CargoAdmin, Bureaucrats, Moderators (CommentStreams), fileuploaders, Interface administrators, newuser, Push subscription managers, Suppressors, Administrators
5,236
edits
Federal Protective Forces: Difference between revisions
m
Text replacement - "United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom"
m (1 revision imported) |
m (Text replacement - "United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom") |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
In 2006 the Department of Energy Inspector General received complaints from inside the [[Pantex Plant]] that Protective Forces were not being issued the correct [[night-vision equipment]] to safely operate their [[Mk 19 grenade launcher]]s, a complaint it later substantiated after an investigation, though the NNSA rejected the report's findings.<ref>{{cite news|title=NNSA rejects Pantex inspection|url=http://amarillo.com/stories/072607/new_8075735.shtml#.WD71J7IrKM8|access-date=30 November 2016|work=[[Amarillo Globe-News]]|date=26 July 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161220090920/http://amarillo.com/stories/072607/new_8075735.shtml#.WD71J7IrKM8|archive-date=20 December 2016|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Protective Force MK-19 Grenade Launcher Use at the National Nuclear Security Administration's Pantex Facility|url=http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/igprod/documents/IG-0770.pdf|website=energy.gov|publisher=[[U.S. Department of Energy]]|access-date=30 November 2016}}</ref> | In 2006 the Department of Energy Inspector General received complaints from inside the [[Pantex Plant]] that Protective Forces were not being issued the correct [[night-vision equipment]] to safely operate their [[Mk 19 grenade launcher]]s, a complaint it later substantiated after an investigation, though the NNSA rejected the report's findings.<ref>{{cite news|title=NNSA rejects Pantex inspection|url=http://amarillo.com/stories/072607/new_8075735.shtml#.WD71J7IrKM8|access-date=30 November 2016|work=[[Amarillo Globe-News]]|date=26 July 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161220090920/http://amarillo.com/stories/072607/new_8075735.shtml#.WD71J7IrKM8|archive-date=20 December 2016|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Protective Force MK-19 Grenade Launcher Use at the National Nuclear Security Administration's Pantex Facility|url=http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/igprod/documents/IG-0770.pdf|website=energy.gov|publisher=[[U.S. Department of Energy]]|access-date=30 November 2016}}</ref> | ||
The following year, 524 members of the Protective Forces detachment at Pantex, whose personnel were provided by [[BWX Technologies]], went on strike in protest of the Department of Energy's decision to revise the pension and medical benefits it provided to contractors. During the 44-day strike, a 210-man replacement force, composed of supervisors and non-unionized personnel assigned to other Department of Energy sites, was assembled to secure Pantex. Both the National Council of Security Police, the union for Protective Forces personnel, and the [[Project on Government Oversight]] called for Pantex to be shut down during the dispute due to what was claimed to be a serious erosion of the security of nuclear weapons stored at the facility. The Department of Energy rejected claims that the security of nuclear material was compromised during the strike.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Vartabedian|first1=Ralph|title=Strike at nuclear site stirs concerns|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-may-24-na-danger24-story.html|access-date=29 November 2016|work= | The following year, 524 members of the Protective Forces detachment at Pantex, whose personnel were provided by [[BWX Technologies]], went on strike in protest of the Department of Energy's decision to revise the pension and medical benefits it provided to contractors. During the 44-day strike, a 210-man replacement force, composed of supervisors and non-unionized personnel assigned to other Department of Energy sites, was assembled to secure Pantex. Both the National Council of Security Police, the union for Protective Forces personnel, and the [[Project on Government Oversight]] called for Pantex to be shut down during the dispute due to what was claimed to be a serious erosion of the security of nuclear weapons stored at the facility. The Department of Energy rejected claims that the security of nuclear material was compromised during the strike.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Vartabedian|first1=Ralph|title=Strike at nuclear site stirs concerns|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-may-24-na-danger24-story.html|access-date=29 November 2016|work=Los Angeles Times|date=24 May 2007}}</ref><ref name="hill"/> | ||
