Monday, May 16, 2005


In case you haven't seen this it was just
emailed to all Livermore employees.



Today the University of California and Bechtel National announced that LLNL
Director Michael Anastasio will lead the competition team for the Los
Alamos National Laboratory contract process.

Anastasio will hold a special all-hands/employee meeting today (May 17) at
9 a.m. to discuss the announcement and answer questions.

The meeting will be held in the Bldg. 123 auditorium and will be broadcast
live on Lab TV on Channel 2. Please note that the director will be able to
take employee questions from the Bldg. 123 auditorium only.

The all-hands meeting will be rebroadcast on Channel 2 Tuesday through
Friday at noon, 2, 4, 6 and 8 p.m.

Good to see LANL employees finding out about it after LLNL employees. Not that it matters of course.
I thought this is what Rich Mah was doing
Maybe Michael Anastasio would replace Adm. S. Robert Foley (ret) as UC Vice-president for Laboratory Management if the University of California wins the rebid. Wasn't the original Atomic Energy Act written to keep the miltary out of the nuclear weapons work?

I used to visit LLNL's A Division every week, or so, when Anastasio was the division leader and the people seemed to like the way he ran things.
Anastasio will be the new permanent director of Los Alamos if UC wins the contract just like C. Paul Robinson is leading the LM Los Alamos Competition Team. That is what he will tell the LLNL folks today.

Why should we be surprised? As Admiral Bob "Sly" Foley once said, "I feel like a father with two sons, one that always does things right (Livermore) and one that always does things wrong (Los Alamos)." Obviously this was a statement made by a fool who has chosen to ignore the faults of the first son and the accomplishments of the second but it is obvious that from his perspective, Foley now seems intent on vesting management of the second son into the fertile minds and hands of the offspring (Kuckuck and Anastasio) of the son that always does things right in the eyes of the doting and blind father.
More from the Tri-Valley Hearld.

UC picks Anastasio for lab fight Livermore director is last major piece in university's attempt to fend off challenges
By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER

In a chess game for control of U.S. nuclear weapons design, the University of California has tapped the director of its Lawrence Livermore weapons lab to fight for continued university management of Los Alamos lab in New Mexico.

Physicist and bomb designer Michael Anastasio becomes the last major piece in the university's attempt to fend off challenges from two huge defense contractors and persuade the U.S. Department of Energy that it should keep running the nation's largest weapons laboratory as it has for 62 years.

If successful, Anastasio would become director of Los Alamos and, paradoxically, a competitor with Livermore for weapons design work. If not, he would stay as Livermore's chief — and begin a new fight for university management of that lab as well.

In short, faced with battles over two bomb labs, the University of California has turned to a partnership with Bechtel Corp. and the only scientist in its own stable with experience designing bombs and running a national-security lab.

"It's really in the best interest of the country if there aretwo strong physics laboratories," Anastasio said in an interview Monday. "I think they can really work for the interest of the country if they are managed by the same contractor."

It's a smart, if risky move, according to officials familiar with the nation's weapons labs." When you play that game, you must win," one source said.

Anastasio's experience in lab management and weapons design was considered essential for UC to go up against the nation's largest defense contractor, Lockheed Martin, which has tapped veteran weapons lab director C. Paul Robinson to lead its bid for Los Alamos.

Robinson is a tall, courtly fixture in the U.S. nuclear-weapons complex, with stints as a weapons manager at Los Alamos, an arms-control negotiator and until recently director for 12 years of Sandia National Laboratories, which engineers the non-nuclear components of U.S. nuclear weapons.

Anastasio, 56, sports a goatee and drives a slick, black Audi sports coupe. He is known for a laid-back managerial style that puts a premium on listening and consensus.

"I try to be very open, professional, informal, approachable with high integrity," he said.

"He is very personable, he is very easy to talk to," said Bruce Goodwin, a physicist who leads Livermore's weapons program and has worked closely with Anastasio for 21 years.

"He listens very, very well and he hears what people are saying, but he makes a decision and he expects it to be done," Goodwin said. "If you let him down, he'll let you know it."

Beneath Anastasio's mild-mannered demeanor is a passion for national-security science, for long-range thinking and for winning, Goodwin said. In the early and mid-1990s, Anastasio briefed senior government officials on the pros and cons of maintaining a ban on nuclear testing, then worked with the Energy Department's top weapons official in designing a program to maintain the U.S. nuclear arsenal without explosive testing.

