May 10, 2009

LANSCE-R project

A reader sent the following email about the LANSCE-R project cancellation on Friday.
Subject: Administration press release on LANSCE-R
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 19:24:52 -0600
From: Kurt Schoenberg
To: ta53@lanl.gov
CC: seestrom@lanl.gov



Colleagues -

By now you have heard or read the Administrations proposal, released today, to cancel the LANSCE-R project. The justification connected with this proposal is egregiously wrong. (For example, the statement "the Department of Energy Nuclear Energy program has recently stopped using LANSCE to produce medical isotopes. ", while technically correct, is very misleading because this important LANSCE function was transferred this year to the Office of Science! )

Rest assured that our Laboratory senior management strongly support LANSCE and the LANSCE-R project and are working hard to fix this problem and set the record straight. LANSCE is the Laboratory's signature experimental facility with research capabilities vital to the Laboratory and the Nation. LANSCE has achieved this importance and success due to your hard work. As we prepare for beam turn-on and the resumption of our user program, let us continue to demonstrate the skill and dedication that has led to our past accomplishments and that will lead to our successful future.

Kurt
--
Kurt Schoenberg
Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE)
In 2005, LANSCE began operating a facility that uses 100-MeV protons to produce medical radioisotopes. I had heard of the medical isotope program during the supply disruption about a year ago, but not the LANSCE-R project. Here's what I found from the proceedings of the 2007 Particle Accelerator Conference.
At the core of the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) accelerator lies an 800-MeV proton linac that drives user facilities for isotope production, proton radiography, ultra-cold neutrons, weapons neutron research and for various sciences using neutron scattering. LANSCE is in the planning phase of a refurbishment project that will sustain reliable facility operations well into the next decade.

The general goals for LANSCE-R are to (1) preserve dependable operation of the linac and (2) increase the cost effectiveness of operations. Requirements can be met for overall beam intensity, availability, and reliability with long-term sustainability and minimal disruption to scheduled user programs.

The baseline refurbishment project consists of replacing the 201 MHz RF systems, upgrading a substantial fraction of the 805 MHz RF systems, updating the control system, and replacing or improving a variety of diagnostics and accelerator subsystems.
To read more about LANSCE visit http://lansce.lanl.gov/.
at

42 comments:

  1. Anonymous5/11/09, 10:17 PM

    I trust that Kurt is aware that lobbying by LANL is illegal. His email suggests otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Frank Young5/11/09, 10:25 PM

    Perhaps that is why it was sent to the blog. Someone in the Senate is reading the blog right now, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous5/11/09, 10:31 PM

    I think that it is inappropriate and unwise for a manager at a federal lab to insult the integrity and intelligence of a decision by the President and the OMB director.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous5/11/09, 10:33 PM

    Is lobbying by Bechtel illegal? LANS? They are, after all, for-profit. There are reporting rules, but I wonder if it is illegal. I don't know the rules here -- does anyone?

    Cities here in CA have retained lobbying firms to press their case in DC for more money. The lobbying firms are known to have a good ROI: the well-known connection between money spent for lobbying and money returned in legislation continues to work. Why shouldn't LANS and Bechtel avail themselves of this connection?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous5/11/09, 11:13 PM

    I believe a contractor organization is free to seek access to government officials. Presumably they can use part of their fee for that purpose (travel, reps, etc.). However, it cannot be laboratory employees doing the access-seeking on laboratory account numbers.

    And there are shades of gray between outright lobbying and simply providing background information. St. Pete didn't do all those wondrous things by just 'channeling' past lab directors.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous5/12/09, 2:16 AM

    The simple fact is that LANSCE and LAMPF have outlived their usefullness. Other facilities, at other laboratories, now perform almost all the same tasks more effectively. It was, as they say, a good ride while it lasted.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous5/12/09, 5:58 AM

    While it is true that LANL may not lobby, LANS and its owners may lobby all that they want.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous5/12/09, 6:13 AM

    While it is correct that the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge is a much more powerful neutron source than LAMPF, we need to ask if it alone is sufficient to meet the nation's needs. In particular, can the nuclear weapons work currently done at LANSCE be done at the SNS?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous5/12/09, 6:55 AM

    It's not lobbying if a LANL manager goes to the DOE to discuss (plead the case) budget issues. It's also not lobboy if the state's congressional delegation are "educated" on these matters.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous5/12/09, 7:55 AM

    "I trust that Kurt is aware that lobbying by LANL is illegal."

