I. INTRODUCTION
A. Congressional and Technical Basis for Board Action on DOE Technical Competence
The lack of a sufficient number of technically-qualified program and oversight officials underlies all of the health and safety problems at defense nuclear facilities. Recognizing this, Congress, in its report of the Senate Armed Services Committee on S. 1085, stated that the Board is expected to raise the technical expertise of the Department substantially, to assist and monitor the continued development of DOE's internal Environmental Safety and Health organization, and to provide independent advice to the Secretary. Congress expected the Board to raise the level of critical expertise, technical vigor, and a sense of vigilance within the Department at all levels. S. Rep. No. 232, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 10, 20-21 (1987).
Applicable requirements of the Board's enabling statute implicitly mandate that the Board address the technical competence of DOE's personnel. For example, the Board is required to (1) review the content and implementation of safety standards and (2) investigate events or practices which either adversely affect or have the potential of adversely affecting public health or safety. 42 U.S.C. § 2286a. To be effective, these Board reviews must consider the technical competencies of those who develop and implement safety standards and procedures and direct operations at DOE sites. The Board must then make recommendations it deems necessary to adequately protect public health and safety to the Secretary of Energy, or in appropriate cases to the President of the United States.
In each of its five annual reports, the Board recognized that the most important and far- reaching problem affecting the safety of DOE defense nuclear facilities is the difficulty in attracting and retaining personnel who are technically qualified to provide the management, direction, and guidance essential for safe operation of DOE defense nuclear facilities. In my opinion, it remains the most critical problem today.
B. Importance of Qualified DOE Technical Staff
The deficiency hinders DOE in providing fully effective technical direction and management of its contractors. The Board discussed this problem in each of its Annual Reports. A number of earlier independent assessments also noted the same deficiency, including the 1981 post-Three Mile Island DOE review of the safety of its reactors (the Crawford Report) and the 1987 Report of the National Academy of Sciences. Both the current and former Secretaries of Energy have acknowledged the problem and have committed to solving it.
The Board recognizes DOE's attempts to correct the problem. Unfortunately, they have not been effective enough, and the problem persists. The Board addressed the qualifications problem in several of its formal recommendations, and frequently communicated its concern on this matter to senior DOE officials over the past five years.
The problem is pervasive. Deficiencies exist to varying degrees not only in organizational units in Headquarters but also in the field organizations of DOE. The Board believes that a root cause of this shortcoming in DOE staff qualifications lies in a deep-seated conviction among many senior DOE career managers that program management capabilities, and perhaps only general technical familiarity, are adequate. Those who hold this belief elevate financial management, project scheduling, cost accounting, and other administrative management capabilities above technical competence in assigning people to positions of responsibility for managing technological programs of DOE. As a result, too many individuals without adequate technical qualifications are assigned jobs crucial to the safety of defense nuclear facilities.
Contributing causes include: limited capability of DOE to attract technically competent professionals to nuclear weapons activities and assignments as career choices; the failure to effectively use "excepted service" hiring authority by DOE, particularly for key technical management and direction positions; lack of an aggressive recruitment and retention policy for technical career personnel within DOE; insufficient attention by internal monitoring elements of DOE to this problem as a contributor to off-normal events; and the lack of an effective program for interchange of technical staff between Headquarters and field organizations within DOE.
The Board recognizes that it is much easier to identify this problem than to correct it. The Board also recognizes that some senior DOE technical managers are indeed very well qualified and that those managers usually share the Board's frustration in coping with the problem. Until that problem is solved, DOE will continue to have difficulty in developing and applying nuclear standards, in assessing the performance of contractors, and otherwise carrying out its responsibilities for assuring safe operation of facilities.
C. History of Board Involvement in Enhancing DOE Technical Capability
Since its inception, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has emphasized that a well- constructed and documented program for training and qualifying personnel and supervisors for operations, maintenance, oversight, and technical support is an essential foundation of operations and maintenance and, hence, the safety and health of the public, including the facility workers. A substantial portion of the Board's efforts has been devoted to on-site observation and review of personnel and supervisor selection, training, qualification, certification and facility operation.
Despite the long-standing requirements of DOE Orders, neither DOE nor the contractors have provided sufficient management attention and resources for training and qualification commensurate with the health and safety implications of their defense nuclear programs. Each of the sites evaluated by the Board has demonstrated weaknesses in contractor training programs that have potential negative safety consequences.
