CRENEL Final Report Released
Brian Bradley
NS&D Monitor
10/30/2015
Senate Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Wednesday suggested holding regular meetings between lawmakers and national laboratory directors, and expressed hope that more frequent communication of this type could help lab projects and programs finish on time and on schedule.
“I would hope … that we could have some regular meetings with lab directors,” she said during a subcommittee hearing on the future of DOE’s national labs. “I was very impressed when I heard some of the directors are new, and when I heard them give a classified briefing in the Intelligence Committee, and I really think there’s a lot of it that could be in the public arena, that we would really benefit from.” She cited infrequent DOE-to-Congress communication about project cost overruns, along with the need to ensure timely and cost-effective project completion, as reasons to start more regular meetings with lab directors. Speaking very briefly on the topic during a hearing that crossed many lanes, panel Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said holding periodic meetings with lab personnel is an “interesting idea.”
Jared Cohon and TJ Glauthier, co-chairmen of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories (CRENEL), testified before the subcommittee on Wednesday, the same day the commission released its final report. To facilitate a common understanding between DOE and Congress of issues like lab processes, operations, and challenges, the review recommended formation of a “standing body,” which could be either independent or folded into in an existing entity such as the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine or the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. The report notes that over the past two decades, more than 50 “commissions, panels, reviews and studies of national laboratories have been conducted by a multitude of groups,” later adding “though the mandates for each assessment diverge in scope, objectives, and the members charged to fulfill them, they present a strikingly consistent pattern of criticism and recommendations for improvement.”
Glauthier during the hearing said even a small standing body could be effective. “It might be three or five people that point to [lab matters] on a temporary basis, sort of like commissioners, they serve for a while,” he said. “It’s various people who you could turn to if you have questions like this, and I think twice a year you ask them to come in and tell you: How are these changes going? Are people effecting these changes? Or are they just going through the motions? If you get people who have served in the laboratories, in the Department of Energy, they could do that without a great amount of effort.”
CRENEL was established in Section 319 of the fiscal 2014 federal spending bill, to review whether the DOE national laboratories are properly aligned with the department’s strategic priorities, have clear and balanced missions, have unique capabilities to meet current energy and national security challenges, are appropriately sized to meet the department’s energy and national security missions, and are appropriately supporting other federal agencies.
CRENEL made 36 recommendations in total. In addition to urging more frequent meetings between DOE officials and Congress, the report recommended greater leadership and management development, including rotational assignments among the labs, as well as clearer definitions of roles and responsibilities for DOE, its management and operations contractors, and subcontractors.
Unsurprisingly, committee member Tom Udall (D-N.M.) cited the pivotal role that laboratory-directed research and development (LDRD) plays in the facilities attracting and retaining top researchers, addressing the CRENEL report’s recommendation for boosting LDRD funding. Udall and New Mexico cohort Sen. Martin Heinrich (D) in March introduced to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee the “LDRD Enhancement Act of 2015,” which proposes to boost the maximum amount for LDRD programs at DOE labs. Currently, the maximum percentage of lab funding that can be apportioned for LDRD projects is a “burdened” 6 percent, meaning overhead is charged to LDRD projects. The bill would change that cap to an allowable range of 6-10 percent. While the LDRD bill has been stalled in committee since March, the vetoed conference version of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2016 would have allowed 5-7 percent of lab funding to be apportioned for LDRD purposes. House leaders are still deciding whether to hold a vote to override the president’s veto of the NDAA for fiscal 2016, which was crafted well before the congressional budget deal passed by both chambers this week. A 64-35 Senate vote at 3 a.m. today sent the budget deal to President Barack Obama’s desk, after the House approved the deal earlier this week.
CRENEL recommended that Congress set the LDRD cap to an unburdened 6 percent, or its equivalent, of laboratory budget. Udall said a commonly unrealized fact is that a large portion of ongoing nuclear weapons work is supported by research into basic science financed through LDRD dollars. “As this report concluded, many laboratories also depend on LDRD to support the recruitment and retention of qualified staff,” Udall said during the hearing. “It is no secret the LDRD program has been under attack in some quarters.”
Cohon agreed with Udall about the importance of LDRD funding, and noted that weapons science is taught at no U.S. universities and only in three weapons labs. Cohon said the labs heavily depend on workers who have earned doctorate degrees. “Without that funding, I don’t think they could sustain the workforce that they must have,” he said.
