LANL changes story on Pu shipping mistake
When their initial story of attempting to blame LLNL for the mistake fell apart, LANL was left scrambling to come up with another excuse for who to blame.
When will LANL learn that the cover-up is always worse than the crime?
"Normally, a shipment of plutonium would take shape over the course of three months and be delivered by ground, Los Alamos's June 23 report to the NNSA said, "however, LLNL [Livermore] advised they needed this delivered within three days." But Livermore spokeswoman Seaver disputed Los Alamos's excuse for making the mistake. Seaver said, "We have a single point of contact here who worked with LANL [Los Alamos] regarding this shipment and at no time was any urgency expressed."
Asked about the discrepancy, Los Alamos spokesman Nerzig said in an email that "after a thorough internal investigation of the event, we found no evidence of time pressure to make the shipment." But he did not provide any other explanation for the mistaken shipment or explain why Los Alamos initially told the government that it was only responding to Livermore's urgent demands.
Referring to the incident, Nerzig emailed that "the Laboratory has acknowledged this as a mistake, taken an initial set of actions to address the situation, and plans on taking additional measures to dramatically reduce the possibility of something like this from happening again."
NNSA spokesman Gregory Wolf said the agency is looking closely at "the accuracy of initial reporting" by Los Alamos. He said a shipping facility employee had "failed to follow established procedures that would have prevented the improper shipments," and that a thorough review by the lab of what it was about to send out "was bypassed." In addition, checklists that FedEx requires customers to complete for dangerous goods "were not filled out properly," he said.
http://www.businessinsider.com/los-alamos-radioactive-shipping-mistakes-2017-8http://www.businessinsider.com/los-alamos-radioactive-shipping-mistakes-2017-8
8 comments:
Standard LANL ploy is to first deny that that was a problem, then to blame someone else for the issue once the first story unravels. After about the third layer of the cover-up is exposed, it inevitably turns out to be an employee who knew more than the rules and therefore intentionally chose to flaunt the rules. This LANL script was learned so well in the UC era, and sadly has been followed by LANS as well.
Must say that 7:05 AM does have the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supporting her claim.
One thing is true for sure. Both Los Alamos AND Livermore have now been run exclusively by Livermore managers for a decade.
One thing is true for sure. Both Los Alamos AND Livermore have now been run exclusively by Livermore managers for a decade.
So the real differences are the workforce and the lower-level management?
This LANL script was learned so well in the UC era, and sadly has been followed by LANS as well.
How, sounds more like a LANS thing not a UC thing.
Middle management at LANL is a scary place to be. That is for sure. The management haze at the executive level, the incompetence everywhere, struggling....
I was in middle management at LANL for many years under UC. It was great, lots of fun. The employees respected and appreciated their immediate managers, and upper managers knew that their immediate subordinates kept the place running. It all changed when LANS came in. Even some upper managers who were pretty good under UC became absolute jerks under the influence of LANS/Bechtel. The influx of LLNL upper managers didn't help, either. I lasted a year under LANS and retired with my UC pension. Never happier.
No further information was provided because it was a personnel matter and the lab does not want to add fuel to any potential lawsuit from the guy(s) who got fired. At least one person was named in the Santa Fe paper.
Post a Comment