Todd Jacobson
NS&D Monitor
4/24/2015
In what amounts to a partial endorsement of the recommendations of the Congressionally mandated National Nuclear Security Administration governance panel, the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee this week unveiled legislation that would create a DOE/NNSA panel to establish an implementation plan for reforming the management of NNSA and improving efficiency across the weapons complex. The panel would base its work on the recommendations of the NNSA governance panel, chaired by Norm Augustine and Richard Mies, and other recent studies, but will not deal with many of the Mies-Augustine commission’s most controversial recommendations, including its suggestion to move the semi-autonomous agency back under the Department of Energy, change the name of the Department and NNSA, or its call to make the NNSA administrator have a set term of at least six years. “We are looking at supporting the recommendations that do not require changes to the NNSA Act,” a House Armed Services Committee staffer said. “So things like reintegration are not in mind, but other recommendations, cultural changes, programmatic changes—there is a lot of goodness in the Mies-Augustine report.”
The Strategic Forces Subcommittee cleared its portion of the Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act April 23. The full House Armed Services Committee could tackle more controversial issues at the full committee markup next week. To deal with the cultural issues, the legislation unveiled this week would create a panel headed up by the Deputy Energy Secretary and NNSA Administrator, similar to the Nuclear Deterrent Enterprise Review Group (NDERG) established by the Pentagon to coordinate the implementation of reforms to Department of Defense nuclear efforts. The panel would be tasked with completing its implementation report by Jan. 30, 2016, and would take into account the Mies-Augustine report as well as other recently completed reports. The recent studies “have provided a list of reasonable, practical, and actionable steps that the Secretary and the Administrator should take to make the nuclear security enterprise more efficient and more effective,” a draft version of bill language reads.
What Could Panel Tackle?
Aside from its more extreme recommendations, the Mies-Augustine panel recommended strengthening the authority of the head of the NNSA, giving the director the full authority to execute nuclear enterprise missions under policies established by the secretary, with mission-support staffs providing an advisory and assistance role to the director.
The panel also called on the secretary and director to reduce the number of audits, inspections and formal data calls that occur across the complex, noting that “regulation of the DOE nuclear security enterprise has over time become increasingly beleaguered with competing authorities, conflicting guidance, and costly but often ineffective oversight.” A zero-based review should be conducted to determine the value of various oversight activities, with a focus on minimizing the disruptions to operations. “The focus of internal reviews should shift toward mission success as opposed to compliance,” the panel said.
Eschewing transactional oversight, the nuclear security enterprise should also embrace other mechanisms for performing oversight, including parent organization practices, modern industry standards and using external experts for accreditation or certification. That includes the best practices of the Kansas City Plant oversight model, the panel said. “First, insist on strong corporate cultures of the parent M&Os as the basis for achieving safe, secure operations,” the panel said. “Second, employ industry standards for non-nuclear operations, with exceptions applied only under extraordinary circumstances (such as processing beryllium). Third, transition to an alternative oversight model based on performance-based standards, rigorous accreditation/certification, and observed performance.”
Workforce, Project Management Targeted
With the potential for consolidating parallel headquarters organizations, federal staffing levels should also be “right-sized,” the panel suggested, calling for reviews of the size of the workforce across the complex as well as the value of the Department’s Germantown, Md., and Albuquerque, N.M., satellite offices.
The panel also said the secretary and director should strengthen the Department’s ability to develop independent cost and resource analysis capabilities, broadening the scope of the Office of Acquisition and Project Management to include warhead life extension programs as well as major capital construction projects. Construction management should also be beefed up through the introduction of disciplined management practices, the panel said.
