BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email


  • Stay on topic.
  • No foul, vulgar, or inflammatory language.
  • No name calling.
  • No personal attacks or put-downs of other blog users.
  • Be patient. Moderator checks and approves new posts several times a day.

Suggest new topics here


Submit candidates for new topics here only. Stay on topic with National Labs' related issues. All submissions are screened first for ...

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Battelle intrigued by NNSA possibilties

Interesting comments by Battelle - which is part of LLNS but not LANS, the key difference between the two LLCs. 

If LANS looses the LANL rebid in a few years, would Battelle team with someone new like Lockeed Martin or Grumman to form an LLC to bid on LANL. 

Or if LANS goes down, would UC see little value in continuing to team with Bechtel (and the other industrial partners) in LLNS and create a solely UC-Battelle owned LLC to bid and run LLNL. 

Knox News

Ron Townsend, Battelle’s executive vice president for global laboratory operations, was in Washington, D.C., last week for the 7th annual Nuclear Deterrence Summit, and it was very much a business trip. Townsend was there to better understand the challenges facing the NNSA and evaluate what roles Battelle might play in the nuclear weapons complex and what it might be able to contribute.

“We’re intrigued,” Townsend said in an interview. “We have a very strong science and energy portfolio. We manage three Science labs (Oak Ridge, Pacific Northwest and Brookhaven) and both Energy labs — Idaho and NREL. We don’t have a significant presence in the weapons area, the national nuclear security arena. But we’re intrigued by that.”

Currently, Battelle’s only work in the weapons complex is a subcontracting role at LLNL. “We’re responsible for work for others in the nonproliferation, counter-terrorism area. It’s a small role, but it’s an active role,” he said.

Townsend said it’s premature to say Battelle aspires to a greater role. “We’re assessing whether or not we ought to aspire,” he said.

But he said he thought that skills developed in managing five Department of Energy laboratories could prove valuable in the nuclear security enterprise.

“They translate directly,” Townsend said. “We believe that the best-practices principles that we’ve developed at the other laboratories translate directly, and it’s a question of is it something we really want to do.”

There’s a lot of talk swirling these days about changes in contractor governance and the introduction or re-introduction of in-the-public-interest contracting in the weapons complex. Townsend said that’s very much a Battelle thing.

“We love it,” he said. “Battelle embraced the public-service model before the public-serve model was even known. That’s who we are. I think it’s a great idea.”...

...Townsend didn’t specify any upcoming NNSA contracts of interest to Battelle, but he also didn’t seem to place any limits on possible roles.

“There’s a lot of churn in the NNSA complex in terms of potential management opportunities, whether it be the laboratory or (other)...I’m just curious.”

How can the DOE "whistleblower" Contractor Employee Protection policy protect employees

How can the DOE "whistleblower" Contractor Employee Protection policy protect employees, if the DOE IG in good faith, can't acquire investigation relevant documentation from the DOE Contractor in question? 

"...According to the Inspector General, Bechtel and URS, the contractors involved in the matter, have refused to provide more than 4,500 documents to the Inspector General, claiming attorney-client privilege. I understand that the contractors have refused to provide these documents despite a clause in both the prime contract and subcontract which expressly consents to the provision of attorney-client privileged material to the Inspector General. I request that the Department provide a briefing to the Subcommittee about DOE's plans to address the contractors' lack of cooperation with the Inspector General's request. The briefing should also include the mechanisms that are available to the Department to hold the contractors accountable for their noncompliance, including withholding of fees and recovery of costs incurred by the Office of Inspector General. I request that this briefing be provided as soon as possible, but no later than October 31, 2014..."

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Is Charlie going to be held accountable?

This is from a different thread; however, it brings up the looming Office of Enforcement action over the Sellers cover-up. As described in the IG report, Charlie was aware of the ethical violations that led to Sellers' debarment from government contracting and yet continued to shield her for over a year. 

Other than being caught by the IG, what was the direct punishment to LANS senior management employees for harboring the Beth Sellers "conflict of interest" secret for a year or so?

February 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM

Just wait. The next step in the process after the issuance of a report by the IG finding wrongdoing, is the involvement of the IG's Office of Enforcement. The IG is not toothless by any means.

February 23, 2015 at 9:04 AM

LANL is still bungling security

As the recent IG report shows, not much has improved at LANL since the below quote was published. How many more problems must come to light before real change is forced by Congress? 

