Anonymously contributed:
Frank Russo is leaving LLNL.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Director's response to Contra Costa Times Story
Anonymously contributed:
Subject: DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE TO LAB EMPLOYEES
E-LINE: A Message to Laboratory Employees From The Director
Several local newspapers carried a story this morning with the
headline: Laboratory Hides the Cost of the Colossal NIF Laser. The
claim in the story is that the overhead charges for the NIF project
and the National Ignition Campaign have been inappropriately low.
This is incorrect. I'd like to tell you the facts.
As is the common practice for many Department of Energy construction
projects, NIF uses a construction overhead charge that ensures that
the project pays for the Laboratory-wide services that it uses and
requires. There are two reasons for this:
-- It is important to ensure that the overall finances of the host
institution are not distorted as the project initially grows and then
declines. This ensures that the true cost of the project is properly
reported. This is why the NIF and the NIC pay directly for services
that are otherwise paid for indirectly on other Laboratory programs.
-- The use of "construction rates" was explicitly approved by the
Department of Energy, with concurrence in writing by the Chief
Financial Officer of the Department. The existing and approved rate
structure forms the basis for the DOE budget for the completion of
the National Ignition Campaign.
Each year, the Laboratory discloses to the Department of Energy its
overhead structure and charges. This "disclosure statement" includes
the nature and the basis for the construction rates, and is annually
approved by the Department. LLNL accounting practices for NIF have
been consistently reviewed and approved by DOE and applied by the
Laboratory since the inception of the project. Additionally, we have
had numerous external groups review our practices, and they have
concurred that our approach is fully compliant with DOE rules and
regulations, with our disclosed and approved practices, and with
accepted interpretations of the Cost Accounting Standards. A recent
DOE-sponsored audit came to a conclusion consistent with this
approach -- that NIF must be treated as a "construction
work-in-progress"activity through completion of the National Ignition
Campaign in late 2012.
As you may have read, an accounting review by the NNSA Service Center
in Albuquerque, NM, reached a different conclusion -- a conclusion
that is not consistent with more than 10 years of prior DOE approvals
and practices.
The Laboratory stands by the DOE-approved accounting practices that
have been used throughout the construction and commissioning of the
NIF and the NIC program.
Progress in using NIF has been spectacular. We are looking forward to
achieving fusion in the laboratory. It will truly be a game changer.
George Miller
Laboratory Director
Subject: DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE TO LAB EMPLOYEES
E-LINE: A Message to Laboratory Employees From The Director
Several local newspapers carried a story this morning with the
headline: Laboratory Hides the Cost of the Colossal NIF Laser. The
claim in the story is that the overhead charges for the NIF project
and the National Ignition Campaign have been inappropriately low.
This is incorrect. I'd like to tell you the facts.
As is the common practice for many Department of Energy construction
projects, NIF uses a construction overhead charge that ensures that
the project pays for the Laboratory-wide services that it uses and
requires. There are two reasons for this:
-- It is important to ensure that the overall finances of the host
institution are not distorted as the project initially grows and then
declines. This ensures that the true cost of the project is properly
reported. This is why the NIF and the NIC pay directly for services
that are otherwise paid for indirectly on other Laboratory programs.
-- The use of "construction rates" was explicitly approved by the
Department of Energy, with concurrence in writing by the Chief
Financial Officer of the Department. The existing and approved rate
structure forms the basis for the DOE budget for the completion of
the National Ignition Campaign.
Each year, the Laboratory discloses to the Department of Energy its
overhead structure and charges. This "disclosure statement" includes
the nature and the basis for the construction rates, and is annually
approved by the Department. LLNL accounting practices for NIF have
been consistently reviewed and approved by DOE and applied by the
Laboratory since the inception of the project. Additionally, we have
had numerous external groups review our practices, and they have
concurred that our approach is fully compliant with DOE rules and
regulations, with our disclosed and approved practices, and with
accepted interpretations of the Cost Accounting Standards. A recent
DOE-sponsored audit came to a conclusion consistent with this
approach -- that NIF must be treated as a "construction
work-in-progress"activity through completion of the National Ignition
Campaign in late 2012.
As you may have read, an accounting review by the NNSA Service Center
in Albuquerque, NM, reached a different conclusion -- a conclusion
that is not consistent with more than 10 years of prior DOE approvals
and practices.
The Laboratory stands by the DOE-approved accounting practices that
have been used throughout the construction and commissioning of the
NIF and the NIC program.
Progress in using NIF has been spectacular. We are looking forward to
achieving fusion in the laboratory. It will truly be a game changer.
George Miller
Laboratory Director
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Anonymous said...
There is an email circulating to APS members asking the APS to reconsider its statement on climate change in light of the "Climategate" release of internal correspondence of members of IPCC. The lab is in a central position because of its long standing program to compare in an objective way the various models of climate. I wonder whether the lab is just reacting or seriously looking into whether any of its work might have been influenced by possible "filtering the data". See this link:
Open Letter on Global Warming
December 4, 2009 2:57 PM
There is an email circulating to APS members asking the APS to reconsider its statement on climate change in light of the "Climategate" release of internal correspondence of members of IPCC. The lab is in a central position because of its long standing program to compare in an objective way the various models of climate. I wonder whether the lab is just reacting or seriously looking into whether any of its work might have been influenced by possible "filtering the data". See this link:
Open Letter on Global Warming
December 4, 2009 2:57 PM
Anonymous said...
Man loses suit vs online pharmacy
Maybe those online prescription drug sales aren't so nifty after all.
December 3, 2009 5:17 PM
Man loses suit vs online pharmacy
Maybe those online prescription drug sales aren't so nifty after all.
December 3, 2009 5:17 PM
Latest rumors about LLNL/LLNS...
Anonymous said...
Latest rumors about LLNL/LLNS...
December 5, 2009 7:18 AM
Latest rumors about LLNL/LLNS...
December 5, 2009 7:18 AM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Physics Today has an article about what went wrong with the LANL/LLNL contract. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstod...
-
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 ...
-
Global Security Newswire U.S. Nuclear Weapons Agency to Delay Work on Interoperable Warhead By Global Security Newswire Staff February 18, ...
