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. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Thursday, January 25, 2018

LANL Legacy cleanup to start soon

New LANL legacy clean up contract to start soon

http://newsroom.huntingtoningalls.com/releases/n3b-joint-venture-to-begin-transition-for-los-alamos-legacy-cleanup-contract


NEWPORT NEWS, Va., Jan. 24, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Huntington Ingalls Industries (NYSE:HII) announced today that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has issued a notice to proceed into transition for the Los Alamos Legacy Cleanup Contract to Newport News Nuclear BWXT-Los Alamos, LLC (N3B), a joint venture led by SN3, part of HII’s Technical Solutions division, with partner BWXT Technical Services Group, Inc. The 90-day contract transition period begins today and will lead into a base period of five years and option periods of three years and two years, respectively, with a total period of performance of up to 10 years and three months. The total value of the contract is $1.39 billion if all options are exercised.

58 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm assuming the when LANS had the contract for LANL cleanup the multi-million dollar cleanup projects were taxed like other lab projects to help contribute to the LANS employee pensions. Now that these multi-million dollar cleanup projects are going to be handled by a company distinct from LANS (or any other future lab operator), does this mean that the LANS pension will see less funding coming in from project taxation?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, less funding going into the pension but fewer people earning additional pension benefits too.

Anonymous said...

Would worry less about the pension red herring and more about the big hit to LDRD, which enjoyed a heavy tax on the EM work and went to a small group of researchers.

Anonymous said...

Retirement does not change if you are in TCP-2, since DC plans are about the same from employer to employer. The people that were in TCP-1 working for LANS and now find themselves working for the new contractor are in a whole other space and could be without any DB pension option now. Leave it to DOE to mess up the contract transition and not get this fixed.

Anonymous said...

"Would worry less about the pension red herring and more about the big hit to LDRD, which enjoyed a heavy tax on the EM work and went to a small group of researchers. "

Most of the researchers left and LDRD is now primarily used as augmentation to programs. You pretty much cannot get LDRD money unless it is tied in directly or supporting a program. The other odd thing is that as you point out LDRD is a tax, but LDRD itself is than taxed again at something like 200% so maybe it is not the "researchers" that should worry since at best only 1/3 of the actual LDRD "tax" went to them the rest went to some other kind of overhead. Do any of of the overheard rates make sense?

Anonymous said...

Nope. Wrong. LDRD is NEVER used to support existing programs and it is NOT taxed at anywhere near 200%.

Anonymous said...

The poster at 12:49 is not the only one confused over the numerous overhead rates at the lab. Now that the cleanup contract is taken out of the money generating pot, the outcome sticks the tax higher. There are so many administration staff to pay from all the different overhead budgets that the rates probably go up now to cover the salary of the non-researchers.

Anonymous said...

Nope. Wrong. LDRD is NEVER used to support existing programs and it is NOT taxed at anywhere near 200%.

January 29, 2018 at 5:40 PM

False, completely and totally false. A single ER can no longer even support a single staff member. An ER is about 320k a years, say a staff member gets say 125k a year, that is a tax of 250%. This is no secret and everyone knows it so how on earth do you "anywhere near 200%".

It is a matter of opinion on how much LDRD is used to support programs but yes there is a large amount of LDRD that is essentially just added on support for programs, this is easy to check by just looking looking at the LDRD LANL site and reading the titles. The idea that LDRD is NEVER used to support existing programs is laughable and no one who works at LANL would agree to that statement. You can always argue that that this is science done in direct support of the programs which is fine but it is a distortion of what the LDRD program was originally for. I also find it odd that you would have an issue with any of the claims of 12:49PM since they are widely understood and accepted at LANL. Do you still work at LANL or did you once work at LANL long ago because your statements are just way off. I suspect that you are not a LANL employee and have not been one for some time, is this correct?

Ok we are going to the "blog challenge" again. The idea goes like this, if you are correct as you claim, than surely of all these LANL people that read the blog some will come to blog to confirm what you say that LDRD is NEVER used to support existing programs or is not taxed anywhere near 200%.

Anonymous said...

It sounds like 9:46 AM doesn't know the difference between a tax and other payroll expenses. When a person makes $125K thats only their base salary. In addition, the lab must pay the lab's part of their pension costs, the lab's part of their health insurance, Social Security, unemployment insurance, etc. Those things roughly double the base salary but aren't "taxes" that pay for the management and operating costs.

