LANL: The Real Story

Here is the full story--beware, my friends at Livermore: this is the first round in the coming privatization war on Livermore. (These will NOT be war *games*.)
[-Editor.]

-----

LLNL cited for nuclear safety breach
ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor

The National Nuclear Security Administration plans to issue a citation for a series of safety violations going back nearly two years ago at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif.
In a letter to LLNL Director Michael Anastasio released on Monday, Administrator Linton Brooks concluded that the nuclear weapons laboratory broke a number of nuclear safety rules over more than a year, beginning in April 2004.

Anastasio is the designated director for Los Alamos National Laboratory under a contract with Los Alamos National Security, LLC, scheduled to begin June 1.
Officials of Lawrence Livermore, who had previously blamed a contractor for one of the events, for the first time accepted responsibility.

"We acknowledge our role in the incidents cited today by the Department of Energy/Price-Anderson Enforcement Office and the need for significant improvements in the laboratory's safety culture," LLNL said in an announcement Monday.
The violations include multiple radiological exposures, involving five individuals over a six-month period. The problems could have been worse, according to the notification, because of faulty protection and inappropriate responses by the Livermore laboratory.

The notice made a point of LLNL's reluctance to accept responsibility.
"None of the violations received mitigation for prompt identification," Brooks wrote, "since the underlying deficiencies were either disclosed by the events or through DOE/NNSA contract management and oversight activities."

A total civil penalty of $585,500 was imposed for the infractions, but waived by law.

Under the Price-Anderson Amendment statutes that govern nuclear safety, violations are measured by severity and fines are assessed accordingly, but the fines are waived for nonprofits. The University of California manages LLNL.

By comparison, Los Alamos National Laboratory was last cited under the Price-Anderson law in June 2004, for an event in which five workers were seriously exposed to toxic vapors.

Along with other issues uncovered in the radiological protection program, the violation was assessed a $770,000 fine.

In January 2005, in the midst of a laboratory-wide shutdown at Los Alamos National Laboratory, LLNL ordered a standdown of its plutonium facility as a result of complications related to the current set of violations.

Two draft plans to resolve the safety issues at Livermore's plutonium facility were rejected by the NNSA supervisors at Livermore, according to a Defense Nuclear Facilities Board site report at the time, triggering the standdown.

"It has not resumed full operations," said Marylia Kelley, executive director, of the public interest group Tri-Valley CAREs. Kelley lives down the street from the laboratory and has followed events at LLNL very closely.

"Livermore's role for violations from April through August 2004 isn't coming to light until the end of February 2006," she said. "I am not surprised to find that LLNL was substantially at fault."

Additional minor contamination incidents occurred during March, May and October of 2004 and reports were not filed on the events, as they should have been, according to the DNFSB site representative in his Dec. 3, 2004, report.

Two separate exposures were penalized in the notice.

One was a radiological uptake involving a trailer - the Mobile Visual Examination and Repackaging Unit (MOVER), which has a glovebox and the capacity to open TRU waste drums.

Some visual inspections must be performed on transuranic waste material prior to shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Project in New Mexico.

The other was a radiological spill involving phosphorous-32. The spilled chemical was carried home on the shoe of an exposed worker.

"Without improvement, NNSA cannot have confidence that all critical elements of LLNL's safety programs are being effectively implemented," Brooks wrote. "I am also disappointed by the longstanding and recurring nature of many of the deficiencies associated with the violations."

-Los Alamos Monitor, 28 February 2006

UC failed to give regents required reports
Legal settlements, executive pay were to be disclosed

Todd Wallack, Tanya Schevitz, Chronicle Staff Writers

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

The University of California's administration, under fire for paying employees more than it disclosed to the public, neglected to provide its governing body with required reports on legal settlements, senior managers' corporate board service and executive compensation, The Chronicle has learned.

UC officials are required to provide the reports to the Board of Regents annually under policies approved by the regents and the university's president. But regents have never received a list of legal settlements, and they haven't received the other reports in years.

"It's embarrassing,'' said Republican Sen. Abel Maldonado of Santa Maria (Santa Barbara County), a member of the Senate Education Committee, which held hearings this month into UC's pay practices after The Chronicle published a series of stories on the subject. "There is no accountability."

[...]

Full Story

February 23, 2006

Lawmakers seek UC reform

By JONDI GUMZ
Sentinel staff writer

Almost everyone agrees that changes are needed at the University of California to regain the public trust. But there's no consensus on how to improve management of the $19 billion enterprise.

That became clear after a three-hour legislative hearing in Sacramento on Wednesday, the second hearing in two weeks that focused on the university's compensation practices.

A series of newspaper reports, which prompted the hearings, has left university officials embarrassed about pay issues, including: a $300,000 sabbatical for M.R.C. Greenwood, the provost who resigned after hiring her business partner in violation of UC policy; a $200,000 settlement for Celeste Rose, who lost her vice chancellor's position at UC Davis; and a $30,000 dog run built for Denice Denton, the chancellor at UC Santa Cruz.

And that may not be all.

"There will be more stories until we clear it up," UC President Robert Dynes told the Senate Education Committee.

[...]

Full Story

Those of us who might otherwise have been inclined to vote for Senator
Domenici when he next comes up for re-election might want to consider his
current unwillingness to intervene on the side of Los Alamos in the ongoing
dispute about the impending West Jemez road closure. Aside from one minor
intervention some months ago to free up a pittance of funds for a possible
future bypass to the ski hill, he has thus far steadfastly refused to
support his constituents in Los Alamos on this issue, despite many public
and private pleas from the County Council and others in the
community. With his powerful position in the Senate he could, of course,
stop this DOE nonsense dead in its tracks with one five minute call to
Ambassador Brooks, but so far he has sided with the Washington bureaucracy
on this issue.

