More Resources

  • February 26, 2003
    Issued to Bechtel Nevada related to Authorization Basis Noncompliances at the Nevada Test Site
    Office of Enterprise Assessments
  • February 26, 2003
    Statement of Gregory H. Friedman, Inspector General U.S. Department of Energy Subject: Los Alamos National Laboratory inquiry
    Office of Inspector General
  • Document
    February 26, 2003
    Presidential permit authorizing International Transmission Company to construct, operate, and maintain electric transmission facilities at the U.S-Canadian border.
    Office of Electricity
  • February 26, 2003
    Office of Electricity
  • February 26, 2003
    Audit of the Office of Science Infrastructure Modernization Initiatives
    Office of Inspector General
  • February 24, 2003
    Based on DOE/EA-1394, FONSI for public access to the BONUS reactor building, Rincon, Puerto Rico.
    Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
  • February 21, 2003
    The Department of Energy’s (DOE) Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) maintains 1,643 firearms for use by its protective force contractor, Protection Technology Los Alamos (PTLA), and its Security and Safeguards and Dynamic Experimentation Divisions. Firearms are considered sensitive items by DOE and are subject to strict inventory controls. The purpose of this inspection was to determine if internal controls over firearms at LANL are adequate and whether the firearms inventory is administered appropriate1 y.
    Office of Inspector General
  • February 21, 2003
    Inspection Firearms Internal Controls at Los Alamos National Laboratory
    Office of Inspector General
  • February 21, 2003
    Our review of 11 major projects (see Appendix 1) disclosed that information systems development activities were not always consistent with Federal requirements or guidance. We found development problems with nine of the projects. For example: • Key planning activities such as cost-benefit analyses had not been performed for eight of the projects we reviewed; • Evaluations of suitability of potential software solutions were often inadequate or had not been performed; • Many projects were not adequately monitored and controlled throughout their lifecycle, and project baselines and plans were not revisited in light of scope changes or delays; and, • For 6 of the 11 projects reviewed, reengineering studies designed to improve business processes before beginning development had not been conducted. In addition, Bonneville and Western did not consistently include all relevant project costs in accounting for its development efforts.ioactiv
    Office of Inspector General
  • February 21, 2003
    Information System Development Practices at the Bonneville and Western Area Power Administrations
    Office of Inspector General