Tuesday, July 18, 2006

LANL: The Real Story

The LANL blog has been moved to its final resting place, here.

--Doug

72 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://biz.yahoo.com/bizj/060703/1310634.html?.v=1

July 20, 2006 5:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The predictions made about LANL in articles recently published in The Economist and The Register are now being proven true. The $200M figure quoted by Anastasio is, of course, approximately $100M shy of the true budget shortfall that is looming for LANL in FY 07.
___________________________________


To/MS: LANL-EMP
From/MS: Michael R. Anastasio, DIR
Phone/Fax: 7-5101/7-2997
Symbol: DIR-06-056L
Date: July 21, 2006


Subject: FY07 Indirect Budget Call

Each year, the Laboratory goes through a budget development
exercise with CFO guidance setting forth indirect budget targets
and establishing a review process. Today I issued this year's
guidance to LANL senior managers which will culminate in an FY07
budget.

This is the next step on our institutional commitment to finding
efficiencies in how we manage this Laboratory. It is clear that
this will raise short-term challenges in order to ensure the long-
term health and viability of a great national security science
laboratory.

As I have discussed at several all hands meetings, FY07 presents a
challenging financial picture. An expected flat funding profile
combined with increases in costs for items such as compensation,
employee benefits, gross receipts taxes, and management fee means
the incremental costs facing the Laboratory in FY07 total roughly
$200M. To address the increased incremental costs for FY07,
indirect budget targets will be reduced by 10%.

The budget call identifies certain expectations. One is that we
intend to manage the current level of LANS staffing through
constrained hiring and by monitoring attrition. The second major
expectation is that we minimize the impact to our customers by
keeping our current overhead rates stable.

While line management is ultimately responsible for examining
their operations and identifying funding efficiencies to meet FY07
targets, everyone owns the success of this Laboratory. All of us
need to examine how we do work and apply LANL's trademark
creativity to finding smarter ways to further science and
accomplish our mission in a safe and secure manner.

July 22, 2006 10:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/24/los_alamos_budget/

Los Alamos bets on 'creativity' to handle $200m of extra costs

Efficiencies and imagination tested
By Ashlee Vance in Mountain View
Published Monday 24th July 2006 19:56 GMT
Get The Register's new weekly newsletter for senior IT managers delivered to your in-box, click here.

Los Alamos National Laboratory has been hit with a vague and challenging directive to avoid layoffs despite a 10 per cent hit to the lab's budget.

The Register has obtained a memo sent out last week by lab director Michael Anastasio that provides the best details to date on the budget impact the lab faces following its recent change in management. In the memo, Anastasio reveals $200m of "incremental costs" that Los Alamos will likely have to deal with without an increase to its close to $2bn budget. While many workers fear that the budget shortfall will result in layoffs, Anastasio maintains that "efficiencies" and "creativity" should keep employment levels constant.


Subject: FY07 Indirect Budget Call

Each year, the Laboratory goes through a budget development exercise with CFO guidance setting forth indirect budget targets and establishing a review process. Today I issued this year's guidance to LANL senior managers which will culminate in an FY07 budget.

This is the next step on our institutional commitment to finding efficiencies in how we manage this Laboratory. It is clear that this will raise short-term challenges in order to ensure the long- term health and viability of a great national security science laboratory.

As I have discussed at several all hands meetings, FY07 presents a challenging financial picture. An expected flat funding profile combined with increases in costs for items such as compensation, employee benefits, gross receipts taxes, and management fee means the incremental costs facing the Laboratory in FY07 total roughly $200M. To address the increased incremental costs for FY07, indirect budget targets will be reduced by 10%.

The budget call identifies certain expectations. One is that we intend to manage the current level of LANS staffing through constrained hiring and by monitoring attrition. The second major expectation is that we minimize the impact to our customers by keeping our current overhead rates stable.

While line management is ultimately responsible for examining their operations and identifying funding efficiencies to meet FY07 targets, everyone owns the success of this Laboratory. All of us need to examine how we do work and apply LANL's trademark creativity to finding smarter ways to further science and accomplish our mission in a safe and secure manner.


The private Los Alamos National Security (LANS) consortium has been trickling out cost estimates since it took over sole management of Los Alamos from the University of California on June 1. The consortium - composed of Bechtel, UC and government contractors Washington Group International and BWX - must deal with extra taxes, benefits costs and incremental costs well beyond those that existed under the non-profit UC. In addition, LANS can now earn up to $80m in performance fees where UC could only earn $8m.

The memo from Anastasio confirms that LANS expects all of these charges to add up to $200m or close to 10 per cent of the lab's annual budget.

Efficiencies and creativity may well help the lab meet the budget constraints without firing workers. The vague terms, however, don't seem like the concrete plan of action the government was promised when handing over Los Alamos to LANS.

Numerous scientists left the lab before the management change, complaining that the Los Alamos work environment has made it impossible to do top quality work. LANS officials have countered such charges by saying that thousands of top researchers remain at the lab and by saying that they're working to remove the bureaucratic procedures that have haunted Los Alamos for years. ®

July 24, 2006 1:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gain $200 million through improvements in efficiency? From the same family of managers who endorsed pissing away $357 million via an unnecessary shutdown of the entire facility?

I think not; there is still too much of UC embedded in the system. Compounding the situation is Bechtel's hard-assed corporate philosophy of 'kick ass, take names, and fire at will', which will only further degrade any remaining efficiency at LANL.

July 25, 2006 9:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The local Los Alamos newspaper's version of the story. It continues to surprise me that this news was unexpected by the good citizens of Los Alamos, that they could not see it coming.

http://www.lamonitor.com/articles/2006/07/25/headline_news/news01.txt

July 26, 2006 7:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope Livermore is still paying close attention to the slow train wreck that is occurring at Los Alamos. LLNL can also expect a 10 - 15% effective budget reduction as a result of changing contractors.

Our colleagues at LLNL will then be subjected to an 'efficiency' Chinese fire drill, such as has recently begun at LANL, and then expected RIF will happen at LLNL, too. You may anticipate LANL's RIFS to begin in September.

July 27, 2006 1:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Check this out: seems there is some resistance to turning LANL into a big pit factory:

Nuclear Spending Comes Under Fire

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nuke30jul30,1,4905196.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

July 30, 2006 10:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As expected, the goings-on at LANL have now dropped behind a corporate screen of secrecy. In his public statements, Anastasio would have the world believe that everything is just peachy at LANL, except for the minor little issue of an anticipated $200 million budget shortfall for '07, which will be easily handled by improving efficiency at the lab.

The private rumblings are more dark. Word has it that the predicted shortfall is going to be more in the neighborhood of $400 million, and that people are already being let go. One can only imagine what the situation will be like in a few months.

August 01, 2006 9:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here it comes. Try to ignore it for a little bit longer, if you wish. Won't do any good.

http://www.lamonitor.com/articles/2006/08/10/headline_news/news01.txt

August 10, 2006 5:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I took my 33 years and went to work (last year) for a small subcontractor supporting LANL. Because I have maintained strong ties to Washington, that small contractor was told that he had to let me go because LANS wants "chain of Command". No one else can be communicating to Washington about things at LANL. LANS wants to make sure all information presents them in the best light. No exceptions. If you want to double dip, do not let them know you have friends at Washington....

August 11, 2006 5:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

$650,000.

That's the new FTE rate at LANL now, with the additional costs imposed by the new contract factored in.

There won't be much WFO done at those rates.

August 12, 2006 5:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The new managers of LANL don't want WFO. It would distract the scientists from the real mission: pit production.

August 12, 2006 9:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is anybody hearing RIF rumors yet? I'm hearing 5% reduction.

August 14, 2006 6:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LANS is using its own companies to perform work instead of local businesses....


Friday, August 25, 2006
Last modified Wednesday, August 23, 2006 12:58 PM MDT




Lack of lab contract work hurting businesses



DARRYL NEWMAN, lareporter@lamonitor.com

Many local business owners have cited a significant decline in contractual work since operational changes at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Councilor Jim West brought those concerns and others to the forefront of a county council meeting Tuesday night as LANL Deputy Director John Mitchell briefed the community on several issues.

"Small business contractors in town with the lab reported that there has been a dramatic decline in business," West said and referred to the small business plan and regional purchasing plan addressed in the Los Alamos National Security contract.

A regional purchasing program, a provision of the new contract between the Department of Energy and LANS, provides an increase in spending for small businesses offering products and services to the laboratory.

Under another appendix of the strategy is the LANS small business subcontracting plan, which calls for an estimated $625 million to be set aside for small business concerns in fiscal year 2007 - an increase of $254 million above what is currently offered.

West followed up by asking Mitchell what actions the lab could take to ensure the survival of businesses that primarily depend on LANL contract work.

"I'm curious to know whether the lab feels that their statements listed under the contract are contractually binding," he said. "There are people who are getting laid off. I think that what local businesses are looking for is to hear what the rules of the game are going to be."

Mitchell said some of the phrasing under the contract have been defined as "targets."

"This will be a graduated plan throughout the years to come," Mitchell said. "We are working in completing the planning process as quickly as we can. We'll have a plan for the year and hopefully we can get to (local businesses) as soon as possible."

The millions of dollars for procurement to northern New Mexico small businesses is planned to cover a wide range of services and products, according to appendices of the contract, with targeted areas in consulting services, engineering services, construction services, construction equipment and supplies, lab supplies and information technology equipment.

Councilor Fran Berting warned Mitchell that small businesses are likely to relocate off the Hill if they continue to be neglected by the lab.

"I have been contacted by contractors and they want to know where they stand," Berting said. "Many businesses have 40 percent of their business outside of Los Alamos County. They may move to other communities where their next largest contracts are."

Berting urged lab officials to promptly bring local businesses into the fold and keep them abreast of changes.

Economic development also includes other business aspects, Councilor Mike Wismer said, and asked how LANS plans to measure its success.

"We're developing a set of metrics," Mitchell replied and agreed to share those benchmarks with the county council on a regular basis.

Rep. Jeanette Wallace attended the briefing and stressed community support for Los Alamos National Laboratory and the tasks that it faces.

"LANL is different from other labs because the community here is more involved," Wallace said. "Economic development issues brought up are prime issues for all of us. The lab is facing budget cuts as well and I believe that they are very aware of the issues at hand."

West shared his impressions of the presentation this morning.

"We really didn't get any answers to the questions we asked," West said. "We wanted to know when the local contractors could expect work. This is discouraging. LANS needs to be more diligent in this aspect of their commitment."

Wismer suggested that LANS consider a communications plan that notifies those who may not be familiar with the traffic plan in place under the Security Perimeter project.

"Such a plan would be appropriate for tourists and other people from out of the area," he said.

Councilor Nona Bowman brought concerns of lab recruitment efforts to the table.

"Scientists who have contacted me said that the lab as a world-class scientific center is being lost," Bowman said. "The young and the best scientists are not interested in coming to LANL. Citizens are concerned that the rich scientific heritage at the lab is being compromised with the change in plutonium pit production."

Mitchell said there would be enhancements made to the scientific practices at LANL.

"We're going to change the way we go out and recruit and there is more we could do in reaching out," he said. "We need to get rid of the lingering feelings here that have been in place for the past three to four years.

Councilor Ken Milder requested that the lab keep the county informed of future construction projects that is has in store.

"I can come back at a later date with a set of construction plans," Mitchell said. "We'd like to consolidate things and reduce the footprint of some of our nuclear areas."

August 25, 2006 5:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rumors about how LANS is planning to address the budget shortfall are ramping up. Here's the latest one:

We are getting word here that LANL aka LANS has just laid off anywhere from 700 to all of their contract employees and that they are going to shut down a Pu facility for the rest of the year to make up for that $300M short fall. Any truth to this? We also hear that salaries are going to be "re-aligned" meaning a possible 50% reduction in pay for the job they are currently doing and if all goes well and there are no accidents or oops awh shits people will get bonus checks equal to that 50% that they took from them during the realignment.

August 31, 2006 8:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank goodness we did not accept the positions offered to us five years ago.

September 02, 2006 7:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stuff I'm currently hearing:

(1) The announced $200 million short-fall is definitely on the
conservative side. Could go much higher. A figure as
high as $400 million has been mentioned by some at the top.

(2) CFO's All-Hand's briefing back in early May shows the expected
"incremental" cost for the LANS executive team running at
$18 million per year. Looks like a few people at the top
levels of LANS will be seeing very healthy raises! Of course,
salaries are now proprietary, so you'll only get tantalizing
hints of what is really going on in the LANS Executive Suite.
Still, there aren't that many executives, so any way you slice
it, an increase in top management costs by $18 million to cover
the bigger numbers of new AD's, PAD's, etc, hints that salaries
at the top end may have doubled, or even tripled.

(3) The same May '06 CFO briefing shows TCP2 401k costs expected
to run $33 million per year. This will only get bigger as more
people on TCP2 begin to adjust contributions upward.

(3) FTE costs are going up, up, up, regardless of any promises
management may have given about keeping LANL costs in check.
Also, programs are getting hit with a continuous stream of
sudden new taxes, which are going to eat into next year's
funding. Lots of staff are just now beginning to realize
that they don't have enough funding to get through the
coming year. Fear is spreading, and it's getting ugly.

(4) If you're a contractor to LANL, your job is on shaky ground.
Contractors, as usual, will be the first to walk the plank,
probably during FY07.

(5) Outsource, outsource, outsource. While current contractors
will be laid off, the lab will also aggressively outsource
some divisions at LANL. If your division does any type
of work that typically gets outsource in the corporate world,
you can expect to lose your LANS employee status sometime
during the next two years.


Expect LANS to do just about everything they can to keep from
having a RIF in FY07. After all, they don't want to spoil the
chance of winning the upcoming LLNL bid. However, once early
FY08 rolls around, the LLNL bid will be history and you should
expect to see the ax fall mighty hard. Layoffs of at least
5% of the staff are a given, and a 10% reduction can easily be
forecast if the budget hole continues to deepen. And don't
look for St. Pete to come to the rescue. He's already told
us that we are on our own this time. Also, the plutonium pit
factory won't be gearing up until 2012, so don't look for any
salvation in a Rocky Flats II scenario. The current funding
fiasco at LANL is the bleakest I've seen in many decades.
A few will prosper from this chaos, but most will suffer.