The Board's first Recommendation 90-1, issued in February, 1990, called for the development of an effective training program at Savannah River Site K-Reactor. Despite the successful application of Recommendation 90-1 to K-Reactor, and application of its principles to the Replacement Tritium Facility, DOE did not follow up with improved training of corresponding technical personnel at some other Savannah River Site defense nuclear facilities. Also, the Department has been slow to extend the underlying principles of Board Recommendation 90-1 to other defense nuclear sites.
On the basis of assessments conducted by the Board's staff at the Hanford Site, the Pantex Plant, the Savannah River Site non-reactor facilities, the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, and the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, and, to a lesser extent, reviews conducted elsewhere in the defense nuclear facilities complex, the Board determined that DOE needed to take action to further strengthen training of technical personnel at defense nuclear facilities. Therefore, the Board, on September 22, 1992, recommended that several strong actions be taken to improve qualification and training at these specific sites. The Secretary responded and accepted the Recommendation on January 21, 1993. DOE's initial Implementation Plan, submitted in June 1993, was determined by the Board to be unacceptable as a means for achieving the needed improvements.
DOE did not correct the deficiencies in this Implementation Plan until the initiatives of Recommendation 92-7 were embraced by an even broader-based Board proposal (Recommendation 93-3) for improving recruitment, retention, education, and training of DOE's technical personnel. Previous annual reports have emphasized the importance of attracting and retaining technically- educated and experienced personnel to provide the management, direction, and guidance essential to safe operation of the defense nuclear facilities.
Unlike other federal agencies which rely upon technical competency, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the National Science Foundation, and the Board, DOE did not have excepted appointment authority. It was seriously encumbered by antiquated civil service restrictions that discourage bright, technically-qualified persons from being initially hired and subsequently promoted to positions of responsibility.
Recommendation 93-3 urged DOE to take dramatic action to attract and retain scientific and technical personnel of exceptional qualities. The Recommendation addressed concerns of the Board regarding the technical capabilities of personnel within the Department, both at Headquarters and in the field. Among the steps the Board urged were the following DOE initiatives:
a. DOE Internal Initiatives
(1) Develop a set of mutually supportive actions which DOE could take, within existing personnel structures, to enhance capabilities. Measures that could be considered include:
(a) Plan and execute a system for using attrition to build technical capability.
(b) Review the performance appraisal system for technical employees for its effectiveness in determining basic pay, training needs, promotions, reductions in grade, and reassignment/removal.
(c) Review and improve programs for training and assignment of technical personnel. (This activity would be coordinated with actions taken, planned to be taken, in response to Board Recommendations 90-1, 91-6, 92-2, and 92-7).
(d) Explore with the Secretary of Defense the possibility of assigning to DOE defense nuclear facilities activities a number of outstanding officers with nuclear qualifications who may now be surplus to DOD needs.
(e) Establish initiatives designed to take advantage of skills of marginal technical performers and retrain them.
(f) Expand Headquarters/Field personnel exchange programs for highly-qualified junior technical staff to promote understanding of all aspects of technical issues including their resolution.
b. Independent External Assessments
(1) Use respected, independent, external organizations such as the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Academy of Public Administration to assess DOE's ongoing and planned actions directed at attracting and retaining personnel with strong technical capabilities and to make recommendations for enhancements. Such assessment could include:
(a) Government-wide and/or DOE personnel recruitment and development policies and practices that may be effective inducements to government service.
(b) Comparison of DOE methods of building a qualified technical staff with qualifications comparable to those of other government agencies with predominant technical missions.
c. DOE Internal Assessments
(1) Perform an in-depth assessment of educational and experience requirements of key positions and develop both a short-term and long- term plan for key personnel development. Such assessment could include:
(a) Identification and qualifications (education and experience) required in key positions (above GS-14) in DOE Headquarters and field organizations with responsibilities for safely carrying out the defense nuclear program.
(b) Evaluation of incumbents for their ability to meet such qualification requirements.
(c) Evaluation of current availability within DOE of fully qualified personnel to fill these positions.
(2) Develop an action plan to meet needs thus identified.