One can only speculate that he, or more likely the senior staffers in his
office who shape his policy for him, see their real constituency as the
Washington agencies who can offer them high-level positions in the future,
rather than the folks back home who voted to put the Senator in office. It
is true that he keeps funds coming for the New Mexico labs, but that may
just be an incidental bonus that comes from helping to keep his main
constituents, Washington agencies like the DOE, well funded.

Perhaps I have misjudged him and he will eventually do what we elected him
to do – represent us. But if not, one might want to rethink supporting his
re-election.

Bill Godwin

This was listed as the top story on today's LANL NewsBulletin.

--Doug
________________________________________________

Anastasio issues summary of science vision talk

February 27, 2006

Los Alamos National Security, LLC President and Laboratory Director Designate Michael Anastasio followed up his all-employee talk last week with a written summary of his vision for science and technology at the Laboratory that he shared during the talk. Anastasio's summary was distributed to employees Friday in an all-employee memo from Director Bob Kuckuck. To read the summary, click here (Adobe Acrobat Reader required). The talk is being rebroadcast in its entirety on LABNET Channel 10. The science and technology talk is one of several transition-related, all-employee meetings Anastasio will hold with the work force. The next meeting is scheduled for March 9 (the LANS organizational approach).

February 25, 2006 - Federal regulators are largely blaming Lawrence Livermore National Lab for a series of accidents that exposed workers to plutonium, according to a newspaper report.

Michael Anastasio takes the helm at Los Alamos after a 25-year career at its fellow nuclear weapons design center in Livermore, Calif.


-----

-Sorry, but it's time to bring a reality check into this slough of blather.

The story says, "Anastasio said his top priorities are listening and trying to reassure employees unsettled by the years of high-profile security and fiscal problems, and then months of uncertainty during the contract competition."
"He must bring stability and renewed focus to employees of Los Alamos, whose celebrated history as birthplace of the atomic bomb has been tarnished by repeated safety, security and fiscal problems."

LANL has been "tarnished" with malice aforethought by self-serving Congressmen, Senators, DOE/NNSA bureaucrats, a spineless UC President, an amoral UC Board of Regents, and a national media unable or unwilling to do investigative reporting or postscript corrections to their botched, biased, and unbalanced stories about Los Alamos.

If these "repeated safety, security, and fiscal problems" had had any basis in fact, then LANL, LLNL, and Sandia would have all been shut down for the past decade.

Instead, we see that the lust for privatization of our national security laboratories has compromised them without justification or precedent. Our "former" enemies from the Cold War era are doubtless jealous of the outrageous success of this incompetent insider sabotage, and Osama bin Laden and his ilk must be rejoicing.

I predict that the time will come when we'll wish this all hadn't happened. All I can say is that I hope that sanity will ultimately prevail, and that some corrective action is taken--soon.

-Brad Lee Holian

Dear Doug,
Thanks for keeping this blog going. I get a lot of good information from it. The web site below has some UC Senate reports/letters about the transition of the UCRP-LANL funds to LANS and the propriety of who is in charge. I thought you might want to put it on the blog so folks know what the status is.

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/lans.ucrs.0206.pdf

Kandy Frame
aka: Need2%more

My blog co-maintainer has earned bragging rights for authoring this week's Comment of the Week. From the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2006/02/mike-anastasio-laid-out-his-vision-of.html

post:
____________________________________________

"good2go" is one of the better posters on this blog. But I fear he may have committed--perhaps not even inadvertantly--one of the greater quotable quotes of all time on "LANL: The Real Story." Here it goes (are you ready?):

"Surely, UC couldn't be that tone-deaf, could they?"

A LANL group leader was quoted telling his wife on the day of the big fire of 2000, as they were hiking near Cerro Grande that fateful day in May (a hot day with gusts over 60 mph), and she had just exclaimed to him, "Why the hell are they starting a controlled burn today? Are they out of their minds?"

"-Don't worry, Dear. They know what they're doing."

Doug,
I, Like many people on this blog, are concerned about health insurance after retiring under TCP2 (or if the TCP1 retirement health plan will be canceled). I believe that in New Mexico, individuals can purchase health insurance through special plans, even with pre-existing conditions. Certainly this will not be as cheap as having the employer contribute, but it is available. I am not sure I understand the complete suite of legal issues, but suggest that people look at www.healthinsuranceinfo.net/nm03.html . I also got quotes from the Lehrman group (www.lfgo.com/plans/nmPlans.html) that were not unreasonably expensive. They may even be cheaper that the TCP2 employee-only plan.

Submitted by "Rat Patrol"

The following was posted on the Transition site 2/24/2006:

Submitted by Anonymous:
__________________________________

Caught at that “awkward age” – 55 years old in May 2006:

Conclusion: For “older” employees especially, and for all employees to some extent the LANS TCP1 proposal is not close to “substantially equivalent in the aggregate” to the current UC benefits.

If an employee goes inactive vested in UCRP s/he is forced into TCP2. If that employee works less than 10 years in TCP2 s/he will not have assured (much less subsidized) medical benefits upon retirement. Not having access to medical insurance after retirement is a huge issue that will force many over-50 employees to roll over into TCP1. There needs to be a provision in TCP2 that an employee who goes inactive vested in UCRP with 10+ years of service credit be assured of access to the group medical plan.