September 19, 2006 1:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Subject: UC Regents' committee votes to compete for management of
Laboratory
Sender: owner-hdiv-other@lists.llnl.gov

The UC Regents' Committee on Oversight of the Department of Energy Laboratories voted Wednesday to recommend to the full board that the University compete for the management and operations of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The full board is expected to endorse the committee's recommendation at today's meeting. The final bid, due Oct. 12, will be submitted by a team led by UC and Bechtel National.

Acting on the recommendation of UC President Robert C. Dynes, the committee voted to authorize the University, acting through Regents Chairman Gerald L. Parsky, to take actions necessary to submit a proposal to the Department of Energy in response to the department's July 14 Request for Proposal (RFP). The Regents previously appointed national security and nuclear weapons expert George Miller as team leader for the competition at their July 19-20 meeting. Should the UC-Bechtel led proposal win the new contract, Miller will be named director of the Laboratory.

"For the past 54 years, the men and women at Livermore Laboratory have ably served our nation, providing scientific and technological excellence that has made this country safer and improved the quality of life," said Dynes. "I firmly believe that our team's proposal will build upon their successes, dedication and hard work. Our proposal will be strong and responsive to DOE and the needs of our nation."

As required by the RFP, UC and Bechtel will form a separate corporate entity to act as prime contractor to manage the Laboratory.

"For more than a half-century, the Livermore Laboratory has performed its public service in the most exemplary fashion through its innovations in energy research and advances in national security," said Parsky. "The University of California has played a vital role in those achievements, and we look forward to contributing our talents and resources to deliver science and technology in the best interests of our country."

As specified in the RFP, current Livermore employees who do not terminate employment or retire will be moved to the new corporate structure and will retain their current benefits and pensions to the extent legally permissible under DOE's new requirements.

The current LLNL management contract expires Sept. 30, 2007. Congressional action in 2003 mandated that DOE conduct a competition for management of any laboratory contract that had been in place for 50 years or more without competition. Five national laboratory contracts, including Lawrence Livermore, were affected by this action.
On July 14, 2006, the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) released the final RFP. The deadline for submission of bids is Oct. 12. According to DOE, a source evaluation board comprised of DOE technical and business experts will review the proposals submitted and provide recommendations to the Source Selection Official. More information about the competition is available online at NNSA's LLNL Contract Competition Website. Background information on UC and Bechtel is available on the UC News Release (PDF).

September 21, 2006 6:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As specified in the RFP, current Livermore employees who do not terminate employment or retire will be moved to the new corporate structure and will retain their current benefits and pensions to the extent legally permissible under DOE's new requirements.


My question would be, does this mean that lump sum and freezing ones retirement option has been eliminated for all LLNL employees? You either quit or retire. If not you will automatically become UC -Bechtel Employees. Have a good day.

It would make sense to to this since that is exactly why LANS is in such great debt, like $300 - $400 M dollars. TO MANY PEOPLE stayed.

Ak your questions, please:

linton.brooks@nnsa.doe.gov
the.secretary@hq.doe.gov

September 22, 2006 3:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since it's obvious DOE and NNSA made a grave mistake by allowing LANL employees under TCP2 to freeze their retirement and continue working for LANS at full pay, causing a $400 M shortfall; wouldn't you think that they'd be smart enough to take this option away on the upcoming LLNL contract?

The two options that should be available are to retire if you are eligible, meaning that you would have to be fifty years old on the date of the take over, or quit and take your lump sum where you will go with a guarantee that you will not be rehired in either case.

If any employee under fifty years old chooses to stay they will have to roll over all of their UC assets into the new contractors pension plan until such time their is a salary re-alignment as that schedule for LANS very soon if not already in progress.

The final and most crucial option for LLNL in order to save money would be to order the closure of NIF. By taking this for action LLNL could in fact deplete at least 50% of its work force in a matter of weeks. This would not only be a savings to DOE but to the nation as well. As it stands now NIF is 500% over budget, and it still doesn't work. For the uninformed public, that’s a $5B plus waste of the American taxpayers money. If the closure of NIF does not occur and DOE and NNSA make the same mistake twice, it will surely point fingers right back at them as the root cause for the demise of the national laboratories. I am sure this is not what they want. Lets hope they get it right the second go around for all concerned.

September 22, 2006 5:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the 9/22 Los Alamos Monitor:

Business owners express concern with LANS

CAROL A. CLARK lanews@lamonitor.com Monitor Senior Reporter

More than 20 uninvited business owners showed up at the chamber office after getting wind of a noon meeting being facilitated by the Los Alamos Commerce and Development Corporation on Thursday.

The meeting included 22 laboratory subcontractors and three congressional delegation representatives.

The business owners requested a seat at the table and were initially told there wasn't room. After insisting, they were assured the representatives would meet with them at 1 p.m.

The group stood on the sidewalk in front of the chamber talking among themselves.

"Our frustration is that they are not going to pay any attention to small business owners," said Cheryl Sowder of The Finishing Touch.

LACDC Assistant Director Jim Barrigan let the group into the chamber conference room at 1 p.m.

Barrigan explained that the meeting taking place at the Small Business Development Center had been planned exclusively for lab subcontractors whose positions were in jeopardy.

"They're vulnerable and had to have some anonymity," Barrigan said. He told the group that he saw a KSL memo reflecting that 72 layoffs are going to occur.

"One company in the meeting (with subcontractors) said they had $210,000 de-obligated this morning without explanation," Barrigan said. "There are dozens of layoffs represented in that room."

One of the business owners present added that the spouse of an employee was just laid off from KSL and indicated 200 more people are slated to lose their jobs.

The business owners expressed disappointment and worry about the worsening business climate in Los Alamos.

They spoke of the assurances of candid communication, contractor job security and vigorous community involvement that were the mantra of senior executives at Los Alamos National Security as they smoozed the town during their contract-seeking mode last year.

Since winning the Los Alamos National Laboratory management contract in December, perceptions are that those assurances have evaporated.

The business owners swapped first and second hand accounts of canceled laboratory contracts and employee layoffs, business demise and the silence and perceived apathy by LANS as they waited for the representatives who ultimately arrived about 2 p.m.

LACDC Executive Director Kevin Holsapple briefed the business owners on the contents of the earlier meeting. He said more than 20 subcontractors worked for months looking at items that might affect businesses prior to the contract award.

"Since the contract, they've come under duress and have had continued duress and that's what resulted in the meeting," Holsapple said.

Local business owners and subcontractors painted a disturbing picture for Veronica Rodriguez from Sen. Pete Domenici's office, Helen Maestas from Sen. Jeff Bingaman's office and Matt Williams from Rep. Tom Udall's office.

"I've lived here 31 years and all of us around this table have been in business a long time," businessman Bruce Norman said. "We're all talking about this - it's different this time. When these guys say there's a hiring freeze - there's a hiring freeze and the level and pace of the layoffs is unprecedented in my experience."

Norman recounted how a tenant at one of his apartments came in recently and said he had to move because he had been laid off.

"He was given less then 24 hours notice," Norman said adding that it was the second tenant this has happened to.

His Chapel Apartments on Rose Street have gone from 100 percent occupancy in May to 89 percent and that number will drop to 79 percent in 10 days if things don't change, he said.

Realtor Karen Hawkins, who also owns Cosa Bella floral shop, said people started moving from their homes after LANL's management transition because they thought they were going to move up and because of interest rates.

"They bought new homes and then everything came to a screeching halt," Hawkins said. "It happened so suddenly. Now a lot of people are in deep trouble. Over the last 20 years we've had peaks and valleys but this is different - we've got a panicky community."

Barrigan talked about the eight-step plan with a shared fate philosophy that the subcontractor committee developed and how Bechtel "loved it" early on. He said the plan was presented to the community at a chamber breakfast at UNM-LA in May and was very well received. Then everything changed, he said. "June, July, August, we said we need news even if it's bad news," Barrigan said.

"Kevin has met with senior management several times," Barrigan said. "We aren't where we want to be because we don't have good communication."

When Barrigan was asked what changed he said, "If we had effective communication with them I'd have an answer for you. We are in the same shape as you because we don't know."

Dave Fox of CB Fox said LANS has not immersed itself in this community as they had promised.

Anger simmers over the fact that LANS senior management and the rest of the team didn't lodge in Los Alamos during the transition. Further anger was expressed that nearly all of LANS' top management purchased homes outside of Los Alamos.

"They've done it with arrogance," said North Road Inn owner Cathy Mockler. "Not buying here, not staying here - they are almost doing it with contempt."

Norman agreed adding that the transition team should have stayed here to give the town a boost.

Speculation was discussed among the business owners that LANS officials didn't buy homes here because they anticipate a collapse of the community and know local housing values will drop.

"For a long time, we have been the butt of jokes in Washington, D.C., and they really want to slap us hard," Mockler said. "They lowered our per diem from $71 to $61 - that's a 14 percent cut. After a while they raised it a little but my insurance has doubled and all my expenses have gone up. It's like we've been set up."

Local architect Steve Shaw suggested the community pull together because as subcontractors leave, it will affect the entire community and the services that are provided here.

"Bechtel has a track record of doing this (contract canceling) and that's well and good when you're in a giant town," Shaw said.

The group spoke about how subcontractors and their employees will have to leave town because there are no other jobs in their field in a community like Los Alamos.

"We're the trickle down level," Fox said. "After they've canned the contractors and made life here miserable - we're the trickle down businesses that will have to close because there won't be anyone left to buy from us."

Aspen Copy owner Dawn Cline said she can't do work for the lab because she has no contract and can't have large amounts of inventory sitting on her shelves hoping the lab might call. She added that when they do call they just want a price comparison and then place their order with Office Depot.

Shaw said people are getting a bomb dropped on them. "You go to work one day and the next day they want your badge and your clearance," he said.

"I think there are a lot of inefficiencies over there and I'm willing to suck it up but they need to give us a sense of the light at the end of the tunnel," Norman said. "Are they talking six months, 12 months, 24 months? They know darn well what they are doing, but because they don't share, we are in a free fall - when do we hit bottom - we've got to make plans, too."

Hawkins said she would like to know if 200 houses are going on the market so she can advise her clients that this isn't a good time to sell.

Sowder said that there has got to be a viable community in order to attract people to work at the lab.

"We all are an integral part of the whole," Norman said. "We are aware of this every day but I don't know if the lab is."

Fox told the group that LANL Deputy Director John Mitchell told the county council a few weeks ago that he expected to define for the council the lab's intentions by September.

"He made a clear and fervent announcement that they would be able to clarify what they are doing some time in September," Fox said.

Shaw told the representatives that the business community feels like they are at the end of the food chain.

"This giant silence on the other side of the bridge and the facts we do know of the numbers of people being laid off and contracts canceled - we'd like to ask that you communicate as you know what's happening," Shaw said. "We're pretty scared."

Barrigan agreed to include the concerns of the business owners in a letter for the congressional delegation.

September 22, 2006 5:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I expect the same thing to happen when LLNL bites the dusk in just one years and eight days away. Just think how many homes will go on the market after Oct 1, 2007 especially in NIF is closed. There will be more foreclosures in one town then was ever imaginable. Local business should suffer the brunt too and I am sure that lay-offs at many facilities will occur. I guess that's the price of progress. It had to happen sooner or later, so lets get it on and get it over with so that we can move on to the next phase.

September 22, 2006 6:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'Super lab'' gets its start at LANL

New Mexican - September 23, 2006

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/49666.html

- Comments Section -

By Ted Hobbes (Submitted: 09/23/2006 3:11 pm)

Well, first LANL's private operator, LANS, has to come up with $200M from the Lab budget to pay for their management fee, and the NM Gross Receipts tax, before they hire people from NM or anywhere else.

Right now, there is an extreme budget squeeze for FY07, instant terminations of contract employees, drying up of work for local business, and absolute silence from LANS.

It's clear their first priority is their management fee so their partners can get their profit from the deal, and their managers can get whatever bonuses and incentives they've been promised behind closed doors.

All of this was as predictable as a hurricane flooding New Orleans when Congress and DOE put the contract out to bid with a ~20-times increase in management fee, new eligibility to pay NM Gross Receipts tax, and no budget increase or concrete plan to mitigate the financial damage.

Lab Directory Mike Anastasio, in his talks before LANS took over, promised they would save all this money by 'integrating' and demolishing buildings.

DOE also said they picked LANS for the contract because of their plan to 'integrate.'

There's been little definition of integration beyond matrix management,
and no concrete, measurable actions that define what 'integrate' is, beyond a buzz-word. The buzz word does not say exactly how to extract the $200M from the Lab budget to pay the new managers and the State without damaging the Laboratory.

There's been no discernible diagnosis of Lab inefficiencies that could be fixed to yield the funds. Instead, the budget is being squeezed to produce the cash, and the programs that Congress expected LANL to execute are likely to wither in FY07. Overhead has exploded, and work specified in work packages next year is shrinking.

Yes indeed, Congress', DOE's and NNSA's brilliant plan to whip LANL, and soon, LLNL, into shape is working exactly as predicted.

These predictions were summarily ignored during the RFP and contract award process, because the new contractor was going to 'integrate' and $200M was going to fall from out from the fat.

It would be disingenuous, but not surprising, for our Congressional delegation to come out and say they had no idea this might happen. It was plain as day it would happen, and it is happening.

Some months ago, the news reported Domenici was shocked by this development.

But it's ok, we can dump $100M into a new supercomputer, but it's anyone's guess how LANS is going to leave LANL with much capacity to do anything with the fancy new box.

Now LANS partners are bidding on LLNL's contract. I wonder how that's going to work out.

In the mean time, we can watch the newspapers get to the bottom of this by publish glowing stories about miraculous new technology the Laboratory is developing.

September 23, 2006 3:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thursday, September 28, 2006
Last modified Wednesday, September 27, 2006 3:40 PM MDT




LANS projects subcontractor job cuts



CAROL A. CLARK lanews@lamonitor.com Monitor Senior Reporter

Faced with roughly $175 million in deficits, Los Alamos National Laboratory Director Michael Anastasio told the laboratory work force this morning that an estimated 350 contractor jobs will be eliminated.

LANL's Director of Communications Jeff Berger said this morning that Deputy Director John Mitchell established and led a budget review in August and September that included associate directors from across the laboratory. Mitchell briefed Anastasio on their findings Tuesday, Berger said.

Armed with that information, Berger said Anastasio told the work force this morning that the contractor positions would be eliminated in the coming year in an effort to preserve employment for LANL employees and to not compromise the laboratory's mission for its customers.

