How about posting a link to Mikey's prepared comments at the media roundtable in D.C.? This seems more newsworthy and forward-looking than a lot of stuff being posted.
-Anonymous
LANL's Daily Newsbulletin covered this last week (see below). They provide a link to Bodman's "Vision Statement", but nothing about Anastasio's prepared comments.
The New Mexican's Sue Vorenberg provides a few Anastasio quotes in her story titled NNSA seeks more long-term contracts.
And the long-term relationships with the other agencies, in turn, should also help make the nation more safe, said Michael Anastasio, director of Los Alamos National Laboratory.Some intelligence agencies that he couldn't name? Just give us a hint, Mikey. Are they American intelligence agencies? LANL blog readers are pretty sharp. I'm betting they can name those intelligence agencies in three letters or less.
"If you think of the intelligence community and if you can build those long-term relationships, you can better watch technology and issues around the world," Anastasio said.
Teams of scientists paired with those in the intelligence community for several years can look for long-term patterns and signs in other cultures or countries that could turn into possible threats against the United States, he said. Those teams could then find ways to head off problems before they become disasters, he said.
And that's "more valuable than a sequence of activities," Anastasio said.
Some of those longer-term agreements at Los Alamos could include work with the Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies, the Department of Defense and "with some intelligence agencies" that he couldn't name, Anastasio said.
Oh, and that table isn't round!
[From the Daily Newsbulletin.]
NNSA holds 'media roundtable' in Washington, D.C.
July 18, 2008
Laboratory Director Michael Anastasio (inset) joins National Nuclear Security Administration Administrator Tom D'Agostino (head of table) and other NNSA complex officials for a "media roundtable" with members of the national and international media on Wednesday in Washington, D.C. The discussion focused on NNSA's proposed complex transformation and its vision for its national security laboratories. Among the reporters attending were George Lobsenz of Energy Daily, Derrick Sands of Inside Energy, Eric Hand of Nature, Carlo Munoz of Inside the Pentagon, and Shogo Kawakita of Kyodo News. Additional members of the media, including local New Mexico reporters, took part in the roundtable via the phone. To read the vision statement for NNSA's national security laboratories, click here.
Thursday, NNSA Administrator D'Agostino again focused on complex transformation during testimony presented before a subcommittee of the House Committee on Armed Services. Shown listening to D'Agostino's testimony is Laboratory Director Anastasio, left, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Director George Miller. Anastasio also participated in the hearing but did not testify. Along with other NNSA lab directors and site and plant managers, Anastasio provided a written statement and was part of the panel that fielded subcommittee member questions following testimony at the hearing. To read the director's statement, click here.[See also Broader Agenda For Weapons Labs.]
Thanks for posting these articles. It's an important topic but since so much depends on Congressional action/approval, I'll be surprised at any serious progress toward the objective.
ReplyDeleteIt may a little too late to change course at LANL. The new "flash in the pan" energy funding is only temporary, once the price of gas goes down so will the funding, this is only a short term "johnnie-come-lately idea. We are stuck with what was once large ticket items (Nuclear weapons) a shrinking project at best.
ReplyDeleteWhy should we have a semi-autonomous agency (NNSA) within the department of energy to run an energy lab. Can't the department of ENERGY run an energy lab?
ReplyDeleteIf Congress wants to save the NNSA national labs, then they need to move them back under DOE. NNSA was created to focus on nuclear weapons, not basic science or energy. NNSA's policies and approach to oversight were created to ensure public (ie Congressional) confidence in the security/safety of the nations nuclear weapons complex (research and production). If the labs are moving to 50% or more non-NNSA sponsored science/research work, then they need to be under the sole control of DOE's Office of Science, and do the NNSA work as WFO. The site landlord should be DOE not NNSA, with NNSA allowed to apply its rules to the work it funds and not the whole site or work funded by DOE. I've seen up close what NNSA bureaucrats in the local site office have done screwing up non-NNSA science projects with their one size fits all use of a "nuclear safety" mindset to oversee non-nuclear biological science work. I've also seen what NNSA has done to DOD sponsored projects, and its just as bad. If you get DOD money to do research, you're better off doing it at a DOD controlled research facility than an NNSA lab - and not just for cost savings, but also from the standpoint of workable safety/security rules.
ReplyDeleteD'Agostino is a lying slime ball who made direct decisions leading to the death of LANL and LLNL as world class scientific institutions. And when he soon leaves NNSA, instead of winding up in federal prison expect to read that he's a senior $1 million+ a year executive at Bechtel or some other major NNSA industrial contractor.
ReplyDeleteWhy should we have a semi-autonomous agency (NNSA) within the department of energy to run an energy lab. Can't the department of ENERGY run an energy lab?
ReplyDelete1. It was a fair idea that didn't work out.
2. No.
But look at the bright side—Bechtel and the rest of Bush's cronies have made a shit-load of money converting the Lab from a scientific institution to a Pu pit factory. UC didn't do so badly either. The irony of course is that most of you posting to this blog supported the political establishment that brought this to fruition. The phrase "poetic justice" comes to mind right about now.
ReplyDelete"Its about the money"
ReplyDeleteMike Mallory
"Some intelligence agencies that he couldn't name? Just give us a hint, Mikey. Are they American intelligence agencies? LANL blog readers are pretty sharp. I'm betting they can name those intelligence agencies in three letters or less."
ReplyDeleteIs is a well-known fact that some US government agencies fund work at LANL but don't wish that fact either to be known at all, or to be associated with specific projects. Live with it.
