DOE concludes that LANL is performing adequately, that's just dereliction of duty by DOE; LANL is understaffed, LANL has relied on external bodies to find criticality safety problems, and LANL has had a large number of events. What does DOE find? DOE found that LANL has a very large number of "opportunities for improvement".
The real problem here is the DOE/NNSA. With problems like these, in an area like criticality safety where mistakes can be catastrophic, DOE should have replaced LANS management - it seems that DOE is just whitewashing problems, some quite severe.
Great data. All it shows is that the places that do the most work in support of national missions are understaffed. Those sites with the fewest infractions best exemplify the DOE work-free safe zones that have been created by the constantly deneutering actions of the DNFSB. Does Livermore really need all of those people when the do very little work with SNM?
As for the comments regarding the demise of LANL, the LANS model is working perfectly if your goals are a lack of leadership and decades to resume operations at the nations only full service plutonium facility.
The DNFSB should be ashamed of themselves and the damage they've done to the nuclear facilities in this country and the personnel that staff those facilities.
As for the comments regarding the demise of LANL, the LANS model is working perfectly if your goals are a lack of leadership and decades to resume operations at the nations only full service plutonium facility.
April 27, 2016 at 4:11 AM
LANS is gone. Only a matter of time. The nation's plutonium needs will remain, and LANL will meet them, given Congressional support. It is not an issue of any management "model," it is an issue of national need that must be addressed. And of the people who were, and are, willing and able to meet that need. Despite their recent inane and incompetent management.
"I can think of four individuals from Livermore that have been responsible for the demise of Los Alamos National Laboratory."
Now you can see why LLNL ushered them out the door. They couldn't meet LLNL standards and went to the second string lab. LLNL got it right as you so deftly illustrate.
So your weapons directorate head "couldn't meet LLNL standards"? Yeah right. Bechtel sent them over because they could, not because of any particular ability, or lack of such, on their parts. They simply were given an offer they couldn't refuse.
10 comments:
It doesn't say that LLNL got top marks.
DOE concludes that LANL is performing adequately, that's just dereliction of duty by DOE; LANL is understaffed, LANL has relied on external bodies to find criticality safety problems, and LANL has had a large number of events. What does DOE find? DOE found that LANL has a very large number of "opportunities for improvement".
The real problem here is the DOE/NNSA. With problems like these, in an area like criticality safety where mistakes can be catastrophic, DOE should have replaced LANS management - it seems that DOE is just whitewashing problems, some quite severe.
I can think of four individuals from Livermore that have been responsible for the demise of Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Rumors of LANL's demise have been greatly exaggerated. Don't confuse LANS's demise with LANL's.
Great data. All it shows is that the places that do the most work in support of national missions are understaffed. Those sites with the fewest infractions best exemplify the DOE work-free safe zones that have been created by the constantly deneutering actions of the DNFSB. Does Livermore really need all of those people when the do very little work with SNM?
As for the comments regarding the demise of LANL, the LANS model is working perfectly if your goals are a lack of leadership and decades to resume operations at the nations only full service plutonium facility.
The DNFSB should be ashamed of themselves and the damage they've done to the nuclear facilities in this country and the personnel that staff those facilities.
As for the comments regarding the demise of LANL, the LANS model is working perfectly if your goals are a lack of leadership and decades to resume operations at the nations only full service plutonium facility.
April 27, 2016 at 4:11 AM
LANS is gone. Only a matter of time. The nation's plutonium needs will remain, and LANL will meet them, given Congressional support. It is not an issue of any management "model," it is an issue of national need that must be addressed. And of the people who were, and are, willing and able to meet that need. Despite their recent inane and incompetent management.
Amen!! to 9:33 PM
You hit it.
April 26, 2016 at 5:34 AM
"I can think of four individuals from Livermore that have been responsible for the demise of Los Alamos National Laboratory."
Now you can see why LLNL ushered them out the door. They couldn't meet LLNL standards and went to the second string lab. LLNL got it right as you so deftly illustrate.
So your weapons directorate head "couldn't meet LLNL standards"? Yeah right. Bechtel sent them over because they could, not because of any particular ability, or lack of such, on their parts. They simply were given an offer they couldn't refuse.
"Lowest score of all DOE"? What, you mean yellow?
Post a Comment