Skip to main content

Homer's answer on 2/21/08 is

The question was:

When can we expect the responses to the RFC for the 3161 plan to be made public?

DOE rep Homer Williamson said:

I don't have a firm date but I know HQ is back to reviewing them after focusing on the VSSOP recently.

My commentary:

Either there have been thousands, perhaps millions of responses for DOE HQ to take this long to review them or there is a one person doing the review at their spare time. Comments from employees dont seem to be given priority.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Doh!
Anonymous said…
Never mind the comments, how about showing us the plan. All that's out there is the draft.
Anonymous said…
Input/comments to NNSA are really valueless ... Comments probably out when everything (VSSOP, ISP)is over and completed. Check NTS 3161/comments ... seems like NNSA may be required to response, but will not change anything unless they are 'required'. Actual response(NTS/comments): "Comments noted. No action required". The operative word is "required" ... fair, equal, tax advantage, cost-saving, etc can't justify changes. Only if it's "required" and "required" is when it's written in contract or policy !!!
Anonymous said…
Unfortunately, the site-specific plan will not be posted on the DOE page. DOE says that it is a LLNS plan, and LLNS did not post it on the internal web page. The only response I have seen to inquiry about it is that the link on "retooling the lab" which pointed to the DOE page was removed.

A colleague showed me what I believe to be the approved site specific plan, and I noticed that it was marked OUO. As such, it can't be posted on the web.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Anonymous said…
February 23, 2008 8:40 AM

What the BFS. Why is it OUO. Are we special or are there just to many LLNS secrets. It's time to find them an post them for all to read even if you have to carry the document on google pages and then only post the link to it. I'm tired of being treated like a mushroom.

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.

LLNL un-diversity

Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!