WANT A NEW TOPIC? SUGGEST IT HERE

To suggest a new topic or contribute a new post, write the post and give it a title.
This corner IS NOT FOR MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS.
Once your post has been screened for content (not edited), it will be published.

IS ULM ABOVE THE LAW??????

Anonymous said...


FR was escorting uncleared personel through a Q only area the other day, this person was busy taking pictures when FR left them alone in the area; the FPOC found the person wondering around with the camera and ask them who was escorting them, they replied FR; when FR return the fpoc then asked him why he wasn't notified of such activity and why the proper signs where not put out to notify building personal of the uncleared visitor; FR blamed his secretary for the mix up. AGAIN IS ULM ABOVE THE LAW???????

July 12, 2009 2:37 PM

Poll results: Who has done more damage to LLNL

Results:
NNSA 58 voters
Bechtel 24
UC 7
LLNS 23

Meeting on energy and water

From the fcnl.org calendar, today at 10:00 a.m:
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, markup of the energy and water appropriations bill, which includes the nuclear weapons programs of the Energy Department. 124 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington. Video webcast on OpenHearings.org and audio webcast on CapitolHearings.org.

RUMOR CORNER: What's happened to the rumors?

So, it seems that the rumors that have turned out not to be rumors has dried up. So, you have any rumors to share?

More on the future of DOE...

Institute for Policy Study article

5% Retroactive Tax

So, I hear that the programs are being charged a 5% retroactive (back to October 1, 2008) tax to help pay for a shortage in the "management fee".

My first question is this true?

My second question if true, does NIF have to pay, or do they get off the hook again?

Dublin man run over by his own truck dies of injuries

Sophia Kazmi
Valley Times
Posted: 06/29/2009 12:29:58 PM PDT
Updated: 06/29/2009 01:38:41 PM PDT


LIVERMORE — A 58-year-old Dublin man struck by his runaway pickup truck at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory has died of his injuries.

James Leadstrom died Sunday at Eden Medical Center in Castro Valley, according to the California Highway Patrol. He was flown there Friday morning after he received head trauma and internal injuries trying to stop his 2008 Chevrolet Silverado.

According to accident investigators, Leadstrom had parked his pickup truck in a lab parking lot near Vasco Road and East Avenue around 10:30 a.m. Friday. but the truck had been left in reverse gear and it began to roll backward.

Leadstrom partially entered the truck to apply the brakes, but instead hit the accelerator, according to the CHP. The truck accelerated backward, struck a parked Chevrolet Impala, then a Toyota Celica.

Leadstrom was thrown behind the truck after the second car was hit and was run over by the pickup after it hit a Honda motorcycle. The truck hit one more car, a Nissan Altima, before coming to rest.

— Sophia Kazmi

ENOUGH of the political bantering

Major posts need to be related to LLNL, NNSA, DOE, LLNS in some way. Comments must be on the topic.

I will no longer post ANYONE'S political trashing and thrashings - no more name calling. There are other blogs and venues for such antics.

Lab Security

Anonymous said...

The Lab's security force seems to get bad press all the time in the media, but it did well again in this year's US National SWAT Championship. They came in 2nd last year. Results are at -

http://www.nationalswatchampionships.com/results.php

I ran across this story in World Nuclear News...

Bruce Power SWAT team hits the mark
25 June 2009

Security combat teams from nuclear-related sites and organizations performed well in the 2009 US National SWAT Championships (USNSC).

The championship was held on 18-20 June at the US Shooting Academy in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Eighteen tactical teams including three international entrants participated in a range of trials such as 'Bus Assault', 'Multi-Gun Shootout' and 'Taser Team Takedown'.

The nuclear response team from Canada's Bruce Power won the contest for the second year in a row. They were followed by a team from the German counter-terrorist unit (GSG-9), with nuclear-related teams from Lawrence Livermore in California and Hanford in Washington coming in third and fourth.

SWAT competitions have been held in the Shooting Academy for over 25 years. In general, they are based on real tactical policing skills (individual and team) and involve demanding physical challenges as well as precise shooting skills. Most are coupled with training sessions and last from 2-5 days.

The inaugural USNSC were held in 2007 at the Highlands Ranch Law Enforcement Training Center (HRLETC) outside Denver, Colorado. The objective of the USNSC competition is to use live-fire SWAT scenarios and relays to test individual and team skills. The competition events are designed to provide a fair and equal opportunity for teams to demonstrate their abilities in three areas: team organization, weapons skills and fitness while negotiating courses of fire in a safe manner.

The USNSC normally consists of eight live-fire events run with teams running each course of fire head to head. Officers compete in full tactical gear and are only given one round for each assigned target. Scoring is based on time and target hits.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Bruce_Power_SWAT_team_hits_the_mark-2606094.html

June 26, 2009 6:12 AM

Neko is really scared . . . NOT!