The 93-3 approach conceptually contained several key elements: (1) engaging high level DOE involvement in correcting the problem; (2) hiring individuals from outside DOE to raise technical capability; (3) establishing technical qualification standards for key DOE technical personnel, assessing incumbent knowledge, skills, and abilities against those standards, and then raising incumbent capability by effective training and education; (4) using objective internal and external reviews of DOE programs to identify improvements in recruiting, retaining, and educating qualified technical personnel; and (5) implementing corrective action plans using every personnel management tool available.
To address several overlapping elements of Recommendations 92-7, which covered qualification and training of technical personnel, and Recommendation 93-3, the Secretary proposed, and the Board accepted, that a single Implementation Plan be developed for these two important inter-related Recommendations. After extensive joint effort by the DOE and Board task groups, DOE submitted a comprehensive combined Implementation Plan that was accepted by the Board on November 5, 1993.
Some of the actions recommended by the Board in Recommendation 93-3 were completed before the close of 1993. Both of the last two Secretaries of Energy have formally committed themselves, and the highest level of DOE management, to achieving a fully-qualified technical staff. A senior and broadly experienced DOE technical management expert was named to coordinate all of the technical personnel initiatives and to manage implementation of the plan. The Secretary issued a policy statement emphasizing the important link between technical competence and safety at defense nuclear facilities. Unfortunately, DOE did not move expeditiously enough to request Congressional authorization for excepted service appointment authority for key personnel during 1993. As will be discussed in detail later, DOE subsequently obtained excepted appointment authority. The Department has also recruited two classes of outstanding individuals for its technical intern program.
In the two most critical areas however, recruiting and hiring qualified individuals, and closing the gap between technical requirements and incumbents current abilities, progress has been slow and frustrating. For example, during the recent Board oversight of DOE's revision of nuclear safety Orders and rules, it was abundantly clear to myself, Dr. Ettlinger and other staff that DOE's standards effort suffered from an insufficient number of qualified technical experts in decision-making positions. Other members of the staff will provide the details of why we reach these conclusions.
II. FOCUS ON DOE EFFORTS PURSUANT TO EXCEPTED APPOINTMENT AUTHORITY
In Recommendation 93-3, the Board asked the Department of Energy to seek excepted appointment authority from Congress for a selected number of key positions for engineering and scientific personnel responsible for the defense nuclear complex. Congress subsequently provided such authority to DOE in Section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 1995. Section 3161, codified at 42 USC § 7231 Note, authorizes the Secretary of Energy to appoint up to 200 scientific, engineering and technical personnel to positions relating to safety at defense nuclear facilities. The rates of pay for the positions are not to exceed the rate of pay for Level IV of the Executive Service.
A. Definition of Excepted Service
To avoid confusion, I think it is important to begin with the definition of what excepted service is. Simply put, excepted service is appointment of professional staff to positions within the federal government without regard to civil service laws and restrictions regarding advertisement, appointment, hiring, and pay contained in Title 5 of the United States Code.
Long ago it was determined that the rigid pay, hiring, and classification requirements contained in the civil service laws were not well-suited to hiring and retaining certain professional employees. The federal government found it difficult to recruit individuals such as scientists, medical doctors, lawyers, engineers, and other professionals because of the rigidity contained in the civil service laws. Therefore, many of the agencies whose work is dependent upon highly-qualified professional and technical talent were given excepted appointment authority. Those agencies include the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), among others, which Congress authorized to hire, pay, and manage such individuals without following the procedures contained in the civil service laws. This flexibility allowed those agencies to attract high- quality technical talent and is very evident in the quality of the technical staff the Board has been able to attract using its own excepted service authority.
B. Scope of DOE's Excepted Appointment Authority
Obtaining this legislative change for DOE took many months and the combined efforts of the Board and some within DOE. Even though DOE accepted the recommendation to seek excepted service for technical and managerial personnel, some DOE officials were reluctant and slow to initiate action. The Chairman of the Board met with the Secretary of Energy, officials in the Congressional Affairs Office, and the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Human Resources on numerous occasions to try to jump start the proposal. Mr. Conway used every opportunity to testify before Congress regarding the need for DOE excepted appointment authority and the Board's successful use of its excepted authority in attracting fully capable people to staff positions.
The Board's General Counsel and General Manager slowly overcame opposition to the proposal within DOE, the Office of Management and Budget, and Office of Personnel Management. A draft legislative proposal was prepared and given to DOE.
