SFR chats with Jay Coghlan on LANL and solitary confinement.
SFR: Why did Nuclear Watch and Tri-Valley CAREs bid to manage Los Alamos National Laboratory? JC:
The 'why' is easy. We think it's going to be business as usual under the direction of either Bechtel/University of California or Lockheed Martin/University of Texas. We submitted the bid to underscore the fundamental wrong direction that this country's nuclear weapons programs is taking.
***image1***
How seriously do you think the Department of Energy is taking your bid?
Well, this is fresh news. We just received our official notice of rejection and I'm shocked, simply shocked. Clearly, we had the bid that was in the best interest of the country.
You're being funny, right? Obviously, Nuclear Watch and DOE have radically different views on 'what's best for the country.'
The professed mission of the laboratory is to help ensure the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile, and to lower the global nuclear danger. We contend that the laboratory is undermining safety and reliability through incremental changes to already extensively proof-tested weapons. Secondly, this country is modernizing its stockpile, giving the explicit message to other countries the value this country puts on nuclear weapons. In the long run Los Alamos, and the US nuclear weapons complex as a whole, are acting contrary to our national security concerns.
Or at least our stated national security concerns.
Correct.
I think that's a key distinction.
Well, I recall that both presidential candidates identified nuclear weapons proliferation as this country's greatest national security threat.
Did you think your bid would get further in the process?
Well, again, I'm shocked, simply shocked to be so summarily rejected. And it's not necessarily over. We'll just have to weigh our options here.
In the horserace between Bechtel/UC and Lockheed/UT, who do you think is ahead?
I actually think Lockheed Martin/UT might have the edge. DOE is quite fed up with the University of California's management. Witness the scandals over the past half-decade, plus ongoing safety infractions. I believe the DOE is getting fed up with Los Alamos's lack of productivity, which in our view isn't such a bad thing given the commodity that they work on. But, nevertheless, here's this institution with a $2 billion-plus budget and what do they really produce?
DOE received only three bids to manage LANL. Why the tiny number of bidders?
I think it speaks to the common perception of how deeply troubled the laboratory is, that it can really be a can of worms running that place. I think there were other possible contenders that were skittish about Los Alamos.
A corporation will be comanaging LANL for the first time. How might this affect how the lab is run?
It's my belief that the culture at the laboratory really needs to be shaken up. I think having a corporate entity in there will help to shake up complacency and a somewhat arrogant culture up on the hill. Los Alamos has hidden behind this false allure of academic prestige that the University of California has provided. Los Alamos is nuclear weapons. That's what its past, present and future will be. So, to the extent that this false academic allure is stripped away from the enterprise, I think that's a good thing. And, again, DOE wants to see higher productivity at Los Alamos and I suspect a corporate partner will help do that.
Based on their track records can you predict how Bechtel or Lockheed might run LANL?
Bechtel actually has a presence at a number of sites throughout the DOE complex, and I would point to one in particular in which they were supposed to build a plant at Hanford, Wash. Bechtel mismanaged the project, costing the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, arguably $1 billion. The Office of the Inspector General found that Bechtel had engaged in lax engineering and safety standards, and had not anticipated the degree of seismic protection that this facility required. Bechtel has grossly mismanaged DOE projects in the past, so it doesn't bode well for their future management of Los Alamos.
And Lockheed?
[Laughing] About Lockheed, what can be said? First of all, we have the world's biggest defense contractor. Lockheed is already managing Sandia Lab. So, if Lockheed is awarded the bid, it will end up running two out of the three nuclear weapons design labs in this country. So, here we might see the expansion of an already existing monopoly.
Last question: You're being held captive in a padlocked room, forced to listen to dreadful music, and told you can only be released if you vote for either Bechtel/UC or Lockheed/UT. Which bid do you choose?
I think I'd have to resign myself to live what's left of my life in solitary confinement.
