Anonymously contributed:
I am hearing that Global Security, NIF and other departments are laying off small groups of people citing funding cuts.
Does anyone informed or affected care to give detail?
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
UPF tops Oak Ridge budget news
CMRR and UPF from the Oak Ridge media's Frank Munger's Atomic City Underground
Anonymously contributed:
February 13, 2012
UPF tops Oak Ridge budget news
The Obama administration has amped up support for a new production facility at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, proposing to boost funding in a big way and accelerate construction of the multibillion-dollar project.
In the Fiscal Year 2013 budget request released today, the National Nuclear Security Administration seeks $340 million to jump-start construction of the Uranium Processing Facility. That's more than double this year's funding level on the Oak Ridge project and up significantly from an earlier plan to request $190 million for UPF in FY 2013, which begins Oct. 1....
The UPF currently is in the latter stages of design, with construction scheduled to start by year's end. The project is estimated to cost between $4.2 billion and $6.5 billion.
Ramping up UPF comes as NNSA announced its intent to defer construction of a similarly sized project at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Federal officials cited the increasingly deteriorated state of weapons-making facilities at Oak Ridge for making UPF a priority. Parts of Building 9212, Y-12's hub for processing bomb-grade uranium and manufacturing warhead parts, date back to the World War II Manhattan Project.
Tom D'Agostino, under secretary of energy and administrator of the NNSA, and his deputy, Don Cook, cited the tough fiscal climate in the United States and said it was not a good time to push two high-dollar projects at the same time. Detailed reviews concluded that the need for the Uranium Processing Facility was more urgent than the proposed Los Alamos facility -- known as the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement -- for plutonium work
The proposal announced Monday would defer CMRR work at least five years, but D'Agostino emphasized in a teleconference with news reporters that the government is not killing the project....
---------
CMRR vs. UPF
A major topic at today's media teleconference with NNSA officials on the FY 2013 budget request was the decision to defer work on the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement project at Los Alamos while adding emphasis (and money) to the Uranium Processing Center at Y-12.
Don Cook, the National Nuclear Security Administration's deputy administrator for defense programs, said, "I'd say the choice we made was a hard fiscal choice." In effect, it put the work on uranium ahead of the work on plutonium, but it was forced by the situation at Y-12, he said.
"We don't have any option not to get out of 9212 (the main production facility at Y-12)," Cook said. "That building is used up, and that's where we make components for nuclear weapons."
While there were important reasons for building CMRR, the actual plutonium pits were being made in another facility, he noted.
The impression left from the conference today is that NNSA may relook the whole Los Alamos situation and possibly come up with a combo facility or something in that future realm to do the fabrication work with plutonium and the research with materials, etc.
What's notably interesting is that a review just a couple of year ago concluded that if the government were forced to make a choice on which should come first, CMRR or UPF, the conclusion was that CMRR was the higher priority.
Is the big change in decisionmaking simply a recognition that 9212 is in sad, sad shape? If so, then Y-12 folks have done a terrific job in repeatedly sharing that news with every visitors to the Oak Ridge plant and making it known in every way available.
Anonymously contributed:
February 13, 2012
UPF tops Oak Ridge budget news
The Obama administration has amped up support for a new production facility at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, proposing to boost funding in a big way and accelerate construction of the multibillion-dollar project.
In the Fiscal Year 2013 budget request released today, the National Nuclear Security Administration seeks $340 million to jump-start construction of the Uranium Processing Facility. That's more than double this year's funding level on the Oak Ridge project and up significantly from an earlier plan to request $190 million for UPF in FY 2013, which begins Oct. 1....
The UPF currently is in the latter stages of design, with construction scheduled to start by year's end. The project is estimated to cost between $4.2 billion and $6.5 billion.
Ramping up UPF comes as NNSA announced its intent to defer construction of a similarly sized project at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Federal officials cited the increasingly deteriorated state of weapons-making facilities at Oak Ridge for making UPF a priority. Parts of Building 9212, Y-12's hub for processing bomb-grade uranium and manufacturing warhead parts, date back to the World War II Manhattan Project.
Tom D'Agostino, under secretary of energy and administrator of the NNSA, and his deputy, Don Cook, cited the tough fiscal climate in the United States and said it was not a good time to push two high-dollar projects at the same time. Detailed reviews concluded that the need for the Uranium Processing Facility was more urgent than the proposed Los Alamos facility -- known as the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement -- for plutonium work
The proposal announced Monday would defer CMRR work at least five years, but D'Agostino emphasized in a teleconference with news reporters that the government is not killing the project....