Prior to enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for 1995, the Secretary of Energy already had limited authority to appoint scientific, engineering, professional and administrative personnel without regard to the civil service laws. Section 621 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 7231, states in part:
(d) In addition to the number of positions which may be placed at GS-16, GS- 17, and GS-18 under section 5108 of title 5, United States Code, under existing law, or under this Act and to the extent the Secretary deems such action necessary to the discharge of his functions, he may appoint not more than two hundred of the scientific, engineering, professional, and administrative personnel without regard to the civil service laws and may fix the compensation of such personnel not in excess of the maximum rate payable for GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code [5 U.S.C. @ 5332 Note].
Section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 1995 provided additional authority for the Secretary of Energy to appoint scientific, engineering and technical personnel to positions relating to safety at defense nuclear facilities. Section 3161, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7231 Note, states:
(a) Authority. (1) Notwithstanding any provision of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service and General Schedule classification and pay rates, the Secretary of Energy may --
(A) establish and set the rates of pay for not more than 200 positions in the Department of Energy for scientific, engineering, and technical personnel whose duties will relate to safety at defense nuclear facilities of the Department; and
(B) appoint persons to such positions.
(2) The rate of pay for a position established under paragraph (1) may not exceed the rate of pay payable for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.
(3) To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall appoint persons under paragraph (1)(B) to the positions established under paragraph (1)(A) in accordance with the merit systems principles set forth in section 2301 of such title.
* * *
(d) Termination. (1) The authority provided under subsection (a)(1) shall terminate on September 30, 1997.
(2) An employee may not be separated from employment with the Department of Energy or receive a reduction in pay by reason of the termination of authority under paragraph (1).
The plain language of DOE's statute places a single limitation on DOE excepted appointment authority: pay may not exceed level IV of the executive schedule, which is the same cap placed on compensation for members of the Senior Executive Service. The statute does not place any limitation on the use of excepted service for hiring technical managers with scientific and engineering education; in fact its reference to the high pay scale indicates that Congress expected such individuals to be hired. Congress and the Board expected DOE's excepted appointment authority to be used for key technical personnel, including decision- makers and managers.
A comparison of Section 3161 with comparable excepted appointment provisions for NSF, NASA, NRC, NIH, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board also clearly shows that the excepted appointment authority contained in Section 3161 can be used to fill managerial, supervisory, or policy positions in technical areas similar to those in Senior Executive Service or Supergrade positions. See Appendix. Section 3161 limits the maximum rate of pay for excepted positions to that of Level IV of the Executive Service and requires that, to the maximum extent possible, persons shall be appointed in accordance with the merit systems principles of 5 USC § 2301. The merit systems principles of 5 USC § 2301 apply to all Federal agencies and include such general principles as recruiting from qualified individuals and not discriminating on the basis of political affiliation, race, religion, national origin, sex, or handicapping condition. The merit systems principles do not address the level of position to be filled. The only limit placed by Section 3161 on the level of the positions to be filled using excepted appointment authority is that the rate of pay for the positions shall not exceed Level IV of the Executive Service, the same as GS-18 of the General Schedule.
Excepted appointment provisions for the Environmental Protection Agency permit appointment without regard to the civil service laws to positions with rates of compensation limited to the maximum rate payable for GS-18 of the General Schedule. 42 USC § 300j-10. The legislative history for the EPA excepted appointment authority states that the provision provides EPA with additional Supergrade and equivalent positions. 1977 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 3663. Excepted appointment provisions for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board also limit the rate of pay to that of the maximum rate payable for GS-18. 42 USC § 2286b(b)(2). The Board has determined that its excepted appointment authority, like that of the EPA, permits personnel to be appointed to Supergrade or managerial positions similar to Senior Executive Service positions. Based on comparisons of DOE's excepted appointment authority under Section 3161 with the excepted appointment authorities of EPA and the Board clearly shows that the DOE authority can be used to fill Senior Executive Service positions and that the guidance contained in the November 1, 1994, DOE memorandum is unnecessarily restrictive.
Nevertheless, during a briefing to the Board on October 5, 1995, Mr. Archer Durham (Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration) stated that the excepted appointment authority provided under Section 3161 would not be used to appoint individuals to positions with management responsibility within DOE. Direction provided to the heads of departmental elements concerning excepted service personnel authority in a memorandum dated November 1, 1994, from Mr. Durham states that the excepted appointment authority provided by Section 3161 "shall not be used to make appointments to Senior Executive Service positions."
