Skip to main content

LLNL, Site 300 operations up for review

Image
By

 LLNL, Site 300 operations up for review


https://www.ttownmedia.com/tracy_press/llnl-site-300-operations-up-for-review/article_0dc3f3b8-71d6-11ed-a941-873cd80c3a96.html

Comments

Anonymous said…
Perhaps the “environmental review” NNSA hosts will provide an update to Tracy residents regarding the plan to SIGNIFICANTLY increase the number of Site 300 high explosive tests per year, and, the plan to SIGNIFICANTLY increase the energy maximum limit of high explosives testing at Site 300.
12/06/2022 1:45 PM
Anonymous said…
Site 300 is a great place to do experiments. I hope they can get above the 100 lbs limit.
12/06/2022 3:50 PM
Anonymous said…
“Site 300 is a great place to do experiments. I hope they can get above the 100 lbs limit.”

Sure, as long as Tracy and other nearby community downwinders get the airborne toxic soot and have the watershed impacts, and not Livermore. Got it.
12/06/2022 7:05 PM
Anonymous said…
It will be interesting to watch the NNSA hosts at this Tracy, CA December 8, 2022 City Hall meeting attempt to walk back 1997 Site 300 environmental pledges described in the link below, that were suppose to "protect the environment", from "high-explosive materials, including noxious gases, aerosolized and chunky particulate matter, and impulse noise", including impacts to "future residential development in an area less than a mile away."

https://str.llnl.gov/content/pages/past-issues-pdfs/1997.03.pdf
12/07/2022 9:00 AM
Anonymous said…
For those that might be unaware, under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) environmental law, both the LLNL main site, and Site 300 are listed as Superfund sites.
12/08/2022 9:55 AM
Anonymous said…
Can and should all Site 300 operations be moved to the Nevada Test Site (NTS) over a 5-10 year period?
12/10/2022 4:41 PM
Anonymous said…
Whom are you asking? People who actually might answer knowledgeably (who don't post here), or the standard rabble (who do)?
12/11/2022 6:44 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