Sep 10, 2007

What Are LANS and NNSA Trying to Cover Up?

Something to while away the time while waiting for the other FY'08 shoe to drop.

Yesterday was the first time I'd ever actually read anything of POGO's, and even my jaded expectations regarding LANL management, DOE, and NNSA were mildly shocked. This excerpt from the first document referenced in Sunday's POGO post is actually a bit of an eye-opener, even by LANL standards. The document was discussing the reasons for repeated cyber-security violations at LANL. Down towards the bottom this little bit caught my attention:

Two fundamental flaws allow these security breaches to continue. The first, the Department of Energy’s new policy implemented at Los Alamos allows the contractor to investigate itself where there is a security breach or safety violation. Clearly this policy needs to be reconsidered. The second flaw is Title 32 of the National Nuclear Security Administration which seriously limits the Office of Independent Oversight’s access to NNSA sites. The NNSA Act mandates that investigators for DOE must wait for an invitation from NNSA before being allowed to investigate.

I mean, really: what are NNSA and LANS trying to cover up at LANL? LANS is allowed to investigate itself? DOE cannot, unless specifically invited to by NNSA?

Wow.

Finally, one other observation regarding POGO. I've noticed how fashionable it is for LANL staff to bash the crap out of POGO each time LANL gets mentioned by them following a LANL screw-up. In fact, I had begun to wonder if I was the only one who thought the general POGO condemnations that spouted from lanl.gov at each new POGO posting weren't just a little too shrill. A comment from yesterday's post seems to be voicing that same question:

Once again we demonstrate why we have so many enemies in Congress and elsewhere. POGO is the messenger, and while we may hate the messenger, the message is valid nonetheless. Like the whistleblower's society is so adept at punishing, we're now venting on the messenger (once again), while ignoring the message. It can not be denied my dear colleagues that these incidents occurred. Furthermore, it's highly unlikely, knowing the nature of Lab leadership, that what we’ve being told by Lab management over the years is even remotely reflective of the truth. Perhaps this is why outside forces feel a need to intervene because, as in the case of the proverbial iceberg, we're probably only being allowed by the officers of our ship to see the tip of the problem. And perhaps that’s why then, we react so harshly to those from the outside that tell us the problem is greater than we’re being led to believe by our leadership. In my view, at this juncture (and we may not like this view but, I pose it nonetheless) the DOE is the only entity that can truly fix the problem at the Lab and, in this case, the problem does very much start at the top (as with most institutional problems) with management. But since the DOE revolving door has provided much of that leadership, it remains now to be seen whether Congress can force the DOE to fix the problem it (the DOE) itself has created.

A bit wordy, perhaps, but it still makes a good point.

--Gussie

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, then. It's no wonder the Mitchell business never saw the light of day. I wonder what else NNSA & LANS are keeping under their hat?

Anonymous said...

So, due the the wording of the NNSA organization act, the DOE Office of Independent Oversight has to ask permission to do an inspection at any NNSA site (not just LANL). So what? That's what "semi-autonomous" means and that's what congress intended. Except for minor scheduling negotiations, HSS has never been refused an "invitation." One needs to consider the significant record of agreements and re-agreements between DOE and NNSA regarding these kinds of things since the act passed. Also, the DOE safety and security directives, which apply equally to NNSA, specify that HSS will do oversight of NNSA sites. That's why NNSA has no office of its own. A little research goes a long way before making unsustantiated accusations, or repeating those of others.

Anonymous said...

9:41 am:

News flash: there WASN'T any "Mitchell business."

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
9:41 am:

News flash: there WASN'T any "Mitchell business."

9/10/07 9:43 AM


you're right. I'm from the third ring of Saturn.

I can't back my statement up with any fact. Can you?

Anonymous said...

So, is LANL the only DOE site where DOE is allowed to investigate an incident only upon explicit invitation from NNSA?

Anonymous said...

NNSA isn't semi-autonomous, it's semi-accountable.

Anonymous said...

I imagine LANS and NNSA *are* trying to keep a permanent lid on the Mitchel biz. Can you imagine how unfriendly Congress would be to concept of funding a pit production budget for LANL if the news of the number two guy having done classified work on a LANL laptop from the comfort of his own living room?

As it is, Congress can hardly stand our guts, if that particular bit of cyber-security arrogance were to officially leak out Stupak would pop a garter.

Anonymous said...

That's what happened to Mitchell - he was doing classified work from home? That can't be true.

Anonymous said...

Just go to google and search on

lanl john mitchell classified laptop

It was covered pretty will in the lanl-the-corporate-story.blogspot.com blog. Bottom line: a few people claimed first-hand knowledge of the infraction and the subsequent cover-up at the time, but LANS was able to bury the story. The official version of why Mitchell left before his contractually-mandated two-year term with LANS was up was that he suddenly "discovered that he had a family".

Anonymous said...

Just keep piling on, Gussie. Nice.

Gussie Fink-Nottle said...

If you only want good news about LANL, 5:46, I'd suggest that you stick to reading the NewsBulletin.

--Gussie

Anonymous said...

9:42/9:43AM sounds like an NNSA/LANS public affairs appologist. Nothing wrong with the tail wagging the dog? This is accountability? Allowing the fox to report the number of missing chickens and/or decide when to invite the farmer in to check for himself? And you see nothing wrong with this scenario? I don't give a damn if Congressional hacks have given the military-industrial complex a pass when it comes to accountability. This is wrong...plain and simple. We the. taxpayer deserve much better than this charade.

Anonymous said...

What's NNSA and LANS trying to cover up? How about everything; like salaries (no longer public), security lapses (Mitchel) cost overruns, fraudulant purchases, sexual hassment by high level officials. (al Marquez), and all sorts of run of the mill waste and abuse. Is it any wonder nobody wants an independent oversight function at Los Alamos? Plus that's something Saint Pete would never allow.

Anonymous said...

"If you only want good news about LANL, 5:46, I'd suggest that you stick to reading the NewsBulletin.

--Gussie "

What's worse (and more dishonest)? Only good news, or only bad news?

Anonymous said...

9/10 7:38 pm:

"What's NNSA and LANS trying to cover up? How about everything; like salaries (no longer public)"

Name one other private corporation (like LANS) that makes its salaries public. NNSA had nothing to do with it.

Anonymous said...

9:43,

Why don't we just let LANL's "best and brightest" pick and choose for themselves? Those who choose to believe the LANS PR machine can wallow happily in the glowing accolades of LANS' achievements, as presented in the NewsBulletin.

Those who want to visit the dark side can read the LTRS blog.

Anonymous said...

"Name one other private corporation (like LANS) that makes its salaries public. NNSA had nothing to do with it." (9/11/07 9:47 AM)

Au contre. Many companies that trade on the stock exchange are required to list the compensation that they hand out to their top management. LANS LLC is more like a secretive private hedge fund. You'll know very little about what goes on at the top till the whole thing collapses in an ugly financial panic.

Anonymous said...

To 9:47 am:
This "private corporation" is not private - the funding for operating the "private corporation" is derived from government taxpayer funding. It is only private to keep the corporate decisions, structure, salaries, etc. private. Salaries paid by public funds should be public information but then we would know how many managers there are and how much they earn. The ramifications is that in the event of a RIF, this cost growth could very well be worth several hundred FTE's. There is a report that concluded that LANS management salaries are 130% above industry standard. But I guess that report is also private since it was paid by government funding.