Several U.S. nuclear organizations this week urged the White House to retain the National Security Council’s director of nuclear energy policy position, which is said to be on the chopping block.
In a May 3 letter to National Security Adviser Susan Rice, four groups cited “deep concern” over reports that the job might be eliminated just four years after it was created.
“The Director of Nuclear Energy Policy has been crucial in creating coherence in U.S. policy on civil nuclear issues, enhancing the competitive position of the U.S. civil nuclear industry and furthering U.S. nuclear safety, security and nonproliferation objectives,” according to the letter. “It is essential to ensure interagency coordination on cross-cutting issues between the Departments of Commerce, State, Energy, and Treasury, the U.S. Trade Representative and the Export-Import Bank. Further, it is critical that these functions reside in an independent position that has advocacy authority for civil nuclear energy, thereby avoiding the inherent tension that would exist if these functions were bundled with responsibility for non-proliferation and weapons of mass destruction control as proposed by some.”
The position has been held since July 2015 by Michael Wautlet, who has previously served as a State Department foreign service officer and Navy officer. The first and prior job holder was Joyce Connery, who last August became chair of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
The letter was issued by the American Nuclear Society, Nuclear Infrastructure Council, and Nuclear Energy Institute, along with centrist think tank Third Way.
On Thursday, American Nuclear Society Washington, D.C., representative Craig Piercy said there is “fairly good information” that the White House is conducting an internal debate about the position, but could not speculate on why it might be targeted. “I’m not even sure that it necessarily was. My understanding that this is part of a broader effort to take a look at the National Security Council.”
The federal government has multiple roles in civil exports of U.S. nuclear technology and materials, from promotion to regulation, and the nuclear energy policy position serves as the coordination point for the various involved agencies. Reduced coordination could mean reduced competitiveness against foreign companies, and thus lower influence in promoting U.S. nuclear security and nonproliferation interests abroad, according to Piercy.
“The ANS believes strongly that the U.S. nuclear safety and nonproliferation interests internationally are best served by having a robust domestic civilian nuclear industry that exports to other countries around the world. Having that gives us influence over the safety and nonproliferation norms internationally,” Piercy said.
The National Security Council neither confirmed nor denied that the position might be cut. On Wednesday, NSC spokesman Myles Caggins said by email, “We have several staff members focused on a range of nuclear energy and nuclear security matters and are aware of the letter.”
A senior Obama administration official affirmed the White House’s support for a “strong and viable” domestic nuclear industry that can compete on the global scene.
“At the White House Summit on Nuclear Energy in November, the Administration highlighted the importance of nuclear energy to U.S. jobs, economic growth, national security, and our climate objectives,” the official said. “U.S. nuclear exports and our 123 Agreements on Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy in particular help ensure we maintain the highest levels of nuclear safety, security, and nonproliferation throughout the world.”
