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. Opinions not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Thursday, April 30, 2015

Agreement in Principle with New Mexico Environment Department

To/MS: LANL-All

From/MS: Charles F. McMillan, DIR, A100

Phone/Fax: 7-5101/Fax 7-2679

Symbol: DIR-15-050

Date: April 30, 2015



Subject: Agreement in Principle with New Mexico Environment Department



The U.S. Department of Energy and the State of New Mexico have

signed general principles of agreement to resolve the State’s

claims against DOE and contractors, including Los Alamos National

Laboratory, related to the February 2014 drum breach at the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, N.M.



The agreement in principle is a positive step for the Laboratory

because it allows us to move forward on restoring our transuranic

waste processes and rebuilding credibility in our nuclear

operations. I wish to thank all of our employees for their

continuing hard work and dedication as we continue this year to

advance our scientific excellence, complete all necessary

deliverables, and correct deficiencies across all areas of the

Laboratory.



Detailed information about the agreement can be found at:

http://energy.gov/articles/new-mexico-governor-susana-martinez-and-us-energy-secretary-ernest-moniz-announce



What a crime! LANS screws the pooch on WIPP and federal tax payers foot the bill. Privatization is really "efficient."

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

OP: "What a crime! LANS screws the pooch on WIPP and federal tax payers foot the bill."

No, the money to pay the fine (according to DOE) is that which was already deducted from the LANS and WIPP contractor award fees. So effectively the contractors (their parent companies) are paying the fine. No one (except possibly you) would argue that the contractors should be fined the same amount of money twice.

Anonymous said...

Winning !!!! Let's all join in and sing the LANS/Bechtel corporate anthem:

Everything is Awesome (The Lego Movie)
.............................................................

Everything is awesome
Everything is cool when you're part of a team
Everything is awesome
When we're living our dream

Everything is better when we stick together
Side by side
You and I
Gonna win forever
Let's party forever

We're the same
I'm like you
You're like me
We're all working in harmony

Everything is awesome
Everything is cool when you're part of a team
Everything is awesome
When we're living our dream


- Charlie "Awesome" McMillan

Anonymous said...

Wow, awesome doggerel, uh, song! Are you going to sing that in your upcoming grade school recital?

Anonymous said...

So effectively the contractors (their parent companies) are paying the fine. No one (except possibly you) would argue that the contractors should be fined the same amount of money twice.

May 1, 2015 at 8:44 AM

Wow! That is some convoluted logic there, pardner!

The loss of profit (fee) is nowhere near the same as a civil fine. Never has been. Never will be.

Anonymous said...

Money is fungible. Loss of money is loss of money. Since everyone knows who screwed up, it matters not a whit how the financial loss is imposed on the parent companies. In fact, one could argue that no loss of award fee, coupled with a civil fine, would be better for the contractor, since it would mean DOE/NNSA was happy with the performance even if NM was unhappy with the screwup. The loss of award fee in this case is essentially a "fine" imposed by DOE for the same reason as the NM fine. DOE just collected it for NM and then paid it to them.

Anonymous said...

2:59 PM must live in an alternate world where this post makes sense. For the rest of us, it just doesn't add up.

Anonymous said...

For the rest of us, it just doesn't add up.

May 1, 2015 at 5:11 PM

Some math on your part might be instructive, as to "adding up."

Anonymous said...


Some math on your part might be instructive, as to "adding up."

May 1, 2015 at 8:14 PM

I am not the poster you are referring to, but I am happy to provide you some instruction.

1. The award fee is for good performance and according to the privatizers mantra the incentive to improve.
2. The fine is for violating the law

What is so difficult to understand here?

In your logic, it would follow that if I do not violate the law I should get an award. I am still waiting for my award then. My last speeding ticket was 10 years ago.




Anonymous said...


"...1. The award fee is for good performance and
according to the privatizers mantra the incentive
to improve.

2. The fine is for violating the law..."

This doesn't come across like a traditional "for-profit" company risk/reward model if LANSLLNS Management need only forfeit their "award fee" for gross negligence. No "negative year" for LANSLLNS?
No way, thanks to the DOE/NNSA approved LANSLLNS money flow "check valve".