The legislative history for Section 3161 is clear that it was the intent of DOE and the Congress that the excepted appointment authority provided by Section 3161 apply to scientific, engineering, and technical personnel in management positions as well as such personnel in purely technical positions. Such appointments need not be made directly to Senior Executive Service positions using SES procedures. A comparison of Section 3161 with excepted appointment authority provisions for other agencies also clearly shows that Section 3161 was intended to permit appointments to Supergrade or positions with duties similar to Senior Executive Service positions but with heavy technical or scientific responsibilities. Guidance issued within DOE which does not permit the use of excepted appointment authority under Section 3161 for high level management or positions which perform technical management similar to Senior Executive Service positions is unnecessarily restrictive, and not driven by legal requirements.
In Recommendation 93-3, the Board reiterated its observation of the previous three annual reports that:
the most serious and far-reaching problem affecting the safety of DOE defense nuclear facilities is the difficulty in attracting and retaining personnel who are adequately qualified by technical education and experience to provide the kind of management, direction and guidance essential to safe operation of DOE's defense nuclear facilities. [Emphasis added]
The Board went on to specifically recommend that DOE seek excepted appointment authority for a selected number of key positions for engineering and scientific personnel in DOE programmatic offices, in other line units, and in the oversight units responsible for the defense nuclear complex. The Board did not recommend that the excepted service authority be limited to non-managerial positions. In fact, given the above statement by the Board, it is clear that the Board intended that excepted appointment authority be used to attract qualified personnel to provide management, direction and guidance for DOE's defense nuclear facilities and that the authority not be limited to non-managerial positions.
The Senate Committee on Armed Services subsequently reported out the National Defense Authorization Act for 1995 with the requested excepted appointment authority. In reporting on what would become Section 3161, the Committee stated the following:
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the Department of Energy Organization Act to allow the Secretary of Energy to hire and employ, without regard to civil service laws, up to 350 [later reduced to 200] scientific, engineering, technical and professional personnel.
The committee has long been concerned that many of the problems at the Department of Energy over the past years have been related to the inadequate number of highly skilled and trained professional engineers, scientists and other technical individuals who can perform oversight and management functions at the Department. [Emphasis added]
* * *
The provision recommended by the committee expands existing excepted hiring authority to include the addition of 350 [later reduced to 200] more positions. The committee believes that this will be adequate to comply with the recommendation of the Safety Board. S.Rpt. No. 282, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 278-279 (1994).
It is clear from the legislative history for Section 3161 that DOE and the Congress understood that the excepted appointment authority would be used for scientific, engineering, and technical personnel who perform management functions as well as such personnel in technical and oversight positions. Furthermore, in prepared testimony for the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Nuclear Deterrence, Arms Control and Defense Intelligence, Assistant Secretary Grumbly stated that:
Based on the DNFSB's Recommendation 93-3, we are requesting excepted appointment service authority. This authority would allow the Department greater flexibility to recruit and keep technically trained individuals, and is pivotal to obtaining the technical and managerial expertise needed for this program. [Emphasis added] S.Hrg. No. 765, Part 7, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 16 (1994).
III. DOE PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATION 93-3
To provide a balanced view, DOE progress in implementing 93-3 must also be noted. DOE made notable progress by eventually obtaining additional excepted appointment authority as recommended by the Board. Section 3163 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, Pub. L. 103-337, authorized DOE to establish up to 200 additional excepted service positions for scientific, engineering, and technical personnel whose duties will relate to safety at defense nuclear facilities. Obtaining this legislative change took many months and combined efforts of the Board and DOE. Appropriate pay levels may be set, and individuals may be hired to fill such positions, without use of the procedural steps which encumber civil service. Excepted service anticipates all of the essential features of the National Performance Review (NPR), is fully consistent with the goals and specific recruitment programs called for in the NPR, and will easily dovetail into the Administration's program if NPR legislation is eventually passed.