---------
CMRR vs. UPF
A major topic at today's media teleconference with NNSA officials on the FY 2013 budget request was the decision to defer work on the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement project at Los Alamos while adding emphasis (and money) to the Uranium Processing Center at Y-12.
Don Cook, the National Nuclear Security Administration's deputy administrator for defense programs, said, "I'd say the choice we made was a hard fiscal choice." In effect, it put the work on uranium ahead of the work on plutonium, but it was forced by the situation at Y-12, he said.
"We don't have any option not to get out of 9212 (the main production facility at Y-12)," Cook said. "That building is used up, and that's where we make components for nuclear weapons."
While there were important reasons for building CMRR, the actual plutonium pits were being made in another facility, he noted.
The impression left from the conference today is that NNSA may relook the whole Los Alamos situation and possibly come up with a combo facility or something in that future realm to do the fabrication work with plutonium and the research with materials, etc.
What's notably interesting is that a review just a couple of year ago concluded that if the government were forced to make a choice on which should come first, CMRR or UPF, the conclusion was that CMRR was the higher priority.
Is the big change in decisionmaking simply a recognition that 9212 is in sad, sad shape? If so, then Y-12 folks have done a terrific job in repeatedly sharing that news with every visitors to the Oak Ridge plant and making it known in every way available.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
CMRR-NF: Delay Makes Sense
Anonymously contributed:
Seems like in the past few weeks there has been a growing level of talk in Congress (both Rep and Dem sides) that CMRR should not be built. So is there a really a good counter argument for CMRR, and if it is killed or significantly delayed what does this mean for de-inventory of SuperBlock at LLNL?
--------------------
CMRR-NF: Delay Makes Sense
by Lisbeth Gronlund
by Stephen Young
February 10, 2012 - Union of Concerned Scientist
On Monday, when the Obama administration releases its FY13 budget request, it will announce a delay in the construction of a proposed new facility at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)—the so-called Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF). As we discuss in a new UCS working paper [www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nwgs/cmrr-nuclear-facility-delay.pdf ] ,we think a delay is good.
There are three possible reasons to build the CMRR-NF:
1. To allow an increase in pit production capacity. Pits are produced at LANL’s Plutonium Facility-4 (PF-4), which currently can produce 10 to 20 pits annually. But that rate could be increased to 50 annually without building the CMRR-NF. Building the CMRR-NF would allow PF-4 to up production to 50 to 80 pits a year by moving some of the work now done in PF-4 into the CMRR-NF.
2. To provide replacement laboratory space for activities now undertaken elsewhere.
3. To provide additional storage space for plutonium and other nuclear materials.
Our paper shows that the only plausible need to increase pit production capacity above the current level of 10-20 annually is to support a life extension program (LEP) for the W78 and W88 warheads—if they use new pits. However, even in this case, an annual production capacity of 40-45 pits would be adequate, and this could be accomplished without building CMRR-NF. If the United States reduced its arsenal below 3,500 weapons over the next few decades, an even lower annual production capacity would be required.
In any event, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) hasn’t yet made a decision to use new pits for the W78 and W88 LEPs, and the studies and engineering phase for the W78 will not be complete until FY21. Thus, there is as yet no identified need for an increase in pit production capacity beyond even the 10 to 20 pits per year. (There would also be concerns about such a “mix and match” approach to maintaining the stockpile. Such an ambitious LEP will face not only steep technical challenges but deep skepticism from Congress.)
The CMRR-NF would provide additional laboratory and storage space for handling plutonium and other radioactive materials, but there are other, likely less expensive, approaches. Delaying construction will allow these other options to be assessed. Given today’s budget climate, that makes sense.
It’s important to keep in mind that plans for the CMRR-NF were made long before the New START agreement was negotiated and Obama’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review was completed. And, following a lengthy Pentagon-led review of options, the President will soon make decisions about the size, structure and mission of U.S. nuclear forces, which will likely result in a smaller U.S. arsenal. Thus, delaying construction of the CMRR-NF will also provide time for the administration to take these nuclear weapons policy changes into account.
Seems like in the past few weeks there has been a growing level of talk in Congress (both Rep and Dem sides) that CMRR should not be built. So is there a really a good counter argument for CMRR, and if it is killed or significantly delayed what does this mean for de-inventory of SuperBlock at LLNL?