"Is is a well-known fact that some US government agencies fund work at LANL but don't wish that fact either to be known at all, or to be associated with specific projects. Live with it.
ReplyDelete7/24/08 8:12 PM"
It is also becoming a well-known fact that LANS is becoming so expensive to WFO clients that such work will likely be moved elsewhere. Talk is of taking the specialized and desirable TSMs out of LANS to better digs (for both worker and client) with better productivity and lower overhead costs.
12:05 pm: "Talk is of taking the specialized and desirable TSMs out of LANS to better digs (for both worker and client) with better productivity and lower overhead costs."
ReplyDeleteThat would be a rational move on the part of WFO clients. However, you don't just "take" people; they have to agree to go. The offer would have to be pretty good to give up the LANS pension.
I wonder if anyone has considered an approach similar to SRI International (formerly known as Stanford Research Institute), which was once part of Stanford University but was completely separated into a nonprofit corporation in the 1970s.
ReplyDeleteLANS could create a separate Los Alamos Research Institute (LARI). Initial lease of buildings would be with LANS LLC money so there is no DOE/NNSA connection, and LARI would directly contract with various agencies. Once LARI was self sufficient, even the direct ties to LANS could be cut.
LANL staff could have joint appoints to both LANL and LARI, and maybe the LANL Director could sit on the LARI Board of Directors. However, all those bureaucratic DOE/NNSA Orders and regulations that drive LANL overhead cost and make WFO unattractive would not apply to LARI work.
"The offer would have to be pretty good to give up the LANS pension.
ReplyDelete7/26/08 2:46 PM"
The LANS pension sucks compared to the real world. If one is new to LANS in TCP-1, there is no loss in making a move anyway. If one is in TCP-2 there is now holdback. The big problem is the Los Alamos housing market for which the Client is unable to make make things right for the affected staff.
"If one is new to LANS in TCP-1, there is no loss in making a move anyway. 7/26/08 4:38 PM"
ReplyDeleteI am not sure what you mean by this...TPC1 is a closed "pension" plan with defined benefits based on combined UC/LANS service at LANL, while TPC2 is a market based employee/employer contribution 401k plan.
There would be a big loss. If you've been at LANL between 15 and 20 years, and plan to work 10 to 20 more years retiring at 60, you'll never make up the loss of a pension (TPC1) with matched 401K contributions (another company) - especially considering how the market has performed this year.
"There would be a big loss. If you've been at LANL between 15 and 20 years, and plan to work 10 to 20 more years retiring at 60, you'll never make up the loss of a pension (TPC1) with matched 401K contributions (another company) - especially considering how the market has performed this year.
ReplyDelete7/26/08 6:30 PM"
And you trust LANS with the 'pension' into which you tossed 20 years of UC credit? I'll be laughing when their contract comes up for renewal.
"If one is new to LANS in TCP-1"
ReplyDelete4:38 pm obviously doesn't know that there will never be any additional members of TCP-1. There is no such thing as "new to LANL" in TCP-1. On the other hand, "new to LANS" means every single LANS employee.
In any case, I wouldn't want to be among the last retiring TCP-1 employees. Whatever the TCP-1 assets are at that time will have to support all the reamining years of all the remaining retirees - there won't be any additional money coming in except for investment returns. No employees left to force to make contributions. Pretty scary if you transferred from UC to LANS into TCP-1 at a relatively young age...
"I'll be laughing when their contract comes up for renewal."
ReplyDeleteThe way things are going, this could happen next year.
7/26/08 8:55 PM
ReplyDeleteWhile it is definitely true that the LANS TPC1 pension is not as stable a bet as the UC pension, it is better than any "real" private sector pension. Fewer and fewer companies are offering real pensions to their workforces, and many are dropping their existing plans at the first legal opportunity - collective bargaining or company restructuring.
This was the issue facing mid career LANL employees at transition - 75% to 80% salary under a LANS pension at 60 or 40% salary UC pension and whatever you could save in a 401k with matching by LANS.
Anyone leaving LANL now would face a similar choice with a new company. Being age 50 and starting over in building your retirement savings, is not a pleasant prospect.
Lastly 7/26/08 11:24 PM
Yes TPC1 is a closed plan, and that is a good thing. No additional liabilities can be placed on the assets of the plan. Remember that it was funded by NNSA and transfer of UCRP money in based on numbers of initial participants. As members die off the funds in TPC1 do not evaporate, they remain in the plan. Its a bit complex for a blog discussion, but if a mid career employee were able to discuss - without the emotional baggage of LANS/UC/LANL/NNSA attached - with a retirement financial expert, they would recommend the defined benefits pension plan over a defined contribution 401k savings plan every time. We get too wrapped around the loss of UCRP (something special) to really understand what our options are in the real world. Yes, LANS may not be around in 15 years, but the same can be said of every other private company in this country. However, NNSA/DOE has a written paper trail of statements and contract clauses where it commits the US Government to funding its share of TPC1 for as long as there is a TPC1 member getting benefits. That is a better commitment they most private sector employees get.
Does that preclude "freezing" TCP1 at some point, similar to what IBM did?
ReplyDeletehttp://news.cnet.com/IBM-freezes-pension,-switches-to-401k/2100-1014_3-6020454.html
4:21, what if the WFO is classified or requires lab space and equipment in your "LARI" concept? Whole new security, labs, equipment, cost-sharing...?
ReplyDelete