Monday, January 31, 2005
What have people "told Pete?"
I have wondered for some time now about the content of emails sent to Director Nanos through the LANL “Tell-Pete” website. In fact, I also wonder what the total count over time has been.
While many might contain actionable complaints with specific details, it seems reasonable that many just relay general information about morale, what those at the bottom are thinking of those at the top, etc. While the former letters are confidential in nature, I think it might be interesting to see some of the letters in this latter vein. Perhaps many are saying the same thing, and the Director is choosing to ignore them, as is his prerogative, since presumably only he sees them.
I also suspect some of them might actually be quite entertaining and I think many agree we are in sore need of some laughter.
Wants to help restart group operations
While I was trying to deal with the CREM incident, I found out that there was a serious accident involving a student intern who suffered an eye injury from a laser beam. It is interesting to note that the accident happened an hour or so after the All-Hands meeting which the student and her mentor attended.
Now I find out that the CREM incident was really a clerical error. The disks never existed, and the incident moved into the category of the Wen Ho Lee disaster and the missing disks found after the Cerro Grande fire as another example of overreaction to preliminary data.
But the safety issue still exists. So many terrible things have happened in the last six months I do not remember why, in the fall of 2003, we reacted to a safety problem by writing Integrated Work Documents. Our effort was not entirely successful because the accident of 2004 was very similar to one that happened many years before.
Recently, there was a report from the Lab that about 3000 operations had been reviewed during the past six months, and around 2000 safety issues needing corrective actions had been discovered. I asked my former (I retired at the end of July 2004) ES&H officer if any of the issues applied to me since I was an employee at the time. I was told that the information I requested was not available to the public. I reminded the ES&H officer that nothing had happened since I retired and I was entitled to the same information as a member of the group. I have received no response after more than two weeks.
Over the last six months I have had e-mail contact with former co-workers, but over the last two months those contacts have ceased. I have had one phone conversation with my closest co-worker and an accidental face-to-face conversation with another, but neither person seemed comfortable with discussing issues with me. I am very concerned that I have formally offered to help my group restart operations after six months of inactivity, but I have received no response.
Larry Creamer, DX-1 (Ret.)
78 Granada Dr.
Los Alamos NM 87544
lcreamer@mindspring.com
Letter From Congressman Udall
--Doug
January 31, 2005
Mr. Douglas Roberts
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87506
Dear Mr. Roberts:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Los Alamos
National Lab (LANL) Management and Operating Contract
Competition process. I appreciate hearing from you on this
important issue.
I have received numerous phone calls, letters, and emails
over the past few months from people extremely concerned with
the future of LANL. As the LANL contract process unfolds, I
encourage people to continue to share with me their thoughts,
questions, and concerns. In response to many inquiries, I held a
Town Hall meeting in Los Alamos on January 17, 2005, which
was attended by over 300 members of the community. Based on
the information I gathered there and through correspondence from
constituents, I submitted a letter to the U.S. Department of
Energy's (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) on January 21st. The NNSA is overseeing the draft
Request for Proposal (RFP) regarding the bidding process for a
LANL contract. Please visit my website at
www.tomudall.house.gov to view the comments I submitted as
well as other information about LANL.
The comment period for the draft RFP closed on January
21, 2005 and no further comments are being accepted by the
NNSA at this time. The final RFP is expected to be released by
late February, and a new contract award is anticipated by July 1,
2005. NNSA has proposed a transition period of five to seven
months, after which the new contract will be in effect. Please be
assured that I will continue to closely monitor this process. I
believe the vitality and stability of the Los Alamos community is
rooted in LANL, making the successful outcome of this process all
the more important.
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me. Please
feel free to contact me again if you have thoughts or comments on
any federal issue. You may visit my website at
www.tomudall.house.gov for more information.
Very Truly Yours,
Tom Udall
Member of Congress
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Physics Today is Investigating the Issue of the Missing December Issues
This email message was recently sent to LANL subscribers of Physics Today:
Dear xxxxxxxx,
Recently it was brought to Physics Today's attention that the December issue of the magazine did not reach some subscribers in the New Mexico area. To try and track down why this occurred, we would be grateful if you could reply to this email with the following information.
If you did receive the December issue please place put the word YES in the subject line.
If you did not receive the December issue, please put the word "NO DEC" in the subject line.
If you have not received both the January and the December issue, please enter "NO JAN OR DEC" in the subject line.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Yours Sincerely
Paul Guinnessy*
*Paul Guinnessy is a journalist for Physics Today magazine. He attended Queen Mary and Westfield College, which is part of the University of London. He studied astrophysics there and earned his undergraduate degree. He then went into the geography department to work on environmental science issues. Mr. Guinnessy is a member of the Institute of Physics in the UK. Additionally, he is a chartered physicist, a member of the American Physical Society and the American Geophysical Union.
FBI: Lab never was missing disks
By Diana Heil | The New Mexican
January 29, 2005
Case closed: Two classified computer disks thought to be missing at Los Alamos National Laboratory last July never existed, according to FBI and U.S. Department of Energy investigations released Friday.
Lab records showed 12 computer disks were prepared last September for a meeting on experimental radiographic technology. In reality, only 10 disks were created. What happened? Bar codes were put into lab records before the computer disks were created.
The federal report on the investigations adds a footnote : “The forensic evidence does not prove that no other disks were created, only that they need not have been. Taken with the interviews (which involved the use of polygraphs), however, the overall conclusion that the ‘missing’ disks never existed appears well founded.”
Lab employees and Los Alamos residents have known this unofficially for some time.
Meanwhile, lab workers and retirees have watched three people lose their jobs as others lost pay or got demoted. They have watched an inventory snafu led to the confusion.
“Although multiple investigations have confirmed that the ‘missing’ disks never existed, the major weaknesses in controlling classified material revealed by this incident are absolutely unacceptable , and the University of California must be held accountable for them,” NNSA Administrator Linton Brooks said Friday. “Of even greater concern are significant safety weaknesses which came to light at approximately the same time.”
The university could have gotten a base fee of $3.5 million for operating the lab with the rest of the money based on performance.
The lab fared worst in its rating for operations, not getting any of the $2.1 million performance money setaside.
A separate rating for science and technology was “good,” bringing the lab $2.4 million out of a possible $3.1 million.
Brooks, however, thought UC didn’t deserve all of this amount, and he ended up awarding just $2.9 million less than the base amount. “I consider this an appropriate indication of the severity and systemic nature of the problems uncovered at Los Alamos, problems which have already resulted in substantial loss to the government,” he said.
