The Energy Department’s internal watchdog has identified more than $470
million in unresolved and unaudited spending at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory, with much of the total dating to 2003.
Deputy
Inspector General Rickey R. Hass did not allege misuse of funds in the
report Monday. Still, he said resolution of the reviews “ensures that
costs charged to the government are allowable, makes certain that
taxpayer’s money is spent wisely, and has the potential to free
significant funds that would be better spent on Los Alamos' mission
critical program activities.”
The department’s National Nuclear
Security Administration, which manages the laboratory, did not challenge
the findings and pledged to resolve the outstanding cost questions by
next year.
A department spokesman offered no additional comment.
Read more:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/27/nearly-a-decade-later-los-alamos-still-hasnt-accou/#ixzz2Eja2xJgA
10 comments:
Kinda sounds like LANS has a bit of explaining to do. $470 million is a good chunk of cash to be unaccounted for. Lets see what the "Spin" will be on this one.....
How many FTE's can 470 Mil support? Guess what? We are going to find out.
Lets be honest with ourselves. Most of LANL's problems are from within. The higher skilled folks either have moved to LLNL or retired. How else do you explain everything from bad science,Tc99 contamination, inability to build a simple fence, the CMRR fiasco,cost overruns, etc. Despite LANS best attempts to `right the ship' the problems on the hill continue.
How else do you explain everything from bad science,Tc99 contamination, inability to build a simple fence, the CMRR fiasco, cost overruns, etc?
December 13, 2012 11:11 AM
Simple, three reasons. 1. Mikey Anastasio 2. Brett Knapp, and 3. Charlie McMillan.
I'm sure Bechtel can figure a way to pay this huge amount by stealing it out of the employees' pensions.
Honestly, there was a 4th reason, Peter Nanos.
Honestly, there was a 4th reason, Peter Nanos.
December 14, 2012 2:42 AM
I stand corrected!
"...with much of the total dating to 2003."
If the majority of the spending was in 2003, it was during UC's operating LANL. Sounds like current LANS management can't be blamed for this one.
"...with much of the total dating to 2003."
If the majority of the spending was in 2003, it was during UC's operating LANL. Sounds like current LANS management can't be blamed for this one.
December 14, 2012 8:52 AM
Sure LANS is to blame! They have been ignoring the problem since 2006. What the hell have they been doing for 6-years, spending the profits?
LANL and Accountabiility, how do you spell oxymoron?
Post a Comment