The UC Board of Regents seemed to be warming up to the idea of
managing the Los Alamos National Laboratory at their meeting at
UCLA on Wednesday.
The regents voted in January to bid for the management contract
of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, but the decision
about Los Alamos has been much more controversial due to recent
security issues at the site and the classified work that is
conducted there.
But at their bimonthly meeting Wednesday, some regents expressed
a much more positive opinion about Los Alamos than they have in the
past.
Regent Norman Pattiz, who had earlier expressed doubts about the
continued management of Los Alamos, said the regents’
concerns have been assuaged by a recent visit to the site.
“It was quite an experience, it was one of the most
interesting and stimulating visits that I’ve made to any
place,” he said. “A lot of my questions were answered
… there.”
“It’s also very clear to me that the work, the wide
variety of work, being done there is crucial, is essential,”
he added.
Regent Mark Ornellas echoed Pattiz’s words, saying he had
had a similar experience in his visit to the Los Alamos and
Lawrence Livermore National Labs.
But the support of some regents for managing the Los Alamos lab
does not by any means signal a decision, and Gerald Parsky said a
final vote is still months away.
Robert Foley, vice president for lab management at the UC,
outlined a tentative timeline for the Los Alamos contract.
“The final (Request for Proposal) could be out in early
April,” Foley said.
Following this estimate, the bids would be due in July, the
award announced by the Department of Enegery in October, and a full
transition made by next April.
But Foley added this is a very generous estimate, and the
process will likely be pushed back.
A revised draft of the proposal, which included some important
changes, was released on Feb. 18, Foley said.
One item that was discussed in particular has to do with the
workers at the site, which would require that all pension and
benefit programs for employees would be specific to Los Alamos and
not part of the UC retirement program.
This stipulation could cause some concern for the UC and for Los
Alamos employees, but will be addressed again before a final
decision is made.
The outlook for the Berkeley Lab is also bright and the UC is
optimistic that they will receive the contract.
“I think we’d be hard pressed to be beaten on
Berkeley, whoever else may come up,” Foley said.
For now, the UC’s stance on the bid for management will
remain largely up in the air.
“There are an awful lot of unknowns,” Foley said.
“Before we see this final (Request for Proposal) we
won’t know too much.”