This is the first time NNSA invoked a clause in the UC contract, which allows the government to withhold up to 100 percent of the management fee for failures in safety and security.
“We don’t believe they should have gotten any of the award fee,” said Pete Stockton , director of the Washington , D.C., watchdog group, the Project On Government Oversight . But he said what Brooks did goes in the right direction.
This happened at a time when the university is considering whether to compete to continue running the lab, a job it has held since World War II. The government put Los Alamos lab up for competition because of repeated business, safety and security lapses.
“I think that’s intended as a slap in the face to try to ensure that UC doesn’t bid,” Chuck Mansfield, a retired lab physicist, said.
He said he has more trust in the University of California than in local lab management or the Energy Department.
“The problems are really at the director level,” Mansfield said. “The university is being singled out as the whipping boy, but that’s not where the strokes should be applied.”
The University of California accepted the whipping, though. “We got walloped. Unfortunately, we deserve this,” UC spokesman Chris Harrington said.
He said UC has corrected the root problems, “so we don’t have to take this kind of hit again.”
U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, D-N .M., said the university has done a good job in trying times. “On the other hand, the NNSA has responded to the bad headlines by cutting the university’s award fee unreasonably,” Domenici said. “That willingness to succumb to political pressure reveals to me that the university is doing a better job of standing up to criticism than is the NNSA. I had expected better from the NNSA.”
Shutdown Bad For Science
Robert P. Swift, PhD
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Wondering About LANL Management Tenure
Both the 1/30/05 New Mexican and the Journal Santa Fe report that NNSA will penalize UC by a large fee reduction for its 2004 management of LANL. While science was ranked "good" operations were ranked "worst".
Why is Tom Meyer, former Associate Director for Strategic Research, who was providing effective leadership of the lab's science mission gone? Pete Nanos, on the other hand, failed as director to correct operations problems until the lab shutdown. Why is he still here?
Why was Nanos allowed by UC to shut down the entire laboratory and keep it down for all these months? I don't see how any benefit from the shutdown can ever outweigh the damage done. UC has earned reproach. Unfortunately, the fee reduction will translate into more suffering for LANL programs.
Two LANL Disks Never Existed; Lab Shut Down In Search Last Year
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Two LANL Disks Never Existed; Lab Shut Down In Search Last Year
By Leslie HoffmanThe Associated Press
Two computer disks that supposedly went missing last summer, prompting a virtual shutdown at Los Alamos National Laboratory, in fact never existed, according to report released Friday.
In its harshly worded review that described severe security weaknesses at the nuclear lab, the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that bar codes were recorded for the disks, but the disks themselves were never created.
A separate FBI investigation supported that finding, according to the report.
"Although the FBI has validated our conclusions that the 'unaccounted for pieces of (classified removable electronic media) at the center of this investigation never were created and, therefore, (are) not missing from inventory,' the weaknesses revealed by this incident are severe and must be corrected," the report stated.
Because of the problems, the NNSA announced it would slash the University of California's management fee, imposing the largest fee reduction ever on a national laboratory. UC will get only a third of the total fee it was eligible for as lab manager during the last fiscal year ending in September.
Out of a possible $8.7 million, UC will get only $2.9 million.
In slashing the fee, National Nuclear Security Agency chief Linton Brooks said he was concerned about "major weaknesses in controlling classified material."
Those weaknesses "are absolutely unacceptable, and the University of California must be held accountable for them," he said.
UC officials on Friday accepted responsibility for the problems but pointed to the months of work they and lab officials have done reviewing Los Alamos' safety and security procedures since the initial shutdown.
"We got walloped. Unfortunately, we deserve this," UC spokesman Chris Harrington said. "But what we have done is correct the problems and put the right system in place so that we don't have to take this type of hit again."
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., criticized the funding cut, saying the school has worked to make changes under difficult circumstances.
"The NNSA has responded to the bad headlines by cutting the university's award fee unreasonably," he said. "That willingness to succumb to political pressure reveals to me that the university is doing a better job of standing up to criticism that is the NNSA. I had expected better from the NNSA."
Lab watchdogs who have long criticized UC's management of the lab hailed the cut.
"It's certainly a step in the right direction," said Pete Stockton of the Washington, D.C.-based Project on Government Oversight.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said he understood the rationale behind the cut but noted that the most important issue should be making sure the safety and security challenges raised in the report released Friday are dealt with.
The report highlighted areas in which DOE and NNSA officials believe corrective action was needed. They include enforcing accountability, improving overall handling of classified material and improving oversight of security at the lab.
One of the report's recommendations called for holding the university accountable through the management fee.
DOMENICI STATEMENT ON LOS ALAMOS FEE REDUCTION
CONTACT: MATT LETOURNEAU
JANUARY 28, (202) 224-7098
DOMENICI STATEMENT ON LOS ALAMOS FEE REDUCTION
WASHINGTON -
In response to news that National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has imposed a major fee reduction on the University of California for its performance managing Los Alamos National Laboratory, U.S. Senator Pete Domenici issued the following statement:
"I think that giving UC a 'good' rating for their management is fair. That's a sound assessment. Clearly there is room for improvement, but the facts underlying all the bad headlines is that the University has done a good job in trying times."On the other hand, the NNSA has responded to the bad headlines by cutting the University's award fee unreasonably.
That willingness to succumb to political pressure reveals to me that the University is doing a better job of standing up to criticism than is the NNSA. I had expected better from the NNSA."I know the University is doing all it can to improve the management and operations of the Laboratory, and I will work on improving the management and operations of the NNSA."
The NNSA awards fees annually based upon contractor performance.
This year, with the opportunity to rate the University of California's management of Los Alamos as "outstanding, good, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory," the NNSA has rated the University as "good."
-Matt Letourneau
Deputy Press SecretaryU.S. Senator Pete Domenici
Baffled by the Charge
print it. If you think it is suitable for your web page, feel free to use
it. Maybe it's a bit on the tame side compared to some of the stuff, but I
think there are some notions here I have not seen articulated elsewhere.
_________________________
"I believe there is something about the Los Alamos culture that we have
not yet beaten into submission… They exalt science and that's good. But ...
they devalue security."
NNSA Administrator Linton Brooks to Congress, 13 July 2004.
