Transcript for: Nuclear Clean Up Efforts Need Stable Leadership

Description:  The Department of Energy's Office of Environmental
Management is responsible for cleaning up millions of gallons of
hazardous and radioactive waste left behind from decades of nuclear
research and weapon development. But this office has experienced
frequent turnover in its top leadership, which has challenged its
efforts. We find out more from GAO’s Nathan Anderson.

Related GAO Work: GAO-22-104805, Nuclear Waste: DOE Needs Greater
Leadership Stability and Commitment to Accomplish Cleanup Mission

Released: May 2022

[Nathan Anderson:] EM has not consistently received the sustained
leadership commitment that is needed, given the size and scope of this
mission and the challenges that it faces.

[Holly Hobbs:] Hi and welcome to GAO’s Watchdog Report--your source for
news and information from the U.S. Government Accountability Office. I'm
your host Holly Hobbs. The Department of Energy's Office of
Environmental Management is responsible for cleaning up millions of
gallons of hazardous and radioactive waste left behind from decades of
nuclear research and weapon development. But this office has experienced
frequent turnover in its top leadership, which has challenged its
efforts. Today, we'll talk about this leadership issue, with GAO’s
Nathan Anderson, an expert on nuclear waste cleanup and a director of
our Natural Resources and Environment team. Thanks for joining us.

[Nathan Anderson:] Thanks for having me, Holly.

[Holly Hobbs:] So, Nathan, we’ve talked before about some of the
challenges with federal nuclear cleanup efforts. Some of these involve
costs or environmental safety issues. But how does leadership fit into
this picture?

[Nathan Anderson:] So the head of DOE's Office of Environmental
Management (or EM), tremendously difficult job--often described as one of
the most challenging in all of government. And many of EM’s leaders are
tremendously capable technicians and public servants. The backdrop of
our recent report is whether these dedicated leaders are equipped
organizationally to achieve the mission. The mission is to clean up
decades of nuclear waste, and turn the land back over to the states that
bore the cost of nuclear weapons production. Now to your question about
stable leadership. I want to point out that nuclear waste cleanup isn't
done in a vacuum. It's a process that involves a lot of moving parts,
including numerous stakeholders from the federal level, the state level,
local community level, and at certain sites, sovereign, tribal nations.
So stable leadership is needed to build trust among those stakeholders
to move cleanup forward. If senior leaders are only at the agency a
short time, they may never have a chance to visit certain sites or build
a rapport with state and local governments. Or if senior leaders don't
have the organizational clout to make certain decisions or agreements,
then some affected parties may be reluctant to invest much in those
relationships.

[Holly Hobbs:] And we described the turnover in the Office of
Environmental Management as being frequent. What do we mean by that?

[Nathan Anderson:] So since 1989, when the Office of Environmental
Management was created, in the early years, the average tenure was about
two years. Over the last five years, however, four individuals have
served in the top leadership position with an average tenure of just a
bit over a year. Now, that doesn't mean that every leader's tenure has
been that short. But overall, we are seeing trends toward shorter and
shorter tenures in the top leadership position at EM.

[Holly Hobbs:] Do we know why there's been higher turnover in these
positions?

[Nathan Anderson:] Well, there are many factors that can go into
turnover in leadership positions, ranging from personal considerations
to administration changes. One complicating factor is that, because of
EM's position within DOE, the senior leader position is not often one of
the first filled in new administrations. So by the time the position is
filled through, for example, the Senate confirmation process, there may
be little time left before another election cycle and a possible
administration change.

[Holly Hobbs:] It's not just one person's role to move this forward,
right?

[Nathan Anderson:] You're right. It's not just about one leader or even
the leadership within the Office of Environmental Management. Leaders in
the Department of Energy, like undersecretaries and deputy secretaries,
also play important roles in helping move forward with cleanup--like
elevating the attention to the problems or serving as a senior level
negotiator with states, local communities or contractors. Unfortunately,
there just hasn't been as much consistency as there could be in the
position that EM leaders report to within DOE and ultimately the level
of attention paid to EM. In fact, EM has shifted within the Department
of Energy fairly frequently and has been grouped with other major DOE
offices, such as the Office of Science or the National Nuclear Security
Administration, even though the cost of EM’s remaining mission is more
than $400 billion.

[Holly Hobbs:] So help us understand what impact this has had.

[Nathan Anderson:] Well, we heard about a number of different effects of
turnover and changes in reporting lines in DOE from stakeholders and
officials, including former leaders. One in particular, we found that
short leadership tenures have led to inconsistent and incomplete
initiatives. For example, former senior leaders that we interviewed told
us that they've observed the initiatives that were started and then left
unfinished, which has led to a cycle of starting, pausing, and reworking
programs and policies based on new leaders directions. And this is
related to another impact. There's been a focus on short term actions
over long term priorities, sometimes. You know if an agency leader knows
that mission success is decades away, it's natural to aim for some short
term successes, rather than moving the ball down the field on some long
term priorities. I'd like to add that most of the former senior leaders
that we interviewed said that when EM has been positioned within the
other major DOE offices, like an NNSA, EM has not consistently received
the sustained leadership commitment that is needed, given the size and
scope of its mission and the challenges that faces. One example, many
former leaders we spoke to describe EM as being too big and too
different from all the other parts of DOE for a single leader to
effectively oversee it, along with other major DOE offices.

[Holly Hobbs:] So Nathan just told us that leadership turnover in the
Office of Environmental Management (or EM) as well as this office’s
movement within the Department of Energy’s organization has potentially
led to shifting goals, short-term focus, and has not allowed EM to
develop the relationships it needs to meet its mission. So Nathan, what
do we think needs to happen to help the Department of Energy address
these leadership challenges?

[Nathan Anderson:] Well to address the frequent turnover in EM’s senior
leader position, we think the Congress should consider making the top
leader position at EM a fixed term appointment to set expectations
inside and outside government that this is a position that benefits from
stability. This is something that we and others have recommended, when
you have a technical and long-term mission that relies on external
stakeholders. And we think it's applicable here. You know, it's notable
that both the Social Security Administration and the Securities and
Exchange Commission have such appointments of 6 and 5 years
respectively. I’ll add that it would help for Congress to establish a
new undersecretary position focused on clean up issues. This would raise
the level of attention to these issues and help prevent situations where
leaders have to wear too many hats or have to manage very different
issues in the same portfolio. Congress has already created additional
undersecretary positions in DOE like this at various points in its
history. So if Congress were to implement these two things, both a fixed
term appointment and an elevated undersecretary position for cleanup, EM
would be in a better position to overcome obstacles in its mission,
build momentum and make progress on some of the toughest elements of its
complex and long term responsibilities.

[Holly Hobbs:] And last question. What's the bottom line of our work?

[Nathan Anderson:] Bottom line, Holly, EM and DOE have a costly cleanup
mission to complete, and they need stability in the top leadership
position and consistent support and attention within DOE to help the
department make the kind of risk informed decisions that will buy down
the nearly half trillion dollars in future costs.

[Holly Hobbs:] That was Nathan Anderson discussing our work on
leadership stability within the Department of Energy's Office of
Environmental Management. Thanks for your time, Nathan.

[Nathan Anderson:] Thanks for having me, Holly.

[Holly Hobbs:] And thank you for listening to the Watchdog Report. To
hear more podcast, subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or
wherever you listen and make sure to leave a rating and review to let
others know about the work we're doing. For more from the congressional
watchdog, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, visit us at
GAO.gov.