LANL Reorganization

Frank,
Have you heard anything about the recent reorganization at LANL? An entire directorate was dismantled. The Associate Director from ADISS was sent off to aid in other areas and isn't being replaced. The various organizations from ADISS are being farmed out to several other directorates. Rumor has it (sorry, can't confirm this) that some of these organizations will be disbanded also. People will just drift off into the horizon. Doubt any will be laid off at this point, but down the road who knows?

Hadn't seen anything about this posted and was wondering if you had heard about it?

Thanks,
Anonymous

Audit letter threatens lab retirees with loss of health insurance

By ROGER SNODGRASS, Los Alamos Monitor Editor

One-tenth of Los Alamos National Laboratory retirees recently received letters concerning a “Dependent Eligibility Audit” related to their medical insurance.

At least one recipient thought the cancellation of benefits threatened in the letter was a bit much, especially when compared to the nonchalant way it was delivered.

The envelope, dug out of a recycle pile, “is a generic-looking thing from a P.O. Box in Orlando Florida. Sort of like a Publisher’s Clearinghouse offer or something,” wrote lab retiree Abe Jacobson from Washington state in an e-mail to the Monitor.

The envelope with return address marked as “Customer Care Center” has a headline, “Your Benefits Resources” and a relatively unassuming subhead indicating, “Important Information About Your Health and Insurance Benefits.”

It was sent by first-class mail.

Although the threatened consequences of loss of medical coverage for 12 months, might be considered vital, the letter was not registered and no return-receipt was requested upon delivery.

The sender is not clear on the outside, but is specified in the letter itself as the lab’s management company, Los Alamos National Security, LLC. There is also a bold first line: “Time Sensitive: Your Action Required.”

Laboratory spokesperson Steve Sandoval confirmed Wednesday that the letter is the second round of a two-part audit. The first round went to laboratory employees. In both mailings, 10 percent of the enrollees in each category were chosen to receive letters.

The letter informs the recipient that he or she has been randomly selected for a medical insurance audit and that a response is required before July 31. If the response does not arrive in time, the letter states, “you and your listed dependent(s) will be dropped from coverage … for 12 months.”

In a telephone conversation and several e-mails to the Monitor, Jacobson insisted that the matter had been handled in a “preremptory and careless manner.”

“That is,” he wrote, “for people lucky enough to be in this random sample … their failure to open, read and respond to this letter means they will be dropped from coverage on Aug. 1.”

Jacobson said he typically tries to be away from home for up to three months during the summer, “and it was only good fortune that I got this letter before my departure.”

Had he left a bit earlier, he noted, he would have returned to find that he and his wife were without medical insurance and extremely vulnerable.

Sandoval relayed questions from Jacobsen and the Monitor to human resources officials at the laboratory. One of the questions was about follow-up policy in case there is not a reply.

The officials answered that, with the audit of active employees and a previous audit of retirees under the University of California, they sent several reminders.

“We went above and beyond to contact these people, which resulted in 100-percent compliance and no one lost their medical coverage except for those dependents who truly were ineligible,” officials said.

They also responded to the question about the relatively minimal attempt to command the attention of the recipient compared to the specified consequences, saying the first audit of active employees was sent “certified.”

But letters were not sent certified to the retirees because they had been informed by callers that the postal service “sporadically delivers to outlying areas,” and the certified letters did not need to be signed by the addressee, only family members.

“Certifying the letters added an expense that we realized was not necessary because the follow-up reminder letters, which were not certified, resulted in an enormous response,” the human resource officials replied.

They added, “Our intention is NOT to de-enroll them. It is simply to ensure the plan is being used appropriately.”

The response still did not satisfy Jacobson, who suggested in an e-mail early this morning that the letter should then have said, “The cancellation will occur on Aug. 1 and will be repealed as soon as the required documentation is provided to LANL.”

Without such working, he added, “it’s like saying, if you do not bother to prove your innocence of shoplifting by sending us the purchase receipt for the plasma TV in your living room, we’ll send you to jail for a year, and if the receipt is produced after you enter jail then you’ll still spend a year in jail.”

John McCain on Nuclear Security

On Tuesday Republican presidential candidate John McCain delivered a speech in Denver laying out his views on nuclear issues (Full text here.) Here are two paragraphs that drew some attention from John Fleck at the Albuquerque Journal and Jon Wolfsthal at the Huffington Post.

I believe we must also address nuclear testing. As president I will pledge to continue America's current moratorium on testing, but also begin a dialogue with our allies, and with the U.S. Senate, to identify ways we can move forward to limit testing in a verifiable manner that does not undermine the security or viability of our nuclear deterrent. This would include taking another look at the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to see what can be done to overcome the shortcomings that prevented it from entering into force. I opposed that treaty in 1999, but said at the time I would keep an open mind about future developments.

I would only support the development of any new type of nuclear weapon that is absolutely essential for the viability of our deterrent, that results in making possible further decreases in the size of our nuclear arsenal, and furthers our global nuclear security goals. I would cancel all further work on the so-called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, a weapon that does not make strategic or political sense.