Is there a “culture of arrogance” toward safety and security rules at Los
Alamos? Did a “cowboy culture,” developed and nurtured over six decades,
cause the current controversies? Editorialists all across the country seem
convinced, but it’s worth careful examination.
I believe language is crucial when trying to characterize anything of
importance in human society. The word “culture” is used in my lexicon to
describe characteristics shared by a majority -- not a handful -- of the
members of a population. “Culture of arrogance” implies that something on
the order of 5000 employees of the laboratory are reckless with their own
health and with the future well being of the people of the United States.
That would be quite remarkable indeed. One might ask how these thousands
came to be hired in the first place.
Most of the long-time scientists at the lab that I have asked are baffled
by the charge. They claim that their immediate colleagues, scientists and
technicians, are conscientious, dedicated, careful people who do their best
under sub-optimal circumstances. When asked to point out the “cowboys” in
the system, they come up empty-handed. There doesn’t seem to be any
identifiable individual who consistently breaks the rules. If there were,
they would have been tossed out or isolated by their colleagues a long time
ago.
On the other hand, accusations of arrogance at DOE labs are not entirely
wrong. On administrative levels, there is a history of contempt toward
public involvement at DOE sites. Many scientists exaggerate the scientific
value of their own research. At Lawrence Livermore National Lab, arrogance
is polished into a high art form. There is no hesitation to use wild
exaggeration in proposing large, expensive new projects to DOE, and to
insist that no other route will answer the need.
But the notion that arrogance extends to safety and security is a
provocative extrapolation. In national security work, safety and security
are prerequisites for success. Any large experimental effort entails a
tremendous amount of work to sort out the instrumental complexity and the
associated hazards. Coordinating the efforts of a team of scientists and
technicians to produce something meaningful, and assembling and protecting
the resulting classified information, can be a herculean effort that few
organizations can pull off. This describes the culture that has made Los
Alamos deservedly famous. If there is widespread arrogance and disregard
for the rules in this process, how has it gone unnoticed for so long in a
place always under such intense scrutiny? What is the basis for the claim?
I think there might be an alternative explanation for the recent failures
at LANL. Perhaps it’s time to recognize that Los Alamos and its sister labs
are the most complex, interdisciplinary technical organizations known on
the planet. The array of experimental work is mind boggling. The classified
information produced is incredibly varied and voluminous. No industry comes
even close, and no university does it at such a large scale. Safety and
security at LANL are really, really hard to do. Obviously, nobody has
figured it out yet. There is no single system that nullifies the risks for
all experiments simultaneously, at least not for a finite number of
dollars.
There is no ideal computer system for managing all of the
information because it is so hopelessly distributed. There are thousands of
people in thousands of workplaces, many of them alone or in pairs, and they
are -- regrettably, and unavoidably -- human, and imperfect.
We will continue to reduce the consequences of mistakes, to minimize the
chances for error, and to compensate for the dumb things humans do. We will
employ the best possible technology in the effort. But it will only occur
in an atmosphere that is understanding, forgiving, flexible, and
constructive. Poisonous acrimony, threats, retribution, ridicule,
intimidation: these are tools that would be unwise to use to improve safety
and security at a national lab. Some may argue they work in other contexts,
but at Los Alamos they would only be counterproductive and divisive.
It may not be helpful to point to the mistakes of a handful and presume the whole
community is complicit, as the term “culture of arrogance” does. We should
start to pay attention to the language we use and the tone we adopt, if we
desire to see progress. Otherwise, LANL’s highest obligation -- to produce
something of value for the US taxpayer -- will be forever unmet.
Bernard Foy, concerned scientist.
--------------------------------------
Bernard Foy
Santa Fe, NM
http://www.mfgdsl.com/squirrelmail/src/compose.php?send_to=bdfoy%40newmexico.com
Friday, January 28, 2005
LANL NewsBulletin
--Doug Roberts
Bureacratic Safety
Jan. 24, 2005
Thinking safety
The analytical work required for my doctoral dissertation involved starting up a long-dormant clean room. I asked my adviser if he thought I should institute a "clean room glove and gown" rule. He answered: "I'm more concerned whether you are "thinking clean" than whether you are insisting on gloves and gowns. If you consistently think clean, the rest will sort itself out."
That was very good advice from a respected scientist. If one substitutes "thinking safe" for "thinking clean," it bears directly on our present safety situation.
Recently, one of my safety responsible-colleagues stopped one of our technicians and asked him a safety-related question. The observer, in the midst of several errands, did not make a formal "observation" but rather asked a pointed question and had to run. However, this clearly got our technician thinking. The tech came to me and we discussed the matter and thought about whether indeed there was a problem and if so, what were some solutions.
Later that day, I ran into the observer and thanked that person for taking the time to ask the question. Much to my surprise, the person was apologetic for asking a quick question rather than making a formal observation. I was floored and replied 'my gosh, you did exactly the right thing from a safety perspective' and thanked the person a second time.
Are we unwittingly encouraging the notion that our thinking about safety should be saved for formal occasions? Are we "bureaucratizing" safety to the point that our model for safety impedes our ability to spontaneously "think safe?" If the observer did not have the time for a formal observation and chose instead to do nothing, that technician and I would have been less safe. The observer's quick observation and question got us "thinking safe."
Unfortunately, I don't think this Laboratory rewards real-world "behavioral safety training" but instead something easier to measure: IWD's and hours spent in formal training. Given the "flat" injury rate graph that Director Nanos showed us last week, I wonder if we are missing something important. In my years running an analytical lab at a university, we managed to keep the ambulances away by teaching thinking and behavior rather than stressing paperwork. As my adviser taught me to "think clean," we taught our students to "think safe and think clean."
We must change our paradigm and do more to encourage safety as an attitude that springs from our culture and is thus internalized. We must encourage and reward the "quick hallway questions" from a peer, ensuring these are at the heart and soul of the system. We must streamline and simplify the ongoing bureacratization of safety. If we do not, I am pessimistic about improving our safety statistics. And frankly, I'm not optimistic that the Laboratory or DOE is willing to risk real change.
--Khalil Spencer
Communication
Also from the 1/28/2005 LANL NewsBulliten:
Jan. 24, 2005
Communication
I don't suppose that I am the only employee who missed the "live version" of the all-employee meeting due to other important activities, such as conference attendance, and is now only allowed to view the director's prepared comments. Apparently, the director would rather prevent outsiders from knowing his responses to questions than have all employees be informed. This is the wrong direction for management to be taking with respect towards communication with Laboratory employees.
