Obama Proposes Cuts at LANL
By John Fleck And Michael Coleman, The Albuquerque JournalThe Obama administration Thursday proposed a $140 million budget cut for Los Alamos National Laboratory in 2010, a 7 percent reduction in the nuclear weapons laboratory's budget.
Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico's other major National Nuclear Security Administration, escaped the budget knife, seeing a cut in nuclear spending but offsetting increases in energy research as the new administration shifts priorities.
The budget offers the first detailed look at the Obama administration's spending priorities. The proposal now goes to Congress, where House and Senate appropriators will have the chance to make changes before the fiscal year begins Oct. 1.
The total proposed Department of Energy spending in New Mexico for Sandia, Los Alamos and a number of smaller facilities is $4 billion in 2010, down from $4.3 billion this year.
The biggest portion of the Los Alamos cuts involved two major construction projects — a proposed new plutonium laboratory, and a major upgrade to the lab's neutron accelerator.
Decisions about the plutonium lab will be delayed for a year. The administration wants to kill the accelerator upgrade, officials said. But by keeping the major cuts to future construction programs, the budget leaves the lab's core scientific work force relatively unscathed.
The lab spending recommendations are part of the Department of Energy's $26 billion budget, which Energy Secretary Steven Chu unveiled at a Washington, D.C., news conference Thursday afternoon. Despite a heavy emphasis on energy research, Chu told reporters that nuclear weapons work remains an important part of his agency's mission.
“Nuclear security is still a very important part of the Department of Energy,” Chu said. “There is increasing risk of nuclear proliferation, so this budget includes (money) to work on nonproliferation. We still have to maintain our nuclear security enterprise, and coupled with Recovery Act money we're going to be accelerating dramatically the Cold War legacy cleanup.”
Nationwide, Chu's budget recommends $6.4 billion for maintaining U.S. nuclear weapons, unchanged from this year. Nuclear nonproliferation spending would be $2.1 billion, a 9.5 percent increase.
The budget also calls for $5.5 billion nationwide for nuclear cleanup, down 3 percent from this year.
Project delayed
Decisions on building the Los Alamos plutonium laboratory, which at $2 billion would be the largest public works project in New Mexico history, will have to wait until the Pentagon completes a review of the future needs for the U.S. nuclear arsenal, Tom D'Agostino, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, told reporters Thursday.
It would replace a 60-year-old lab complex that federal auditors have concluded is unsafe, but that lab officials say they must continue to use until a replacement is completed.
Design work on the replacement is under way, with a $97 million budget this year. The administration recommended cutting the budget to $55 million next year.
Critics, who argue that the project is unnecessary, said they were pleased with the delay. A shrinking nuclear arsenal will eventually eliminate the need for the building entirely, said Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group.
A congressionally chartered commission on Wednesday recommended making construction of the plutonium lab a priority.
The administration also singled out the upgrade to the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center as one of a long list of wasteful programs it wanted to kill, saying in a statement that it “no longer plays a critical role in weapons research.”
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., vowed to fight that cut, saying it is not only essential for nuclear weapons work, but is also widely used for civilian science.
In general, Bingaman said he supported the budget proposal, but said he would try to reverse the neutron science cuts.
“I believe LANSCE will play a major role in the diversification of Los Alamos into new science areas, which is why I will fight to reverse this wrong-headed decision,” Bingaman said in a statement.
Sandia
Sandia, which also works on nuclear weapons, fared better. Money for Sandia to work on U.S. nuclear weapons would decline under the president's proposal, but the cuts would be completely offset by increases in money for renewable energy and nuclear nonproliferation work.
Los Alamos would also have an increase in nonproliferation work, but not enough to offset the cuts in its core nuclear weapons mission. The administration did not recommend any increase in energy research spending at Los Alamos.
Yes!
ReplyDeleteObama is the "Science President!"