Does that mean he wants to change the test ban treaty to allow limited testing? And why is he talking about RNEP? What do you think McCain meant?

Undesirable element in office ... Critical morass

Noel Murphy | The Geelong Advertiser

It might read like pidgin Latin from an Asterix comic but the first new element to be added to the Periodic Table _ chemistry's running list of the world's body parts _ has merit beyond its allusions to the classic dead language.

It's generally ascribed to that great thinker, anonymous, but also tentatively to one William DeBuvitz, a one-time US physics professor. A Google hunt will direct you to a multitude of websites and blogs with variations on the theme although they're generally faithful to one particular take. My favourite site's a purported Slovenian think tank whose mission is to promote free-market principles, limited government, individual freedom, free enterprises, rule of law, and individual initiative. There's quite a bit of that in Slovenia, if we remember rightly.

This great new element is said to have emerged some years back, following a fire in August 2000 at the apocryphal Los Alamos Laboratory where a secret bunker's security system was damaged. But we recall reports much earlier. DeBuvitz's version supposedly appeared in the January 1989 issue of The Physics Teacher . Maybe it did.

Anyway, this great element is said to be the heaviest element yet known to science. It's called governmentium (Gv) and enjoys something of a double life. In one form, it has a solitary neuron, 25 assistant neurons, 88 deputy neurons and 198 assistant deputy neurons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. In another, it has one neutron, 15 assistant neutrons, 35 deputy neutrons, 80 vice neutrons, 145 supervisory neutrons, 165 team leader neutrons and 225 consulting neutrons, giving it a devilish atomic mass of 666.

These 312 to 666 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are in turn surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.

Even a minute amount of governmentium can cause a reaction that might normally take less than a second to take from four days to four years to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of two to six years; it does not decay but instead undergoes a reorganisation in which a portion of the assistant neurons and deputy neurons exchange places. In fact, governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganisation will cause more morons to become neurons, forming isodopes.
This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

When catalysed with money, governmentium comes into a field truly its own. It morphs into administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

Concentrations of governmentium have reportedly been found in locations such as houses of parliament and large corporations. It's especially drawn to universities. It can usually be found polluting the best appointed and best maintained buildings.

But a word of caution. Scientists warn that governmentium is known to be toxic and recommend plenty of alcoholic fluids followed by bed rest after even low levels of exposure.

Obama Touts Los Alamos Nat'l Laboratory's Potential; Praises for Gov. Richardson

Steve Terrell--The Santa Fe New Mexican

Los Alamos National Laboratory would remain a weapons-research facility under a Barack Obama administration, Obama said Monday. But if he's elected, LANL also would be at the forefront of research for technology to aide in nuclear nonproliferation.

Obama, who was in Las Cruces for a Memorial Day ceremony, was asked in a phone interview whether he would keep LANL as a weapons research facility. "Absolutely," he replied.

"Los Alamos has been one of our premier research facilities, and we need to do more research in this area, in part because we've got to deal with the critical issues of nonproliferation," the Democratic contender said.

Obama said he would put a priority on developing technology to detect "loose," unaccounted-for nuclear material. He also said there needs to be a technology to ensure nuclear materials designed for civilian purposes in countries that don't currently have nuclear weapons are not turned into bombs.

"There's a whole host of areas that involve significant research and development, and Los Alamos needs to be at the forefront of that," Obama said.

Nancy Ambrosiano, a LANL spokeswoman, said Monday that the lab has a Nuclear Nonproliferation Division that's more than a decade old and is in fact working on some of the projects Obama advocates.

Democrats in recent years have advocated making nonproliferation research a higher priority.

The candidate spoke to a group of veterans and their families in Las Cruces at an event that was closed to the public but open to reporters.

He said the government should give the same priority to building a 21st century veterans administration that it does to building a 21st century military. The country should have "zero tolerance for veterans sleeping on our streets," Obama said. He also said protesting at military funerals should be banned. This was in a reference to a rabidly anti-gay church in Kansas that has become infamous for protesting at the funerals of those who died in Iraq, claiming their deaths are God's punishment for allowing homosexuality.

Obama in the interview had praise for Gov. Bill Richardson, who, several weeks after folding his own presidential campaign, endorsed Obama's White House bid. "I think Bill Richardson's one of the best public servants we have in American life."

Asked whether Richardson was on his short list for vice president or another top-level job in an Obama administration, the senator from Illinois replied, "I am not discussing vice presidential choices at this point because I haven't locked down the nomination yet. But I think Bill Richardson would be on anybody's short list for top assignments in the federal government. Now, he may decide he prefers being governor of the state of New Mexico. He loves this state and he loves the people. But he's an outstanding public servant and I'm very proud to have his support."

Recently Richardson, appearing on Fox News, was asked about Obama's statements he would meet with governments not friendly with the U.S.. Richardson pointed out he's met face to face with Fidel Castro and other "bad guys."