--Jeffrey Barber
Metrics for scientific excellence
Jan. 26, 2005
Metrics for scientific excellence
Several of the recent letters to the Reader’s Forum have commented upon the pretentious nature of the Laboratory’s motto “The World’s Greatest Science ....” It does appear that the motto is yet another example of upper management’s wishful thinking that saying it makes it real. But just what are the metrics for great science? If great science is the Lab’s product, how is it measured? Why should it be measured?
Developing metrics for scientific output is of critical importance to the future of the Lab. In industrial and commercial settings, ‘output’ is quantifiable – widgets produced, gross and net income, growth rate, etc. Thus, ‘cost’ metrics like accident rate, lost work days, production and compliance costs can be ratioed to ‘output,’ allowing one to determine when a change has a net positive or negative impact. That is the fundamental premise of benefit/cost analysis. Without a metric for output (great science), ‘cost metrics’ at the Lab, like accident rate, security incidents and financial accountability, get ratioed against each other in a spiraling closed loop that is totally divorced from output. Thus, there is no way to quantify benefit/cost. And no way to determine when increasing formality of operations has moved from a positive territory into negligible increased benefit into the negative regime. I assert that the increased formality of operations protocol has already moved us into negative benefit territory (as illustrated by the uptick in safety and security incidents), but that’s another issue...
In his message to the National Nuclear Security Administration (as reported in the Los Alamos Monitor “Domenici addresses lab's RFP concerns,” Sen. Pete Domenici targets several key areas of deficiency in the draft request for proposal. But he doesn’t go far enough.
Unless we can determine just what is the desired output from the Lab and how to quantify it, all those other metrics become meaningless and we will become another Rocky Flats. And there are no metrics for great science in the RFP. Admittedly, it’s a complex issue, where ‘output’ varies from project to project. But certainly some metrics like number of manuscripts, number of heat sources, number of pits, active beam time, active user-facility days, increase in customer base, etc. can be developed to require that the contractor actually support the scientific output. That is the purpose of having a national laboratory in the first place instead of just continuing down the current path of ignoring the impact of various arbitrary directives upon our ability to do ‘great science.’
--Mary Barr
Letter From Governer Richardson
A copy of the letter from Governor Richardson to The Honorable Samuel W.
Bodman follows:
The Honorable Samuel W. Bodman
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20585
Dear Mr. Secretary-Designate:
Congratulations on your nomination to become Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE). It is a position I was privileged to hold, and
one which gave me great satisfaction; I am confident you will enjoy your
tenure there. Your previous experiences will serve you well in your new
responsibilities as leader of this most important agency.
As Governor of New Mexico, I have been actively engaged in issues concerning
DOE's award of the contract to manage the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Because of the strong relationship between the Lab and my State, I recently
went to California to meet with the University of California (UC) Board of
Regents, to encourage the University to enter the competition for the
contract to continue its management of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
I told the Regents that the future of Los Alamos would best be served by DOE
issuing the new contract to the University because of its unmatched
scientific and technological quality.
New Mexico's economy, and particularly that of northern New Mexico, is
heavily dependent on the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and it is therefore
important to New Mexico, as it is to our country, that the Laboratory
continue to be an excellent scientific institution, bringing the best
scientific and technical talent to bear on solving problems of the highest
national security import.
As I said to the Regents, it is the high quality of the Lab's scientific and
technical staff that makes the Lab great. As a Nation, we must not do
anything that will drive away, or make it difficult to recruit that talent.
The continuation of these benefits will ensure that the Laboratory avoids
massive retirements by continuing to be an attractive place to work, and
continues to attract the best scientific and technical workforce possible.
The continuation of these benefits, as a matter of equity, also will ensure
that the Laboratory's retirees, most of whom live in New Mexico, continue to
receive the pension and post retirement health benefits they always have
expected for the past 62 years.
Frankly, I was disappointed to find that the Draft Request for Proposal
(RFP) contained language undermining our expectation that existing pension
and post-retirement benefits would be retained in any future contract. I
was disappointed, as well as many others, because Secretary Abraham had
promised that this would be done in April of 2003. While I am sure this was
Secretary Abraham's intent, it is nevertheless the case that clearly
inconsistent language was included in the Draft RFP.
Because of this, I request that you give this issue your personal attention
to ensure that this commitment, that you ratified at your confirmation
hearing, gets incorporated into DOE's final contract for the management of
Los Alamos National Laboratory in a way that any bidder will be required and
able to meet, just as the University of California (pursuant to DOE's
direction) has done since the Laboratory's inception in 1943. I also expect
that the final contract will require that any winning contractor continue to
be good community leaders, assisting in community and economic development,
as UC is now doing.
Again, congratulations on your nomination to become Secretary of Energy; the
Department of Energy is very important to America's security and its
economic and scientific future. I wish you well and look forward to working
with you in your new post. Please be assured that you can count on me to do
whatever I can do to help DOE advance the contributions that our State's DOE
laboratories and facilities can make to the future of our country.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Bingaman comments on RFP
Thursday, January 27, 2005
|
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Status of the Blog
LANL The Real Story Web Site Hits, as of 10:30 pm MST, 1/25/2005
What does this say? I suppose it indicates that there is a growing interest in what is really happening at Los Alamos National Laboratory these days. In producing this blog, every attempt has been made to report the facts of our current situation at LANL, usually by mirroring letters and news items as they have appeared in local news media. The mere process of making that information more generally available has garnered not only the attention of many "ordinary" people, but it has also captured the attention of the Office of the President of the University of California, as well as, undoubtedly, that of several strata of management inside LANL itself.
Is that good or bad?
That, no doubt, depends on your point of view. Interleaved with the many "Thank you for doing this!" messages I have received are a noticeable number of "I hope you survive it." wishes as well.
Well, I hope I survive the process as well. In the mean time, however, I truly appreciate the time that the contributors to this blog have taken in searching out and sending me references to letters, articles, and news items that pertain to our present situation at LANL. It is my belief that a process that cannot withstand the rigors that an open venue of discussion produces should perhaps consider the error of its ways, and strive to change itself into one that can.