LANL's continuing budget resolution in Congress, the gross receipts tax, costs associated with pensions and the LLC fee are all elements that are part and parcel of operating the lab, Berger said, adding that no matter who won the contract they would be in the same financial spot.

To operate conservatively, Anastasio is increasing the overhead rate by one percent but will maintain spending at the current level, Berger said.

"This is not the lab micromanaging these contractors," Berger said. "We want to remain as competitive as possible and we need to make up this difference."

He added that all the details have not been worked out yet.

"Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) is well aware of the sobering budget situation facing Los Alamos National Laboratory and its contractors," spokesman Chris Gallegos said this morning. "He has been briefed on the recent meeting in Los Alamos (Thursday's business-owner meeting at the chamber) and is interested in having the lab, DOE and others work together to minimize the economic dislocation that may result from the lab trying to meet new costs associated with the LANS contract."

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., also addressed the situation this morning.

"We predicted this funding shortfall and asked the DOE to address the root causes," Bingaman said. "Unfortunately, the DOE dismissed the concerns and today we're learning what the potential impact on the lab will be. For the DOE and NNSA to have failed to plan and budget for the very management changes they were imposing on one of its most important laboratories is almost incomprehensible. The department's failure to properly plan for this management change should not have to be borne by workers in our state."

Los Alamos County Council Vice Chair Jim West said, "This news if very disturbing and disappointing. Now we know where the $200 million the lab has been looking for will come from; from the businesses, lives and livelihood of lab employees. So much for all the 'commitments' the new lab managers made to northern New Mexico to win the contract to manage the lab."

Kevin Holsapple heads up both the Los Alamos Commerce and Development Corporation and the Los Alamos Chamber of Commerce. He said the chamber has a subcontractor committee that has been working together since early this year.

"The group formed to develop and provide input to LANS about how the community and lab could work together to help LANL in being as successful as possible in achieving their commitments under appendices J and M of the contract to operate the lab," Holsapple said. "Appendix J is the lab's small business subcontracting plan and appendix M is their regional purchasing program. The group developed a number of recommendations that were provided to LANL and were presented at the chamber's May business breakfast, along with an invitation to the business community to get involved with the committee."

Those recommendations and other information related to the committee's work has been posted on the web at www.contractwithlanl.info.

More than 80 area businesses have registered to be involved with the initiative, Holsapple said, adding that other interested businesses are encouraged to register via the link on this web page. "It is clear that LANL is facing a difficult budget challenge," Holsapple said. "Since LANS has taken the reins at LANL, many of these subcontractors have experienced a loss of subcontract business with the lab. During this time, the group has consistently worked to seek to establish business-to-business communications with the lab to try to better understand the situation, contribute to the extent they can in assisting the lab with solutions to their budget problem and to plan for the future of their businesses."

Holsapple said they are hopeful that there will eventually be constructive and beneficial communications with the lab.

"Representatives of the committee met recently with representatives of the congressional delegation to provide information about the business environment and discuss their concerns," he said. "These businesses are an important part of our business community. They employ hundreds of people, have provided important services to the lab for many years, are important customers of retail and service businesses in the area, and provide support to a broad variety of community initiatives and organizations. They also bring business to our area in the form of work they do for customers out of the area."

They estimate that as much as 40 percent of the collective business that they do is for customers out of the area, Holsapple said. "This is important economic diversification for our community."

The chamber is interested in hearing from all of its members, whether they are subcontractors or not, who are concerned and want to work on developing beneficial communications with LANL, he said.

"We heard from several additional members last week about their interest in getting involved and we have already started following up with them," Holsapple said. "Other members who want to get involved should contact me or member services coordinator Debbie Gill."

September 28, 2006 6:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, Sept. 20, 2006
UC Office of the President contact: Chris Harrington (202) 997-3150
chris.harrington@ucdc.edu
Bechtel National contact: Michael Kidder (240) 379-3261
mgkidder@bechtel.com

UC REGENTS' COMMITTEE VOTES TO COMPETE FOR MANAGEMENT OF LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY

The University of California Board of Regents' Committee on Oversight of the Department of Energy Laboratories voted today (Sept. 20) to recommend to the full board that the university compete for the management and operations of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

The full board is expected to endorse the committee's recommendation at Thursday's (Sept. 21) meeting. The final bid, due Oct. 12, will be submitted by a team led by UC and Bechtel National.

Acting on the recommendation of UC President Robert C. Dynes, the committee voted to authorize the university, acting through regents' chairman Gerald L. Parsky, to take actions necessary to submit a proposal to the Department of Energy in response to the its July 14 request for proposals.

At their July meeting, the regents appointed national security and nuclear weapons expert George H. Miller as team leader for the competition. Should the UC-Bechtel led proposal win the new contract, Miller would be named director of the laboratory.

"For the past 54 years, the men and women at Livermore laboratory have ably served our nation, providing scientific and technological excellence that has made this country safer and improved the quality of life," said Dynes. "I firmly believe that our team's proposal will build upon their successes, dedication and hard work. Our proposal will be strong and responsive to DOE and the needs of our nation."

As required by the request for proposals (RFP), UC and Bechtel will form a separate corporate entity to act as prime contractor to manage the laboratory.

"For more than a half-century, the Livermore laboratory has performed its public service in the most exemplary fashion through its innovations in energy research and advances in national security," said Parsky. "The University of California has played a vital role in those achievements, and we look forward to contributing our talents and resources to deliver science and technology in the best interests of our country."

As specified in the RFP, current Livermore employees who do not terminate employment or retire will be moved to the new corporate structure and will retain their current benefits and pensions to the extent legally permissible under the Department of Energy's new requirements.

Bechtel National provides world-class program and project management, facilities management, safety and environmental management, and robust government business systems.

# # #

BACKGROUND ON THE LLNL COMPETITION PROCESS

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory – The current management contract expires Sept. 30, 2007. Congressional action in 2003 mandated that DOE conduct a competition for management of any laboratory contract that had been in place for 50 years or more without competition. Five national laboratory contracts, including Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, were affected by this action. On July 14, 2006, the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration released the final request for proposals (RFP). The deadline for submission of bids is Oct. 12, 2006. According to DOE, a source evaluation board comprised of DOE technical and business experts will review the proposals submitted and provide recommendations to the Source Selection Official. More information about the competition is available at: www.doeal.gov/llnlCompetition/Default.htm

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

The University of California, chartered in 1868, is a system of 10 campuses with a mission of teaching, research and public service. With 208,000 undergraduate and graduate students, UC is the world's premier public university. UC has five medical schools, three law schools and the nation's largest continuing education program. Forty-nine researchers affiliated with UC have been awarded Nobel Prizes; 16 of theses prestigious awards have been won since 1995. UC also has 372 members in the National Academy of Sciences, and UC-affiliated researchers have received 48 Medals of Science since Congress created the award in 1959.

UC is involved in the management of three national laboratories on behalf of the Department of Energy – Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore in California and Los Alamos in New Mexico.

For more news and information about the University of California:
www.universityofcalifornia.edu

BECHTEL

Bechtel is a global engineering, construction and project management company with more than a century of experience mastering complex projects in challenging locations. Privately owned, with headquarters in San Francisco, the company has 40,000 employees working in 50 countries. Bechtel National Inc. is supporting national security and U.S. intelligence and defense efforts, developing new technologies to fight terrorism, monitoring the consequences of terrorist acts, designing emergency response programs, and training military and civilian responders nationwide. Additionally, BNI has broad capabilities and extensive experience in the management of complex, multisite, environmental programs, including environmental cleanup projects at several Department of Energy sites in the United States.

BNI's national security work includes managing and operating facilities for the National Nuclear Security Administration. BNI is also a partner in management of NNSA's Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee and the Pantex Plant in Texas, as well as the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. Among its Department of Defense contracts, BNI manages the Kwajalein missile range and supports non-proliferation efforts in the former Soviet Union for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. BNI's portfolio also includes over 15 years of government laboratory management and support experience.

For more news and information about Bechtel National Inc.: www.Bechtel.com

# # #

October 02, 2006 3:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/02/lanl_job_cuts/


Job cuts loom at Los Alamos Lab
Creative firings
By Ashlee Vance in Mountain View → More by this author
Published Monday 2nd October 2006 18:40 GMT


The arrival of a new master at Los Alamos National Laboratory will likely result in a rapid fire layoff, officials revealed last week.

The consortium operating the lab expects to cleave off hundreds of jobs in an effort to lower costs. The lab faces serious financial challenges under its new management, which has to account for close to $200m more in various costs than previous manager University of California (UC). The prospect of lost jobs in New Mexico has prompted local politicians to mount their soap boxes.

"This budget shortfall is about more than bad math - this is about the livelihoods of my constituents,'' U.S. Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said in a statement. "(The U.S. Department of Energy) should have better budgeted and planned for these costs."

Los Alamos will likely do away with between 350 and 600 contract workers. The lab has more than 8,000 full-time staff and more than a thousand other contract workers.

In June, a consortium dubbed Los Alamos National Security (LANS) took over sole management of the lab from UC, which had operated the site since the days of the Manhattan Project. The limited liability corporation (LLC) is composed of contractors such as Bechtel, Washington Group International and BWX, along with UC.

The new management has been expected to run the lab with a similar budget as in years past. That's problematic because, as an LLC, LANS must pay more in taxes and pension costs than the non-profit UC. In addition, LANS expects to hand out raises and hopes to earn tens of millions in performance incentives from the government that were not available to UC. All told, that means the additional costs could chew through close to 10 per cent of the lab's $2.2bn budget.

Up until now, lab representatives have played down the prospect of job cuts. Director Michael Anastasio in July called on workers to use "creativity" to solve the $200m budget shortfall.

Any job cuts will be characterized as crushing to the cities around the lab, which depend on Los Alamos as a key part of their economies.

"This is going to be devastating to the economy,'' Espanola mayor Joseph Maestas told a local paper. "That's why the state Legislature and the governor need to come up with ways to invest the state's share of this windfall to create a sustainable economy that gradually reduces its reliance on the laboratory money or federal money associated with the lab.''

The Department of Energy controls the lab's budget and is not expected to free up more cash anytime soon. ®
Related stories

IBM and AMD feed on Los Alamos' ample supercomputing pork (5 September 2006)
El Reg saves Los Alamos lab web site from hooligans (26 July 2006)
Los Alamos bets on 'creativity' to handle $200m of extra costs (24 July 2006)
Costs swell at America's most infamous weapons lab (12 July 2006)
These supercomputers could be yours (22 November 2005)

October 02, 2006 10:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The start of what will ultimately be 1,500 - 2,000 RIFS before FY07 is over, and they won't all be contracters.

http://www.lamonitor.com/articles/2006/10/04/headline_news/news01.txt

LANL meets with subcontractors

ROGER SNODGRASS roger@lamonitor.com Monitor Assistant Editor

Deputy Laboratory Director John Mitchell led a meeting with subcontractors of Los Alamos National Laboratory who have heard indirectly that several hundred of their employees may be the first to feel a budget crunch under the new management contract.

Speaking to 150 or so people at Duane Smith auditorium Tuesday evening, Mitchell said that many of the key decisions were made only last week.

He said about 350 jobs will be lost through belt-tightening over the next two-to-three months, but he put the total number at 400-600 over the longer term.

Mitchell assured the group that he was aware of the impact.

"Do we want it to happen?" he asked. "No."

He said it was something that made good business sense.

"Who is getting laid off?" he asked again later in his presentation. "That choice is yours. They're your employees, not ours."

As LANL staff was told by laboratory Director Michael Anastasio in an all-employees meeting last week, anticipated additional expenses for employee compensation and benefits, gross receipts taxes and the management fee are expected to increase annual costs by $175 million.

The federal budget appears to be flat and the situation is aggravated by a continuing resolution providing stopgap funding in place of an approved appropriation bill.

Mitchell said that 3,000 subcontracts had been reviewed and that basic recommendations were being made at the associate director level, where line management responsibilities reside.

The two primary factors in the decision were lab management's determination to avoid laying off LANL employees or charging customers more.

The decision about contractor employees was related to fixing the overhead, or indirect costs. Future dismissals would be related to the outcome of the budget process in Washington.

Without thinning the subcontracting workforce, he said, the laboratory would have had to raise its overhead to about 50 percent, from the current 36 percent level.

Only last week was the decision made to raise the indirect cost to 37 percent and cut the subcontract employees.

Subcontractors with specific concerns or complaints were encouraged to contact the person who manages their subcontracts.

"They have everything we know," Mitchell said.

When Mitchell was asked if the representatives from the congressional delegation could address the question of whether there might be some budget relief forthcoming from Washington, he said it was his meeting, but offered the staff members a chance to respond.

The staff members did not answer during the meeting.

After the meeting Rep. Tom Udall's staff handed out a letter dated Sept. 29 and signed by the chair and ranking member of the House Small Business Committee, as well as Udall, seeking additional information.

"Specifically, we would like to know how many of these contracting jobs will be cut from small businesses. Additionally, what is the dollar amount of the contracts that will be cut," the congressmen asked.

The letter noted that the LANS proposal had committed $625 million to small business concerns in the current fiscal year, and asked how the recent decisions would affect that commitment.

Asked during the question-and-answer period if the current layoffs were foreseen in the LANS proposal, Mitchell said the proposal answered the questions that were asked by the Department of Energy not the ones that weren't asked.

"We intend to honor everything we said in our proposal, including the small business commitments," he said. "It just may take us longer to do that."

He said that the small business performance measures were among the details that had not yet been negotiated in the final contract, to be concluded in the next month.

Mitchell also acknowledged that three companies would be given preferences as "teaming subcontractors."

The teaming subcontractors, who were specifically designated in the contract proposal, are Pro2Serve, North Wind and Ngenuity.

Mitchell said the laboratory expected extra help from DOE to support the environmental projects that might be especially hard-pressed during the interim period covered by a continuing budget resolution.