"It suggests that, despite years of bungling and the critical media and Congressional scrutiny generated as a result, Los Alamos, the keeper of many of America's�and other nations'�most sensitive nuclear and intelligence secrets still has not resolved serious problems with its information security."

Monday, February 23, 2015

Nuclear Lab Whistleblower Case Moves Forward

"...In 2013 a contract employee at the Los Alamos National Laboratory found himself stripped of his security clearance and suspended from his job shortly after he published an article arguing the benefits of getting rid of nuclear weapon stockpiles. This month he begins mediation with the lab after his second whistleblower claim was accepted by the National Nuclear Security Administration..."

Amid Safety Concerns at LANL, Udall Weighs in on Lab’s next Mission: Pit production

Posted: Saturday, February 21, 2015 8:00 pm
By Patrick Malone, The New Mexican, Excerpts

Even as the birthplace of the atomic bomb continues to reel from its role in a radiation leak last year that stranded nuclear waste indefinitely at labs throughout the country, U.S. Sen. Tom Udall said Los Alamos National Laboratory remains the nation’s only option for ramped-up production of nuclear weapon triggers.

“As long as we have nuclear weapons, they have to have pits, and Los Alamos does that,” Udall, D-N.M., told The New Mexican on Friday.

“What I hope for is that we have aggressive efforts by our president and by the Senate, and we get nuclear agreements in place where we can reduce the amount of weapons, and we need fewer pits and you don’t have to have the robust kind of facility that some people talk about,” he said.

“If you’re weighing in and saying they’ve made a big mistake and they need to pay for it and there are consequences, I support them,” Udall said.

“It’s pretty clear that Los Alamos’ people, the scientists and others that were working on this, made a mistake. … The big question now is how do we move forward?” Udall said. “How do we make sure we don’t make mistakes like that again?”


Sunday, February 22, 2015

Will the labs really improve when LANS and LLNS are out?

Will the labs really improve when LANS and LLNS are out?

1. Will funding priorities, operational efficiency, safety culture, Contractor accountability, and employee morale, materially improve and remain improved, when LANS and LLNS are replaced with new for profit LLCs?

2. Is waiting and hoping for a change in management at LANL and LLNL for "better times" like saying, "my next marriage will be better, so in the meantime....". Is this a constructive and healthy approach? 

DOE: Cleanup Fund Will Pay WIPP fines

DOE: Cleanup Fund Will Pay WIPP fines

By Mark Oswald / Journal Staff Writer
PUBLISHED: Saturday, February 21, 2015 at 12:05 am

SANTA FE – The federal Department of Energy is taking the position that any state fines it pays for a radioactive leak at the nation’s nuclear waste repository near Carlsbad will come from money appropriated to clean up decades’ worth of contamination from nuclear weapons work in New Mexico.

“Any fines and penalties assessed on the EM (environmental management) program would be provided by cleanup dollars, resulting in reduced funding for cleanup activities,” says a 2016 budget year summary presented earlier this month by the DOE’s Office of Environmental Management.

The New Mexico Environment Department has fined the DOE $54 million for the leak from a drum of radioactive waste processed at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The drum ruptured in February 2014 and has shut down the underground Waste Isolation Pilot Project, halting delivery of waste from Los Alamos and other weapons complex sites to the underground facility.

Friday, February 20, 2015

Marketability of LLNL workers.

Marketability of LLNL workers.

I've Stanford grad school buddies in the valley for a while and they say the only LLNL employees worth anything are the Comp Sci folks willing to be worker bees. Otherwise anybody over 35 is tainted and can't hack it... some examples of top level managers leaving trying to make it... it's a small world and word gets around.
LLNL:golden handcuffs are slowing turning to LEAD.

New fines coming to LANS from security failures?

New fines coming to LANS from security failures?

The 2007 DOE Compliance Order that resulted from the LANL classified materials found during the police bust of a drug den has this clause in it:

"Violation of the Compliance Order would subject LANS to issuance of a notice of violation and assessment of civil penalties up to $100,000 per violation per day."

Since Quintana was working for Charlie when all this happened, he just might be a bit worried that the recent IG report on release of classified information could trigger even more fines for LANS.

Good riddance

So Anita Gursihani (sp??) is coming back to LLNL? Finally the end of the Conner/Walls/Etc. regime... Good riddance!! Maybe we will finally right the ship after 8 long years of incompetence!! The tax payers should sue for fraud! (aka Conner) Maritinez has seen the light. Thank you!!!