"The administration did not recommend any increase in energy research spending at Los Alamos."That's because there is already
ReplyDelete(wait for it)
a National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL, in Colorado.Check out
http://www.nrel.gov/employment/
if you want to work in energy at a national lab.
Stay at LANL if you want to wear the shoes that grip. PBIs, baby!
LANL has been a PR nightmare for the DOE for 20 years. Postponing CMRR for a year is a good move.
ReplyDeleteTrue, 10:59.
ReplyDeleteAnd LANL has had increasingly little to do with science since NNSA and their butt-buddy LANS took over.
At least Obama is not wasting more money by throwing increasing amounts of it down the LANL sinkhole. Hopefully he'll send the increases to places like NREL and ORNL where it is still possible to do some science.
Oh pray tell, is this a suprise to anyone? We all know LANL has out lived it usefulness to DOE, we cost too much and don't produce much, as we continue to spend, just look at cost per FTE, approching 450K! and paid (with taxpayers $$) Most law-makers in Washington agree that LANL is a large drain on the budget, has been and if not cut will continue to be money not well spent. If LANL was a private company we all know it would be broke and then some. Yes boys and girls the Gravy Train has run dry. For some of you (under 45 yrs old) you may have to get a real job and really produce something. (AHH what a nighmare)!
ReplyDeleteI fear that this announcment is only the tip of the iceberg. If the Congress has it's way they will cut 140 million, and then cut another 5% just for good measure.
ReplyDeleteHow soon will the rif notices arrive, these cuts are scheduled for 2010! I'll bet Mikey could them printed and in the mail, within a matter of days.
What about MARIE?
ReplyDelete"What about MARIE?" (11:57 AM)
ReplyDeleteDoes this answer your question?...
---
The administration also singled out the upgrade to the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center as one of a long list of wasteful programs it wanted to kill, saying in a statement that it “no longer plays a critical role in weapons research.”
---
Terry's push for MaRIE as LANL's next grand challenge has clearly gone bust. It is yet another example of bad decision making coming from lousy LANS managers.
Looking over the Lab Tables, I saw big cuts in "Hydrogen Technology" research and big increases in "Fuel Cell Technologies". Most DOE national labs were up and NNSA national labs were down. Also saw increases at the Naval Reactor labs.
ReplyDeleteYes!
ReplyDeleteObama is the "Science President!"
5/8/09 10:59 AM
So what does science have to do with LANL? How many more new nuclear weapon systems do we need? Obama--the "Common Sense President!"
Gee-whiz, why can't we go back the good old days of UC pretending to provide oversight and us being able to do whatever we wanted?! Whatever happened to the mystic that used to surround nuclear weapons, and the way we--the best and brightest, were put on a pedestal back then? We were God's! Our word was gospel. Congress bowed to us. And now? SIGH!!!
ReplyDeleteThe Obama Administration is well aware of taxpayers feeding the troughs of LANL for too long! Bravo Mr. President!
ReplyDeletePBI's, baby!
ReplyDeleteThat's what it's all about.
Now, let the RIFs begin.
And don't let these warm summer months lull you into a false sense of security: Wear the shoes that grip!Notice: the word "gadfly" was not used once in this comment.
"...seeing a cut in nuclear spending but offsetting increases in energy research as the new administration shifts priorities."
ReplyDeleteWhy is this so hard for some of you to understand? Rightly or wrongly, the country is turning away from the nuclear posture of the last 60 years. This would be occurring if Domenici were still around.
If you want to be unemployed, stay and try to ride it out. If you have any dignity, take responsibility for your station in life and do something. Whatever you do, stifle the whining.
Archie Bunker has left the blog.
ReplyDeletePlease excuse me for asking an off topic question. Can someone please explain to me what a plutonium pit is and is it dangerous to have around? Thank you.
ReplyDeleteYou certainly asked in the right place! For starters, take a look at this.
