Mar 14, 2008

Los Alamos supports major transformation project

By ROGER SNODGRASS, LOS ALAMOS MONITOR EDITOR

A large crowd turned out for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s public hearing Wednesday night at the Hilltop House. For the first time in recent memory, top Los Alamos National Laboratory managers and other members of the community made a strong public showing in support of the agency’s current proposal for transforming the nuclear weapons complex.

Toward the end of the evening, LANL plutonium scientist Joe Martz speaking as a private citizen, said he had been attending these meetings for 20 years and called the community support, “unprecedented.”

In a phone call this morning he emphasized the contrast with similar meetings in the past, which he described as “a smattering of activists with general apathy from the community.”

While opponents outnumbered proponents by 10 to one in the last meetings on this topic, the first of the two NNSA meetings in Los Alamos saw more advocates than critics by a five-to-one margin.

The subject of the hearing was a lengthy document that has been in the works since late 2006, when it originally aimed at a long-range consolidation plan known as Complex 2030 and introduced the concept of a newly modified warhead, known as the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) as the vehicle for bringing about the change.

Something more than a year later, work on the RRW has been virtually halted by Congress, and DOE has found increasing resistance to its budget proposals.

In its current version, the preferred scope of transformation would take place over the next ten years. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on complex transformation now envisions a somewhat more moderate path for getting there.

As Bob Smolin Deputy Director for Defense Programs in the NNSA described it in an introductory video, the transformation proposal grows out of the president’s Nuclear Policy Review in 2001, which called for changes that would reflect the end of the Cold War, including less reliance on the Cold War weapons and more reliance on capabilities, made more effective by a smaller and highly responsive weapons infrastructure.

As the period of formal testimony began, an audience of perhaps 200 people filled the meeting room. Many members of the community stood in the back. About 35 people spoke in three-minute segments.

Rep. Jeannette Wallace, R-Los Alamos, Sandoval and Santa Fe, spoke first about the lab’s economic importance in the area. She was followed by Lab director Michael Anastasio and Glenn Mara, the head of the lab’s nuclear weapons program, who established many of the other themes of the evening.

Anastasio, encouraged the adoption of the preferred alternative in the NNSA’s study, which calls for upgrading facilities at Los Alamos, including the strong possibility that LANL will be mainly responsible for manufacturing plutonium pits for nuclear weapons well into the future.

Anastasio said the plan would enhance the adaptability of the nuclear weapons complex.

“We will be able to respond to any problems that show up in the stockpile more effectively and thus reduce the stockpile even more,” he said.

He said the preferred alternative “reconfirms for all of us that Los Alamos is a national security science laboratory,” and that the weapons capability could be used to address other national problems, including non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials, new forms of alternative energy and climate change.

NNSA’s preferred alternative, he said would ensure a “stable lab and community well into the future.”

The fourth speaker was Ed Grothus, a retired employee from the laboratory, well-known for his antinuclear convictions. Among his impassioned arguments was the calculation that there are eight nuclear warheads on each Trident missile and that 19 submarines each carry 24 missiles, resulting in the ability to destroy 3,648 places on earth the size of New York City.

“There is no reason to destroy one city,” he said. “What would be the reason for doing that?”

He also criticized the lack of science in the nuclear project, noting that the laboratory had one only one Nobel Prize in over 60 years

While the three-minute format for statements precluded discussion, public questions or dialogues, some of the speakers included brief rebuttals in their comments.

Martz, for example shot back to the science criticism with statistics about citations of lab documents in the scientific literature, which he said made LANL “by far the leader.” He said his review indicated that since the laboratory started its “limited manufacturing” of nuclear triggers in 1997, papers on plutonium had doubled.

To criticism by Los Alamos Study Group member Astrid Webster that the NNSA had not responded to previous requests for the agency to “pay attention to the environment,” Martz said his study of the impact statement led him to recommend that the authors “do not fully elucidate the environmental benefits of the transformation.”