Anonymous said...

It sounds like 9:46 AM doesn't know the difference between a tax and other payroll expenses. When a person makes $125K thats only their base salary. In addition, the lab must pay the lab's part of their pension costs, the lab's part of their health insurance, Social Security, unemployment insurance, etc. Those things roughly double the base salary but aren't "taxes" that pay for the management and operating costs.

January 30, 2018 at 4:22 PM

Sigh....sigh again. Are you just trolling? Since you took up the challenge I have to give some credit for trying. First of all how does the lab "pay" social security and unemployment, that comes out of your base salary. These additional things like pension and health insurance add up to what is called total compensation which usually 18-26% of your base pay:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/28/smallbusiness/salary-benefits/index.html, at a place like an NNSA at very most it would 33% of your base salary, you can also calculate this on Glassdoor and even reported by Wallace his talk It is not that 100% as you claim. How on earth did you get to such a number by the way? So the rest is just tax under you definition which again you will gets you close to a 200% rate. So it is not 250% but still within the 200% so 5:40pm is wrong. At least unlike 5:40pm you have tried to make an actual argument and even if you had been trolling it was still a provocative troll.

Anonymous said...

9:37 PM is wrong. The lab pays a part of SS on top of your base salary. You pay a part of SS (taken from your salary) and the lab pays a part (not taken from your salary) - that's the employer matching part. I'm surprised that everyone doesn't know this. Same for Medicare, the employer pays a part (not taken from your salary). Unlike SS and Medicare, the lab pays all of the federal unemployment tax.

In addition, the lab pays much better pension benefits than the cnn average that 9:37 quoted. The 18% -26% does NOT apply to the Lab. The lab TCP-1 pension is over that all by itself. Likewise, the lab's health insurance is much better than the average. When you add it all up, the lab's other payroll expenses doesn't quite match your base salary, but are still over 50% of your salary.

The additional taxes the lab puts on LDRD are closer to 45% than 200%.

Anonymous said...

The additional taxes the lab puts on LDRD are closer to 45% than 200%.

January 31, 2018 at 11:59 AM

If you go with your 50% you get 185k total comp for 125k employee. I doubt it is as high as 50% but over 26% is probably right, even with that a 125K person costs at least 375k so that is a more like 100% not 45%. In some cases depending on your code you will cost much more than 375k.

Still you have provided some good info, I am still a bit confused about that SS and unemployment insurgency as you claim something does not seem to add up. Is paying part of SS something only the lab does or do all employers do this?

Anonymous said...

Is paying part of SS something only the lab does or do all employers do this?

January 31, 2018 at 1:12 PM

C'mon dude, do your own homework! Try the SS website for answers.

Anonymous said...

Unemployment insurgency?

The DOE order on LDRD does not allow LDRD funding to be used for supporting existing programs. While you are doing your homework on SS, you might as well Google that too.

Anonymous said...

Payroll taxes are mostly transparent to employees, but shouldn't be since they control how many people get hired in a tight economy. Yeah, January 31, 2018 at 3:40 PM is right, do some homework about what goes into, or comes out of, your paycheck. Get educated about your life, because nobody else will.

Anonymous said...

C'mon dude, do your own homework! Try the SS website for answers.

January 31, 2018 at 3:40 PM

So what you are saying is that you don't know the answer. Why do you need to post that you don't know?

Anonymous said...


"The DOE order on LDRD does not allow LDRD funding to be used for supporting existing programs. "

Absolutely true, however in practice that is not what happens. The argument goes that it is fine line between if something is supporting a program or not and the current rule of thumb is if it is not funded by a program than it is not supported by a program so there is no issue with the DOE rules. You would have to look far and wide to find someone who think LDRD has not drastically changed over the years under these rules of thumb.

Anonymous said...

Having been on LDRD selection committees I can tell you that an LDRD proposal will not be funded if the proposal is considered to be appropriate for direct funding - even if there is no currently funded project. The labs are extremely risk averse. They won't fund an LDRD if there is any chance that the DOE will determine that the LDRD funds were spent to support a project and are thus unallowable costs.

Anonymous said...

