[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DOE'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX: CHALLENGES
TO SAFETY, SECURITY, AND TAXPAYER STEWARDSHIP
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 12, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-175
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-180 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky Chairman Emeritus
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
MARY BONO MACK, California FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GREG WALDEN, Oregon BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina GENE GREEN, Texas
Vice Chairman DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma LOIS CAPPS, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JIM MATHESON, Utah
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JOHN BARROW, Georgia
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington DORIS O. MATSUI, California
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey Islands
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETE OLSON, Texas
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
_____
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
Chairman
LEE TERRY, Nebraska DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina Ranking Member
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas KATHY CASTOR, Florida
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California GENE GREEN, Texas
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana Islands
CORY GARDNER, Colorado JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
JOE BARTON, Texas officio)
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, opening statement.................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado, opening statement................................. 6
Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, opening statement....................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Nebraska, opening statement.................................... 9
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, opening statement.......................... 9
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, prepared statement................................... 89
Witnesses
Daniel B. Poneman, Deputy Secretary, Department of Energy........ 14
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Answers to submitted questions............................... 90
Thomas P. D'Agostino, Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and
Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration,
Department of Energy \1\
Answers to submitted questions............................... 115
Glenn S. Podonsky, Chief Health, Safety, and Security Officer,
Department of Energy \1\
Mark E. Gaffigan, Managing Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, Government Accountability Office.................. 25
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Answers to submitted questions............................... 129
Gregory H. Friedman, Inspector General, Department of Energy..... 47
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Answers to submitted questions............................... 137
Submitted Material
Subcommittee exhibit binder...................................... 139
----------
\1\ Mr. D'Agostino and Mr. Podonsky did not present statements
for the record.
DOE'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX: CHALLENGES TO SAFETY, SECURITY, AND
TAXPAYER STEWARDSHIP
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2012
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cliff
Stearns (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Stearns, Terry, Burgess,
Blackburn, Scalise, Gardner, Griffith, Barton, DeGette,
Schakowsky, Castor, Markey, Green, Christensen, and Waxman (ex
officio).
Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Carl
Anderson, Counsel, Oversight; Charlotte Baker, Press Secretary;
Sean Bonyun, Communications Director; Matt Bravo, Professional
Staff Member; Karen Christian, Deputy Chief Counsel, Oversight;
Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Heidi King, Chief
Economist; Krista Rosenthall, Counsel to Chairman Emeritus;
Alan Slobodin, Deputy Chief Counsel, Oversight; Peter Spencer,
Professional Staff Member, Oversight; Alvin Banks, Democratic
Investigator; and Tiffany Benjamin, Democratic Investigative
Counsel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Stearns. Good morning, everybody, and I welcome our
witnesses to the Oversight and Investigation Committee. Today's
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation will review
challenges to safety, security, and taxpayer stewardship in the
Department of Energy's nuclear weapon complex.
DOE is responsible for securing and maintaining the most
dangerous materials on the planet, including nuclear warheads.
This is one area that must have effective oversight.
This committee, principally through the work of this
subcommittee, has a long history of bipartisan scrutiny of the
Department of Energy's oversight and management of the
contractors that are charged with running DOE's nuclear weapons
programs and operations. And the lessons from our committee's
past investigations and related GAO, Inspector General, DOE's
oversight reports should guide our bipartisan review of the
current situation.
My colleagues, chief among these lessons is that
independent and effective oversight is simply essential and
necessary. The safety and security risks involved in overseeing
the Nation's nuclear facilities are enormous, and this
committee must be vigilant about maintaining the exhaustive
oversight that the committee has traditionally had in this
area.
DOE, through its National Nuclear Security Administration
or NNSA, manages programs that involve high-hazard nuclear
facilities and materials, the most sensitive national security
information, and complex construction and environmental cleanup
operations that pose substantial safety, public health, and
environmental risks. Interestingly, all of these programs are
carried out by contractors, both at the national labs and at
DOE's weapon production facilities.
These contractors and their Federal managers, spending
billions of taxpayers' dollars on dangerous nuclear projects,
require rigorous oversight. Today we will review what DOE has
done in recent years to reform its oversight and program
management. I welcome our witnesses from DOE, the DOE Inspector
General, and the GAO, who will help us in examining this
important issue.
When government vigilance is not sufficiently rigorous,
problems obviously occur. The case in point is a recent
security failure at the Y-12 National Security Site in Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, this past July. By all accounts contractors
and site managers' failures at Y-12 allowed one of the most
serious security breakdowns in the history of the weapons
complex.
But Y-12 is but the latest in a string of failures. Over
the past decade we have seen security breaches and management
failures at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. GAO
testimony will remind us all of one, 5-year period after 9/11
in which 57 security incidents occurred, more than half of
which involved a confirmed or suspected release of data that
posed the most serious rating of threat to the United States
security interest.
In another example investigated by this subcommittee in
2008, the Lawrence Livermore National Lab gave itself passing
marks on its own physical security, and the NNSA Federal onsite
managers gave it a passing mark, too. Only when DOE's Office of
Independent Oversight actually tested the security
independently was it evident that the lab deserved the lowest
possible rating for protective force performance and for
physical protection of classified materials.
On the safety front, the experience has been no better.
From 2007 to 2010, the Lawrence Livermore Lab has multiple
events involving uncontrolled worker exposure to beryllium,
which can cause a debilitating and sometimes fatal lung
condition. During this period the lab determined it was
compliant with DOE's safety regulations. It took an independent
department oversight review to determine that the contractors'
program violated the regulations.
Now, this past May the DOE Inspector General reported that
Sandia National Laboratories had not held its line managers
accountable for implementing an important system for preventing
and reducing injuries. Neither the contractor nor the Federal
site manager had addressed problems that had been identified in
this program for more than a decade.
For more than 20 years GAO has designated DOE contract
management oversight relating to the weapons complex as high
risk for fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement. We have seen
examples of this multi-billion dollar cost increases and
schedule delays in important NNSA construction projects.
In the meantime, directors of the national laboratory and
others claim that Federal oversight is too burdensome and
intrusive and that DOE should back off and let the contractors
operate as they see fit. Our friends at the Armed Services
Committee have moved legislation through the House that would
dramatically limit DOE's ability to conduct independent,
internal oversight over its program management and the
contractors.
I recognize that NNSA has not been delivering all that is
expected of it, but this committee, given its jurisdictional
and longtime policy interest in effective DOE management has to
diagnose the problems for itself independently. We need to
examine the facts, follow the evidence, identify what works and
what doesn't work, and identify a clear path to ensuring safe,
secure operations, in the interests of taxpayers, and of
course, our national security.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stearns follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.002
Mr. Stearns. With that I recognize the ranking member, Ms.
DeGette.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to echo the chairman's remarks about this
subcommittee having a long bipartisan history of asking tough
questions about the safety and security of our Nation's nuclear
facilities. I am really pleased we are continuing this work
today.
I am glad that members of this subcommittee have the chance
to develop a greater understanding of how NNSA is doing
securing our nuclear facilities and to learn what can be done
to improve the safety and security of those who live or work
near those facilities.
I have been on this committee for almost 16 years now, and
since that time we have had almost 20 or over 20 hearings on
nuclear issues at our national labs. In fact, many of the
witnesses here today are regulars in front of this committee. I
know the importance of safe and secure nuclear facilities, and
I know what is at stake when something falls through the cracks
or when the contractors at the sites aren't being carefully
watched.
About 10 years ago this subcommittee began the first of a
series of hearings on shocking security issues at Los Alamos
National Laboratory in New Mexico. Chairman Barton will
remember the trip that we took there to look at that facility
and to see the shocking lapses that we saw.
What we covered were serious pervasive issues with the
management, culture, and the security and safety of the site.
We attacked those problems head on, demanding answers and
forcing NNSA and DOE to work harder to secure their facilities,
and as a result the agency implemented new security procedures
and increased oversight of the labs.
But obviously NNSA has more work to do and frankly, this
committee has more oversight work to do. In recent weeks we
have seen new safety and security issues arise at two locations
in the Nation's nuclear weapons complex. Late last month the
Los Alamos Lab informed the public that they were investigating
an inadvertent spread of a radioactive material, Technetium-99,
by employees and contractors at Los Alamos. While DOE indicated
that there was no danger of public contamination, approximately
a dozen people were exposed, with some tracking of the
radioactive material offsite.
This safety lapse comes on the heels of a bizarre but very
serious security breach at the Y-12 uranium facility, where an
82-year-old nun--an 82-year-old nun--and two others were able
to breach the secure perimeter and vandalize a supposedly
secure building containing dangerous nuclear material.
These safety and security incidents show very clearly the
need for strong and robust oversight from this committee and
others of security issues at our nuclear facilities.
In 2004 and 2005, our willingness to bring serious nuclear
safety issues into the public view and to demand that DOE and
its labs be held accountable for their actions made a
significant difference. DOE is better than it used to be. There
is an entire office dedicated to the health, safety, and
security of all DOE facilities, but recent events tell us there
is more serious work left to be done.
So, Chairman, that is why it is absolutely necessary for
DOE and others to remain a strong oversight role over NNSA
facilities. From this committee to the DOE Office of Health,
Safety, and Security, to the Inspector General, to GAO, to the
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, to other outside
organizations, strong, independent oversight from agencies and
groups forces NNSA to take better care of our nuclear
facilities. Without good oversight, serious issues, won't be
identified and fixed, and the results could be disastrous. I
can't think of any reason we would want to decrease our
oversight of these facilities, inhibit the ability of oversight
to review site actions, or reduce accountability for those
responsible for keeping nuclear sites safe.
At a time when terrorists and hostile nations have an ever-
increasing pool of physical and cyber weapons in their
arsenals, we need to constantly adapt and focus our efforts to
protect nuclear facilities. I hope that this hearing will
provide us with the information that our colleagues on both
sides of the aisle need so we can come together to improve the
safety and security of these nuclear facilities. There have
just been too many close calls to ignore. Constant vigilance is
required. When it comes to our Nation's nuclear facilities,
there can never be enough oversight, and that, Mr. Chairman, is
why I appreciate you holding this hearing today, and I yield
back.
Mr. Stearns. I thank my colleague, and I recognize the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When an 82-year-old
pacifist nun gets to the inner sanctum of our weapons complex,
you cannot say, ``Job well done.'' She is in the audience.
Would you please stand up, ma'am? We want to thank you for
pointing out some of the problems in our security. While I
don't totally agree with your platform that you were espousing,
I do thank you for bringing up the inadequacies of our security
system, and thank you for being here today.
Mr. Chairman, that young lady there brought a Holy Bible.
If she had been a terrorist, the Lord only knows what could
have happened. We have had numerous hearings in this
subcommittee and full committee on security at our national
laboratories and especially our weapons complexes. Apparently
that message has still not gone forward about what needs to be
done.
What doesn't need to be done, though, is just give the
contractors an ``atta boy'' and a pat on the back. If there is
ever a time for more aggressive oversight, this is it, and I
applaud you and the ranking subcommittee member, Ms. DeGette,
for doing that today, and with that I yield to Mr. Terry the
balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.003
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Mr. Terry. Thank you.
Mr. Stearns. The gentlelady can sit down if she likes.
Mr. Terry. Well, it is--I have to congratulate the
contractors of NNSA for accomplishing something based upon
their mind-boggling incompetence that hasn't happened here in a
while, and that is uniting Republicans and Democrats in our
desire for change and reform and more oversight.
The security of U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile cannot be
overstated. NNSA was created to keep the DOE from being
overstretched, yet it appears that all of their duties were
left with contractors where little oversight could or would be
done. The last 5 years has seen a significant deterioration in
security at the complexes as a result of a decrease in how
contractors interact with Federal officials. There must be an
understanding that the taxpayer owns these complexes, and they
have not gotten their monies' worth.
Failures in both the safety of the laboratories and
protection of the weapons themselves has been repeated across
the complex, and I believe there is bipartisan support for more
oversight. The unprecedented breakdown at Y-12 acted as a test
of our security system, and it appears to be an all-out
failure. I struggle to understand how the gentlelady that was
introduced, an 82-year-old nun, can get through the Fort Knox
of nuclear weapons facilities, and what does that say for the
complex as a whole?
A major concern of the Y-12 breakdown is the disunity
between maintenance and operation contractor and the security
personnel. When cameras had been inoperable for 6 months, this
tells me that even the most basic level there is no
communication within the facility, no oversight, and I
understand there is a point where too much oversight can become
inefficient and hinder progress in a nuclear--progress in
nuclear testing. I believe that we are ultimately here today to
do--is find a balance where citizens can be certain that the
nuclear materials are pure and scientists continue to work in
their most efficient manner.