    Since when? Perhaps you are thinking of the prohibition on individuals lobbying *as LANL employees* without blessing from senior management?

    Moreover, certain individuals (Program Managers) have not just the right but the obligation to advocate for LANL programs and projects with their Headquarters program office counterparts. I would expect that the LANL isotope production point of contact would have already been on the phone to the Office of Science, requesting that a correction be sent up the line.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Eric5/12/09, 8:33 AM

    Clarification requested.

    Aren't the people who commute to the Lab every day employees of LANS not LANL nor the federal goverment? As far as I know LANS is the employer. LANL is a place.
    Secondly, isn't LANS legally distinct not only from the federal government but also from UC, Bechtel, etc.? It is not clear to me what lobbying rules might apply.

    Also, if someone knows, what is the difference between 'lobbying,' 'talking to your funder,' and 'making a persuasive presentation to people who are interested in your company and its wellbeing.'

    Is lobbying, like LANL, a place (K street) and not an activity?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous5/12/09, 9:36 AM

    Can Pu experiments be done at SNS? I honestly don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous5/12/09, 10:33 AM

    Anonymous at 5/12/09 9:36 AM asks:

    "Can Pu experiments be done at SNS?"

    Yes, SNS has (will have) plenty
    of neutrons. BUT, creating a classified area might be difficult.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Frank Young5/12/09, 10:59 AM

    Speaking of lobbying, see this story from yesterday about the PMA Group and the Kansas City Plant.

    KANSAS CITY (AP) - U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver has secured earmarks totaling about $2 million with the aim of supplying a south Kansas City defense plant with new design software technology.

    But, The Kansas City Star reports the local plant Cleaver sought to help - the federally owned Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies Kansas City Plant - never asked for the money. And most of the public dollars are slated to go to Parametric Technology Corp., a for-profit software developer based in Massachusetts.

    "I'd never heard of that company in my life" until recently, Cleaver said. Cleaver, a Kansas City Democrat, said he was so confident the Kansas City defense plant was seeking the project that he never called Honeywell to verify...."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous5/12/09, 11:07 AM

    Parametric Technology Corp., which markets the Pro-Engineer CAD software, is known for very agressive, marginally-ethical, sales techniques.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous5/12/09, 12:55 PM

    99% of the interactions between lab management and DOE/NNSA would not be construed as "lobbying." LANS, LLC can certainly lobby with its own funds, and most of the large contractors within the DOE system have lobbyists working for them. Most of the interactions between lab management and members of Congress or their staff are also not considered "lobbying" since they are informational meetings or responding to requests from Congress.

    SNS is not set up to do classified work, and I don't think that either the Office of Science or ORNL would want to make the effort to try and change that.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous5/12/09, 2:22 PM

    From the LANS contract with DOE for operating LANL...

    H-39 LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS

    (a) The Contractor agrees that none of the Contract’s incremental funding shall be expended, directly or indirectly, to influence congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to Members of Congress as described in 18 U.S.C. 1913. This restriction is in addition to those prescribed elsewhere in statute and regulation.

    (b) The Contractor agrees that none of the Contract’s incremental funding shall be made available for any activity or the publication or distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote public support or opposition to any legislative proposal on which Congressional action is not complete. This restriction is in addition to those prescribed elsewhere in statute and regulation.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Frank Young5/12/09, 2:28 PM

    Nobody paid me anything to post this and it probably didn't even come from Kurt Schoenberg, so I think he has nothing to worry about.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous5/12/09, 6:18 PM

    Personally, I could care less. LANSCE has been sucking off the hind tit of RTBF for way too long.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous5/12/09, 6:51 PM

    It has been pathetic to see all the call for "programmatic" proposals to justify LANSCE's connection to the weapon's program. Just because Sue Seestrom's hubby Chris Morris lives and dies by LNASCE via P-rad does not mean the rest of the Lab gives a shit. As the saying goes ... what's in it for me??

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous5/12/09, 9:30 PM

    6:18 pm: "Personally, I could care less."

    If you "could care less" what is it you are still caring about? I think you meant you "COULDN'T care less." A common (these days) mistake, when no one really cares about language and its meaning anymore. Sigh...

