The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog

Spending Billions on B-61 Nuclear Bomb Upgrades Doesn't Make Sense

By MIA STEINLE

We’ve told this story dozens of times before: as experts and the public urge the government to reign in nuclear weapons spending, the cost of nuclear weapons projects skyrockets by hundreds of millions—or billions—of dollars.

As the Washington Post editorial board wrote this weekend, it’s the same old story with the government’s planned refurbishment of the B-61 gravity bomb. The “life extension program” of this nuclear weapon was estimated to cost $4 billion a couple of years ago. Now the price is a staggering $10 billion, the Post reported.

The Project On Government Oversight sent a letter to the Department of Defense in February questioning why U.S. taxpayers are spending billions of dollars to refurbish the 200 or so B-61 bombs that the United States deploys in Europe as part of NATO’s nuclear deterrent. As the Post noted, the justification for this deterrent is shrinking:

Workers at Tennessee Nuclear Facility Say Safety Takes Backseat to Deadlines

By MIA STEINLE

Some workers who are designing and building a major nuclear weapons facility for the government say they feel pressure to put deadlines ahead of safety, according to a recent Department of Energy report.

“Interviewees indicated that schedule pressures can inhibit reporting of concerns,” the report said.

“The heavy emphasis on performance metrics and cost, often at the perceived expense of understanding and developing the right technology, has created issues for the completion of the project,” the report said.

The June report focused on part of the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tenn., that is intended to consolidate operations involving bomb-grade uranium for the nation’s nuclear arsenal. When completed, the Uranium Processing Facility will be used for the assembly, disassembly and storage of bomb components and of bomb-grade uranium, according to its website.

The report was posted on a government web site just days after a major security breach at Y-12 last month, when three protesters, including an 82-year-old nun, broke into a high-security area of Y-12. The anti-nuclear activists bypassed security guards and several fences to enter the complex, the Knoxville News-Sentinel reported. The new uranium facility is being built in the same high-security area.

Where's the Oversight at Nuclear Labs? Hands-Off Approach is Recipe for Disaster

Energy Secretary Steven Chu has preached a hands-off approach to contractors at nuclear facilities. It's not working.

 

By PETER STOCKTON and LYDIA DENNETT

As the saying goes, “The fish rots from the head down.” This is certainly the case at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tenn., where an 82-year-old nun and two accomplices recently broke in, raising serious questions about the Department of Energy’s (DOE) security strategy.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement provided to the Knoxville News Sentinel on Monday: “The department has no tolerance for security breaches at any of our sites, and I am committed to ensure that those responsible will be held accountable.” But there is no denying that Y-12 was a giant failure of federal oversight. Now the people being axed are lower-level employees rather than those who have allowed the security standards to fall far below acceptable levels, such as Secretary Chu, himself.

Secretary Chu should be the first on the chopping block. He has been preaching for years that government overseers should get off the back of the contractors and everything will be fine. Then, of course, he is shocked when Y-12 is successfully attacked by an 82-year-old nun.

After only one year in the position, Secretary Chu’s deputy secretary, Daniel B Poneman, sent a memorandum (PDF) to the department with a safety and security reform plan aimed at curtailing pesky government oversight. “Contractors are provided the flexibility to tailor and implement safety programs in light of their situation without excessive Federal oversight or overly prescriptive Departmental requirements,” the memo said.

It should be clear by now that the current culture at DOE and its semiautonomous National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is to take their orders from contractors and provide little or no oversight. As the previous head of contractor-operated laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Secretary Chu made clear his disdain for federal oversight, DOE insiders told the Project ON Government Oversight (POGO). In fact, he’s been successful in creating a culture of federal hands off the contractors in the weapons complex.

Nuclear Agency Can't Ensure Their Own Budget is Credible

By MIA STEINLE

The agency responsible for the nation’s nuclear weapons cannot ensure its own budget is credible, which may result in overspending, according to a federal investigative office.

The National Nuclear Security Administration “does not thoroughly review” the budget estimates it compiles from U.S. nuclear weapon sites before it draws up its annual budget request to Congress, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The eight nuclear weapons sites are managed and operated by private contractors for the government.

Senior agency officials told the GAO that there is an “inherent trust” between the agency and the nuclear sites. Additionally, they said that a lack of “financial and personnel resources” mean a formal review of the budget is unrealistic.

Y-12 Nuclear Facility Goes on Lockdown After Security Breach

 

In this National Nuclear Safety Administration photo from 2010, officials at the Y-12 nuclear facility show off "state-of-the-art security technology."

 

By JOE NEWMAN

As officials at the Y-12 nuclear weapons facility sort through their recent security breakdown, they've decided it might be best to move all of their nuclear materials, including highly-enriched uranium, into their on-site vaults.