====Y-12 security breach==== | ====Y-12 security breach==== | ||
In July 2012, three activists from the [[Plowshares movement]] were able to briefly gain entry to the [[Y-12 National Security Complex]]. According to officials, the breach was the first time in the 70-year history of Y-12 that its perimeter had been successfully penetrated, shattering what had been described as an "aura of invincibility". 60 days later, the DOE terminated the contract of WSI (formerly [[Wackenhut]] and later a subsidiary of [[G4S]]), which had provided FPFs to Y-12 for more than a decade. The contract for FPFs at Y-12 was subsequently awarded to National Strategic Protective Services, a joint venture of Securiguard and [[Triple Canopy]].<ref>{{cite news|last1=Munger|first1=Frank|title=Will Y-12 security breach undermine plans for UPF?|url=http://archive.knoxnews.com/opinion/columnists/frank-munger-will-y-12-security-breach-undermine-plans-for-upf-ep-360203671-356739171.html|access-date=29 November 2016|work=[[Knoxville News-Sentinel]]|date=22 August 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=NSPS takes over Oak Ridge security|url=http://www.upi.com/NSPS-takes-over-Oak-Ridge-security/68951364226907/|access-date=29 November 2016|work=[[UPI]]|date=25 March 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=NSPS finishes first year as DOE's security contractor in Oak Ridge|url=http://oakridgetoday.com/2014/03/24/nsps-finishes-first-year-protective-force-provider-oak-ridge/|access-date=29 November 2016|work=Oak Ridge Today|date=24 March 2014}}</ref> | In July 2012, three activists from the [[Plowshares movement]] were able to briefly gain entry to the [[Y-12 National Security Complex]]. According to officials, the breach was the first time in the 70-year history of Y-12 that its perimeter had been successfully penetrated, shattering what had been described as an "aura of invincibility". 60 days later, the DOE terminated the contract of WSI (formerly [[Wackenhut]] and later a subsidiary of [[G4S]]), which had provided FPFs to Y-12 for more than a decade. The contract for FPFs at Y-12 was subsequently awarded to National Strategic Protective Services, a joint venture of Securiguard and [[Triple Canopy]].<ref>{{cite news|last1=Munger|first1=Frank|title=Will Y-12 security breach undermine plans for UPF?|url=http://archive.knoxnews.com/opinion/columnists/frank-munger-will-y-12-security-breach-undermine-plans-for-upf-ep-360203671-356739171.html|access-date=29 November 2016|work=[[Knoxville News-Sentinel]]|date=22 August 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=NSPS takes over Oak Ridge security|url=http://www.upi.com/NSPS-takes-over-Oak-Ridge-security/68951364226907/|access-date=29 November 2016|work=[[UPI]]|date=25 March 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=NSPS finishes first year as DOE's security contractor in Oak Ridge|url=http://oakridgetoday.com/2014/03/24/nsps-finishes-first-year-protective-force-provider-oak-ridge/|access-date=29 November 2016|work=Oak Ridge Today|date=24 March 2014}}</ref> | ||
| Line 155: | Line 155: | ||
==SPOTC== | ==SPOTC== | ||
[[File:ProFor_run_an_obstacle_course_while_wearing_CBRN_masks_at_SPOTC_2012_in_South_Carolina.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Protective Forces personnel running an obstacle course while wearing CBRN masks at SPOTC 2012 in South Carolina]] | [[File:ProFor_run_an_obstacle_course_while_wearing_CBRN_masks_at_SPOTC_2012_in_South_Carolina.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Protective Forces personnel running an obstacle course while wearing CBRN masks at SPOTC 2012 in South Carolina]] | ||
Since 1972, the Department of Energy, and its predecessor agencies, have organized the annual Security Police Officer Training Competition (SPOTC), a tactical contest pitting nuclear security units against each other. In addition to the Federal Protective Forces, external teams have been invited from the U.S. armed forces. In 2001, the first international teams entered, with a contingent representing the | Since 1972, the Department of Energy, and its predecessor agencies, have organized the annual Security Police Officer Training Competition (SPOTC), a tactical contest pitting nuclear security units against each other. In addition to the Federal Protective Forces, external teams have been invited from the U.S. armed forces. In 2001, the first international teams entered, with a contingent representing the United Kingdom's [[Atomic Energy Authority]].<ref name="spotc">{{cite news|last1=Thomas|first1=John|title=SPOTC: Desert shoot-out at the security crossroads of the nation|work=Nuclear News|date=December 2008}}</ref> | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||