--------------------
CMRR-NF: Delay Makes Sense
by Lisbeth Gronlund
by Stephen Young
February 10, 2012 - Union of Concerned Scientist
On Monday, when the Obama administration releases its FY13 budget request, it will announce a delay in the construction of a proposed new facility at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)—the so-called Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF). As we discuss in a new UCS working paper [www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nwgs/cmrr-nuclear-facility-delay.pdf ] ,we think a delay is good.
There are three possible reasons to build the CMRR-NF:
1. To allow an increase in pit production capacity. Pits are produced at LANL’s Plutonium Facility-4 (PF-4), which currently can produce 10 to 20 pits annually. But that rate could be increased to 50 annually without building the CMRR-NF. Building the CMRR-NF would allow PF-4 to up production to 50 to 80 pits a year by moving some of the work now done in PF-4 into the CMRR-NF.
2. To provide replacement laboratory space for activities now undertaken elsewhere.
3. To provide additional storage space for plutonium and other nuclear materials.
Our paper shows that the only plausible need to increase pit production capacity above the current level of 10-20 annually is to support a life extension program (LEP) for the W78 and W88 warheads—if they use new pits. However, even in this case, an annual production capacity of 40-45 pits would be adequate, and this could be accomplished without building CMRR-NF. If the United States reduced its arsenal below 3,500 weapons over the next few decades, an even lower annual production capacity would be required.
In any event, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) hasn’t yet made a decision to use new pits for the W78 and W88 LEPs, and the studies and engineering phase for the W78 will not be complete until FY21. Thus, there is as yet no identified need for an increase in pit production capacity beyond even the 10 to 20 pits per year. (There would also be concerns about such a “mix and match” approach to maintaining the stockpile. Such an ambitious LEP will face not only steep technical challenges but deep skepticism from Congress.)
The CMRR-NF would provide additional laboratory and storage space for handling plutonium and other radioactive materials, but there are other, likely less expensive, approaches. Delaying construction will allow these other options to be assessed. Given today’s budget climate, that makes sense.
It’s important to keep in mind that plans for the CMRR-NF were made long before the New START agreement was negotiated and Obama’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review was completed. And, following a lengthy Pentagon-led review of options, the President will soon make decisions about the size, structure and mission of U.S. nuclear forces, which will likely result in a smaller U.S. arsenal. Thus, delaying construction of the CMRR-NF will also provide time for the administration to take these nuclear weapons policy changes into account.
Friday, February 10, 2012
real mission is to make the world safer
Director Parney Albright opened his first all-hands meeting of the year with the observation that 2012 is "going to be a very busy year, and the next couple years are going to be very important for our Lab and how we contribute to the nation."
He then presented his view of the Laboratory's mission, vision, values and priorities, noting the things he will focus on, as well as what he wants employees to focus on. (See the whole presentation).
"Our mission is pretty much straight out of the LLNS Prime Contract," Albright noted. "Or as George Shultz put it during his recent visit here this week, our 'real mission is to make the world safer.'
"We do this in a lot of different ways - our traditional focus on nuclear deterrence and our broadening efforts in national security. In fact, there's a lot of debate in Congress and elsewhere on how to move to a stable global environment."
Turning to his vision for the Lab, Albright said that he thinks "we're pretty much there - leading in delivering solutions for the nation's most challenging problems."
He stressed that one of the challenges with vision statements demonstrating or measuring success is achieving that vision. In describing the three elements of his vision, Albright repeatedly emphasized the imperative for excellence and the goal of being recognized as second to none.
"We're expensive, so we need to be worth the money," he explained. "When people have a hard problem, I want them to think that the first place to go is Livermore."
Albright also noted that a reputation for excellence is critical if LLNL is going to continue to be a top destination for the best scientists, engineers and other professionals. "People come here because they want to work with the very best - the best people, the best facilities, the best workplace environment."
Moving onto Lab values, he observed that these characteristics are not necessarily where we are today. Rather, they describe the values and the culture that we want to strive to create.
At the top of the Director's list is his strong belief that "We are one Lab." He emphasized that all employees should feel a sense of pride in all the accomplishments made at the Lab, regardless of what program they work in and regardless of the program making the accomplishments. "We have shared pride and shared responsibility. We need to think institutionally."