"I think you don't talk to (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad. You talk to some of the moderate (Iranian) clerics," Richardson said. The Republican National Committee seized on that statement, implying Richardson was contradicting Obama.

"The Republicans are scrambling to distort my position on this issue," Obama said Monday. "I've been very clear that you meet with our enemies and not just our friends. That's the essence of diplomacy. I've said that with appropriate preparation I would meet with leaders of adversarial countries. I think Bill Richardson's point is a point I've made repeatedly-- that Ahmadinejad isn't the most powerful person in Iran and might not be the person with whom you end up cutting a deal. In fact, we don't even know what his position's going to be because they've got elections coming up in 2009 and his party was weakened in the last legislative elections.

"You know, the Republicans want to engage in fear mongering, and Ahmadinejad's such an unattractive, incendiary figure, they want to prop him up as an example of people they'd refuse to meet with," Obama said. "But, of course, they've refused to meet with more moderate clerics in Iran and lower levels as well. And that policy has failed. It's strengthened Iran. Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons. They're undaunted by the bluster coming from this administration, and I believe that's a policy that both Bill Richardson and myself believe that we need to change."

So why is Obama -- who still faces primary contests with U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton in Puerto Rico, South Dakota and Montana -- spending Memorial Day in New Mexico? Don't other states have veterans?

"Well New Mexico obviously has some just outstanding veterans that I wanted to make sure to honor," Obama said.

But perhaps realizing this might sound like pandering, he quickly added: "And we're going to be competing very hard here in New Mexico in the general election.

"I only had the opportunity to campaign during the primary, the caucus, because it was during Feb. 5, when there were 23 contests. We wanted to make sure we get back here and talk to the voters and give them the attention they deserve."

Obama lost the state's Democratic caucus to Clinton by a narrow margin. "Oh yeah, it was painful," he said.

What will he do to win over Hispanic voters, who tended to support Clinton in the primaries?

"The truth is we did very well with Hispanics here in New Mexico," he said. "Senator Clinton edged us out, but ... I know we got a higher percent of Hispanics here than just about anywhere. We're going to keep making sure that the Hispanic electorate here is familiar with my track record because when they are, we do very well. ... But obviously they were more familiar with Senator Clinton. As they become more familiar with me, the better we do."

DOE Says DARHT Fully Operational; Questions Remain

The Department of Energy announced that the large x-ray machine at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is ready to conduct experiments used to certify the nuclear weapons stockpile. The Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test facility (DARHT) Facility has undergone several years of reconstruction work to fix voltage breakdown problems in the second axis that were first discovered in 2003. The second axis would allow 3-D images of test explosions to be produced. These tests include detonating mock triggers, both for existing and new warhead designs.

During the experiments, which are called hydrotests, DARHT generates a 17-million-volt beam of electrons, which are slammed into a high explosive target. Two X-ray machines digitally photograph the interior of the materials being compressed to simulate a nuclear warhead explosion and hazardous and toxic materials are released into the environment. The tests are considered by DOE to be non-nuclear because the materials that are used cannot sustain chain reactions, but they do contain materials such as depleted uranium, beryllium, lead and plutonium-242.

The rebuilding effort cost $90 million and took five years to complete. DARHT is a $350 million facility, which began construction in 1988. Construction was halted in 1995 when CCNS and the Los Alamos Study Group sued DOE because the required environmental studies had not been done. The estimated cost of DARHT at the time was $124 million.

DARHT has been criticized as being too expensive and behind schedule.

In 2005, the DOE Inspector General found that LANL was behind schedule in developing technology that would protect employees and the environment from exposure to hazardous materials used in the testing program.

One problem identified in the 2005 audit was that LANL had not completed the development and implementation of an improved filtration system on the DARHT facility. Currently, an aqueous foam is used to filter the release of materials. However, the audit found that this strategy is neither the most efficient nor the preferred method for protecting employees and the environment. A senior LANL scientist told the auditors that "foam containment dramatically increased hazards to the workers involved at the firing point and increased the time and costs associated with executing hydrotests." Moreover, using the foam increases the amount of low-level radioactive waste generated by the testing.

The original plan for DARHT included the development of metal vessels to contain the tests. The vessels could then be removed from the site and cleaned at a remote facility, thereby improving the turnaround time for each test. However, LANL never fully developed the vessel design and is behind schedule to incorporate them into the program. The audit recommended that LANL expedite its work on the containment vessels.

The plan for the future nuclear weapons complex transformation does not call for the end of open-air hydrotesting at LANL until 2009.

CCNS made numerous requests for additional information from DOE and LANL about whether the tests will be conducted in vessels or open air. We received no response to our questions.

Scott Kovac of Nuclear Watch New Mexico states, “DARHT will only be a success when all tests performed there are fully contained.”

This has been the CCNS News Update. For more information about this or other nuclear safety issues, please visit our website at nuclearactive.org.