--Doug Roberts
Letter to the Los Alamos Monitor
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Decision to compete contract is folly
|
|
|
|
Dear Editor,
Congress and DOE need to rethink their decision to compete the contract to manage the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The University of California has managed the Laboratory as a public service for over 60 years, and it is UC's management that has allowed the laboratory to serve this country as a center for scientific excellence and outstanding contributions to national security. A dispassionate review of the number and severity of the security and safety incidents over the past several years reveals that they are commensurate with the type of work and significant challenges that we perform here. Comparisons with other government labs and high-tech companies reveal that the lab's record is on a par with or better than its peers. Only rampant media hype and political posturing have resulted in the decision to compete the contract.
The lab has many staff members who have performed important work for many years and who are bursting with enthusiasm to pass on their knowledge to those who will take their places. These folks have displayed unwavering dedication to the lab, to the mission, and to the country. They understand that safety and security must be a part of everything that they do. There may be a very small number of individuals at the lab who are not committed to safety and security (although whether the folks that were punished for the recent safety and security incidents are among them is open to question).
The University of California contract means infinitely more to lab employees than just a fat benefits package. The history and spirit of UC management of the lab is woven throughout everything that we do. Although the lab may ultimately survive having that history and spirit ripped from the fabric of the lab, to gamble with the future of the lab and its contributions to national security seems like an incredibly foolish thing to do. We need a Department of Energy and a Congress that can see the absurdity of this and who will step forward to ensure that UC continues to manage this Lab as it has done for the past 60 years.
|
|
Dr. Wendee M. Brunish
Earth and Environmental Sciences Division
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Where are the December Issues of Physics Today?
Could LANL management really have been so, well, ill advised as to have ordered their sequestration in an attempt to hide the facts from LANL employees? If so, then somebody really crapped in his hat!
Director Nanos, Physics Today
Jan. 21, 2005
Disappointed by the tone and accuracy of the director's comments
During the Jan. 19 employee update meeting, the director included some harsh remarks about the Laboratory scientist who authored a recent Physics Today Opinion column that questioned the basis and necessity of the Lab's suspension of operations.
I am disappointed by the tone and accuracy of the director's comments. The director stated that the author had not only ridiculed the Laboratory but, had Physics Today been a peer-reviewed journal, the article content would have been quite different. In fact, articles published in Physics Today are peer reviewed, including Opinion columns.
The director's comments implied that the safety statistics used in the article were either wrong or did not support the article's conclusions. He made this point in reference to one of his view graphs that showed two plots of accident rate versus time. He mistakenly referred to the lower curve as the Department of Energy complex average rate and stated that the Lab rate (upper curve) was more than a factor of two above it. In fact, both curves were Lab accident rates, the top curve was Total Reportable Cases (TRC) for the Lab, and the bottom curve was the Days Away from Work, Restricted Work Activity or Job Transfer (DART) for the Lab.
His next view graph did show a comparison between accident rates at the Lab and the average across the DOE complex. However, the DOE complex average includes non-scientific and non-manufacturing sites, where the principal risk of injury is dominated by office and clerical work. The Physics Today article compared TRC data for the Lab with other DOE research institutions on a sitewide basis. Thus, no meaningful refutation of either the data or conclusions of the Physics Today article were presented.
The director and others commonly allude to the rate of accident "near misses" as being unacceptably high at the Lab as compared to other sites as a justification for the suspension of operations, but no quantitative statistical data or analysis were shown to corroborate this claim. If this data exists, it should be made available to the [Laboratory] community.
Finally, the director claimed that "the author perjured himself" in the article. This is a troubling and curious statement since the word "perjury" is a legal term with a very narrow definition: "deliberate false testimony under oath by a witness in a criminal proceeding." At the very least, the director seems to be accusing the author of lying in the article. If the article does contain statements that can be demonstrated to be false, then it should be corrected as soon as possible. Nothing less than the scientific integrity of the Lab, the University of California and DOE is at stake. The director needs to write a response to the article in Physics Today pointing out what he considers the factual errors to be, and why the author should have known that they were false, i.e., was lying.
--David Hanson
Response From Senator Bingaman
January 25, 2005
Doug Roberts
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87506
Dear Doug:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Draft Request
for Proposal (RFP) for Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).
I appreciate your taking the time to bring your concerns to my
attention.
I understand your concerns with the current form of the
draft RFP and agree that more attention must be paid to a variety
of issues, particularly health benefits and pensions. I believe that
the Department of Energy (DOE) must take every possible step to
retain the outstanding employees who have worked so hard to
make LANL one of our country's most important national
laboratories. DOE has made science a top priority in the proposal,
and that is good. But I believe more emphasis needs to be placed
on ensuring the benefits package offered to employees and retirees
is as good as or better than the one offered by the current
contractor.
To this end, I have written a letter to Linton Brooks, the
administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA), offering suggestions for the draft RFP to better address
employee and retiree concerns, to develop an approach for
oversight that effectively safeguards the health and safety of
workers and the broader community, and to ensure LANL
continues the tradition of excellence in science in the future. I also
requested that the NNSA grant an extension of the deadline for
comments on the draft RFP, and I am pleased to report that the
NNSA responded by extending the deadline to January 21, 2005. I
hope you will continue to make your views known to the NNSA as
this public process goes forward. And please be assured that I will
continue to keep your letter in mind as I scrutinize the RFP
process.
Again, thank you for writing. Please do not hesitate to
contact me in the future regarding this or any other matter of
importance to you and your community.
Sincerely,
JEFF BINGAMAN
United States Senator
Monday, January 24, 2005
Los Alamos Monitor Letters
http://lamonitor.com/articles/2005/01/24/letters/letters03.txt
http://lamonitor.com/articles/2005/01/24/letters/letters04.txt
http://lamonitor.com/articles/2005/01/24/letters/letters07.txt
More questions on Nanos' safety numbers
Also from the NewsBulletin:
Jan. 21, 2005
Safety numbers
I have a few comments/questions regarding Pete Nanos' recent talk.
- I couldn't understand why there appears to be a factor of 2-3 between Nanos' safety numbers and the numbers Brad Holian published in Physics Today. These numbers should be a matter of fact. Somebody who works with the Lab safety numbers needs to explain to us why this discrepancy exists. Holian referenced where he got his numbers from, so it shouldn't be too hard to track down. I suspect that they are comparing apples and oranges, but it would be useful to find out. If nothing else, it would be useful to know if you can get a factor of 2-3 difference in the results depending on how you look at the data.
- I'm curious if the data indicates that there has been a statistically significant drop in the accident rate during the suspension of operations. I would assume that the accident rate during the suspension of operations is about as good as we could ever hope to do. That might give us an idea what accident rate we might reasonably aspire to. In other words, can we use the period while Laboratory operations were suspended to provide us with a baseline?