October 05, 2006 5:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To HR/ Public Affairs LLNL:

This little bit of information fails to tell the entire truth, as to why the majority of the people went TCP1. What we need to know is, out of the 6469 people how many of these people were under 50 years old, how many were not vested; and then finally how many stayed because they did not trust UC or just wanted to continue to work more years in order to get their retirement higher. Most importantly is how many were under 50 years old and not vested. Only then can someone at LLNL make a logical decision based on facts, not mis-information that leads one to believe that they all should go TCP1 because it's such a good deal. When will you actually publish the true facts?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Subject: Just published by the LLNL Transition Team


Here are the LANL numbers:

LANS/LANL Offers Acceptances Percentage
Job offers:
Career 8566 8259 96.4%
Limited Term
and Post Docs 953 893 93.8%
Total 9519 9512 96.2%

Pension Plans:
TCP1 6469
TCP2 2683

October 06, 2006 12:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Being part of LLNL and soon to be under the command of a private contractor I am concerned about the ranking system and would like to participate in changing it, even if this means placing the "white collar workers" on the merit system and the "blue collar workers" on the STEP system. I have been with LLNL for almost 25 years and never before I have seen such a waste of time and money then having many of our well paid managers from the directorate on down spend six months of valuable time ranking people into peer groups so that they can distribute a 2% pay package in 1/10 of 1% to those who they feel are deserving. It is foolish and above all very expensive and costly to DOE in the millions of dollars a year. So how do we get this changed ASAP? This needs to be addresses NOW.

October 07, 2006 11:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

At least somebody in California is willing to challange Bechtel. The LANL community just whimpered "I want to preserve my benefits!" and then rolled over.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/08/BAGS3LL5A21.DTL

San Francisco Chronicle
BAY AREA
Group files longshot bid for control of lab
Anti-nuclear activists, partners want Lawrence Livermore to focus on peaceful pursuits

Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer

Sunday, October 8, 2006

Tri-Valley CAREs' Tara Dorabji and New College President ...


It's a classic David versus Goliath standoff.

A band of nuclear disarmament advocates, college educators and wind-energy developers is positioning itself to go up against a consortium led by the University of California and the politically powerful San Francisco-based Bechtel Corp. for control of one of the nation's top nuclear design labs.

The band, which includes longtime advocacy group Tri-Valley CAREs, acknowledges it has little chance of outbidding the UC-Bechtel group for management rights to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which has been run by UC for more than half a century. But it plans to press ahead anyway.

The U.S. Department of Energy has given all comers until Oct. 27 to submit their contract bids.

"We do not believe the Department of Energy is going to choose our bid. But that isn't how I define 'winning,' " said Marylia Kelley, one of the Bay Area's best-known critics of the lab. She runs Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment), an activist group that in its 23 years of existence has won widespread respect for its serious and studied approach to its work.

But, Kelly said, if her group's bid encourages public support for phasing out the lab's nuclear weapons work and diverting its thousands of scientists into research on global warming, alternative energy sources and other subjects, that'll be a moral victory.

Short of that, it'll be a moral victory if the campaign stirs enough public interest to put pressure on Lawrence Livermore officials to run the lab in a more environmentally conscious way and to be less secretive about their work developing and refining the world's scariest weapons.

On Sept. 21, Kelley and her colleagues announced they were bidding for the contract, teaming up with New College of California, Nuclear Watch of New Mexico and WindMiller Energy, a small wind-energy firm in rural New York state.

"It's important for us to try to push for citizen oversight of this laboratory (so it can) use science for the benefit of the human experience," said New College President Martin Hamilton.

The Energy Department is expected to name the winning bid in March.

So far, the UC-Bechtel consortium has been the only other competitor to step forward. A UC spokesman could not be reached to comment on the rival bid. Susan Houghton, chief spokeswoman for Lawrence Livermore, declined to comment.

The bid marks the first time UC has had to compete to run the lab it has managed for more than half a century under exclusive contract with the Energy Department. In 2003, Congress and the department, fed up with security, safety, management and financial scandals, ordered that all future contracts with national labs be open to competition. Last December, UC-Bechtel beat out Lockheed Martin Corp. and the University of Texas for control of Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, a lab that UC has also managed for decades.

UC and Bechtel officials say they'll refuse to release a public copy of their bid for Lawrence Livermore on the grounds that the information might be exploited by other competitors. In an attempt to shame UC-Bechtel, the activists plan to post their entire bid for the contract online later this month.

"Lawrence Livermore is a publicly funded institution, funded off taxpayers' dollars," said Tara Dorabji, outreach director for Tri-Valley CAREs. "All bids should be public, and we'll make ours public."

Dorabji said that if her group manages to win the contract through an extraordinary set of circumstances, the lab would undergo a transformation. The group, she said, would:

-- Spend the majority of lab research funds -- largely provided by the Energy Department and the Pentagon -- to develop cleaner, renewable energy and to fight global warming. "Currently, the lion's share (of money) is going to weapons development," Dorabji said, but the lab is already doing "unclassified, fabulous research" on global warming that should be expanded.

-- Greatly speed up plans to move the lab's huge cache of plutonium to a safer, remote site. Lab officials currently plan to remove the plutonium -- perhaps initially to a site in New Mexico, then perhaps to final storage elsewhere -- by 2014. By contrast, Dorabji's group would get rid of the plutonium four years earlier, after holding public hearings to locate the safest, most secure new site.

-- Cancel the lab's current plans to expand its "biodefense" research facility to study far more dangerous microbes. Accidental release of killer bugs "could cause many, many, many deaths in the Bay Area as a whole," Dorabji said.

-- Ban secret experiments using the National Ignition Facility, the lab's multibillion-dollar superlaser, which is used primarily to simulate nuclear explosions to test the existing stockpile. Rather, the group would encourage scientists to use the laser for peacetime research, such as experimental simulations of natural phenomena deep inside the Earth and in outer space.

-- Mop up chemically and radioactively contaminated sites at the lab.

"None of us want to close the lab," said Barbara Dyskant, vice president of WindMiller Energy, a three-employee firm that she runs with her engineer husband, Barry K. Miller. "They have wonderful scientists there whose expertise could be very, very well rewarded by working on non-weapons research."

Hamilton said New College's participation in the bid for the Livermore contract is consistent with the 1,000-student school's innovative activities, among them its recent move to save the Roxie Cinema by blending it with the campus' media studies program.

The Livermore contract bid "is a challenge I could not pass up," Hamilton said. "A lot of us use Don Quixote as a metaphor (for our work)." But unlike the fictional Quixote, "we don't want to attack windmills -- we want to use them to generate energy."

E-mail Keay Davidson at kdavidson@sfchronicle.com.

October 08, 2006 8:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know that having LLNL taken over by Tri-valley CARES will never happen but it sure would be nice to have our primary objective to be an alternative fuel mandated by the feds to be implemented in five years. Yes, I too say do away with bio-weapons and nuclear weapons research at LLNL and have all of that done at LANL or NTS.

October 09, 2006 4:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's funny how slow the Los Alamos community is on the uptake. This budget shortfall and the resulting RIF situation was thoroughly discussed on the LANL blog for months. Why is it such a big surprise that it is actually happening now?

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/50442.html

Full-time LANL workers fear losing jobs
print | email this story


By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican
October 10, 2006
The specter of layoffs to contract workers has employees worried at Los Alamos National Laboratory, although the details of some 350 to 550 job cuts have yet to be finalized.

A lab spokesman said there are no plans for more layoffs beyond those. And the cuts won't affect the lab's regular employees, officials say. Still, the president of a lab employee association says regular, full-time employees of Los Alamos National Security LLC are worried the layoffs could hit them in the future.

"The mood is very unsettling," said Manny Trujillo of the Union of Professional and Technical Employees, an employee association. "People are basically afraid of what may happen with this budget shortfall."

Los Alamos National Security, which manages the lab for the federal government, said a $175 million budget shortfall brought on the layoffs. The lab is expected to pay $55 million more in gross-receipts taxes this year and needs $70 million to cover pay raises and pension costs. It also must fund a $50 million fee to Los Alamos National Security for running the lab, a spokesman has said.

Lab Director Michael Anastasio told lab employees last month that the lab is working on ways to deal with the shortfall.

"What we're doing is taking prudent steps under the assumptions that budgets will remain relatively flat," lab spokesman Jeff Berger said. "We're not planning on a bailout. We are planning judiciously for a flat budget."

The lab's current budget is about $2.2 billion. It employs 8,290 regular employees, 1,617 students and postdoctoral researchers, and more than 2,500 contractors.

"We have no plans for anything additional" beyond the announced 350 to 550 contractor layoffs, Berger said. Those cuts would affect temporary support jobs, lab officials said.

Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., is demanding more information about which workers will be targeted.

"More answers are needed about the contract employee cuts and the impact both at the lab and in the surrounding community," Udall said in a statement. "We know (the National Nuclear Security Administration) has opted to cut approximately 10 percent of the contract labor force, but we have not yet received enough information to determine who and what essential operations will be affected. There is a lot of uncertainty in the LANL community right now."

But the federal agency that oversees the lab supports the current plan to address the budget shortfall.

"One of our goals in the search for a new management and operating contractor for Los Alamos National Laboratory was to select a contractor who could best achieve the department's national security mission in a safe, secure and cost-effective manner, using sound business practices," NNSA Deputy Administrator Tom D'Agostino said in prepared remarks. "During the procurement process we acknowledged that some administrative costs would rise and we said that we expected the costs to be absorbed through more efficient management of the laboratory."

Los Alamos County Councilor Jim Hall said the council is sorry to see the announcement. "If you take away at least 350 high-paying jobs, that has a tremendous impact on the northern part of the state," Hall said.

The head of a nuclear watchdog group said lab managers knew that budget problems were coming.

"As usual, it's the folks on the lowest rung of the ladder that end up getting hurt," Jay Coghlan of Nuclear Watch New Mexico said. "It seems like the privileged scientists in Los Alamos County are being well protected. But it's more like the blue-collar workers from, for example, Rio Arriba County that are going to be laid off."

Anastasio in a recent speech to employees said the shortfall will be addressed without cutting Los Alamos National Security employees or a program called Laboratory Directed Research and Development.

"I reiterate that there will not be a (reduction in force), nor is one being planned for the future," Anastasio said.

Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or alenderman@sfnewmexican.com .

October 10, 2006 5:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Udall also said it's unclear who will be laid off as a result of the budget shortfall. ``I think we're at the front end of the layoffs,'' he said."

________________________________
Albuquerque Journal
Santa Fe Edition

Lab looks to rework more contracts

By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican
October 13, 2006

Company wants to renegotiate provision that calls for labs to spend $625

million with small businesses

The private company that manages Los Alamos National Laboratory wants to

renegotiate part of its contract with the federal government that calls
for
it to spend $625 million with small businesses in the coming year, U.S.
Rep.
Tom Udall, D-N.M., said Wednesday.

Los Alamos National Security, LLC, which manages the lab, announced
recently
that approximately 350 contract workers would be laid off because of a
$175
million budget shortfall. Now the company wants to renegotiate a
contract
provision that calls for the lab to spend $625 million with small
businesses
in the 2007 fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, Udall said.

``Now with the shortfall, the position that's being taken by (Los Alamos

National Security officials) is that they're going to have to put these
provisions on hold,'' Udall said by telephone Wednesday. ``They are
going to
renegotiate these provisions with the Department of Energy. And so the
small-business contracting community has gone from being very hopeful
... to
being very discouraged and angry and critical of what is happening to
them.''

New Mexican Virtual Tours
A lab spokesman said he could not comment Thursday. A spokesman for U.S.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said Domenici was unaware of lab plans to
renegotiate the small-business spending requirement.

Udall met privately with contractors in Los Alamos on Wednesday and also
met
separately with Lab Deputy Director John Mitchell.

Mitchell issued a memo to lab managers Thursday regarding the $175
million
shortfall, which was recently discussed by lab Director Michael
Anastasio.

``As Mike stated in his talk,'' Mitchell wrote, ``our review indicated
that
an estimated 350 contractor positions would be eliminated, saving an
estimated $75 million to $85 million.''

The lab might save another $75 million by ``rethinking, cutting back,
consolidating, and deferring such things as materials and equipment,
travel
and facilities work,'' Mitchell wrote.

And another 200 contract positions also could be eliminated, he wrote.
``Thus, our review process is not complete,'' Mitchell wrote. He has
established a budget review team that should complete another analysis
by
mid-December.

``Once this is complete,'' Mitchell wrote, ``we will be able to provide
you
with a more accurate and complete (fiscal 2007) budget picture. We all
realize this is an anxious time, and we appreciate your patience and
tolerance.''

The company also wants to renegotiate other parts of its federal
contract
that relate to small businesses besides the provision calling for it to
spend $625 with such businesses, Udall said.

Los Alamos National Security LLC is a partnership consisting of Bechtel
National, the University of California, BWX Technologies Inc. and
Washington
Group International. Late last year, it won a seven-year contract which
could earn it up to $79 million a year to manage the lab for the
National
Nuclear Security Administration.

``I was pushing for very specific small-business provisions in the
contract,'' Udall said. `` ... This is one of the reasons that they got
this
contract, is the representations they made about small business. I don't

have any doubt about that.''

The lab has reported spending $538 million, or 55.5 percent of its
procurement budget for goods and services that support the lab, in New
Mexico during the 2004 fiscal year. Seventy-four percent of that was
spent
in Northern New Mexico.

The lab's budget is about $2.2 billion this year. It has 8,290 full-time

employees, 1,617 postdoctoral researchers and students, and more than
2,500
contract employees.

``This is sending a cold chill through the small-business community,''
Udall
said. ``... They don't know what's going to come out. I urged the deputy

director to move this along quickly.''

Udall also said it's unclear who will be laid off as a result of the
budget
shortfall. ``I think we're at the front end of the layoffs,'' he said.
``...
I'm not so sure that the individuals have specifically heard who is
going to
lose their job.''

Domenici has said nobody at the lab should expect a financial bailout
from
Congress now or in the coming years. He declined to be interviewed
Thursday.
His spokesman said the National Nuclear Security Administration has
indicated its budget requests to Congress will be flat in coming years.

Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group said Congress is looking for
ways
to save money, and he thinks the lab's budget is ``bigger than it needs
to
be for the basic version of its mission.''

Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or lenderman@sfnewmexican.com.
Comment posting on our site has been temporarily suspended. Thank you
for
your patience.

October 13, 2006 7:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can only assume that no one who actually works at LLNL knows about this blog or they are all scared shitless to post their real feelings in order to inform LLNL employees are in for becaue they are scared to lose their jobs, or maybe they are all just as happy as can be. It sure would be nice to know the truth. Anyone out there have any guts or all you all just sheep? I think I already know the answer. Please prove me wrong. I will be checking the blog daily.

October 14, 2006 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Attn: LANL/LANS,LLC Employees.