Where does LANS Management go from here on the WIPP event?

Where does LANS Management go from here on the WIPP event?

1. "Run down the clock" by claiming "attorney client 
privilege", etc., to slow or impair the IG investigation 
so they can exit with minimal cost liability? 

2. Select a path that LANS believes will preserve the 
most profit on their way out?

3. In good faith negotiate the slippery slope by clearly 
admitting and identifying in detail the LANS issues 
or failures that created the WIPP problem while not 
setting themselves up for dollar liability?

4. Other?

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Employee morale at both LLNL and LANL

How the state of employee morale at both LLNL and LANL?
 it'd be nice if the topic could be discussed realistically and rationally.

What is the Lab's mission in one sentence?

Can anyone say what the lab mission is in 1 sentence?
If so, then explain the need for 6500 workers?
If so, then how close is this to LANL's mission?

Anonymous said...

"Can anyone say what the lab mission is in 1 sentence?"

To make profit.

"If so, then explain the need for 6500 workers?"

You need enough people to make it look credible. We could do this with less people.

"If so, then how close is this to LANL's mission?"

Workers are liabilities, so we could go down to 4000 people, which would reduce safety and security incidents and pass most of PBIs at the same time. 

Anonymous said...
"Can anyone say what the lab mission is in 1 sentence?
If so, then explain the need for 6500 workers?
If so, then how close is this to LANL's mission?

February 17, 2015 at 9:41 PM"

Protect the Nation by ensuring Nuclear Deterrence.

That's about half what's needed.

Same mission as LANL, which employs the other half.

Please do pay attention in class 9:41!

Anonymous said...
"Protect the Nation by ensuring Nuclear Deterrence."

Sounds good but that is not the mission.

Make no mistake LANS and LLNS are about profit. Why do think they are going nuts in LANL right now after they lost the bonus, that's all they care about.

"Driving this change is a deep-seated belief that took hold in corporate America a few decades ago and has come to define today’s economy — that a company’s primary purpose is to maximize shareholder value.

Together with new competition overseas, the pressure to respond to the short-term demands of Wall Street has paved the way for an economy in which companies are increasingly disconnected from the state of the nation, laying off workers in huge waves, keeping average wages low and threatening to move operations abroad in the face of regulations and taxes.

Corporations are stand alone perpetual legal entities whose 'western' legal objective is profit maximization.

Anonymous said...
LANS and LLNS are not corporations and have no shareholders, just in case you didn't know

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Whistle-blower fired from Hanford nuclear site

Whistle-blower fired from Hanford nuclear site" (a subcontractor of Bechtel National Inc.)

Report: Nuke lab failed to keep some information classified

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — A lack of managerial oversight at Los Alamos National Laboratory led to improper disclosures of sensitive information, according to a report the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Inspector General recently issued.
In a summary of the report released Wednesday, the inspector general said the lab's classification officer at times misclassified national security information. The summary says there were at least six incidents where lab documents were misclassified.
The report said "despite acknowledging that they had received complaints from employees, we found that LANS management officials had not taken action to investigate or resolve alleged violations by the LANL Classification Officer."
The inspector general says it has made recommendations to boost management of information in its full report, which is not being shared with the public.
The investigation partly stems from last year's firing of a lab worker for an article he wrote. Santa Fe political scientist James Doyle had been working for the lab for 17 years and was on the nonproliferation team when he was dismissed.
According to Doyle, the article was approved for publication by the lab's classification office. But lab officials did an about-face after it was published and said portions of the article were classified, Doyle said.
He and his attorney filed an appeal in August of the dismissal of a whistle blower complaint to the Department of Energy Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Sunday, February 15, 2015

Sandia funding reduced, Los Alamos funding increased

Do we have a "Six Sigma" safety culture with LANS and LLNS at the helm?

Do LANS and LLNS each follow the "quality management principles" or have safety work cultures with sustained safety attributes which trend toward a "Six Sigma Safety" or comparable safety metric? 

(If you don't think "Six Sigma" properly quantifies safety metrics, suggest and comment on alternative safety metics please)

Security issues, as usual

It is just the day in and day out safety and security issues at LANL that keep on coming.

Happy Birthday!

WIPP has been closed for one year, and counting, thanks to the LANL screw ups in waste packaging. Even Moniz admits it is "a little bit uncertain" when it might reopen, or how much it might cost to do so.