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous5/12/09, 10:46 PM

    9:30 PM, if you are so worried about grammar go teach junior high school or something. Good God, this is just blog! The last thing anyone checks is grammar or spelling in their passionate comments.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous5/12/09, 11:08 PM

    6:18 pm: "Personally, I could care less."

    If you "could care less" what is it you are still caring about? I think you meant you "COULDN'T care less." A common (these days) mistake, when no one really cares about language and its meaning anymore. Sigh...

    5/12/09 9:30 PM

    Ummm like whatever, like we care about what you have say, you think you are all that, well I got a text for you, your not.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous5/12/09, 11:19 PM

    Does not give a shit == Could not care less.

    People always get the first expression right and the second expression wrong, for some reason.


    Chris Morris is Sue Seestrom's hubby? Thanks. I did not know that. But it explains so much.

    SSPed

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous5/13/09, 6:54 AM

    Maybe we need a full posting about prominent LANL couples who get away with corruption because they don't use the same last name.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous5/13/09, 10:43 AM

    Actually, I COULD care less about grammar on this blog.....If I could NOT care less, I wouldn't care enough to leave a comment.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous5/13/09, 12:09 PM

    "Chris Morris is Sue Seestrom's hubby? Thanks. I did not know that. But it explains so much." (SSPed)

    There are several power couples at LANL who milk the system for all that it is worth. They are protected like royalty by lab upper management. It's a sick and badly broken system that is ripe for abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous5/13/09, 8:02 PM

    5/13/09 6:54 AM ... requested .."
    Maybe we need a full posting about prominent LANL couples who get away with corruption because they don't use the same last name."

    A few are :

    Mary Neu / Wolfgange Runde
    Sue Seestrom / Chris Morris
    Toni Taylor / Stuart Trugman

    I know there are quite a few in P-div as well ...

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous5/14/09, 6:52 PM

    Bloggers -

    Note the release from Sen. Bingaman's office @ http://bingaman.senate.gov/news/20090513-01.cfm

    Wednesday, May 13, 2009

    N.M. Congressional Delegation Steps Up Effort to Support LANSCE

    WASHINGTON – New Mexico’s congressional delegation is urging the Obama administration to immediately back off plans that would eventually lead to the shut down the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE), saying the machine is far too valuable to the country.

    The Obama administration last week unveiled its budget, which zeroed out funding for a necessary upgrade of LANSCE. In a letter to Peter Orszag, Senators Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall, and Representatives Martin Heinrich, Harry Teague and Ben Ray Lujàn, outlined various reasons LANSCE must be refurbished and made available for years to come.

    For example, they said LANSCE is the only machine in the country that can do a series of diagnostic tests to ensure our nuclear stockpile is safe and secure. Shutting it down would make the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty more difficult.

    The delegation also said LANSCE is used for essential scientific research.

    “LANSCE is a critical tool not only for the stockpile stewardship program but for other non-classified science applications, such as isotope production, nuclear forensics and nuclear fuels analysis, among many uses. It also complements other accelerators, including the Spallation Neutron Source. This non-classified aspect of LANSCE is critical because it attracts the best and brightest students into the stockpile stewardship program, which has an aging workforce,” the delegation wrote in their letter to Orszag.

    The delegation included a series of questions for Orszag to answer, including how many stockpile stewardship milestones require the use of LANSCE and how much it would cost to modify facilities to take on some of the functions that would be lost if LANSCE is shut down.

    The LANSCE refurbishment is a five-year, $150 million project. This year, $19 million was set aside for the upgrade. As the bill that funds Los Alamos National Laboratory is developed in the coming months, the New Mexico delegation will be working to ensure the LANSCE is funded.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous5/14/09, 7:13 PM

    LANSCE is necessary for the US to sign the CTBT!? Riiiiiight.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous5/14/09, 8:11 PM

    I may not have an English degree but LANSCE still sucks the hind tit.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous5/14/09, 8:50 PM

    The US Senate shouldn´t ratify the CTBT, but the Congress ought to approve funding for LANSCE-R.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous5/14/09, 11:06 PM

    What does Sen. Bingamin know in regards to the importance of LANCSE to stockpile stewardship? The man wouldn't even recognize a pit if it was dropped on his head.