Can anyone inside the current LANS,LLC answer the following questions. I would much rather hear it from one that has been subjected to the system than from a bureaucrat whose sole intention is to promote a plan for the good of the firm with little or no regard for the employees. As someone who is feeling like they too are soon to get the shaft, I'd like to know the following.

If an FTE with 25 years as a UC/LLNL employee were to go TCP2 and then within 120 retire could they start drawing their full pension and still work for the new corporation at full pay? At that point in time would your medical premiums be paid for by UCRP or are they paid for by the new corporation, or, does it really matter because no matter what one does the new corporation decides what you get and who pays what price. Then I have one more concern and that would be, if there is a RIF of FTE's would all of those who went TCP2 be the first to go, because obviously they have shown a lack of loyalty to the company by signs of mis-trust and unwillingness to give all of their UCRP retirement to the new firm?

Someone from inside those walls of silence please respond ASAP so I can make a logical decision based on facts not rumors.

October 15, 2006 9:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rocky Flats South

http://www.abqjournal.com/abqnews/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1636&Itemid=2

Breaking at 8:20am -- LANL Could Host New Plutonium Center PDF Print E-mail
Written by Bruce Daniels - ABQnewsSeeker
Thursday, 19 October 2006

Lab on the short list for a major new nuclear weapons facility.

Here's a guest-blog from Albuquerque Journal science writer John Fleck:

Los Alamos National Laboratory is on the short list of sites for a major new plutonium center for nuclear weapons research and manufacturing, the Department of Energy said in a document (pdf) released this morning.

The document, published in the Federal Register, lays out the bare bones basics of the "Complex 2030" effort DOE is launching to yet again try to get its hands around the configuration of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex of the future.

Its biggest feature is a new "consolidated plutonium center," where plutonium research and manufacturing will be done for the nuke arsenal of the future. In addition to Los Alamos, Savannah River, the Nevada Test Site, Pantex near Amarillo and Y-12 at Oak Ridge are on the short list.

Notably for New Mexicans, the old DOE proposal to build a "Modern Pit Facility" to make plutonium bomb parts is now officially dead.

Carlsbad had been on the list of possible sites for htat project, and had enthusiastically embraced the work.

Also notably for New Mexicans, White Sands Missile Range is one of two sites to be considered for nuclear weapons flight test operations.

The feds responsible for this are doing a telephone news conference later this morning, so we'll have more as the day rolls along. Check my blog for
more as the story develops, with a more detailed story to follow in tomorrow's print edition of the Albuquerque Journal.
Last Updated ( Thursday, 19 October 2006 )

October 19, 2006 8:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rocky Flats South, again

http://www.lamonitor.com/articles/2006/10/19/headline_news/news03.txt

Los Alamos National Laboratory is one of five locations that will be considered for the role of a "consolidated plutonium center"

October 20, 2006 6:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did One of the articles say that the pit facility for LANL was scrubbed? Why stow the Pu there?

"Notably for New Mexicans, the old DOE proposal to build a "Modern Pit Facility" to make plutonium bomb parts is now officially dead."

Why isn't DAF being used? That entire area is a great place for storage and it's in the middle of nowhere, to where anyone approaching could be easily seen and apprehended.

October 21, 2006 6:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/51021.html

Contractor layoffs have town on its toes


By DEBORAH BAKER | Associated Press
October 22, 2006

"Blah blah ... employees are nervous ... blah blah..."

In the months before the LANL contract award announcement I recall having heard staff member after staff member saying, "I want UC to win the contract so that my benefits are preserved."

I hope all those ignorant bastards are happy now that UC has "won the contract." They richly deserve their new life under LANS.

October 23, 2006 8:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, yeah. LANS is a huge improvement over UC. DOE should have gone with LM.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/24/national/main2122004.shtml

CBS: Los Alamos Security Breach Probed
Feds Are Investigating Apparent Breach Of Classified Info At Nation's Top Nuclear Lab


(CBS) Another apparent breach of classified material is under federal investigation at the nation's premier nuclear weapons laboratory: Los Alamos National Laboratory, sources tell CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson.

The breach apparently was discovered when Los Alamos police recently conducted a methamphetamine raid on an area home. Inside the house, along with drug paraphernalia, police allegedly found classified materials apparently from the grounds of the Los Alamos Laboratory. How somebody involved in illegal drugs would also have access to classified materials from the nation's nuclear weapons facility is unknown but under investigation.

The home is believed to belong to a Los Alamos Laboratory contractor who does maintenance at the laboratory.

The FBI has been called in to lead the investigation into the security breach and executed a search warrant on Friday. The U.S. attorney's office in Albuquerque, N.M., is reviewing the case.

The Los Alamos Laboratory has been hit by multiple security and management scandals in recent years. Problems were so widespread that Congress forced the contract for management of the lab to go up for bid for the first time ever. However, after bidding, the contract was re-awarded to the same contractor: the University of California.

Los Alamos public affairs officials will only confirm the matter is under investigation.


©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

October 24, 2006 5:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What do you expect when you let a construction company try to run a national laboratory?

October 25, 2006 6:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I seems that our former LANL blog moderator has a few words to say about LANL's latest screw-up:

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2006/
10/los_alamos_meth.html

October 25, 2006 9:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds like it's about time for another 7-month shutdown. Or perhaps longer.

October 25, 2006 11:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

News reports are saying that Sec. Bodman is mad as hell about this screw-up. Expect some grim repercussions to soon head our way via the friendly folks in Washington DC. It may have been a sub-contractor who screwed up, but everyone will now join in the suffering.

This summer's peace and quiet was nice while it lasted, but storm clouds are here, once again. Anyone with a bit of foresight could probably have guessed that the quiet wouldn't last for long. It's now time for those with good jobs skills to begin packing their bags and heading off to better and much saner pastures. Over the last few years, we've all had plenty of indications that the direction of the slope was quickly heading downhill. Denial is no longer a functional option now, is it? Besides, why wait around when most of the staff already sense that a RIF is coming our way? LANS says it ain't so, but do you really believe them? I didn't think so. Just take a look around and notice the large number of workers who have no visible means of funding. It's only going to get worse. NNSA has no plans to help dig LANL out of the current budget hole and St. Pete has made it clear we are on our own.

And then there is the nasty issue of the plutonium pit factory which will dominate LANL's vision in the upcoming years. Pu-Wee!

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it sure looks to me like the time is ripe to pack up the bags and leave before the exits get crowded.

October 25, 2006 11:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Perhaps I'm missing something, but it sure looks to me like the time is ripe to pack up the bags and leave before the exits get crowded"

Perhaps it's time to implement a yearly background investigation on every employee at all labs to assure they are worthy of their clearances. As you can see some people live a promiscuous life style. DOE and NNSA may in fact be considering this option as we speak.

October 26, 2006 11:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Slowly, but surely, the Los Alamos community is beginning to understand just
what the new LANS Team is all about:


--- Lengthy telephone call bogs-down bomb team response ---

http://www.lamonitor.com/articles/2006/10/31/headline_news/news03.txt



--- Retirees stew about LANL's handling of benefits plan ---

http://www.lamonitor.com/articles/2006/10/27/headline_news/news03.txt


So, Mikey is allowed to ignore bomb alerts for 45 minutes and LANS has decided
to let Hewitt do LANS' dirty work against the lab retirees?

Heck-of-a-job, Mikey!

November 01, 2006 9:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Poor LANL: Swiftboated by its managers and the media...again...

Lengthy telephone call bogs-down bomb team response
CAROL A. CLARK lanews@lamonitor.com Monitor Senior Reporter

The Los Alamos Hazardous Devices Team waited 45 minutes on Monday for
Los Alamos National Laboratory Director Michael Anastasio to end his
phone call and evacuate so they could render safe a suspicious item.
The item, which turned out to be a make-up case, was discovered at the
Otowi Building at TA-3, next door to the National Security Science
Building where Anastasio has his office.

Bomb team members and LANL security personnel followed standard
procedures to secure the area then proceeded to wait for Anastasio to
leave the building - as others were required to do - before the
incident commander gave the order to blow up the suspicious item,
according to reports.

Jeff Berger, LANL's director of communications, said he was not in a
position to comment about the incident because of the sensitive nature
of bomb threat events.

"As with all security issues, we do not publish our response," Berger
explained. "If this had been a test by bad guys, they might have been
able to calibrate and recalibrate their plans if we revealed details of
our response."
The Los Alamos Hazardous Devices Team is comprised of a mixture of bomb
experts from LANL and the Los Alamos Police Department.

LAPD Capt. Wayne Byers confirmed this morning that bomb experts from
his department responded to the mid-afternoon incident. He said the
item was rendered safe and his officers returned to their posts.
The newly built NSSB Building, which houses top LANL officials, was
dedicated at a ceremony on May 20.


----


Meth addict pleads ignorance of classified Los Alamos documents

By: DEBORAH BAKER - Associated Press

SANTA FE, N.M. -- The meth addict who was staying in a mobile home
where police discovered classified information from Los Alamos National
Laboratory says he knows nothing about the material.

"I was basically at the wrong place at the wrong time. ... This whole
thing is a real mess," Justin Stone told The Associated Press in a
telephone interview from jail.

"I don't know who to sell that kind of information to. I don't know who
would be interested in that kind of stuff," said Stone, 20, who is
jailed on drug and probation violation charges.

Stone was renting a room in the home owned by Jessica Quintana, who
previously worked for a lab subcontractor, Information Assets
Management.

Quintana, 22, has not been charged in the case.

The FBI, which is investigating the security breach, is reviewing three
portable computer storage drives that were removed from the home during
a drug bust last week.

Lab Director Michael Anastasio told employees Thursday that while he
couldn't discuss details, "I can confirm that classified material was
found in her residence," according to a statement released by the lab
Friday.

He also ordered lab officials to immediately take steps to improve
security, including making sure that classified materials can't be
downloaded to unauthorized devices.

"I had no idea what was on those jump disks," said Stone, a high school
dropout who described himself as addicted to methamphetamine, which he
said he has used since he was about 14.

Stone acknowledged that one of the three USB flash drives was his. He
said he got it in trade for $20 worth of meth from a man who had "no
relationship to the lab whatsoever."

Stone said the FBI told him the flash drive, which he had intended to
store music on, contained pornography.

Stone said he had no knowledge of what was on the other two flash
drives. He said Quintana, from whom he had been renting a room for
about three weeks, had never talked about her lab work with him.

"I'm freaked out. I'm still really scared about the whole thing. I had
all this information under the roof that I was living in, and all of a
sudden the FBI is interrogating me," Stone said.

The security measures announced by Anastasio also include enhanced
search procedures; a review of all classified scanning activities; a
review of security requirements for lab subcontractors; a review of
policies for escorting workers and visitors and for the operation of
vault-type rooms; and "robust training and communications" to be sure
that security requirements are understood.

The measures were to begin immediately and be completed by the end of
the next week.

"Let me reiterate that this is very serious, and by working together we
can get through it," Anastasio said in the statement.

The Department of Energy facility, which has been plagued by security
lapses in recent years, has been operated since June by a team made up
of Bechtel National, the University of California -- which had run the
lab since 1943 -- BWX Technologies and Washington Group International.

"I am shocked that in this day and age you can still have memory
sticks," said Pete Stockton, senior investigator at the Project on
Government Oversight, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group. "This is
how many years after Wen Ho Lee?"

Lee, a former lab scientist, pleaded guilty in 2000 to a single count
of mishandling nuclear secrets, He had transferred information needed
to design computer simulations for nuclear explosions to pocket-size
portable computer tapes so he could have backup copies. He said he
later threw away the computer tapes in a lab trash bin.

November 02, 2006 8:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good luck!

_________________

It's Now or Never

Dear UC Employee at LLNL:

As you know, the contract transition schedule calls for us all to have a new employer by October 2007. Some aspects of this change are beyond our control, but others may not be. The Request for Proposal (RFP) requires that the successful bidder continue to recognize labor organizations like SPSE-UPTE. To take advantage of this opportunity, SPSE-UPTE is launching a campaign to preserve many of the things that have made the Lab a good place to work for so many years. To succeed, we need you to sign the petition below. Please read on.

The switch to a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) like LANS threatens to force changes in the terms and conditions of employment that we have enjoyed under UC since the Lab's inception. These changes include:

-- future job security and wages tied to the fortunes and whims of a private company
-- forced conversion of our defined benefit (pension) retirement accounts
-- arbitrary changes to our health benefits
-- loss of our right to due process in disciplinary actions, such as demotion or dismissal, i.e., "at-will" employment for all current career-indefinite employees---a major shift.

You've probably also heard that these changes are inevitable, and in fact, the basic ones are. We will become private sector employees under the new employer-the RFP stipulates that the successor contractor must be an LLC. Nothing can change the fact that our retirement and pension benefits will now be managed by a for-profit entity without the financial depth and stability of the UC Retirement System. According to the RFP, the new employer need only offer a "substantially equivalent" defined benefit plan to the current one, with no indication of what this means, or whether even this vague assurance will survive the first contract renewal. These changes spell a loss for the Laboratory's workforce, and for the country.

To meet this challenge, SPSE-UPTE is re-dedicating itself to preserving the aspects of our worklife that have helped make the lab a good place to work these many decades. These include:

-- Job security and wages tied to our actual value to the Laboratory
-- Reasonable vacation, sick leave, and family medical leave
-- Discipline and dismissal only for just cause and with the right to grieve the action
-- Security of our pension benefits
-- The right to fair performance appraisals and independent review of them in cases of dispute

How can we do this? By gathering enough strength in numbers to gain collective bargaining status. Establishing collective bargaining would allow us to negotiate an employment contract. The new employer would be compelled by law to honor it. Getting this one shot at continued stability requires you to do one simple but very important thing: print out and sign the authorization form below, and mail it in. If we manage to get a majority of employees within a job class to sign, we'll gain the right to bargain with both UC and the new employer. The road to success will be long and hard, but failure is certain if we don't try.

We expect that some of you are skeptical of giving a union like SPSE-UPTE the right to negotiate on your behalf. That's understandable. You're showing the right brand of concern over the future of LLNL and your careers. If the past is any indication, LLNL management will contact you soon with dire warnings of what will happen if you sign the authorization petition. We say let them. If it takes a debate to convince you to choose this path to a better future we welcome it. In our experience, Lab employees make intelligent choices given correct information. We ask only that you remain open to this idea. If you want a sense of what a future without a contract would be like, look at Los Alamos. LLNL is changing, and SPSE-UPTE is changing to meet the challenge. Look for more information on the significance of your choice, and on SPSE-UPTE's efforts on your behalf in the days to come.

