Mar 20, 2008

UC regents open discussion on laboratories

By ROGER SNODGRASS, Los Alamos Monitor Editor

Meeting in San Francisco Wednesday, the University of California Board of Regents heard disagreements about the university’s role in the nation’s nuclear weapons program.

Criticism came this time not only from students, who are often vocal during regents’ meetings, but also from California Lt.-Gov. John Garamendi, a Democrat and an ex officio member of the board, who said he was “deeply disturbed” by what he heard.

An audio webcast of an open session of the Committee on Oversight of the Department of Energy laboratories began with a complaint by the board’s faculty representative, Michael Brown.

Also the chair of the Academic Senate and an advisory member of the laboratory oversight committee, Brown said the faculty was concerned about the federal government’s plan currently under discussion to increase pit manufacturing from 50 to 80 nuclear triggers a year at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and that the university was locked into a long-term contract with the DOE from which it could not escape.

Later, in the brief segment of the three-day meeting, the regents heard a report led by Norm Pattiz, the new chairman of the board of the limited liability corporations that own Los Alamos National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Pattiz is the chairman and founder of Westwood One, the largest radio network in the country.

He reported that the National Nuclear Security administration was pleased at the “proactive approach of the lab and their communication network” during recent public hearings in New Mexico on the transformation of the nuclear weapons complex. He also passed along compliments from meetings in Washington that “our two lab directors are extremely highly regarded.”

During Pattiz’ report, Garamendi was recognized. Posing a series of 20 or more probing question, Garamendi began by wanting to know who was actually in charge of the partnerships that run the weapons labs.

Pattiz said that the governing boards, one for each lab, were composed of six members, three from the university and one each from the three principal industrial partners.

“In a tie-breaking situation,” he said, the university’s chairmanship, “gives us the ability to prevail.”

So, when there is bad press about lapses of security, Garamendi concluded, “the university will be splattered by the mud, because we are in charge.”

During the ensuing discussion, UC Vice President Robert Foley affirmed that the contract was binding on the university.

“We knew going in that we had given up the right to unilaterally withdraw from the contract,” Foley said.

While the contract might be extended for as many as 20 years or as few as seven, he added, “The university does not have a guaranteed right to withdraw during that time.”

Garamendi also established from an answer to his questions that certain top managers of the weapons laboratories were employed by the limited liability corporations, but that UC paid their compensation.

Meanwhile, a student group protested a number of university issues during the meeting, including the university’s involvement in making parts for nuclear weapons, according to news reports today.

Pattiz promised to schedule a full discussion on issues related to the laboratories “at the appropriate time.”

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Having just taken my mandatory "Ethics Training," I suggest that LANS LLC appoint an Ethics Oversight Committee, consisting of Parky, Dynes, Foley, Nanos, and Mitchel. Clearly these are men who can be our role models!

Anonymous said...

Garamendi called our local SPSE UPTE office and wanted to Know if about the massive layoffs at LLNL where true, are rep informed him that NNSA had given the green Light to dump 1200 people by the end of 08. so far 500 went out the gate january another 700 are to leave by june. are rep also stated that Garamendi is concerned about LLNL's future as a national lab. I am glade some one from the governers office is questioning why the directors are geting uc benifits when the rest of us where dumped out of the system.
UPTE local 11 LLNL Skill crafts

Anonymous said...

"The University does not have the right to withdraw" Who's the brain-child who signed this? Do you see any far reaching effects that this little statement could have on UC?

Anonymous said...

Wow! And our Northern NM school systems are under fire!(Re: 3/20/6:24 PM)

Anonymous said...

From the original post I did not get the feeling that Garamendi was concerned that the Directors were getting UC benefits while the rest of us were dumped out of the system. To me it was if they are employed by LANS (as we are) they should only get benefits from LANS. If someone has a link to the 20 or so questions that Garamendi asked, I'd like to see them. If Garamendi was concerned about us getting our benefits trashed, he's a day late and a dollar short.

Anonymous said...

"Brown said the faculty was concerned about the federal government’s plan currently under discussion to increase pit manufacturing from 50 to 80 nuclear triggers a year at Los Alamos National Laboratory"

How ridiculous. UC signed up for it. 50 or 80 makes no difference. Can UC be just a little bit pregnant?

Anonymous said...

Democrats and university students are always "deeply disturbed" by our National Security efforts, and will even throw their god, Science under the bus if it seems to support anything to do with the word "nuclear" in it.

Anonymous said...

"Can UC be just a little bit pregnant?"

Not if they can't pull out!!!

Anonymous said...

Holy smokes, 10:00. I hope no one lets a crank like you near our stockpile.