That is what we are here to do today. Hopefully we can find
that balance, and I will yield to the gentlelady from
Tennessee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mrs. Blackburn. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the
Chairman for the hearing, again. Indeed, there has been a lot
of emphasis and a lot of focus on the July 28, 2012, incident
that occurred at the Y-12 facility and the security complex
there, and the nun who has stood and been recognized and two
other anti-nuclear activists cut through that fence, got into,
through the perimeter. They did this seeming to not be noticed.
Despite setting off multiple alarms, a delayed response to WSI
security personnel gave these protestors time to hang banners,
splash blood and paint messages on the facility that contains
over 100 tons of weapons-grade, highly enriched uranium. We are
appalled. We are appalled.
WSI's slow response, lack of regard for security protocols,
along with their check-the-box mentality is completely
unacceptable, especially when you take into account the
sensitive material they are paid to protect against potential
terrorists and nations, states capable of using deadly force
during a security breach.
While I understand that security changes have now been made
at the Y-12 facility since the incident to ensure that it never
happens again, we need to seriously review classified DOE
reports from 2010, that the Washington Post reported on this
morning, where investigators found, and I am quoting,
``Security cameras were inoperable, equipment maintenance was
sloppy, and guards were poorly trained.'' And you knew this 2
years ago? Two years ago.
These criticisms are the very same ones that may have led
to the July 28 security breach. Mr. Chairman, the incident
demonstrates the great importance of the hearing today. I fully
believe it is important for the committee to review the entire
working relationship between the NNSA, DOE, and the security
contractors across the country at all of our nuclear weapons
complexes.
I yield back.
Mr. Stearns. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is one of those
hearings that we occasionally have in Congress where we say
together, Democrats and Republicans, we are shocked. We are
shocked that something like this could happen, but we then
blame others and don't accept responsibility for ourselves. We
have oversight jurisdiction in this committee to be sure this
sort of thing doesn't happen, and we know DOE has oversight
responsibility, and we expect them to do their job, and you
would think that reasonable people would understand that this
is a high priority for this country. This is a wake-up call if
there ever was one with--this is a quote from the New York
Times. ``With flashlights and bolt cutters the three pacifists
defied barbed wire as well as armed guards, video cameras, and
motion sensors.''
Well, this security lapse is incredible. We have to do
everything in our power to ensure that no one else breaches our
security and particularly that none of our enemies view this as
an opening, that this will show that this is a weakness that
they could exploit.
Well, given this wake-up call you would think members of
Congress or any reasonable person would suggest that rolling
back security and safety requirements at the nuclear safety--
NNSA facilities or promoting reducing oversight of these
facility would be outrageous. They wouldn't think of such of
thing, yet that is what the Republican Congress did. We have a
National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 4310, that passed the
House in May, and that bill weakens protection for our nuclear
laboratories and facilities. The bill lowered standards at NNSA
sites, and they limited the ability of the Department of Energy
and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to address
concerns and propose solutions to these problems.
Well, we went along with that, our committee leadership,
and the Authorization Bill to lower our oversight for these
kinds of breaches. This effort to weaken oversight of nuclear
facilities makes absolutely no sense, and this issue most
recently of our guest today, an 82-year-old nun, breaching the
security at the sensitive Oak Ridge Nuclear Facility and
splashing blood on a building that holds enriched uranium
before she was arrested, illustrates why we need more oversight
and more activity to stop it, not less. Sometimes I think that
people are so anxious to save money that they cut off their
nose to save their face. We need oversight.
We need to spend the money to do this, and all those people
who have been telling us we can't afford this and we can't
afford that because we got to give more tax breaks to the upper
income ought to think through whether that point of view makes
sense. We need multiple layers of strong oversight at our
nuclear facilities. We can't simply assume that NNSA and its
contractors are making appropriate security and safety
decisions.
That reminds me of Hurricane Katrina. Good job. Great job,
Brownie, as President Bush said to his appointee who knew
nothing about emergency preparedness. He was put in his job
because he was a crony of the President at that time. The
ability of DOE, this committee, and other oversight experts to
ask the tough questions is absolutely vital to holding labs and
facilities accountable. We cannot leave nuclear facilities
exposed to national disasters or threats from hostile enemies.
We have to make sure that those who manage nuclear materials
are putting safety and security first.
Now, we are lucky that it was just this very nice nun and
others who came to express their point of view that gained
access to a secure area next to highly enriched uranium
facilities. It could have been much worse. We can all view this
as a warning call. We have to look closely at our nuclear
facilities. Make sure they are strong, that there are strong,
effective oversight mechanisms in place to protect them from
danger. We cannot remove or repeal the protections that already
are in place.
Mr. Chairman, there is some things we don't agree on, but I
think we can all agree that strong oversight of our nuclear
arsenal and our nuclear facilities and laboratories is an
absolute necessity, and it is time for Congress not just to
hold hearings and say, oh, my gosh, what happened, but to
realize that when we make cuts to this exact kind of
surveillance, we are going to end up paying the consequences
for it. Happily the consequences were not as severe as they
might have been, but let this be a warning call to all of us.
Yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waxman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.005
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman yields back. I would just say to
the gentleman this full committee always puts safety and
security first when we are dealing with this very important
issue, and it has always been bipartisan.
With that let me welcome our witnesses here this morning,
and we have the Honorable Daniel B. Poneman, Deputy Secretary,
U.S. Department of Energy, the Honorable Thomas P. D'Agostino,
Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator,
Nuclear--National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S.
Department of Energy, Mr. Glenn S. Podonsky, Chief Health,
Safety, and Security Officer, Department of Energy, the
Honorable Gregory H. Friedman, Inspector General, Department of
Energy, and Mark E. Gaffigan, Managing Director, Natural
Resources and Environmental Team, Government Accountability
Office.
As you know, folks, the testimony you are about to give is
subject to Title XVIII, Section 1001, of the United States
Codes. When holding an investigative hearing like this, this
committee has a practice of taking testimony under oath. Do any
of you object to testifying under oath? No? OK.
The chair then advises you that under the rules of the
House and rules of the committee you are entitled to be advised
by counsel. Do you desire to be advised by counsel during your
testimony today? No?
In that case, would you please rise and raise your right
hand?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Stearns. All right, and with that we welcome you,
again, and you will give your 5-minute summary of your--Mr.
Poneman, we are going to start with you. Go ahead.
STATEMENTS OF DANIEL B. PONEMAN, DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY, ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS P. D'AGOSTINO, UNDER SECRETARY
FOR NUCLEAR SECURITY AND ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL NUCLEAR
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, AND GLENN S.
PODONSKY, CHIEF HEALTH, SAFETY, AND SECURITY OFFICER,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; MARK E. GAFFIGAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT TEAM, GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; AND GREGORY H. FRIEDMAN, INSPECTOR
GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
STATEMENT OF DANIEL B. PONEMAN
Mr. Poneman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and in the interest
of time I would request that my full statement be submitted----
Mr. Stearns. By unanimous consent, so ordered.
Mr. Poneman. Thank you, sir. Chairman Stearns, Ranking
Member DeGette, and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to
discuss the Department of Energy's oversight of the nuclear
weapons complex and the recent security incident at the Y-12
National Security Complex. We appreciate the interest and
engagement of this committee and recognize the important
oversight role that you fulfill. We also share the committee's
commitment to ensure that all of our offices and operations are
delivering on our mission safely, securely, and in a fiscally
responsible manner.
Since its creation in 1999, the National Nuclear Security
Administration has served as a separately organized entity
within the U.S. Department of Energy, entrusted with the
execution of our nuclear security missions. Living up to the
challenging demands of executing our mission safely, securely,
and in a fiscally responsible manner requires daily management
through strong, effective, and efficient relationships with our
management and operating contractors. Congressional oversight,
in conjunction with oversight by the DOE Office of Health,
Safety, and Security, our internal independent oversight body,
as well as that of the DOE Inspector General, the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, and the Government
Accountability Office contribute to the safety and security of
DOE facilities.
As the recent incident at Y-12 demonstrates, the Department
has at times fallen short of our own expectations and faces
continuing challenges in our goal of continuous improvement.
This recent incident, as the Secretary has made abundantly
clear, is unacceptable, and we have taken and will continue to
take steps not only to identify and correct issues at Y-12 but
across the DOE complex.
In response to this incident, we acted swiftly to identify
and address the problems that it revealed. These actions either
directly or through the contract for the site included the
following immediate steps to improve security. In the realm of
physical protection, cameras have been repaired and tested,
guard patrols increased, security policies have been
strengthened, and all personnel have been retrained on security
procedures. The number of false and nuisance alarms have been
greatly reduced to provide more confidence in the intrusion
detection system.
In terms of the professional force onsite, nuclear
operations at the site were suspended until retraining and
other modifications mentioned above were completed. The entire
site workforce was required to undergo additional security
training. The former head of security from our Pantex facility
moved to Y-12 to lead the effort to reform the security culture
at the site.
The Department's Chief of Health, Safety, and Security was
directed to deploy a team to Y-12 for an independent
inspection. Site managers at all DOE facilities with nuclear
material were directed to provide their written assurance that
all nuclear facilities are in full compliance with Department
security policies and directives as well as internal policies
established at the site level. Security functions at the Y-12
site itself had been brought into the management and operations
contract to ensure continuity of operations and moving toward
an integrated model moving forward.
In the area of leadership changes, the plant manager and
chief operating officer at the site retired 12 days after the
incident. Six of the top contract executives responsible for
security at the Y-12 site had been removed. The leadership of
the guard force has been removed, and the guards involved in
this incident have been removed or reassigned. The Chief of
Defense Nuclear Security for the National Nuclear Security
Administration has been reassigned pending the outcome of our
internal reviews, and a formal show cause letter was issued to
the contractor that covered the entire scope of operations at
Y-12, including security. This is the first step towards
potentially terminating the contracts for both the site
contractor and its security subcontractor. Past performance
including deficiencies and terminations would be considered in
the awarding of any future contracts.
In the area of reviews, the HSS Organization that Ms.
Podonsky leads was directed to lead near-term assessments of
all Category 1 nuclear material sites to identify any systemic
issues, enhancing independent oversight performance testing
program to incorporate no notice or short notice security
testing and conducting comprehensive, independent oversight
security inspections at all Category 1 four sites over the next
12 months using the enhanced program of performance testing. An
assessment was initiated led by Brigadier General Sandra Finan
to review the oversight model itself and the security
organizational structure at NNSA headquarters that some of the
members have already commented in their opening remarks.
The series of personnel and management changes that I have
just briefly outlined were made to provide the highest level of
security at the site and across the DOE complex. To manage this
transition we have brought some of the best security experts
from our enterprise to Y-12 to act quickly to address the
security shortcomings at that site.
We are also working to make the structural and cultural
changes required to appropriately secure this facility. The
Secretary and I intend to send a clear message. Lapses in
security will not be tolerated. We will leave no stone unturned
to find out what went wrong, and we will take the steps
necessary to provide effective security at this site and across
our enterprise.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this committee,
safety and security are integral to the Department's mission.
DOE embraces its obligation to protect the public, the workers,
and the environment. We continuously strive to improve upon our
safety and security standards and the policies that guide our
operations, and we hold line management and ourselves
accountable.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this vital
mission. I look forward to answering your questions both here
and in a classified setting as appropriate.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Poneman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.013
Mr. Stearns. Thank the gentleman.
Mr. Gaffigan, your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MARK E. GAFFIGAN
Mr. Gaffigan. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member DeGette, members
of the subcommittee, good morning. I am pleased to be here to
discuss safety, security, and project management oversight of
the nuclear security enterprise. In summary, in each of these
areas I would like to briefly discuss some of the challenges,
the current status and progress in these areas, and some
potential paths forward.
Regarding safety, let me start by noting that thankfully
through the efforts of DOE, NNSA, and its contractors, the
stockpile has remained safe and reliable. However, safety
problems do occur, and we have identified them in the past. We
have attempted to find the contributing factors to these
problems and note that they fall into three key areas; lax
attitudes towards safety procedures, inconsistent and
unsustained corrective actions, and inadequate oversight.
Currently, DOE has instituted a safety reform effort to
review opportunities to streamline requirements and eliminate
directives that do not add value to safety. While we applaud
DOE's efforts to improve safety requirements, going forward we
believe that DOE can make a stronger case in safety reform by
ensuring that changes are based on sound analysis of the
benefits and costs with good measures of their success.
