Skip to main content

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?

Comments

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!

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

LLNL un-diversity

Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!