U.S. Nuclear Security Agency Has ‘Failed,’ Says Advisory Panel

U.S. Energy Department security personnel take part in a 2012 exercise. A congressionally convened panel said an Energy Department agency has "failed" in efforts to effectively oversee the U.S. nuclear-weapons complex.
National Journal
Diane Barnes
See more stories about...
Diane Barnes
March 27, 2014, 6:34 a.m.

A con­gres­sion­ally man­dated pan­el says a key En­ergy De­part­ment agency has “failed” in its mis­sion to ef­fect­ively over­see U.S. nuc­le­ar-arms op­er­a­tions.

Drastic re­forms are cru­cial to ad­dress “sys­tem­ic” man­age­ment short­com­ings at the Na­tion­al Nuc­le­ar Se­cur­ity Ad­min­is­tra­tion, ac­cord­ing to pre­lim­in­ary find­ings un­veiled on Wed­nes­day by the co-chairs of the Ad­vis­ory Pan­el on the Gov­ernance of the Nuc­le­ar Se­cur­ity En­ter­prise.

“The un­mis­tak­able con­clu­sion of our fact-find­ing is that, as im­ple­men­ted, the ‘NNSA ex­per­i­ment’ in­volving cre­ation of a semi­autonom­ous or­gan­iz­a­tion has failed,” ac­cord­ing to Norm Au­gustine, who headed the bi­par­tis­an group with re­tired Adm. Richard Mies.

“The cur­rent DOE-NNSA struc­ture has not es­tab­lished the ef­fect­ive op­er­a­tion­al sys­tem that Con­gress in­ten­ded,” Au­gustine told the House Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee in a writ­ten sum­mary of the pan­el’s ini­tial con­clu­sions. “This needs to be fixed as a mat­ter of pri­or­ity, and these fixes will not be simple or quick.”

The former of­fi­cials at­trib­uted the Na­tion­al Nuc­le­ar Se­cur­ity Ad­min­is­tra­tion’s his­tory of high-pro­file se­cur­ity lapses at atom­ic-com­plex fa­cil­it­ies and soar­ing cost over­runs in ma­jor pro­jects to prob­lems that be­came em­bed­ded in the na­tion’s nuc­le­ar weapons cul­ture after the end of the Cold War. Con­gress es­tab­lished the agency in 2000 fol­low­ing the Wen Ho Lee spy scan­dal at Los Alam­os Na­tion­al Labor­at­ory, giv­ing it the re­spons­ib­il­ity to over­see arms activ­it­ies that were pre­vi­ously handled by the En­ergy De­part­ment it­self.

Today, both or­gan­iz­a­tions con­tain “too many people [who] can stop mis­sion-es­sen­tial work for a host of reas­ons,” Mies said in a writ­ten state­ment to the com­mit­tee, provided for a Wed­nes­day hear­ing. He ad­ded that “those who are re­spons­ible for get­ting the work done of­ten find their de­cisions ig­nored or over­turned.”

He also as­ser­ted that a cul­ture of mis­trust has de­veloped between NNSA of­fi­cials and the nuc­le­ar-weapons labor­at­or­ies they over­see.

Au­gustine said nuc­le­ar-arms ef­forts man­aged by both the En­ergy and De­fense de­part­ments have been be­deviled by “com­pla­cency” and a “loss of fo­cus” since the end of the Cold War.

Mies ad­ded that “there is no af­ford­able, ex­ecut­able joint DOD-DOE vis­ion, plan, or pro­gram for the fu­ture of nuc­le­ar-weapons cap­ab­il­it­ies.”

The pan­el’s ini­tial find­ings did not en­dorse any spe­cif­ic plan for al­ter­ing over­sight of the nuc­le­ar-weapons com­plex. The group — man­dated early last year un­der a pro­vi­sion of the fisc­al 2013 Na­tion­al De­fense Au­thor­iz­a­tion Act — is ex­pec­ted to is­sue its fi­nal re­port this sum­mer.

Past re­form pro­pos­als have in­cluded a Re­pub­lic­an-led push to elim­in­ate En­ergy De­part­ment over­sight of NNSA op­er­a­tions and in­crease con­tract­or in­de­pend­ence. Oth­ers have ad­voc­ated a boost in En­ergy’s over­sight, or to place the atom­ic agency un­der Pentagon con­trol.

Au­gustine said the pres­id­ent and his ad­min­is­tra­tion would shoulder primary re­spons­ib­il­ity for in­sti­tut­ing changes.

“Prob­ably the most im­port­ant in­di­vidu­al un­der today’s or­gan­iz­a­tion is the sec­ret­ary of En­ergy who, in many cases in the past, did not have a back­ground at all with­in this arena,” he said dur­ing the com­mit­tee ques­tion-and-an­swer ses­sion.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.

Source:
×