-Gus
____________________________________________________
Focus Shift
Weapons Labs' New Directions
With planned downsizing, labs will chase more nonweapons contract R&D
Jeff Johnson
THE FOCUS on nuclear weapons science and engineering at the Department of Energy's three nuclear weapons laboratories—Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia National Laboratories—will be transformed, say officials in the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which oversees DOE's nuclear weapons work.
NNSA will aggressively seek national-security-related but nonweapons contract work, David H. Crandall, NNSA assistant deputy administrator for research, development, and simulation told C&EN in an interview on Nov. 14. Earlier, NNSA officials announced that the workforce of the three weapons labs will be cut by 20-30% over the next 10-20 years and that the size of the facilities will be reduced by one-third.
"We fundamentally do not see the weapons budget account growing over time," Crandall said. "We do see, however, the importance of the labs and their science base as essential to the nation, but we are going to have to look at our role in a different way. I don't think the status quo of what we have done in the past is sustainable in the future.
"We are moving from a mode where we would tolerate research that doesn't interfere with our nuclear weapons mission to one in which we are encouraging new research that is synergistic to our mission," Crandall continued, adding that researchers outside NNSA will have to pay the full price of using lab staff and facilities.
He predicts the labs will have more nonweapons research partners and a more diversified research portfolio and will operate in a more competitive environment. Crandall acknowledges that the labs were well-funded in the past and that they have high overhead charges for contract work, which could stymie new contracts. He laid out a new system intended to lower costs by streamlining operations and eliminating and consolidating duplicate facilities.
Crandall has met with the directors of the three labs to assess their national security R&D capabilities that could be of interest to the Department of Defense, DOE Office of Science, Department of Homeland Security, and private companies.
17 comments:
Does anybody believe this?
Take note of this one important bit:
"We are moving from a mode where we would tolerate research that doesn't interfere with our nuclear weapons mission to one in which we are encouraging new research that is synergistic to our mission," Crandall continued, adding that researchers outside NNSA will have to pay the full price of using lab staff and facilities."
That says two things:
1) If it is not weapons-related research, it's history, and
2) Anybody wanting LANL to do weapons-related research will have to pay $450k per head, at today's rates -- who knows what the rates will be after the RIFs.
-Gus
I thought these labs belonged to the US Government and the American taxpayers. Part of the $450K goes into covering lab compliance with excessive NNSA/DOE regulations and orders that go well beyond what other Government agencies require at their facilities or what private industry has to comply with under local/state/federal regulations.
from:
Daily Briefs, Links
Wed, November 28, 2007 6:10 am
...
WORKLIFE
Standards of Conduct and Business Ethics Guiding Principles (pdf):
Remember to earn trust by accepting and honoring agreements and keeping promises.
See: http://int.lanl.gov/orgs/ea/Docs/socbe.pdf
WFO actually provides a lot of subsidy to the nuclean weapons work via obscene taxes. The NW people do not have to compete for funds so they have no incentive to reduce the overhead.
7:24 AM - that is priceless.
If someone wnats to send me the document (http://int.lanl.gov/orgs/ea/Docs/socbe.pdf) I'll make a top-level post out of it.
-Gus
Anonymous said...
I thought these labs belonged to the US Government and the American taxpayers. Part of the $450K goes into covering lab compliance with excessive NNSA/DOE regulations and orders that go well beyond what other Government agencies require at their facilities or what private industry has to comply with under local/state/federal regulations.
11/28/07 7:21 AM
That's right, 7:21. LANL should belong to the American taxpayers, but it doesn't. It is controlled by the out-of-control DOE. NNSA/DOE forces wasted effort by adding rules and then hires more people to look for compliance with the extra rules. There is negative safety effect, which has been documented by DOE. Except possibly for some unique work, there is no need for any safety oversight beyond federal OSHA. (This does not mean there should be general blind support for OSHA rules. OSHA has its own bureaucratic and technical incompetence problems.)
If the number of LANL and LLNL and Sandia employees is decreasing, is the number of DOE bureaucrats decreasing proportionally?
7:30 AM -- same here at LLNL.
LA MONITOR ad 11/25/07:
IMTEC is hiring engineers of several types.
IMTEC is a Lab-staffer spin-off. They're located at 110 Eastgate (661-3000) if anyone's interested.
Dear Mr. Crandall,
Much of this national security research work can be done with only:
(1) a reasonably sharp mind,
(2) pencil and paper,
(3) a fast PC, and
(4) a security perimeter
Work of this type is routinely done at other facilities for around $280 K per year. Rates at LANL are currently running $450 K and higher.
The news article quotes you as saying:
"Crandall continued, adding that researchers outside NNSA will have to pay the full price of using lab staff and facilities."