In addition, future efforts should strive to address areas
of concern in quality assurance, safety culture, and
independent Federal oversight.
Regarding security, our work in the past has sought to
understand past failures that have led to security incidents
that have posed the most serious threat to national security
and led to shutdowns of facilities like Los Alamos and Lawrence
Livermore.
Both GAO and the DOE IG have identified common themes that
led to these problems, including an over-reliance on contractor
assurance and corrective actions that are not sustained.
As with safety, DOE has instituted a security reform effort
to ensure effective, streamlined, and efficient security
without excess Federal oversight. While there may be
opportunities for more efficient security policy and oversight,
our past work has shown that excessive Federal oversight is not
the problem.
As demonstrated by the July incident at Y-12, the recent IG
report cites and all-to-familiar finding that contractor
governance and Federal oversight failed to identify and correct
early indicators of multiple system breakdowns that allowed the
security breach.
While DOE and NNSA are undertaking many actions in response
to this incident, the real challenge going forward is to
sustain the security improvements that will invariably be made
at NNSA sites. This will require leadership, improved
contractor assurance systems, and strong, independent Federal
oversight.
Lastly, regarding project management, NNSA continues to
experience significant costs and schedule overruns on its major
construction projects. To name a few, the National Emission
Facility at Lawrence Livermore, a $2.1 billion original
estimate grew to $3.5 billion and was 7 years behind schedule.
CMMR, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear
Facility at Los Alamos originally projected to cost less than
$1 billion. The last estimate before this project was put on
hold was $3.7 to $5.8 billion, a six-fold increase with a
scheduled delay of 8 to 12 years.
This is why NNSA project management is on GAO's high-risk
list. We believe that NNSA has made some progress. We believe
they have a strong commitment and top leadership support and
have developed and implemented corrective action plans to
address these concerns. Going forward we believe NNSA needs to
demonstrate its commitment to sufficient people and resources
and demonstrate on a sustained basis the ability to complete
major construction projects on time and on budget.
However, not to be forgotten, 80 percent of NNSA's budget
is devoted to operations and maintenance activities and is not
construction related. We recently raised concerns with NNSA's
process for planning and prioritizing its work, including the
need to more thoroughly review program estimates. We have
recommended going forward that they update the requirements for
review and cost estimates and reestablish independent analytic
capability.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening remarks. I would be
happy to address any questions you or the members may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gaffigan follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.033
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman, and Mr. Friedman,
welcome, again, for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY H. FRIEDMAN
Mr. Friedman. Chairman Stearns and Ranking Member DeGette
and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here at
your request to testify on matters relating to the oversight of
the nuclear weapons complex by the Department of Energy and the
National Nuclear Security Administration.
With an annual budget of nearly $12 billion, NNSA----
Mr. Stearns. I am just going to ask you to move your mic a
little closer if you don't mind.
Mr. Friedman. Certainly. NNSA is charged with critically
important missions relating to nuclear weapons refurbishment
and storage, nuclear non-proliferation, and science and
technology. The directors of NNSA's contractor operate at
national security laboratories Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore,
and Sandia, as well as other independent review groups have
expressed concern with the Department and NNSA oversight of
contractors is overly burdensome. They recommended changes in
the model, with the most radial being to take NNSA outside of
the Department's purview entirely.
We recognize and I think everybody should that it is
difficult to strike precisely the right balance between the
contractors' desire to operate without undue oversight and the
government's need to ensure the taxpayers' interests and the
operation of the laboratories and the other facilities is
protected. We agree that oversight should not be overly
burdensome. It should be targeted, cost effective, risk based,
and it should encourage intelligence risk tolerance.
However, at the end of the day responsible Federal
officials have an obligation to a higher authority, the U.S.
taxpayers, to ensure that the terms and conditions of the
various NNSA contracts are satisfied, the national security
mission goals are met, and that the weapons complex is operated
in an effective, efficient, and safe and secure manner. Our
reviews have identified numerous opportunities to advance
various aspects of NNSA's functions, including its management
of the national security laboratories and other weapons complex
facilities.
Most prominently, we recently issues a special inquiry
report on the security breaches, security breach, excuse me, at
the Y-12 national security complex at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. You
heard about that previously from prior speakers. In the Y-12
report we cited delayed and inept response, inoperable security
equipment, excessive use of compensatory measures, resource
constraints, and most importantly as it pertains to the purpose
of this hearing, contract administration issues.
We have no evidence, empirical or otherwise, to suggest
that unreasonable Department and NNSA oversight has had a
causal relationship to the problems we identified in our
reviews. In fact, in many cases, the Y-12 matter being a prime
example, we found the Department and NNSA had not been as
thorough as we felt necessary in exercising the contract
administration responsibilities.
Further, NNSA is currently dealing with a number of cost,
schedule, and mission issues concerning major projects,
including over $13 billion in capital investments in the
projects that Mr. Gaffigan just referred to. With projects of
such magnitude and complexity, Federal officials have a special
responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are well spent
and the national security is protected.
Further, the unique contractor indemnification provision of
NNSA's Management Operating Contracts place special burdens on
the Federal management team. In short, the Department bears
ultimate financial responsibility for essentially all
contractor activities which are nuclear related. In my judgment
this argues for a robust contractor oversight.
There are a number of threshold questions regarding
oversight, the oversight model which have yet to have been
answered from my perspective. For example, to what extent does
current oversight hinder mission accomplishment? How would a
new model lead to tangible improvements in scientific and
technological outcomes? And how would a new model improve
accountability and transparency?
In our view any decision to modify the NNSA Weapons Complex
Governance Model should ensure that first, historic safety and
security concerns regarding weapons complex management are
treated as a priority. Second, the synergies that result from
numerous collaborations between the national security
laboratories and the Department's other laboratories and energy
functions are not impeded. Third, expectations of the
contractors are as clear and precise as possible. Fourth, that
metrics are in place to provide a sound basis for evaluating
contractor and program performance. Fifth, that any new
operating formulation is lean and mean, reflecting current
budget realities, and finally, that contractors have in place
an effective internal governance system.
We support continuous improvement, but a scalpel rather
than a cleaver approach ought to guide efforts to find better
NNSA contractor oversight mechanisms. The problems with the
status quo need to be well-defined, all remedies cost
effective, and the core mission maintained. The work of the
NNSA and its weapons complex is too important to do anything
less.
This concludes my testimony, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Friedman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.044
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, and I will start with my questions.
Just as an overview I think everyone should understand Y-12
is a connotation given to this site because of the Cold War,
and they didn't want to have people mention geographically what
they were talking about, where it was, so Y-12 became the code
name.
But if you go on Google maps and look at the site, you see
that it is a brand-new site, and if you go onto Microsoft site,
you see it is under construction. So this really is a site that
has brand-new construction.
And so, Mr. Friedman, the first question I have for you is
as I understand it, these people cut and got their way through
three fences. Is that correct?
Mr. Friedman. That is my understanding, Mr. Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Stearns. OK, and so is it three or four fences?
Mr. Friedman. Well, my understanding is it is three. There
are people on the panel who may have more intimate knowledge
than I do.
Mr. Stearns. OK. We appreciate your hand being up, but we
are limiting ourselves to the panel, if you don't mind.
Mr. Friedman. Well, people on the panel.
Mr. Stearns. Yes. Is there anyone else who--yes, sir. Mr.
Poneman.
Mr. Poneman. Sir, there is an outer perimeter fence----
Mr. Stearns. OK.
Mr. Poneman [continuing]. At the ridgeline. They call it
the 229 fence.
Mr. Stearns. OK.
Mr. Poneman. That is not sensored. Then there were the
three PIDAS----
Mr. Stearns. OK. So they actually went through four fences.
Mr. Poneman. They would have had to come through the
perimeter, yes, and then there were the three----
Mr. Stearns. OK.
Mr. Poneman [continuing]. PIDAS fences----
Mr. Stearns. So once they go through these four fences, it
is assuming that all these fences there is some type of sensor
device which would indicate--and there would be cameras. Is
that true, Mr. Friedman?
Mr. Friedman. That is correct.
Mr. Stearns. So there are cameras set up to monitor this?
Mr. Friedman. That is correct.
Mr. Stearns. And how highly rated was Y-12 security prior
to this incident? I mean, what was the record they were saying
it was rated?
Mr. Friedman. The contractor self-assurance indicated that
it was highly rated, and that was carried through----
Mr. Stearns. I was told it was rated by the contractor
and----
Mr. Friedman. The Federal personnel endorsed that rating.
Mr. Stearns [continuing]. At 96 percent. Is that what--I
was told that was what they rated it.
Mr. Friedman. I don't have a percentage for you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. Would you consider it a Fort Knox type of
security? I mean, that was the perception is, it had to be Fort
Knox type of security?
Mr. Friedman. Mr. Stearns, this is my nearly 40 years in
the Department of Energy. Y-12 was the Fort Knox of the
Department.
Mr. Stearns. OK. So they, these folks in the audience here,
the three of them, they got through four fences that were
sensored, and the cameras were all set up, and this was a new
facility. Were the cameras new or old?
Mr. Friedman. There were actually--some of the equipment
was fairly new, some of the equipment was old, but the, I think
the salient point is that many of the cameras or some of the
cameras were not operable and not operable----
Mr. Stearns. OK. So the cameras were not----
Mr. Friedman [continuing]. For some period of time.
Mr. Stearns [continuing]. Operable. Now, when you generally
have a Fort Knox facility like this, wouldn't there be large
maintenance records for these cameras that people would check
them? Were there backlogs relating to these cameras?
Mr. Friedman. There were significant, we found significant
backlogs and maintenance of----
Mr. Stearns. Were there large maintenance entries into
these backlogs to show that they were, the cameras were looked
at?
Mr. Friedman. I am not sure I understand your question, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. Well, if you went into these backlogs that
show the maintenance on these cameras----
Mr. Friedman. Right.
Mr. Stearns [continuing]. Did you see maintenance on these
cameras?
Mr. Friedman. Well----
Mr. Stearns. You are saying they are inoperable. Wouldn't
at some point somebody----
Mr. Friedman. Maintenance had not taken place.
Mr. Stearns. OK.
Mr. Friedman. The cameras had not been fixed----
Mr. Stearns. OK.
Mr. Friedman [continuing]. If that is your question.
Mr. Stearns. OK. Well, how long were these cameras, these
critical cameras not operable? Could you tell that?
Mr. Friedman. Well, we--there were elements of the security
apparatus that were inoperable for at least 6 months and
probably--and possibly beyond that. At least 6 months.
Mr. Stearns. Now, who would you blame that for? The
contractor or the site government operators?
Mr. Friedman. Well, Mr. Chairman, it is--that sounds like a
very simple question, but it is a complex, the answer is
somewhat complex.
Mr. Stearns. Well, let me phrase it for you.
Mr. Friedman. There is enough--let me put it this way.
Mr. Stearns. Do you think the responsibility--we pay
contractors to do this. Is that correct?
Mr. Friedman. Correct.
Mr. Stearns. And the contractors were responsible?
Mr. Friedman. Correct.
Mr. Stearns. And we pay them significant fees? We do this,
and they were not operable, and the maintenance backlogs show
that no one was doing anything, so wouldn't you say the
contractors----
Mr. Friedman. I would say they have a major share of
responsibility. Yes.
Mr. Stearns. And then the onsite government employees who
are overseeing the contractors also have responsibility because
they failed to catch this. Is that correct?
Mr. Friedman. They do. There was widespread knowledge and
acknowledgement of the fact that these cameras, including
amongst the Federal officials, that these cameras in other
facilities were inoperable. I think their reaction to that was
much too passive, much too lethargic.
Mr. Stearns. Well, I think we have got them through four
fences, we have got them through the sensing devices. We are
not keying the personnel. The cameras were inoperable, so they
got through, and as I understand there was a period of time
where these three people were right at the facility and nothing
still happened. Is that true?
Mr. Friedman. Well, there was a delay in the response and--
--
Mr. Stearns. How long was the delay in response?
Mr. Friedman. I can't go into timeline.
Mr. Stearns. OK.
Mr. Friedman. You may be able to get that information at
the later classified briefing.
Mr. Stearns. All right. So at this point we have obviously
a dereliction of duty. Is there anyone on the committee that
would like to add any questions, any response to some of my
questions that I had?
Mr. Poneman.
Mr. Poneman. Sir, just for the record, it is my
understanding, we will confirm this, you talked about all four
senses being--fences being sensored. It is my understanding
that there are no trespassing signs on the outer perimeter
fence at the ridge line, but the sensors only come into play
once you penetrate the first of the three fences that surround
the actual facility. So I believe it would be fair to say
that--and the sensor bed is inside those three fences, not out
at the perimeter fence. But we will confirm that and come back
to you.
