Big Changes in Store for DOE Weapons Labs

It has been almost impossible to keep track of the many congressional hearings and other developments during the last few weeks concerning the Department of Energy’s weapons labs. Out of all of this, one outcome seems certain -- the department’s weapons labs are going to be operated under a new structure, and that new structure will be mandated by legislation. This change will involve more, much more, than the earlier concerns about visits to the weapons labs by foreign scientists.

Energy Secretary Bill Richardson has probably spent more time on Capitol Hill in these last few weeks than have some Members of Congress. A June 9 hearing before Senator Richard Shelby’s (R- Alabama) Select Intelligence Committee signaled that DOE’s weapons program was in trouble. Senators portrayed various degrees of outrage over the department’s security and counterintelligence measures. Richardson was combative, saying he would recommend a presidential veto of proposed legislation.

The dynamics of this issue changed with the release of a report by a Special Investigative Panel of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. The title says it all: “Science at its Best, Security at Its Worst: A Report on Security Problems at the U.S. Department of Energy.” This panel was chaired by Warren B. Rudman, former Republican senator from New Hampshire. Another board member was Sidney D. Drell, Emeritus Professor of Theoretical Physics and a Senior Fellow to the Hoover Institution. Drell is a past president of the American Physical Society.

This 62-page report probably could not have been harsher in its criticism of the weapons labs management and security procedures. It called DOE’s performance “intolerable,” its approach to security and counterintelligence “Pollyannaish.” The report’s “bottom line: DOE represents the best of America’s scientific talent and achievement, but it has also been responsible for the worst security record on secrecy that the members of this panel have ever encountered.” It found that “DOE has had a dysfunctional management structure and culture that only occasionally gave proper credence to the need for rigorous security and counterintelligence programs at the weapons labs.” The report faulted all Administrations reaching back to President Nixon.

The impact of this report was evidenced by a joint Senate hearing yesterday of four committees. This hearing was unprecedented in the history of the Senate, as more than one-third of all senators were represented. Appearing before the senators were Rudman and a much-less combative Richardson. Except for several expressions of caution about not harming the basic science work at the labs, it would be difficult to find any senator who does not want changes in the way that DOE runs its weapons labs. Senators were even more agitated than at previous hearings, citing instances of the Rudman report describing incidents of resistance at the labs to the implementation of security measures. Senators called for fundamental change, strict accountability, and legislation to force management changes at all levels in this and in all future administrations.

To effect this change, key senators are pushing legislation to put the weapons program in a semi-autonomous agency within DOE. This agency would report only to Richardson.

Concern was expressed by some senators and Richardson about the effect that this would have on non weapons work at the weapons labs. Rudman replied that it was for this very reason that the panel did not recommend that the new agency be independent, like NASA. Instead, the panel wants this new semi-autonomous Agency for Nuclear Stewardship to fit within DOE like DARPA and the National Security Agency fit within the Defense Department, and NOAA within the Department of Commerce.

Richardson repeated his opposition to a separate agency within the department, wanting instead a new undersecretary position. His position did not seem to change any minds. Richardson urged the senators to “not build a Berlin Wall between our science and defense programs” at the labs. The panel’s report readily acknowledges the importance of non weapons work at the weapons labs, discussing this as early as the second paragraph in the report’s first page. It seems clear, however, that any concern about damage to non weapons work is not going to stand in the way of this legislation calling for a semi-autonomous agency.

Rudman was very forceful in his presentation his was clearly a “take no prisoners” approach. He cited more than 100 reports that have been written about DOE in the last 20 years that he said have been ignored. Rudman does not want to see his report fall into this same category. After praising the labs’ work, he blasted the labs and DOE for faulty management. He described a broken door lock guarding sensitive nuclear information that took 35 months to fix, saying of this kind of approach, “It’s a disgrace to this country.” Of management, he said “there was no accountability.” To the senators, Rudman said he had been told that one response of some in the workforce to calls for tighter security and management was “we be here when you came...we be here when you gone.” He spoke of a “culture of arrogance” and a “lack of accountability” at DOE.

This legislation is going forward, and in the Senate, it is pointing to a new agency within DOE. There is an uneasy sense of cooperation, for each side knows that it needs the other. Senator Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) told Richardson yesterday, “without your support we are going down the beach like a bunch of crabs.” Richardson ended the hearing yesterday saying, “I want to work this out.”