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

Rumor corner

By scooby
LLNS may have excluded the wrong people in last VSSOP? The exclusions were based on outdated job categories and related skills. ULM are now thinking that in the future, job categories and functional areas will have to be re-defined. The next VSSOP/ISP will be based on the new categories and functional areas. The questions I have are: 1) Why didnt they think of that before the transition. It seems like their style is “change things as you go”. Planning is out the window! 2) Who will give input on the new changes? The next RIF apparently is going to be more lucrative than the VSSOP. Depending on the length of employment, a RIFed person, not only gets their 1 week pay per year of service but also from 30 to 120 days notice, essentially 30 to 120 days pay. Please feel free to comment on the rumors or add new ones you actually heard.
92 comments
Read more