Next Nuclear Weapons Are Tough Sell for Labs

By John Fleck
Of the Journal

Managers at Sandia and Los Alamos national labs often talk about “the customer.” It has always seemed an odd word to me, more appropriate to some guy walking in the door at Target than the people in the military who might some day have to use the nuclear weapons the labs design.

But insofar as “the customer” is the management-speak in use, it seems appropriate to ask what the customer wants. And in that regard, the news for the labs lately is not entirely good.

Foreign Policy magazine recently conducted a survey of more than 3,400 active and retired military leaders. They have a host of concerns regarding the current state of the U.S. military, and the things that need to be done to prepare it for the threats we face as a nation in the 21st century.

A need for new nuclear weapons was about as far down the list as it is possible to get without disappearing entirely from their vision of our military future. Only 2 percent of those surveyed thought “bring(ing) a new generation of nuclear weapons online” should be one of the nation's top defense priorities — far behind the need for “more robust diplomatic tools,” among many needs singled out.

This is a problem for the labs and the National Nuclear Security Administration, the federal agency that directs their nuclear weapons work. They have hitched their future plans to the “Reliable Replacement Warhead.” RRW is the vanguard of a new generation of nukes they want to build to replace our old and, they say, outmoded Cold War arsenal.

But the Foreign Policy survey suggests the customer may not want RRW.

To be fair, one of the customers who matters the most, U.S. Strategic Command, while not willing to buy RRW outright, at least seems interested in putting the design on layaway. Finishing up current paper studies of the RRW design will help guide decisions to be made next year about the long-term future of our nuclear deterrent, Gen. Kevin Chilton, commander of Stratcom, told the House Armed Services Committee in February.

Chilton's comments seem to have been an attempt to quiet concerns that RRW was being sold by the labs and the National Nuclear Security Administration to a customer not all that interested in buying.

But like many things in the federal government right now, “next year” is a long way away, with a bright line dividing “before Jan. 20” from “after Jan. 20.” Election years create a sort of limbo as federal officials alternatively sprint as fast as they can trying to get things locked into place, or idle away the final years of the departing administration, realizing that whatever they do today could be easily undone on Jan. 21.

Which makes the question of the views of the three remaining major-party presidential candidates all the more important. One of them, combined with the next Congress, will make the decisions that will matter on RRW and the future of nuclear weapons.

In that regard, arms control scholar Jeffrey Lewis of the New America Foundation notes that all three have, in one form or another, endorsed a reduced reliance on nuclear weapons and a move toward eventual nuclear disarmament “in one form or another.”

“We should work to reduce nuclear arsenals all around the world, starting with our own,” John McCain said in a March speech outlining his foreign policy platform.

Lewis, who has done a detailed analysis of the three candidates' statements on the issue, notes that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have made similar comments.

On RRW, Clinton's views are clear. “I oppose the Bush administration's plans for the Reliable Replacement Warhead,” she said in answer to a questionnaire from the Council for a Livable World, an arms control group.

Obama has parsed his words more carefully. “America must not rush to produce a new generation of nuclear warheads,” he wrote in a policy essay published last year in Foreign Affairs magazine. Leaving the door open to continued studies, he told the Council for a Livable World, “I do not support a premature decision to produce the RRW.” For Obama, apparently, the option of continued design studies remains on the table.

McCain did not answer the questionnaire, and his campaign declined to comment on his views about RRW.

Regardless of campaign pronouncements, in nuclear weapons policy, and especially the Byzantine world of lab budgets, the devil is in the details. And as Lewis notes, presidential campaigns are not the places where one learns such details.

“Candidates are, by nature, generalists,” Lewis wrote in a recent analysis of the candidates' nuclear weapons statements done for the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. “They can also be quite cautious on issues that are not central to their interests or their image. Although nuclear weapons issues are incredibly important, they are also technical, abstract and excite very few interest groups.”

That means we are unlikely to see presidential candidates speak about nuclear weapons issues with sufficient specificity to answer lingering uncertainties over the future of the nuclear weapons enterprise.

But if you're trying to read the signals here, all of this suggests that the next customer-in-chief is not likely to be an eager nuclear weapons buyer.

Read science writer John Fleck's blog at abqjournal.com. E-mail to jfleck@abqjournal.com

$5 million donation relieves Fermilab of furloughs

May 23, 2008 | 5:42 pm

In an upbeat all-hands meeting at Fermilab today, director Pier Oddone announced that a $5 million donation from an anonymous donor in combination with a number of early retirements and resignations will help allow Fermilab to cease their furloughs (in which all staff had to take approximately 10% of their time off with no pay) at the end of May.

You can watch the video of the meeting held in the auditorium at Fermilab.

Oddone began by literally taking his (borrowed) hat off to the staff for their continued excellent achievement in operating the Tevatron, which has broken many records in recent weeks. He also congratulated the laboratory on its continued good safety record.