"Having been on LDRD selection committees I can tell you that an LDRD proposal will not be funded if the proposal is considered to be appropriate for direct funding - even if there is no currently funded project"

Gotta call bs on this. Maybe you had been on a team many many years ago. Perhaps it was just the one committee you have been on. All you have to do is read the titles of recently funded LDRD projects and the trend will be very clear that huge chunks of it are now appropriate for direct
program funding. Just go do this before you post again.

Look LANL does not even care if it has LDRD anymore, it plays no role whatsoever in the yearly fee evaluation, LANL management would probably prefer just to get rid of it since they don't see the fee value it adds but keep it since Congress demands it.

Anonymous said...

At LANL, LDRD = crooked money laundering.

How about at LLNL?

Anonymous said...

It's silly to think that the lab would fund an LDRD that is really hidden funding for direct work and you can tell that just from reading LDRD titles.

Do you really think the lab would violate a DOE order that could cost the lab millions of dollars and put evidence of violation right in the titles?

Anonymous said...

"Do you really think the lab would violate a DOE order that could cost the lab millions of dollars and put evidence of violation right in the titles?"

Read the titles and decide for yourself.

Anonymous said...

Look LANL does not even care if it has LDRD anymore, it plays no role whatsoever in the yearly fee evaluation, LANL management would probably prefer just to get rid of it...

February 2, 2018 at 12:46 PM

Once again the fiction of "LANL management" which does not exist. No one works for LANL. Managers and employees currently work for LANS, next year who knows? LANL is a facility only, buildings and grounds, nothing more. The poster obviously lives in the pre-2006 world.

Anonymous said...

The poster lives in an ever more twisted psychotic world.

Anonymous said...

Ok, I read the titles and there is no way to tell if LDRD is funding programmatic work from the titles. No way at all, so since that would not be legal, I'm going to go with no LDRD is funding programmatic work.

Anonymous said...

February 2, 2018 at 5:51 PM

I am not sure what your point is. I would guess everyone understands LANL managers to be LANS managers. You however have not addressed if LANS or LANL managers or however you want to put it do not care if LDRD is or is not at the lab since there is no fee incentive for it. You can claim it is for "science" however that is what 6% of the fee and the lab is going to that regardless since there is not even a metric for what "science" at the lab is.

Anonymous said...

"At LANL, LDRD = crooked money laundering."

Bitter is as bitter does.

Anonymous said...

If you want to find out who you work for, you should read your W-2 form. I would hazard a guess that the director's, PADs', and ADs' W-2s say the same thing.

Anonymous said...

"Ok, I read the titles and there is no way to tell if LDRD is funding programmatic work from the titles."

Come on, I think you are out and out lying at this point. There is no way you have access to the LDRD titles and could make this statement. Can you please come clean about if you work at LANL? I suspect that you do not which makes it puzzling that you would care about LDRD.

"I'm going to go with no LDRD is funding programmatic work."

The common definition is that the if the program is not directly funding it than LDRD can fund it. I have to ask who you are since it is not a controversial point amongst anyone that a significant focus of LDRD has shifted from basic science to essentially programatic science, in fact it is essential that any LDRD has to state how it benefits programs ect or it will simply not be funded. There are endless conversations during the committees on why many of these thing should be funded by programs but the arguments are basically that the programs are not funding but it needs to be done LDRD is the only way to fund it and these are the proposals that get funded. This of course is not true in every case but anyone who has had any experience with LDRD systems will agree with the shift in focus over the years which is why your statement seems completely off.

The argument for the change in funding goes like this: programs do not do science anymore nor approach issues in a scientific manner, they are milestone driven with clear timelines and set of things to do. If the program runs into issue that we do not understand there is no way to address this since it is a science question and the only way to get funding
for something like is by LDRD and that is or should be the role of LDRD. This by the way is the standard argument that we given and is not something just made up by me. My understanding is that this is not how LDRD was ever intended but morphed over the years due the changing nature of how programatic work is conducted, with switch to milestones and an industrial engineering approach rather than research R%D approach.

Anonymous said...

"Ok, I read the titles and there is no way to tell if LDRD is funding programmatic work from the titles."


You did not read those titles, you don't even have access to them.

Anonymous said...

