Physics Today has an article about what went wrong with the LANL/LLNL contract.
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/69/3/10.1063/PT.3.3103
It has a lot of comments from Tyler Przybylek and little analysis of what might have gone wrong with the contracting process. Rarely do these articles seem to be written from real-world knowledge of what has gone on, but they do get a few things right. Not sure Przybylek was the best person to ask.
It has a lot of comments from Tyler Przybylek and little analysis of what might have gone wrong with the contracting process. Rarely do these articles seem to be written from real-world knowledge of what has gone on, but they do get a few things right. Not sure Przybylek was the best person to ask.
Comments: Reminder: comments should be made only on posted posts, not in "suggested topics". I will not publish comments made in "suggested topics".

The article states: "In January the NNSA and LANS agreed to pay $74 million to settle claims by the New Mexico Environment Department related to the accident."
Wrong! NNSA payed the $74M fine to NMED. LANS didn't pay anything. Raises questions about the article with this glaring error at the beginning.
Wrong! NNSA payed the $74M fine to NMED. LANS didn't pay anything. Raises questions about the article with this glaring error at the beginning.


Yeah, LANS did agree that NNSA would pay the fine they were responsible for.


NNSA does not print money, so the $74M had to come from taxes that NNSA levied on other programs. Does anyone know (not speculate, but know) whether the tax was levied across all sites (LLNL,Pantex,Y-12,etc), or was it only levied on LANL programs? In other words, whose lunch did LANS eat?