CargoAdmin, Bureaucrats, Moderators (CommentStreams), fileuploaders, Interface administrators, newuser, Push subscription managers, Suppressors, Administrators
14,662
edits
Federal Protective Forces: Difference between revisions
m
Text replacement - "Los Angeles Times" to "Los Angeles Times"
m (1 revision imported) |
m (Text replacement - "Los Angeles Times" to "Los Angeles Times") |
||
| 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> | ||