DOE designated an excellent Technical Personnel Program Coordinator and recruited an excellent group of technical interns. DOE attempted to improve the Department's ability to recruit and retain technically-competent personnel by issuing an Administrative Flexibilities Handbook, developing new guidance related to career planning, and developing a qualification program for technical personnel. Contractor training and qualification have improved, as shown by more timely approval of the contractor's Training Implementation Matrices and improvements in the training of operators at facilities such as the Savannah River Site Replacement Tritium Facility and at the Pantex Plant. Additional effort is required to extend this success to facilities across the complex.
On the other hand, DOE has made much less progress in actually hiring qualified technical personnel for key Office of Defense Programs (DP) line and oversight positions. The hard-won authority to hire technical personnel under excepted appointments has been little used to date. Failure to immediately begin using its excepted appointment authority is one of the central obstacles to developing a technically qualified staff at DOE. The Offices of Environmental Management (EM) and Environment, Safety and Health (EH) have recruited and hired technical personnel, although without full consideration of the goals and standards called for by Recommendation 93-3. Additionally, it is unclear what percentage of the new hires will be devoted to technical positions involved with nuclear safety. At the public hearing on December 6, 1994, the Secretary of Energy and other high-level DOE officials told the Board that additional excepted service positions would be allocated to DP organizations. Few hires have been made to date. DP is challenged to increase the number of well-qualified technical personnel at a time when DP's organization staffing level is being decreased. Current staffing levels, as well as the skill mix of DOE, laboratory and contractor personnel, appear to be inadequate to meet the requirements of the existing defense nuclear safety program. These deficiencies have been highlighted by the Board on several occasions, but have not been corrected. Most notable is the lack of sufficient numbers of trained safety analysis personnel. This contributes to Safety Analysis Reports that are incomplete and unapproved, Nuclear Explosive Safety Studies (NESS) that are out of date and unapproved, and Nuclear Explosive Risk Assessments, initially required in 1990 for every NESS, that are not yet fully implemented.
As part of a broad-based program for improving the qualification of its technical personnel, DOE is now developing and implementing technical qualification standards for DOE employees. However, technical personnel qualification standards that have been developed by DOE and reviewed by the Board and its staff lack the rigor necessary to cause a significant upgrade in the technical competence of DOE. A baseline external review of DOE's technical personnel initiatives has been completed by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA). Unfortunately, the review fell far short of the plenary review anticipated by the recommendation since it was restricted to DOE headquarters and did not include field operations.
While preparing the Implementation Plan for Recommendation 93-3, DOE officials stated a preference for curing technical deficiencies by education and training of the existing workforce as opposed to hiring new talent. This preference appears to be even stronger due to mandated personnel reductions, but progress on training and education lags. DOE's education and training efforts reviewed by the Board and its staff, however, are off-target. They are directed towards a superficial level of knowledge rather than a fundamental understanding of nuclear systems and processes. Full implementation of the Board's recommendations to upgrade DOE's level of technical competence is in jeopardy due to a lack of buy-in by DOE line management.
To maintain the capability to perform criticality experiments as recommended by Recommendation 93-2, DOE has performed a systems analysis to identify the necessary resources and personnel needs. In the limited area of criticality experiments, DOE has identified the resources and funding necessary to support current and anticipated requirements for conducting critical experiments and for training criticality experts and has established the Nuclear Criticality Experiments Steering Committee (NCESC) as a standing committee to oversee and coordinate the DOE criticality experiments program. The NCESC is addressing key issues regarding nuclear criticality experiment capabilities, identifying resource requirements, and justifying necessary funding.
Recommendation 93-6 addresses retention of weapons-related technical expertise, particularly at the national weapon laboratories, in a down-sized weapons complex. DOE prepared the Implementation Plan to complement the Stockpile Stewardship Strategy and the Stockpile Management Plan, which it also was developing. The Implementation Plan provides for a formal Integrated Safety Skills and Knowledge Platform (ISSKP) to identify the skills and knowledge needed to disassemble, modify, and test nuclear weapons. That platform will identify and record needed skills and knowledge. DOE intends to integrate the ISSKP with weapons testing and disassembly procedures, and plans to implement a program to document skills and knowledge by March 1995. DOE also has initiated a review of administrative controls and engineered safeguards which ensure nuclear explosive safety at the Nevada Test Site. DOE plans to validate and update weapons disassembly procedures by September 1995. DOE also committed to review the engineered safeguards and administrative controls for the Nevada Test Site and incorporate any necessary changes by February 1995.