In discussing the next two values - operating solely in the national interest and focusing on sponsor needs - Albright cautioned against hubris. "We need to be careful not to think that because we're really smart, we know best. That's a slippery slope.
"We don't own a thing here," he added. "The U.S. government owns all of this and we need to take care of that responsibility."
With regard to the values describing workplace interactions, Albright was emphatic that striving for excellence, intense competition of ideas and rigorous critique must be "rank blind."
"No person, no matter how junior, should feel constrained from asking questions or offering suggestions or opinions," he said.
Turning to his priorities, Albright observed that while mission, vision and values are "hopefully timeless," this list "is what I want us to focus on over the next few years."
Not surprisingly, the top priority is to deliver on the W78 Life Extension Program and the National Ignition Campaign. "We must deliver on these important commitments."
Albright also emphasized his focus on improving business practices, giving as an example the existence of five different financial systems across the Lab. "There may have been good reasons for developing these different systems at one time or another, but it makes it hard to be cost efficient."
As part of his emphasis on creating a workplace that fosters excellence, he noted that the priority of ensuring cutting-edge science and technology capabilities means more than recruiting a top-notch workforce. "It also means facilities and equipment and infrastructure.
"We've ridden on the back of the Weapons Program, but we can't do that anymore. We need to find institutional ways to support these capabilities so we can stay at the cutting edge and in front of the power curve as new areas emerge."
Also on the list of priorities is expanding the Lab's contributions to the local and national economy through industry and university partnerships. "My vision is that, several years from now, we'll be in the midst of a vibrant innovation center, a technology hub with the Lab at its center.
To make this vision a reality, Albright noted that in addition to Sequoia, the world's fastest supercomputer, the Lab will soon be home to a powerful multi-petaflop unclassified machine at the Livermore Valley Open Campus (LVOC) to solve problems of economic importance to the country.
In addition, Albright announced that Buck Koonce has been appointed director of Economic Development, with responsibility for integrating the Laboratory's partnership activities with industry, academia, economic development and the Livermore Valley Open Campus.
Several other key management appointments were also announced, including Bruce Warner as acting principal associate director for Global Security, Wes Spain as acting director of the Office of Strategic Outcomes and Al Ramponi as the director's chief of staff. In addition, Kimberley Davis was introduced as the new manager of the Livermore Site Office.
Albright introduced the 10 recipients who have been recently selected as Laboratory Distinguished Members of the Technical Staff: Jim Candy, John Castor, Jim Hammer, Omar Hurricane, Neil Joeck, Nino Landen, Ken Moody, Bruce Remington, Dimitri Ryutov, and Tom Slezak. These individuals are recognized for their extraordinary scientific and technical contributions to the Laboratory and its missions as acknowledged by their professional peers and the larger community. [A feature article will appear in Newsline next week highlighting the recipients.]
Wrapping up his briefing, Parney noted that one focus area for the coming year is succession planning, both for management positions and for critical-skilled personnel
He announced that because of the Laboratory's outstanding performance last year, a 1.5-percent Strategic Performance Bonus will be distributed to eligible personnel this year; the one-time payment will be made some time in April. "We had a really good year last year. In fact, we had the highest performance score of all the NNSA labs."
(For more information on this program, see the Web.)
Albright also reported that NNSA has, for the second time, denied the Lab's request to begin employer contributions to the TCP1 defined benefit pension plan, based on the rationale that because the plan is currently funded at 104 percent of its obligations, contributions are not legally required. "We're not happy with this decision, and we're watching the situation very closely. If need be, we will elevate this issue to higher levels," Albright said.
Albright also mentioned that the Laboratory is celebrating its 60th anniversary this year. Various activities and events are being planned to commemorate the occasion, including a Family Open House.
In closing, Albright emphasized "we're all in this together. Let's work together as one Lab. Let's keep our communications strong and promote the sponsor relationships we need to really make a difference for the nation."
He then presented his view of the Laboratory's mission, vision, values and priorities, noting the things he will focus on, as well as what he wants employees to focus on. (See the whole presentation).
"Our mission is pretty much straight out of the LLNS Prime Contract," Albright noted. "Or as George Shultz put it during his recent visit here this week, our 'real mission is to make the world safer.'
"We do this in a lot of different ways - our traditional focus on nuclear deterrence and our broadening efforts in national security. In fact, there's a lot of debate in Congress and elsewhere on how to move to a stable global environment."