One of the few speakers who took a middle ground, Los Alamos County Councilor Ken Milder said he was concerned about the jobs that were going to be lost under the transformation plan. He said the director’s optimism about using nuclear weapons capabilities for other national capabilities were not funded or discussed in the environmental impact statement. He said the socio-economic disruption in the region was not adequately addressed in the plan, although he foresaw the potential for “an upheaval” for families, houses, schools and services.

Todd Heinrichs, a science writer employed at the laboratory also had a slightly different twist. He called for NNSA to take a better look at the contribution that basic science makes to its weapons programs.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

"One of the few speakers who took a middle ground, Los Alamos County Councilor Ken Milder said he was concerned about the jobs that were going to be lost under the transformation plan. He said the director’s optimism about using nuclear weapons capabilities for other national capabilities were not funded or discussed in the environmental impact statement. He said the socio-economic disruption in the region was not adequately addressed in the plan, although he foresaw the potential for “an upheaval” for families, houses, schools and services."

This ultimately means that the County's plan to have a developer build homes and retail both in White Rock and Los Alamos will fail, and hundreds of homes for sale will sit empty, making our town look like a ghost town. There will be less money for our schools; they will become less effective because we won't be able to attract high quality teachers; because the schools are not as effective fewer highly qualified individuals will want to move here; more homes will stand empty.

Of course there is nothing in the plan to address the downward spiral of the community. DOE/NNSA could care less. If they get 80 pits/year built, they will be happy. LANS will be happy because it will have tangible output from LANL that it can point to as an accomplishment.

Why would anyone believe that those inside the Beltway care at all about what happens in an isolated NM town? The only one who could convince those inside the Beltway that they should care is Anastasio who wears two hats. Which hat is he loyal too? Not the one that says "Director Los Alamos National Laboratory". And where does he live? Santa Fe, unlike Oppy, Bradbury, Agnew, Kerr, Hecker, Browne, and even the hated Nanos.

The plan to bring more retail to the County to improve the town's economy will also fail because of the decrease in the size of LANL. The answer to Los Alamos' economy is not retail. The answer is coordination between LANL, UNM-LA, and the County to develop a real Research Park, not the toy one we have now, in the townsite where the County and Schools facilities are now located.

This would be a perfect location for the research that LANL is pushing out the door while it becomes an engineering nightmare. In fact, we could resurrect LASL, Los Alamos Scientific Laborary, while across the bridge there would be LANEL, nicknamed "it's the pits".

Anonymous said...

5:53 pm: You are absolutely correct, and your cogent synopsis of the situation will be either ignored or vilified on this blog. Such is the situation we have put ourselves in. Your observation about Mikey's residence is absolutely on point. He chose the most "San Francisco - like" environment he could find. He and his wife absolutely hate New Mexico and it shows more and more every day. They don't belong here - let's kick them out.

Eric said...

To 5:53 PM,

One, I agree with many of your points. This scenario has been going on for years.

I issue my standard challenge.

What person or people are willing to come out of anonymity and start working for a better future for Los Alamos and, possibly, LASL?

Anonymous said...

The real estate market in Los Alamos is now closed. Almost no one who lives here will be able to sell their home over the next decade. The coming 20% staff reductions (which will likely be much higher) are going to see to it that this town quickly stagnates. Those who lose their job in the coming RIFs will be facing a bleak future of bankruptcy.

Worst of all, the TCP1 pension is likely to suffer the same fate as many other sectors of the financial market in the current economic meltdown. What do you think the chances are that TCP1 is holding toxic mortgage backed securities? I would say the odds are high. Note how silent LANS has been about given the staff any real peak into the state of the pension. Even the release of information for 2007 (required by law to be issued by this summer) will not give a hint of the true devastation to the pension that likely is occurring right now and throughout 2008.

The smart ones took their UCRP pension, cashed out with a lump sum and safely invested the money. Being mostly older staff, they also likely own their homes. The rest of us are in for a rude financial shock that, I assure you, is going to be life-changing. You are witnessing the slow motion destruction of Los Alamos. Prepare as best you can.