    If LANCSE is so valuable to the weapons effort, then how come DOE attempted to kill off the 'beam' (unsuccessfully) several years ago? The answer is... it's not that valuable to stockpile stewardship efforts.

    Furthermore, there is now a bigger and better beams in place at ORNL for doing general research. LANL may fight it tooth and nail, but the days of the 'beam' at the lab are numbered. In fact, NNSA may even view the demise of LANCSE as a means for using the money saved in the effort to build the new CMRR facility.

    Whether LANL likes it or not, tough choices are coming regarding this weapon lab's future. LANCSE is seen by many as an expensive toy that is no longer affordable.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous5/14/09, 11:13 PM

    MaRIE was a ploy to help keep LANSCE alive. It appears that it didn't work. What's next on the Grand Challenge agenda?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous5/15/09, 12:22 PM

    "What's next on the Grand Challenge agenda?" - 11:13 PM

    Cleanup and construction done with world class excellence!

    Perhaps Roadrunner can be put to use doing massive simulation models of Bechtel construction budgets. Just be sure to use a large parameter value for the function calls that model the political kickbacks and illegal slush funds!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous5/15/09, 12:37 PM

    Several different points here that need comment.

    1. While it is true that LANL may not lobby, LANS and its owners may lobby all that they want.

    Unfortunately, LANS and its owners are not doing anything. We are losing our science and capabilities to other DOE sites. The way I figure it, LANS is only here for 5 years to get the money and destroy the institution. They figured that Saint Pete would keep the money rolling! My guess is that they are rethinking that strategy now that Pete is gone.

    2. Regarding RTBF, I find it akin to waste, fraud and abuse that LANCE gets as much funding as does TA55. Programs at 55 are now paying up to half of the facility costs whereas the programs at LANCE are paying nothing! Somebody should come in and audit the cost recovery activities at CMR, 55 and waste whereas the rest of the lab gets a free ride.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous5/15/09, 1:01 PM

    Doesn't LANS look a bit like the MAFIA?

    They take over a business, collect all of the accounts receivable, sell off the assets, do not pay the accounts payable, and walk away with the business in bankruptcy!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anonymous5/15/09, 5:08 PM

    "Doesn't LANS look a bit like the MAFIA?"

    GBTW!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous5/16/09, 12:47 PM

    "Doesn't LANS look a bit like the MAFIA?"

    Do Italian names like Anastasio and D'Agostino ring any bells? The Godfather rules at LANL! Kiss the ring and show respect.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous5/16/09, 11:04 PM

    "If LANCSE is so valuable to the weapons effort, then how come DOE attempted to kill off the 'beam' (unsuccessfully) several years ago? The answer is... it's not that valuable to stockpile stewardship efforts."

    Yes, 15 years ago when meson physics funding came to an end at LAMPF. The only thing in common to LANSCE is some of the hardware. Thats what LANSCE-R is for.

    "Furthermore, there is now a bigger and better beams in place at ORNL for doing general research. LANL may fight it tooth and nail, but the days of the 'beam' at the lab are numbered. In fact, NNSA may even view the demise of LANCSE as a means for using the money saved in the effort to build the new CMRR facility."

    Bigger and better? Eventually,SNS may be of higher power AND availability. DOE shut down IPNS last year, leaving only 2 spallation neutron sources operating in the USA. Both are heavily subscribed - LANSCE and SNS

    The statement for "general research" is right on, that's where LANSCE differs with SNS. Like the cross-section measurments of WNR, or pRad experiments. The 'beam' at LANL has been used repeatedly to help determine how to make the SNS liquid mercury target last. LANSCE does the classified experiments. It does more than "general research".

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous5/18/09, 11:15 AM

    "LANSCE does the classified experiments. It does more than "general research".

    5/16/09 11:04 PM

    But with a steepening DOE weapons budget crunch, couldn't SNS be utilized for classified research on a pay-as-you-go basis by NNSA? Probably. It fits in well with the whole consolidation concept that's currently happening within the weapons complex.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous5/19/09, 11:13 PM

    John Sarrao recently arranged a meeting for MARIE people to fill them in on what's happening with LANSCE-R and the MARIE signature project. My guess is they will be told that all is well and to ignore all the bad news about funding cuts for next year.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.