Anonymous said...

Neko's Not Scared


What may happen to the guy running this blog if he isn't careful

June 24, 2009 5:07 PM

NUCLEAR BUDGET WATCHDOGS CALL ON U.S. ENERGY DEPARTMENT TO SLASH SPENDING

Title:

NUCLEAR BUDGET WATCHDOGS CALL ON U.S. ENERGY DEPARTMENT TO SLASH SPENDING ON WEAPONS PROGRAMS AND REACTOR SUBSIDIES, INCREASE CLEANUP FUNDING TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Ran across this pdf about wanting to cut budgets and increase cleanup funds.

Watchdogs


Interesting reading.

June 22, 2009 10:24 AM

Buried in the Budget

Blogger Peter said...

The House Armed Services Committee published the FY 2010 Defense Authorization Bill last week. Buried inside was a last-minute change that took $369 million from DOE. The $369M was supposed to be used for cleanups at nuclear weapons sites but will be used instead to "bring home the bacon" and buy jets that the military admits it doesn't even need.

See the articles below for the details.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4144686

http://pubfiles.computersforpeace.net/HR2647.pdf

http://armedservices.house.gov/apps/list/press/armedsvc_dem/skeltonpr061709.shtml





June 23, 2009 11:38 AM

Apparently, everyone in UC is going to take a 8% salary reduction!

Anonymous said...

I went to check on what is left of my retirement portfolio on uc bencom and saw this:
"Questions & Answers about Furlough/Salary Reductions Options"

Apparently, everyone in UC is going to take a 8% salary reduction! LBNL staff will be affected as well.

June 23, 2009 2:11 AM

UC Gives 'Thumbs Down' to Lab Health Care Petitioners

Anonymous said:

UC Gives 'Thumbs Down' to Lab Health Care Petitioners
From Independent News

The University of California has effectively said “no” to petitions signed by more than 500 Livermore Lab retirees requesting reinstatement to the UC medical programs that covered them when they retired.

“I understand your concerns with losing UC coverage when the Laboratory contract was changed at the end of 2007, wrote Katherine Lapp, executive vice president for business operations at the University, in a message to a number of the petitioners. “However, UC employees do not have a vested right to retiree healthcare benefits.” She noted that benefits had always been subject to change or termination at any time.
The Laboratory retirees who submitted the petitions were once UC employees who had the University’s group health coverage plans under a succession of contracts that lasted more than 50 years. Beginning in 2008, the new contractor, Lawrence Livermore National Security, used a health consulting firm and an insurance broker to move most retirees out of group insurance into individual plans that stand to become less secure and more expensive as retirees age.

The exception to date is Kaiser, which covers nearly 40 percent of Lab retirees in group plans very much like those that existed prior to 2008. Kaiser coverage is predicted to be shifted to the new system at year’s end in a move whose details have not yet been announced.

The complaints of retirees have fallen into several categories that contrast sharply with their favorable memories of the University’s reliable, easy to understand programs. One major complaint has been that poor service and communication have meant confusing administrative changes, unfamiliar plans, delays in reimbursement and even dropped coverage. Another is that being moved out of group plans into individual ones appears to set retirees up for future cost increases and possible insurance cancellation as they age and develop the inevitable medical burdens of later life.

And finally, on a personal basis, many retirees express anger that a company they never worked for – Lawrence Livermore National Security – is now defining their health care options.

At the most senior level, UC President Mark Yudoff asked that the organizer of the retiree petitions communicate in future with the UC Office of General Counsel. The organizer is Joe Requa, who formed the Livermore Retiree Group to deal with the health care issue and has seen an enthusiastic response from retirees.
For her part, UC Vice President Lapp cited a booklet called Your Group Insurance Plans. She said that the booklet makes it clear that “the benefits of all employees, retirees and plan beneficiaries are subject to change or termination at the time of contract renewal or at any other time by the University or other governing authorities."

While several retirees said they had no memory of such a warning, it exists and can be found in the fine print of UC publications, including “New Dimensions,” which is mailed periodically to retiree homes.

For example, the New Dimensions of Winter 2001 reads, "The University intends to continue the benefits described here indefinitely; however, the benefits of all employees, annuitants and plan beneficiaries are subject to change or termination at the time of contract renewal or at any other time by the University or other governing authorities. The University reserves the right to change the premiums and employer contributions at any time."

At the time The Independent went to press, retiree organizations had not responded formally to the University’s communication. Livermore Retiree Group leader Joe Requa said that his organization is preparing communications with UC Office of General Counsel as requested by President Yudoff. He also said his group is willing to press forward with legal action if necessary.
----------------------------
Does this effort have a chance?
What can be done to help?

June 22, 2009 7:36 AM