Nope, you are completely wrong. No LDRD funding is going to support programmatic work. If you had proof you would have named the projects that are receiving support from LDRD. You didn't because you can't.

Anonymous said...

Nope, you are completely wrong. No LDRD funding is going to support programmatic work. If you had proof you would have named the projects that are receiving support from LDRD. You didn't because you can't.

February 4, 2018 at 5:44 PM

I am not going to name the projects since I think that would be very unfair to the PIs, however we can go back to the old blog challenge again. I contend that everyone at LANL knows this about the current state of LDRD would would completely disagree with you, if you are are right than there must be a whole slew of people that will come to back up your point lets see hear from some of these people. I also contend that it is in fact you who does not have access the to LDRD funded projects else you have have named them to support your point. You have no idea of what LDRD, why we have it the lab, all the different thing about it, or the special calls they have every year, I doubt you work at LANL, maybe you did once a long time ago but not anymore, is this correct?

Anonymous said...

February 4, 2018 at 5:44 PM

By the way are the say guy that also said that no at LANL believes Bechtel is in charge and that everyone agrees it is UC? Well you were wrong about that and nobody came to post to back up your claim that time either. I can understand someone having different options and so on but you just seem out and out dishonest at times. I doubt you actually know anyone who does not believe that Bechtel is in charge. You have also claimed to have seen the LDRD project titles, again I simply do not believe you. You seem to have some agenda against UC and LANL in general that is so intense that you feel justified in your dishonesty or are blind to it.

Anonymous said...

"By the way are the say guy". Those are English words but they appear to be randomly placed.

No one has ever agreed with anything you've ever written.

Anonymous said...

11:47

My point is that you cannot tell from the LDRD titles whether the funding is being used to support a direct project. YOU cannot tell.

How could I possibly support my point by naming an LDRD project? It is up to YOU to name an LDRD that supports a direct project and YOU failed, just as predicted.

SHEESH.

Anonymous said...

"My point is that you cannot tell from the LDRD titles whether the funding is being used to support a direct project. YOU cannot tell. "

From the titles AND abstracts you can tell project is something could be funded by a program or in fact was in funded by a program in the past. Everyone would agree to this.

"It is up to YOU to name an LDRD that supports a direct project and YOU failed, just as predicted."

You do not have access to the titles. In fact the blog challenge was for other people to come in back up what you are saying, yet not a single post has done this, so you have failed the blog challenge yet again. None of the statements on the state LDRD are very controversial which you would know if you worked at the lab. Since it is pretty clear that you do not work at LANL and have not for some time I think your opinions on anything LANL are way off.

Anonymous said...

LDRD is simply a sucking cancer on the direct programs, for people who think they work at a university and only will deign to do "basic" research. I.e., Prima Donnas, who think that even working at a National Lab, they still might have a crack at a Nobel Prize. HaHaHaHa!! Roll uo your sleeves and work on the nuclear stockpile, or just realize you screwed up with your career choice (or at least, the location), and please leave.

PS: WFO too. Sucking off the DOE/NNSA owned LANL infrastructure teat.

Anonymous said...

February 6, 2018 at 5:42 PM

Are you just a troll? There are very good reasons for LDRD in fact many of the top field in direct programs came to LANL from LDRD through postdocs or other "basic science". If you had any actual contact with programs particularly certain programs you would know this. The fact that you do not is a sure sign that you do not work at LANL.

You would also realize that work on the nuclear stockpile in order to be at the most outstanding level must have both basic science as well cutting edge science just as it has always been from the start all the way through today and will continue to be in the future. Again anyone familiar with several aspects of programs and programatic science who works at the lab would know this which once again suggests that you do not work at the lab or have not been part of programatic science because you sure as hell don't know anything about it or even why it is done. Your comment about Prima Donnas also shows that you are jealous and bitter. Again I tend to think you are some ex-employee with some axe to grind.

Finley your comment about WFO is the big giveaway about you being off in la la land for reasons that are beyond obvious.

Hey it is a blog and you can post your point of view however you should expect to called out on your BS.

I would love to hear your reply. Have a nice day.

Anonymous said...

1:01 PM

Your "Blog Challenge" reflects on your (unsupported) claim too. You have NEVER had anyone write in to support your claim.

As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The onus for providing evidence to support such claims lies with the person who made the claim. Your claim has no credibility because you have provided exactly zero evidence.

