Todd Jacobson
NS&D Monitor
2/20/2015
Sequestration cuts would have a “devastating” and wide-ranging impact on the work of the National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA Administrator Frank Klotz said this week. Speaking Feb. 18 at the Seventh Annual Nuclear Deterrence Summit in Washington, Klotz referred to the across-the-board sequestration cuts that would go into effect in Fiscal Year 2016 as the “800-pound elephant in the room” and said the cuts could delay or cancel warhead refurbishment work. “I won’t go into specific impacts here today, but rest assured sequestration would have devastating impacts on our current surveillance and life extension programs to include pushing those programs further out into the future or canceling them altogether,” Klotz said. “It would also have grave impacts on the science, technology and engineering work taking place at our laboratories and plants and at the Nevada National Security Site, which in turn would have a ripple effect on many sectors of the economy that depend on the unique science and engineering that NNSA promotes and undertakes.”
In its FY 2016 budget request, the Obama Administration requested more than Congressionally mandated budget caps called for, not just for the NNSA but across the government, and Republicans are not expected to go along with many of the increases for which the Administration is asking. For the NNSA, the Administration asked for $8.8 billion, a $615 million increase, requesting increases for major life extension work on the W80-4 cruise missile replacement warhead, W88 Alt 370 and other major infrastructure projects, like the Uranium Processing Facility. The NNSA also asked for $1.94 billion for its nonproliferation account, a $299 million increase over the $1.6 billion Congress provided the program in FY 2015, but much of that funding increase is masked by a shift of Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response and Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation Programs from the agency’s weapons program to its nonproliferation account.
Klotz said NNSA was directed to request funds that were “prudently” and “rationally” needed to meet the agency’s mission. “The FY 2016 budget request reflects this,” Klotz said. “If sequestration does in fact occur as is currently legislated we would not be able to do a great deal of the activities we are currently executing to meet the nation’s strategic requirements.”
NNSA Response to Governance Panel Expected in Mid-March
Klotz also said the NNSA was preparing a response to the recommendations made by the Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise that would be released in mid-March. The panel called for the semi-autonomous NNSA to be shifted back under the authority of the Department of Energy. It also recommended that the Energy Secretary be required to have nuclear security qualifications while calling for a shift away from transactional oversight and a streamlining of DOE orders and requirements. “Both DoD and NNSA are learning organizations and will consider the recommendations made by the governance panel as well as the other panels … in a very careful, thoughtful deliberative way in improving how we manage the Department and also improving culture, safety and security,” Klotz said.
Klotz: Focus on Accountability ‘Should Come as No Surprise’
Klotz also addressed the increased emphasis on accountability across the weapons complex and the enhanced focus on past performance in the recent procurement for the Kansas City National Security Complex, where past performance was one of the most heavily weighted evaluation criteria. The NNSA also zeroed out the Fiscal Year 2014 fixed and performance fee for Los Alamos contractor Los Alamos National Security, LLC, after major slipups involving the lab’s role in a radiological release at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and continuing struggles to restart operations at the lab’s Plutonium Facility after a shutdown over nuclear criticality safety concerns. “I think what it says is the reason why the federal government enters into a contract with an M&O partner is for that M&O partner to deliver on specific activities: Operations, safety and security,” Klotz said. “The fact that we through the performance process and the fee process hold our M&O partners accountable for delivering on what we expect them to deliver—performance—the fact that looms large in our calculation should come as no surprise.”
For more coverage of the Seventh Annual Nuclear Deterrence Summit, please see next week’s edition of NS&D Monitor.