So, assuming an over-50 employee does as s/he must to maintain assured access to medical and rolls over into TCP1:

List of proposed modifications in TCP1 to mitigate both the certain and the potential shortages detailed below:

1. Require that TCP1 will track UCRP benefits for some period of time – e.g. age factors, employer contribution to insurance premiums, leave time. The only requirement now is that on June 1, 2006 all of these factors are substantially equivalent.

2. Add domestic partner benefits to the extent allowed by law to match the current UCRP domestic partner benefits.

3. Replicate severance pay eligibility & policies in TCP1.

4. Replicate worker job protection policies (action track, no sudden job loss without cause).

5. Require an annual audit to assure that sufficient funds are placed in the TCP1 retirement fund that it is funded a level actuarially equivalent to the UCRP plan. DOE should be required to explicitly promise to make up any difference that develops.

6. Require some “benefit element” that would compensate for the reduced limit on tax deferred savings.

Detailed analysis of shortages for employees rolling over into TCP1:

Take the case of an employee who:

1. is not financially able to retire before June 1, 2006

2. plans to retire within the next 10 years and

3. needs to have assured (and ideally subsidized) retiree insurance benefits.

Going inactive vested in UCRP and thus being forced into TCP2 is not a viable option because of the loss of retiree medical benefits.

Similarly, taking the lump sum cashout is not viable because of the loss of retiree medical benefits. Even if an employee were to take the lump sum cashout would also cause a large loss of lifetime retiree benefits – but that’s a whole other calculation.

In the case where the employee in the hypothetical (and very possible) case detailed below of a 55 year old employee retiring from UCRP in May, 2006 to guarantee insurance coverage, the cost would be ~$472,000 (*) even it the employee is hired by LANS (and this is not guaranteed if the employee retires under UCRP). If the employee ends up with no job the cost increases tremendously.

So, we (those of us meeting the three criteria enumerated above) are left with no choice – we are forced to roll over into TCP1. This is very coercive on people who are ~50 years old and up. (One might wonder if this has a disparate impact on older workers in violation of the Age discrimination in Employment Act, ADEA.)

For these employees, how does rolling over into TCP1 compare to the “what would have been” retiring at age 60 from UCRP – the substantial equivalency in the aggregate?

Pluses (relative to having been able to stay in UCRP) for rolling over into TCP1 and retiring at age 60:

1. None that I can think of.

Minuses (relative to having been able to stay in UCRP) for rolling over into TCP1 and retiring at age 60:

1. No severance pay in the case of a RIF

2. Reduced defined contribution program amounts (from $40,000/yr to $20,000/yr.)

3. No protection from firing without cause (LANS will be an “at will” employer)

4. No guarantee that TCP1 will continue to track LANL / UC benefits:

   • age factors

   • accrual rate of vacation

   • accrual rate of sick leave

   • number of paid holidays

   • employer contribution to insurance

5. Reduced / eliminated domestic partner benefits

I’ll take a hypothetical situation very similar to my situation to put ballpark monetary values on some of the minuses listed above. In May, 2006 I will be 55 years old with 23 years of service credit, an HAPC of $10,000 / month and ~1 year of accrued sick leave. I assume full contingent annuitant continuance and that either my wife or I will live to 85 years of age.

1. In the case of a budget shortfall that requires a RIF, under the current UC-LANL policy I would be given 60 days to look for a job and would receive the maximum severance pay of 39 weeks ~$110,000.

2. I will have my mortgage paid off in 1 ½ years and planned to use the “freed up” money to fully fund the 457(b) plan at $20,000 / yr for the remaining 3 ½ years before retirement at age 60. Assuming a 35% tax bracket ~$24,500 in tax savings.

3. If I am not summarily fired this has no impact. Let’s take a rather extreme hypothetical case where I am summarily fired in a year and would not have been had the UC-LANL rules applied, I would retire involuntarily at age 56 with 24 years of service vs. voluntarily retiring at age 60 with 28 years of service credit. The difference in life time annuity, assuming full contingent annuitant continuance, would be ~$416,000 (~$1,965k - ~$1,549k).

4. If there are no reductions in any of the benefits (relative to what would have been with LANL-UC) there is no impact. However, I will calculate an approximate monetary value of various conceivable reductions implemented 1 year from now (4 years before I retire).

   1. age factors – imagine the maximum age factor being reduced by 10% (from 2.5% to 2.25%) ~$200,000. Also imagine the possibility of the retirement age for the maximum 2.5% age factor increasing…

   2. accrual rate of vacation – if reduced from 2 dys / month to 1 ½ days per month impact would be ~$11,000

   3. accrual rate of sick leave – if reduced from 1 ½ days / month to 1 day / month and if the employee needed all of the accrued sick leave ~$11,000

   4. number of paid holidays – reduced by 3 days (e.g. energy conservation day, Friday after thanksgiving, presidents’ holiday) ~$5,500

   5. employer contribution to insurance premiums could be reduced or eliminated for medical, vision and / or dental. This could be over $30,000 for a couple if all employer contributions were eliminated.

5. Domestic partner benefits – this does not directly affect me and I have not done the monetary impact calculations on this. In no way am I intending to minimize this issue – it is potentially a huge reduction for a significant fraction of the LANL workforce and a matter of justice. It is interesting to note that in the Thursday, Feb. 16 LANS presentation at LANL the LANS representative asserted that federal law prohibits at least some of the domestic partner benefits and this is apparently false – either knowingly (a lie) or out of ignorance (surprising and disappointing).