Thanks for nothing, NNSA.

Anonymous said...

Los Alamos is no different than all those military base towns that shut down across America. Just because you have a PhD doesn't entitle you to freedom from economic hardship. At least NNSA is clearly telling you what to expect in the future. Deal with it.

Anonymous said...

Can you say "Property Values?" Can you say "Millionaire Factory?" This is what's at stake. Everything else is just BS.

Anonymous said...

The "best" estimate from NNSA is a 20% reduction of FTE's, this figure does not include other cuts that will be made by Congress to our declining budget, this will be a nightmare for Los Alamos.

Anonymous said...

The Los Alamos housing market has historically been insulated from the national market trends due to shortage of properties and high demand. Now that will be changing. Although the lending crisis will not be the reason, many homeowners in Los Alamos will find themselves living in homes that are suddenly worth significantly less than what they owe on them, inlcuding some high LANL managers who bought a year or so ago, at the top of the market, in some very pricy subdivisions like Quemazon. The few homes that are still under construction will likely be abandoned or foreclosed.
These $400k - $800k homes will soon be on the market for substantially less. The "FEMA Mansions" in the North Community will be worth even less because of the location in a burned-out area with no trees. If you live in Los Alamos, and more than about 40-50% of your net worth is in your home, you are in deep doo-doo.

Anonymous said...

Foreclosure already happened last month to a multi-townhouse unit on 46th street in North Community. The place was valued at $1.6 million. I guess no one was interested in buying any of the townhouse units.

NNSA's big downsizing plans have turned this one-company town into a version of Roach Motel. You can come here and take a job, but you can't leave and sell you home without declaring bankruptcy. Any new hires that LANS entices to work here are either going to (a) rent, or (b) live down in Santa Fe like Mike and most his LLC buddies. Real estate in Santa Fe has slowed down but it's still possible to sell your home in the City Different.

Anonymous said...

NNSA expects 20% fewer staff for the nuclear weapons program. So the lab can either shrink (likely) or grow other work (harder).

20% of the weapons budget is ~$250 million. So that is what we would have to grow in work for others (other than NNSA).

Threat reduction alone may be able to do this. Its WFO portfolio grew almost that much this fiscal year alone.

The funding will not be in the usual "block" form, though. The folks that wish to remain working will have to learn to write competitive proposals. Very competitive, since our FTE costs will continue to increase for a while. The competition will have to be won on merit.

Not impossible, but I for one will try rather than have to go bankrupt to leave (trapped by real estate).

NNSA may not like WFO, but the LANS managers should. They get to pocket 2.5% of each dollar. So $250 million in new work means $6.25 million in additional fee.

NNSA may get tired of being the landlord and farm out parts the lab to be pure WFO. They did this successfully at Oak Ridge a while back. It split into three parts: a restoration site, Y-12 and ORNL. ORNL is a DOE Office of Science lab (and is growing). Maybe we could do that...

Anonymous said...

Note that the new LANS managers all live in Santa Fe.

Anonymous said...

"NNSA may get tired of being the landlord and farm out parts the lab to be pure WFO. They did this successfully at Oak Ridge a while back. It split into three parts: a restoration site, Y-12 and ORNL. ORNL is a DOE Office of Science lab (and is growing). Maybe we could do that..."

In part, I believe something like this will happen. There have been rumors for some time that NNSA will split TA-55 (and, in some versions of the rumor, TA-50) away from the rest of the Lab. If you look at two recent documents put out for review by NNSA (one last fall, the other - incorporating comments from the fall version - earlier this year), their contracting strategy has various options on recombining contractual work around the Complex. Some of these options are tied in time to September 30, 2010, when both the Pantex and Y-12 contracts expire. These options include putting Pantex, Y-12, SNM facilities and operations at Los Alamos, and tritium operations at Savannah River all under one management contract, possibly as CO/CO (Contractor Owned/Contractor Operated) facilities. One model would include operating the nuclear facilities similar to commercial nuclear power plants, under NRC rules and regulations.