Friday, February 13, 2015

Alcohol on site?

Treating like adults: Why isn't alcohol allowed on site anymore? This is the usual over the top, over reaching reaction.
It's safer to just restrict.
Must wear bicycle helmets (like required only for children outside the fence), or how about just no bicycles at all.
This is lab leadership and decision making. Why should we expect any better when coming to programmatic and strategic decisions?
Anonymous said...
Treating like adults: Why isn't alcohol allowed on site anymore?

February 12, 2015 at 2:26 PM

OK, so you want it be ok with your employer that you alter your mental state (i.e., degrade it) while you are on your employer's property and under his legal liability?? Grow up. There is nothing about "adult" in that opinion. Go home and suffer your own liability for what you choose to do.

DOE makes GAO highest risk list for 25 consecutive years

DOE makes GAO highest risk list for 25 consecutive years, due mostly to NNSA contracting

The Department of Energy (DOE), the largest civilian contracting agency in the federal government, relies primarily on contractors to carry out its diverse missions and operate its laboratories and other facilities. Approximately 90 percent of DOE’s budget is spent on contracts and large capital asset projects. We designated DOE’s contract management—which includes both contract administration and project management—as a high-risk area in 1990 because DOE’s record of inadequate management and oversight of contractors has left the department vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. In January 2009, to recognize progress made by DOE’s Office of Science, we narrowed the focus of its high-risk designation to two DOE program elements—the Office of Environmental Management (EM) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Together, these two programs accounted for almost 63 percent of DOE’s fiscal year 2015 discretionary funding of more than $26 billion. In February 2013, we further narrowed the focus of the high-risk designation to EM and NNSA’s major contracts and projects, those with an estimated cost of $750 million or more, to acknowledge progress made in managing projects with an estimated cost of less than $750 million. Our 2013 assessment found that DOE satisfied 3 of the 5 criteria needed for removal from the High Risk List. This year, we did not observe similar progress in DOE’s management of major projects. EM and NNSA struggled to stay within cost and schedule estimates for most of their major projects.

That's our story!

That's our story and we're sticking to it.

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

The Wrong Move: Adding Nuclear Weapons to the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Defense One - Feb 9, 2015 

Despite the wishes of two key Congressmen, more nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe is a bad idea. 

You may have missed it, but last month two key members of Congress asked the military to move additional U.S. nuclear weapons and dual-capable aircraft into Eastern Europe.

... In their letter, the two chairmen extend a Russian statement claiming its sovereign “right” to deploy nuclear weapons in Crimea to an “intention” to do so. They also assert Russian “moves to deploy nuclear-capable Iskander short-range ballistic missiles as well as nuclear-capable Backfire bombers in the illegally occupied territory [Crimea].”

Time to get deadly serious about nukes

Russia Deploying Tactical Nuclear Arms in Crimea

Obama backing indirect talks with Moscow aimed at cutting U.S. non-strategic nukes in Europe

Free Beacon - Oct 10, 2014 

Russia is moving tactical nuclear weapons systems into recently-annexed Crimea while the Obama administration is backing informal talks aimed at cutting U.S. tactical nuclear deployments in Europe.

Three senior House Republican leaders wrote to President Obama two weeks ago warning that Moscow will deploy nuclear missiles and bombers armed with long-range air launched cruise missiles into occupied Ukrainian territory.

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

The fight is between NMED and DOE regarding violations

According to the article, The fight is between NMED and DOE regarding violations of the consent order.

“The ball is entirely in the Department of Energy’s court right now,” Flynn said. “We’ve structured the compliance orders in a manner to give DOE an opportunity to take accountability for the events that occurred and to step up and work with us on a constructive path forward in order to resolve all of the issues that caused this release. We’ve indicated all along that if DOE is willing to take accountability for the events that caused the release and work with the state then we’d be willing to release them from any further liability at Los Alamos and WIPP. If DOE is not willing to take accountability for what’s occurred then they are going to face significant additional penalties.”

Obviously both NMED and DOE understand that the fines are not "against" LANS or LANL. If LANS gets socked for this, it will be by DOE, not NMED.