--Richard Nebel
Lab Director In Charge of Dissolution of LANL?
Jan. 20, 2005
Trying times for Los Alamos
As a retired Los Alamos Fellow I view with mounting concern the events taking place at the Laboratory. I have always regarded my fellow colleagues (now former colleagues) as the hardest working, most loyal group of people I have ever encountered. Now I discover that the morale among this laudable group has sunk to unprecedented depths, primarily due to inept upper management, which seems to view them with contempt rather than richly deserved respect. The gap between the mood of upper management and the lower ranking employees seems to be widening even as we speak.
Rob Vitek asks for a cure for the low morale. Partial solutions have been proposed, like going back to a 9/80 modified work schedule or not making a motto out of a pretentious phrase. These easy fixes may temporarily ease the symptoms, but the malady remains. I am deeply concerned about the Lab morale. However, considering what Wallace Harbin wrote in these pages, one might conclude that what the Lab really needs is a new direction from upper management, or, failing that, new management altogether.
Unless the current Lab director has been put in charge of the Lab's dissolution, he does not strike me as providing the best leadership in one of the most difficult years in the history of the Lab - the year of the contract bid. The damage to the Lab, should another accident occur at this time, combined with contemptuous knee-jerk reactions, will be catastrophic. Can the Lab afford such a risk? Unfortunately, the only recourse to employees is to beg upper management to remove themselves.
Regarding the motto "The Greatest Science Protecting America," I have two problems. In the first place, "science" is not just about protecting America. It is primarily about using scientific methods to search for the truth about the universe, which then in turn will benefit all of humanity. Second, by referring to oneself as "The Greatest" puts him in danger of becoming a laughing stock for his/her colleagues.
Science is done in small steps, by standing on the shoulders of predecessors. One can judge through the review process which science is better and which is worse, but it is arrogant to refer to any of it as the "World's Greatest Science." Euclid, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein were great scientists, but none of them called themselves "The Greatest." And even we, with the advantage of hindsight, cannot single out any one of them as the greatest.
--Al Arko
Saturday, January 22, 2005
UC handshakes with mystery LANL partner
The rumor is that UC will partner with Bechtel. I don't know if that will be possible given that Bechtel is an "Integrated Contractor" for operation of the Nevada Test Site.
Los Alamos Monitor
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Headline News
UC handshakes with mystery LANL partner
ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor
At a meeting of the University of California Board of Regents Thursday, Vice President for Laboratory Management Robert Foley said talks with potential industrial partners for the Los Alamos National Laboratory contract had gone well.
"We have signed nothing. We have agreed to nothing. We have handshaked," he said.
Foley told the regents that the matter was now under preparation by university legal staff, but that he hoped to formalize a team in time for the submission of proposals.
A Request for Proposal for the management contract for LANL is supposed to be issued no earlier than Feb. 15, after which bidders would have 60 days to prepare proposals.
"NNSA wants to award by July 1," he said. "We'll see."
Because of the competitive aspects of the bidding, Foley said, the university does not plan to announce any partners until the award is made, "or at the earliest after submitting a proposal."
A draft RFP was issued on Dec. 1 last year. A period of public comment, after a two-week extension, expires today.
The Source Evaluation Board, headed by Tyler Przybylek, conducted a site visit and a pre-bid conference for interested parties in December. Przybylek also discussed employee concerns about benefits and pensions at a special meeting in Los Alamos last Sunday.
A number of students and some faculty members used brief moments of time for public comments to advise the board against continuing management of nuclear weapons laboratories.
During the committee meeting the regents heard a speech from Sen. Denise Moreno Ducheny (D-San Diego), who encouraged participating in the competition and delivered an endorsement of a UC bid from the New Mexico legislature.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson made a similar personal appeal at the regents' last meeting.
While UC officials continued to refrain from affirming their intention to bid on the LANL contract, awaiting the final RFP, the board of regents did decide Thursday to compete for Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
UC has managed LBNL since 1931, more than a decade longer than LANL, without previous competition. Recent news articles have suggested that there may be no other competitors for the Berkeley lab.
Chris Herrington, UC spokesman, said the board voted unanimously to proceed with the LBNL bid which is due Feb. 9.
A question arose during the discussion on whether the regents should decide one laboratory at a time, for regents who might want to bid on all three or none of the DOE laboratories managed by the university,
Herrington said the question of process was decided prior to the vote.
"They are three distinct competitions, to be taken up as individual decisions based on the RFP and issues at the time," he said.
The regents' next meeting is March 16-17 in Los Angeles, about a month before the final proposals might be due for the Los Alamos contract.
"We are working aggressively here in terms of preparations," should the regents give the go-ahead, Herrington said.
Friday, January 21, 2005
Domenici News Release
JANUARY 21, 2005 202-224-7082
DOMENICI LISTS CONCERNS WITH NEW PLAN FOR NEW
LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LAB CONTRACT
WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Pete Domenici today issued his concerns with the plan under which a new management contract will be issued for Los Alamos National Laboratory, stressing that the contract must more specifically protect and outline benefits for laboratory workers and retirees.
Domenici, who is chairman of the Senate appropriations subcommittee that funds the Energy Department's national laboratories, listed his concerns in a letter to Ambassador Linton Brooks, administrator of the DOE National Nuclear Security Administration. Domenici issued the letter as part of the public comment period on the NNSA draft Request for Proposal (RFP) on a new management and operating contract for LANL.
"It is critical that the new contract very clearly outline the benefits due to current, future and past lab employees. The draft RFP is insufficient in that area and must be rewritten. I am very concerned that not doing so could have negative ramifications on the lab, its missions, its employees and the overall region," Domenici said.
In his letter to Brooks, Domenici indicated that his concerns are based on his own review of the RFP as well as concerns aired by constituents. He encouraged the NNSA to move quickly to amend the RFP and select a contract for LANL. The existing contract expires Sept. 30, 2005.
"I believe that is imperative that the NNSA move quickly to select the contractor. This process has already created an enormous distraction for lab employees and they must get on with the work of national defense, combating nuclear proliferation and other scientific research," Domenici wrote.
Domenici's comments focus on shortcomings in the RFP related to retirement, health and other benefits, as well as the need for specific commitments in a new contract to community and regional support required for economic development and public education.