He announced that Fermilab will now have a voluntary layoff program starting in June followed by an involuntary layoff program starting in July. The voluntary program will be “structured,” which means that certain job functions are not eligible for voluntary layoffs. However, the majority of the lab will be eligible.

Oddone explained that an anonymous family in Illinois will donate $5 million to the University of Chicago (a partner in managing Fermilab for the US Department of Energy) to help support the future of high-energy physics. “I find it quite encouraging, quite astounding,” Oddone said.

Turning to current Congressional actions, Oddone spoke of the Senate bill that includes supplemental funding for high-energy physics attached to the war spending bill. However, the House bill has no such domestic spending. He cautioned that “the probability of this funding going through this year is not great.” Despite that, Oddone said he is optimistic for the future and appreciative of the effort by the community in achieving this level of support.

Oddone returned to the topic of furloughs and said the combination of more-than-expected retirements and resignations along with the new donation would allow Fermilab to stop furloughs at the end of May. He says he needs to confirm this plan next week but that staff should plan to not have any furlough after May 31. Staff will still be required to take their full vacation allowance by the end of the fiscal year.

As a result of the all-hands meeting, the mood at the lab seems to have improved appreciably, according to some Fermilab staff.

David Harris

Livermore Lab laying off 440

By Betsy Mason
Contra Costa Times
Article Launched: 05/21/2008 11:03:03 PM PDT

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is laying off 440 employees today and Friday, including 110 scientists and engineers with more than a decade of experience.

The lab had received approval from the National Nuclear Security Administration to release up to 535 employees from the permanent work force, but instead will cut about 100 more temporary "flex-term" workers in the coming months to make up the difference.

"It was never just about getting that number at all costs," lab spokeswoman Susan Houghton said. "It was about doing it right."

Lab management determined that the permanent work force couldn't be slimmed any further and the rest of the cuts could be more easily absorbed elsewhere.

Notices are being sent out today to 500 temporary employees, informing them that about 100 of them will lose their jobs as early as the end of June, bringing the total work force down to about 6,600.

"We do not believe after this it will be necessary to have another involuntary separation at the lab," Houghton said. The layoffs should bring the lab in line with its budget for fiscal 2009, she said. The budget shortfall is due to increased costs associated with switching management from the University of California to a private management company in October, along with federal budget cuts.

Today, three-fourths of the permanent employees being laid off will be notified and brought to a centralized "exit center" to receive their benefits packages, return lab property and leave. They will be paid for 30 days before their severance pay of one week per year of service at the lab kicks in.

An additional 54 scientists and engineers with less than 10 years at the lab are among those being notified today.

The 110 experienced scientists and engineers, such as biologists and chemists, will be released Friday. Before their severance begins, they will have the option of staying on the payroll for three months and doing unclassified work in an office outside the lab's perimeter fence, or telecommuting.

The other 276 employees being released include financial analysts, facilities technicians and administrative assistants. This is the first time in 35 years that permanent lab employees are being laid off.

Houghton said the lab is doing a number of things to help employees find new jobs, including organizing a career fair on June 19 with 35 employers who are interested in hiring lab workers and opening a new resource center on Tuesday to help laid-off employees with resume building, benefits counseling and training opportunities.

"Our goal is to separate these employees in the most empathetic and dignified way as possible," Houghton said. "We realize it's difficult, but we want to better position our lab for the future."

Reach Betsy Mason at 925-952-5026 or bmason@bayareanewsgroup.com.

Big Brother is Watching?

Dear Frank,

Can you please post this to make your readers aware that this activity is going on and that they should be concerned that their private information at DOE is being accessed for inappropriate reasons. Please keep me anonymous because I fear retaliation.

It has come to our attention that Laboratory Counterintelligence is looking at employee’s DOE Personnel Security files inappropriately and looking for dirt to use against employees which is a violation of the Privacy Act Law and DOE orders.

If you want to find out if you have been a victim of this rogue operation then send a notarized Privacy Act request to DOE/NNSA Albuquerque Service Center to the attention of the Privacy Act Officer. You need to ask for a copy of all documents and logs that show who has accessed your DOE Personnel Security files and for what reasons.

Send your requests to the following address:

Attached is a sample copy of a letter:

Date: Month/Day/Year

DOE/NNSA Albuquerque Service Center

Attention Privacy Act Official

P.O Box 5400

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185-5400

To Privacy Act Official:

Based on the Privacy Act I am requesting the logs of any and all people who have accessed my DOE/NNSA Personnel Security File, the date they accessed the file and for what reason. I am requesting a complete copy of the File Review Logs and any other logs that show whom has accessed my DOE/NNSA Personnel Security File and the reasons for the access.

Your Name:

Address and phone number

Social Security Number

Date of Birth

Place of Birth

Notarized signature

You must include your: 1) Social Security Number; 2) Date of Birth; 3) Place of Birth and 4) return address and telephone number at the bottom of the letter next to your notarized signature or DOE will not process your request. Send your request via registered U. S. Mail with return receipt to verify that they received your request.

