Nuclear Weapons Oversight Reforms Pared Down in Compromise Bill

Demonstrators at Washington's Lincoln Memorial, circa 1995, shield themselves from the rain with a banner protesting nuclear weapons. U.S. Congress oversight-reform legislation, prompted by a 2012 activist-trespassing incident at a Tennessee nuclear-materials facility, has been pared back.
National Journal
Douglas P. Guarino
See more stories about...
Douglas P. Guarino
Dec. 20, 2013, 10:02 a.m.

Ef­forts by House GOP mem­bers to re­form of­fi­cial over­sight of nuc­le­ar-weapons con­tract­ors took an­oth­er hit when law­makers un­veiled a new de­fense bill.

The com­prom­ise de­fense au­thor­iz­a­tion le­gis­la­tion for fisc­al 2014, which House Re­pub­lic­ans re­leased in co­oper­a­tion with Sen­ate Demo­crats on Dec. 10, in­cludes rem­nants of House-ori­gin­ated pro­vi­sions aimed at ad­dress­ing per­ceived man­age­ment prob­lems in the U.S. nuc­le­ar weapons com­plex.

The meas­ures do not go as far as the House Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee had ini­tially sought, however.

Much of the de­bate on weapons fa­cil­ity over­sight has been framed in the con­text of a Ju­ly 2012 in­cid­ent in which an 82-year-old nun and two oth­er peace act­iv­ists were able to in­filt­rate the Y-12 Nuc­le­ar Se­cur­ity Com­plex in Ten­ness­ee. The Na­tion­al Nuc­le­ar Se­cur­ity Ad­min­is­tra­tion, a semi-autonom­ous arm of the En­ergy De­part­ment, over­sees the fa­cil­ity.

Fol­low­ing the epis­ode, Rep­res­ent­at­ive Mi­chael Turn­er (R-Ohio), a seni­or mem­ber of the pan­el and former chair­man of its Stra­tegic Forces Sub­com­mit­tee, sought to give the En­ergy sec­ret­ary spe­cial au­thor­ity to fire any En­ergy De­part­ment em­ploy­ee “that en­dangers the se­cur­ity of spe­cial nuc­le­ar ma­ter­i­al or clas­si­fied in­form­a­tion.”

Turn­er chas­tised Deputy En­ergy Sec­ret­ary Daniel Pone­man dur­ing a March hear­ing for char­ac­ter­iz­ing the law­maker’s ques­tion about dis­missal au­thor­ity sur­round­ing such in­cid­ents as a “tech­nic­al leg­al ques­tion” that he was re­luct­ant to an­swer. Dur­ing the ex­change, Turn­er an­nounced his in­ten­tions to ad­dress the is­sue through le­gis­la­tion if the ad­min­is­tra­tion was un­able to sat­is­fy his con­cerns.

The ver­sion of the de­fense au­thor­iz­a­tion bill that the House passed in June in­cluded the meas­ure that Turn­er sought, but the pro­vi­sion al­low­ing ex­pan­ded fir­ing au­thor­ity was dropped from con­fer­ence-com­mit­tee le­gis­la­tion dur­ing ne­go­ti­ations with Sen­ate Demo­crats. The com­prom­ise bill in­stead dir­ects the En­ergy sec­ret­ary to sub­mit a re­port to Con­gress “on the au­thor­it­ies avail­able to the sec­ret­ary to ter­min­ate fed­er­al em­ploy­ees.”

The En­ergy De­part­ment re­port, which would be due in March, should “de­scribe in de­tail why such au­thor­it­ies were in­suf­fi­cient to ter­min­ate em­ploy­ees in the af­ter­math of the Y-12 in­cid­ent.”

It should also “in­clude a list of of­fi­cials in the DOE and NNSA struc­ture that had re­spons­ib­il­ity for se­cur­ity at Y-12 in Ju­ly 2012, a de­scrip­tion of any dis­cip­lin­ary ac­tions taken with re­spect to such of­fi­cials, and such of­fi­cials’ cur­rent po­s­i­tions,” ac­cord­ing to an ex­plan­a­tion of the com­prom­ise bill re­leased jointly by House Re­pub­lic­ans and Sen­ate Demo­crats.