(*) – Retire at 55 with 23 years of service credit and 1 year of sick leave with HAPC = $10,000 / month with one annuitant living to age 85 lifetime retirement income = ~$47,700 / year * 30 years = ~$1,431,000. Assuming employee were rehired by LANS at the same salary, the additional retirement benefit would be 9.5% matching 401(k) for 5 years ~$57,000.

Retire at 60 with 28 years of service credit and one year of sick leave with the same HAPC of $10,000 / month and same age at death. Lifetime retirement income ~$78,400 / year * 25 years = ~$1,960,000.

Difference = $1, 960,000 – ($1,431,000 + $57,000) = ~$472,000.

( To Mr. Doug Roberts & Mr. Brad Holian -- THANK YOU for
establishing and maintaining this forum so the all people affected
by the LANL Contract Transition ( and future LLNL Contract
Transition ) have a means to keep informed and comment on this
important process. )


I've sent the letter below, electronically, to "Dyne's Desk", to
the UC Regents Office and to the NNSA e-mail address for all
to consider. Please post as you see fit for additional comments.

Thanx again!


- frank lopez



February 23, 2006

Robert C. Dynes, President University of California
1111 Franklin St.
Oakland, Ca. 94607-5200
cc: Gerald L. Parsky, Chairman Regents of UC,
regentsoffice@ucop.edu,
inputonlansbenefits@doeal.gov

Dear Dr. Dynes:

As a 26+ year University of California Staff Employee, working at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, (LLNL), I have followed, with great interest, the Contract Transition Process currently unfolding at Los Alamos National Laboratory, (LANL). During a recent visit, Ambassador Lynton Brooks made a statement, in part, that LLNL will participate in a similar Contract Process on or about the September, 2007 timeframe.

With regard to the new Contract for LANL, (and LLNL's future new Contract), and specifically, the "Substantially Equivalent" Compensation Package, I would like to submit to you, and submit to all key decision makers, for your consideration, an additional option for current University of California Vested Employees.


TCP-UC - Current Vested University of California Employees will have the option to remain employed by the University and will become Contract Agents of the University providing LANS, LLC their services with the commencement of the new Contract.


In my humble opinion, offering an option of this type may be mutually beneficial to both LANS, LLC (and the LLNL Contract winner), and current staff employees of the University of California. If an employee selects this option, all benefits remain as is, (under the UC/UCRP System) and at such time that the new Contract takes effect, we continue on, in our same job positions, providing high quality, dedicated, exemplary and safe service to the National Laboratories.

The new option, 'TCP-UC', would be offered in addition to the current TCP-1 and TCP-2 plans.

I hope that you, and all of the key decision makers, give this idea its due consideration. If this option has already been thought through and been eliminated, would you please explain all of the drawbacks which lead to this option not being offered in the Contract Proposal.

I thank you for taking some of your valuable time and energy to consider and respond to these matters.

Best regards,


Frank J. Lopez

From the 2/24/2006 LANL NewsBulletin:
_________________________________________

Feb. 17, 2006

Total compensation plan options

So, here I am thinking that with the change to Los Alamos National Security, LLC, and with the number of years with the Lab (33+), I would be sitting in the catbird seat and everything would be great. Now I find out that no matter what option I take I will be penalized.

Option 1. Retire early - If I take this option then I would have to take a significant reduction in salary. Seventy-three percent is nothing to sneeze at, but with one kid in college and another in ninth grade this is not an option.

Option 2. Straight transfer to TCP1 - Not a bad way to go except now I am one of the 400+ that do not pay in to Social Security. With Option 2 I would have to, so I would again, have to take a significant hit to my salary.

Option 3. Go inactive and become a new employee of LANS LLC, retire within 120 days, retain my health insurance and yes, double dip for several years. With the way it is set up now, even if I retired June 1, 2006, I would have to pay all my health care premiums and that would be a significant portion of my take home pay.

So no matter what option I take, I see my take home pay dropping. I know that I am not the only one in this boat, and I know several people who pay into Social Security were going to try to double dip. I feel that I have been slam dunked. Everyone who felt that going inactive and transferring to LANS LLC and hoped to keep their health insurance needs to send their comments by e-mail to inputonlansbenefits@doeal.gov.

--Allen Schmiedicke

[From an anonymous runner of numbers]

How can anyone say that the LANS retirement package is equal to the UCRP?

I have gone to the UC on-line calculator and plugged in some real numbers in order to get real results. I suggest you do the same.

Lets look at what retiring at 52 in 2006 would yield verse what retiring at 65 in 2019 would yield, assuming a scenario where I would never get another a pay raise for the next 13 years because we are over market.

Then lets look page 42 of the Mercer presentation where it shows what you will get for the same age and time, but with social security and savings. From what I can see there is absolutely no comparison between what LANS is offering and what we have under the UCRP. To add insult to injury you must realize that if you were allowed to continue under a retirement plan that mirrored the UCRP and were able to continue saving at the same rate in your 403b you have acquired over $1M dollars in your account. Rolling that alone into a fixed lifetime annuity would yield approximate $5K a month. Adding that to your monthly income from your UC retirement and you'd be set. Taking into account that both your UC retirement and your lifetime annuity would allow you survivor's benefits, your spouse would have been set for life after your death too. So again where is the similarity and how can the LANS offer be considered even remotely close to UCRP? The simple fact is that it is not.

Please take the time and run the numbers for yourself and give your input to DOEAL. As of today HR LANS reported that DOEAL has only received about 600 e-mails for consideration. You have one day left to voice your concerns.