Mr. Stearns. Were the guards who were supposed to be there
and take care and stop this, were they blind in any way? Was
there any obstruction for them to see this? I mean, forget the
cameras for a moment. Wouldn't you start to at some point say,
gosh, what is happening? I am starting to see three people in
my facilities wandering around. I mean, where were the guards?
Were they--Mr. Friedman, what is your interpretation?
Mr. Friedman. As has been either implied or stated directly
earlier, there were a huge number of false alarms ongoing on a
regular basis. They are due to critters and squirrels and other
things, so they were somewhat from my point of view numb to the
number of false alarms. There was a delay in the response. The
response of the first responder was less than adequate, so
there was a--certainly shortcomings on the part of the----
Mr. Stearns. OK. My time has expired.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think your
questions really set up a factual foundation for what I want to
talk about.
The first thing I want to do is I want to thank Sister Rice
and the other people for coming today. I apologize. You won't
be allowed to testify. I think it would be interesting to hear
your perspective on how you were able to breach these four
fences at the Fort Knox type of facility and perhaps we can
talk afterwards.
But what I want to ask you gentlemen about is from my
perspective this bill that we passed earlier this year, the
National Defense Authorization Act, which is H.R. 4310, because
what that does, as you know, it makes considerable changes to
NNSA's structure and its oversight relationship with DOE. And a
lot of us on both sides of the aisle are really concerned that
the changes will have a significant impact on safety and
security at NNSA.
So, Mr. Poneman, I wanted to start with you, and I wanted
to ask you how H.R. 4310 changes the NNSA Administrator's
authority to change nuclear safety and security requirements.
Mr. Poneman. Congresswoman, thank you for the question. It
is our understanding that that legislation makes significant
changes in the reporting structure and the authorities within
the Department, that it significantly curtails the authority of
the Secretary to direct the Administrator of the NNSA and that
it provides for a number of things that would tend to delegate
activities, for example, to a national lab director's counsel
and so forth, that would then come in directly to the
Administrator, and the Administrator under that legislation as
we understand it would be granted much widened autonomy.
Ms. DeGette. Right.
Mr. Poneman. In addition, the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board would be reduced in some of its authorities.
Ms. DeGette. And that would really undermine the DOE's
authority for oversight. Correct?
Mr. Poneman. In our judgment, Congresswoman, as reflected
in the statement of----
Ms. DeGette. Yes or no will work.
Mr. Poneman. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Now, as the current language is
written, I think you mentioned this, somewhere down the line an
NNSA Administrator could come in and actually reduce the safety
and security requirements. Correct?
Mr. Poneman. It would curtail the Secretary's authority
to----
Ms. DeGette. But they could actually reduce the
requirements. Correct? Under the legislation.
Mr. Poneman. I think that became law. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Yes. Now, H.R. 4310 also changes NNSA's
relationship with oversight bodies, including DOE's Office of
Health, Safety, and Security and the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board.
So, Mr. Poneman, maybe Mr. Podonsky can help you here. Can
you talk to me about what changes it makes to NNSA's
relationship with the DOE and independent oversight bodies?
Mr. Poneman. What changes the legislation----
Ms. DeGette. Correct.
Mr. Poneman. It would grant a much larger measure of
autonomy to NNSA within the DOE system. The DOE system includes
the HSS organization that Mr. Podonsky leads.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Now, do you think that is a good idea to
reduce NNSA oversight? Yes or no will work.
Mr. Poneman. We have serious concerns----
Ms. DeGette. OK.
Mr. Poneman [continuing]. With the legislation.
Ms. DeGette. Do you think that if the bill is passed as is,
it could have an impact on the security and safety of workers
at NNSA sites?
Mr. Poneman. If the authorities of the Secretary are
curtailed in that way, it could have an adverse effect.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Now, Mr. Gaffigan, I am not asking you to
comment on the NDAA, but your testimony said, your written
testimony said in 2007, the GAO concluded that the drastic
change of moving NNSA away from DOE was, ``unnecessary.'' Is
that correct?
Mr. Gaffigan. That is correct.
Ms. DeGette. And so from your perspective is a significant
overhaul of the agency structure necessary to solve the
problems we are seeing today? Yes or no will work?
Mr. Gaffigan. Not necessarily.
Ms. DeGette. OK.
Mr. Gaffigan. We have to focus on----
Ms. DeGette. So you don't think we necessarily need a
significant overhaul. Right?
Mr. Gaffigan. We have not seen the problem of being
excessive oversight. We have seen the problem being ineffective
oversight.
Ms. DeGette. Ineffective. Yes. Less oversight is not the
solution here. Right?
Mr. Gaffigan. We have not seen excessive oversight as the
problem.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Mr. Friedman, what do you think? Would
reorganizing the NNSA so that contractors have more autonomy
and less oversight solve the problems of the agency?
Mr. Friedman. Well, Ms. DeGette, I would characterize it as
the tail wagging the dog frankly. I think that it would be a
mistake to dramatically lessen the quality of the oversight.
Now, there are, as I have indicated in my testimony, there
are improvements, and intelligent oversight is extremely
important. So there are improvements that can occur----
Ms. DeGette. Right.
Mr. Friedman [continuing]. But I think the legislation that
you are referring to goes too far.
Ms. DeGette. So I just have kind of one last question, and
I am going to ask you, Mr. Friedman, and you, Mr. Gaffigan. Do
you think that really burdensome oversight caused Sister Rice
and her colleagues to be able to gain access to a secure area
at a nuclear facility?
Mr. Friedman. Well, as----
Ms. DeGette. Yes or no. Do you think the reason she got in
there was because there was too much oversight?
Mr. Friedman. Clearly not.
Ms. DeGette. OK.
Mr. Friedman. No.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Gaffigan?
Mr. Gaffigan. No. No.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Barton, the former chairman of the full committee, is
recognized.
Mr. Barton. Thank you. The--I had to go do a little press
interview while the chairman was doing his questions, but my
understanding is he established that there were four fences
that were breached. Is that correct?
Mr. Poneman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barton. OK. Were they all chain-linked fences?
Mr. Poneman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barton. All chain-linked fences. Is it classified how
long that took?
Mr. Poneman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barton. It is classified? Were there any cameras that
were operable? We know that there are some that weren't.
Mr. Poneman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barton. Were there some that were?
Mr. Poneman. There were cameras at the site that were
operable.
Mr. Barton. They just weren't where these people were doing
their thing. Let us assume that we actually had good security.
What would have happened had it been discovered that these
three individuals were trying to get in the facility?
Mr. Poneman. The sensored part of the fences are the three
fences that are relatively close to the facility, Congressman.
If the system had worked properly, as soon as they penetrated
the first link, the sensor would have gone off, and when they
saw as would be the case when people were coming through, that
there were multiple sensors going off, there would have been an
immediate response within 1 or 2 minutes of guards on the site.
Mr. Barton. So even if it had been working and the guards
had been alert and everything that was supposed to have been
done would have been done, they would have been able to get
through the first fence before anything was done. Is that
correct?
Mr. Poneman. Yes, sir. The theory is one of layered
defenses, and we could go into classified session. There are
many, many layers between that outer-most security fence and
the sensitive material but----
Mr. Barton. Well, I am----
Mr. Poneman [continuing]. That would be what triggered the
response.
Mr. Barton [continuing]. Not a security expert, but I would
assume that we would have a security system at a weapons
complex or an enrichment facility that if anybody got within 10
feet of the first fence, alarms would start going off and dogs
would start barking and loud speakers would say, get away, get
away or something like that instead of letting them actually
walk up to fence, use a pair of wire cutters, and cut the fence
before anybody even assumes that there is something wrong. I
mean, that seems to me to be a little bit lax. Am I just not
with it to think that we shouldn't even let them get near the
first fence?
Mr. Poneman. When you walk into the facility, Congressman,
you have to establish the perimeter in some specific place, and
you have to put the first sensor in some specific place. That
sensor is placed in such a manner as if it had been responded
to appropriately before they were able to do anything at the
wall, there would have been security forces on site. So you
have to put the first sensor somewhere.
Mr. Barton. But my point is you don't let them get close
enough to take out the wire cutters without somebody noticing
you. If I were to go to the facility today with a pair of wire
cutters, hat on that says I am a fake terrorist, I would hope
somebody would notice that before I started cutting on the
fence.
Mr. Poneman. Well, I assure you, Congressman, we are taking
a full review of the full profile. You could see if doing
something at the outer perimeter fence up at the ridge line
would be better, but then you are talking about acres and acres
of security, which is challenging.
Mr. Barton. You--is the deputy secretary at the Department
of Energy the number two official?
Mr. Poneman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barton. So you--the Secretary is number one, and you
are number two?
Mr. Poneman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barton. Could you rank this issue in a priority of
issues at the Department of Energy for management attention of
you and the Secretary? Is this a top five issue, a top ten
issue, top 100 issue?
Mr. Poneman. Congressman, there is no issue that we are
dealing with more forcefully and with greater concentration
than this issue. This is protecting our nuclear material. It
has top priority.
Mr. Barton. So this has got the personal serious attention
of you and the Secretary?
Mr. Poneman. Hours and hours.
Mr. Barton. OK, and the gentleman to your right, Mr.
D'Agostino. Is that close?
Mr. D'Agostino. Mr. Barton, D'Agostino.
Mr. Barton. D'Agostino.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barton. I would assume that on a day-to-day basis you
are the person in--ultimately responsible for this at the
Department, at the--I know you are at the Nuclear Security
Administration, but I would assume that you are the number one
person in terms of just thinking about this. Is that correct?
Mr. D'Agostino. Every day since--every day I think about
this issue and specifically but every day I also think about
security in general. This is the number one priority for me.
Bar none.
Mr. Barton. Do you believe since it is your number one
priority that we can fix this problem?
Mr. D'Agostino. I believe we can fix it. We have work to
do. It is inexcusable. It is appalling. The language the
committee has used here I would agree with. We have to work
aggressively. We have taken unprecedented steps to address this
particular problem. It is important to hold organizations
accountable. It is important to hold people accountable for
this, and we are working through that particular process.
In addition to the steps we have taken, we believe there
are more steps to take, and we are working very closely with
Glenn Podonsky and the HSS organization to make sure we
actually have that right.
Mr. Barton. My time has expired, but I want to ask one
more. Is it possible under current policy at the Department of
Energy to terminate the contractor who allowed this to happen?
Mr. Poneman. Sir, we--because of this incident issued what
we call a show-cause notice to the contractor, which gives them
a set period to respond. Given the facts that are inconsistent
with our contractual responsibility to provide security, to
show cause why the contract should not be terminated.
Mr. Barton. So the answer is yes, they can be terminated.
Mr. Poneman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barton. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. The chairman emeritus was really asking the
question, I will ask it for him, has anyone been fired because
of this incident?
Mr. Poneman. Sir, there have been a number of personnel
changes. The way the structure----
Mr. Stearns. No one has been fired, though?
Mr. Poneman. Oh, no, no, no. There have been a number of
changes. The two top contractor officials at the site retired
within 12 days.
Mr. Stearns. OK.
Mr. Poneman. A number of other people have been moved out
of their positions, from the guard force to the contractor as
well.
Mr. Stearns. It doesn't sound like anybody has been fired.
Ms. Christensen, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to
direct my questions at Mr. Poneman, but I would believe that
Mr. Podonsky might be able to assist in answering.
The DOE's office of Health, Safety, and Security has been
able to identify major security flaws within several DOE
nuclear facility sites through the various security and safety
oversight inspections that it conducts.
So, Mr. Poneman, can you talk briefly about the inspections
the Office of Health, Safety, and Security is currently doing
across the DOE complex?
Mr. Poneman. Yes, Congresswoman. We highly value their role
as our internal independent oversight organization, and
therefore, the Secretary directed Mr. Podonsky to, A, dispatch
a team immediately to Y-12; B, to assemble a team that draws
from other parts of the Department to make sure all of the
sites in the complex that have Category 1 nuclear materials are
looked at quickly to see if there are any urgent changes that
we need to make in other sites; and then the third thing we
have asked Mr. Podonsky to do is an in-depth, what we call a
comprehensive inspection by his oversight organization, which
will take 3 weeks at each of the 12 sites and over the course
of 12 months do a deep drive, force-on-force testing and make
sure if there are deeper problems that need to be addressed
that we can do that.
Mrs. Christensen. OK, and Mr. Chairman, these assessments
will certainly be helpful to the committee and perhaps we could
have DOE come back to us once they have finished those
assessments.