SPSE-UPTE Officers and Organizing Co

November 02, 2006 12:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SPSE has great hopes of now recruiting a large number of members to take a stand in protection of LLNL's UC benefits, but the bottom line is that the RFP is what it is and nothing is going to be done other than what has happened to LANL, and what is going to happen in the future. If you'd just watch LANS you will see your future. Wait and see what happens after Oct 1st of 2007 when they have everyone at LLNL roped in.

November 02, 2006 5:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wish the blog were still running. We would have had a copy of the memo posted there by now.

ABQ Journal, Santa Fe Edition
Friday, November 3, 2006

Lawyer: LANL Deadline Loomed

By Deborah Baker
The Associated Press
A former nuclear weapons lab contract worker took home not only
classified information on a portable computer storage drive but about 200
pages of paper documents as well, her lawyer said Thursday.
Stephen Aarons told The Associated Press that the material found in
Jessica Quintana's mobile home during a drug bust last month included copies
of front pages of various documents from Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Quintana, an archivist, had planned to use them to create an index of the
items she had converted to an electronic format, he said.
Aarons also said that while three portable computer storage drives were
found at Quintana's home, only one contained lab-related material, and that
it was "never put in any other computer."
"It was downloaded, but it was never uploaded," Aarons contended.
The 22-year-old contract worker took the material home in August because
she faced a work deadline to create the index, he said.
Aarons said Quintana never actually did the work at home she intended to
do, then forgot about the documents, he said.
"Her intent was to destroy the hard copies and she never did it," Aarons
said.
He also said she hadn't shown the information to anyone else.
"There was no espionage, but a person trying to do her job who made a
bad judgment on how to do her job," the lawyer said.
Quintana has not been charged. A man who was renting a room at her
mobile home was jailed on drug and probation violation charges.

Watchdog
The existence of the paper documents was reported in a memo obtained by
a lab watchdog group, ostensibly a summary of a briefing given at the Los
Alamos lab.
The group, Nuclear Watch New Mexico, said while it couldn't verify the
authenticity of the memo and didn't know who wrote it, it showed "precision
of detail and obvious inside knowledge."
If the summary is true, it indicates "perhaps the most serious" in a
long line of security breaches at the nuclear weapons lab, the group said.
According to the memo, the flash drives contained 408 separate
classified documents ranging from national security intelligence information
to secret data about nuclear weapons. The materials came from the lab's HX—
or Hydrodynamics Experiments— Division, it said.
There also were 228 separate pages, printed front and back, of hard
copies of classified documents, the memo said.
Aarons said he couldn't confirm the 408 figure, because only the lab had
that information, but that it "doesn't sound unbelievable."
The lawyer said he believed the 200 or so paper copies of front pages
were duplicated on the USB flash drive, but that the flash drive may have
contained the entire documents.
The memo also said that Quintana had a Sigma 15 Q clearance, a level
that would have allowed her to read classified documents that could contain
information on how to bypass the so-called permissive action links that
ensure that there is only authorized use of nuclear weapons.
"She doesn't know anything about nuclear weapons," Aarons responded.
"She knows how to scan documents."

Laid off
The memo said Quintana had worked on and off at LANL since 2000. Aarons
said she started at the lab as a student intern while in high school.
She was laid off by the contractor she worked for, Information Assets
Management, in September, according to Aarons. The lab has been cutting back
on contract work.
The Energy Department and the department's National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), which oversees the nuclear weapons program including
work at Los Alamos, declined Thursday to discuss the scope of the security
breach, citing the ongoing criminal investigation.
But an official with knowledge of the government probe acknowledged
there were "several hundred" pages of classified documents discovered during
the drug raid in addition to the classified material found in three computer
"thumb" storage devices.
"It is a sizable amount," said the individual. He declined to
characterize the documents and said the exact number had not been
determined.
Two NNSA officials did not reject the memo outright, but said there were
"significant errors" in the memo.
They said they could not confirm the briefing referred to by the author
of the memo, which Nuclear Watch New Mexico said it obtained through an
intermediary.
"We're taking it (the security breach) very seriously," said Energy
Department spokesman Craig Stevens, adding that Energy Secretary Samuel
Bodman "was personally disturbed" by classified documents from the Los
Alamos laboratory turning up during a drug raid.
"We want to know how this could happen," said Stevens.

November 03, 2006 5:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All this tells me is that no matter who is running the national labs the problem will still be there and that there is no cure in sight except for the employees self assessment,job content consciousness and a lot of commom sense.

November 03, 2006 6:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's throw another party: Jim Fallin has left LANL. Apparently the SOB
didn't find the post-Nanos workplace to his liking. Fallin was in my top 5
on the list of those who should be unceremoniously booted out. Still left,
however, is his boss Maccumber, another Nanos hire wreaking damage on the
institution. But I can take some relief in the fact that it is getting
harder to find members of the pre-Nanos crowd.

Did they learn a few lessons from the experience? I doubt it, but I'd like
to think so.

November 03, 2006 2:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can anyone at LLNL please answer this question:

We have been told that if we freeze our UC retirement and then go to work for the new contractor and do not retire within 120 days, we lose our medical coverage until at some point in time we decide to retire. It would be at that point in time we would then have access to medical.

True or False.

Please explain this in detail

November 06, 2006 11:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't bother worrying about your retirement medical. Count on NNSA to soon enough decide that it is an unaffordable luxury and announce new policies to severely limit it. The budget forecast for the National Labs is expected to deteriorate over the next few years and your retirement medical is coming straight out of your lab's operating budget. Perhaps you didn't realize this. Actually, you'll be lucky if your new LLC-based pension keeps tracking the UC pension. There are no accrued benefits in the LLC pension to date (UC is still deciding how little it can get away with) and, thus, there are no actuarial guarantees of future payouts until "X" amount of funds have actually been transfered over to the new LLC pension. Less money transfered means less funds to payout for future retirees. Those pensions tables may soon be heading downward.

Forget what NNSA may have told you during the RFP process. Nothing in the RFP process guarantees that changes can't be made to your benefits or pension at some later date. The coming budget cuts at the National Labs along with the explosive growth in entitlements for the Baby Boomers will ensure that there is very little extra cash left over to dole out to future lab retirees. And remember that a promise is only as good as the word of the people who are making it. Besides, most of the people in DOE/NNSA who are making promises to lab folk regarding benefits probably won't even be around in a few more years. The smart ones will have taken high-pay/high-perk jobs with the various for-profit contractors who are now dominating the DOE/NNSA complex.

November 06, 2006 8:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That about sums it up:

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?nid=22&sid=966971

By now maybe you are sick of election news. Or perhaps you've been out of the loop, or possibly you are still in shock from all those attack ads. If so, how about something completely different like a screenplay for, maybe, a new thriller movie.

It goes like this:

A 22-year old woman (I'm thinking Hilary Duff) meets a 20-year old boy. Say Sylvester Stallone. Sure he's older, but he's a great actor. Anyhow, girl falls for boy. It's a natural. She's a librarian. He's a drug dealer.

She works in a top secret federal atomic weapons lab. He deals meth out of her trailer which is also their home sweet home. She's got the regular check plus fringe benefits. He gets paid by the ounce.

Anyhow the usually happy couple have a fight. Cops are called to the Royal Crest Mobile Home Park. While trying to find out who struck whom, they discover evidence of drugs. They get a warrant and execute same.

In the trailer they find meth pipes, drugs, and accessories. They also find some interesting stuff, including what could be Top Secret information on how to arm nuclear warheads. You know, so that they blow up. Other information allegedly includes Top Secret data on other nuclear weapons and security for the super-secret base. The important stuff was not supposed to leave the federal arms facility. So she kept it under her mattress. Who would think to look there, right?

Too silly, even for Hollywood? I agree.

Except it happened and, because of the distraction of the elections and the antics of politicians (plus the breakdown of Reese Witherspoon's marriage,) it has yet to become a national news story.

Look for that to change.

And as feds AND taxpayers, you should pay attention.

All of the above, the trailer, the drugs, the guy and girl, the Top Secret stuff, happened. Plus maybe lots more.

Oh, and it was at the hard-luck Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. In 2000, the lab had a running battle with a scientist, Wen Ho Lee. He was originally charged with 59 counts of mishandling atomic weapons data. In a plea deal, after 9 months in solitary (a federal judge apologized to him for that part), he pled guilty to a single charge of mishandling computer files.

But many questions were left unanswered.

Four years later some important, secret, data was reported missing. It resulted in a shutdown of the lab. The information was later found, stuffed behind a file cabinet (and without any finger prints on the material).

Pete Stockton, senior investigator with Project on Government Oversight (POGO) says the arms lab has a problem. In fact Stockton, who said he worked for two years with former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, on Monday told WFED that "there is a certain amount of insanity" involved in the operations of the lab. He was on our Federal Drive show with my co-host Jane Norris. Richardson is currently Governor of New Mexico and is talked about as a possible presidential or vice presidential candidate.

Stockton says part of the problem is that the government years ago rejected a plan to tighten security, and that its oversight is now in the hands of contractors.

On second thought, this is too much for even Hollywood to swallow.

Instead, how about a TV sitcom in which this guy's mother comes back to earth as his car...

November 08, 2006 6:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are plenty of inaccuracies in the above op-ed piece, but it sums up how the public views Los Alamos. I would council those scientist who can, think about leaving and finding a saner place to work. The environment at LANL has been getting more and more poisonous ever since the WHL incident. The period of leadership under Director Kuckuck offered some much needed stress relief, but with the take-over by the LANS crew, it doesn't look like thinks will be improving anytime soon.

I had high hopes for the new LANS management, but it is clear to me that things are not working well. Management is still in "knee-jerk" reaction mode, desperately throwing a plethora of inane policies at the wall to see what sticks in an vain attempt to placate an NNSA that grows angrier and angrier by the minute. Face the facts. This is a very sick environment in which to perform your work.

The future of LANL probably includes a large production facility which keeps a few scientist around for grins. Almost all the remaining scientific staff will be highly focused on weapons work. Any scientific output will be trumpeted by the new LANS managers as "world class". This work may be performed under a culture of intimidation and fear that constantly reminds each and every worker that they are "at-will" and are only a slim tread away from being fired for any reason. Funding anxieties will worsen, and you'll soon begin to see staff "disappear" in onesey, twosey numbers because of the lack of funds. I doubt LANS can afford to pay severance, so they'll probably use non-RIF mechanisms to cull the herd. In tandem with this, the gap between top executives who run the new and improved LANL and their working staff may grow wider and wider on an emotional, social, and financial level.

I'm sorry to paint such an ugly picture, but nothing I've seen in the last few years (or weeks) seems to tell me otherwise. As I said at the beginning, it looks to me like the time is ripe to considering leaving LANL and looking for saner pastures to do your research. At the very least, a move to one of the other National Labs may offer a better work environment.
LANL is showing all the classic signs of being in the clutches of a relentless downward spiral. In such an environment, it's best to leave while you still have a job which you can use as a negotiating leverage to gain a better position somewhere else.

November 09, 2006 10:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is also plenty of truth in the above op-ed piece, but the last portion of this post sums up exactly what I expect to see at LLNL in the coming years especially if NIF fails and the Pu-wee goes ways to another place which we hear it is.

I can't however say that the moral at LLNL is anywhere near as bad as LANL and I see little if no bickering going on. LLNL employees are only concerns about their retirement, medical and if in fact they are all going to remain gainfully employed at their current rate of pay. I expect these 8000+ to be lead to saluter like sheep and shortly afterwards get the shaft. Belive me, many of the LLNL employees are watching LANL very closely to see what they do with you guys next, because we know what they do to you is what they will do to us. We hear rumors about salary realignment and am wondering if there is anyone out there that would like to elaborate on just what the new company is doing on that issue?

We at LLNL are anticipating a two tier system where there is a clear divide between the blue collar and white collar workers both in pay and mostly in benefits such as pension plan and health care the two very things that are the most important of all this stuff. I am hearing from all walks of life that if these two items as eventually gone or curtailed it will because for a lot of people to leave. The one issue we hear the most of now days from people who have retired is that they got a notice in the mail that said the UC is still considering giving their UCRP retirement funds that they could have lump sum out on to the new company,aka LANS. LLC and who ever takes over LLNL. Got any insite?

So what is really happening down there?

November 09, 2006 5:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LANS won't finish revealing their cards for LANL until they have captured the LLNL contract. If you are watching LANL to get some ideas, you'll only be getting a vague hint of what is about to unfold. Once LANS operates both facilities, you can expect to see significant trends toward downsizing their portfolio under the banner of "integration". They'll talk loudly about valuing science, but it will be empty talk. Integration and downsizing are the main selling points they are pitching to NNSA. That is why NNSA will be inclined to pick them.

It's time to face the facts. The good ol' days of the weapons complex are over. Most workers at the National Labs of 2015 will be short term employees who get hired, work hard at the place for 5 to 10 years, and then move on to another (better) job, much like what happens with most of corporate America these days. A large percentage of the workforce will be contractors and sub-contractors. Your new lab managers will give you little loyalty, and you can expect the workforce to respond in kind. Executives at the very top of the food chain will be working hard to ensure that they make more cash than ever before, while the general staff will see both their pay and benefits decrease along with the shrinking budgets. RRW, if it ever gets past Congress, will not be getting new funding. RRW funding will be extracted from the hide of current shrinking budgets, particularly from stockpile stewardship. Job insecurity will become a common feature for those working within the "new and improved" weapons complex.

If the folks at LLNL haven't begun to get whiff of this, it's time they began to wake up and start asking tough questions. Just don't expect to get completely honest answers. Be prepared to read between the lines. And, for goodness sakes, don't believe any of the BS from NNSA hucksters regarding their talk of "we won't be reducing your pension and benefits, we promise" (aka "Substantially Equivalent"). The "Substantially Equivalent" clause becomes meaningless when funds to pay for these things come directly from your shrinking operating budget.

November 10, 2006 6:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If the folks at LLNL haven't begun to get whiff of this, it's time they began to wake up and start asking tough questions."

If the fine citizens of Los Alamos are any indication of the level of "astuteness" residing at these National Laboratories, then we can be assured that those other fine folks at LLNL will be just as astonished and shattered by the reality of LANS at LLNL sometime next year as the LANLites continue to be this year.