The question then will be. Will DOE listen or will they choose fantasy over reality and lose a lot of good people?

How 87% of your base pay from UCRP without social security and savings sound, in comparison to the 36% you will get from LANS at age 65 sound?

-Anonymous

[Editorial comment: 36% sounds just a little better than 33% from the US Govt retirement insurance, which will NOT apply to LANS, as I understand it.]

Submitted by Sheila Malony:
___________________________________________


Friday is the deadline for comments NNSA on the benefits package. I've
submitted the following two; if anyone else is interested, you may want
to add your comments also.

Under UC, vested employees can leave UC and go inactive, taking
retirement at a later date, often years later than they separate from
UC. During this inactive time, the COLA is applied each year to the
benefits to be taken later. I have seen nothing in the LANS benefit
package that addresses whether those employees vested in LANS TCP 1 can
go inactive when they leave LANS. This is an important consideration.
If I go with LANS TCP 1 but decide to leave in 2-5 years (I'm barely
50), I would like the option of taking my pension benefits then or
waiting until I am 60 or so, letting the benefits rise with an annual
COLA. This would maintain "substantial equivalence" to UC. If I knew I
HAD to take the pension when I left, this will factor into my decision
about whether to stay here, transfer across to TCP1, or go inactive
with UC and go into TCP2.

I know that LANS purports that its TCP1 is "substantially equivalent"
in the aggregate to UC's benefits and pension. However, we lose the
CAP, the 401(a), and the 457 plans. LANS' reasoning is that it is not
allowed under rules/laws for private companies. However, I think they
CAN make up this loss in other ways. They could change the pension plan
formula slightly to grant future retirees greater pensions to make up
for this loss. It could be done by adding time to a person's age, or
adding time to a person's service credit at retirement, or adjusting
the formula in some other way. These numbers could be figured out by
the actuaries. Call it a "service credit enhancement" or "age
enhancement" added to those who cross over to TCP1 to maintain
equivalence with UC's plan.

It's clear that LANS has done what it had to and no more. Where there
are losses, there has been no attempt to make up those losses--just the
excuse that "it's not allowed." Enhancements ARE allowable to make up
for the other losses, to make the plans "substantially equivalent"!

GOLDEN, Colo., Feb. 21 — President Bush acknowledged on Tuesday that his administration had sent "mixed signals" to the Department of Energy's primary renewable energy laboratory here, where government budget cuts forced the layoff of 32 employees who were then hastily reinstated just before Mr. Bush's visit.

"I recognize that there has been some interesting, let me say, mixed signals when it comes to funding," Mr. Bush said at the start of a panel discussion at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which researches solar and wind power as well as energy from plants, like ethanol.

Mr. Bush added: "The issue of course is whether or not good intentions are met with actual dollars spent. Part of the issue we face, unfortunately, is that there are sometimes decisions made as a result of the appropriations process, where money may not end up where it is supposed to have gone."

[...]

Full Story

CAROL A. CLARK, lanews@lamonitor.com, Monitor Staff Writer

Lisa Etzel, M.A., LPCC, and Lashauna Hedtke, M.A., LMHC, from Corazon Behavioral Health Services will present a workshop titled "Living in Los Alamos - What it's really like in this unusual town."

The workshop is set to take place from 1-4 p.m. Saturday at Family Strengths Network in the Pueblo Complex at 1900 Diamond Drive.

"I feel like this community, at times, needs a place for understanding and expressing what it's like to live and work in this unusual town," Etzel said. "Especially during this huge time of change because of the new laboratory management contract. As an agency, we would like to provide that opportunity to the members of this community."

Saturday's workshop is essentially divided into three one-hour topics:

[...]

Full Story

Submitted by Anonymous:
________________________________

Doug,
Mike Anastasio laid out his vision of science at Los Alamos in his presentation today. Essentially, he sees Los Alamos as addressing all the unsolved problems we need to address nationally and globally. At the end, someone asked him how he would get the myriads of petty DOE program managers to put their little pots of money together, and his answer, in a nutshell was that he (and all of us) will work to convince them.

The next question was about the fact that almost none of our managers are scientific leaders. In his response, he expressed the expectation that his newly appointed "EB" will make sure that the right people get to lead.

Sounded like a fairy tale to me...

Submitted by Anonymous"
__________________________________________________

Neither LANS TCP 1 nor LANS TCP 2 appears "Substantially Equivalent" to the UC contract total compensation package.

Each of these UC TCP benefits (with very conservative annualized values noted) is missing from LANS' Proposal:
1. CAP Accounts annualized value: $1200
2. 401(a) Pre-tax (federal and state) benefit: $500
3. 457(b) Pre-tax (federal and state) benefit: up to $5000
4. 25% Survivor retirement continuance $4000 to $6000

And this additional cost is imposed by LANS' Proposal:
1. Investment Funds Load 401(k): -$1000 to 2500

Total benefit difference: $11,700 to $15,200 per Year

(Basis: $75K annual salary; 25% Federal Tax, 8% NM Tax; 401k value constant at $100K to 250K; Additional Retirement Funds Management Load 1%)

An additional cost of the LANS proposal is that individuals who opted out of Social Security contributions in 1978 (some 450 individuals) will be required to pay Social Security tax (estimated $8000 per year), with little or no return.