NNSA is currently seeking comments on the revised plan issued earlier this year.

Based on the events of the past several years, I believe there is a better than 50/50 chance of this happening. The question is - What happens to the rest of the Lab after September 30, 2010 (assuming the rest of the Lab survives in some form)?

Anonymous said...

How much of a loss will we take on an average home in Los Alamos? Say from $250 to $400K, any Real-estate folks out there?

Anonymous said...

From 11:32 - "Threat reduction alone may be able to do this. Its WFO portfolio grew almost that much this fiscal year alone."

The TR workforce was hit hard by the SSP and have been asking for help to execute their programs. Unfortunately, Wallace and his brilliant STE ADs just want the money to pay for their unfunded talented scientists but they don't want them to do the "icky" TR work. TR has in turn has said screw-you and posted numerous job ads on their own website. It should be interesting to see how many workers want to bail from the really problematic divisions like P, MST, B and C to TR.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps LANS should hire some of the managers at the Russian nuke labs (below) to help LANL find a workable solution to our lab's dire financial problems. These Russian guys have real moxie, unlike most of our pathetic LANS managers.

*******************************

Putin Beats Soviet Sword Into Atomic Weapon for Generator Sales (Bloomberg News, Mar 16, 2008)

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109
&sid=aI73Sxzg7Mmg&refer=home


March 14 (Bloomberg) -- For decades, Russian civilian nuclear scientist Vladimir Asmolov lived in the shadow of the bomb makers. They were the elite, their names and work secret, building the arsenal behind a superpower.

While the Soviet Union lost the Cold War, the Russians are back as a nuclear force. Asmolov, deputy head of nuclear-plant operator Rosenergoatom in Moscow, is tapping yesterday's military brains to develop a new generation of atomic plants. Russia's reactor industry aims to compete with Westinghouse Electric Co., General Electric Co. and Areva SA.

...``Previously, the atomic energy industry was only a bastard child of the military program,'' said Kiriyenko, 45, who was a Russian prime minister under Boris Yeltsin. ``Growth in electricity demand has cardinally changed that.''

Global power needs will double by 2030, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency, set up in the 1970s to counter the influence of oil exporting nations. Pressure to cut emissions of gases that contribute to global warming has made nuclear power more attractive, despite safety concerns.

Reactor orders may total 237 globally by 2030, according to the World Nuclear Association in London. ZAO AtomStroyExport, Russia's nuclear-reactor builder, says each megawatt of installed capacity costs about $3 million. The typical reactor size is about 1,000 megawatts.

After 20 years in which few nuclear generating stations were built, Kiriyenko faces shortages of contractors with experience building atomic plants, components such as turbines and nuclear engineers.

...Asmolov has been charged with retraining the military's nuclear experts and converting defense contractors so they can help with the civilian power push. For example, OAO Air Defense Concern Almaz-Antei, the maker of S-300 missile systems, in September agreed to produce parts for nuclear reactors.

Anonymous said...

"It should be interesting to see how many workers want to bail from the really problematic divisions like P, MST, B and C to TR." - 9:59 AM

Unless their jobs are in jeopardy, not many will bail to TR. The pay in TR is low and the work is too demanding. Most of these other folks will continue to stay right where they are because of the comfort factor.

Anonymous said...

It's clear to all that LANL is about to shrink due to declining weapons funding. All the while, our top LANS managers sit back, collect their fat salaries, and do nothing to help mitigate the coming financial storm.

LANL needs a real plan for growth in the non-weapons area. The growth in TR will help but it will not be enough. Other national security work needs to be added. LANL needs to aggressively go after energy research funding which is growing due to increased Congressional interest. It also needs to bring in far more work from the DOD, DHS, and INTEL domains.

Bringing new growth from outside NNSA will be very difficult unless costs are reduced. This is one area in which LANS has shown absolutely no leadership. When any financial problems emerges they take the same lazy step -- tax the incoming programs for a little more cash. This is killing our ability to grow!