ReplyDeleteBy ROGER SNODGRASS, Monitor Editor
ReplyDeleteThe Obama administration request will carry Los Alamos National Laboratory for another year, while potentially restoring and raising funding levels for the nuclear non-proliferation mission.
Employment is expected to decline at no more than the normal rate of attrition, so no lay-offs are in the offing going into another year of a difficult economic situation.
But the budget plan, which will now begin its voyage through Congress, also included a few lower numbers. One of them was the total request, which fell about 7 percent from the current year’s $1.88 billion to next year’s $1.74.
At an all-hands meeting Thursday at LANL, Laboratory Director Michael Anastasio told employees that DOE’s budget request is “pretty good news” for Los Alamos, according to the online LANL News Bulletin.
Anastasio noted that the budget request included more than $100 million in reductions for LANL, but said the largest portion was related to construction projects. If the funding hadn’t been cut there, he said, earlier drafts had shown reductions in other areas, such as personnel, science and technology, the lab reported.
“It’s more important to preserve those capabilities,” Anastasio said, while continuing to “fight for” the construction projects.
Department of Energy spending plans for New Mexico in general dropped about 7 percent, although Sandia National Laboratories was up about $21 million according to a summary provided by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.
But for LANL, the appropriation request doesn’t include $223 million in stimulus and competitive grant funds that have been assigned to LANL in the last several weeks.
In Washington, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced an overall request for the department of about $28.3 billion, an increase of nearly 8 percent.
The National Nuclear Security Administration submitted a plan for $9.9 billion, acknowledging some unresolved issues related to the transition.
“This budget is the first step in implementing President Obama’s historic commitment to nuclear security, which includes bold steps to put an end to Cold War thinking and lead a new international effort to enhance global security,” said NNSA Administrator Tom D’Agostino.
“Even as we look forward to meeting future needs once the Nuclear Posture Review is complete, this budget continues our commitment to the outstanding science, technology and engineering required to meet our current needs for nuclear security.”
The pause for results from the Nuclear Posture Review, due shortly before next year’s budget will be submitted, will have implications for LANL’s main construction project, the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement facility.
The Radiological Laboratory, the first stage of the CMRR will continue along with its furnishings and equipment, while previously scheduled final design work on the much larger Nuclear Facility would be on hold.
“A future decision to proceed with construction of the Nuclear Facility and associated equipment has been deferred pending the outcome of the current ongoing Nuclear Posture Review and other decision making,” according to a Project Data Sheet, notifying Congress of “significant changes.”
New Mexico’s senators both expressed concerns that the new budget lacked funding for upgrades of the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center, which is used in the stockpile stewardship program and also a major attraction for academic and industrial research around the country and the world.
“I believe LANSCE will play a major role in the diversification of Los Alamos into new science areas, which is why I will fight to reverse this wrong-headed decision,” Bingaman said.
In an announcement Sen. Tom Udall expressed satisfaction that the budget would support the core mission of stockpile stewardship while backing growth in new areas of national security.
"Although the budget provides immense new opportunities in these areas, however, I am disappointed it does not reflect the true value in upgrades to the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center,” he said.
Rep. Ben Ray Luján struck similar notes.
In an announcement this morning, he said that while he was concerned with the decision not to fund upgrades to Los Alamos Science Neutron Center, he was encouraged by funding boosts to nonproliferation programs at Los Alamos National Laboratory in President Obama’s budget.
Budget request correction
Close readers of the NNSA budget may notice a curious number on page 543 of Vol. 1 of the NNSA budget, having to do with contractor employment at LANL for 2008 through 2010. The item lists end-of-the-year 2008 employment at 8,139; 2009 at 7,940 and 2010 at 6,640.
This would suggest a steep drop of 1,300 jobs for the coming year. A check with NNSA this morning confirmed that the numbers were in error.
“Unfortunately, the projected jobs numbers included in the FY 2010 budget were the result of incorrect calculations,” said NNSA spokesperson Damien LaVera in an e-mail.