Doug,
Please post this for all to view and not as a comment to a previous post.
Thanks,
Kathy Elsberry els@cybermesa.com
________________________________________-

Domestic Partner Survivor Benefits
The LANS benefit proposal all-hands meeting presented confusing information regarding DOMA and ERISA. DOMA defines the terms “marriage” and “spouse” and ERISA mandates spousal rights with regards to pensions. The two Acts combined prohibit a state from enacting legislation mandating employers to provide spousal benefits to domestic partners. The Acts do not prohibit an employer from voluntarily providing more generous benefits than required by federal law. In addition and contrary to spousal benefits, employees must pay federal income tax on the value of any spousal-type benefits extended to domestic partners.

The LANS team portrayed the elimination of domestic partner survivor benefits as a simple fact of federal law. In fact, of the 15 companies in the benefits value peer study, 9 extend survivor benefits to domestic partners, 3 do not, and 3 don’t extend pension benefits to any employee (only 401k plans). Are Kodak, HP, Honeywell, IBM, Lockheed Martin, Motorola, Raytheon, SBC Communications, and Xerox breaking federal law?

If you feel the elimination of domestic partner survivor benefits does not meet the "substantially equivalent" test, I encourage you to let NNSA know. inputonlansbenefits@doeal.gov
We are all in this together.

Kathy Elsberry

[From an anonymous reporter]

I, along with about 200 others, attended the LANS (Los Alamos Nuclear Security) Employee and Retiree Meeting at the Santa Fe Community College on Tuesday evening, February 21st.

The meeting was run by a NNSA guy and a LANS HR guy.

The presentation was the 27 slide PowerPoint Presentation titled "Public Briefing Slides." This can be found on the LASO website:
http://www.doeal.gov/laso/ContractTransition/default.html

This presentation lasted about 45 minutes. Questions were not permitted until the end. There were a number of questions that had been answered in the presentation. Either people did not pay attention or they showed up late.

There were a few complex questions, such as how people on disability would be handled. The NNSA guy and LANS HR guy were unable to answer some of these questions and the individuals were referred to LANL HR.

The meeting lasted the specified two hours. There were more questions at the end, but some of the questions started to make the NNSA guy uncomfortable so he adjourned the meeting. People began leaving during the question and answer period and I estimate that only about 25 were present at the very end.

Here are my notes from the question and answer period. If I got any of this wrong or left out anything important, I would appreciate input from other attendees.


FOR RETIREES:
--------------------

Currently, the retiree medical insurance premium is deducted from the UCRS pension check. The retiree medical insurance plan is directly funded by the DOE and will be administered by LANS After the transition, retirees will send their insurance premiums to LANS.

United Healthcare, Medco, and Delta Dental will be continued in their present form. New identity cards will be issued at the time of the transition.

Medicare Part B contributions are a DOE obligation and will continue.

A number of retirees and employees participate in the CALPERS Long Term Care Plan. There was no discussion of this in the presentation. The LANS HR guy stated that they had not known about this until a few weeks ago and were now studying the issue.

NNSA is quite opposed to UC separating out the LANL portion of the pension fund. This issue is not resolved. Although the LANL portion of the pension fund is only "funded at the 99% level," the NNSA guy says that this is not a problem at the present time. Problems that concern the UC regents regarding the LANL participants in the pension fund were stated as:

1. LANL employees retire earlier (~age 59) than UC faculty (~age 62).
2. LANL retirees live longer.
3. LANL employee have higher salaries.

The NNSA guy stated that the DOE is obligated to assure the continuance of the pensions of LANL retirees.

===========================================================

FOR EXISTING EMPLOYEES:
-------------------------------------

First, it is clear that NNSA really does not want a lot of people to retire. The TCP1 (Total Compensation Plan #1) mirrors the existing UC compensation and benefits plans to the extent legally possible. As far as I can tell, the only significant loss is that the 401a, 403b, and 457 pre-tax savings plans, which are only permitted for "public" employers, are replaced by a 401K plan, which is for "private" employers. The loss is as follows:

age under 50: max current contribution = $30K, TCP1 contribution = $15K
age over 50: max current contribution = $40K, TCP1 contribution = $20K

This is legally mandated.

ALL existing employees who do NOT elect to begin drawing their UCRS pensions will receive a LANS job offer at their current salary. Existing employees who elect to begin drawing their UCRS pension MAY (or MAY NOT) receive a LANS job offer. These individuals will be TCP2 employees.

=============================================================

FOR NEW EMPLOYEES:
-------------------------------

The "new" employees who will be under TCP2 and they are screwed! TCP2 adheres to the 105% of the average compensation plans of the 15 "peer employers." That list includes General Electric, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon, and United Technologies. These are not R&D organizations and their workforce does not include a large proportion of PhD-level scientists. SANDIA and PNNL are included. But, comparable employers such as DOE labs like ANL, BNL, FNAL, LBL, ORNL, and TJNAF are NOT included in the calculation.

The NNSA guy stated that LANL was at 129% of the "employer cost" of benefits relative to the average of the 15 peer employers. He was quite incorrect here. In the case of LANL, the cost of the UCRS pension has been zero since about 1990.

For TCP2, there is a 3.5% to 5.5% employer pension contribution (depends on length of service). Along with that, LANS will match employee 401K contributions up to 6.5%. The major drawback is that there will be NO employer contributions to the TCP2 retiree medical plan. TCP2 retirees will be able to participate in the LANS medical plan but will pay full cost.

This is not a particularly attractive total compensation plan relative to other DOE labs.