"He's civil, he's polite, he's a nice guy, he's charming. That doesn't mean he's not assertive and driven and competitive," Goodwin said. "You don't get to a position like that unless you drive yourself and are driven."

With Robinson leading the Lockheed team and Anastasio leading the UC-Bechtel team, officials familiar with the weapons labs say the sales pitches become clear: Lockheed and another team led by defense giant Northrop Grumman will stress managerial competence, notably at Sandia, and UC will stress scientific accomplishment and 62 years of weapons design experience.

"That's the clear choice, and your lab directors reflect that choice," said Bill Madia, vice president of lab management at Battelle Memorial Institute, a nonprofit operating several Energy Department labs.

"What you'll hear from the university is, 'We are the organization that has run the nuclear-weapons design program for 60-plus years and that's different from Sandia as the weapons-engineering lab.'"

Lockheed and another team led by Northrop Grumman will attack UC's management record, and UC will attack the scientific and weapons design credentials of the other two teams.

Anastasio started making that pitch even before Monday's announcement of his selection. The university's strengths in science and innovation have kept its labs on the technical edge during the Cold War and prepared with homeland-security technologies before the Sept. 11 attacks, he said.

"To accomplish those aims requires these kinds of innovations in which we have a history," Anastasio said.

The "we" rhetoric marks a change from the Cold War, when Livermore and Los Alamos competed for weapons designs and often were quick to belittle the other — Los Alamos as conservative and overly academic, Livermore as too slick and overreaching.

This week, as Los Alamosans see defense contractors circling, there's a willingness to take help from its sister lab in California.

"I know who Paul Robinson is and at least around here, people respect him greatly," said Los Alamos astrophysicist and lab fellow Jack Hills, "but they'd much rather have UC than Lockheed. No question about it."

Mark Dunham, who works on Defense Department programs at Los Alamos, said the days of Los Alamos-Livermore rivalry appear over.

"I don't know of anyone who has much animosity toward Livermore any more," he said. "We're much closer to siblings than ever before."
How sad that Los Alamos is now "defended" by Livermore. Have we really gone that far down hill? Soon, it seems, we will be "defended" by Bechtel too. Many graves are being rolled in tonight.
Apparently so 8:02.
It really struck me to see that
Texas is not losing one DOD facility. In fact, Ft. Bliss (for example) stands to gain in this round of base closures. So will DOE follow suit and award this contract to Texas? I will not under estimate Bush.
09:06 - So what do you consider Brooks City Base, Naval Station Ingleside, and Red River Army Depot???

Quite trying to make up political schemes because of how the last election went!
Mark Dunham, who works on Defense Department programs at Los Alamos, must not know anyone in X or DX divisions.
regarding the comment: "I know who Paul Robinson is and at least around here, people respect him greatly," said Los Alamos astrophysicist and lab fellow Jack Hills, "but they'd much rather have UC than Lockheed. No question about it." I agree that folks respect Paul Robinson, but the staff I talk with are totally disgusted with the continuing poor performance of UC and think that Lockheed offers a demonstrated competence in management which is sorely needed at LANL. My discussions indicate a growing distrust of the UC, enhanced by Admiral Foley's obvious distain for LANL staff that was shown in yesterday's briefings.
Rich Mah doing something, c'mon 5:14, be serious. Besides collecting a large paycheck and promoting his pals, what is it you think he does?
Mark Dunham, who works on Defense Department programs at Los Alamos, must not know anyone in X or DX divisions.
Rich spent the last few months hiding from Nanos. Actually he and several others have been writing the UC bid package.
Then why do I keep hearing some LANL managers say they are going to work on the proposal if it's already been written?
I believe Mah has been not just hiding from Nanos, but from the God-awful mess he left behind by creating MSM division. I've never been in an organization where so many "managers" and "supervisors" are so completely deficient in leadership skills. They want the perks of GL or TL positions, but won't take the responsibilities. At least half the employees I know are actively looking for new jobs. Thanks a lot, Rich!
I believe MSM is an acronym for "Mah's Surplus Managers".
5/17: Mike Anastasio was B-Division leader
not A-Division leader before he became
Associate Director, then LLNL Director.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?