BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

GAO Calls for More Uniform Security Standards at U.S. Nuclear Sites

Anonymously contributed:

GAO Calls for More Uniform Security Standards at U.S. Nuclear Sites

The Obama administration should further standardize training and management protocols for security forces charged with protecting sites that hold weapon-grade nuclear material, congressional investigators asserted in a Government Accountability Office report issued Friday (see GSN, Dec. 23, 2009).

The U.S. Energy Department depends on more than 2,000 private contractors to safeguard six permanent sites for storing and working with plutonium and highly enriched uranium, GAO auditors found. The department has moved toward adopting training standards for the forces comparable to U.S. military instruction, but the six sites have progressed unevenly toward adopting key "Tactical Response Force" requirements, according to the report.

The facilities are the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico; the Y-12 National Security Complex in ennessee; the Pantex Plant in Texas; the Nevada Test Site; the Savannah River Site in South Carolina; and the Idaho National Laboratory.

The Energy Department last year deemed a potential federal security force to be an insufficiently cost-effective means of bolstering the security of the nuclear-weapon facilities. In an effort to lower costs, the department's National Nuclear Security Administration launched one program aimed at lowering costs by supplying common uniforms, weapons and other equipment for security forces (U.S. Government Accountability Office release, Jan. 29).

More beauracracy will improve the security of NNSA Sites?


Anonymous said...

notice LLNL is missing from that list? As soon as all of the Pu is gone we will see LLNL security forces shrink dramatically. If I were a PSO I would start brushing up my resume.

Anonymous said...

Ok, so it’s some big left/right wing conspiracy. Why does anyone want to get the Federal Government involved in deciding how best to run a Security Organization. DOE/NNSA hired contractors to convert the Security force to a Para-military type environment. Why now does DOE/NNSA think it best for the Fed to run these organizations?

If the Feds want to get away from civilian contractors, why not just use the military to provide security to NNSA sites with SNM? This would cost a lot less & accomplish the Feds desire for Standardization.

Anonymous said...

2/3 10 2:34 pm: "Why now does DOE/NNSA think it best for the Fed to run these organizations?"

Uh, because they are protecting Federal assets? Actually, it amazes me that the military is not protecting all of NNSA's assets, as if they weren't as important to national security as military bases or military labs. I would like to see military protection for all NNSA labs - get rid of the private, unionized contractors, and step up to the fact that these sites are more important to national security than most military bases. And, bigger targets.

Anonymous said...

"More beauracracy will improve the security of NNSA Sites?" (Post)

Why, of course it will! Hasn't it done a fantastic job already?

The future that the NNSA has envisioned for their research labs evolves generous amounts of even greater bureaucracy ladled on top of a huge, bloat management chain structure. It will be delicious!


Submit candidates for new topics here only. Stay on topic with National Labs' related issues. All submissions are screened first for ...