So what kind of inspections did HSS do at Y-12 facility
before, and what did they find?
Mr. Poneman. I think I would let Mr. Podonsky address that.
Mr. Podonsky. Yes, ma'am. In 2008, we did what we call a
comprehensive security inspection. By definition comprehensive
means that we do force-on-force, limited scope performance
testing, we look at personnel security, protection program
management, physical security systems, material control
accountability. We look at the entire kaleidoscope of security
subjects to make sure that we know how effective the
requirements are being implemented. It is not just an
inspection to make sure that people are complying, but we also
take a look to see how they are performing, and it was in that
inspection that we identified a number of serious problems that
resulted in findings that the NNSA, according to DOE orders,
would then be responsible for fixing and putting a corrective
action plan in place, which they did. Many of those findings,
we believe, if they were completely fixed and maintained, then
perhaps the events that occurred in July of 2012 would not have
occurred.
Mrs. Christensen. So when did that take place?
Mr. Podonsky. That was in 2008, and the report was issued
in 2009.
Mrs. Christensen. So you don't believe that all of the
vulnerabilities were addressed, or they were addressed but not
maintained?
Mr. Podonsky. In all fairness they were addressed in 2009,
they put together the corrective actions, but then as 2010,
2011, we believe they deteriorated.
Mrs. Christensen. Is there any reason that we should be
worried about other facilities that may be susceptible to
similar breaches?
Mr. Podonsky. We should always be looking for improvements,
Congresswoman, and that is why the Deputy and the Secretary
directed us to go out and do immediate comprehensive
inspections of all of our Category 1 facilities.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. The August IG report revealed
that several of the security mechanisms in place at the Y-12
facility, if functioning properly, would have allowed personnel
to quickly identify and locate the intruders. Mr. Friedman, can
you tell us what those mechanisms were?
Mr. Friedman. Well, the cameras are a perfect example. They
have been discussed already during the hearing. They should all
have been fully functioning, and the maintenance process should
have been such that high priority maintenance, high priority
security components would have been repaired within a very
short period of time, if, in fact, they were--they broke down
for any--or became inoperable for any reason.
Also, we found another was compensatory measures. The
compensatory measures are implemented when there is a
mechanical failure. They were in place for much too long, and
therefore, they lost their character as a short-term measure to
address a problem in the immediate term but not the long term
as it was intended.
Mrs. Christensen. And who is responsible for that, for
maintaining the cameras? Was it the contractor, was it----
Mr. Friedman. Well, the contractor had primary
responsibility, but there certainly was responsibility on the
part of the site officials, the Federal site officials as well.
Mrs. Christensen. Well, you know, the incident, as has been
said, makes it clear that independent DOE oversight of NNSA and
its contractors is very important, and I look forward to seeing
the outcome of DOE's inspections throughout the nuclear complex
and the actions taken in response to these inspections.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Stearns. Thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Terry from Nebraska is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and first I just want
to say that I appreciate the gentlelady, Diane DeGette's
questions about some legislative language, and I happen to
agree with her position, and I think most of us do, that we
need more oversight, efficient oversight, force-on-force. I
mean, we can't do enough here to make sure that they are
secure. So we have to change a culture.
But I want to go back to the cameras, because as I
understand security, it isn't that sensors are number one and
then cameras are number two, and there is kind of list that you
go down. Sensors and cameras are part of the same. They are
yin, and they are yang. Sensors go off, you view the cameras to
see what is occurring. So I think that would be critical, but
yet it was deemed not to be critical. Is that correct, Mr.
Poneman?
Mr. Poneman. Yes, sir. On both points. It is critical, and
it was not deemed to be critical.
Mr. Terry. Yes, and so how long were--I don't know if we
established how long the cameras were not operating, how many
weeks, days, months.
Mr. Poneman. In at least one instance the IG report noted
the camera was broken on the order of 6 months.
Mr. Terry. Six months.
Mr. Poneman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Terry. Six months for something that universally at
this table you would deem cameras as critical.
Mr. Poneman. Yes, sir, and indeed----
Mr. Terry. Someone there made a decision that they weren't
critical. Who was that, or what entity makes that decision?
Mr. Poneman. That was something that would have been in the
hands of the M&O contractor to propose what----
Mr. Terry. It would be a guess.
Mr. Poneman [continuing]. And what is not and then it would
be up to the Federal oversight to be cognizant of that and to
be allowing it to continue.
Mr. Terry. I appreciate it. Did you want to say something?
Mr. D'Agostino. No, just--I was making sure my microphone
was off because I thought I saw the light on. I wanted--I agree
with--the Deputy Secretary said it absolutely right. We have a
contract with our M&O contractor down in Y-12 to take care of
this equipment, put it on a high priority. The camera
maintenance was not prioritized to be fixed. Our Federal
oversight should have caught that. That information as it is
floated in reports and oversight from the program side in
Washington should have been able to pick that data out. As the
Inspector General said, there were indicators in our reports,
but when there are too many indicators, the real indicator gets
lost in the noise, and so the important thing here is on
oversight, in my opinion, and I do greatly----
Mr. Terry. That is what we want.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, sir. That we have to make sure our
oversight is done not only in the quantity but in the quality
that allows us to----
Mr. Terry. Absolutely.
Mr. D'Agostino [continuing]. Pick out these flags and not
have the important indicators buried in reports. That is an
important thing from my standpoint.
Mr. Terry. Very good. I am just curious, Mr. Poneman. How--
these were down, cameras were down for 6 months. Once they were
fixed, evidently they were fixed within a couple days after the
incident. Is that correct?
Mr. Poneman. Yes, sir. They have all been fixed, sir.
Mr. Terry. What was wrong with the cameras?
Mr. Poneman. I don't know what was wrong the cameras, but I
think Mr. D'Agostino put it very well.
Mr. Terry. Mr. D'Agostino, do you know what was wrong with
the cameras?
Mr. D'Agostino. Not in a specific way. We can get--take
that question for the record and get back to the committee.
Mr. Terry. Mr. Podonsky, do you know?
Mr. Podonsky. I have an inspection team on the site right
now, and what I understand were those two particular cameras
that were out. One was an inner workings of the camera. It took
24 hours to fix that. The other one was a trip switch that had
to be just flipped on.
Mr. Terry. A trip switch. What does that mean?
Mr. Podonsky. I am not a systems engineer, but that----
Mr. Terry. Is that a circuit breaker?
Mr. Podonsky. A circuit breaker was flipped.
Mr. Terry. So all they had to do was look at it and go like
that, and that camera would have worked again?
Mr. Podonsky. That is what my inspectors are telling me.
Mr. Terry. But it was down for 6 months. So I guess to
conclude in the last 40 seconds, Mr. Friedman, you made a
comment regarding we need a scalpel, not a cleaver.
Mr. Friedman. I did.
Mr. Terry. I may disagree. When you have that level of
incompetence, to keep the same people and organization in place
probably isn't a good decision. There we probably need a
cleaver.
I yield back.
Mr. Stearns. Ms. Schakowsky is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to focus on
a more fundamental question involved in all of this. That is
the use of a private contractors altogether. You know, we made
a decision in--as a country in 1828, that we would be protected
here at the Congress, members of Congress and the public, by
people who wear the badge, and I am looking at the recruiting
Web site, and it says, ``Wear the badge, feel the honor, the
moment of transformation when you slip into the uniform. Put on
the badge and join our elite ranks. What does it take to join
this prestigious team? A deep sense of patriotism, unyielding
dedication to protecting the public, and a passion for the
American way of life are just the beginning.''
DOE is the largest non-defense department contractor and
agency in the Federal Government, and this is probably one of
the most sensitive missions; stewardship of the Nation's
nuclear weapon stockpile. And when you look at who the
contractor--the company that holds the security contractor is
WSI Oak Ridge. It is my understanding that this is a local
branch of G4S Global Solutions, formerly known as Wackenhut,
the same company that recently apologized to the British
Parliament for failing to provide enough security guards for
the London Olympics, and that they also own the company, Armor
Group, which was involved in serious abuses, including sexual
hazing and disgusting photos we were all privy to at the U.S.
Embassy in Cabo in 2009.
Now, I don't understand, one, why this company has any role
to play. I would like to know if you have any concerns about
the performance of this particular company. If the government
has taken any steps to hold both B&W Y-12 and WSI Oak Ridge
accountable for the security breach and any other misconduct. I
have seen reports that the current contracts for B&W expire
September 30, and WSI's contract ends November 30 and wondered
if we are going to get rid of them, and perhaps even more
fundamentally, I wonder if anybody has really looked at, done a
cost analysis of what it would be to have someone with pride
wear the badge of the United States of America, be in the line
of command, and guard something as sensitive as this rather
than hiring these private outside contractors.
That is a lot of questions, but I would like to at least
begin----
Mr. Poneman. These are profound questions, Congresswoman,
and they come in two sections. I am going to address each of
our concerns.
The question you raised about whether the protective force
should be Federal employees or contractor employees is a
longstanding question that has been looked at back to the late
1940s when it first went in the direction that it did for
security contractors being hired. What you said about that
sense of mission and patriotism, that is what we believe should
be held by all of us, including contractors. We say that we all
work for the President.
Now, there have been a number of reports, including GAO
reports, that have weighed the pros and cons, of which there
are many, but it comes down to something that I think Mr.
Gaffigan said well in his testimony. There is no substitute for
management, and you have to stay----
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, talk to me about this particular
company. Haven't they done enough to preclude them from being
hired? I mean, how many apologies have to be issued?
Mr. Poneman. That is the segue to the second part of your
question. Now, in this particular case the first thing we did
was we found that since the contract structure had an
independent contract for the protective force, this aggregated
from some of the systems that your colleague mentioned, we put
Wackenhut under the M&O contractor so we had a single command.
Point one. Point two, we then issued the show-cause notice that
said given these security breaches that were experienced at Y-
12, the contractors which would include both the M&O contractor
and Wackenhut or WSI at the site, show cause why the contract
should not be terminated. And the third point is on your point
about the contracts soon to expire, any subsequent competition
would be informed by the record of the contractors in their
last term of service under contract. So that would very much
influence any decision, and there would, therefore, be
consequences.
Ms. Schakowsky. Let me just say, if this were part of the
normal chain of command of people who wore the badge of the
United States of America, these people were out, they would be
sanctioned, there would be some consequence immediately for
that. It seems to me a company who has been engaged in the kind
of practices that they have, first of all, should be off the
list of contractors, and I think we ought to reconsider this
issue of whether or not private contractors are appropriate for
this level of sensitive mission.
And I yield back.
Mr. Friedman. May I just point out, if I might, that in
November of 2011 we in our management challenge report for the
Department of Energy, we recommended that we take a close look
at how the structure and the provision of protective forces at
the DOE facilities around the country, including, by the way,
Argon and Fermi, and one of the options that we put on the
table was, in fact, federalizing the workforce. It is a very
complicated issue. It goes back a long time as the Deputy
Secretary indicated, but we think it is time to relook at that
issue, and we agree with you there.
Mr. Stearns. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Dr. Burgess is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burgess. So if I just heard you correctly, Mr.
Inspector General, you said it is now, you feel it is now time
to relook at the issue. You know, there was a situation in
2007, six cruise missiles, each loaded with a nuclear warhead,
mistakenly loaded on a B-52 bomber at Minot Air Force Base and
transported to Barksdale, North Dakota, to Louisiana. The
warheads were supposed to be removed before the missiles were
taken from storage. The missiles with the nuclear warheads were
not reported missing and remained mounted to the aircraft at
both Minot and Barksdale for 36 hours. The warheads were not
protected by various security precautions required for nuclear
weapons. They never left the base, no one sprayed paint on
them, no one protested, but Secretary Gates demanded the
resignation of the Air Force Secretary and Chief of Staff of
the Air Force.
Where is the sense of urgency here? I haven't heard it this
morning. Mr. Terry said scalpel and cleaver, he prefers a
cleaver. I don't understand why these individuals are free to
be here in the hearing room today. Why are they not
incarcerated? My understanding is they have been charged with
both criminal trespass, which is a misdemeanor, and destruction
of Federal property, which is a felony. My understanding is one
of the individuals is a repeat offender. Do they pose a flight
risk? I don't know. They don't seem like reliable individuals.
It is hard to be against a nun and a house painter and an
electrician, whatever their professions are, but at the same
time why are they even here in this hearing room? Why are they
not being held in detention somewhere? What is to prevent them
from doing the very same thing tomorrow night or the night
after?
