BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Opinions not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email

Monday, December 28, 2009

It has been over 2 years!

that this BLOG has been created.

It was intended for anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.

My co-authors tried their best to serve as impartially as we could and at the same time follow some basic rules.

I have seen more anger in this BLOG than anywhere else.

I would like to encourage contributors to steer away from repeated negative comments
regarding LLNS/NNSA/DOE and whoever else. I feel we have seen enough anger and insult.

The more negative we remain, the faster we sink!

Someone in upper management is reading this BLOG and cannot take us seriously if all we do is insult them (They know they screwed up, still do and dont want to hear it every day).

We stand a better chance of being heard by expressing our point of view as calm, collected and intelligent colleagues. not as angry people

They will listen to us.

It is time to shift gears upwards, it is now stuck in reverse.

While it was understandable to be angry during the transition, there is no excuse for not trying to make things better. We can still speak up and fight and call for action
if we are able to factually point things out and leave the past behind!

Opinions are welcome!

Saturday, December 26, 2009

Where will this end up?

Anonymously contributed:

Where will this end up?

USA: layoffs
"Russia to work on new nuclear missiles: Medvedev"

Wednesday, December 23, 2009


Anonymously contributed:

RHWM laid off 9 employees today; ftes and flex terms; More to go after the first of the year to cover a 3 million dollar screw up by rechtel.


Tuesday, December 22, 2009

LLNL is Outstanding!

On Dec. 8, the NNSA Livermore Site Office (LSO) released the Performance Evaluation Report presenting its assessment of our Laboratory’s performance for fiscal year 2009. The specific objectives, measures and targets we are judged upon are set out in the Performance Evaluation Plan (PEP) for each fiscal year.
I am very pleased to report that we earned ratings of “outstanding” in mission and “good” in both operations and institutional management. In addition, Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS) was awarded a one-year extension of the contract to manage the Laboratory. The contract between NNSA and LLNS was for seven years, extendable for up to 20 years in one-year increments based on performance.
The “outstanding” rating for mission reflects our many achievements in applying science and technology to meet critical national security needs. Among the accomplishments cited by the LSO in support of this top rating were the completion and dedication of the National Ignition Facility and its excellent initial experimental results, the delivery of the Dawn supercomputer and its initial results, the enhanced rigor applied to the warhead assessment peer-review process, the ahead-of-schedule progress on reducing LLNL’s inventory of special nuclear material, our leadership of a multi-lab assessment of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) on-site inspection regime, and the receipt of eight R&D 100 awards and three Federal Laboratory Consortium awards for excellence in technology transfer.
The rating of “good” for operations (up from last year’s “satisfactory”) recognizes the success of efforts to strengthen our operational and infrastructure functions, which include security and environment, safety and health. Accomplishments cited in support of this rating included the positive results received from the latest security inspection by DOE’s Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS), the successful completion of Phase I of our Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS) reverification, and implementation of the new institution-wide work control process.
The “good” rating for institutional management reflects our performance in business operations and laboratory management. In support of this rating, LSO cited the annual property inventory in which more than 99.9 percent of all accountable items were successfully located, our progress in implementing a comprehensive integrated Contractor Assurance System, and the full implementation of project-based accounting, which in turn will make it possible to apply earned value management tools for improved project management.
All but one of 15 multi-site targets (which focused on stockpile stewardship, complex transformation and stockpile science) were successfully completed. Likewise, all but one of the five “stretch” incentive targets also were met.
The assessment process provides valuable feedback from our principal sponsor, highlights our many successes and achievements and identifies issues and concerns going forward. In the coming year, we will continue to make improvements aimed at achieving simultaneous excellence in mission science and technology, operations and business and management.
This year’s performance ratings are clear recognition of our Laboratory’s success in fulfilling our mission responsibilities and contract deliverables — all of which is due to the commitment, dedication and hard work of employees across the Laboratory. I am very proud of the Laboratory and all of you. Please accept my sincere thanks and appreciation for a job well done.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Russo's farewell

A Gift I’ll Cherish

Over the past three and a half years I have had the privilege to get to know and
work with some of the finest men and women that I have ever met. Starting with George Miller and emulating out to all of you, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is truly the best and the brightest. That I had the opportunity to come here and participate in the Lab’s endeavors is a gift that I will always cherish.
I am disappointed that I am leaving before we have completed the work we have collaboratively started when you welcomed me into the Lab family in October 2007. The
nature of our work often requires that the nation’s needs subsume personal desires. The Department of Energy has determined that I am needed somewhere else. However, my
departure should not be reason to slow down on the many good things that are currently under way. Baseline budgeting, improving service delivery methods and ISMS are just a few of the things that will continue to improve operating efficiency and keep the Lab in its premier position for years to come.
Thank you for making me feel welcome at the Lab. The O&B PAD is a special team of people, and it is your efforts and hard work that have made us a partner with the programs and other directorates.
The good memories of working with all of you will be with me always.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Frank Russo leaving LLNL

Anonymously contributed:
Frank Russo is leaving LLNL.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Director's response to Contra Costa Times Story

Anonymously contributed:


E-LINE: A Message to Laboratory Employees From The Director

Several local newspapers carried a story this morning with the
headline: Laboratory Hides the Cost of the Colossal NIF Laser. The
claim in the story is that the overhead charges for the NIF project
and the National Ignition Campaign have been inappropriately low.

