Eyes On, Hands Off
This policy of NNSA is getting a lot of press
recently, as the momentum is shifting from less oversight of lab
contractors to more oversight by federal groups. Somewhere it was
mentioned that this policy came from Don Cook when the local sites
reported to him, before this function was shifted to some other box in
NNSA. As the policy is now history, when will Cook also be history?
9 comments:
Is Cook the big villain (rather than any of the cast of unsavory characters like foster or Moses or McMillan) because cook and his nnsa power players are mostly former Sandians? I hear variations of the same theme - that somehow they have an agenda to destroy LLNL while giving Sandia preferential treatment? It would sound like a wild conspiracy theory if it were not for the pervasiveness of the innuendo and accusations. Take for instance the comparatively mild impact of sequestration on Sandia vs LANL and LLNL and the disbelief some have in Sandia's explanation. I've heard suggestions that Sandia will need to give up some of its business to the other lab out of fairness. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. Will Sandia's portfolio diversification intended for long term stability and growth end up costing them, while the poor performing design labs get rewarded for failure?
We had the directors of the 3 labs and others testify before congress that they had fixed things and that NNSA and it's tight oversight should be relaxed. It seemed like those statements were accepted by some on the Hill. Then Y12 comes up with its debacle and it would appear the pendulum will swing to the bureaucracy side even worse than what we have now. Even if they took the labs out from NNSA and put them in DOE, I would venture that the velvet glove would be replaced with an iron fist. Good times ahead for one and all.
Then Y12 comes up with its debacle...
March 16, 2013 at 5:53 PM
Ridiculous. It was not a "debacle" it was a small embarrassment that was blown all out of proportion by the press, DC bureaucrats, and you. No one was injured or killed, no damage occurred, and no national security secrets or nuclear material were lost. However, this is now the way the world works: make a mistake and you should be shot yesterday. Thanks to the internet, we are all reduced to ignorant fools, because that's who make up 95% of the apparent "public"; i.e., those who choose to shoot their mouths off with no knowledge and unfortunately have access to a computer.
I think the author intended for the reference to a debacle to coincide with your observation that things got blown out of proportion. The outrage factor in the y12 event really amplified the response in DC. I think you both are pretty much on the same page. Please refrain from the ad hominem followups. It gives blog owners more reason to remove anonymous postings.
For the security force at Y12, it was a debacle. It was total failure of their security in layers. The only thing that kept it from being a huge national/international incident was the attacking force and their intentions.
For the contractor who no longer runs the show, I don't think they'd call it a minor embarrassment.
For Sandia,LLNS and LANS arguing that NNSA is too intrusive the backlash of congress will be a total failure in their efforts to get NNSA to operate in a sensible manner.
But back to the main headline of Eyes On, Hands Off. We are going to switch from a self given eye exam to a prostate exam by someone with sharp finger nails.
SNL and Y-12 are the key labs in the new NNSA infrastructure. Just look at recent history. The other labs are window dressing that can be tossed aside as the federal budgets continue to decline.
Neither can do Pu research. Unless you think that's not necessary for the maintenance of the stockpile.
Can you say a little bit about why Pu research is necessary for maintaining the stockpile? I know that there's PU in there, but what do we not already know about it?
March 23, 2013 at 10:38 AM
Aging and phase stability issues, long-term corrosion when in contact with other materials in weapons, longevity of wrought vs cast, changes in crystal structure and mechanical response (static and dynamic), macro mechanical issues such as fracture toughness and environmental stability. None of which represented problems with a dynamically changing stockpile. Long-term, there are worries about reliability.
Post a Comment