Turning to his vision for the Lab, Albright said that he thinks "we're pretty much there - leading in delivering solutions for the nation's most challenging problems."
He stressed that one of the challenges with vision statements demonstrating or measuring success is achieving that vision. In describing the three elements of his vision, Albright repeatedly emphasized the imperative for excellence and the goal of being recognized as second to none.
"We're expensive, so we need to be worth the money," he explained. "When people have a hard problem, I want them to think that the first place to go is Livermore."
Albright also noted that a reputation for excellence is critical if LLNL is going to continue to be a top destination for the best scientists, engineers and other professionals. "People come here because they want to work with the very best - the best people, the best facilities, the best workplace environment."
Moving onto Lab values, he observed that these characteristics are not necessarily where we are today. Rather, they describe the values and the culture that we want to strive to create.
At the top of the Director's list is his strong belief that "We are one Lab." He emphasized that all employees should feel a sense of pride in all the accomplishments made at the Lab, regardless of what program they work in and regardless of the program making the accomplishments. "We have shared pride and shared responsibility. We need to think institutionally."
In discussing the next two values - operating solely in the national interest and focusing on sponsor needs - Albright cautioned against hubris. "We need to be careful not to think that because we're really smart, we know best. That's a slippery slope.
"We don't own a thing here," he added. "The U.S. government owns all of this and we need to take care of that responsibility."
With regard to the values describing workplace interactions, Albright was emphatic that striving for excellence, intense competition of ideas and rigorous critique must be "rank blind."
"No person, no matter how junior, should feel constrained from asking questions or offering suggestions or opinions," he said.
Turning to his priorities, Albright observed that while mission, vision and values are "hopefully timeless," this list "is what I want us to focus on over the next few years."
Not surprisingly, the top priority is to deliver on the W78 Life Extension Program and the National Ignition Campaign. "We must deliver on these important commitments."
Albright also emphasized his focus on improving business practices, giving as an example the existence of five different financial systems across the Lab. "There may have been good reasons for developing these different systems at one time or another, but it makes it hard to be cost efficient."
As part of his emphasis on creating a workplace that fosters excellence, he noted that the priority of ensuring cutting-edge science and technology capabilities means more than recruiting a top-notch workforce. "It also means facilities and equipment and infrastructure.
"We've ridden on the back of the Weapons Program, but we can't do that anymore. We need to find institutional ways to support these capabilities so we can stay at the cutting edge and in front of the power curve as new areas emerge."
Also on the list of priorities is expanding the Lab's contributions to the local and national economy through industry and university partnerships. "My vision is that, several years from now, we'll be in the midst of a vibrant innovation center, a technology hub with the Lab at its center.
To make this vision a reality, Albright noted that in addition to Sequoia, the world's fastest supercomputer, the Lab will soon be home to a powerful multi-petaflop unclassified machine at the Livermore Valley Open Campus (LVOC) to solve problems of economic importance to the country.
In addition, Albright announced that Buck Koonce has been appointed director of Economic Development, with responsibility for integrating the Laboratory's partnership activities with industry, academia, economic development and the Livermore Valley Open Campus.
Several other key management appointments were also announced, including Bruce Warner as acting principal associate director for Global Security, Wes Spain as acting director of the Office of Strategic Outcomes and Al Ramponi as the director's chief of staff. In addition, Kimberley Davis was introduced as the new manager of the Livermore Site Office.
Albright introduced the 10 recipients who have been recently selected as Laboratory Distinguished Members of the Technical Staff: Jim Candy, John Castor, Jim Hammer, Omar Hurricane, Neil Joeck, Nino Landen, Ken Moody, Bruce Remington, Dimitri Ryutov, and Tom Slezak. These individuals are recognized for their extraordinary scientific and technical contributions to the Laboratory and its missions as acknowledged by their professional peers and the larger community. [A feature article will appear in Newsline next week highlighting the recipients.]
Wrapping up his briefing, Parney noted that one focus area for the coming year is succession planning, both for management positions and for critical-skilled personnel
He announced that because of the Laboratory's outstanding performance last year, a 1.5-percent Strategic Performance Bonus will be distributed to eligible personnel this year; the one-time payment will be made some time in April. "We had a really good year last year. In fact, we had the highest performance score of all the NNSA labs."
(For more information on this program, see the Web.)
