Skip to main content

LLNL gets good report

Image
By scooby
LLNL gets good report After hearing about all the negative IG reports on LANL for years, this is a welcome break. It also should put to rest any questions about how LLNL allocated direct and indirect costs. http://www.doe.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/04/f0/OAS-L-13-07.pdf

Comments

Anonymous said…
Returning to compliance with regulations is good only in relation to the fact they were out of compliance when abusing the discriminatory overhead rates long after the completion of the build of NIF.

The fact that they are returning the "savings" to other programs brought about by the corrected overhead rates, back into NIF, is just evidence returning to the abusive practices, as the end effect is the same - discriminatory overhead rates that penalize non-NIF programs.
4/24/2013 3:50 PM
Anonymous said…
A relevent fact to consider is what is the ratio of IG complaints received per site vs. how many IG audits or inspections were actually "opened". Further - how long did it take to get a report published once the audit or inspection began? Two years? Three years? And what was the relevency by then...pretty uninteresting stuff if it is made stale enough.
5/01/2013 9:06 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
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...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
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.
124 comments
Read more

LLNL un-diversity

By scooby
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!
79 comments
Read more