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
Add to Briefcase
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 »
WITH LIVE BLOGGING
Trump Deposition Video Is Online
18 hours ago
STAFF PICKS

The video of Donald Trump's deposition in his case against restaurateur Jeffrey Zakarian is now live. Slate's Jim Newell and Josh Voorhees are live-blogging it while they watch.

Source:
SOUND LEVEL AFFECTED
Debate Commission Admits Issues with Trump’s Mic
19 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.

Source:
TRUMP VS. CHEFS
Trump Deposition Video to Be Released
19 hours ago
THE LATEST

"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."

Source:
A CANDIDATE TO BE ‘PROUD’ OF
Chicago Tribune Endorses Gary Johnson
23 hours ago
THE LATEST

No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."

NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
×