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 jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Friday, December 11, 2015
Delay of LANL contract notice letter
Considering the IG report of earlier this week about LAFO, there probably will be a delay in delivery of NNSAs annual evaluation letter to the lab. Be ready for news just before the holiday break.
7 comments:
Anonymous
said...
This is the difference between LLNL and LANL
http://nnsa.energy.gov/blog/livermore-field-office-sets-core-values-part-continuous-improvement-process (thanks for the previous post)
If we would have a site office with core values , this all would not have happened.
The contract for Sandia is up for bidding soon too. After illegally lobbying Congress (and getting fined $4 million), it will be interesting to see what happens.
The question is what happens if LANS gets less than 80%. The wording says it cannot get an extension. Of course NNSA could just give LANS an extension anyway but it will look bad. They could try and cook the books to get above 80% but these seems unlikely given all the bad things that have happened this year.
Another possibility is that LANS gets below 80% but still gets the extension however Charlie and numerous high level managers step down. This way NNSA can give the extension but also look like it took some corrective actions.
I heard (just a rumor in DC) that LANS will get a one year extension that does not allow for further extensions. This sets a termination date for the contract, but gives NNSA time to work the SNL bid and then the LANL bid.
I heard that LANS is done but DOE is utterly confused as to how to act. LANS got a another horrible score that should have gotten them booted out. Look into the recent events at the LANL site office to see how this playing out. Everyone is very unhappy with LANS right now. It was a horrible mistake but DOE is not sure how to fix it.
LAFO permitted LANL to continue electrical operations, despite numerous near-miss accidents. The trends in recent years of LANL electrical accidents were clearly increasing and LAFO looked the other way. The recent LANSCE accident, where a LANL worker was nearly killed in an electrical accident, is one of many examples which resulted from LAFO not being on top of the safety issues.
There is a MOU between the DOE Office of Enforcement and the NNSA which adds a set of requirements and approvals from the NNSA that do not exist for Office of Enforcement actions and investigations at non-NNSA facilities.
On 4-27-15, the Office of Enforcement sent a “Notice of Intent to Investigate” "the facts and circumstances associated with potential deficiencies in Los Alamos National Security (LANS) implementation of the Department of Energy's (DOE) 10 C.F.R. Part 851 hazardous energy assessment and control requirements and recent hazardous electrical energy events at Los Alamos National Laboratory".
One week later on 5-3-15, there was a serious near fatal Arc-Flash accident and operations shutdown at LANL.
From the point of discovery and concern of LANS hazardous energy deficiencies by the Office of Enforcement, how many weeks or months of effort were required to step through all of the communications and permission with NNSA HQ/LAFO just to present the 4-27-15 “Notice of Intent to Investigate” LANS letter?
7 comments:
This is the difference between LLNL and LANL
http://nnsa.energy.gov/blog/livermore-field-office-sets-core-values-part-continuous-improvement-process (thanks for the previous post)
If we would have a site office with core values , this all would not have happened.
The contract for Sandia is up for bidding soon too. After illegally lobbying Congress (and getting fined $4 million), it will be interesting to see what happens.
The question is what happens if LANS gets less than 80%. The wording says it cannot get an extension. Of course NNSA could just give LANS an extension anyway but it will look bad. They could try and cook the books to get above 80% but these seems unlikely given all the bad things that have happened this year.
Another possibility is that LANS gets below 80% but still gets the extension however Charlie and numerous high level managers step down. This way NNSA can give the extension but also look like it took some corrective actions.
I heard (just a rumor in DC) that LANS will get a one year extension that does not allow for further extensions. This sets a termination date for the contract, but gives NNSA time to work the SNL bid and then the LANL bid.
I heard that LANS is done but DOE is utterly confused as to how to act. LANS got a another horrible score that should have gotten them booted out. Look into the recent events at the LANL site office to see how this playing out. Everyone is very unhappy with LANS right now. It was a horrible mistake but DOE is not sure how to fix it.
LAFO permitted LANL to continue electrical operations, despite numerous near-miss accidents. The trends in recent years of LANL electrical accidents were clearly increasing and LAFO looked the other way. The recent LANSCE accident, where a LANL worker was nearly killed in an electrical accident, is one of many examples which resulted from LAFO not being on top of the safety issues.
"Looked the other way"
There is a MOU between the DOE Office of Enforcement and the NNSA which adds a set of requirements and approvals from the NNSA that do not exist for Office of Enforcement actions and investigations at non-NNSA facilities.
On 4-27-15, the Office of Enforcement sent a “Notice of Intent to Investigate” "the facts and circumstances associated with potential deficiencies in Los Alamos National Security (LANS) implementation of the Department of Energy's (DOE) 10 C.F.R. Part 851 hazardous energy assessment and control requirements and recent hazardous electrical energy events at Los Alamos National Laboratory".
One week later on 5-3-15, there was a serious near fatal Arc-Flash accident and operations shutdown at LANL.
From the point of discovery and concern of LANS hazardous energy deficiencies by the Office of Enforcement, how many weeks or months of effort were required to step through all of the communications and permission with NNSA HQ/LAFO just to present the 4-27-15 “Notice of Intent to Investigate” LANS letter?
Post a Comment