============================================================

Comments on the proposed compensation and benefits plan should be sent to:
inputonlansbenefits@doeal.gov

-Anonymous

Opinion piece from The Rocky Mountain News:

Foxes in the henhouse

If we're going to let a business owned by United Arab Emirates operate six of our major ports, why stop there? Why not put the Saudis in charge of airport security and the Colombians or Bolivians in charge of the war on drugs?

Can't we find a state-owned company from Mexico to take over our Border Patrol?

Surely the Chinese should be invited to bid on the next contract to run Los Alamos National Laboratory, while Iran boasts unique credentials to preside over the Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Finally, isn't it time for the nations of the world to elevate Sudan to the U.N. Human Rights Commission?

Oh, wait: That outpost of genocidal barbarism is already there.

Vincent Carroll, editor of the editorial pages, writes On Point several times a week. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

And from the Albuquerque Tribune:

Editorials: Bouquets & brickbats
February 22, 2006

Brickbat: new sermon

President Bush's newfound faith in energy alternatives is raising a righteous chorus of hallelujahs around the nation, but there's little wonder why congregations out here in the Rocky Mountain West aren't yet building bigger churches.

Folks here have good reason to question the president's sincerity. Take his visit this week to the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory up north in Golden, Colo., to promote energy proposals he made in his State of the Union address.

Two weeks ago, the lab, which develops the energy technologies the president is promoting, had to lay off 32 workers because of cutbacks in federal funds. Coincidentally - or not - the feds came up with money to restore the jobs just before Bush's visit.

Unfortunately, critics point out, the move restores only $5 million of the $28 million shortfall that caused the layoffs in the first place.

Meanwhile, alternative energy research at DOE's Sandia and Los Alamos national labs in New Mexico has languished since the end of President Carter's administration. These labs - like the lab in Golden - have the ability and the technology to end America's "addiction to oil," as Bush put it so aptly.

If the president were sincere, he'd put serious money and muscle where his mouth is. Yes, Bush has proposed a 22 percent increase in funding for alternative energy research at DOE. But developments such as the gambit at Golden raise legitimate doubts that Bush - a former Texas oilman - might be undergoing only a jailhouse conversion to energy independence.

We'll hold out for deeds to back up the words before we start adding more pews.

Submitted by Anonymous:
__________________________

This is the first time LANL employees have been faced with such a major transition. The compensation offers are detailed and complex. It is in the interest of LANL employees to have more time to analyze and review the offers. Call New Mexico delegation members and ask them to seek extensions of the comment period from DOE.


Bingaman, Jeff- (D - NM) Class I
703 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5521
E-mail: senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov

Domenici, Pete V.- (R - NM) Class II
328 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6621
Web Form: domenici.senate.gov/contact/contactform.cfm
Representative Tom Udall (202)225-6190

Doug,

Finknottle is misbehaving again. See his latest on

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2006/02/comment-on-lans-benefit-proposal.html

where people are commenting on the deficiencies of the new benefits package, and how it will affect LANL's claim for being home to "the best and the brightest".
_____________________________________

I believe DOE/NNSA have come up with a foolproof (get it? Foolproof) plan to ensure that LANL attracts the "worst and the stupidest" from this point on.

New official LANL motto: "The World's Most Mediocre Science Protecting our 105% of median benefits package."

Submitted by Anonymous:
_______________________

Here's my attempt at a forecast for LANL...

Change will occur gradually. Over the next 5 years, the ratio
of science vs. production work won't change by a huge amount.
The biggest concerns will be driven by a lack of lab funding
due to Congress/DOE and the increasing costs caused by LANL's
"for-profit" contract, GRT, transition costs, and the need
for hefty contributions to our retirement fund. Lack of funds
will likely increase over the next 5 years, thus raising the
level of worker anxiety. Be prepared to deal with the funding
anxiety. If this bothers you and you can find a more secure
place to work, then perhaps it's time to think about leaving.
Conversely, you could just hang around and wait until you got
hit by a RIF and then look elsewhere. I suspect most people
will take this second option, but it largely depends on how
you feel about working at a facility in which staff morale is
very low. If we have funding shortfalls, the morale will not
be improving. In fact, it will probably get much worse.

As far as your LANL paycheck goes, be prepared to start forking
over some cash to help keep the new TCP1 pension afloat. DOE
says that any necessary contributions to beef up the new pension
will come out of LANL's budget. However, I suspect that LANS
will eventually pass these costs on to workers by taking a chunk
out of each paycheck. Be prepared to see a sizable chunk of
cash taken from your bi-weekly earnings. The UCRP pension has
already experienced a rapid draw-down of funds. In 2002, it
was over-funded at the rate of about 138%. Last year, it was
over-funded by only about 108%. That's a drop of about 10% per
year over each of the last 4 years! The LANS TCP1 pension is
expected to start out its first year under-funded with only
around 95% of the required funds on hand (depending on how
generous UC decides to be with our current UCRP assets).

Increases in health care costs, along with contributions to
the LANS pension will mean you shouldn't expect to see your
take-home pay increase by much over the next few years. You'll
be doing good if you can keep up with inflation. If you can
find a better deal outside of LANL, then perhaps you'll want
to move to greener pastures. Younger workers will find this
a much easier choice to make, while those in the 45+ age group
with a significant number of years at LANL will be more inclined
to stay around and try to collect on their future pension.

We hired a lot of young TSMs in the 1999-2003 period, and many
of them will now decide to move on. I left my first employer
after about 6 years on the job. It's common to at least make
one job change during your career, and that frequently occurs
during the first 10 years of your job life. After this initial
10 year period has past, bigger responsibilities begin to intrude
(ie, older kids, stronger connections to a community, etc), and
it becomes much harder to leave. For younger staff hired during
the 1999-2003 Boom-Times, this "jumping-off" point it about
to approach. The really good ones who have great scientific
skills will be the ones who are most likely to leave, as they
have other job options.

