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 jlscoob5@gmail.com

Blog rules

  • Stay on topic.
  • No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
  • NO NAME CALLING.
  • No political debate.
  • Posts and comments are posted several times a day.

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Pentagon should take over nuclear plant security

Anonymously contributed: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Interesting, this may have legs, lucky for LLNL that Cat I/II SNM is now gone... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pentagon should take over nuclear plant security: lawmaker September 21, 2012 - Roberta Rampton - Reuters ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Defense Department should take over security for U.S. nuclear weapons sites after a nuclear complex was broken into with ease in July by an 82-year-old nun and two other peace activists, a top lawmaker in the U.S. House of Representatives said on Friday. Mike Turner, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services panel that oversees the Energy Department's nuclear weapons complex, has drafted legislation to put the U.S. military in charge of protecting facilities like the Y-12 complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. "The fact that this vulnerability is so widely known has got to be addressed," Turner said in an interview. The Y-12 facility, built after the September 11, 2001, attacks, had been previously touted as "the Fort Knox of uranium" and was supposed to be one of the most secure facilities in the United States. But in July, the three anti-nuclear activists cut through several fences and vandalized a building which holds the U.S. stockpile of highly enriched uranium used to make nuclear bombs. An internal Energy Department watchdog found guards ignored motion sensors because they were routinely triggered by wildlife, and a security camera that should have shown the break-in had been broken for about six months. The National Nuclear Security Administration, part of the Energy Department, is continuing to investigate what went wrong with its oversight of contractors. The facility is run by Babcock & Wilcox Co, and WSI Oak Ridge, owned by G4S, provides security. Their contracts are being reviewed, and a number of personnel have been removed from their jobs. "We have seen just an absolute failure of security at Y-12. We believe from our classified briefing that this is system-wide, that NNSA and (Energy Department) are incapable of providing the level of security necessary for our nuclear weapons facilities," Turner said. Turner, who has spent a decade monitoring issues with the Energy Department's management of the complex, said he does not believe the NNSA can fix the issues that allowed for the incursion. Putting the Pentagon in charge would increase security, allow for better technology and weapons to be used in protecting facilities, and eliminate any interdepartmental issues in sharing classified intelligence about threats, he said. Turner's bill also would charge the Pentagon with securing the transportation of nuclear materials between facilities. "I am more concerned about the transport than I am the facilities, and the facilities have already shown to be highly vulnerable," he said. Turner has so far gathered about six Republican cosponsors for his bill, which he hopes to see become part of the annual defense policy legislation when the Senate and House finalize it after the November 6 election.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

There "should" be bipartisan support for this, though we will have to wait and see. I wonder if they will go further with much needed reforms in other parts of NNSA like LLNL and LANL?

Anonymous said...

This is really stupid. Anyone can get past the fences surrounding a nuclear facility. They are monitored but not actively guarded over their entire length. The fault at Y-12 was in the lousy response time and confusion about the alarm because of faulty sensors, for which local heads should roll. One has to understand that the requirement is not to repel attackers, but to keep them from escaping with nuclear material. Containment is the goal. Let them get in, and then keep them, and the material, inside long enough to neutralize them. No other strategy makes any sense. US military are not trained for any such mission. Besides, in most CAT I facilities, the guards are all ex-military, many ex-special forces, with specialized extra training. They routinely "beat" the opposing (DOE/NNSA) forces in mock "force-on-force" exercises.

Anonymous said...

The question is not about which of DoD or DoE is better at responding to this type of incident, but rather which is actually going to take audits and other assessments done several years prior, seriously and do something about it (even if it turns out not to work in the end) seriously. Civilians can not be expected to do a credible job overseeing nuclear facility security. It may be difficult for the military too. Civilian oversight has been a monnental failure in so many NNSA facilities. In many instances, it can not get much worse by handing over oversight to DoD. Replacing local personnel.(management) needs to be done whether by DoE/NNSA or by DoD if the facilities are indeed forced onto them.

Anonymous said...

“Containment is the goal.”

Not at sites like PX (Nukes,NE’s, Pits) –“Denial” is the Protection Strategy. At these sites “Containment” applies only after “Denial” has failed.

Not sure about DOD but I think it’s similar –“no unauthorized use” = “no hand-on”. Perhaps others can clarify.

Meeting a “Denial” strategy is a lot more difficult than “Containment”.

Anonymous said...

"Comtainment is the goal."

That dog don't hunt.

Anonymous said...


"They routinely "beat" the opposing (DOE/NNSA) forces in mock "force-on-force" exercises."

LOL – I’ve participated in lots of FOF exercises, computer based simulations, table-tops, etc. If your pro-force routinely beats these, you’ve got poorly scoped scenarios or someone's cheating (does Y12 sound familiar?)

Anonymous said...

Sure make it official. We have all the former Navy Admirals and Captains (Henry, McGovern, ...) running the "nuke" facilities at LANL anyway. We need some real leadership at the top and put McMillan back in a corner office running "code" where he can't harm anyone.

Anonymous said...

NNSA needs to improve, but would the DoD be any better at providing security than NNSA? Are you aware of the results of the security exercises vs the DoD weapons facilities, and similar exercises? Commanders at such facilties are frequently being abruptly relieved of duty - there must be a reason. The NNSA security seems to need a lot of improvement but turning things over to someone else could be worse. As another poster noted, the NNSA facilties are mostly being run by former DoD personnel who hire many military veterans. Maybe we could put the State Dept in charge and hope they don't do worse, as they 'protected' the embassy in Libya?

Anonymous said...

Sep 23 8:44am,

I thought the US Marines were in charge of overseas embassy security and protection. Did this change?

Anonymous said...

The US Libyan consulate was under the guard of private security that is hired by the State Dept. The State Dept. now uses private, "for-profit" security companies for much of their security needs.

Private... as in the yahoo's that how run our NNSA labs. Any wonder the security was poorly executed? We've even started to "Bechtel-ize" our embassy security!

Anonymous said...

I thought it was funny that the DOE Secretary stated that he has re-doubled security at all sites since the Y12 incident. Can anyone name which one he is referring to ? He really learned quick to be a politician.

Anonymous said...

Proposing a move to the Pentagon to correct NNSA’s security failures addresses only a portion of the major issues with NNSA’s continued poor performance. Making another mediocre decision at this time addressing only the current mess is the last thing needed. As other have noted in past examinations, extensively reform is the real solution.

Anonymous said...

Here’s the current language from the Turner bill…

IN GENERAL.—The Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 4508 the following new section:

‘‘SEC. 4509. PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NUCLEAR MATERIAL BY THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) USE OF THE ARMED FORCES.—The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator for Nuclear Security, shall ensure that category 0 and category I special nuclear material of the National Nuclear Security Administration is protected by the Armed Forces in accordance with subsection (b).

(b) LEVEL OF PROTECTION.—The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the protection provided pursuant to subsection (a) is equivalent to the protection provided by the Secretary for nuclear weapons of the Armed Forces, including with respect to policies, threat scenarios, training requirements, performance testing, and reviews.’’

Anonymous said...

"WTF is "Category 0 SNM"?? Safeguards Category 1 includes full-up weapons. Is this a typo??

Anonymous said...

Security at both Y12 and LANL is a joke! Any one who has worked at LANL know it's only a front, I wish i had half the money our management has spent on security, can you imagine! It's time to get back to reality! Mock "force on force: sounds military, just words....faulty sensors Hmm you mean they dont work?

Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days