Mr. Barton posed a very good question. Carrying a Bible to
a secured nuclear facility is one thing, but it could have been
anything. It could have been anything. Where is the sense of
urgency to stop this problem? The POGO folks, the oversight
guys that are always posting stuff said the Boy Scouts would
have done a better job. So where is the sense of urgency?
Mr. Poneman. Congressman, there is, if that is directed to
me, there is no greater urgency that we face in the complex. We
are working this every day, all day, and we have from the day
of the incident, and we immediately took the actions to remove
the guards who were responsible, we immediately fixed the
cameras, we immediately dispatched teams, we immediately took
the general from our Pantex facility who is an expert at
security and sent him up to make sure that the best practices
that are enforced in Pantex, and we have done this from day
one, and we continue to do it, and we are going to keep working
at it until we feel confident that it--the job has been well
done.
Mr. Burgess. Have those guards been fired? I think the
answer to that question is, no, they have been reassigned. Are
they going to be barred from working on any sort of similar
security arrangement in the future? I don't think we have
gotten an answer to that. Who in the agency is taking
responsibility? Secretary Gates asked for the resignation of
the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force. Where is that
accountability in this situation, which I would submit is no
less serious than what occurred in Minot, North Dakota.
Mr. Poneman. We agree with the seriousness, Congressman.
That is precisely why we have got General Finan doing the
internal reviews. We have taken the people who were on the line
in terms of our own Federal oversight and reassigned them to
permit that review to be unimpeded, and we will follow every
fact trail to the end of the earth and find out what happened.
We will, as Secretary Gates did, hold people responsible.
Mr. Burgess. Well, I think the response was much more
immediate in Secretary Gates' situation.
Mr. Friedman, Inspector General Friedman, on the issue of
compensatory measures, one of the Federal officials according
to your report, this is--I am referencing here the special
report in the inquiry of the security breach at the National
Nuclear Security Administration's Y-12 national complex under
compensatory measures on page 4. You say one of these Federal
officials also indicated that they had been instructed not to
evaluate and report on how the contractors were conducting
business. Is that an accurate statement?
Mr. Friedman. That is an accurate statement.
Mr. Burgess. Well, if that is the case, as long as they
were doing an adequate job was the other part of that
statement. In this case were they doing an adequate job in
deciding how to accomplish their security mission for the
Department of Energy?
Mr. Friedman. As the very essence of our report is we think
not.
Mr. Burgess. So I guess my question to you is, I mean, you
are the law enforcement person here. You are the Inspector
General. Where is the accountability that you are going to
extract because they clearly failed at their mission?
Mr. Friedman. Well, you are right in your characterization
of what my job is and included, by the way, effectuating the
arrest of the three trespassers, and we are proceeding on that
case, and your earlier point, Doctor, is--Dr. Burgess, is
exactly correct. The judicial system is now the timing
mechanism. It is not the Department of Energy or the Office of
Inspector General.
With regard to your second point is we generally do not
identify particular individuals, there are cases where this
does occur, who ought to be fired. That is the responsibility
of management to take our report and the other information they
have available to them and make whatever judgments they see to
make with regard to firing individuals, personnel actions, or
disassociating the Department from certain contractors who have
not acted well.
Mr. Burgess. These are individuals who walked through the
so-called fatal force zone. At Los Alamos several years ago I
saw a force-on-force exercise out there. It was pretty
impressive, all of the tools that they had at their disposal.
Why was none of that used?
Mr. Friedman. Dr. Burgess, I am sorry. I really--could you
repeat the question? I am sorry.
Mr. Burgess. At Los Alamos in 2005----
Mr. Friedman. Right.
Mr. Burgess [continuing]. I was given a demonstration of
the force-on-force exercise that would be instituted were there
a serious security breach. I would submit that this was
serious. Got through four fences. They had something the size
of a Bible. Where was--what would it have taken to institute
that force-on-force----
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman's time has expired. You go
ahead.
Mr. Friedman. The answer--well, my answer to your question,
Dr. Burgess, is really the following. One of the--and I--the
fact that the nun, one of the trespassers is here today makes
this even more meaningful, I suppose, is we have testimony from
sharp shooters who were on the protected force at the site,
that if the trespassers, if they had clear sight of the
trespassers, they might have taken them out or attempted to
take them out at that time. So the aggressive force that you
witnessed on the force-on-force exercises at Los Alamos exists,
at least theoretically, at Y-12 as well.
Mr. Stearns. To confirm them, you had snipers at Y-12?
Mr. Friedman. Well, I don't want to characterize their
abilities. They are highly trained, very professional,
paramilitary, former Seals, very competent individuals in terms
of their physical abilities and the training generally. Clearly
there was a breakdown in this case, but you should not believe
that these are people who are not equipped to do the job when
they have to do the job.
Mr. Stearns. I understand. The gentlelady from Florida, Ms.
Castor, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me start by
expressing my dismay over this security breach. It is appalling
on all levels for the government and for the private
contractors that had responsibility here.
Last night the Washington Post published a story noting
that the security lapses that allowed three protesters,
including an 82-year-old nun, to gain access to the secure Y-12
area at Oak Ridge National Lab, that those security lapses had
been identified by government investigators 2 years before the
break in. According to the Post a 2010, classified report by
DOE inspectors found that, ``security cameras were inoperable,
equipment maintenance was sloppy, and guards were poorly
trained.''
Mr. Poneman, are you aware of this report?
Mr. Poneman. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Castor. Is what is being reported accurate?
Mr. Poneman. Obviously it is a classified report. We would
be very happy to go into it in closed session, and I would
suggest we defer.
Ms. Castor. What can you tell us now?
Mr. Poneman. What I can tell you is what we have been very
clear about, which is the characterization that you have used
and your colleagues have used. ``Appalling'' is apt, that as
Mr. Gaffigan has testified it is not just a matter of finding
the thing that is wrong and fixing it but sustaining that level
of effort and that we, therefore, had a breakdown up and down
the chain, including a sense of complacency that something like
this could not happen, and we are vigorously doing everything
we can to root that out and to put in place more effective
security.
Ms. Castor. Can you tell us that after that 2010, report
came out that it was reviewed with Babcock and Wilcox, your
contractors, Wackenhut, WSI Oak Ridge?
Mr. Poneman. I can tell you that that is what is supposed
to happen with those kind of reports. In terms of what happened
with that particular report, we would have to come back to you.
I don't know exactly----
Ms. Castor. And Mr. D'Agostino, did I see you nod that it
was reviewed with the contractors?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, ma'am. As part of standard practice
all independent inspection reports by the Health, Safety, and
Security organization are briefed to both the Federal officials
and the contractor officials at each site. Given the
consistency of Mr. Podonsky's organization doing these
inspections, which he could confirm, but there is no doubt in
my mind that there is, that these reports are in their hands,
they get copies, they are copied on the reports, they have the
reports.
I do as well. I get, typically get the report, I read the
executive summaries, I am briefed by Mr. Podonsky's
organization to give me the overall sense of the conditions.
That is standard practice. The key, though, for me in this
particular case is it is not enough just to read an executive
summary and take a high-level look at the findings and get a
brief by the organization. I actually have to read every page
of that report.
Ms. Castor. Who is responsibility is it then to sit down
with the contractors, with Babcock and Wilcox, Wackenhut, WSI
Oak Ridge to go through that? Did you do that, Mr. Podonsky?
Mr. Podonsky. Ma'am, what we do and we have been doing for
2 decades, is we independently assess the performance of the
contractor and the feds on the site, and then we issue a report
that is validated, and I won't bother to explain all the
details, but it is a very rigorous process. So we spend----
Ms. Castor. I wonder if anyone here at the table read that
report in 2010, and actively discussed it personally with the
contractors.
Mr. Podonsky. I will tell you that when the team is on site
as they are right now at other sites, including Y-12, they
actively validate daily----
Ms. Castor. I am just wondering if any of you here had that
report and had that discussion with the contractors.
Mr. Podonsky. I read my reports. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Castor. And then did you----
Mr. Podonsky. And then it is up to the line to discuss with
them, with their contractors and with their own staff how they
are going to correct it. We don't----
Ms. Castor. So you didn't have any personal conversations
on the phone or in person with the contractors? I am just
wondering if anyone, if it was anyone's responsibility to do
that or if anyone did that here.
Mr. D'Agostino. Ma'am, it is my responsibility to make sure
my organization and my security organization does exactly that,
go over the details of the report. As I mentioned earlier, I
get the executive summaries, I get a brief by the independent
inspection organizations on these reports, which I did in this
particular case, and the key is--and so I count on my security
organization to go through the details page by page----
Ms. Castor. OK. Thank you, and Mr. Friedman, I have--your
recent Y-12 report suggests that there may have been systemic
failures to address maintenance issues at Y-12. I would like to
know in a broader perspective were the problems you saw at Y-12
symptomatic of larger issues here at this agency or the DOE?
Mr. Friedman. Well, symptomatic in the sense that we have
concerns about the whole notion of contract administration and
contractor oversight and how that is effectuated throughout the
Department, yes. In terms of security, you know, to be totally
candid with you we have--we issued a report on a compromise of
a force-on-force exercise in 2004. So we have had some
continuing--at Y-12 but that----
Ms. Castor. And then back on the accountability for the
contractors, are there any penalties built into these
contracts? I understand that you have now taken action, began
proceedings to fire the management contractor, the subsidiary
of Babcock and Wilcox, but are there any penalties built into
these type of contracts so that if a breach like this occurs,
not only do personnel lose their jobs but there is some payment
back to the DOE or the government?
Mr. D'Agostino. The government always has the ability to
reach back and look at past performance and make adjustments
consistent with the contract, and our plans are to do just that
in this case, ma'am.
Mr. Stearns. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The gentlelady from Tennessee is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you
all for your patience. I hope that it is not lost on you that
this is something that concerns us tremendously, and having
served in the State Senate in Tennessee, knowing how proud
individuals in that part of the State are of that facility,
having visited the facility many times myself, I think not only
did you have a security breach, but you have now what you are
seeing is a breach of the public trust in that area. You are
charged with keeping that facility safe. You are charged in
keeping the employees at that facility safe, and it is such--
the ineptness and the negligence is mindboggling as we look at
this.
Now, I want to go back to this 2010, report. A report comes
out in 2010, and you review this report. Now, you have to
review it with the contractors. Am I right there, Mr. Podonsky?
I think----
Mr. Podonsky. Yes. We validate the content----
Mrs. Blackburn. OK.
Mr. Podonsky [continuing]. To the contractors and the
site----
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. Now, with the site, who is the buck
stops here? Who is--do you have a guy who makes the decision at
that facility that says, these are serious issues?
Mr. Podonsky. That would be the site manager, the Federal
site manager.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. The Federal site manager. Did that
individual make that decision that this was serious, and did
they hold Babcock and Wilcox and WSI responsible and say, we
are going to tie your money up until you straighten this out?
Mr. Podonsky. I would tell you from the independent
oversight perspective that is what is supposed to happen, and
then we as an organization brief it up as Administrator
D'Agostino said, we did brief him and his security staff back
in Washington. So it is up to Administrator D'Agostino to then
make sure that the corrective actions through the site manager
are----
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. D'Agostino, did you follow up with the
site manager?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Blackburn. Did the site manager say we have taken
action to fix these security lapses?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, ma'am. In the 2009, report that was
referenced----
Mrs. Blackburn. When did he show proof that he had taken
that?
Mr. D'Agostino. The--I will have to get you the exact month
that he showed proof, but we had validated the closure of all
of the findings, including the cameras----
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. Then who is responsible that it didn't
get done?
Mr. D'Agostino. The problem----
Mrs. Blackburn. Let me ask you this. Have any of you been
on the ground at the Y-12 facility?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, ma'am.
Mr. Podonsky. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Blackburn. All of you have been there?
Mr. Poneman. Yes, ma'am.
Mr. Gaffigan. Yes, ma'am.
Mr. Friedman. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Blackburn. So all of you went, and all of you looked
at this physical facility, and all, each of you reviewed the
items that were pointed out and made sure boxes were checked
that they had been repaired and signed off on this. Am I right
on this?
Mr. Poneman. No, ma'am. I visited this site----
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. Mr. Poneman.
Mr. Poneman [continuing]. On earlier occasions, and as you
know having visited the site, it is an impressive site.
Mrs. Blackburn. Yes, it is.
Mr. Poneman. And the problem----
Mrs. Blackburn. And it deserves to be protected.
Mr. Poneman. And it deserves for the site, for the people
of the Nation, absolutely correct. One of the problems here is
you have an evidence that looks like invincibility, but we had
specific shortcomings that were not adequately identified or if
they were fixed, the system was not fixed to the point that it
was sustained. These are the things that we are trying to get
our arms around right now.
