How can the DOE "whistleblower" Contractor Employee Protection policy protect employees, if the DOE IG in good faith, can't acquire investigation relevant documentation from the DOE Contractor in question?
"...According to the Inspector General, Bechtel and URS, the contractors involved in the matter, have refused to provide more than 4,500 documents to the Inspector General, claiming attorney-client privilege. I understand that the contractors have refused to provide these documents despite a clause in both the prime contract and subcontract which expressly consents to the provision of attorney-client privileged material to the Inspector General. I request that the Department provide a briefing to the Subcommittee about DOE's plans to address the contractors' lack of cooperation with the Inspector General's request. The briefing should also include the mechanisms that are available to the Department to hold the contractors accountable for their noncompliance, including withholding of fees and recovery of costs incurred by the Office of Inspector General. I request that this briefing be provided as soon as possible, but no later than October 31, 2014..."
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. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email firstname.lastname@example.org
- ► 2017 (337)
- ► 2016 (295)
- Battelle intrigued by NNSA possibilties
- How can the DOE "whistleblower" Contractor Employe...
- LANL waste records demanded by state
- Is Charlie going to be held accountable?
- LANL is still bungling security
- Nuclear Lab Whistleblower Case Moves Forward
- Amid Safety Concerns at LANL, Udall Weighs in on L...
- Will the labs really improve when LANS and LLNS ar...
- DOE: Cleanup Fund Will Pay WIPP fines
- Marketability of LLNL workers.
- New fines coming to LANS from security failures?
- Good riddance
- Where does LANS Management go from here on the WIP...
- Employee morale at both LLNL and LANL
- What is the Lab's mission in one sentence?
- Whistle-blower fired from Hanford nuclear site
- Report: Nuke lab failed to keep some information c...
- Sandia funding reduced, Los Alamos funding increas...
- Do we have a "Six Sigma" safety culture with LANS ...
- Security issues, as usual
- Happy Birthday!
- Alcohol on site?
- DOE makes GAO highest risk list for 25 consecutive...
- That's our story!
- The Wrong Move: Adding Nuclear Weapons to the Russ...
- Time to get deadly serious about nukes
- The fight is between NMED and DOE regarding violat...
- McMIllan's strategy
- Next round of LANL fines coming soon
- Do you want a 20% INCOMPETENCY DISCOUNT from Anthe...
- Hewitt Finally Gets the Boot
- Sandia describes strained relationship with NNSA
- Nuclear Official Allowed to Oversee Former Client
- Rumblings about a possible RIF at LANL due to havi...
- LANL workers get radiation contamination
- Sandia criticized by NNSA:
- Working Less at LLNS
- Livermore Lab Case Continued To Allow Time For Med...
- The broken NNSA laboratories
- ▼ February (42)
- ► 2014 (309)
- ► 2013 (431)
- ► 2012 (258)
- ► 2011 (162)
- ► 2010 (157)
- ► 2009 (231)
- ► 2008 (374)