The joint ex­plan­a­tion notes that “sev­er­al fed­er­al em­ploy­ees were re­as­signed or al­lowed to re­tire” fol­low­ing the Y-12 in­cid­ent, but says that no fed­er­al em­ploy­ees were fired. The law­makers ex­press par­tic­u­lar con­cern with the fact that “seni­or lead­ers in the De­part­ment of En­ergy’s Of­fice of Health, Safety and Se­cur­ity have held top se­cur­ity policy and over­sight po­s­i­tions for well over a dec­ade des­pite re­peated se­cur­ity fail­ures dur­ing this ten­ure.

“These same seni­or lead­ers are now in­ex­plic­ably be­ing coun­ted on to im­ple­ment re­forms “¦ des­pite the fact that this same of­fice con­duc­ted a re­view of Y-12’s phys­ic­al se­cur­ity sys­tems just two months pri­or to the Ju­ly 2012 break-in and gave Y-12’s se­cur­ity a clean bill of health,” the con­fer­ence re­port says. “This lack of ac­count­ab­il­ity, wheth­er at seni­or levels or throughout the DOE, is out­rageous and must not be tol­er­ated.”

Rep­res­ent­at­ive Mike Ro­gers (R-Ala.), who cur­rently chairs the stra­tegic forces sub­com­mit­tee, pre­vi­ously told Glob­al Se­cur­ity News­wire that Glen Podon­sky — who heads the DOE health, safety and se­cur­ity of­fice and who has dis­agreed with com­mit­tee Re­pub­lic­ans on how best to re­spond to the Y-12 in­cid­ent — ought to be fired.

Pan­el Re­pub­lic­ans have been con­sist­ently crit­ic­al of Podon­sky and his of­fice, and last year backed le­gis­lat­ive pro­vi­sions that would have sig­ni­fic­antly lim­ited his abil­ity of Podon­sky and that of oth­er En­ergy De­part­ment of­fi­cials to in­flu­ence safety and se­cur­ity policy across the weapons com­plex.

Demo­crats, labor uni­ons and House En­ergy and Com­merce Com­mit­tee Re­pub­lic­ans re­jec­ted the meas­ures, ar­guing the Y-12 break-in demon­strated that — if any­thing — more DOE over­sight was needed.

Podon­sky, for his part, has sug­ges­ted that the Y-12 in­cid­ent shows that the Na­tion­al Nuc­le­ar Se­cur­ity Ad­min­is­tra­tion ought to be dis­solved. House Armed Ser­vice Com­mit­tee Re­pub­lic­ans have re­jec­ted this idea, not­ing that there had been nu­mer­ous se­cur­ity prob­lems across the com­plex pri­or to NNSA es­tab­lish­ment in 2000.

House Armed Ser­vice Com­mit­tee Re­pub­lic­ans gen­er­ally have taken the view that, when it comes to over­sight of the weapons com­plex, less is more. An­oth­er pro­vi­sion they au­thored that was dropped from the fi­nal ver­sion of the fisc­al 2014 bill was one that would en­able the En­ergy sec­ret­ary to re­quest cost-be­ne­fit ana­lyses of any re­com­mend­a­tions of the in­de­pend­ent De­fense Nuc­le­ar Fa­cil­it­ies Safety Board.

Demo­crats were gen­er­ally skep­tic­al of that pro­vi­sion, fear­ing that re­quir­ing cost-be­ne­fit ana­lyses would drain the safety board’s re­sources and in­hib­it its abil­ity to con­duct cru­cial re­views.

The joint ex­plan­a­tion of the com­prom­ise bill, however, notes “that a vari­ety of in­de­pend­ent as­sess­ments in re­cent years have in­dic­ated that DN­FSB over­sight, coupled with DOE’s his­tory of not chal­len­ging DN­FSB re­com­mend­a­tions, have con­trib­uted to in­creas­ing costs with­in the nuc­le­ar se­cur­ity en­ter­prise that may achieve com­par­at­ively small safety be­ne­fits.”