This is incorrect. I'd like to tell you the facts.

As is the common practice for many Department of Energy construction
projects, NIF uses a construction overhead charge that ensures that
the project pays for the Laboratory-wide services that it uses and
requires. There are two reasons for this:

-- It is important to ensure that the overall finances of the host
institution are not distorted as the project initially grows and then
declines. This ensures that the true cost of the project is properly
reported. This is why the NIF and the NIC pay directly for services
that are otherwise paid for indirectly on other Laboratory programs.

-- The use of "construction rates" was explicitly approved by the
Department of Energy, with concurrence in writing by the Chief
Financial Officer of the Department. The existing and approved rate
structure forms the basis for the DOE budget for the completion of
the National Ignition Campaign.

Each year, the Laboratory discloses to the Department of Energy its
overhead structure and charges. This "disclosure statement" includes
the nature and the basis for the construction rates, and is annually
approved by the Department. LLNL accounting practices for NIF have
been consistently reviewed and approved by DOE and applied by the
Laboratory since the inception of the project. Additionally, we have
had numerous external groups review our practices, and they have
concurred that our approach is fully compliant with DOE rules and
regulations, with our disclosed and approved practices, and with
accepted interpretations of the Cost Accounting Standards. A recent
DOE-sponsored audit came to a conclusion consistent with this
approach -- that NIF must be treated as a "construction
work-in-progress"activity through completion of the National Ignition
Campaign in late 2012.

As you may have read, an accounting review by the NNSA Service Center
in Albuquerque, NM, reached a different conclusion -- a conclusion
that is not consistent with more than 10 years of prior DOE approvals
and practices.

The Laboratory stands by the DOE-approved accounting practices that
have been used throughout the construction and commissioning of the
NIF and the NIC program.

Progress in using NIF has been spectacular. We are looking forward to
achieving fusion in the laboratory. It will truly be a game changer.

George Miller
Laboratory Director

Report: Livermore National Lab hid $80 million of new nuclear fusion lab's cost

Anonymously contributed:

As reported by this article in the Contra Costa Times

Saturday, December 5, 2009

Anonymous said...

There is an email circulating to APS members asking the APS to reconsider its statement on climate change in light of the "Climategate" release of internal correspondence of members of IPCC. The lab is in a central position because of its long standing program to compare in an objective way the various models of climate. I wonder whether the lab is just reacting or seriously looking into whether any of its work might have been influenced by possible "filtering the data". See this link:

Open Letter on Global Warming

December 4, 2009 2:57 PM
Anonymous said...

Man loses suit vs online pharmacy

Maybe those online prescription drug sales aren't so nifty after all.

December 3, 2009 5:17 PM

Latest rumors about LLNL/LLNS...

Anonymous said...

Latest rumors about LLNL/LLNS...

December 5, 2009 7:18 AM

Highlights from the Parney Presentation

Anonymous said...

Highlights from the Parney presentation today:
1) He looks a lot like George M.
2) He can't be bothered to reorganize GS even though PMC rates are through the roof due to excessive managers
3) He doesn't think we should care about criticism that we are too expensive
4) He claims LLNL is excellent in all technical areas across the board, instead of pledging to stem the growing mediocrity and attrition of excellent technical staff
5) Rather that talk about accomplishments he is proud of in his career, he made disparaging remarks about his former employers DHS and DARPA
6) He gets lost a lot at LLNL (mentioned this about 4 times)

December 3, 2009 8:59 PM

Who's Doing Who's

Anonymous said...

Okay children, listen up. How's 1.5% to distribute, retroactive to Jan 1st, 2010 _NOT_ Oct 1st, 2009, and NO raise cards to be distributed. However on Feb 18th you'll be able to log onto LAPIS and see how much you're worth. LLNS not only made millions of dollars by delaying your raises by three months but they "did you", with one big stroke of the pen. Assuming I got the max of 1.5% it still was not enough to cover my increased cost for medical and state tax. This has been three years in a row so no wonder my disposable income at the end of the month has been diminishing. Do you think LLNS is telling us all a story here?

Still want to give LLNS 100%? -- I DFTS.

December 3, 2009 5:25 PM

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Does an average of 1% raise motivate you?

Anonymous wants to know if an average of 1% raise motivate you to excel.

Blog Archive