Albright also reported that NNSA has, for the second time, denied the Lab's request to begin employer contributions to the TCP1 defined benefit pension plan, based on the rationale that because the plan is currently funded at 104 percent of its obligations, contributions are not legally required. "We're not happy with this decision, and we're watching the situation very closely. If need be, we will elevate this issue to higher levels," Albright said.
Albright also mentioned that the Laboratory is celebrating its 60th anniversary this year. Various activities and events are being planned to commemorate the occasion, including a Family Open House.
In closing, Albright emphasized "we're all in this together. Let's work together as one Lab. Let's keep our communications strong and promote the sponsor relationships we need to really make a difference for the nation."
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
NAS Lab Mgmt. Panel Report Expected This Week
Anonymously contributed:
Weapons Complex Monitor
February 6, 2012
NAS Lab Mgmt. Panel Report Expected This Week
The National Academy of Sciences panel that for the last year has examined the impact of
privatization on the nation’s nuclear weapons laboratories is expected to release its long-awaited
report this week in advance of a Feb. 16 Congressional hearing. Chaired by former Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory Director Charles Shank and UCLA professor Kumar Patel, the
panel held a handful of meetings over the last year, traveling to Los Alamos, Lawrence
Livermore and Sandia national laboratories to meet with lab employees and administrators and
holding several hearings in Washington, D.C., with National Nuclear Security Administration
and Department of Energy officials.
After the report is released this week, Shank—and perhaps one more member of the panel—is
scheduled to testify before the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Feb. 16.
Former Los Alamos Director Michael Anastasio, former Sandia Director Paul Robinson, former
Livermore Director George Miller, and former Babcock & Wilcox Technical Services Group
President Bob Cochran will also testify during the hearing.
Weapons Complex Monitor
February 6, 2012
NAS Lab Mgmt. Panel Report Expected This Week
The National Academy of Sciences panel that for the last year has examined the impact of
privatization on the nation’s nuclear weapons laboratories is expected to release its long-awaited
report this week in advance of a Feb. 16 Congressional hearing. Chaired by former Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory Director Charles Shank and UCLA professor Kumar Patel, the
panel held a handful of meetings over the last year, traveling to Los Alamos, Lawrence
Livermore and Sandia national laboratories to meet with lab employees and administrators and
holding several hearings in Washington, D.C., with National Nuclear Security Administration
and Department of Energy officials.
After the report is released this week, Shank—and perhaps one more member of the panel—is
scheduled to testify before the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Feb. 16.
Former Los Alamos Director Michael Anastasio, former Sandia Director Paul Robinson, former
Livermore Director George Miller, and former Babcock & Wilcox Technical Services Group
President Bob Cochran will also testify during the hearing.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Looking for Herbert Moore...
From Sandy Reese:
My grandfather Herbert Moore worked at the Lawrence Livermore Lab Site 300 back in the late 1950's-early 60's. He passed away in 1962 from "leukemia" but it was later found out that he had been exposed to something on site and his true cause of death (radiation poisoning) was revealed in a private lawsuit that my grandmother received a small settlement from the government. Everything was very hush hush.
I am trying to find out what possibly occurred at that site during that time frame that could have caused this. We are also trying to track down any information at all we can find on my grandfather as we are tracing our family history. At the time this happened the government must have wiped out all records to do with my grandpa because it's as if he doesn't exist.
Any chance anyone has any information at all that might point me in the right direction? I think our family has a right to know.
Thanks,
Sandie Reese
My grandfather Herbert Moore worked at the Lawrence Livermore Lab Site 300 back in the late 1950's-early 60's. He passed away in 1962 from "leukemia" but it was later found out that he had been exposed to something on site and his true cause of death (radiation poisoning) was revealed in a private lawsuit that my grandmother received a small settlement from the government. Everything was very hush hush.
I am trying to find out what possibly occurred at that site during that time frame that could have caused this. We are also trying to track down any information at all we can find on my grandfather as we are tracing our family history. At the time this happened the government must have wiped out all records to do with my grandpa because it's as if he doesn't exist.
Any chance anyone has any information at all that might point me in the right direction? I think our family has a right to know.
Thanks,
Sandie Reese
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Physics Today has an article about what went wrong with the LANL/LLNL contract. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstod...
-
Global Security Newswire U.S. Nuclear Weapons Agency to Delay Work on Interoperable Warhead By Global Security Newswire Staff February 18, ...
-
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 ...