"NNSA must ensure that the final RFP and the selected contracting entity provide equal benefits for retirement for existing employees and retirees. Specifically, I believe the requirement to limit LANL retirement (and health benefits) to 105 percent of the complex average is unacceptable and is inconsistent with Secretary Abraham's announcement to protect employee benefits. Unless the existing benefits are preserved, the NNSA will have difficulty retaining experienced scientists and lab employees," Domenici wrote. "As I believe you would agree, the last thing we would want is an exodus by long-time LANL employees intent on protecting their hard earned retirement benefits before the end of the existing contract."
On Wednesday, Domenici gained a commitment from Samuel W. Bodman, President Bush's nominee to replace Spencer Abraham as Secretary of Energy, to maintain and enhance the scientific capabilities of LANL, and to protect existing pension or health benefit levels for LANL workers and retirees.
The following is the text of the Domenici comments to NNSA Administrator Brooks:
I am writing to make you aware of my concerns and the concerns of my constituents regarding the draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for the competitive selection of a management and operating (M&O) contractor for Los Alamos National Laboratory. I hope that you give careful consideration to these matters and make the necessary changes to the final RFP.
I believe it is imperative that the NNSA move quickly to select the contractor for Los Alamos National Lab. This process has already created an enormous distraction for lab employees and they must get on with the work of national defense, combating nuclear proliferation and other scientific research.
Listed below are the concerns that I believe must be changed before a final RFP is released. Retirement Benefits. NNSA must ensure that the final RFP and the selected contracting entity provide equal benefits for retirement for existing employees and retirees. Specifically, I believe the requirement to limit LANL retirement (and health benefits) to 105 percent of the complex average is unacceptable and is inconsistent with Secretary Abraham's announcement to protect employee benefits. Unless the existing benefits are preserved, the NNSA will have difficulty retaining experienced scientists and lab employees. The Department must provide flexibility to allow employees to shift their benefits to a new contractor or be provided a grace period following the award of the contract to retire from the University of California systems with the guarantee of being rehired by the new contractor. In addition, the Department should consider other options such as providing additional years of service to those employees close to retirement in exchange for continued service. Such efforts will ensure that the lab protects its most important resource - its people. As I believe you would agree, the last thing we would want is an exodus by long time LANL employees intent on protecting their hard-earned retirement benefits before the end of the existing contract.
Health Benefits. The final RFP must specify and clearly outline the Department's expectations and existing obligations for current employee and retiree medical benefits. The Department must be clear as to how and to what extent future medical coverage will be covered in a future contract. Like retirement benefits, the Department must ensure that the benefits are equal to existing services for Los Alamos National Laboratory employees and retirees.
Community Support.
· The Department has provided specificity in what it expects with regard to regional and community support. I applaud this effort, because I believe technology transfer, small business contracting, economic development and educational development are critical, especially in rural and remote areas of Northern New Mexico. However, as I have personally shared with you, I am disappointed that Community Relations is not a specific component of the award selection process.
· Economic development, technology transfer, and regional educational initiatives have been a lasting and continuous challenge. Therefore, it is imperative that the future contract build on the existing initiatives already underway including the work with the LANL Foundation, the Regional Development Corporation as well as the Los Alamos Research Park. Support for the RDC and the LANL Foundation should continue at no less than current levels.
· I have noted that the Draft RFP provides a $1 million cap on Technology Development Initiatives. I believe this is insufficient to facilitate the successful commercialization of lab technology. I hope the final RFP will enable the successful bidder to provide additional incentives including alternative, non-financial incentives to encourage technology transfer.
· NNSA's current small business procurement initiatives focus on increasing small business contracting on a nationwide basis, but it is coming at the expense of New Mexico small businesses as the Department attempts to pull contracts from the laboratories back to Headquarters. This trend will hurt economic development in New Mexico and undermine regional economic development initiatives identified in the draft RFP. Specific approaches to enhance regional small business contracting should be encouraged in the new contract.
Evaluation Criteria
· Not enough emphasis has been placed on employee retention. The Final RFP for the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory contract provides a higher scoring criterion for retention of key personnel.
· I also believe that more emphasis must be placed on developing the science strategy for Los Alamos, similar to what was included in the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory RFP. Los Alamos National Lab is a major research institution with extraordinary research competencies and the future lab contractor must be encouraged to develop the scientific capability, just as it is rewarded for managing the operations on a daily basis.
· The NNSA must specify the evaluation criteria that will be used to measure an applicant's economic development and community development. While the Draft RFP does specify the NNSA's desire to support these activities, there must be a specific score and measure to reward and encourage economic development.
· Finally, I believe the 100 point score for Oral Presentation is extraordinarily large and should be drastically reduced or eliminated to increase the scoring criteria for science, job retention, technology transfer and economic development,
Other Benefits. Under the current contract, children of LANL employees attend UC schools at in-state (i.e., California) tuition rates. Bids should discuss either how this benefit will be continued or how an alternative and comparable approach to such educational benefits may be provided.
Thank you for taking time to view my concerns and the concerns of my constituents. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I can provide addition explanation or details as your prepare the final RFP.
Disappointed by the tone and accuracy of the director's comments
Disappointed by the tone and accuracy of the director's comments
During the employee update meeting of Jan. 19, 2005, the director
included some harsh remarks about the LANL scientist who authored a
recent Physics Today Opinion column that questioned the basis and
necessity of the lab shut down. I am disappointed by the tone and
accuracy of the director's comments. The director stated that the
author had not only ridiculed the laboratory but, had Physics Today
been a peer-reviewed journal, the article content would have been
quite different. In fact, articles published in Physics Today are
peer reviewed, including Opinion columns. The director's comments
implied that the safety statistics used in the article were either
wrong or did not support the article's conclusions. He made this
point in reference to one of his view graphs that showed two plots of
accident rate versus time. He mistakenly referred to the lower curve
as the DOE complex average rate and stated that the LANL rate (upper
curve) was more than a factor of two above it. In fact, both curves
were LANL accident rates, the top curve was Total Reportable Cases
(TRC) for LANL, and the bottom curve was the Days Away from Work,
Restricted Work Activity, or Job Transfer (DART) for LANL. His next
view graph did show a comparison between accident rates at LANL and
the average across the DOE complex. However, the DOE complex average
includes non-scientific and non-manufacturing sites, where the
principal risk of injury is dominated by office and clerical work.