McMIllan's strategy

From my friends in LANS Lab Legal they say McMillan's plan is to delay paying this fine as long as he can, through whatever means necessary, including taking NM State to court over it. He believes that he has abundant legal resources and NNSAs support to "wear down" the NM State in the courts. McMillan feeling is that if he waits it out long enough, the NM state will "forgive or forget" the fine. McMillan believes the NM State will forgive or forget the fine, once McMillan holds the threat of RIFing employees over NM State heads. This is about political strategy folks, not money.

Next round of LANL fines coming soon

Looks as if NMED didn't get Charlie's attention with the first $54M fine, so get ready for round two. If this goes on much longer, then something has to shake out. Maybe one of the LLC partners withdrawing from the operation or perhaps a complete changeover in the Lab leadership. Either way, it doesn't look stable to continue as is for much longer.

Sunday, February 8, 2015

Do you want a 20% INCOMPETENCY DISCOUNT from Anthem Blue Cross?

Do you want a 20% INCOMPETENCY DISCOUNT from Anthem Blue Cross? (for your WASTED TIME tracking possible credit fraud due to weak Anthem Blue Cross IT security practices). aka/ (Why didn't they encode my family's personal data - )

Anthem Blue Cross medical insurance coverage costs you a small fortune through the labs. The lab contributes about $1800 per month, I another $822 for family medical coverage. I want a 20% DISCOUNT while I waste my time tracking the errors those useless IT bonobos caused. That's a $564 per mo. incompetence discount.

The premium price is not commensurate with the dumpkopf practices.

Saturday, February 7, 2015



Some people don't like working for Empyrean:

“worst company I ever worked for... ”
Current Employee - Business Analyst

I have been working at Empyrean Benefit Solutions full-time (less than a year)

smart coworkers, free soda, popcorn, many free lunches and flexile with running errands....

Very poor overall compensation, health insurance is laughable considering this is a benefits company, low hiring standards with sloppy/obese workforce, ridiculous demands from clients, excessive micromanagement, and an expectation to work unpaid overtime 5 months out of the year. This company essentially takes the entry level people that have subpar gpa's, are obese, obnoxious, weird, or all of the above and pays them well below market value because they can. A money-ball approach to attracting talent to maximize profits for the few at the top. The csms job is to run their teams like a cotton plantation and bend over backwards for the client while deflecting all pressure to the BA's to meet the ridiculous demands. The csms care more about the client than about the well being of their staff. They will throw their BA's under the bus on the phone with the client, they will lie to their clients, and when things go well, they will reap the credit.... working here was hell on earth... I was happy I got a much better opportunity a week before Open Enrollment

Hewitt Finally Gets the Boot

Aon Hewitt Finally Gets the Boot-Who is Empyrean?

After years of terrible service "handling" and mishandling the LLNL Retirees health benefits, maybe LLNS has gotten someone else.

I got a letter today dated Jan 29, 2015 on LLNL letterhead that starts:
"We have heard your feedback over the YEARS and as a result the Laboratory is making several
changes to the administration of retiree health and welfare plans effective April 1,2015. The
changes are being made in an effort to continue to offer quality service to LLNS retirees."

It goes on to say Aon Hewitt is out.
Initially, I was very pleased. Aon Hewitt/B of A HRA repeatedly caused months of anguish nearly EVERY year, since about 2007, missed payments, double billing, cancellations from Kaiser that had to be undone, almost nothing but grief!
At first I thought "Anyone could do better!"
Then I'm thinking: Who are we dealing with?
LLNS is the company that set up this convoluted system where LLNS paid Aon, who paid B of A who paid Kaiser, that never worked and LLNS never did anything, 'til now. Why?

So my Question is: Who is the new firm, Empyrean Benefit Solutions, and what is their track record?

Sandia describes strained relationship with NNSA

Full report on Sandia describes strained relationship with NNSA - mentions Department of Justice ongoing investigation: 

Challenges presented during FY 2014 have strained the relationship and put at risk the efficiency and effectiveness of the endeavor. One such challenge: the concerns regarding allegations of Sandia’s involvement in impermissibly attempting to influence certain federal transactions and in conducting lobbying activities are so serious that both the DOE Inspector General and the U.S. Department of Justice are currently investigating the situation. NNSA needs a partner that is fully committed to the requirement "to maintain full and open communication at all times, and on all issues affecting contract performance, during the term of this Contract." Sandia's commitment to the
positive and cooperative relationship contemplated by the contract has been modest, and falls short of
what is expected of a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC)

Thursday, February 5, 2015


Brian Williams Offers Clarification About 2003 Iraq Incident
This is where he claimed to be shot down in a Chinook helicopter, which turns out be complete bunk, and has retold the story several time, even on Letterman.
With rumors page, who can you believe? Do the lab leaders lie?
Give examples without names.

