Recommendation Would Avoid Call For Drastic Move to DoD, Independent Agency
Todd Jacobson
NS&D Monitor
8/1/2014
The Congressional advisory panel on the governance of the nuclear security enterprise is solidifying the recommendations it will make in its final report and is preparing to call for the authority of the National Nuclear Security Administration to be strengthened within the Department of Energy as a fix for the agency’s woes, NS&D Monitor has learned. The approach that the 12-member panel—co-chaired by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine and retired Strategic Command chief Adm. Richard Mies—is preparing to recommend is less drastic than calling for a move to the Department of Defense or a standalone agency, but an official with knowledge of the panel’s plans say they are gearing up to recommend an approach that would “create the conditions for success” while keeping the agency within the Department of Energy.
That is likely to result in the panel recommending that the NNSA Administrator position become a fixed-term appointment, much like the head of the Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs or the Naval Reactors, and doing away with political appointees running the agency’s weapons and nonproliferation programs. Instead, the positions would be recommended to be filled by senior career federal officials chosen for their expertise rather than their political connections. The panel is also trying to give the NNSA administrator “more heft within the Department so on nuclear weapons issues he is dealing only with the Secretary of Energy and anyone wanting to deal with him on nuclear weapons enterprise issues would have to go through the Secretary to do that,” the official said. “The panel is struggling with the best way to make that happen.”
Report Likely to Come in September
The panel met last week for what is likely to be the final time to hash out details of a draft version of its final report and get consensus from its 12 members. It is likely to complete its work in September, the official said. The panel’s final report was due July 1.
Some of the changes the panel is likely to call for can be implemented by DOE and NNSA, and others will take Congressional action, the official said. “The question is how do you bring it back into DOE but achieve some of the objectives that were never achieved by the NNSA Act,” the official said. “That was looked at as a prudent approach to address the problem that was not well implemented. The idea is how do you create the mindset that you are keeping it in DOE when that’s been the source of the problem when at the same time giving it a chance to exist in a way the NNSA Act intended but was never realized.”
If strengthening the NNSA within DOE doesn’t work, the panel is likely to warn that the next step for the agency is independence, which comes with an array of challenges. “If we don’t get serious progress on implementation of the committee’s recommendations and things proceed to muddle along then the only choice is an independent agency,” the official said. “Let’s try to work this. It’s the ‘least worst’ option. Cleaving it off would cause a huge distraction. Let’s see if we can fix it without going down that road.”
A ‘Failed Experiment’?
The panel did not pull any punches when it unveiled its initial findings earlier this year, and comments that the creation of the semi-autonomous agency was a “failed experiment” drew the attention of new NNSA Administrator Frank Klotz. In comments last month, Klotz said he “categorically rejects” the conclusion that the NNSA is a failed experiment, arguing that the agency has made significant strides in its Stockpile Stewardship and nonproliferation programs.
Nonetheless, the NNSA has been beset in recent years by massive cost overruns on major projects and safety and security lapses that have sapped its credibility with Congress, which led to the creation of the NNSA governance advisory panel. During testimony before the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee earlier this year, Augustine and Mies did not hold back in criticizing the agency. Mies said the NNSA governance model is “fundamentally flawed” and Augustine said the agency “has lost credibility and the trust of the national leadership and customers in DoD that it can deliver weapons and critical nuclear facilities on schedule and on budget. Simply stated, there is no plan for success with available resources. NNSA is on a trajectory toward crisis unless strong leadership arrests the current course and reorients its governance to better focus on mission priorities and deliverables.”