The Physics Today article compared TRC data for LANL with other DOE
research institutions on a site-wide basis. Thus, no meaningful
refutation of either the data or conclusions of the Physics Today
article were presented. The director and others commonly allude to
the rate of accident "near misses" as being unacceptably high at LANL
as compared to other sites as a justification for the shut down, but
no quantitative statistical data or analysis were shown to corroborate
this claim. If this data exists, it should be made available to the
LANL community. Finally, the director claimed that "the author
perjured himself" in the article. This is a troubling and curious
statement since the word "perjury" is a legal term with a very narrow
definition, "deliberate false testimony under oath by a witness in a
criminal proceeding". At the very least, the director seems to be
accusing the author of lying in the article. If the article does
contain statements that can be demonstrated to be false, then it
should be corrected as soon as possible. Nothing less than the
scientific integrity of LANL, UC, and DOE is at stake. The director
needs to write a response to the article in Physics Today pointing out
what he considers the factual errors to be, and why the author should
have known that they were false, i.e., was lying.
David E. Hanson
Staff Member, Theoretical Division, T-12 Group
Phone: 7-2306 email: deh@lanl.gov
--
David E. Hanson MS B268 (505 667-2306)
Return to Normalcy
1. Whether the shutdown was justified, or not. Safety first. Articles have been written that used the published, accepted statistics on safety for the DOE complex and comparable industry sectors which belie the Directors contentions of poor safety trends at LANL. Yes, I refer to the December, 2004 issue of Physics Today which the Director choose to malign in his all-hand's presentation of 1-19-2004. In spite of the Director's contention to the contrary, Physics Today is a well respected journal that carefully checks submissions for accuracy prior to publication. LANL management's attempts to "reinvent" safety statistics that "prove" the Directors contentions after the fact are, well, just plain lame.
2. Security next. What really happened with the now-famous "missing" CREM? The FBI knows. We suspect that we know. We also suspect that we have not been officially told because the facts will be inconvenient to the "official" LANL management contention of "egregious" security lapses regarding the discs.
3. The demeaning treatment leveled against LANL staff by LANL management during the course of the shutdown. There was never, is never, justification for a manager to berate his employees.
When we come to closure on these important issues, we can then consider what it will take to regain some measure of normalcy at LANL, but not until.
--Doug Roberts
A "normal day at the lab"
Minus
- the staff who have left because of the shutdown;
- the customers who have left because of the shutdown;
- any morale, absent because of the shutdown, and how LANL staff have been treated by LANL management.
Otherwise, Monday, January 31 will be a perfectly normal day at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Santa Fe New Mexican…Diana Heil
January 21, 2005
In less than two weeks, it should “look like a normal day” at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
That’s what lab Director Pete Nanos told employees Wednesday.
Since July, normal work activities have taken a back seat to safety and security concerns. Some workers have been affected for a longer time than others, depending on the risk level of their activities. Nanos directed a stand down of normal operations in nearly every corner of the laboratory with the aim of creating a more reliable work environment, where violations and near misses aren’t happening on a frequent basis.
The arduous journey is about to end.
By Jan. 31, the goal is to resume a sense of normalcy, which Nanos described as “productive work proceeding without impediment.”
Meanwhile, the lab has a long list of shortcomings it must continue to address.
Nanos told the workforce of 12,000 Wednesday he was proud of the lab’s progress.
“I’m not going to give up the progress we made ... ,” he said. “It’s been a long six months, and we’ve all paid the price in one way or another.”
During this period of selfstudy, the laboratory found approximately 3,000 specific issues in need of fixing. Prior to resumption, 300 actions have been taken to address some of those specific issues, according to lab spokesman Kevin Roark.
But Los Alamos has a poor track record of fixing problems, according to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, a governmentfunded advisory group.
“Over the years, LANL has often identified valid issues, prepared corrective-action plans that appeared credible, and then failed to execute,” according to a Dec. 31 board memo written by the board’s two technicians stationed at Los Alamos .
In the coming year, following through with the latest changes will be a major challenge that requires a commitment from managers, according to the board.
Nanos addressed that concern briefly in his talk.
“We want a continually improving state where we don’t slip backwards,” Nanos said.
The new processes developed during the six months must now become part of the fabric and structure of the lab, he said. Training from top to bottom is part of the plan.
The lab has a new way of storing and tracking computer disks containing top-secret information in centralized libraries. And it is starting a behavior-based safety program, where individuals take responsibility for their actions.
“This will be a tough year,” he said, “but I feel that fundamentally we are moving in the right direction and laying the groundwork to ensure this institution’s future and your future.”
Employee morale is low — a fact Nanos acknowledged.
In letters to newspapers and in meetings with Washington officials, employees and retirees questioned why the lab took such a long-lasting approach to beefing up security.
Plus, the General Accounting Office and U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, are demanding to know the cost.
Ron Moses, a lab physicist, told U.S. Rep. Tom Udall, DN.M., on Monday that the lab should have conducted a brief stand down of operations and punished workers involved in safety and security infractions.
“It dragged on for months,” Moses said. “In some places, it’s still dragging on.”
He said it felt like an “antiseptic bath of bureaucracy.”
Worse yet, Moses said, agencies other than the U.S. Department of Energy aren’t extending lab grants, and top scientists are thinking about taking their work elsewhere.
Charles Mansfield, a retiree involved in two research projects at the lab, said the stand down caused delays that affect scientists who are trying to meet a March deadline.
He said the director’s use of name-calling — Nanos once called employees “cowboys and buttheads” — coupled with months of slowed work, hurt morale.
Another letter to Senator Bingaman
As a ten-year LANL employee, I am deeply concerned with the wording and intent of
the draft RFP. Placing a 105% cap on the retirement benefits based on a comparative
group is far less than our current system rewards us. The current UCRP is
self-funding and costs the U.S. taxpayers nothing to maintain. It appears to us at
LANL that this is a DOE pension-raiding scheme, in the same manner as the Orwellian
double-speak of "Rescuing Social Security" parlayed by our current administration.
I do not want to retire, or quit and begin as a new employee. In fact, I really
don't want to think about this contract all year and distract myself from the work I
would like to accomplish. However, seven members of my team have quit in recent
months because doing research through a university has more appeal than the current
LANL climate. This contract has the potential to send the rest of us looking
elsewhere.
I am also deeply concerned about the great number of our senior staff members that
will be forced to retire and the subsequent loss of leadership and experience at
LANL.
Sincerely,
Jane Riese