E-LINE: A message to Lab employees from Director George Miller

On Thursday and Friday, we will say goodbye to approximately 440 of our career indefinite colleagues as part of Phase 3 of our Workforce Restructuring Plan. It will be a difficult two days and I encourage everyone to provide support to fellow employees. Dedicated employees will be leaving the Laboratory and I want to extend my thanks to them for their contributions.

If you recall, we originally estimated that up to 535 career indefinite separations (combined with 215 VSSOP departures) would be necessary in order to reach our workforce restructuring goal of 750 separations and to position our Laboratory effectively for the future. After a thorough evaluation of our workforce, attrition and scheduled end of assignments in our flexible workforce, we've decided that we can achieve our workforce restructuring goals by releasing approximately 440 career indefinite employees and up to 100 additional employees from our flexible workforce.

To prepare for this, Strategic Human Capital Management will be re-issuing a WARN Act letter to approximately 500 flex-term employees in affected work groups. It will be mailed out from the Laboratory later today and it will provide 60 days of "notice" to potentially affected employees, with departures of these flex-term employees slated to begin June 26, 2008.

It is my intent that with these final workforce actions, the ISP release this week, along with as many as 100 flex-term reductions in late June, we will be in a position to manage our Laboratory in the stable fashion that has occurred in the past. These actions will conclude the involuntary phase of our 3161 Workforce Restructuring Plan and I do not believe, given the information I have now on our budget situation for FY08 and what we might expect for FY09, that future involuntary separations will be necessary.

I know this is a difficult time. We have tried to provide as much support as possible to our employees who will be leaving the Laboratory. The HR Resource Center (Bldg. 41) will open Tuesday, May 27, to provide services and support to employees who have been given a layoff notice. One-on-one counseling appointments to discuss benefits, retirement and payroll considerations will be available as well as outplacement support and training. A job fair has been planned for June 19 for ISP-selected employees and flex-term employees who will receive the WARN Act notice. The Resource Center also has more than 1,100 job postings, including opportunities with our parent companies, in an updated job bank.

It is a time of change and challenge. It is crucial that we pay attention to the Laboratory's day-to-day operations and to ensuring that all work is done safely and securely. Thank you for your patience during this time and for all you do for our Laboratory and the nation.

Regards,
George H. Miller

Rep. Pearce offers amendments to restore RRW funds and increase pit manufacturing funding

To: New Mexicans

Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM-2) yesterday offered two amendments to the House defense authorization bill.

One amendment would restore $10 million for the Reliable Replacement Warhead. The Energy Department had requested $10 million for the new warhead. The House Armed Services Committee last week zeroed out the funds. Rep. Pearce's amendment would restore the funds.

The second amendment would increase funding for pit manufacturing by $50 million. The Armed Services Committee had reduced the administration's budget request for two pit manufacturing accounts totaling $199 million to $149, a $50 million reduction. Rep. Pearce's second amendment would restore that cut. "Pits" are the essential core of nuclear warheads.

Both amendments are being considered today (Wednesday) by the House Rules Committee. If approved, one or both of the amendments would come to the House floor tomorrow when the defense authorization bill will be open to amendments.

Copies of the amendments are attached. They are also on the House Rules Committee website at http://www.rules.house.gov/amendment_details.aspx?NewsID=3340

[Pearce (NM)

#39 - Would amend title XXXI (DOE National Security Programs) to remove $10 million in funding for energy conservation on military installations and increase funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program by $10 million.

#40 - Provides that of the $9.3 billion authorized for the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (title XXXI of the bill), the amount authorized for the directed stockpile is increased by $50 million, of which $35 million is for Pit Manufacturing and $15 million is for Pit Manufacturing Capability. The increase is offset by a $50 million reduction in funds for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative.]

Reps. Heather Wilson (R-NM-1) and Tom Udall (D-NM-3) should be encouraged to vote against both amendments if they come to the House floor. Given the short notice, I encourage you to contact their Washington, D.C. offices by phone. That is about the only way the message will get through in time. Congressional offices can be reached through the Capitol switchboard at (202) 225-3121. The switchboard is open 24 hours a day. Many congressional offices close at 6 p.m. ET, but they have answering machines that record short messages.

Please forward this message to other New Mexicans. Thanks for your help!

Best,

David Culp, Legislative Representative
Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers)
245 Second St., N.E.
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 547-6000, ext. 2517
david@fcnl.org

--------------------------------------
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety
107 Cienega Street
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Tel (505) 986-1973
Fax (505) 986-0997
www.nuclearactive.org
--------------------------------------

[Click here to download the Pit Manufacturing Amendment or the RRW Amendment.]

Lab Rebuilds X-Ray Machine

By John Fleck
Albuquerque Journal Staff Writer

Federal officials on Monday announced the completion of a long-delayed machine at Los Alamos National Laboratory built to X-ray nuclear weapons parts.

National Nuclear Security Administration deputy chief Robert Smolen called the Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrotest Facility "an incredible scientific and engineering achievement."

