• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

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.”