2012 evaluation plans posted and LLNL plan is 26 pages, LANL plan is 92!!
There is lots of reading in here, but the real meat in the meal is when the scores are known.
http://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/09-12-inlinefiles/LANL%20FY12%20PEP.pdf
http://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/09-12-inlinefiles/LLNL%20FY12%20PEP.pdf
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Why is it so difficult at LANL?
Why is it so difficult at LANL?
This one is a zinger.
Fence building is not a difficult job at Y-12, but reportedly a most difficult job to get it right at LANL.
While it may be something that 'we' know how to design and construct, 'we' clearly is not LANL, according to the recent reports on TA-55.
"Putting these fences in is not a very difficult job or difficult project," he said. "But, all things considered . . . I mean, there's a PIDAS system around the Air Force One hangar. PIDAS systems are used widely. So this is something we actually know how to design and construct."
John Eschenberg, federal project director for UPF.
This one is a zinger.
Fence building is not a difficult job at Y-12, but reportedly a most difficult job to get it right at LANL.
While it may be something that 'we' know how to design and construct, 'we' clearly is not LANL, according to the recent reports on TA-55.
"Putting these fences in is not a very difficult job or difficult project," he said. "But, all things considered . . . I mean, there's a PIDAS system around the Air Force One hangar. PIDAS systems are used widely. So this is something we actually know how to design and construct."
John Eschenberg, federal project director for UPF.
Albuquerque Journal Urges Consideration of NNSA Dismantlement
Weapons Complex Monitor
November 27, 2012
Albuquerque Journal Urges Consideration of NNSA Dismantlement
Noting a string of security lapses and project management blunders, the Albuquerque Journal urged a bipartisan commission proposed by a pair of Senators to strongly consider scrapping the National Nuclear Security Administration in an editorial published Nov. 25. “The agency’s track record is appalling,” the Journal wrote. “Not only is it a questionable duplication to the DOE, it has turned the nuclear weapons complex into a bureaucratic quagmire that defies attempts at efficiency. Its inability to move forward with essential projects is itself a threat to our nuclear security.” Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) are planning to offer an amendment to the Senate version of the Fiscal Year 2013 Defense Authorization Act that would establish an “advisory panel” to study governance options for the NNSA, which has been beset by problems on major projects like the Uranium Processing Facility and a security upgrade at Los Alamos National Laboratory, endured an embarrassing security breach at the Y-12 National Security Complex, and angered some Republicans by deferring work on the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility at Los Alamos. The creation of the advisory panel would allow a compromise on controversial NNSA reform language that is in the House version of the Defense Authorization Act but has met resistance in the Senate. “Congress should approve the panel but demand a report with clear recommendations that either put this turkey on the chopping block or figure out how to make it earn its feed,” the Journal wrote.
The Journal’s suggestions appear to have at least some support. The newspaper quoted retiring Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) on the prospects of eliminating the NNSA, perhaps in favor of a move to the Pentagon or the creation of a standalone agency operating outside of the Department of Energy. “I’ve always had problems with the NNSA as another level of bureaucracy between the secretary of energy and the labs,” Bingaman said, according to the Journal. “It doesn’t give me any heartburn to think that we would revisit the decision to set up the NNSA. I think it would make some sense.”
November 27, 2012
Albuquerque Journal Urges Consideration of NNSA Dismantlement
Noting a string of security lapses and project management blunders, the Albuquerque Journal urged a bipartisan commission proposed by a pair of Senators to strongly consider scrapping the National Nuclear Security Administration in an editorial published Nov. 25. “The agency’s track record is appalling,” the Journal wrote. “Not only is it a questionable duplication to the DOE, it has turned the nuclear weapons complex into a bureaucratic quagmire that defies attempts at efficiency. Its inability to move forward with essential projects is itself a threat to our nuclear security.” Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) are planning to offer an amendment to the Senate version of the Fiscal Year 2013 Defense Authorization Act that would establish an “advisory panel” to study governance options for the NNSA, which has been beset by problems on major projects like the Uranium Processing Facility and a security upgrade at Los Alamos National Laboratory, endured an embarrassing security breach at the Y-12 National Security Complex, and angered some Republicans by deferring work on the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility at Los Alamos. The creation of the advisory panel would allow a compromise on controversial NNSA reform language that is in the House version of the Defense Authorization Act but has met resistance in the Senate. “Congress should approve the panel but demand a report with clear recommendations that either put this turkey on the chopping block or figure out how to make it earn its feed,” the Journal wrote.
The Journal’s suggestions appear to have at least some support. The newspaper quoted retiring Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) on the prospects of eliminating the NNSA, perhaps in favor of a move to the Pentagon or the creation of a standalone agency operating outside of the Department of Energy. “I’ve always had problems with the NNSA as another level of bureaucracy between the secretary of energy and the labs,” Bingaman said, according to the Journal. “It doesn’t give me any heartburn to think that we would revisit the decision to set up the NNSA. I think it would make some sense.”