That is a stark contrast to the day in 2003 when officials realized the machine, built at a cost of $300 million, did not work.

Monday's announcement marks the successful completion of a $90 million effort to tear the machine apart and rebuild it to fix the problems discovered in 2003.

DARHT, as the machine is known, uses powerful X-ray beams to take pictures of mock nuclear weapons as they are being detonated.

The pictures allow weapons designers to study the details of the early stages of a weapon's explosion without conducting a full nuclear test.

Monday's announcement marks the formal decision by NNSA to give the project a "completed" stamp of approval.

It is also a major accomplishment for the team responsible for the project's completion, said Mary Hockaday, deputy associated lab director for nuclear weapons physics.

"There were a lot of people who told us we couldn't do it," Hockaday said in a telephone interview Monday.

The machine is massive. Two long halls, each two thirds the length of a football field, hold equipment that generates a massive X-ray beams.

Firing the beams at right angles gives scientists a three-dimensional picture of the nuclear device being tested.

The first X-ray beam was completed in 1999 and works well. It was the second beam, which is more powerful than the first, that failed when it was first turned on in 2003.

Hockaday said testing shows that the second X-ray machine now works at full power. Now that NNSA has signed off on the machine's completion, Los Alamos workers will begin preparing for the first full-scale test using both X-ray beams, according to Hockaday. That is scheduled for September or October, she said.

[Further information on DARHT can be downloaded here.]

The buck stops before it gets here...

Today a reader forwarded to me the minutes of the March 19, 2008 meeting of the UC Regents' Committee on Oversight of the Department of Energy Laboratories. For those who are not familiar with this committee, I've included it's bylaws below.

12.6 Committee on Oversight of the Department of Energy Laboratories.

The Committee on Oversight of the Department of Energy Laboratories shall:

1. Consider and report to the Board, or to appropriate Committees of the Board, on matters concerning relations with the United States Department of Energy and matters relating to the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

2. Act in an advisory capacity to the President of the University with respect to appointments of Directors and Deputy Directors of the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

3. Consider reports relating to:
   1. the management of the Laboratories;
   2. the scientific and technical quality of all work undertaken at the Laboratories;
   3. the appointment and retention of Laboratory personnel of the highest competence;
   4. the health and safety of the public and Laboratory employees and the maintenance of environmental quality;
   5. interaction among the Laboratories, the campuses and the larger scientific community; and
   6. the quality of Laboratory communication with the public concerning all Laboratory work.

4. Report periodically to the Board concerning the oversight functions described in (c) above.

The meeting covered many topics, including the importance of UC's role in the selection of lab directors. Norman J. Pattiz, chairman of the Board of Governors of both Los Alamos National Security LLC (LANS LLC) and Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC (LLNS LLC), "stressed that the selection of the laboratory director is one of the University’s most important contributions to the partnership."
Pattiz further stated that he believes "that the LLCs’ oversight role had protected the University to a degree from being blamed for any lapses." The minutes don't explain why he believes this. Hopefully it is not based on arguments of UC immunity under the 11th Amendment of the Constitution. Is Pattiz correct in his belief that the LLCs are responsible for the actions of a lab director they have no part in selecting?

If anyone has a full transcript (or audio) of the meeting please email it and I will post it. Perhaps it will clarify the points made by Chairman Pattiz. A copy of the meeting minutes can be downloaded here.

Cost of U.S. Plutonium Lab Soars

Global Security Newswire
Cost estimates for a new U.S. nuclear weapon research facility have continued to grow and the unit’s home laboratory suggested the trend could continue, the Albuquerque Journal reported Friday (see GSN, July 31, 2006).

In 2003, the Los Alamos National Laboratory figured that building the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building Replacement would cost $500 million, but the figure has now grown to $2.6 billion, according to budget documents released by the Senate Armed Services Committee. The facility would replace an aging laboratory designed to study plutonium and other nuclear materials.

The replacement design has not been completed, so it is too early to estimate final costs, laboratory spokesman Kevin Roark said Thursday.

The committee has recommended slashing the budget request for the facility, preferring to wait for a more detailed plan, the Journal reported (John Fleck, Albuquerque Journal, May 16).

A Fuse That Just Won't Blow

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (DNFSB) Los Alamos Report for the week ending April 11, 2008 raises the issue of electrical safety at LANL.

Electrical Safety: An electrical disconnect box at the Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility was recently found to contain a length of metal conduit deliberately installed in place of an electrical fuse. The circuit did have over-current protection upstream, but laboratory management is appropriately treating this discovery as a serious event. The institutional electrical safety committee has been consulted and a plan is being developed to perform sampling inspections to characterize the extent of condition. In addition, this event appears to be spurring action to catalogue, prioritize and systematically address other legacy electrical code compliance issues and known deficiencies.

I'm curious what other circuits would have lost power, and for how long, had the next upstream device tripped? Failed to trip? Also, was the next upstream device LANL's or the utility's?