Going out 10 years, the changes will be much more dramatic.
Regardless of what DOE may say, it's clear to me that LANL
is going to see significantly more production work in the
future. In fact, production work will probably be better
funded than most scientific research. This means you'll see
greater job security in positions like plutonium technician
and health & safety positions. Of course, there will also
be job security in most of the management positions. Many
TSMs are going to find "the going gets rough". Also, many
of our future managers will begin to see that they have a
brighter future as managers on the production side, rather
than the scientific side. This will influence our management,
so that future preferences of most LANL managers will lean
heavily toward favoring production type work. Ten years out,
I expect that the ratio of science vs. production will shift
toward greater emphasis on production. Managers know all
too well who "butters their bread", and will act accordingly.

As far as weapons research goes, I would be concerned if you
work in this area. DOE has already given clear warning that
weapons research funding will, at best, remain static. If
you think that RRW work is going to save the weapons budget,
dream on. It will not. RRW won't be a significant part of
the lab's budget for many years. Congress knows we have lots
of spare nukes, and they've come to the logical conclusion
that at least some of the nukes in our huge arsenal will
work if we ever need to use them. RRW won't be a significant
part of the NNSA budget until the present stockpile is much
older -- perhaps in about 15 to 20 years. By 2025, Congress
will finally start to get concerned over the thought that
they might need to fight a war with nukes that are at least
35 years in age. Till then, Congress has more pressing needs
in terms of Federal spending. After all, the leading edge
of the baby-boomers just turned 60, and we are about to see
a vicious ramp-up in entitlement costs over the next 30 years.
Who do you thing will have a stronger voice in making a case
for Federal dollars over the next 30 years -- weapons R&D
workers, or older citizens who demand the entitlements that
have been promised to them for many years? It's not even close.

The biggest increase in funding 5 and 10 years out will come
from production work that takes place at the plutonium facility.
LANL will become the defacto site for all feature pit work.
There will be some increase funding for doing Threat Reduction
work, but it won't be enough to make up for future shortfalls
in the weapons research budget. WFO's used to be about 20% of
the lab's budget. Increasingly high overhead costs will mean
that WFO's will also be a declining portion of LANL's future
budget. Outside sponsors don't have unlimited funds, even
if they sometimes need the specialized expertise that comes
from a National Lab.

That's my forecast. It's not very optimistic, and some of it
contains views that DOE and upper management won't tell you,
but I think it's realistic. Some may have different views.
I'd love to hear them. What ever happens, don't let life
at LANL make you miserable. If your at that point and have
other options, then it's definitely time to move on. Life
is short -- try to enjoy it while you can.

Anonymous Please

I thought the statement that ERISA will not allow
inclusion of domestic partners in the benefits plans
to be odd. After quite a bit of research and talking
to a non-lab benefits expert, I found that ERISA is
silent on the issue of domestic partners. Several
large companies have, in fact, included domestic
partners in their benefits plans. This includes both
same sex and opposite sex partners. If this is a
concern for you, I would suggest you immediately send
your comment to NNSA.

The Nuclear Abyss

The United States is preparing to enter a new era: an era in which it will enforce nuclear nonproliferation by the threat and use of nuclear weapons. The use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran will usher in a new world order. The ultimate goal is that no nation other than the U.S. should have a nuclear weapons arsenal.

A telltale sign that this is the plan is the recent change in the stated mission of Los Alamos National Laboratory, where nuclear weapons are developed. The mission of LANL used to be described officially as "Los Alamos National Laboratory's central mission is to reduce the global nuclear danger" [1] [.pdf], [2] [.pdf], [3] [.pdf]. That will sound ridiculous once the U.S. starts throwing mini-nukes around. In anticipation of it, the Los Alamos mission statement has been recently changed to "prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and to protect our homeland from terrorist attack." That is the present and future role of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, to be achieved through threat (deterrence) and use of nuclear weapons. References to the old mission are nowhere to be found in the current Los Alamos documents, indicating that the change was deliberate and thorough.

[...]

Full Story

Submitted by Anonymous:
__________________________

From the Wall Street Journal online 02/20/06

Doug
I am an LLNL retiree. I have been following your blog with interest
I have sent a letter to UC, which I have copied below
You are welcome to post if you wish, and you may or may not
use my name as you wish

--
Stan Trost


February 15, 2006.

Robert C. Dynes, President University of California
1111 Franklin St.
Oakland, Ca. 94607-5200
cc: Gerald L. Parsky, Chairman Regents of UC

Dear Dr. Dynes:

Varied press reports are concern current and retired employees of the
National Laboratories. As a Livermore retiree, I am concerned that
Livermore and Los Alamos retirees contract with the University may be
changed.

My colleagues and I worked at the laboratories for many reasons
including the unique challenges of the work; the opportunity to
provide vital public service; a total compensation system that
included fair pay and benefits and the expectation of retirement from
the University under its retirement system.

Our accomplishments were (and continue to be) many including our
contributions to the end of the cold war, our efforts to design build
a robust nuclear stockpile, a key role in sequencing the human genome,
our development of analytical instruments to fight bio-terrorism, our
development of high power lasers, and our patents of a wide variety of
technologies, many that are licensed to industry. Your employees made
tremendous sacrifices. They spent countless hours in the desert,
weeks away from