Budget Forced Delay of Los Alamos Plutonium Lab

Anonymously contributed:

From Global Security Newswire
Feb. 21, 2012

Budget Forced Delay of Los Alamos Plutonium Lab: DOE Secretary

Spending restrictions forced the Obama administration to slash funding for a plutonium facility at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said on Thursday (see GSN, Feb. 14).

The Energy Department's semi-autonomous National Nuclear Security Administration plans a five-year delay in construction of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement site, which would supplant a decades-old facility that provides analytical chemistry and other research services for production of plutonium nuclear-weapon cores at Los Alamos. The replacement plant is now estimated to cost up to $6 billion.

"Because of the budget constraints ... we have to look at all the other projects and we felt we could not simply start CMRR and the Uranium Processing Facility at Oak Ridge," the Albuquerque Journal quoted Chu as saying during a Senate committee hearing. "We felt there was more compelling reason to begin with that" UPF site at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee.

A senior NNSA official last week said the deterioration of an existing Y-12 facility for processing weapon-grade uranium demanded that the Uranium Processing Facility take precedence. The administration is seeking $340 million for the project in the budget year that begins on Oct. 1.

Some observers have said the budget decision spells the end for the Los Alamos plutonium facility. Chu, though, said his department intends to move ahead with design of the site to 90 percent.

"That's very prudent because for a number of reasons, before you start construction it is best to have most of it designed," he told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said Chu skirted his questions about the plutonium project but that he would continue to pursue the matter.

"The truth is we don't know at this point whether there is a case to be made that they are making a mistake here," the lawmaker said. "Clearly, the projected cost of this facility has grown enormously, and I'm sure that's one reason they've decided not to go forward with it as this point."

LANL Downsizing begins

Anonymously contributed:

From: Charles F. McMillan

Date: February 21, 2012

Subject: Cost Management and Workforce Planning

On Thursday, the Laboratory submitted a plan to NNSA calling for a
voluntary separation program (VSP) with a severance package based
on years of service. There are three main reasons why we are
taking this action now:

* Our current budget and future financial outlook require
significant cost-cutting to position the Lab for FY13 and
beyond. In FY12 alone, we face a budget reduction of around
$300 million across multiple programs.
* By implementing a voluntary separation plan, we mitigate the
possibility of an involuntary separation program later; and
* We are positioning the Laboratory to meet future mission
needs with a smaller workforce. For a variety of reasons,
attrition has been low for the last three years, so we
cannot rely on attrition alone to achieve workforce
reductions.

When I established the Laboratory Integrated Stewardship Council
(LISC) in November, I knew it was necessary to take immediate
measures in anticipation of significant budget uncertainties.

The LISC has managed decisions on hiring actions and large
procurements to ensure that we proceed only with actions that are
reasonable and necessary. Additionally, the principal associate
directors have championed initiatives to reduce costs related to
travel, materials, and services. We also have invited employees to
submit their own ideas for cost-cutting, and have established a
committee to review every idea and to present recommendations to
the LISC.

While I am pleased with the progress and the savings from these
actions, the Lab needs to take additional steps for FY13 and
beyond. With labor comprising 63 percent of the budget, a smaller
workforce is part of the solution.

I have asked the LISC to monitor and recommend appropriate action
with respect to reducing costs associated with our flexible
workforce. In that vein, the LISC has already capped student
hiring at 2011 levels. Craft employment has always fluctuated
based on available work and will continue to do so. Analysis
continues of the term and staff augmentation workforce.

With respect to the regular workforce, the VSP we submitted
proposes a regular workforce reduction of 400 to 800 employees to
align our funding with our missions.

One of our top priorities as we go through this process will be to
ensure we meet mission deliverables this year and going forward.
Similar to the voluntary program in 2008, critical skilled
positions will be excluded from eligibility. In addition, we will
decide whether to decline individual applications based on the
need to retain a sufficient number of employees with certain
essential skills. Though we also retained that discretion in 2008,
we did not exercise it. Unlike the program in that year, we expect
to deny some applications in this VSP.

We anticipate the VSP will be completed in a matter of weeks
rather than months. Knowing that many of you face a difficult
personal decision, I encourage you to begin thinking about the
program now. We will provide details of the plan to you
immediately after NNSA approval. Human Resources will be prepared
to respond to your benefits questions and will schedule
information programs.

We are committed to treating all employees fairly and respectfully
in this process. We did so during the voluntary program in 2008
and we will do so again. I will maintain open and effective
communication with you and other stakeholders of the Laboratory.
This includes all-employee meetings such as the one scheduled
today. Please remember that we are still in a planning phase, and
there are many questions to which we do not yet have answers. We
will have more details as soon as NNSA approves the plan.