Being aware of one's surroundings does not seem to be a prerequisite of employment at these places.

November 10, 2006 6:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LANS has started the groundwork for their new pit production operations at Los Alamos:

http://www.lamonitor.com/articles/2006/11/10/headline_news/news01.txt


Regulator: LANL 'pushing back' on consent order

ROGER SNODGRASS roger@lamonitor.com Monitor Assistant Editor

SANTA FE - State Environment Secretary Ron Curry caught legislators by surprise when he told them that relations between the state regulators and Los Alamos National Laboratory have taken a turn for the worse.

Speaking at the LANL Oversight Committee hearing in the Capitol Thursday, Curry raised three issues that he said were disturbing the relationship between his department and the new managers of the nuclear weapons laboratory.

"We thought they were a breath of fresh air," he said, referring to his first impressions and assurances from the laboratory. "We don't feel that way any more."

Rep. Nick Salazar, D- Mora, Rio Arriba, San M., Santa Fe and Taos, said, "We were under the impression that everything was going well. We're saddened to hear that."

Curry said these were new developments that had arisen in the last 30 days that led him to believe that the new LANL management, Los Alamos National Security (LANS) LLC, was trying to undercut or work around the consent order that has governed the relationship and defined the schedule and processes the two entities would follow toward a comprehensive environmental cleanup of lab property.

He based this assessment on two sets of incidents and a sudden downgrading for a three-year-old, $4.5 million risk-assessment program, known as RACER.

Curry said he had become aware that LANL environmental staff members were attempting to sound out the potential for renegotiating the historic consent order agreement that began during the administration of Republican Gov. Gary Johnson and entered into effect in March 2005.

He said DOE officials in Washington had confirmed the intention, but that when he asked responsible LANL officials about it, they had denied it.

Shortly afterward, he said, he found out from U.S. Environmental Protection Administration officials in Dallas, that LANS had approached them about possibilities for circumventing state regulators by making LANL a superfund site under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) rather than a state-supervised responsibility under the generally more rigorous Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

'We want them to stop pushing back on an order that was negotiated in good faith," Curry said.

After Curry's statements to the committee, laboratory spokesperson James Rickman responded.

"First, the laboratory has always respected the environment department's authority," he said. "Nobody has approached anybody about renegotiating the consent order or changing to CERCLA."

He said the laboratory is committed to abiding by the stipulations of the consent order.

For Curry, the laboratory's near abandonment of the RACER project raised important issues about "how the laboratory is going to address environmental data," he told the legislators.

RACER is an acronym that stands for "risk analysis, communication, evaluation and reduction." The project was introduced with some enthusiasm at the laboratory in 2003, as a way to increase public involvement in evaluating environmental risks.

One key to the program was collecting data from multiple sources in a consistent format that can be accessed by all the different people and groups, including community stakeholders.

A series of meetings, reports and technical workshops introduced the concept to the northern New Mexico community during the first two years, as the databases and decision-making models were developed.

John Till, president of the Risk Assessment Corporation, was also somewhat surprised that his project had been a subject at a legislative hearing.

By telephone from South Carolina Thursday, he said the project has not done any work since the end of September and that the new management has questioned the value of the project.

He confirmed Curry's statement to the committee that LANL was proposing to cut the contract budget from $1.5 million a year to $250,000 and, rather than continue the community involvement, to bring the project "in-house."

Till has directed the project under a contract between the laboratory and Colorado State University. He said the way the project was structured enabled his team to maintain scientific independence and credibility with the public.

"We have been completely open and transparent," he said. "We work with everybody as partners in the same way, whether it's the lab, NMED, or San Ildefonso. I can't turn my back on those people."

Speaking for the laboratory, Rickman said the laboratory has published environmental data for several decades, noting as an example, the laboratory's environmental surveillance report for 2005, that was just released.

"That won't change," he said.

Till said that even within the laboratory different groups collect data for their own databases. Some, he said as an example, spell out "plutonium," some use the abbreviation "Pu."

During questions to the secretary, Salazar also wondered if there might not be some connection between the problems Curry was reporting and the federal budget cuts.

Salazar is chairman of the House Rules and Order of Business Committee and an outside governor on the board of the company that manages the laboratory. He is retired from LANL.

Curry said he understood that DOE had restored FY07 funding for environmental management.

"If funding is restored, why are they looking at RACER cuts?" he said.

"I realize budgets are tight, but RACER is all about saving money," Till said later in the day. "The state, lab, EPA - all using consistent data, that's saving money and making wise decisions."

LANL officials said that Curry was welcome to have direct talks with lab director Michael Anastasio, but Curry said they had been unable to arrive at a time to meet that was convenient for both of them.

November 11, 2006 5:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for the information and please , as things go amuck at LANL, post them here for all to read. Thanks. We at LLNL will be watching.

If the folks at LLNL haven't begun to get whiff of this, it's time they began to wake up and start asking tough questions. Just don't expect to get completely honest answers. Be prepared to read between the lines. And, for goodness sakes, don't believe any of the BS from NNSA hucksters regarding their talk of "we won't be reducing your pension and benefits, we promise" (aka "Substantially Equivalent"). The "Substantially Equivalent" clause becomes meaningless when funds to pay for these things come directly from your shrinking operating budget.

November 11, 2006 6:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hell, lets hope that the UC doesn't get LLNL and that Grumman/Northrup does. Look at their health care benefits:

http://careers.northropgrumman.com/ExternalHorizonsWeb/benefits/benefits.jsp

November 13, 2006 7:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's what Livermore can look forward to:

http://www.lamonitor.com/articles/
2006/11/13/headline_news/news03.txt

Anybody who thinks that the RIF will stop at 1,000 people is off by another 1,000 or so.


Cutbacks, attrition to shrink LANL workforce

ROGER SNODGRASS roger@lamonitor.com Monitor Assistant Editor

SANTA FE - Los Alamos National Laboratory intends to shed another 300-400 jobs, about 4 percent of its workforce, through attrition, Michael Anastasio said.

The lab director said he was still committed to avoiding forced reductions, but that the lab would realize additional savings by absorbing voluntary retirements and departures.

The laboratory is working to compensate for what Anastasio now estimates to be $176 million in added costs, including new taxes to the state government, new fees to the for-profit management company and new salaries and employer-paid benefits. With no additional revenues expected from the Department Energy, Anastasio said he was seeking ways to increase budgets from other sponsors.

Speaking to a state legislative oversight committee on Thursday, Anastasio reported on developments at the laboratory during the last three months, including onerous budget constraints and a recent security breach that made the front page of the current Newsweek magazine.

Combining 300-400 workforce losses by attrition next year with previously announced intentions to lay-off 450-600 subcontracting employees would bring the total reductions for the next year to 750-1,000 people. He said about 230 lab employees had not been replaced during the last fiscal year.

In answer to previous inquiries by LANL Oversight Committee, Anastasio provided the first public numbers on the effect of the management transition...

November 13, 2006 9:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just a little insite:
LAB SALARIES ITEMS APPROVED AT JUNE 2006 REGENTS
MICHAEL R. ANASTASIO, LANS PRESIDENT AND LANL DIRECTOR

During his five-year appointment as LANS President/LANL Director, will receive an annual non-base building supplement in the amount of $100,000 in addition to his base salary of $367,000 ($350,000 paid by LANS and $17,700 by the University).


Automobile allowance of $743 per month.


Following his service at LANS and when he retires, the purchase of an annuity (or buyback of UCRP service credit if appropriate) in the amount necessary to compensate for the loss in pension benefits attributable to his actual period of service at LANS rather than remaining under the UC Retirement Plan, to be calculated by appropriately offsetting the amount of employer contributions that he will have received in the LANS market-based benefit package.


If he is terminated without cause prior to the end of his five-year term, or resigns from his position after two years but before five years, and accepts an appointment proposed by the University, his then-existing base salary as Laboratory Director, not including the $100,000 University-paid salary supplement referred to above, will be guaranteed for the balance of the 5-year period.


Participate in the newly-proposed LANS performance incentive bonus program, which may provide up to 20% of base pay.


The source of funding for these items is UC’s portion of the DOE management fee.


The compensation described above shall constitute the University's total commitment until modified by The Regents.

GLENN MARA, PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR WEAPONS PROGRAMS

One-time non-base building payment of $100,000.


Participate in the newly-proposed LANS performance incentive bonus program, which may provide up to 20% of base pay.


Reimbursement of actual relocation costs not to exceed $20,000, from New Mexico to the Bay Area are authorized at the end of a minimum two-year period.


One-time payment of the present value of the difference in the amount of the monthly retirement payments he will receive upon retirement as compared to those he would have received without the three-month break in UC service that occurred from December 31, 2004- April 1, 2005 (when Mr. Mara was recruited to return to active employment to assist in the LANL efforts.) The amount of the present value is estimated to be $5,000.


The source of funding for these items is UC’s portion of the DOE management fee.


The compensation described above shall constitute the University's total commitment until modified by The Regents.

CHARLES MCMILLAN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR WEAPONS PHYSICS

One-time, non-base building payment of $60,000.


Participate in the newly-proposed LANS performance incentive bonus program, which may provide up to 20% of base pay.


A housing bonus of $27,500 every six months, for a period of up to two years, with a tax gross-up to offset any adverse tax consequences.


Draft 5/25/06

Reimbursement of amounts related to non-business travel to visit family during the initial two-year period of employment with LANS up to $22,000 annually, with a tax gross-up to offset any adverse tax consequences.


Reimbursement (on a tax-equivalent basis) for up to 24 months of the employer portion of the cost of health care for his immediate family members residing in California who continue to be covered by their existing health care provider with comparable health insurance under COBRA provisions, until their relocation to New Mexico, whichever occurs first.


If Mr. McMillan leaves his LANS positions and returns to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and there is no agreement with DOE which allows transfer of pension credit, he will be compensated by the amount necessary to reflect any loss in pension credit for the period of time he was employed by LANS, with a tax gross-up to reflect any adverse tax consequences resulting from the payment.


The source of funding for these items is UC’s portion of the DOE management fee.


The compensation described above shall constitute the University's total commitment until modified by The Regents.

BRET KNAPP, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR WEAPONS ENGINEERING

One-time, non-base building payment of $60,000.


Participate in the newly-proposed LANS performance incentive bonus program, which may provide up to 20% of base pay.


A housing bonus of $27,500 every six months, for a period of up to two years, with a tax gross-up to offset any adverse tax consequences.


Reimbursement of amounts related to non-business travel to visit family during the initial 2-year period of employment with LANS up to $30,000 annually, with a tax gross-up to offset any adverse tax consequences.


Reimbursement (on a tax-equivalent basis) for up to 24 months of the employer portion of the cost of health care for his immediate family members residing in California who continue to be covered by their existing health care provider with comparable health insurance under COBRA provisions, until their relocation to New Mexico, whichever occurs first.


If Mr. Knapp leaves his LANS positions and returns to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and there is no agreement with DOE which allows transfer of pension credit, he will be compensated by the amount necessary to reflect any loss in pension credit for the period of time that he was employed by LANS, with a tax gross-up to reflect any adverse tax consequences resulting from the payment.


The source of funding for these items is UC’s portion of the DOE management fee.


The LANS proposal submitted to DOE-NNSA in July 2005 specified the salary amounts to be paid to all key personnel. Recently the NNSA advised that they would not reimburse 100% of the salaries as proposed. As a result, at the LANS Board of Governors meeting on May 23, 2006, each partner confirmed the monies they would be responsible for in making up the gap between the reimbursed and unreimbursed amounts. UC will be responsible for making up a total of $61,025 in base salaries during the next year.
Draft 5/25/06
In addition, the University will provide funding for a LANS performance incentive program that will cover UC-designated key personnel for LANS under which they will be eligible to earn up to 20% of their annual salary as a performance incentive bonus. The maximum aggregate amount of available bonus for the first year is approximately $536,000.
The compensation described above, including that which was approved in prior meetings, shall constitute the University's total commitment until modified by The Regents.
:: :: ::
Draft 5/25/06

November 14, 2006 7:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, now we know.

Looks like the LANS executive team's payout is healthy, but not as wacko as some have speculated. With base pay, extra pay, and bonus, Mike could gross around $500 K per year in cash. Makes me wonder why they tried so hard to keeps this stuff under wraps. However, I did notice this clause:

"Following his service at LANS and when he retires, the purchase of an annuity ... in the amount necessary to compensate for the loss in pension benefits attributable to his actual period of service at LANS rather than remaining under the UC Retirement Plan..."


This was required as enticement to get top executives to leave UCRP for LANS. However, it make me wonder about the future of the LANS TCP1 pension. It would seem, according to this clause, that the new TCP1 pension could go into the toilet, yet LANS executives would be protected by a Golden Parachute and not lose a dime. It also means that LANS executives won't be feeling any financial pain if, at some future date, NNSA/LANS decide to reduce TCP1 payouts because of a lack of funds transfered from UC into the new TCP1 pension. None of this "transfer of funds" stuff has been decided as of yet, and it is a critical component to insuring that TCP1 will be able to meet the promised payouts.

As of today, the are no accrued benefits within TCP1. The UC payments into TCP1 reset the "pension clock" in terms of accured benefits which might be claimed by future retirees. If insufficient funds are transferred over (or overly optimistic investment figures are employed), then the future payouts from TCP1 are in doubt, and don't expect NNSA to make up the difference, regardless of what they may say in this matter. In fact, if insufficient funds are transferred, the only real solution will probably be to extract a large amount from each worker's paycheck to help make up for the TCP1 deficit. It could end up being very painful for those workers who go the TCP1 route.

Also note this tid-bit:

"The LANS proposal submitted to DOE-NNSA in July 2005 specified the salary amounts to be paid to all key personnel. Recently the NNSA advised that they would not reimburse 100% of the salaries as proposed."


Yes, as we all know, NNSA managers have become a bunch of cheap bastards. You've got low paid government workers who can't stand the concept of top-flight contractors getting a good deal in terms of pay, benefits, or pensions. Of course, now with the RFP, they'll be able to change all that to their satisfaction. Complex 2030 may turn out to be a very cheesy operation once NNSA gets their way.

November 14, 2006 10:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess you haven't notice but the fantasy four were not required to give up their UC pension and in reality are still UC employees with all the perks. Are any of you going to get that option? I don't think so. You're going to get the shaft. I wonder if there is a way for the New Mexican newspaper who kay have ties with the AP, so that they can publish this boondoggle nationally and let the tax payers and all of the retirees know what is going on?