You are absolutely right. It has to have that kind of top
level----
Mrs. Blackburn. See, it just seems incomprehensible that
you could have said we have this report, we are doing this
review, we have these problems, the problems are not fixed, are
not fixed to completion. How could you continue the contract if
they are not completed, and I have to tell you, listening to
you all this morning, I got to tell you something. This is
classic bureaucratic pass the buck. It is not my problem. It is
somebody else's problem. Well, it is your problem.
Mr. Poneman. Congresswoman----
Mrs. Blackburn. You are charged with the responsibility of
protecting these facilities, and we are charged with conducting
the appropriate oversight for this, and to say, well, I
reviewed it and so and so said--somebody somewhere has to say
are the cameras working, are the fences complete. If you have
got, what is it, 200 false alarms, you should know that there
is a problem with something causing the false alarms. You know
it is wildlife in this area. Is that not correct? So you fix
it, but you don't allow it to continue and continue to pay the
contract and then have something like this occur where you have
individuals inside this facility. The security culture and the
safety culture demands a better product from you all.
Mr. Poneman. Congresswoman, in terms of the priority that
it deserves and in terms of the cultural requirement to be ever
vigilant, you are absolutely correct. That is why within days
of actually knowing about the problems, the problems that had
been identified had been fixed, and we are now about the
business of making sure, A, that we don't have problems like
that anywhere else in the system, and B, that we take
permanent, sustained, and sustainable measures to make sure
that it is----
Mrs. Blackburn. Sir, my time has expired, but I would offer
that you fixed them after you were embarrassed, and you fixed
them 2 years too late.
I yield back.
Mr. Stearns. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A question for everyone
on the panel. The National Defense Authorization Act was passed
by this chamber earlier this year, allows the National Nuclear
Security Administration sites to adopt OSHA workplace standards
in lieu of the NNSA present standards.
Can anyone on the panel tell me the differences between
what NNSA's present standards and the standards the House NDAA
would allow? In addition, the OSHA standards provide more
protection. Would OSHA standards provide more protection for
the workers at those nuclear sites, and would OSHA standards be
easier to enforce?
Is OSHA stronger than what was original standards?
Mr. Poneman. We have very strong standards, Congressman, in
the Department of Energy. There are some similarities between
OSHA standards and DOE standards, but there are some unique DOE
requirements because of our unique nuclear responsibilities for
such materials as Beryllium and so forth. So we are informed by
those standards, but the standards that the DOE employs are
specific to the DOE complex and are unique requirements.
Mr. Green. You can apply both, whichever is the toughest.
Obviously your standards or OSHA standards, I guess, for
safety. Is there any--is national, nuclear security standards
stronger than OSHA?
Mr. Poneman. Well, the OSHA standards, Congressman, and my
colleagues may wish to join me in explaining this, apply to
general industrial safety.
Mr. Green. Yes.
Mr. Poneman. And where we can apply globally recognized
standards that apply to industrial safety, we do that. That is
an efficient thing to do to use validated peer review standards
such as OSHA. However, when there are those unique requirements
that pertain to the use of Beryllium and other things that are
unique to our complex, we need special DOE-tailored standards.
Mr. D'Agostino. And if I could just agree with everything
the Deputy Secretary said. We have, we follow DOE directives on
safety. Safety is critically important, and we are inspected by
independent inspection, Mr. Podonsky's organization, as well as
we have our own safety inspection standards. We don't believe
that OSHA broadly applied is the way to go. We believe after
years of analysis and work in developing DOE directives on
safety that we have the right set. It is something that
requires constant vigilance, constant attention to detail as
this security situation has pointed out. We really do have to
continue to keep eyes on the ball here, sir.
Mr. Podonsky. May I amplify on that, Congressman?
Mr. Green. Sure.
Mr. Podonsky. The Administration made it clear that the
legislation that was proposed would hinder the Secretary's
ability to manage safety and security at--within the NNSA, and
specifically to your question on OSHA versus the standards that
we have, our standards are much stronger. In fact, the
Administrator for OSHA would like to move OSHA more towards the
DOE standards, but because their hazards are of not the same
magnitude as ours, it is rather difficult.
Mr. Green. Well, and obviously I have trouble with OSHA
standards. I represent an area of maybe not as--but refineries
and chemical plants, and our standards, sometimes the company
standards are tougher than OSHA, and I can understand that.
The testimony by the Inspector General and the GAO
submitted today indicate that have been persistent safety
problems at NNSA sites for the past decade. The GAO reported
between 2000, and 2007, there were 60 serious accidents or near
misses, including worker exposure to radiation, inhalation of
toxic vapors, electrical shocks, and again, I am interested in
learning what DOE and NNSA are doing to protect the workers. Is
60 violations in 7 years, particularly dealing with the type of
substances that you have to do, it seems like that would be an
awful lot.
Mr. Poneman. Congressman, when it comes to anything
nuclear, even one incident is one too many.
Mr. Green. Yes.
Mr. Poneman. And I can assure you that we take gravely
seriously our commitment and our responsibilities for the
safety of our workers, of the neighbors of the facilities, and
of the general public. We have addressed issues up, down, and
sideways relating to improving our safety culture. The
Secretary and I have both spent days and weeks going out to the
sites, telling people they should feel free to come forward to
express----
Mr. Green. I have one more question. Let me get--Mr.
Gaffigan, your testimony states that the problem of NNSA
oversight is not a matter of being excessive or overbearing but
ineffective. What recommendations would you provide for the
oversight to be less ineffective, and what steps can be--you
report to the DOE in taking to make sure that oversight of the
labs is as effective as possible?
Mr. Gaffigan. And I this applies to both safety and
security. We have not found the problems to be the standards
themselves. I think the standards are good. They are out there.
They do find the problems, they do come up with good corrective
action plans, and the thing that we think they fall short on
over and over again, this is kind of deja vu all over again
with both the safety and the security side, and we have reports
going back to the early 2000s and beyond. The same issue of
they identified the problem and then they come out with
corrective action, and it is not sustained, and I think you
found in the testimony today talking about 2008, when the first
report came out, 2009, 2010, whatever these issues were
floated, yes, it looks like some action was taken, but it
wasn't sustained. And that seems to be the problem over and
over again.
Mr. Green. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. Thank the gentleman.
I recognize Mr. Gardner, the gentleman from Colorado, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I have heard
members of the committee as well as panelists before this
committee describe what happened as inexcusable and as
appalling, but I would also say that it has become a little bit
of a theme. If you look at some of the background material that
we have been given before this committee hearing and the
memorandum, it talks about committee hearings that were held, a
series of Energy and Commerce Committee hearings held in 1999,
that talks about 15 hearings held and numerous GAO
investigations requested in 2004, and 2005, and 2008, and 2009.
We have heard about reports in March of 2010.
I have in my district 50 intercontinental ballistic
missiles, Minutemen III, located in my district, and recently I
went to F. E. Warren Air Force Base, where I viewed the
preparations that they go under to monitor the sites, the
missile alert facilities, and the material that they are
protecting. And certainly I don't think at any point was I
concerned that they were becoming numb to an alarm that was
going off, because as I sat in the facility there were alarms
going off because a tumbleweed blew up against an electronic
surveillance barrier, and they knew where to look for that, and
they certainly checked it out and verified it. And it happened
multiple times a day as you can imagine on the eastern plains
of Colorado, where you have wildlife, where you have
tumbleweeds, where you have high wind, where you have snow that
builds drifts that may cause an alert. Watching the shadows on
the video monitor of the drifts to make sure that nothing was
changing.
And yet we continue to see this theme that it sounds like
you know what is wrong, it sounds like you have identified the
problem, but I don't know that we have had the government
picture in place that actually accomplishes the protections
that we need of what obviously is a critical matter of national
security.
And some of this, some of these questions have been asked
before. Some of them have been talked about here, but I do want
to follow up and do a little bit of repeating of what has
happened.
And so, Mr. Friedman, Mr. Friedman, in your report, in your
IG report you say that one official in NNSA was talking about
how, talking about how--excuse me. Had been instructed not to
evaluate and report on how the contractors were conducting
business, and we talked a little bit about the contractors,
whether or not they have done an adequate job deciding how to
accomplish the mission. We have talked about effective
management.
And so I guess the question is actually not for you, Mr.
Friedman, but to Mr. D'Agostino. How do we make sure that we
have the management that we need to--for a contractor to make
decisions if the Federal side officials are not able to
evaluate how the contractor is doing their job?
Mr. D'Agostino. Mr. Gardner, that is the question is to
make sure, it is my responsibility to make sure that my Federal
overseers in the program understand that my expectation is that
they do oversee the contractor in this high hazard, highly
important, critical missions of nuclear safety and nuclear
security and that we have an independent oversight structure in
place to check that we are actually doing that particular
thing.
In this particular case you referenced a quote I think from
Mr. Friedman's report. We had clearly a situation that was
unacceptable, was inexcusable, and this is why we are
conducting reviews because we want to understand what happened
in the translation of oversight that we have people at our site
offices thinking that they cannot and should not and are not
allowed to oversee the contractor in that way. So we want to
track this down, we want to get this review done and General
Finan's review as the Deputy Secretary had mentioned, clearly
is a step towards digging beyond just what we have been--and
some of the pieces we have been talking about on specific
numbers of cameras, which is important, but we want to get to
that underlying thing that allows us to sustain oversight,
effective oversight in the right way, and as Mr. Friedman's
report said, so it in a risk-based way where our attention is
based on the most, the highest, most important activities.
Mr. Gardner. Do you carry out perimeter checks? I mean, do
you carry out perhaps drills or tests that may breach a
perimeter just to check for response?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, but we clearly need to do more of
these and do what----
Mr. Gardner. How many--how often do you carry those out?
Mr. D'Agostino. Those checks, right now those checks are
now being ascribed every time we conduct a visit from
headquarters that we are going to do that check. We are going
to have federalized----
Mr. Gardner. How often were they carried out before the
incident at Y-12?
Mr. D'Agostino. They were carried out on a regular basis.
Mr. Gardner. What is a regular basis?
Mr. D'Agostino. Regular basis is on a weekly basis by their
protective force. We expect our contractor have a performance
assurance system. They have to prove to the Federal Government,
we have a contract with them, that they are checking
themselves, and so they----
Mr. Gardner. And are you reviewing those checks?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, sir. Those checks get reviewed. The
challenge is to make, is to have these checks done in such a
way that they actually could test conditions on the ground, not
the fact that we have a contractor knowing that something is
going to happen so they are ready to go.
Mr. Gardner. Yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and thank
you, Sister, Meghan Rice, for being here. Thank you for your
actions. Thank you for your willingness to focus attention on
this nuclear weapons buildup that still exists in our world and
how much we need to do something to reduce it. We don't need
more nuclear weapons. We need fewer nuclear weapons. We don't
need more hostility with Russia. We need less hostility with
Russia. We thank you. We thank you for your courage.
I went to Immaculate Conception Grammar School, Malden
Catholic, Boston College, and Boston College Law School. So I
went to catholic school every day for 20 years, and I am very
influenced, of course, by everything that the nuns taught me.
It is important that was nuns on the bus, not under the bus,
which a lot of people would like for you, Sister. They think
you should be punished and not praised, but what you have done
is you have shown the lackness, the laxness of the security at
our nuclear weapons facilities, and but you have also pointed
out that we still have an out-of-control nuclear arms race with
an out-of-control budget building more nuclear weapons in our
own country, and for that you should be praised, because that
is ultimately what the Sermon on the Mount is all about.
And I think along Sister Simone Campbell, speaking at the
Democratic Convention about the Ryan budget, that you can't
build more nuclear weapons and cut Medicaid and cut Pell Grants
and cut Medicare at the same time. It is not just the
arithmetic doesn't add up if you say you are balancing the
budget, but the morality end of it. It is just wrong, and so
what you did, Sister, was just so memorable to me in pulling up
all of those classrooms that I was in all those years, just
hearing that message. And so I thank you for that, and I hope
that the members of this committee can learn from what you are
saying and what Sister Campbell is saying and perhaps just
reflect that in the incredible commitment that too many members
have to building more nuclear weapons when we don't have any
targets anymore for those nuclear weapons.
And some people just think of the Defense budget as a jobs
bill. No. It should just be what enhances our security, and if
you can't justify it on that basis, you just can't maintain it
because it adds to the instability on the planet.