I indeed do have the list of LDRD projects. We all have access to that list.

Why hasn't this thread inspired many people to comment? 1) Most people are tired of reading claims that aren't backed up by anything. 2) It often requires a fair amount of work to determine if the poster is correct or not and most people aren't willing to put in that amount of time and effort. 3) This is an old thread, few people are still reading it.

Anonymous said...


"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I think Carl Sagan was referring to claims like the earth is flat
or is only 6000 years old.

Saying that LDRD has degraded along with everything else at LANL is not an extraordinary claim by an extent. To be honest I cannot think of one person at LANL who would disagree with that assessment.

Lets just look at a few points and see if you agree or disagree with them. LANL has declined greatly as scientific, engineering-technical organization since 2005 and the contract change. LDRD in principle is a key component to the scientific-engineering health of the LANL, so a reasonable assumption is that either the focus of LDRD has changed, the way it is allocated or the way it is administered and this change has contributed to the decline. Of course there are other reasons as well. Do you agree or disagree with this and it is not "claim" that this is the view of most people at LANL. If you work at LANL as you "claim" all you have to do is ask someone, not hard. Could you name one thing that has improved at LANL since 2006. Why do you think so many of the top people from all parts of the lab have left in the last 12 years? Why do think the quality of the new people being hired at the lab are on "average" lower than they had been before 2006? Do you actually want to call these "extraordinary claims?

Look LANS has failed on every single level, some could argue it was the for-profit model others claim it is the extremely poor quality management that thrived under the for-profit Bechtel model. The point is that tremendous damage has been done to lab and hence the United States. perhaps this as been to the benefit of a few for personal monetary gains or whatever.

Anonymous said...

You should be mature enough to realize that someone who disgrees with your opinion is not necessarily lacking knowledge or experience in either LANL science, or LANL politics (the more important issue in this case). I have worked on stockpile issues for many years at LANL, and if you do not see the frustration and even resentment of the program managers and workers about the "prima donna" LDRD-supported people, you are blind. And the issue of WFO-supported people getting a free ride on LANL facilities and capabilities that were established specifically to support the stockpile also creates resentment. Deny all you want, but you might want to ask some folks whose career has been on nuclear weapons, if you know any.

Anonymous said...

"I have worked on stockpile issues for many years at LANL, and if you do not see the frustration and even resentment of the program managers and workers about the "prima donna" LDRD-supported people, you are blind. "

Perhaps I am blind, perhaps you are not being honest, or perhaps you are blind. The idea that program managers and workers in stockpile issues showing frustration or resentment toward your so called prima donnas for WFO or LDRD funded people simply does not ring true with may experience nor any other person I know, in general it is just the opposite. I am going be honest I think you lying not only because of my experience but becuase numbers do not even add up in any way nor mesh with reality. WFO simply does not take away any LANL facilities or capabilities as you say, not mention that the the large amount of exchange of personal from WFO to programs and back that has always occurred. Add to this that WFO people bring in funding and if you are LANL than you would know funding is everything. I have heard many complaints about LANL but WFO is not one, in fact I hear from all sorts of people from programs and otherwise and I have NEVER heard a single complaint about WFO. I would add that am very familiar with LLNL and they are always actively pursing WFO and I have never heard a complaint about it using up facilities. As for LDRD I know people from all sides have complaints about how it is used ,who gets it and the usual politics, but the idea that is some kind crippling tax on programs is again something I have never heard nor does it really add up all the much in terms of the actual taxes or how it is distributed. Someone claimed 8% which is incorrect, it can be up to 8% but it is always 6% or less, it is than taxed again. If you are legit than you should know that there is plenty of complaints about other taxes which are much larger because this is what the people actually complain about. I simply do not buy that people on the pragmatic side are calling people who have some LDRD and or WFO as prima donnas. You have also not addressed that a large number of people on the program sides have initially come to the lab on LDRD and have always understood the value of in terms of recruitment, so these people are hardly going to complain about being some kind of burden. You seem also be a bit naive about LDRD since many program people have that do get LDRD not to mention many others who usually have combination of LDRD and program money that are thought of very highly in the programs. The idea that there is all these LDRD only people is simply not true if you look at the actual numbers so the idea that there is some kind of prima donna is nonsense. By the way do consider office of science money, like basic energy science DOE funding, NIH, DARPA, ONR, and DOD funding to be that "evil" WFO that you talk about all of which bring in funding to the lab, not mention can lead to advancements on the programatic side, and is something lab has always been doing? Also do you even know what the lab mission is and all the different aspects of it, you know stuff like Global Security ect, stuff that makes perfect sense to be doing at LANL and has always been done at LANL?