The current LANS "growth plan", MaRIE, is a complete joke. It will do little to help expand the project base at LANL. That Wallace and company wasted so much of the staff's precious time in coming up with this "signature facility" idea is sad and a testament to his lack of effective vision. From what I've witnessed, Wallace seems overly hostile about taking on greater WFO work. Perhaps his job security should be tied to some program growth metrics.

LANS has, at most, one or two years to get its act together and grow the project base to make up for the coming declines. If LANL continues to shrink, the economic effects on this town and its citizens are going to be immense. Home foreclosures and business failures will continue to mount. Employee stress, which is already at high levels, will continue to grow as job uncertainties at LANL only get worse.

We need real leadership at LANL and we need it now. Will we get it? I doubt it. More and more, the LANS crew that took over this lab strike me as being nothing more than the "clean up" crew hired to perform a slow LANL downfall. They are well paid by NNSA for their lack of ambition and vision.

Anonymous said...

I think with all of our (managements') past problems, it's highly un-likely that LANL will grow, it may decline to about 20%-30%, depending on the new Congress...less Domenici;remember he was a massive force in the funding arena, his power will be noticed, along with his direction. NNSA needs to re-think it's proirities before the new Congress gets a new budget...

Anonymous said...

This Slate article is a "Must Read". I'm sure those working at LANL can strongly identify with it:

www.slate.com/id/2186547/

*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*

The Rise of American Incompetence (Slate Magazine)

We used to be the world's most skillful entrepreneurs and managers. Now we're laughingstocks. What happened?

By Daniel Gross
Posted Saturday, March 15, 2008, at 7:12 AM ET

...Americans' ability to manage complex systems has been the ultimate competitive advantage. It has allowed the United States to enjoy high growth and low inflation—a record we haven't hesitated to lord over our foreign friends. The shelves in the business section of a bookstore in a mall in Johannesburg, South Africa, are stocked with the same volumes you'll find in a Barnes & Noble in Pittsburgh, Pa.: memoirs by cornfed paragons of capitalism like Jack Welch, wealth-building advice from American money managers, large tomes on how Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller built global businesses from scratch.

But now, thanks to widespread incompetence, American management is on its way to becoming an international laughingstock. Faith in American financial sobriety has been widely undermined by the subprime mess. The very mention of the strong-dollar policy now elicits raucous bouts of knee-slapping in even the most sober Swiss banks. (How do you say schadenfreude in German?) Earlier this month, as oil hovered near $100 a barrel, President Bush complained to OPEC about high oil prices. OPEC President Chakib Khelil responded acidly that crude's remarkable run had nothing to do with the reluctance of Persian Gulf nations to pump oil, and everything to do with the "mismanagement of the U.S. economy." Since Bush's plea, oil has gushed to $110 per barrel. (How do you say schadenfreude in Arabic?)

Americans abroad are constantly taunted by perceived failings of American management. America's aviation system is now the butt of jokes because 9-year-olds have become accustomed to removing their Heelys before boarding a plane. As my family and I passed through the snaking security line in CancĂșn, Mexico's airport last month, we were harangued by a security guard who encouraged tourists to sing along with him: "Please. Do not. Remove. Your shoes." ...

Anonymous said...

I have a feeling that the 20% (reduction)number that everyone is using (NNSA), is only the tip of an unseen iceberg, that being our "New Congress & President)the number of cuts to the workforce will be much larger. This is always a good tactic to help start the very ugly process of downsizing, and the new P-R Firm is supposed to help mitigate the comming bad news, (one very important reason that they were hired.)

Anonymous said...

"Unless their jobs are in jeopardy, not many will bail to TR. The pay in TR is low and the work is too demanding. Most of these other folks will continue to stay right where they are because of the comfort factor."

HUH!? the staff in IAT and N Divisions are some of the highest paid at the lab. If you consider sitting in the SCIF doing research as "demanding work."

Anonymous said...

I agree with above. I've seen several people (from the very mediocre to the incredibly talented) who made great leaps and bounds in both pay and status when they moved from ADSR to ADTR.