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


  • Stay on topic.
  • No foul, vulgar, or inflammatory language.
  • No name calling.
  • No personal attacks or put-downs of other blog users.
  • Be patient. Moderator checks and approves new posts several times a day.

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 ...

Monday, May 27, 2019

DOE whistleblower problem

DOE contractor employees are misled from the get go regarding the investigative authority of DOE to address whistleblower claims

When Hanford contractors Bechtel and URS (also members of the LLNS LLC) were asked to provide records of a Hanford whistleblower employee, Bechtel and URS refused, and essentially told the DOE IG, yes the DOE IG, to take a hike. 

It would appear that DOE claims to offer whistleblower protection knowing that they have no authority to demand records to prove or disprove contractor retaliation. This uncommunicated detail which appears to be a form of fraud, simply buys more time for DOE contractors to mitigate whistleblower issues using tax payer dollars.

Friday, May 24, 2019

Another Scandal !

Another Scandal
Former LANL scientist indicted for making false statements

SANTA FE, N.M. — A former top scientist with Los Alamos National Laboratories has been federally charged with three counts of making false official statements about “his involvement with a program established by the Chinese government to recruit people with access to and knowledge of foreign technology and intellectual property,” according to a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Hanford worker contaminated

Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Another set of unfulfilled NNSA FOIA requests go to District Court

Another set of unfulfilled NNSA FOIA requests go to District Court

On May 9, 2019, my Attorney for FOIA matters filed "Rivera v. National Nuclear Security Administration et al" in CA Northern District Court. The complaint alleges failure to provide timely responses to 4 NNSA FOIA requests. In summary, the FOIAs requested the following records:

1. NNSA LFO Contracting Officer review of legal fee reimbursement allowability based on DOE Acquisition Letter AL 2016-06 that 
requires review of underlying contractor misconduct in whistleblower cases 

2. Career indefinite employee and supplemental labor employee lay offs at LLNL from June 1, 1984 to November 1, 2013

3. Records relating to the LLNL HEAF 10kg port glass rupture during an August 30, 2013 experiment 

4. Legal fee reimbursements to LLNS for the period of May 18, 2018 to January 18, 2019 related to my whistleblower case

In my previous CA Northern District Court FOIA related proceeding regarding whistleblower related expenses, the NNSA did not provide the requested internal aggregate man-hour charges (available through project/task records) of LLNS employees related to my whistleblower case. These expenses may include internal man-hours charges for strategy meetings, testimony, depositions, coaching, statement construction, statement edits, investigation guidance etc., all charged to LLNS contracted funds. The use of contracted funds for this purpose did not require the oversight or approval of the NNSA. As such, these aggregate internal time charges were directly extracted from contracted funds without the need of a reimbursement allowability process. 

Anthony Rivera

Thursday, May 2, 2019

Pedigree and productivity

This is an interesting study that shows that faculty productivity depends on mostly on the institution where one is at not the institution where one got their Phd.

The message is that if the organization is excellent it brings up everything. This was an argument used in the past at the labs as why we needed excellence at the labs. In other words having excellence in open science will bring up the quality of all parts of the lab. 

Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days