Google and other real "for-profit" companies with real risk have "check valves" too, but it is generally referred to as the less effective capital preservation bankruptcy option.



Anonymous said...

Welcome to the world of government-run contracts.

Anonymous said...

2. The fine is for violating the law

May 2, 2015 at 5:28 AM

Or would be, except that it is a civil fine.

Anonymous said...

5:28 AM has it right.

Would suspect that those posting otherwise desire to confuse the facts in order to make the story disappear.

Anonymous said...

Would suspect that those posting otherwise desire to confuse the facts in order to make the story disappear.

May 2, 2015 at 11:01 AM

No need. The story is over, except that the LANS contract will be rebid next year, no surprise to anyone. Any employee who thinks that will be a good thing to live through should think again.

Anonymous said...

"... Any employee who thinks that will be a good thing to live through should think again..."

Correct, except you forgot to include any LANSLLNS manager in your cautionary statement. What has changed in the LANSLLNS culture to prevent a repeat? Nada.
To compound the problem, as long as DOE/NNSA provides LANSLLNS with risk shielding liability training wheels, we will get more of the same from this LLC Frankenstein. What a mess.

Anonymous said...

except that the LANS contract will be rebid next year, no surprise to anyone.

May 2, 2015 at 2:24 PM

Well, that would certainly surprise me. DoE/NNSA is so dysfunctional that even if they wanted to rebid the contract they would take four or five years to figure out how to do it, and then another three or four to conjure up the appropriate paperwork. LANS is here to stay, not because of its successes, but because of the massive inertia of the governmental bureaucracy.

Anonymous said...


Well, that would certainly surprise me. DoE/NNSA is so dysfunctional that even if they wanted to rebid the contract they would take four or five years to figure out how to do it, and then another three or four to conjure up the appropriate paperwork. LANS is here to stay, not because of its successes, but because of the massive inertia of the governmental bureaucracy.

May 2, 2015 at 2:53 PM

You have a point, I think it would virtually impossible NNSA to do anything at this point, so nothing will change since nothing can change.

Anonymous said...

"...You have a point, I think it would virtually impossible NNSA to do anything at this point, so nothing will change since nothing can change..."

Really? You think if LANS were scheduled to go extinct in a year or so, LANL could not carry on its mission objectives, and maintain employee and retiree benefits, for a year or two with $$$ advisory committees from LLNS or elsewhere? Just asking.

Anonymous said...

I think it would virtually impossible NNSA to do anything at this point, so nothing will change since nothing can change.

May 2, 2015 at 4:08 PM

Well, the fact that you think it doesn't make it true or even probable. Large events usually precipitate change, and this fine/award fee loss is certainly a large event for the LANS parent companies. If one or more don't pull out of the LLC, I'll be really surprised. Even Bechtel is capable of recognizing a loser of a deal. The portion of the LANS contract award fee that Bechtel could earn, even if everything were perfect, is chump change to a corporation like that. Why is it worth the effort to them?

Anonymous said...

LANS f**-up and the taxpayers pay for $46M for gold-plated roads in NM. That McMillan is a "winner"!

Anonymous said...

taxpayers pay for $46M for gold-plated roads in NM.

May 2, 2015 at 6:28 PM

You obviously haven't driven NM roads. It is the third poorest state in the US. The roads are third world, as are the schools, the housing, the homeless population, the drug and crime problems, and the state legislature. And they all rejoice in their "enchantment."

Anonymous said...

"You obviously haven't driven NM roads. It is the third poorest state in the US. The roads are third world, as are the schools, the housing, the homeless population, the drug and crime problems, and the state legislature. And they all rejoice in their "enchantment."

May 2, 2015 at 9:32 PM"

This is caused by LANL and Sandia being in New Mexico which create large wealth inequalities economics teaches us that in places with large wealth inequalities there will also be increased poverty, just look at Hati and Somalia.

Anonymous said...

"This is caused by LANL and Sandia being in New Mexico which create large wealth inequalities economics teaches us that in places with large wealth inequalities there will also be increased poverty, just look at Hati and Somalia."

Uh, no. LANL and Sandia employees don't make the kind of money that drives the kind of sociological inequities you're trying to claim. They're pikers compared to the Santa Fe artsy crowd.

