|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Energy Department Releases Los Alamos Proposal
The manager of Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico would be paid $79 million annually —10 times the current management fee — and would be required to develop a pension plan and assume more risks under the Energy Department’s request for proposals released yesterday, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, May 17). “I think that what people will see over time is good operations and good business aren’t the enemies of great science, they enable it,” said Tyler Przybylek, chairman of the board of National Nuclear Security Administration. Proposals are due back on July 19, with an announcement of the winner expected Dec. 1. The manager, determined by the National Nuclear Security Administration, would assume control of the laboratory in July 2006 (Erica Werner, Associated Press/Monterey Hearald, May 20). At least one lawmaker is unhappy with the proposal. Representative Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.) said the Energy Department ignored her suggestions for the proposal. She blasted the department for requiring the development of a pension plan and said the increased management fee was overblown and a burden to taxpayers. “Finally, I want to warn the DOE about what appears to be a warming toward bids offered by defense industry companies,” Tauscher stated in a press release. “Our national labs have a long and proud history of being run by academic institutions with an unquestionable commitment to the highest standards of science. I want to caution the DOE and urge officials there to carefully guard against the corporatization of science” (Representative Ellen Tauscher press release, May 19). Representative Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said defense contractor Lockheed Martin is the favorite over Bechtel Group and Northrop Grumman to win control of Los Alamos, Bloomberg reported today. “Bechtel has some experience, but then you have Lockheed Martin, which is [managing] Sandia [National Laboratories], which is very similar to Los Alamos,” said Stupak, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has oversight over the laboratory. Stupak was less optimistic about the University of California’s chances to retain management of the laboratory it has operated since World War II. “UC probably has an uphill climb here, but we're not making the decision,” Stupak told Bloomberg. “It's the Department of Energy. But Lockheed has really been aggressive on this.” Kathleen McInnis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said Bechtel’s partnership with the university is a disadvantage because of unhappiness on Capitol Hill with the laboratory’s recent operations. Former Los Alamos Associate Director Thomas Meyer agreed that the University of California has done a poor job of managing the facility. “Strategic investments of time and resources to meet commonly accepted standards in safety, security and business systems have not been met,” Meyer wrote in a letter posted online in February. “The laboratory has fallen behind industry and other facilities in the DOE complex in these areas” (Jon Steinman, Bloomberg, May 20).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