Monday, November 26, 2012
Five Los Alamos Guards Dismissed
Weapons Complex Monitor
November 26
Five Los Alamos Guards Dismissed
Five Los Alamos National Laboratory security guards have been fired after allowing unauthorized visitors to operate a variety of weapons at the lab’s shooting range, laboratory Director Charlie McMillan confirmed in a message to lab employees shortly before Thanksgiving. The guards, employed by lab protective force subcontractor SOC, are believed to have accessed the shooting range in the lab’s Technical Area 72 earlier this month. An anonymous tip sparked an investigation by the laboratory and SOC, which led to the dismissal of the guards. “After a swift but preliminary inquiry, it was concluded that inappropriate behavior warranted the termination of five protective force firing range personnel,” the lab said in a statement. “The Laboratory will continue to determine involvement by others, including Laboratory personnel.”
The lab said that its review of the incident determined that there was no safety or security risk, but it said it “does not tolerate unauthorized use of our facilities or equipment. We hold ourselves and our contractors to the highest possible standards of behavior.” Lab spokesman Kevin Roark said the lab’s investigation of the incident is “ongoing and we will determine what further actions are needed, if any.”
November 26
Five Los Alamos Guards Dismissed
Five Los Alamos National Laboratory security guards have been fired after allowing unauthorized visitors to operate a variety of weapons at the lab’s shooting range, laboratory Director Charlie McMillan confirmed in a message to lab employees shortly before Thanksgiving. The guards, employed by lab protective force subcontractor SOC, are believed to have accessed the shooting range in the lab’s Technical Area 72 earlier this month. An anonymous tip sparked an investigation by the laboratory and SOC, which led to the dismissal of the guards. “After a swift but preliminary inquiry, it was concluded that inappropriate behavior warranted the termination of five protective force firing range personnel,” the lab said in a statement. “The Laboratory will continue to determine involvement by others, including Laboratory personnel.”
The lab said that its review of the incident determined that there was no safety or security risk, but it said it “does not tolerate unauthorized use of our facilities or equipment. We hold ourselves and our contractors to the highest possible standards of behavior.” Lab spokesman Kevin Roark said the lab’s investigation of the incident is “ongoing and we will determine what further actions are needed, if any.”
LANS lawyered up over fence failure
LANS lawyered up over fence failure
There are some reports that claim a legal battle is brewing over the TA 55 security fence construction project. Always thought that LANS had some good in house lawyers so this must be a really strange deal if they have to bring in outside legal big guns. On the outside it doesn't look like much of a case, since the problems apparently had been widely known for over a year. It could also just be a ploy to divert attention away long enough for the board to find some new leaders.
There are some reports that claim a legal battle is brewing over the TA 55 security fence construction project. Always thought that LANS had some good in house lawyers so this must be a really strange deal if they have to bring in outside legal big guns. On the outside it doesn't look like much of a case, since the problems apparently had been widely known for over a year. It could also just be a ploy to divert attention away long enough for the board to find some new leaders.
Don't Throw MFE under the bus because of recent ICF failures
"Don't Throw MFE under the bus because of recent ICF failures"
This is a New York Times opinion piece that takes a blog post from PPPL director,
Excerpts:
The fact that ignition in a large American experimental inertial confinement fusion facility did not occur as hoped by Sept. 30 has sadly raised questions about the scientific legitimacy of that pursuit. That the scientists did not meet their goal by that day probably has little bearing on that field’s ultimate success. Importantly, this non-event should not bear any relation to the fate of other vital work centering on an entirely different approach known as magnetic fusion.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/in-defense-of-sustained-research-on-fusion/?ref=lawrencelivermorenationallaboratory
This is a New York Times opinion piece that takes a blog post from PPPL director,
Excerpts:
The fact that ignition in a large American experimental inertial confinement fusion facility did not occur as hoped by Sept. 30 has sadly raised questions about the scientific legitimacy of that pursuit. That the scientists did not meet their goal by that day probably has little bearing on that field’s ultimate success. Importantly, this non-event should not bear any relation to the fate of other vital work centering on an entirely different approach known as magnetic fusion.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/in-defense-of-sustained-research-on-fusion/?ref=lawrencelivermorenationallaboratory
Unallowable Costs Incurred by Los Alamos National Laboratory
Questioned, Unresolved and Potentially Unallowable Costs Incurred by Los Alamos National Laboratory During Fiscal Year 2010
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/OAS-L-13-02.pdf
And the bad news just keeps on coming. Poor Charlie. Another IG report on LANL on his watch. How much more can he take?
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/OAS-L-13-02.pdf
And the bad news just keeps on coming. Poor Charlie. Another IG report on LANL on his watch. How much more can he take?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)