and your rules. I've done my bit to help keep it alive, but have no interest in staying around if some people are allowed to make personal attacks and then go running to you for "moderation". Is the playing field even or not?
Monday, March 22, 2010
LANL TCP1
Anonymously contributed:
So, any predictions on what Mikey is going to say about tcp1 Tues at LANL?
1 or 2 or 3% contributions?
So, any predictions on what Mikey is going to say about tcp1 Tues at LANL?
1 or 2 or 3% contributions?
Debate Heats Up Over Conventional, Nuclear Deterrence Trade offs
Anonymously contributed:
A long but worthwhile read...
Debate Heats Up Over Conventional, Nuclear Deterrence Trade offs
Friday, March 19, 2010
By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security Newswire
http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20100319_6793.php
A long but worthwhile read...
Debate Heats Up Over Conventional, Nuclear Deterrence Trade offs
Friday, March 19, 2010
By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security Newswire
http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20100319_6793.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LLNS Contract discussion
SUGGEST NEW TOPICS HERE
Submit candidates for new topics here only. Stay on topic with National Labs' related issues. All submissions are screened first for ...
-
Physics Today has an article about what went wrong with the LANL/LLNL contract. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstod...
-
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 ...
-
Global Security Newswire U.S. Nuclear Weapons Agency to Delay Work on Interoperable Warhead By Global Security Newswire Staff February 18, ...