“We regret the error and are in the process of producing a correction that is a true representation of the budget. That projection will show a net projected loss of jobs of about 5 percent at both of New Mexico’s labs, which is consistent with typical annual rates of attrition. Our intention is to avoid any involuntary separations across the nuclear security enterprise, and this budget is consistent with that.”
read the last paragraphs from previous post, looks like the 1300 job loss was an error?
ReplyDeleteFrom Snodgrass's article:
ReplyDelete"“It’s more important to preserve those capabilities,” Anastasio said, while continuing to “fight for” the construction projects."
Bechtel is a construction company. Coincidence?
I don't think so.
“We regret the error and are in the process of producing a correction that is a true representation of the budget. That projection will show a net projected loss of jobs of about 5 percent at both of New Mexico’s labs, which is consistent with typical annual rates of attrition. (News)
ReplyDeleteLANL isn't experiencing much attrition from retirements as many of the old timers left during the SSP and before the LANS takeover. This 5% attrition rate at LANL is coming from the seed corn; young, bright scientists who see a dead end career working for the NNSA and are fleeing to more fertile research opportunities. There is no job security in working as a scientist at LANL and increasingly bureaucratic policies are stifling scientific work.
LANL's technical excellence is slowly dieing off. If you ask some of the scientists who still work there, they'll tell you the same story. LANS may want to paint a happy face over what's happening but those researchers still within the lab know the truth. They see it each and every day. There is no bright future at LANL. Perhaps that is why Dr. Chu's recent visit to Los Alamos was cut short.
I think that they are wrong
ReplyDeleteabout the attrition.
First, a lot of people who were
age 55+ took the buyout in 2008.
They noramlly would have retired at
age 60 in the timeframe from 2009 to to 2012.
While a lot of the younger and mid-career physicists and engineers
from technical organizations would
certainly leave but jobs are not
that easy to come by these days.
The recent hires in the safety, security, and compliance areas are not going anywhere. LANL pays them
well above the going rate.
SO, my conclusion is the an
involuntary RIF is in our future.
The the budget decline just jumped to approx. 7%, the attrition rate is well below 4%. Mikey will have to make the tough choices, think he's up to it?
ReplyDeleteThe double dippers who have decided to stay on at LANL have no reason to leave. The switch over to the LLC allows them to get two large salaries: one from UCRP and one from LANS. They'll stay around for many more years past the age of 60 and have the added benefit that, should they be laid off, they'll also receive over 40 weeks of severance to begin their nice retirement. Can't say as I blame them. It's a swell deal!
ReplyDeleteThe only attrition I've witnessed is from younger, well educated scientists who are throwing in the towel. Retention of good scientists seems to be a non-issue with upper management. Perhaps if LANS and NNSA manage to lower the morale a little further over the next 12 months they'll be able to achieve their much wished for goal of 5% attrition. I'm convinced there must be some type of added monetary bonus for the LANS executives if they achieve this NNSA milestone. We have reached the sick situation where killing off the good science that is left at LANL can actually be profitable!
I am glad to see that the Green President took a stand on cutting pollution in Los Alamos County by beginning the process of shutting down LANCE. What a waste of money and bad science to boost!
ReplyDelete"Obama Proposes Cuts at LANL"
ReplyDeleteMust be another one of those "green shoots" that both Obama and the people in his Administration love to endlessly talk about.
At LANL, those "green shoots" look more like a bad case of stink weed.
7:21 AM - believe you refer to LANSCE, not LANCE? Stopping funds for refurbishment is not the same thing as shutting off the accelerator. Please cite what you are referring to as bad science and pollution from this facility?
ReplyDeleteAre you aware of the scientific output over the past 5 years - not just in research (800 - 1000 users per year) but in producing critical medical radioisotopes, neutron upset measurements for semiconductor manufacturers, material science advances, biology?