The Knoxville News Sentinel's Frank Munger reported that the "security stand-down" is expected to last into next week. The federal contractor that runs the Oakridge, Tenn., facility made the decision with the support of the National Nuclear Security Administration. Munger writes:

According to the federal NNSA, "This is being done to address additional security training and execution deficiencies identified by the contractor after Saturday's incident. However, all nuclear materials at Y-12 are in safe, secure storage and we remain entirely confident in the security of Y-12's facilities."

The Saturday "incident" involved three peace activists, including an 82-year-old nun, who cut through three fences surrounding the facility, posted a banner on one of the buildings and poured human blood on the premises, according to the News Sentinel's orginal story about the break in.The activists were arrested under federal trespassing charges and are expected to appear in court Thursday.

The Project On Government Oversight's Peter Stockton, an expert in nuclear security, told Munger that the security breach could be a sign of a much bigger problem.

"The DOE's unprecedented response to last weekend's break-in, alarming as that incident initially appeared, suggests that it has revealed even more drastic flaws in the security at the Y-12 facility," Stockton said via email. "At this point we can only guess what those flaws might be."

Joe Newman is the director of communciations for the Project On Government Oversight. Image is from Flickr user NNSANews.

Follow @JFNewman

Mission Impossible? Not for 82-year-old Anti-Nuclear Weapons Activist

Michael R. Walli, 63, Megan Rice, 82, Greg Boertje-Obed, 57, succeeded in a disarmament action at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Nuclear facility before dawn.

 

[Update: The federal contractor who runs the Y-12 facility has put the complex under a "security stand-down," the Knoxville News Sentinel reports. Click here to read more.]

By MIA STEINLE

When a nuclear weapons facility can’t stop infiltration by an octogenarian nun, it’s time to reassess its security standards.

The 82-year-old nun, accompanied by two other anti-nuclear activists, broke into Tennessee’s Y-12 National Security Complex early Saturday morning, the Knoxville News Sentinel first reported.

“The Department of Energy has repeatedly claimed that security at the site, which houses 300 to 400 metric tons of bomb-grade uranium, is robust enough to defend against more than a dozen heavily-armed terrorists with inside knowledge of security procedures” Peter Stockton, a nuclear security expert at the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), ironically observed.

“It looks like the Boy Scouts could have done a better job” securing the site, he added.

After cutting through three fences surrounding the facility, the activists “posted a banner on one of the buildings and poured human blood on the premises,” the News Sentinel reported. The activists were arrested under federal trespassing charges and will remain in jail until a hearing this Thursday, according to the newspaper.

Leave the Multi-Billion-Dollar Nuclear Decisions to the Experts

Plutonium pits, used in nuclear weapons, being created at Los Alamost National Laboratory

 

When the president released his Fiscal Year 2013 federal budget proposal earlier this year, opponents of government waste took heart: the budget zeroed out funding for a proposed nuclear weapons facility that had been plagued by massive cost overruns and schedule delays for about a decade. Now it seems that eight senators are trying to undermine the president’s proposal and put funding back into the New Mexico facility, even though the agency and congressional overseers who know the project best say it’s unnecessary.

In a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the senators argued that the proposed Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility is necessary to fulfill “critical national defense mission requirements.” They urged Panetta to put $300 million back into the facility for fiscal year 2013 and to begin planning for the following years even though the president’s proposal called for a delay of at least five years.

But why should they favor the president’s proposal? Well, for one, it’s backed by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the Department of Energy agency that oversees all nuclear weapons projects. And the agency’s stamp of approval in this case is no small matter—it fought for years to build the nuclear facility, but concluded this year that “existing infrastructure” is a workable substitute for the brand-new, nearly $6 billion facility.

The senators’ letter exemplifies the current power struggle over this project in the House and Senate. On one side are the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittees, which draw up the nuclear weapons budget each year and which have followed the evolution of this project for almost a decade. By not funding the facility in their latest appropriations bill, they essentially agreed with the president and NNSA that the nation neither needs nor can afford a new multi-billion dollar nuclear weapons facility.

On the other side are the Armed Services Committees, which typically oversee non-nuclear defense projects and which lack the expertise to make authoritative decisions about nuclear projects. They’ve already tried to put over $100 million back into the nuclear facility in the latest defense authorization bill. Five of the eight senators who signed the letter are members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, though the signature of Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) is notably absent.

Safety Board Calls Nuclear Lab's Earthquake Resistance Analysis 'Technically Inadequate'

By MIA STEINLE

An ongoing government analysis of an important nuclear weapons laboratory’s ability to withstand earthquakes may be flawed, according to a federal oversight panel.

The analysis of how the plutonium facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory would hold up in a strong earthquake “is technically inadequate” in several ways, the oversight panel wrote in a July 18 letter to the Department of Energy.

“Timely action must be taken to fully understand if additional building modifications are required,” the oversight board said.

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board said in the letter that it “remains concerned by the seismic integrity of the Plutonium Facility,” adding that the ongoing analysis has “profound implications for ensuring public health and safety.”