Did KSL install this "fuse" (and how long was it in service)? If so, I think I know why they were kicked off site.

[The fuse in the photo is just an example, not the fuse described in this post.]

DOL Office of Workers' Compensation Programs - Outreach Events

On May 20, 2008, officials from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) will conduct a town hall meeting at the Lodge at Santa Fe in Santa Fe, New Mexico. DOL representatives will explain how certain uranium miners, uranium millers, and ore transporters may qualify for federal compensation and medical benefits under Parts B and E of the EEOICPA. Representatives from the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program will also be in attendance to provide information on medical screening services.

For more information you are encouraged to attend.

Town Hall Meeting: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 @ 12:00 p.m.

Lodge at Santa Fe
750 North Saint
Francis Drive
Santa Fe, NM 87501

Contact:
Espanola Resource Center : 1-866-272-3622

--------------------------------------------------------------

On May 21, 2008, officials from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) will conduct a town hall meeting at the Route 66 Casino Hotel in Albuquerque, New Mexico. DOL representatives will explain how certain uranium miners, uranium millers, and ore transporters may qualify for federal compensation and medical benefits under Parts B and E of the EEOICPA. Representatives from the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program will also be in attendance to provide information on medical screening services.

For more information you are encouraged to attend.

Town Hall Meeting: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 @ 12:00 p.m.

Route 66 Casino Hotel
14500 Central Avenue, SW
Albuquerque, NM 87121

Contact:
Espanola Resource Center : 1-866-272-3622

Wallace testifies in Senate on climate change impacts

May 14, 2008

Terry Wallace, principal associate director for Science, Technology, and Engineering (PADSTE), testified Tuesday morning [13 May 2008] before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee regarding the Laboratory’s efforts to develop tools for understanding and mitigating the consequences of global climate change and the growing demand for energy.

The Senate Committee is examining the impacts of climate change on the reliability, security, economics, and design of critical energy infrastructure in coastal regions.

Click here to read Wallace's prepared remarks to the committee.

Wallace addressed how the Laboratory is using the best science to help decision makers understand vulnerabilities to the nation’s energy infrastructure from increased energy demand and climate change.

[Below is a 3 minute excerpt of the hearing video. Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) asks a question of Dr. Terry Wallace, and also asks Dr. Virginia Burkett (Chief Scientist of the Global Change Programs, United States Geological Survey) to respond to his question.]

LANL to Run Support Services

By Raam Wong
Albuquerque Journal Staff Writer

Los Alamos National Laboratory is preparing to take over most of the work now done by KSL Services, the lab's largest subcontractor.

LANL hopes to offer employment to many of KSL's 876 employees and does not expect major job losses, spokesman Kevin Roark said Tuesday. The transition should be complete by the time KSL's contract expires at the end of this year, he said.

The decision to "in-source" KSL's work— ranging from building maintenance to trash collection and road repair— means the lab will be without a site support services contractor for likely the first time in its history.

"It's a business decision," Roark said.

Lab officials said in a memorandum to employees that the change would cut overhead costs, improve efficiencies and free up resources for improving facilities and science capabilities.

Still, the memo states, "we do not underestimate the scale or challenge involved in moving to a new arrangement."

KSL has held its five-year, nearly $800 million contract since February 2003 when it replaced Johnson Controls Northern New Mexico. The contract had the option of five single-year extensions.

Roark said the decision to assume KSL's responsibilities was unrelated to a Department of Energy investigation in October 2007 that found KSL routinely overcharged for its work, with taxpayers picking up the multimillion-dollar tab.

KSL billed taxpayers for work not done and materials not needed, and often charged more than 20 percent above the original cost estimate.

Roark said the problems revealed in the DOE Inspector General report have long been resolved.

Activist Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group praised the change. Mello said shifting responsibility for maintenance and other work from a subcontractor to the contractor that manages the lab would amount to increased accountability, more transparency and job security for maintenance employees.

KSL is a joint venture of KBR, Shaw Group and Los Alamos Technical Associates. KBR— the former Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root— is the majority owner and manager of KSL.

Roark said KSL will not have a role at the lab after 2008, though he said LANL will still use contractors.

A Threat to Threat Reduction?

[An anonymous post request.]

Doug Beason held a meeting today in which he explained the future of the Threat Reduction directorate. From what I understood, TR will become subservient to Terry Wallace's empire expansion hallucinations (that may be about to become real). The idea is that TR will transfer employees who are not "professional" threat reduction/non-proliferation people, to Terry's line organizations. They will then be "Form B"'d back to their original organizations, to continue their work. So now TR overhead will increase to support other divisions, the individual employees transferred will be screwed because their line manager will not have a clue as to what they do, sponsors will be reluctant to fund because there is no guarantee of available staff to do the work, the staff transferred will lose the will to submit proposals because they won't be appreciated, but Terry will rule a decaying empire, much like Nero of ancient Rome. I wonder if he plays the violin...?