Nuclear Official Allowed to Oversee Former Client

It is unbelievable that Klotz was cleared by the Administration for the NNSA Administrator with this background. Maybe he shouldn't be faulted for taking the money from Bechtel when he retired from the military, but that should have excluded him from consideration to come back. Since the Senate must have known about this blatant conflict, and confirmed him anyway, they deserve some blame as well. Even if he was the fifth choice, after four others turned down the position, surely someone else could have been identified that didn't possess the heavy conflict baggage. 

Thanks to POGO for staying after this looming scandal.

Rumblings about a possible RIF at LANL due to having to pay for WHIP

There are some rumblings about a possible RIF at LANL due to having to pay for WHIP.
February 4, 2015 at 7:15 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Yes? And so what? Aren't there always "rumblings" about everything? The questions are whether NNSA will pay, or require LANS to take it out of operating funds (i.e., cause a RIF), or whether the parent companies will pony up to bail out the LLC. Everyone knows these are the choices. What kind of response were you hoping for?
February 4, 2015 at 8:35 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Will pony up to bail out the LLC. Everyone knows these are the choices. What kind of response were you hoping for?

February 4, 2015 at 8:35 PM

Great idea! Why doesn't the NM State just put a $56M bail on McMillian? Let's see if Norm Pattiz ponies that kind of money up. I mean why should we get RIFed over McMillan's "negligence" of the LANL Transuranic Program (LTP)? I worked down there, and the only oversight we had from LANS management was "just get that trash of the Hill, as fast as you can"!
February 5, 2015 at 4:13 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
February 4, 2015 at 8:35 PM

From what I hear LANS will be paying. There is also the steep fines from NM however they are still fighting how much and when they will pay these. In any case LANS will be losing lots of money so a RIF may be their only choice.
February 5, 2015 at 6:43 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
In any case LANS will be losing lots of money so a RIF may be their only choice.

February 5, 2015 at 6:43 AM

DOE/NNSA will never allow LANS to take that kind of money out of operating funds, which would be the only reason for a RIF. It is against the law to spend congressionally-allocated money on something other than the intended purpose. Plus, NNSA fully intends to see the work it has funded at LANL get done, which cannot happen if there is a large RIF. I'm betting NNSA deducts the funds from current and future award fees, which is the only legal place to get it, other than straight from the parent companies. Either way, I can't see the parent companies remaining associated with LANS. I.e., no LANS, as soon as NMED announces the final decision on the amount of the fines.
February 5, 2015 at 9:31 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Meanwhile, at an undisclosed NM elementary school, Gov. Martinez is busy reading to the third grade kids and telling them if they can't read the book they will go to hell. The book is titled "My Pet Goat." Martinez will also threaten ship their parents back to Mexico.

Do you guys really think that Martinez has any freakin idea what is going on between NMED and DOE?

Come on, use your PhD's for once. Rome is burning and she is reading to kids, just like Bozo-Bush. It's every man for himself in NM. There is no leadership here.

NMED said straight out that the $200 million is a threat in order to get DOE to pay-up on the first $58 million fine instead of challenging it. This strategy is the only way to get DOE to fork over the funds, and it will work.

Future prediction: LANS will lose it's contract. The deck chairs will swap and Lockheed will take over from Bechtel. The only noticeable change to employees will be that McMillian is swapped out for another guy with a PhD who looks good in a suit and knows how to turn on a microphone.

WIPP will never take another barrel of LANL waste EVER.

Employment at Los Alamos will hold steady for the foreseeable future and then rise dramatically when it finally figures out it's new mission is testing certifying small nuclear energy production stations.

More millionaires will retire to very average looking Los Alamos homes but will continue to gripe about the lack of a good restaurant in town. They will outlive their LLNL peers.

New Mexico will continue to trail Mississippi in national rankings on just about every measure. Puerto Rican's will begin to say "thank god for New Mexico."

Congress will suddenly recognize that NIF is the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time and will redirect it's money to solar panel and small nuclear power station research at LANL.
February 5, 2015 at 9:50 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Thank you Karnak the Magnificent. Unfortunately, your planet called and said we have to keep you.

Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days