Anonymous said...

"Deny all you want, but you might want to ask some folks whose career has been on nuclear weapons, if you know any."

I don't believe a word of what you are saying, you are total fake. Do not besmirch the people at LANL or LLNL, you do not speak for them.


Anonymous said...

3:58 PM.

Your claim was that LDRD is being used to support funded programs. That claim is extraordinary because it accuses LANL of violating Federal regulations that prohibit LDRD from being used to support funded programs. You provided exactly zero evidence that your claim is true. Now you're trying to deflect because you don't have any evidence. None at all.

Listen up. This is not hard. UC leads LANS. UC has always been in charge of LANS. Any blame for the failure of LANS goes right to UC. UC also failed in the period before 2006 when they lost the LANL contract the first time. The DOE/NNSA thought that adding industrial partners to UC would improve UC's poor performance but the DOE was wrong. Adding minor partners did not fix UC's gross incompetence.

Anonymous said...

February 8, 2018 at 7:21 AM

You are bit out there. Again the issue with LDRD in many cases it now funds things that could be funded by programs in principle once where funded by programs the lines have been blurred over the years in my opinion and that of many other people there is nothing extraordinary about, so there is no deflection at all. Another thing many of the changes in LDRD over the last 12 years we have been told have been coming from DOE which is a push toward more program "like" or "relevant" work. This seems to be in contradiction with what LDRD was started out as. I would guess the change in LDRD has to with the contract change in which brought in the corporate viewpoint rather than scientific or technical viewpoint but maybe DOE has indeed pushed for more changes for mission oriented work, although I have never seen an explicit statement by DOE.

Why do you care anyway, you seem to just hate LANL, hate UC and hate scientists of all types. I would guess you would love just be rid LDRD, and all the evil WFO stuff. Why are you so bitter, you have never addressed that issue?

Anonymous said...

"Listen up. This is not hard. UC leads LANS. UC has always been in charge of LANS."

Its Bechtel, the entire culture of the lab changed after the contract changed, what was new...Bechtel. Beside yourself could you please produce one other person who thinks Bechtel is not in charge at LANL? Maybe everyone is wrong but that is the perception and are you going to deny that is what most people at LANL think?

"Any blame for the failure of LANS goes right to UC."

Bechtel

"UC also failed in the period before 2006 when they lost the LANL contract the first time. "

UC did not fail, nobody believes that story not even NNSA or DOE, if you happened to know anyone from these places you would know that. The whole thing was about privatization to make for profit for anything in the United States, it was huge craze that got going in 2000. Money was to made off LANL so it happened. An issue to this day that you will not address is this, if UC failed LANL and LANL was so bad, than why did they also privatize LLNL, that would make no sense if UC had only "failed" LANL. The whole point was to privatize everything for cash baby. It was not just LANL, this whole crazy privatization thing was the reason we went to war with Iraq. It was just out and out corruption. UC never failed and even you know that. You have some other issue with them that is personal but you will not come clean with what that is.

Anonymous said...

UC leads LANS. UC has always been in charge of LANS.

February 8, 2018 at 7:21 AM

If you were at LANL in 2006 when Bechtel (not UC) descended and started dictating to everyone in every program, and especially support areas, what was going to immediately change and how, you would know better. The Bechtel people were treated, and feared, like gods, and the employees feared them and resented their lack of knowedge combined with arrogance and seemingly absolute authority to impose anything they wanted. One Bechtel person in a room full of long-term LANL employees would just take over and lay down the "law." All of the still in place former UC managers were very quiet and let this chaos happen. UC was definitely not "in charge."

Anonymous said...

One other person who knows Bechtel is not in charge... Right here. Living it.

Anonymous said...

UC most certainly did fail. The Inspector General found that the UC management tried to intimidate the staff to not talk about LANL's theft and embezzlement problems. That's why Browne was forced yo leave. Thus was followed by Nanos costing taxpayers 100s of millions in lost productivity for no real reason.