One such study, re­leased earli­er this year by the Na­tion­al Academies of Sci­ence, said DN­FSB as­sess­ments “gen­er­ally fo­cus on the safety risks as­so­ci­ated with par­tic­u­lar ex­per­i­ments [re­lated to main­tain­ing the stock­pile] rather than weigh­ing those risks against the be­ne­fits to be de­rived from the ex­per­i­ments and the risks to the nuc­le­ar weapons pro­gram from not con­duct­ing the ex­per­i­ments,” ac­cord­ing to the law­makers.

House Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee Re­pub­lic­ans also had sought to in­clude a pro­vi­sion that would have man­dated the ex­pan­sion of a pi­lot pro­gram un­der which weapons con­tract­ors as­sess their own per­form­ance. The com­prom­ise bill does not re­quire that the pi­lot pro­gram, cur­rently lim­ited to the NNSA Kan­sas City Plant, be ex­pan­ded.

In­stead, it re­quires a study of the feas­ib­il­ity of ex­tend­ing it to oth­er sites.

In ad­di­tion, the bill re­quires “to the greatest ex­tent pos­sible” that the prin­ciples of the pi­lot pro­gram be im­ple­men­ted per­man­ently at the Kan­sas City Plant.

This art­icle was pub­lished in Glob­al Se­cur­ity News­wire, which is pro­duced in­de­pend­ently by Na­tion­al Journ­al Group un­der con­tract with the Nuc­le­ar Threat Ini­ti­at­ive. NTI is a non­profit, non­par­tis­an group work­ing to re­duce glob­al threats from nuc­le­ar, bio­lo­gic­al, and chem­ic­al weapons.

What We're Following See More »
WITHER TRUMP?
Jon Stewart May Debut on HBO Before the Election
9 minutes ago
THE DETAILS

"Jon Stewart could arrive on HBO in time for the November presidential election. In a Paley Media Council interview Thursday with CNN’s Brian Stelter, HBO CEO Richard Plepler was asked whether viewers could expect to see Stewart, former host of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show,” on HBO before the general election. 'Yeah, I’m hopeful,' Plepler said."

Source:
ALL RIDERS TO BE AFFECTED
Metro to Begin Rolling Closures Next Month
3 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Beginning next month, Metro will begin a series of "about 15 separate large-scale work projects," each of which will close down stations and/or sections of track for up to weeks at a time. The entire initiative is expected to take about a year. The Washington Post has a list of the schedule of closures, and which lines and stations they'll affect.

Source:
ANOTHER MEETING WITH PRIEBUS
Trump to Meet with Ryan, Leadership Next Week
3 hours ago
THE LATEST

A day after saying he could not yet support Donald Trump's presidential bid, House Speaker Paul Ryan has invited the billionaire to a meeting in Washington next week with House leadership. Ryan and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus will also meet separately with Trump. 

Source:
‘EXACTING STANDARDS’
Obama on Trump: ‘This Is a Really Serious Job’
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"President Obama used the White House podium on Friday to dismiss Donald Trump as an unserious candidate to succeed him, and said leading the country isn't a job that's suited to reality show antics." At a briefing with reporters, the president said, "I just want to emphasize the degree to which we are in serious times and this is a really serious job. This is not entertainment. This is not a reality show. This is a contest for the presidency of the United States. And what that means is that every candidate, every nominee needs to be subject to exacting standards and genuine scrutiny."

Source:
MORE EXECUTIVE ORDERS
Panama Papers Spur White House to Crack Down on Evasion
6 hours ago
THE DETAILS

In the The White House on Thursday night unveiled a series of executive actions to combat money laundering—"among the most comprehensive response yet to the Panama Papers revelations." The president's orders will tighten transparency rules, close loopholes that allow "foreigners to hide financial activity behind anonymous entities in the U.S., and demand stricter “customer due diligence” rules for banks.

Source:
×