WIPP reopening behind schedule and over budget

According to the latest new reports, there is no date for scheduled reopening and the air handling systems are inadequate and way over budget.
Thanks again, LANL!

Site 300 Causes Concern

Site 300: "Proximity of Superfund Site To New Tracy Development Causes Concern" 

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2015/12/13/proximity-of-superfund-site-to-new-tracy-development-causes-concern/

Delay of LANL contract notice letter

Considering the IG report of earlier this week about LAFO, there probably will be a delay in delivery of NNSAs annual evaluation letter to the lab. Be ready for news just before the holiday break.

Issues Management at the Los Alamos Field Office

The Office of Inspector General has issued a report titled “Issues Management at the Los Alamos Field Office," (OAI-M-16-02).

This report is now available for viewing and can be accessed by clicking the link below:

http://energy.gov/node/1446546

Contract Right to Health Benefits Found by Judge

Courthouse News Service              Wednesday, December 09, 2015              Last Update: 3:20 PM PT

Contract Right to Health Benefits Found by Judge

By SEAN DUFFY

(CN) - An Alameda County judge ruled Tuesday that retirees of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory were University of California employees entitled to the system's health care plan.
The decision by Judge George Hernandez Jr. marks the first time that a contractual right to benefits for California public employees has been recognized.
"The legal issue is whether the employees have a legal right to have health care through the university, or can the university change it as it likes," Dov Grunschlag, who represented the retirees, said. "The judge has found this contractual right on the part of public employees for the first time."
Hernandez ruled that the UC Regents and the retirees had a mutual understanding over the nature of their health care plans, which were a component of compensation, and not merely a gift.
"The university and petitioners reasonably understood that the university offered employee benefits, including retiree health coverage, to prospective and existing employees in exchange for their agreement to accept and remain in employment with the university," Hernandez said in his statement of decision.
Employees at the laboratory were originally offered health care from Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC, after it assumed management of the lab in 2007 from the UC system. However, the plans offered were more expensive than what the UC system offered, and the laboratory did not have the same established track record.
These factors concerned retirees of the lab - who were UC employees when the system ran the lab - and eventually led to a class action against the UC system earlier this year.
"They were concerned that the laboratory may change things since there was no contract with them," Grunschlag said in a phone interview. "They could make any number of changes to what they have now, which was worse than what UC offers its employees."
In a separately filed order, Hernandez found that the regents were legally authorized to enter into contracts governing employment relations with the laboratory employees when it ran the lab. He also held that the regents took action that "clearly evinced a legislative intent to create private rights of a contractual nature enforceable against the regents," the order said.
It is unclear at this time whether the UC regents will appeal.
Grunschlag is a partner at the San Francisco-based law firm Carter, Carter, Fries & Grunschlag.

 

Comment:

 Anonymous said...

All of us that froze our UC retirement and retired later under UC after the contract change should band together and fight for the same rights.

Letter sent to DOE Secretary from Anthony Rivera's attorney

Dear Secretary Moniz:

Anthony T. Rivera's Petition for Secretarial Review was served on your office July 15, 2015. His case arose under 10 C.F.R. Part 708 due to reprisal for his reporting of dangerous incidents in the High Explosives Application Facility at Livermore. The issue is straightforward. Your Office of Hearings and Appeals conducted no investigation and no hearing.

If there is no particular explanation for the delayed response to the Petition for Secretarial Review, I will be obliged to start preparing to obtain judicial intervention. We will bring the matter to court if your decision is issued without providing a remedy. If no decision is received from your office, we will plan to file the court case January 15, 2016.

Your consideration is appreciated.

Cordially,
ANTHONY P. X. BOTHWELL
Attorney for Anthony T. Rivera

cc. Mr. Kevin Knobloch, Chief of Staff
Mr. Steven Croley, General Counsel

Comments:

Does this effect the profit margin by LLNS?

December 7, 2015 at 10:12 PM

 

LLNS "profit margin"?

This matter does not solely implicate the Contractor LLNS. The NNSA LFO staff of the period in question was also referenced in the NM La Jicarita article this past October. The article said the NNSA LFO was "fused together" administratively with LLNS. This would seem to put in question the LLNS profit evaluation objectivity of the NNSA LFO staff and puts another spin on the posted LLNS "profit margin" question

Livermore Field Office sets core values

"Livermore Field Office sets core values as part of continuous improvement process"

http://nnsa.energy.gov/blog/livermore-field-office-sets-core-values-part-continuous-improvement-process

Comments:

How much did this drivel cost the taxpayer?

What were the NNSA LFO values before November 2015?