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?
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. Opinions not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email email@example.com
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
- ► 2017 (194)
- ► 2016 (295)
- ► 2015 (330)
- ► 2014 (309)
- ► 2013 (431)
- ► 2012 (258)
- ► 2011 (162)
- Funding nukes to eliminate them
- Invisible costs!
- Vehicle safety
- How was your raise?
- Where was LLNL?
- Strange posting:
- Does the Secretary of Energy have a bit too much f...
- Fleeting Youth, Fading Creativity
- DOE's FY 2011 Budget Request
- Interesting topics on Director's Office "Topics an...
- Nuke Spending Boost Needed to Disarm, Biden Says
- Livermore:site of "technology gold rush?"
- The truth about reclassification
- More on Bechtel...
- Bechtel Defends Role in Bolivia
- Berrylium exposures.
- Is privatization better in the long run?
- BLOGs monitoring.
- Hello, Ben Dover Here Again
- What do you think of the 200 reclassification proj...
- POGO requests White House intervention for Los Ala...
- What do you plan to do with your raises
- Air Force Abruptly Decertifies Nuclear Warheads
- DOE alters bid policies for national labs
- More emergency drills.
- Lay Off the Layoffs
- Former LANL blog readers should be welcome
- Is Lab renting space to private companies?
- GAO Calls for More Uniform Security Standards at U...
- Health spending accounts in 2010
- Chu names Blue Ribbon Commission
- NNSA Administrator D’Agostino to Brief Reporters o...
- ▼ February (32)
- ► 2009 (231)
- ► 2008 (374)