Operating LANSCE with an effective user program is one of the ways LANL is diversifing beyond weapons physics. Killing the refurbishment will raise operating costs as it becomes more and more difficult to repair and find parts. But the beam will stay on as long as people can keep the systems up.
You might want to look at the budget presentations by Chu and Isakowitz. They're short and explain why certain things have changed. Good summary numbers in Isakowitz presentation.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.energy.gov/about/budget.htm
Please excuse me for asking an off topic question. Can someone please explain to me what a plutonium pit is and is it dangerous to have around? Thank you.
ReplyDeleteGoogle plutonium pit and you'll get an answer. Only dangerous if it goes BOOM!
No, pits aren't terribly dangerous to have around, absent a high explosive charge and a well-timed detonation system.
ReplyDeleteFrom the right wing crying on this blog you'd think Obama was zeroing out the nuclear weapons complex. But looking over Obama's budget request for NNSA and DOE's summary presentation on this budget, it doesn't look like the end to me...
ReplyDeleteNNSA
($ in million)
Weapons
FY2009 - 6,380
FY2010 - 6,384
0% change
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
FY2009 - 1,969
FY2010 - 2,137
+8% change
Naval Reactors
FY2009 - 828
FY2010 - 1,003
+21% change
Office of the Administrator
FY2009 - 439
FY2010 - 421
-4% change
Total NNSA
FY2009 - 9,617
FY2010 - 9,945
+3% change
Weapons Activities
– Constant at FY 2009 levels to meet immediate needs of the stockpile
– New emphasis placed on revitalizing science
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
– Provides installation of radiation detection equipment at an additional 42 foreign sites and an additional 15 Megaports.
Naval Reactors
– Increases fund new R&D initiatives: Ohio-Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Replacement and the Land-Based Prototype Refueling.
"– New emphasis placed on revitalizing science" - 2:56 PM
ReplyDeleteSay, what? You obviously don't work at LANL. I've seen no sign of science revitalization at this lab. In fact, just the opposite. It's becoming a place that emphasizes mostly cleanup, plant maintenance and construction work and little else.
The best and brightest are fleeing. Labor rates are out of control. New policies are killing off the science. Even the latest set of reports all indicate this to be the case. There is, and will be, no revitalization of science. Not while NNSA and the for profit LANS LLC run the show.
4:41,
ReplyDeleteDude, the true "best and brightest" all left in a huge clump in 2005 - 2006.
The ones remaining are, how shall we say, a bit slow on the uptake.
I think you mean "on the re-uptake"
ReplyDelete5/10/09 4:41 PM
ReplyDeleteThese are not my words, they are directly out of the DOE presentation viewgraphs on the FY09 budget.
http://www.energy.gov/media/Steve_Isakowitz_2010_Budget_rollout_presentation.pdf
Staffing cuts of 5% are on tap for LANL. Meanwhile, the Federal workforce is rapidly expanding under President Obama...
ReplyDelete***
It's A Good Time To Work For Uncle Sam - CBS News, May 12, 2009
President Obama's call last year for "shared sacrifice" doesn't extend to federal employees, at least based on the details of his administration's 2010 budget released this week.
At a time when the official unemployment rate is nearing double digits, and 6.35 million people are receiving unemployment benefits, the U.S. government is on a hiring binge.
Executive branch employment — 1.98 million in 2009, excluding the Postal Service and the Defense Department — is set to increase by 15.6 percent for the 2010 fiscal year. Most of that is thanks to the Census Bureau hiring 102,000 temporary workers, but not counting them still yields a net increase of 2 percent in one year.
There's little belt-tightening in evidence in Washington, D.C.: Counting benefits, the average pay per federal worker will leap from $72,800 in 2008 to $75,419 next year.
5/12/09 11:01 AM Please quit LANL and go to work for the Feds right away. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteThe average federal civil servant worker now makes over $75K? How can this be? I thought civil servant workers were all making low salaries on the government's CS salary schedule.
ReplyDelete