Fy13 budget proposal

What does the president's fy13 budget proposal mean for Llnl?

watch you tube video of 2008 laid off LLNL employees

Anonymously contributed:

THIS IS A NEW TOPIC, BUT I COULDN'T FIND ANOTHER WAY TO POST IT.

Scooby's note: Please read. The very first post is for suggested new topics.

I was laid off from Livermore Lab on May 22, 2008, after almost 20 years of service. The Lab denies age discrimination; however, time and time again they ignored their own lay-off policies. Instead of using an inverse order of seniority in which layoffs are determined by job classification based on the Lab's population as a whole, the Lab used a convoluted process in which the layoff decisions were made at the smallest possible level within each and every department (sometimes down to a unit of 2!). This made it easier to target who could be let go. Many older workers were "set up" by being moved into affected units prior to the lay-off, and their positions were then filled with much younger workers. There was also a large enough population of contract and supplemental workers that a lay-off of career Lab employees should have been unnecessary.

The vast majority of those laid off were older workers. We were too young to retire, but too old to easily find other employment (it took me two years to find a part-time job). Many have still not found work and are on the brink of bankruptcy. Although I now have a job that I love, to this day, I feel like I've been raped. The losses that I and the other laid-off workers have suffered are staggering. Our attorneys have prepared a youtube video, which gives just a small taste of what we have experienced. Please watch.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS TO OBAMA: NUKE CUT PLAN IS ‘DANGEROUS’

Anonymously contributed:

HOUSE REPUBLICANS TO OBAMA: NUKE CUT PLAN IS ‘DANGEROUS’

BY: Bill Gertz - February 17, 2012 9:51 am




http://freebeacon.com/house-republicans-to-obama-nuke-cut-plan-is-dangerous/

Layoff Lawsuit

Anonymously contributed:

Layoff Lawsuit

Remember the lawsuit filed by 130 laid-off employees against LLNL? It's heating up a bit now...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5xc2TGJkX0


Scooby's note: Before anyone believes employees are LLNL's most precious asset, watch the video and see the suffering caused by the privatization.

NAS report released on lab management!

Anonymously contributed:
For what it's worth, which is not much in my opinion...
----------------------

NAS report released on lab management
02/15/2012

The National Academy of Sciences today has released a new report that evaluates how management and operations contracts of the National Nuclear Security Administration's national security labs are affecting the quality of science and engineering work.

The report concludes that scientists and engineers at the three national security laboratories (Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia) appear committed to their work and core mission of maintaining the country's nuclear weapons stockpile.

Recommendation 3-1:
The study committee recommends that Congress recognize that maintenance of the stockpile remains the core mission of the Labs, and in that context consider endorsing and supporting in some way the evolution of the NNSA Laboratories to National Security Laboratories as described in the July 2010 four-agency Governance Charter for an Interagency Council on the Strategic Capability of DOE National Laboratories.

Recommendation 3-2:
The study committee recommends that Congress and NNSA maintain strong support of the LDRD program as it is an essential component of enabling the long-term viability of the Laboratories.

Recommendation 3-3:
The study committee recommends that Congress reduce the number of restrictive budget reporting categories in the Nuclear Weapons Program and permit the use of such funds to support a robust core weapons research program and further develop necessary S&E capability.

Recommendation 4-1:
The study committee recommends that NNSA and each of the Laboratories commit to the goal of rebalancing the managerial and governance relationship to build in a higher level of trust in program execution and Laboratory operations in general.

Recommendation 4-2:
The study committee recommends that NNSA and the Laboratories agree on a set of principles that clearly lay out the boundaries and roles of each management structure, and also that program managers at headquarters, the Site Offices, and in the Laboratories be directed to abide by these principles.

Recommendation 4-3:
The study committee recommends that the goal of rebalancing the relationship and the set of principles laying out the boundaries and roles of each management structure be memorialized in memoranda of understanding between NNSA and its Laboratories. NNSA should assess performance against these understandings on an annual basis over a five-year period and report these assessments to Congress.

Recommendation 5-1:
The study committee recommends that the NNSA, Congress, and top management of the Laboratories recognize that safety and security systems at the Laboratories have been strengthened to the point where they no longer need special attention. NNSA and Laboratory management should explore ways by which the administrative, safety, and security costs can be reduced, so that they not impose an excessive burden on essential S&E activities.

Recommendation 5-2:
The study committee recommends that NNSA reduce reporting and administrative burdens on the Lab directors, and purposely free directors to establish strategic science and engineering direction at the Laboratories.