Live data from Hacker News

A near-disaster at a nuclear weapons lab takes toll on America’s arsenal (2017)

science.org

201–210 of 254 posts

Re: A near-disaster at a nuclear weapons lab takes toll on America’s arsenal (2017)

#201

The 2011 incident, together with a reported loss of plutonium at Los Alamos [1], lead to the privatization of at least the Sandia Labs. (Bechtel has ownership of Livermore, for example [2].) When I last looked into this–having been surprised to see the tour buses at Livermore bearing LLC identifiers, government sites don't usually have those--there was something about the lost plutonium having been an accounting issu…

> lead to the privatization of at least the Sandia Labs

If you're talking about management, the Sandia Labs have have always been private. From 1948 to the 1990s they were run by AT&T. After that it was Lockheed-Martin and now NTESS.

But the facility itself is owned by the US government, as are all the National Labs. The model is called GOCO (Government-Owned/Contractor Operated).

The article you're referring to is about a spinoff facility.

Re: A near-disaster at a nuclear weapons lab takes toll on America’s arsenal (2017)

#202
post #145

My favorite nuclear disaster! Criticality events. I lived in Los Alamos for a while. I looked into renting a studio space. I became curious about the property across the street from my prospective rental which was surrounded by a chain link fence with green canvas. I researched and learned it was the site of an original Manhattan site waste dump which had, a few years prior, been enclosed with a negative pressure ten…

Fun fact, if you ever want to locate sketchy sites, the keyword is "Wildlife Management Area". Odds are pretty good it's going to be some former superfund, government, chemical, or industrial cleanup site. They do their best to clean up what they can and then declare it a nature preserve. E.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quehanna_Wild_Area

Don’t forget the largest stretch of undeveloped prairie in Colorado: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_Arsenal_Nationa...

Re: A near-disaster at a nuclear weapons lab takes toll on America’s arsenal (2017)

#203
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fun fact, if you ever want to locate sketchy sites, the keyword is "Wildlife Management Area". Odds are pretty good it's going to be some former superfund, government, chemical, or industrial cleanup site. They do their best to clean up what they can and then declare it a nature preserve. E.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quehanna_Wild_Area

It's nuts that this is a legal practice. It's intentionally deceptive to the general public and also removes peoples right to avoid exposure to bad stuff in bad places. There should be some kind of law passed that at least forces these places to be labeled what they really are. This quote about the former Rocky Flats that has become a nature preserve sums it up: "The area is an industrial nuclear waste site, not a na…

One of the geologists who used to work on that "clean up" project mentioned that the lines on the map of what was clean, what was still contaminated and how badly radioactive plumes spread were all drawn by politicians. Not by engineers, scientists or technicians.

Re: A near-disaster at a nuclear weapons lab takes toll on America’s arsenal (2017)

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like the same story as Rocky Flats west of Denver. Same thing, after "Cleanup" it's a (still radioactive) nature preserve and housing development now.

The world is full of radioactivity, including the banana you eat and the partner you sleep next to. What matters is the amount, is it dangerous?

I’m not sure if this is a helpful comment. Yeah the dose matters. Do you have any numbers on the contamination levels of this site? Groundwater/soil contamination is notoriously hard to measure and the variance can be much bigger than the average. Given this history of government obfuscation around this issue, would you even trust their numbers? The concern is based on risk which needs to factor in more than the latest government estimate.

Re: A near-disaster at a nuclear weapons lab takes toll on America’s arsenal (2017)

#205
post #137
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree that, in general, the risk is lower than many other jobs. But that missed the point. It also doesn't mean it would be okay for teachers to have an unsafe work environment, as long as it's safer than a steel mill. Those comparisons are poor measures because it's about mitigating the risk to a reasonable level. In the context of the article, risking a criticality event is not a reasonable level. Whethe…

LANL has had three criticality accidents in 80 years, which have killed three people, two of them during WWII (after which things presumably improved) and the third in 01958. That's out of what is now 12000 people, which would lead you to expect about 40 deaths over that period of time, though presumably the workforce size has fluctuated over the years (but it was about 10000 by the end of 01946). I think that by any…

I don't hold with any of this "codified right" nonsense.

Forgive me, but the tone of this comes across like talking to someone from the sovereign citizen movement. Maybe you don't think workers have the right to a safe workplace, but the majority of US society does and has passed laws to ensure it. People don't believe in workers rights because there are laws; there are laws because people believe in workers rights.

It's worth discussing if you think the law is wrong, but outright dismissing it as if it doesn't exist is a strange take. I hope for your sake you aren't a supervisor.

So if I understand your position, it's that workers should not be guaranteed a safe workplace. You point out deaths, but overlook the other non-lethal incidents. So assume their bad practices lead to a criticality event that subjected other employees to radiation exposure. Employees that had no input into the decision or actions that lead to the risk. Is that ok in your opinion as long as the number of workplace injuries is below a threshold? Is your stance that the employer can just hand wave away any responsibility by essentially telling the employee "Welp, at least you're not working in a steel mill." By contrast, worker safety regulations define workers safety in this case on a radiation dose basis, irrespective of what goes on in a steel mill. I would say that's a much more objective measure of managing worker risk.