The analysis in dispute is being performed by the Department of Energy’s semiautonomous National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and by the contractors that operate the New Mexico laboratory.

Asked for comment, NNSA spokesman Joshua McConaha said his agency is working on a response to the oversight panel.

"Regardless of any future improvements, the risk to the public from operations at [the Los Alamos plutonium facility] remains very small," he said, adding that "the facility is operating well within the safety objectives established by [Department of Energy] safety policy, and public safety is adequately protected."

The oversight panel’s criticism comes one month after the panel issued a report that found that Los Alamos National Laboratory had underestimated the amount of radiation that could leak from the plutonium facility as a result of an earthquake. As the Project On Government Oversight reported, the panel concluded that the radiation could be more than four times as intense as the laboratory had estimated.

Contractors at Nuke Facilities Mishandled Explosives, Report Says

By MIA STEINLE

Contractors at several government nuclear facilities have routinely mishandled explosives, unnecessarily endangering the lives of employees and the public, according to an inspector general's report released today.

The Department of Energy inspector general reported that the contractors that operate four sites that handle nuclear materials did not fully comply with the department’s explosives safety manual -– a nearly 500-page guide to handling and storing explosives. The sites in question are Los Alamos and Sandia national laboratories, which perform nuclear weapons missions; Idaho National Laboratory, home to nuclear energy programs, among other science missions; and the Savannah River Site, which performs nuclear waste repurposing and cleanup.

The report said that management at the sites “took immediate action” in response to the inspector general recommendations, resolving many of the issues the report details.  Among these issues were incorrect signage that misrepresented explosive hazards and the storage of combustible material in explosives bunkers.

Nuclear Weapons Lab Underestimates Risk of Radiation Leak, Study Finds

By MIA STEINLE

One of the nation’s main nuclear weapons labs has sharply underestimated the amount of radiation that could leak from the facility as a result of an earthquake, according to a federal advisory panel.

The radiation could be more than four times as intense as the Los Alamos National Laboratory predicted in a safety analysis last year, according to a recent report by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

The New Mexico laboratory’s analysis included “multiple, substantial deficiencies,” wrote Peter S. Winokur, chairman of the advisory board. The higher estimate calls for “additional safety controls” and “prompt action,” he added.

The report’s findings raise questions about the safety and reliability of Los Alamos, which says its work includes ensuring the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.

Intelligence Chief Uses Unreliable Lie Detector Technology to Plug Media Leaks

Actor Mandy Patinkin, portraying a ficitional CIA agent in Showtime's Homeland series, undergoes a polygraph exam (photo by CBS Broadcasting)

By DANA LIEBELSON and ADAM ZAGORIN

The late William Safire, conservative columnist and veteran of the Nixon White House, called the lie detector test a “form of torture” that “breeds the opposite of security.” Writing in The New York Times a decade ago, he said “the hit-and-miss machine” had been thoroughly “discredited.”

But this week, the nation’s top intelligence official announced that the government is expanding its use of the polygraph to expose federal employees who leak classified information to the media.

The testing could put intelligence workers at risk of being falsely stigmatized, jeopardizing their careers and their ability to contribute to the national security. It also could have a chilling effect on employees considering blowing the whistle on government wrongdoing, whistleblower advocates said.

“It is clearly at odds with everything we learned in our report,” said Stephen E. Fienberg, a professor of statistics and social science at Carnegie Mellon University who led a 2003 National Research Council study of the use of polygraphs in security screenings.

Briefing a Senate committee on the study in 2003, Fienberg put it this way: “Unfortunately tests that are sensitive enough to spot most violators will also mistakenly mark large numbers of innocent test takers as guilty.”

POGO and Allies Urge Senate to Kill Monster Nuclear Facility

By MIA STEINLE

Opposition is mounting to a costly and unnecessary nuclear weapons facility in New Mexico. Today, POGO and ten other organizations that are committed to issues ranging from taxpayer accountability to tracking defense projects sent a letter to Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman and ranking member respectively of the Senate committee that granted funds to this monster of a project for fiscal year 2013. The coalition is urging the senators to consider new government documents that we believe will bolster our calls to cancel the facility.

The monster in question is the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF), a proposed plutonium research facility with an estimated price tag of nearly $6 billion. While the cost for the building has skyrocketed over the past decade, the justification for it remains tenuous, especially given the expectation that existing facilities can carry out its intended nuclear weapons missions.

The President and the agency that oversees this project said as much this February, when they opted to delay CMRR-NF by at least five years. They noted that “existing infrastructure” can accommodate the missions that were to go to CMRR-NF—manufacturing and sustaining plutonium pits, a primary component of nuclear weapons.

The House and Senate appropriation committees that oversee nuclear weapons followed suit several months later by not appropriating any money to the project. So when the House and Senate defense authorizers disregarded these expert opinions, and the Senate authorizers granted the project $150 million for fiscal year 2013, we wondered if they had taken into account all of the facts.