Report cites serious violations that could each cost LANL fines of $10,000 per day
Posted Thursday, August 10, 2017 3:33 pm
By Rebecca Moss
The New Mexican
“Due to the nature of the violations listed above and LANL’s history of noncompliance with 20.4.1 NMAC [the New Mexico Hazardous Waste Act], NMED will propose a civil penalty for these violations,” the state’s letter says, adding that the lab could incur fines of up to $10,000 per day for each violation that goes unremedied.
The violations are among a continuing stream of issues that have called into question the lab’s ability to operate safely. In recent months, the lab improperly labeled shipments of hazardous waste sent to Colorado and sent a drum of plutonium to laboratories in California and South Carolina by airplane rather than ground cargo, a violation of federal regulations that launched a U.S. Department of Energy investigation into the incident.
The problems also have called into question the lab’s ability to handle increasing quantities of plutonium to build the softball-sized atomic cores of nuclear weapons as part of a growing demand to modernize the nation’s nuclear arsenal.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
- Who is going to win?
- McMillan talk on managing
- No one wanted to keep the present team.
- Any positives on UC?
- NNSA questions and responses to LANL draft RFP
- UT retrying
- LANS hires another DDIR
- Cost and safety at LANL
- SF committee mulls halt to plutonium program
- LANL Officials Present Update To Community Leaders...
- DOE labs shouldn't be involved in fundamental scie...
- One of the two dominate DOE EM clean up contractor...
- Commander of the US Japan based forces dismissed.
- Upbeat talk
- Janet was great!
- LANL employee survey results
- Anonymity poll
- Prospective Contractors Invited to Lab for Tour
- Bechtel & UC
- WHY SHOULD THE NNSA LABS BE DIFFERENT?
- How competitive is LLNS as an employer?
- DOE moving away from for-profit lab management.
- Will any competent contractors be willing to bid o...
- When Charlie met Janet.
- Hey moderators!
- Steve Younger
- Time to get serious
- LANL employees worried
- Another Near Miss at Los Alamos National Laborator...
- Pu contamination at UNM covered up by LANL
- UC System President to address LANL staff
- Opinion about commentors' anonymity.
- Anonymous comments and posts: has the time come?
- Bechtel was never worth a damn
- Who runs Los Alamos?
- Question for Goldstein.
- Soon. a very very beautiful golf course in Los Ala...
- They do this every place they go.
- Why blame Bechtel?
- Oakridge official convicted of murder.
- Senator Claire McCaskill letter to NNSA
- It all comes down to this
- Top award winners
- LANL fines of $10,000 per day
- N.M. Delegation Says Rebid Is Opportunity For DOE ...
- Production question
- LANS misses yet another EM contractual milestone
- Listen up Trump!
- North Korea forcing US tests?
- Both Brookhaven and Oak Ridge reducing headcount.....
- Pressure cookers
- Is LLNL competitive?
- Blunders at LANL
- Why does the lab (LANL) exist?
- Future of for-profit LANL
- Senator asks NNSA about PF-4 operational status......
- How is DoE doing under Trump?
- Letter To The Editor...
- LANL changes story on Pu shipping mistake
- Nuclear weapons contractors repeatedly violate shi...
- Energy Department Scientists Barred From Attending...
- ▼ August (63)
- ► 2016 (295)
- ► 2015 (330)
- ► 2014 (309)
- ► 2013 (431)
- ► 2012 (258)
- ► 2011 (162)
- ► 2010 (157)
- ► 2009 (231)
- ► 2008 (374)