The main point I'm making is that your comparison to the aggregate average workplace injury rate is the wrong perspective. The way organizations like OSHA look at employers is by comparing similar industries. So the safety record of a chemical processing plant isn't compared to something like a pharmacy because the nature of the risks are different. The article clearly states that LANL has a much worse safety record to comparable facilities. I agree that safety regulations can go too far, but you're selecting the wrong benchmark and using it to justify erosion away employee rights with a fairly subjective and arbitrary definition of what is determined reasonable risk.

Re: A near-disaster at a nuclear weapons lab takes toll on America’s arsenal (2017)

#206
post #143
post #140

> ... tested to see if they remain safe and reliable for use in the nuclear stockpile. Note here this expression " safe and reliable ", taken from the DoE's founding legislation, is officially re-interpreted to be very, very different from what a normal person would conclude. Most particularly, "safety" doesn't mean anything about risks to the public or to people handling equipment and materials. It does not mean any…

Always/Never Always explode when we desire it/Never explode when we don't desire it.

You might want to watch the documentary of the same name by Sandia National Labs: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLouetuxaIMDrht4F8xiS4...

About 2.5 hours (after sanitizing still-classified material).

What has to be done to make it work "exactly when we want it to go boom" and also "never when we don't want it to go boom" is fascinating.

Some of the other videos from Sandia and Lawrence Livermore are fascinating. One was about "well, how do you generate truly random numbers without leaking those numbers" (the random numbers used as crypto-keys in permissive action links), the answer turned out to be of the order of "use the radioactive decay from inside the warhead itself".

Re: A near-disaster at a nuclear weapons lab takes toll on America’s arsenal (2017)

#207
post #165
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. But "going to bid" will almost certainly constrain to a profit motive. Even if there was a case where a bidder is non-profit, I can't fathom how they would bid on a project with the intent to be in the red. Maybe there are more exotic ways to run a lab, but it seems like the choice is to either figure out how to work with a profit motive or be a primarily civil servant lab. The govt can sometimes try a "best…

> Even if there was a case where a bidder is non-profit, I can't fathom how they would bid on a project with the intent to be in the red. Yes, exactly. Budget constraints exist for all organisations. Profit isn't usually a big part of any budget.

Profit isn't usually a big part of any budget.

Ok, but budget directly influence profit, no?

Do you have a proposed solution? How would one mitigate the "low bid" incentive?

My experience is that it creates an incentive to often create excessively low bids (to the point of not being profitable) in order to ensure a company gets a contract. And then ensure their "budget/profit" is made up by either a) cutting corners to reduce overhead or b) making change orders to increase revenue.

One solution is additional oversight, but it's not clear to me that is a feasible option.

Re: A near-disaster at a nuclear weapons lab takes toll on America’s arsenal (2017)

#208
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint is that it's easy to dismiss a requirement when one doesn't fully understand it. Sometimes that takes less work to dismiss it rather than spending the effort to remove one's ignorance. Particularly in safety critical systems, it's probably prudent to assume there is a good intent first.

A classic one for home food preserving - some of the old recipes have steps that ‘don’t make sense’ but are crucial to food safety. Without them you might get botulism.

I just learned about this one recently. Basically, how canning with oil isn't really worth the risk.

Re: A near-disaster at a nuclear weapons lab takes toll on America’s arsenal (2017)

#209
post #78

Putting a profit motive anywhere near anything that is safety critical is almost never a good idea. Naval Nuclear Power has it's issues, yet it is so safe that we have almost no incidents. That's because things like this don't happen there due to the culture of safety. That said, this is about production rather than operation, but the overall communities are relatively small and aligned.

I suspect the navy gets away with really riding peoples asses on safety - and developing protocols and procedures and equipment that are “military grade” meaning a drunk monkey with a sledgehammer could operate it successfully. Designing things that verify previous steps before acting on the next step is a great way to do it.

Well, the Navy does have to make everything sailor-proof.

To paraphrase my dad: "there's the right way, the wrong way and the Army [0] way."

> Designing things that verify previous steps before acting on the next step is a great way to do it.

In Japanese industry, this is called "poka yoke" [1]. It is very common in the auto industry (Toyota made it real popular).

Notes:

0 - one could replace Army with Navy, Marines or Air Force with no loss of truthiness.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poka-yoke

Re: A near-disaster at a nuclear weapons lab takes toll on America’s arsenal (2017)

#210
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homer is safer. He chucks a single rod out on the street in the opening scene, keeping it separate from the rest. At work he is lazy, so by doing nothing, he is not combining rods together.

>At work he is lazy, so by doing nothing, he is not combining rods together. And whenever he is required to do something, disaster occurs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErwV24Bskyw >

Like Y2k remediation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWPdBhlsBYI
Post reply on HN