If, however, you'd like to see New Mexico's revenue structure go straight into the toilet, getting rid of LANL, Sandia and Kirtland would be an excellent start.

Anonymous said...

The payoff ($70-plus M) was to get New Mexico to accept high-level nuclear waste. It's all political. New Mexico will end up as the World's Nuclear dump for reactor cores and the like.

Anonymous said...

LANS $73M exploding drum will result in higher taxes; fork over the money for the FUBAR taxpayers. LANS didn't pay one dime for this, CLASSIC!

Anonymous said...

A win-win for the State and LANS. FU taxpayers!

Anonymous said...

FU taxpayers!

May 3, 2015 at 9:25 AM

What part of the fine money that is to be spent in NM will not benefit taxpayers?

Anonymous said...

"LANS is here to stay, not because of its successes, but because of the massive inertia of the governmental bureaucracy." (2:53 pm)


Poster 2:53 pm "gets it". LANS is here to stay for the long term. Those who think otherwise are in for a rude awaken in the next few years.

The soon to come trumpeting by LANS executives of their "amazing recovery" at LANL will ensure that they keep their perks, their positions and their great salaries. The system which a dysfunctional NNSA has set up for managing the labs may be corrupt and ineffective at good management but it will survive.



Anonymous said...

What part of the fine money that is to be spent in NM will not benefit taxpayers?

May 3, 2015 at 10:44 AM

Just wait until all the corruption and false receipts occur on these so called NM road development projects ($46M) as is typical in NM. The NM con artists are "licking their chops" right now.

Anonymous said...

"...Just wait until all the corruption and false receipts occur on these so called NM road development projects ($46M) as is typical in NM. The NM con artists are "licking their chops" right now..."

No way. LANS will hire former Deputy Director Beth Sellers to make sure all contracts for such work are on the up and up.

Anonymous said...

May 3, 2015 at 5:05 PM

Everything anyone does is bad and corrupt. Except of course for you, who are pristine. What garbage. How can you stand living amid such fraud and corruption? Why do you let yourself be subjected to this? You should either arm yourself and correct everyone else's behavior immediately, or just remove yourself from the situation permanently, if it is so disgusting to you. Viva outrage!!

Anonymous said...

I'm sure the new roads will prevent any future typos.

Anonymous said...

The stupidity of your comment is explained by the fact that you think the problem was caused by a "typo."

Anonymous said...

The go-to story coming in from LANS senior management is that a secretary couldn't decipher the difference between, "inorganic", and "an organic". I expect there is some truth to that story line. Still, I am forced to wonder how new roads will help.

Anonymous said...

The go-to story coming in from LANS senior management

May 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM

So the actual results of the official DOE/NNSA and NMED investigations don't matter to you? News flash: No one claims that spending the fine money on infrastructure will prevent similar errors from occurring, so why would you have any expectation that it would?

Anonymous said...

Staffers are working the blog in earnest these days.

Anonymous said...

Staffers are working the blog in earnest these days.

May 4, 2015 at 7:05 PM

Nope, just rational people hoping to find some semblance of sanity here, instead of insane hatred of all LANS/LLNS management.

Anonymous said...

Greed is good.

Embrace the corruption and you'll be much happier.

Anonymous said...

"Nope, just rational people hoping to find some semblance of sanity here, instead of insane hatred of all LANS/LLNS management.

May 4, 2015 at 7:12 PM"

I agree, how is it that such a large part of the workforce has a problem with current management that leads to such low overal moral? We are no different than any other corporation, we get paid the same or better. Why do we have such a non-rational workforce compared to these other corporations? Is it something in the water, the training, or overblown expectations? I thought if we waited long enough we would be rid of the entitled old-timers and bring in some young people who grasp the situation for what it is, but after many years I am not seeing this. Something is very wrong with the workforce...but what could it be?

Anonymous said...

Trust me, 1:15, my expectations are low. After all, why address the problem(s) when you can just build new roads?

Anonymous said...

Something is very wrong with the workforce...but what could it be?

May 4, 2015 at 10:24 PM

Excellent question. For individuals engaged in self-destructive behavior, at least there is the possibility of an intervention by loved ones. I don't see how that would work on a workforce-wide scale.

Blog Archive