By failing to satisfactorily complete many of the near-term initiatives identified in the Recommendation 93-6 Implementation Plan, DOE has placed the overall schedule in jeopardy. However, DOE's ability to capture and preserve expertise as identified in Recommendation 93-6 has been strengthened by the recently-enacted Section 3131 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995. This section authorizes DOE to conduct a stockpile stewardship recruitment and training program at the national laboratories and to establish a "retiree corps" of retired scientists who have expertise in nuclear weapons research and development.
Other problems in the recruitment, retention, and training of personnel persist throughout the Department. DOE has hired few new managers either at the mid-level or at more senior levels of management, where the initiatives of Recommendation 93-3 can have the most effect. Further, no consideration has been given to using the Technical Qualification Standards being developed under this recommendation as an integral part of the hiring process.
1. Environmental Protection Agency. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has limited excepted appointment authority as provided in 42 U.S.C. @300j-10 which states:
Appointment of scientific, etc. personnel by Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency for implementation of responsibilities; compensation
To the extent that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency deems such action necessary to the discharge of his functions under title XIV of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. @ 300f et seq.] (relating to safe drinking water) and under other provisions of law, he may appoint personnel to fill not more than thirty scientific, engineering, professional, legal, and administrative positions within the Environmental Protection Agency without regard to the civil service laws and may fix compensation of such personnel not in excess of the maximum rate payable for GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code.
2. National Science Foundation. Excepted appointment authority for the National Science Foundation is provided in 42 U.S.C. @1873 which states:
Employment of personnel
(a) Appointment; compensation; application of civil service laws; technical and professional personnel; members of special commissions.
(1) The Director shall, in accordance with such policies as the Board shall from time to time prescribe, appoint and fix the compensation of such personnel as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. Except as provided in section 4(h), such appointments shall be made and compensation shall be fixed in accordance with the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title [5 U.S.C. @ 5101 et seq., 5331 et seq.] relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates: Provided, That the Director may, in accordance with such policies as the Board shall from time to time prescribe, employ such technical and professional personnel and fix their compensation, without regard to such provisions, as he may deem necessary for the discharge of the responsibilities of the Foundation under this Act. The members of the special commissions shall be appointed without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service.
3. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Excepted appointment authority for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is provided in 42 U.S.C. @ 2201 which states:
General Duties of the Commission
In the performance of its functions the Commission is authorized to --
(d) Employment of personnel
Appoint and fix the compensation of such officers and employees as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Commission. Such officers and employees shall be appointed in accordance with the civil service laws and their compensation fixed in accordance with chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of Title 5, except that, to the extent the Commission deems such action necessary to the discharge of its responsibilities, personnel may be employed and their compensation fixed without regard to such laws: Provided, however, That no officer or employee (except such officers and employees whose compensation is fixed by law, and scientific and technical personnel up to a limit of the highest rate of Grade 18 of the General Schedule) whose position would be subject to chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of Title 5, if such provisions were applicable to such position, shall be paid a salary at a rate in excess of the rate payable under such provisions for positions of equivalent difficulty or responsibility. Such rates of compensation may be adopted by the Commission as may be authorized by chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of Title 5, as of the same date such rates are authorized for positions subject to such provisions. The Commission shall make adequate provision for administrative review of any determination to dismiss any employee;
4. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Excepted appointment authority for NASA is provided at 42 U.S.C. @2473 which states:
Functions of the Administration
* * *
(c) In the performance of its functions the Administration is authorized --
* * *
(2) to appoint and fix the compensation of such officers and employees as may be necessary to carry out such functions. Such officers and employees shall be appointed in accordance with the Classification Act of 1949, except that (A) to the extent the Administrator deems such action necessary to the discharge of his responsibilities, he may appoint not more than four hundred and twenty-five of the scientific, engineering, and administrative personnel of the Administration without regard to such laws, and may fix the compensation of such personnel not in excess of the highest rate of grade 18 of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, and (B) to the extent the Administrator deems such action necessary to recruit specially qualified scientific and engineering talent, he may establish the entrance grade fro scientific and engineering personnel without previous service in the Federal Government at a level up to two grades higher than the grade provided for such personnel under the General Schedule established by the Classification Act of 1949, and fix their compensation accordingly;