Skip to main content

Report: Nuke lab failed to keep some information classified


ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — A lack of managerial oversight at Los Alamos National Laboratory led to improper disclosures of sensitive information, according to a report the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Inspector General recently issued.
In a summary of the report released Wednesday, the inspector general said the lab's classification officer at times misclassified national security information. The summary says there were at least six incidents where lab documents were misclassified.
The report said "despite acknowledging that they had received complaints from employees, we found that LANS management officials had not taken action to investigate or resolve alleged violations by the LANL Classification Officer."
The inspector general says it has made recommendations to boost management of information in its full report, which is not being shared with the public.
The investigation partly stems from last year's firing of a lab worker for an article he wrote. Santa Fe political scientist James Doyle had been working for the lab for 17 years and was on the nonproliferation team when he was dismissed.
According to Doyle, the article was approved for publication by the lab's classification office. But lab officials did an about-face after it was published and said portions of the article were classified, Doyle said.
He and his attorney filed an appeal in August of the dismissal of a whistle blower complaint to the Department of Energy Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Comments

Anonymous said…
"It's the day in and day out safety and security issues at Los Alamos"

Vic Reis, 1997, Former DOE DP-1
Anonymous said…
"It's time to write Jim Doyle a big settlement check."

Ernie Moniz, S-1, 2015.
Anonymous said…
Once again, Reis never said any such thing.
Anonymous said…
Once again, Reis never said any such thing.

February 18, 2015 at 8:12 AM

Ask Dr. Robin Staffin. He was there at the time. Or do you not know who Dr. Staffin is?
Anonymous said…
Good Grief! Do you mean the little red-head kid always under foot on the fourth floor? The one that accumulates all those "Advisor to the Assistant Deputy yada, yada, yada" titles?
Anonymous said…
Yeah, he be staffin' and he be robbin'.
Anonymous said…
I know who Robin Staffin is. I've never been able to figure out what he does. Apparently he speaks for Vic Reis.

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

tcp1 looking good

I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...