OK, fair enough. I'll pay for (1), (2), (3), and (4). That should come to an FTE rate of about $280 K per year. I shouldn't be paying for:
(1) Bloated and overpaid management that is unnecessary for the task at hand
(2) Bloated support systems that offer no support for the task at hand
(3) Environmental cleanup services that are not relevant to the task at hand
(4) Non-relevant facilities like TA-55, LANCSE, and DARHT that are not relevant to the task at hand
(5) Expensive experimental work (chemistry labs, bio labs, etc.) that are not relevant to the task at hand
(6) Taxes for DOE's (3.5%), LDRD (8%), non-functional Program Managers (8%+), etc, not relevant to the task at hand
You can't grow the national security work with FTE rates approaching $500 K per year. It simply won't work. I'm eagerly awaiting to see the game plan that can cut these rates almost in half.
We'll know soon enough whether this is idle happy talk or whether NNSA is really serious about reshaping the weapons labs into a "go-to" place for much of the US national security work that is out in the market.
BTW, perhaps you should have a little talk with LANL's Director, Mike. Based on the words that he's been saying repeatedly to the staff, I'm not sure LANL's management is on-board with this idea, nor will they fully support it.
Hey,
Just another example of what goes on in the real world. News headline form NBC web page.
"Bear Stearns to cut 650 positions"
Once again, what the lab and employees are facing is called "change". No one is doing anything to you. You are totally responsible for your own station in life.
11/28/07 9:12 AM says, "there is no need for any safety oversight beyond federal OSHA."
I suppose that is true in an institution where accidents are "forgotten".
Well some are not waiting around...
---
ARGONNE, Ill., Nov. 28 /PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory has expanded its capabilities to protect U.S. interests at home and abroad.
The Vulnerability Assessment Team (VAT) moved to Argonne's Nuclear Engineering Division last month from Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The VAT conducts multi-disciplinary research and development on physical security devices, systems and programs.
The "VAT's expertise and capabilities align extremely well with Argonne's work in national and homeland security," said Alfred Sattelberger, associate director of Physical Sciences and Applied Science and Technology at Argonne, who helped to find the group a home at Argonne. "Since the tragedies of Sept. 11, 2001, this lab has been actively bolstering its research portfolio to support the Federal government's national security efforts. We expect that the VAT will be integrated into that work."
The VAT has worked extensively in the areas of product anti-counterfeiting, tamper and intrusion detection, cargo security, nuclear safeguards and the human factors associated with security using the tools of industrial and organizational psychology.
The VAT made the move to Argonne because the team wants to make scientific research an integral part of its activities -- a strategy not typically considered or employed when it comes to physical security, said Roger Johnston, who heads the team...
Another reason Argonne was an appealing destination for the VAT team is the lab's "attitude that it should be interacting with private industry," Johnston said. "We want to work more with private industry. We've gotten a lot of interest from companies about security." The VAT is especially interested in collaborating with the pharmaceutical industry, which struggles with the issue of how to deal with drug counterfeiting and tampering.
The VAT was also attracted to Argonne because of the Laboratory's interest in students. The VAT has previously employed over 50 student research assistants in 14 years at LANL....
http://sev.prnewswire.com/computer-electronics/20071128/AQW03528112007-1.html
Growth of the non-weapons national security mission at LANL was also mentioned during the NNSA presentation at LANL a few weeks back. Perhaps NNSA is growing concerned that they'll soon be managing labs that have shrunk so far that there won't be much need for NNSA employees to perform any oversight.
I would love to see the weapon labs diversify into a much larger share of non-weapons national security work. It's a natural fit for these labs. However, it's going to take a lot more than just words to get it going. LANS management, in particular, is going to need to get serious about helping it grow.
"Work of this type is routinely done at other facilities for around $280 K per year."
Wrong. You can't get a 20-year-experienced, tenured-faculty-capable PhD citizen in a hard science, working with SCI/Q clearances, with ready on-site access to experimental verification, surrounded by interdiscipliary colleagues here and at other institutions with years of experience working together with data from 1000s of test shots in the nuclear weapons field and years of production data for $280k. It's either $450k or $420k in the US. It's just not Google's field.
At AWE, Semiplatinsk, Kurchatov and Lop Nor they are considerably less. Not sure about the French or Paki's.
Name the US alternative. SAIC ha, ha. Booz Allen? Rand?, Lockmart?, Northrup? BW Pantex? Bechtel?
Mitre? Frametone? Batelle? GA? Seimens? Texas A&M? MIT?, IIT? DARPA? DTRA? Delta Force? X-men? Justice League?
Occasionally Congressional staffers read this blog. Once in a while... give accurate assessments.
Fine, 11:20 PM. Let NNSA pay a rate of $500K for weapons design work. For the rest of us that want to diversify the lab away from weapons and into other areas of national security set the rate to $280 K.
Oh, and in case you didn't realize it, your post has the distinct tone of an arrogant asshole working in the weapons area, so be a little more careful, 11:20. Congressional aids may be reading these posts!
Post a Comment