Skip to main content

11 deficiencies

Image
By
DOE report on LANL conduct of engineering Appendix C has the summary of the 11 Deficiencies found in May 2018 report by the Office of Nuclear Safety and Environmental Assessments Office of Environment, Safety and Health Assessments Office of Enterprise Assessments U.S. Department of Energy  

 https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/05/f51/Conduct%20of%20Engineering%20at%20LANL.pdf 

Comments

Anonymous said…
No surprises here. LANL has a crappy QA Program and the culture makes change impossible. Some programs have it, some groups have, many view it as not necessary. After all, it is a component of ESH&Q and LANL sucks equally in all. It’s a continuing management problem that one hopes will be corrected under the new contract. Let’s hope they start cleaning house with the management at TA55. Many believe that Yarbrough and his division management team (although Mack hasn’t been there long enough to cause significant damage) are shown the exit.

What is more troubling are rumors of poor implementation of MC&A requirement causing problems and a recent assessment by DOE suggesting sloppy efforts in recent readiness efforts and a return of poor ConOps issues on the floor.
6/26/2018 7:35 PM
Anonymous said…
No "Findings" in the assessment. The ES-DO (and Lab) considers any assessment that does not have Findings as an absolute and resounding success. I expect big raises for the ES-DO this year (again) for this "glowing" report. The current ES-DO division leader has been in place for about 6 years, don't expect any changes here in view of this. Business as usual.
6/28/2018 4:27 AM
Anonymous said…
Yarbrough is BWXT. Of course he won't be continuing. Based on the fact that this is a conduct of engineering report, not QA per se or ESH&Q, and your half-truths with MC&A, it tells me you are really not in the know of what goes on at TA-55.
6/28/2018 8:34 AM
Anonymous said…
The fact that DOE/NNSA could not identify one Finding in this assessment is a appalling. They didn't look hard, had pressure from "above" to go easy on LANS, or caved-in to LANS managers to remove Findings or convert Findings to deficiencies or opportunities for improvement (OFIs). Another weak and perfunctory DOE/NNSA assessment.
6/28/2018 11:55 AM
Anonymous said…
Yarbrough is BWXT. Of course he won't be continuing. Based on the fact that this is a conduct of engineering report, not QA per se or ESH&Q, and your half-truths with MC&A, it tells me you are really not in the know of what goes on at TA-55.

June 28, 2018 at 8:34 AM


Speaking of "not being in the know," Yarbrough was a LANL/UC employee way before LANS (and BWXT), back in the early 2000's when I met him. If he changed to join BWXT as an employee, I'm not aware of it. Prove your statement.

6/28/2018 6:45 PM
Anonymous said…
I think you have your Yarbrough's confused. Prior to coming to LANL in 2012, Jeff Yarbrough spent 29 years at Pantex. There was a Steve Yarbrough at LANL back in the early 2000's...
6/29/2018 9:02 AM
Anonymous said…
Looks like 29 years with BWXT. That seems like reasonable proof.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffrey-c-yarbrough-0268357a/
6/29/2018 2:29 PM
Anonymous said…
I know for a fact that the ES-DO Division Leader received praise and a bonus from the ADNHHO for this assessment which had no Findings. I love the smell of victory! ES-DO Division Leader.
6/29/2018 5:13 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

LLNL un-diversity

By scooby
Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!
79 comments
Read more