Skip to main content

Contract extension?

Image
By scooby
If the Los Alamos field office recommends a contract extension, what does that say about the safety culture? In a year when there was a near miss electrical accident, awarding extra years sends a strong message about how NNSA views safety. Will all their good words be erased by a single action?

Anonymous said...
"...If the Los Alamos field office recommends a contract extension, what does that say about the safety culture? In a year when there was a near miss electrical accident..."

"NEAR MISS — near misses describe incidents where, given a slight shift in time or distance, injury, ill-health or damage easily could have occurred, but didn't."

The LANS LANSCE incident was NOT a "near miss" since significant human injury and property damage DID occur.

Comments

Anonymous said…
From the very limited news that has been released, an electrical worker at LANSCE was conducting the same job on a Sunday as he did without incident on a Saturday. Someone changed something overnight, and he is nearly killed and winds up in the hospital for an extended period.

What was changed? Who changed it? Why has more information not been shared?

More importantly, how will this impact the award of an extension year on the current contract?
9/27/2015 11:25 AM
Anonymous said…
First, you mess things up then you give your managers and yourself big executive bonuses for "fixing things". Rinse and repeat as many times as you need to beef up your retirement treasure chest. Winning!!!!

- Charlie "Awesome" McMillan
9/28/2015 7:17 PM
Anonymous said…
Winning!!!!

- Charlie "Awesome" McMillan

September 28, 2015 at 7:17 PM

Nobody yells "Winning!!!!" if he is winning except fools and people who never expected to win. Charlie is neither. He always expected to win because he was backed by Bechtel, who by definition never loses. The only losers here are those who choose to parody Charlie instead of working every day to get him out. Make some changes in how you do what you call a career, in the sense of being unrelentingly moral, professional, competent, focused on your own career success, and unwilling to bend any of those choices for any reason. Then you will be "winning" and you won't have to be an asshole and shout it.
9/29/2015 9:06 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more