Anonymous said...

There is no need to worry about LANL producing 50 to 80 pits per year. I predict the incoming Administration will keep LANL safely constrained to the current 10 or so pits per year for the foreseeable future.

There will also be no significant RRW program. Only a few million dollars per year in funding will be supplied, just enough to keep it going on life support.

The NNSA's bombplex idea is not going to be funded and the labs will probably shrink even further than the figure which NNSA has announced.

Anonymous said...

LANL and LLNL employees have paid dearly for this DOE fiasco. We got dumped out of a secure UC pension system- which many of us were in for 30 years. We are being fired to pay millions in fees and bonuses for the contract holder (no value added). LANL and LLNL managers are being replaced with long time Bechtel personnel brought from elsewhere. These Bechtel administrators have no buy-in to the local communities- they mostly commute from their old homes in other states. What a brutal mess.

Anonymous said...

Good thing. It's not a good idea to build weapons you can't test. In fact, it's dumb as hell.

Also, you don't really want them if the system can't produce a president any better than the present one. That guy really needs some exposure to the real world. Said if he was a little younger, he'd like to be in Iraq. Guess he hasn't seen too many of the vets with traumatic brain injuries who were "saved" before they could die. Or, tried to communicate with any whose eardrums have been destroyed by IED pressure waves. Or families of PTSD vets who have committed suicide because the VA can't handle the workload.

Oh, shame on me. The busted eardrums occurred because they refused to wear their hearing PPE.

Did the previous 60-year UC contract allow unilateral withdrawal? If it did, and the present one doesn't, Foley should be fired on Monday, and tarred and feathered on Tuesday.

Anonymous said...

After seeing our local politicians turn on us, is it any wonder that the UC politicos would also join in on the fun?

The NNSA labs have almost zero political support right now. This will have huge repercussions for LANL in the very near future.

If LANS and NNSA had honestly worked to diversify the labs and move into other areas like energy research and additional areas of national security, then perhaps we could have bought some political cover. As it is, we have none.

Anonymous said...

If LANS and NNSA had honestly worked to diversify the labs and move into other areas like energy research and additional areas of national security,
===================

DOE already has labs that do energy
research, like Argonne. They fall under
the DOE Office of Science.

It's the function of neither LANS nor
NNSA to morph LANL into an energy lab.

Congress chartered a specific mission for
NNSA - and it isn't energy research. DOE
and Congress already have that base
covered.

Anonymous said...

"DOE already has labs that do energy research, like Argonne. They fall under the DOE Office of Science."

There is DOE Office of Science money spent at Los Alamos. It contributes to weapons-related work, just as weapons work can relate to non-weapons work.

"Congress chartered a specific mission for NNSA - and it isn't energy research. DOE and Congress already have that base
covered."

DOE and congress don't have it covered very well or imported oil wouldn't be priced at over $100/bbl.

Anonymous said...

Oil prices are high in dollars, because the dollar has fallen. The rise in oil prices is not nearly as spectacular when you look at euros, which have also doubled in value against the dollar.

Congratulations on a very well played ignorant opinion, 2:45.

Anonymous said...

9:34 am: Your completely insane rant juxtaposes nuclear weapon testing, casualties from IEDs in Iraq, and past UC management of the Laboratory. Really, get some help. Really. I mean, before you go postal.

Anonymous said...

"There is DOE Office of Science money spent at Los Alamos. It contributes to weapons-related work..."

Example please?

Anonymous said...

There is DOE Office of Science money spent at Los Alamos.
=============

That may well be; but the DOE Office of
Science is not the "landlord" for LANL.

The Office of Science may fund whatever
research and whereever it wants.

However, the Office of Science "owns" i.e.
is the "landlord" for its own suite of
national labs like Argonne, Oak Ridge...
Those are the lead labs for energy
research.

In establishing NNSA; Congress defined
a particular mission for NNSA and the
labs it holds; and that mission is
national security, and not energy; the
fact that all these labs are
multi-program labs, notwithstanding.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:34 am: Your completely insane rant juxtaposes nuclear weapon testing, casualties from IEDs in Iraq, and past UC management of the Laboratory. Really, get some help. Really. I mean, before you go postal.

3/21/08 11:24 PM

The post sort of wandered around, for sure, but not much differently from the rest of the posts on this thread. It's not necessarily indicative of insanity that one might think U.S. national security is related to IEDs in Iraq and the contracted entanglement between an incompetent DOE bureaucracy and a major public university. If you really think that poster needs some help, then perhaps it is you who needs some help. This is, after all, a blog, not a collection of essays written to get a good grade in English class.