November 15, 2006 5:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now it starts for the Staff.

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Workforce Mobility Program (WMP) Update
From: "Charles McMillan" mcmillan1@lanl.gov
Date: Tue, November 14, 2006 1:06 pm
To: adwp2_all@lanl.gov
de-all@lanl.gov
hx-all@lanl.gov
x-all@lanl.gov
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADWP Community

Despite the Laboratory's current concentration on security issues, I
want to take a few moments to update you on the Workforce Mobility
Program (WMP).

The Laboratory is currently beginning the implementation of this
program. ADWP Management has been and will continue to work hard to
minimize the disruption to both our work and personal lives as we
continue to work through budget issues. That being said, we will need
to place a few of you into the WMP.

The Program represents a commitment by the Laboratory to maintain
staffing levels among regular employees, while doing what is
necessary to meet our milestones and obligations. To meet these
commitments, we will need to move some individuals from their home
organization to other organizations that require additional staffing
to fulfill their missions.

I sincerely ask that we all try to view this as an opportunity to
apply our knowledge and experience, as appropriate, in somewhat new
arenas, particularly if our current positions are underfunded. It
also represents an opportunity for some of us to grow our expertise
in service to understaffed organizations.

I want to assure you that help will be available from a variety of
sources. The WMP Office can and will assist program participants in
matching skills to job openings in other organizations. The home
organization of program participants will continue to support those
participants while they work their way through the process.

Meanwhile, please work closely with your Group Management. For more
information, please look at the HR Staffing website,
http://int.lanl.gov/orgs/hr/hrs/mobility/. You can also contact the
WMP Office at 667-4536, or our HR Generalist, Mary-Jane Weber, at
7-9139.

Regards,

Charlie

November 16, 2006 10:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On the face of it, the WMP program seems like a good idea. However, I suspect that when the LANL RIF finally hits in FY'08, being in the WMP program will mark an employee as "RIF material". LANS will say, "Look, we tried to find this person some useful work, but they've proven to be of little worth to the lab, so they've got to leave." Seen in this light, WMP becomes a sophisticated culling mechanism.

I also doubt that LANL groups will like having WMP staff thrown into their midst by HR. WMP assigned staff will be seen by their new groups as tainted goods who eat up what remains of the shrinking funds. It's also debatable whether HR is even up to the task of accurately matching technical staff to project needs. Poorly implemented, the WMP program could cause the limited funding situation at LANL to grow even worse.

Back in '93, lack of funding caused some staff to be placed within other groups. In most cases, the managers of those groups did not like having people dumped into their organization. Thus, when the RIF scoring mechanism was announced in '94, those who had been reassigned became the low-scoring "RIF fodder". With the announcement of the WMP program, it may be deja-vu once again.

On the plus side, WMP may succeed in finally getting rid of some of the "dead wood" at LANL (though probably only at the technical levels, and not at any management or support levels). As a blunt ax in the hands of a poorly informed HR, however, it could easily end up chopping off some of the healthy roots of the LANL tree.

November 17, 2006 10:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Workers at LLNL shouldn't be suprised about what will happen once your new
for-profit contract is implemented. Just look to Los Alamos to get an idea.


********** Editorial - Los Alamos Monitor, Sunday, Nov 19th 2006 **********

An unpleasant prospect

No matter how you slice it, the disclosure by Los Alamos National Laboratory that it intends to shed another 300-400 jobs, about 4 percent of its workforce, through attrition is not good news.

In appearing before the state LANL Oversight Committee, Director Michael Anastasio said he was committed to avoiding forced reductions, but that the lab needed to realize savings by absorbing voluntary retirements and departures.

Combining the 300-400 loss in jobs by attrition next year, with previously announced intentions to lay-off 450-600 subcontracting employees, would bring the total reductions for the next year to 750-1,000 people.

Not good.

Anastasio said that the laboratory is working to compensate for what he estimates to be $176 million in added costs, including new taxes to the state government, new fees to the for-profit management company and new salaries and employer-paid benefits as a result of the new contract.

And with no additional revenues expected from the Department of Energy, Anastasio said the lab needed ways to reduce costs.

We have stated many times that the "for-profit" tag should have been a dead giveaway that the lab would now look to make a profit.

When it was announced that the DOE was going to put the contract out for bid and seek a private, for-profit company to run the lab, it should have been very clear right then that there were big changes coming.

And when income stays stable and costs go up, something has to give. So the lab is doing what any business would do: seek to control costs.

This is regrettable as it is the community and the workers who will suffer, both in the loss of revenue and in the loss of valuable members of the community.

While this is a very sad development, we simply can't understand how anyone is surprised. Disappointed, yes. Surprised, no.

November 20, 2006 11:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A good place for people at LLNL and LANL to tell the world what is going on at these places and to explain why the bottom line was for this transition. I'd say it was for DOE, NNSA and the UC to abolish all present and future pension obligations, period. These rest of this BS is just that, BS.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement/talk/index2.html

November 24, 2006 12:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I doubt anyone bothers to come to this site anymore. Regardless of that, here's an excellent post from the "Real Story" vault (Nov '05).

If you are still coming to this site, you've undoubtedly thought about leaving LANL. And why not? LANS management certainly won't offer you any resistance. In fact, they want you to leave! They need at least 400 staff members to leave by the end of this year, and probably even more by next year.

LANL's funding situation, which already looks bleak, is only going to get much worse over the next few years. NNSA and Congress have made that very clear. This means you can expect to see growing RIF anxieties that never seems to go away. LANS will start backing away from their "No RIF" promise as the year unfolds. It's going to get very ugly.

Given this assessment, perhaps it's time to plot an escape while you still have a high paying job at LANL to use as negotiating leverage into a better position. If you do leave, here are some of the changes you may witness in your work life.


Things I don't do since leaving LANL
Submitted by Anonymous:
________________________________

Things I don't do since leaving LANL

As a former Technical Staff member with a Ph. D and Q clearance here is some stuff I don't do since leaving LANL:

** No invasive, demeaning 5-year updates for a security clearance.

** No car searches or showing badges at gates.

** No listening to fascist security folks talk about reporting a fellow worker if he drives a car I think he can't afford.

** No more realizing I just drove into a cleared area with my cell phone in the car.

** No more lectures from abusive, dysfunctional managers.

** No SOPs, OOPs, IMPs, LIMPS, work packages, LIGs, LIRs, IWDs whose main purpose seems to be covering somebody else's behind.

** No listening to petty-fogging, incompetent managers tell me that red tape and bureaucratic BS is the World's Greatest Science.

** No swearing to my martinet group leader that I really am with the program.

** No waiting for daily, written permission to use my workstation.

** No attending 60-year old facilities with that bombed-out look like maybe the Taliban just left.

** No more days of training, reading, forms and signatures for a routine 30 minute job.

** No more watching the Rat Patrol retrieve dead mice from my dilapidated office.

** No more sweating at my desk in the winter or summer.

** No more walking thru the Admin. Bldg and seeing titles like "Chief Assistant Associate Principal Vice-Deputy Director" and then waiting two years to get my name on my office door.

** No more listening to my deputy group leader expound for 30 minutes on changes to the latest form.

** No trying to get to a meeting in a building where the badge reader suddenly stops working.

** No scrounging at LANL Salvage for furniture after waiting six months on a signed purchase order.

** No more trying to get the online status of my purchase order and getting a message to download the Turkish character set.

** No more waiting a year to buy something that costs $200 and then finding out in Sept. I can spend $200K if the stuff is delivered in two weeks.

** No working at the whim of DOE bureaucrats who regard me and my fellows as incompetent, irresponsible teenagers.

** No more being told I'm unqualified to do a routine task but no one knows how to qualify.

** No more pretending that it is possible to build and test explosive weapons under a policy of zero tolerance for accident or injury.

** No more dealing with arrogant, mediocre LANL staff.

** No more big, bureaucratic science.

** NO MORE DOE & LANL BS!

# posted by Doug Roberts : 11/02/2005 11:17:00 PM

November 28, 2006 10:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wat a wonderful place to work. Things are *so* much better now that LANS has whipped us into shape:

ABQ Journal
Wednesday, November 29, 2006

DOE Assails Security Efforts at Los Alamos

By John Arnold
Copyright © 2006 Albuquerque Journal; Journal Northern Bureau
SANTA FE— Federal investigators have issued a scathing report
criticizing security at Los Alamos National Laboratory after a former
subcontractor removed hundreds of classified documents from the lab.
Important internal controls and security safeguards weren't functioning
as intended when the documents were removed, according to investigators.
The Department of Energy's inspector general found that in a number of
key areas, lab security policy "was non-existent, applied inconsistently, or
not followed."
And monitoring by lab and federal officials was inadequate, according to
the report issued by the IG's office this week.
"While significant procedural weaknesses were evident, human failure,
whether willful or not, was the key component in this matter," Inspector
General Gregory Friedman wrote in a memo to DOE officials that summarizes
the findings.
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman asked his department's inspector general
to examine the LANL security breach after police discovered classified
documents during a drug investigation at a Los Alamos mobile home last
month.
Jessica Quintana, the 22-year-old former archivist who apparently
mishandled the classified documents, is at the center of an ongoing FBI
investigation.
Quintana, who has not been charged with a crime, claims she took the
materials home to meet a work deadline and didn't intend to distribute the
information to a third party, her lawyer has said.
While the IG report's findings are confidential, Bodman released
Friedman's summary and his office's recommendations on Tuesday. He said his
office is looking into the possibility of releasing "additional information
to the public."
"Regardless of the outcome of the FBI investigation, just the
unauthorized removal of the classified material from the lab marks a
significant breach of security protocol and of the public trust," Bodman
said Tuesday in a written statement.
"Unfortunately, we cannot correct the errors of the past. But we will
learn from this incident and we will do better."
Bodman said he has directed the DOE's chief information officer to lead
a review of the IG's recommendations to strengthen security and consider
incorporating them into the department's cyber-security policies and
procedures.
Bodman has also appointed a task force to assess policies for issuing
and maintaining personnel security clearances across the nuclear weapons
complex, according to his statement.
Federal investigators found LANL's inadequate cyber-security environment
"especially troubling" given that DOE has spent tens of millions of dollars
on LANL's security apparatus, "including vast expenditures on cyber
security," according to Friedman's memo.
It notes past high-profile security breaches at LANL that prompted DOE
initiatives to protect classified information and reduce cyber security
threats posed by insiders. Friedman also mentions a 2004 work stand-down
ordered by former lab director Pete Nanos to address security concerns.
"Based on the problems we observed, clearly these efforts were not
entirely successful and additional improvements are needed," Friedman wrote.
In addition to reviewing security procedures, IG investigators
interviewed more than 80 DOE, LANL and subcontract workers, the memo states.
Authorities have been tight-lipped about the nature of documents found
in Quintana's trailer home but have denied reports that they contained
sensitive weapons-design data.

==============================================================

Santa Fe New Mexican
By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican
November 29, 2006
A federal investigator blasted Los Alamos National Laboratory on Tuesday for
"non-existent" and "seriously flawed" security in relation to an incident
where classified information apparently left the nuclear weapons laboratory.

The government has already spent "tens of millions" to upgrade lab security
and undertaken two major cyber-security initiatives, and the lab went into a
2004 shutdown in an effort to fix problems involving the handling of secret
data, a report from the U.S. Department of Energy's Inspector General said.

The FBI is investigating how what appears to be classified information left
the lab and ended up on a computer flash drive in a Los Alamos mobile home
last month. No charges have been filed, but agents have questioned a
Pojoaque woman who worked as an archivist for a lab contractor, a defense
lawyer has said.

"We found that the security framework relating to this incident was
seriously flawed," a report from Inspector General Gregory Friedman to
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said. "Specifically, our review disclosed
that: In a number of key areas, security policy was non-existent, applied
inconsistently, or not followed; critical cyber security internal controls
and safeguards were not functioning as intended; and, monitoring by both
laboratory and federal officials was inadequate."

Bodman ordered the inquiry Oct. 26. He said in a Tuesday news release that
the department will learn from the incident.

"Regardless of the outcome of the FBI investigation, just the unauthorized
removal of the classified material from the lab marks a significant breach
of security protocol and of the public trust," Bodman said. "Unfortunately,
we cannot correct the errors of the past."

Lab director Michael Anastasio has launched a major effort to improve
security internally.

For classified computing, lab managers have removed personal portable
electronic storage devices, locked up government-owned portable electronic
storage devices, made it physically impossible to move information from a
classified to an unclassified system in the same work area and disabled some
classified computer ports, among other measures.

And a team has been organized to anticipate future advances in technology
"so the laboratory will be better positioned to anticipate and prevent the
next generation of security risks," Anastasio said in a Tuesday memo to
employees.

Reaction to the report was mixed.

"This is in no way a discovery of a problem -- this is a problem that was
discovered years and years ago," said Danielle Brian of the Project on
Government Oversight, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. "And no one has
taken it seriously and shown the leadership to fix it."

Other places in the country handle classified information but don't have
these kinds of repeated problems, Brian said.

And the lab still has a "significantly flawed" culture, she said.

"They give lip service to security and believe that security precautions
really are just annoyances," Brian said.

Gov. Bill Richardson said he ordered the lab to go to a new security system
when he was energy secretary. "If the Bush administration had implemented my
plan, this incident would not have occurred," Richardson said via a
spokesman.

The report said the data that resides at the lab "reflects its preeminent
national security mission." But the recent review showed an inadequate
cyber-security environment, the report said.

"This was especially troubling since the department and the National Nuclear
Security Administration have expended tens of millions of dollars upgrading
various components of the laboratory's security apparatus, including vast
expenditures on cyber security," the report reads.

A leading proponent of lab funding overall, U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M.,
expressed confidence in Anastasio.

"I believe Secretary Bodman and lab director Mike Anastasio take these
matters seriously and will work to put these recommended reforms in place,"
Domenici said.

Bodman said he was prohibited by law from releasing the inspector general's
full report, which he called serious and comprehensive.

"The report outlines some significant deficiencies and vulnerabilities that
need to be addressed," Bodman said. "We will move quickly to do so."

Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or alenderman@sfnewmexican.com.
Comments are not allowed on this story at this time. Please check the open
for comments page for details.

November 29, 2006 6:28 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home