Anonymous said...

February 9, 2018 at 12:27 PM

Your rewriting of history is amusing, but totally false. Browne was forced out because he rightfully stood up for the truth about all the false charges against LANL and its employees. Not to say there weren't some true problems, but nothing like what some in the press (based on leaks from disgruntled LANL employees like Walp and Duran), DOE, and even in UC, tried to push. Browne had employees' backs, and he lost because of his stance. The idea that Nanos lost 100's of millions "for no reason" is BS - it occurred because UC stupidity and fear installed him and then tried to support him after clear evidence he was a megalomaniacle jerk.

Anonymous said...

UC most certainly did fail. The Inspector General found that the UC management tried to intimidate the staff to not talk about LANL's theft and embezzlement problems. That's why Browne was forced yo leave. Thus was followed by Nanos costing taxpayers 100s of millions in lost productivity for no real reason.

February 9, 2018 at 12:27 PM

UC did not fail, you have to remember when it cam to fighting corruption they fired Walp and Dorn, all you have to do google their names along with Chuck Montano and you will get all the information you need about them, as they are trying to exploit the suicide of LANL employee in order to make a buck by selling books, it is beyond disgraceful to the family of the person. Now ask yourself this, what kind of people would do that? By the way there was no theft or embezzlement problems at LANL, the Mustang never existed, when all this nonsense was followed by studies that have shown LANL had a far I mean far lower incident of these issues than other labs or industry. Get your facts straight. Browne left because of WHL, everyone knows, and again that was pushed all out of proportion to in order to privatize LANL for profit. Once again you refuse to address the issue as to why LLNL was also privatized, it did not have WHL and the so called culture of theft that never existed. It was all about money and nothing else. You clearly have some agenda, perhaps it is money, just a hunch given some of the stuff you have been saying.

Anonymous said...

Most LANL management meetings didn't have a single Bechtel person in attendance. Why? There has only been two (sometimes even just one) high level Bechtel managers at LANL, Bechtel is outnumbered in management by about 10 to 1.

You know UC is in charge because UC has fired the top Bechtel person twice.

Anonymous said...

February 9, 2018 at 7:03 PM

Bechtel Fanboy much?

"UC has fired the top Bechtel person twice." Who was that? Beth Sellers was not a Bechtel person, but she did go to work for Bechtel afterward, this was to send a message to LANL. There was some other guy but I though he had to find a family. Look go read the book "The Profiteers" by Sally Denton, it is a great book and it explains exactly what has happened at LANL, not to mention the other recent issues that Bechtel has been having with other parts of DOE.

https://www.amazon.com/Profiteers-Bechtel-Men-Built-World/dp/1476706476

UC is the good guy and they have always been the good guy.

Anonymous said...

9:27 is wrong. Beth Sellers was indeed a Bechtel employee. Bechtel hired her into the Deputy position. She was the second Bechtel upper manager fired by UC. The first Bechtel Deputy fired by UC was John Mitchell. He was asked to resign over mishandling of classified material. The guards even escorted him out.

Since LANS took over, UC has held the Director's position (because UC is in charge) and Bechtel has held the Deputy position. This arrangement is in the LANS contract between UC and the rest of the minor partners.

Anonymous said...

Not this again. UC got into huge trouble for illegally firing Walp and Doran (not Dorn). The two sued UC for improper termination and WON the lawsuit. UC was forced to pay Walp almost $1 million for being terminated inappropriately. UC was also forced by the courts to reinstate Doran. Doran became the Head of Security for ALL UC campuses including LANL (at the time). In another incident that greatly embarrassed UC, UC issued a public apology for illegally firing these whistleblowers.

The DOE Inspector General issued a report that backed up Walp and Doran concluding that LANL/UC management actively tried to prevent lower level managers from talking with investigators about the $1.5 million dollars in funding and equipment that went missing from LANL. Pete Bussolini went to prison for embezzling over $300,000 in equipment and supplies. Browne was forced to resign.