So, Mr. Poneman, let me just go to you. The United States
Enrichment Corporation is possibly the most troubled company
that has a pending loan guarantee application at the
Department. It is rated at below junk bond status. It has been
warned that it is at risk of being delisted from the stock
exchange, which prompted the USEC to warn its shareholders
could be put into default on all of its debts. It lost more
money last year than the entire Solyndra Loan Guarantee was
worth, and despite repeated DOE bailouts totaling almost $1
billion and free uranium and other subsidies in just the past 8
months the total value of the company is only about $62
million. And despite the clear signs of impending bankruptcy,
the Department requested another $100 million from Congress for
USEC for fiscal year 2013.
Mr. Poneman, will the Department actually provide these
funds to USEC even if USEC continues to be at risk of being
delisted from the stock exchange and defaulting on all of its
debts?
Mr. Poneman. Congressman, let me be very clear. The thing
that the United States Department of Energy is focused on is
maintaining a domestic source of enriched uranium so that while
we still have the deterrent that we need to defend America, we
can get the tritium and so forth we need----
Mr. Markey. I understand that, but USEC's American
centrifuge project in Ohio plans to use foreign-made technology
for everything from pumps to cooling systems. They have even
asked from Congress to pass legislation to get favorable tariff
treatment on these imports, and USEC's Kentucky facility relies
on French pumps to move the enriched uranium and waste through
the machines.
If DOE really believes it needs American technology to meet
its tritium needs, why does it allow USEC to rely so heavily on
foreign technology?
Mr. Poneman. To be very clear, Congressman, that is,
whether there are some parts that are foreign, the technology
and the intellectual property is owned by the United States of
America, and the United States Department of Energy has taken
every step to ensure that in the event that USEC is not able to
carry of its responsibilities, that we have access both to the
machines and to the intellectual property to assure that our
trading requirements can still be met.
Mr. Markey. But are you going to give them money even if
they are going bankrupt?
Mr. Poneman. To me, to us, Congressman, the question is not
a specific company and its status. The question is the
capability for the Nation. We will do what we need to to make
sure that we still have the deterrent that we need to defend
America.
Mr. Markey. Well, I just disagree with that 100 percent. I
just think if we are going to have a loan guarantee program and
Solyndra is going to be criticized, then we have to criticize
the United States Enrichment Corporation as well, and we should
find a way indigenously of doing it but not subsidizing
companies that are going bankrupt. It is just wrong.
Mr. Poneman. Congressman, to be very clear, precisely
because the underwriting criteria of the loan program guarantee
could not be met by USEC, the Department entered into a far
different arrangement, a much more modest arrangement for
research demonstration and development program, which would
vouchsafe the technology stayed safe in American hands, even if
the loan guarantee could not be qualified as under the
underwriting criteria it could not. The program that we have in
place will reduce the technical risks and reduce the financial
risks if it works out, and we have very strong safeties to make
sure that the U.S. taxpayer interest is well protected.
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Markey. That is junk bond status.
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Back to the subject of this hearing, I got a couple of
questions. I have heard that everybody is processing reports
and going over all of this. Can I assume that you all will
bring a report to us as well highlighting what went wrong, what
is being done to rectify that?
Mr. Poneman. Congressman, we not only recognize it. We
embrace the oversight responsibilities of this subcommittee,
and we will surely bring that to your attention.
Mr. Griffith. And Mr. Chairman, I think probably the 4
years in we might want to have a revisit on this subject even
if brief, even if only a brief hearing on that matter.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Also, there has been talk of and I don't care who responds
because several people have mentioned that there was--the
debate over federalization had been going on for years, and it
was being looked at again, and I am sitting here, and there may
be some great reason for it, but I am new, and I am just trying
to solve problems, but have we ever thought about attaching at
least for the protection of the perimeter an installation of
the United States Army?
Mr. Poneman. Congressman, the first thing that we have done
in this particular instance is make sure with the force that we
have and the arrangements that we have that we are safe and the
material is secure. We have already said we need to look at
exactly the kinds of questions you are asking to see if it can
be done better. It has been looked at many times. I do think
that Mr. Gaffigan put his finger on something very important
when he said whatever the organizational arrangements, and I
think this is what the past GAO reports indicated, there was no
substitute for strong management oversight. So whether it is a
federalized force or whether it is a contracted force, there is
no substitute for getting that strong direction and leadership.
Mr. Griffith. Historically the United States Army seems to
have done a pretty good of that.
Mr. Poneman. We are very proud of the U.S. Army.
Mr. Griffith. That being said, Mr. Friedman, I am new to
this, but my understanding is is that this has been going on
for some time with various problems, and what else should we be
doing as a committee to make sure that we don't have another
problem 6 months, 2 years, 5 years from now, and as a part of
that, you know, should we be making more site visits to see
whether or not the cameras are switched on ourselves?
Mr. Friedman. Well, I will respond to your question, Mr.
Griffith, but it is a little presumptuous on my part to tell
the subcommittee how to conduct its oversight.
Mr. Griffith. Well, I am looking----
Mr. Friedman. So I would tell you this. I think periodic
hearings on these specific matters would be worthwhile. I think
more site visits, boots on the ground from the subcommittee's
point of view to see what is going on, comparing and
contrasting from your perspective what goes on at the various
Department of Energy sites and seeing if there are anomalies
that you might point out, and finally, sort of the $64
question, which I don't know has been asked, is the question of
resources, and there are resource issues, and perhaps, I know
you are an oversight committee, but obviously you have
appropriations responsibilities as well, and that might be an
area in which you could focus your attention. In other words,
do they have the resources to do that job, are they properly
positioned to do that.
Mr. Poneman. I would just add, Congressman, we would
welcome any and all members of the subcommittee to the site. We
think that would be a very, very useful exercise and helpful.
Mr. Griffith. All right. Mr. Chairman, I see no need to
pile on. Everybody has said what happened was bad and we want
to fix it, but I am happy to yield my time to any member who
might with to have that time.
Mr. Stearns. OK. I will take a little bit and then the
gentlelady from Tennessee.
Mr. Friedman, you indicate more resources but wasn't it a
case where they just didn't check the circuit breakers on one
of the cameras?
Mr. Friedman. Well, I am not suggesting that the
Congressional appropriation was inadequate. What I am
suggesting is that in terms of maintenance, which is one of the
key issues here, we were told that there were not enough
maintenance individuals to take care of the backlog of existing
equipment while they implemented and installed a new system. So
the pie simply was not large enough to take care of both. That
is the sort of resource issue that I was referring to, and I
apologize if I didn't make that clear.
Mr. Stearns. But you would admit that checking circuit
breakers doesn't require more resources, and one of the key
cameras didn't--no one checked the circuit breaker. It wasn't
working.
Mr. Friedman. Well, I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman,
that when somebody takes a closer look at it, it was more than
a mere circuit breaker, but I am not in a position to affirm
that positively but----
Mr. Stearns. OK. The gentleman from Virginia reclaims his
time.
Mr. Griffith. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say
that the other question that I have is is that there must have
been more than just one or two cameras out. Either that or
these folks had some inside information. My guess is is that
your entire perimeter was exposed or else they wouldn't have
been able to just waltz in the way they did. Either that or
they knew which cameras weren't working. It sounds like to me
the whole thing was down.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Scalise is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
holding this hearing, and I have a number of questions, but I
first want to respond to some of those comments made by the
gentleman from Massachusetts. You know, first of all, to try to
equate in some way building nuclear weapons to protect this
country and reforming Medicaid, which is an incredibly broken
system that is depriving many people of good healthcare and
equating that as a moral, I have no idea what place that has in
this debate. You know, maybe some people haven't been paying
attention what has been going on in the world.
I mean, we just saw yesterday on the 11th anniversary of
September 11 that there is turmoil in this world and especially
in the Middle East. You know, not only what happened in Libya
and Egypt yesterday but also you look at what is happening in
Iran, you know, while some people here might want to eliminate
our nuclear force and our capabilities to defend this country,
Iran is currently developing and may have nuclear capabilities
at this time, and there is a bipartisan group in Congress that
recognized that threat, and while President Obama might not
have time to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu to talk about the
threat to Israel, one of our greatest allies in the world,
there is a bipartisan group in Congress who do recognize that
treat and support the efforts, not only of Israel to defend
themselves, but of this country and the actions that we ought
to be taking that we are not to address the threat of Iran, as
well as the nuclear threats all around the world and the fact
that we can't do it by disarming ourselves. I mean, America is
the beacon of the world in large part because of our strength,
and peace through strength has worked over time. It is what
ended the Cold War, and yet there are some people that want to
think that now that the Cold War is over, they just want to
ignore history.
And so, you know, I think that history repeated itself
yesterday, and those who ignore it are doomed to have it repeat
itself, and we can't let that happen, and that is why the
Department of Energy has a responsibility to protect the
arsenal that we have, and you know, I think what our hearing is
really focusing on is what kind of job is being done. You know,
I looked at the Inspector General report, and I have some
questions about that.
First, I want to just open it up to the whole panel. In
February the National Research Council issued a report which
concluded in part, I quote, ``The study committee recommends
that the NNSA, Congress, and top management of the laboratories
recognize that safety and security systems at the laboratories
have been strengthened to the point where they no longer need
special attention.'' This was written in February.
I want to ask if any of you all want to comment on that,
and first of all, do you agree with it? I strongly disagree
with that conclusion by the National Research Council, and I
think what happened with this breach just 2 months ago shows
that, in fact, they haven't been strengthened, but this
conclusion says they are strengthened. Mr. Poneman, do you want
to comment?
Mr. Poneman. Congressman, very important points and just
briefly on your first point, that is exactly why President
Obama has made clear that in our nuclear posture review that
non-proliferation is the top objective, and we have been to
every effort to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Mr. Scalise. I would disagree. I would think if you look at
the actions that this administration has taken, it has been
inadequate to stop Iran from developing the capabilities that
everybody that honestly looks at it, especially Israel, which
is faced with the evisceration, says that they are carrying
forward with. So, I mean, to say that this administration has
taken actions to stop Iran from advancing their nuclear
capability is just wrong.
Mr. Poneman. Sir, with all due respect, we have negotiated
to curtail and to pull out highly enriched uranium, natural
uranium that had been enriched in a facility. We are sparing no
effort to stop that, but I want to go back to your NRC question
about the report.
We strongly, strongly believe that continued and, in fact,
enhanced vigilance in oversight is required. The job of----
Mr. Scalise. Well, did you agree with that conclusion that
security has been strengthened to the point where it no longer
needs special attention? Do you agree with that conclusion or
do you not?
Mr. Poneman. No. Security always, always needs to be----
Mr. Scalise. OK. So you disagree.
Mr. Poneman. It will never be done.
Mr. Scalise. Mr. Friedman, you did the Inspector General,
you are part of the Inspector General report. What is your
response to the conclusion that they had just in February?
Mr. Friedman. I disagree with that aspect of the conclusion
based on our work. We treat these matters as--on our management
challenge list as components of the management challenge list.
While there have been some improvements and some setbacks in
certain areas, we don't think their position is----
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, and I hope that the Department
looks closely at your report and some of the reports of those
who were on the ground, those people that were tasked with
maintaining security at this facility. I mean, it looked like a
Keystone Cop operation where the officer there wasn't even
paying attention to what was going on, wasn't even really
securing the facility after the people who broke in came and in
essence surrendered to them. They just kind of looked around,
and it took a second supervisor to come before they finally
took some action.
But I think it shows--and it wasn't, he wasn't the only
one. I mean, there was reports that people on the--at the
facility for months didn't know even how many cameras weren't
even working. They had no idea what was working, what wasn't
working, and some of this had been problematic for months. And
so I think there was a culture there, and I don't know if that
permeated at the other facilities, too, because this wasn't--Y-
12 wasn't the only facility. So I don't know if this is a
culture of neglect and lax security, but clearly there is a
difference because as I pointed out, you know, you look at what
National Research Council said. They said the security is fine,
and it is not.
And so I hope that there will be real accountability and
not just people reassigned, but people ought to be removed, and
a new culture needs to be installed.
And with that I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Stearns. Thank the gentleman. I believe we have had a
very good attendance by the subcommittee. I want to thank the
witnesses for their patience and participation.
I ask unanimous consent that the contents of the document
binder be introduced into the record and to authorize staff to
make any appropriate redactions.
Without objection, so ordered. The documents will be
entered into the record with any redactions that staff
determines are appropriate, and I remind all members that at
12:30 we are going to have a meeting and a briefing, and all
members on the subcommittee are invited. It is over in the
visitor's center, and you can talk to staff if you want the
actual room number.
And, again, we want to thank our witnesses, and the
subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85180.130