Both UC and Browne are on record saying his resignation was owing to "perceptions" of financial mismanagement. Yeah, like the perceptions of the DOE Inspector General. Browne's resignation had NOTHING whatsoever to do with Wen Ho Lee, that's completely clear. At the time Browne resigned, WHL had already been released from prison with an apology from the judge. He had been on the street for two years - shopping in Furr's and writing his book. Other than WHL's lawsuit (which he won), the WHL incident had been over for years at the time Browne was forced to resign.

Anonymous said...

Here's an article that references the culture of theft that really did exist at LANL. 6:23 PM has seen this article before, he knows what really happened, but he continues to spread the same falsehoods.

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jan/31/local/me-alamos31

Anonymous said...

February 11, 2018 at 9:00 AM

There are a many other articles showing how the culture of theft was total and absolute nonsense, these have all been put on the blog dozens of times over the years yet you have ignored them every time. There was never a culture of theft. As for Dorn, Walp, and Montano you again do not address the elephant which is that they have tried to exploit the death of a LANL employee in order to make money, these people have spent last part of their lives just trying to make money of LANL, their actions speak volumes and says all you need to know about any credibility they had. They had horrible horrible reputations at LANL by every body who saw right through them for what they are. All you have to do is find the TV interview that Walp or Dorn did on Fox news it is beyond obvious what they are. The so called 1.5 million was actually less than that in the end, yes Bssoolini went to jail and one person does not make a culture of theft. By the way you do know that Walp and Dorn had nothing to do with his prosecution. In fact if you had any idea what you are talking about you would know that Walp and Dorn actually totally screwed up their so called investigations with their sloppy work, endless talk and the fact they went to the press and THAT is why they got fired. Again this was all fleshed out on this blog , newspapers and and other blogs many many times. UC did the right thing firing these guys due to the damage they did cause and would have caused. UC did the right thing ethically and professionally and everyone agrees to this expect a few blog posters, who I just have hunch might have an agenda when it comes to this particular topic ;).

Browns resignation had everything to do with WHL thats completely clear.

Anonymous said...

Here are a few comes from some other posters over the past year of so about these guys. This is just form one thread, over the years you have hundreds of post on these guys.

Burick is just a sad case who held everything inside, even with his wife and friends. But Walp and Duran went way beyond their authority and were fired for it immediately, as they should have been. They were not hired as "cops," but security investigators. The "cop" function was not left to real cops, as it should have been. The folks who fired them were then fired for seeming to have shut down an investigation that should never have been started by LANL personnel in the first place. The entire process was a function of top management (UC), in a panic over Congressional investigations, having already decided who was going to be let go (Browne) and trying to gain control of unexpected events by letting the new guy (Nanos) do all the dirty work, which, as he showed later, he was all too willing to do. Very sad for the consummate professionals with many decades of national service who had to take the hit.

Stan Busboom convinced Joe Salgado to hire Walp, who then hired Doran. Salgado was an ex-cop and former prosecutor. The premise of these hires was totally misguided and had to do with property inventory and loss. In the end, the reputational and financial fallout, including firings and Congressional hearings and buyouts evidenced just how much damage a small group of people in the wrong positions can do at a large institution such as Los Alamos.
February 5, 2016 at 6:28 AM

This does confirm what is being said about Doran and Walp in this thread. No ability to understand what the Lab does, nor any evidence of logical thinking. They recall several cases of petty theft at a complex $2 billion enterprise. From here, they make a logical leap that the entire two billion a year is wasted. Sure, it's bad that among the 10,000+ workers there were a few bad apples. But there was no culture of corruption or embezzlement. The vast majority of the workers were honest, dedicated people, working to defend this nation. To assert that all of them were stealing billions of taxpayer dollars is not only false it is an outrageous slander.
February 6, 2016 at 11:07 PM

Wall, Duran, Nanos, Montano, and their cronies will never contemplate, let alone realize, the damage they've done to this country for a few dishonest media sound bites.
February 7, 2016 at 11:17 AM

A very poor position from which to see what "really happened." Some of us interacted with the principals on an almost-daily basis. There is no fear, just weariness and disgust for Walp, Duran, and Montano for still trying to get their 15 minutes of fame. I guess they think enough time has passed that their lies and misdeeds will not be recognized or remembered.
February 9, 2016 at 9:40 AM

SUGGEST NEW TOPICS HERE

Submit candidates for new topics here only. Stay on topic with National Labs' related issues. All submissions are screened first for ...