From: Peter Winokur, Chairman 
To: All Board Members 
Date: September 7, 2014 
Subject: Reply to Mr. Sullivan’s Memorandum on “The state of the agency” 
Before I address your assertions, I want you to know that I have for quite some time grown 
increasingly uneasy about your abusive behavior and language towards staff and fellow Board 
members.  I am also concerned about your difficulty in understanding decisions that I, and 
other Board members, have made regarding technical, administrative, and legal matters vitally 
affecting the Board’s ability to execute faithfully its mandate under the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended.  Of course, I encourage you to exercise your independent judgment as a 
Board member in matters related to Board policy and decisions relating to public health and 
safety at DOE’s defense nuclear facilities, but you must be more respectful of others whose 
views you do not share.  I am hopeful that your memorandum will provide some insight and 
perhaps suggest areas that will facilitate our finding common ground and a path forward to 
effectively fulfill our respective duties. 
Your ultimate conclusion is that the Board is failing to perform its mission and that I, personally 
and exclusively, am responsible for this failure.  And that new leadership now will correct the 
deficiencies you have catalogued.   I am prepared to consider your assertions; however, I must 
state at the outset, that I believe the Board is effectively executing its mission. Further, the 
“evidence” that you offer as support of your assertions is flawed on several levels.  Your 
assertions do provide insight into your increasingly inappropriate conduct at the Board and 
interactions with DOE and NNSA staff.  Unfortunately, I now believe as the Board’s Chief 
Executive Officer that you have arrived at a point where your perceptions and the kinds of 
information that you are relying upon to form your judgments has made it increasingly difficult 
for you to make constructive contributions in support of the Board’s mission. 
I will address your assertions (in somewhat chorological order) about the ability of the Board to 
perform its mission and my leadership of the Board.  
You suggest, incorrectly, that I don't hold Office Directors accountable, while at the same time 
acknowledging that I “demoted” (your word) one Office Director and essentially fired two 
others for poor performance. I have demanded a level of performance and accountability of all 
of our staff that no other Board Chairman has been willing to tackle. I know this has been 
troublesome to the staff and its senior leaders. As the Employee Committee pointed out, better 
communications would have aided our transition from a staff that essentially was “perfect” in 
all its performance evaluations to a staff that is being held accountable and honestly graded 
1 
 

  

based on their value of contribution to the Board’s mission. In fact, last year, only two of our 
SES employees were even eligible for a bonus. It is my goal to continue to improve performance 
of all SES and staff in support of the Board’s mission. I have great respect and admiration for 
the Board’s staff, who have all been hand chosen by the Board members. 
You assert that “… the staffing of the Senor Executive Service positions over the past three 
years – a responsibility off the Chairman alone – has been an unmitigated disaster.” Well, you 
haven’t been on the Board for three years, so I’m not clear why you would make that 
statement. The final selection of SES is my decision. However, I carefully weigh the input of 
Board Members. The two SES that recently left the Board due to poor performance, one during 
a probationary period, were unanimous choices of all the Board Members during the selection 
process. Nearly all selections of SES are “consensus” choices with a majority of the Board 
Members supporting those choices. Any suggestion that I ignore the input of my fellow Board 
Members is false and you know that to be the case.  In addition, the hiring of an SES is a process 
with many checks and balances, including a screening by the Executive Review Board, to ensure 
that all the interviewees have the necessary skills to perform the posted job.  
You suggested a Board Member resigned over the way the agency was run. The Board Member 
did not resign in protest. He was simply not re-nominated by the White House. I can assure you 
I had nothing to do with the re-nomination of a Republican nominee to the Board.  
You asset that “… all of the departures and retirements [of SES I assume] that have occurred 
since I arrived were a result of the employee’s unhappiness.” I’m not certain how you arrived at 
that conclusion or who you are referring to, but it certainly isn’t consistent with my 
understanding or interpretation of why some SES left.  In a couple of cases, the Board and its 
staff were thrilled that an SES left. I acknowledge that some of the SES who left were unhappy 
because I held them accountable for their behavior and performance. Is that a problem? 
 It could be easily argued that eleven SES are too many for an agency our size. You may recall, 
but it took me a long time to agree to Mr. Jonas’ request to advertise and fill a slot for the 
Deputy General Counsel. I acceded in the end. We do have four slots open. Two will be filled 
quickly. The remaining two may take some additional time to fill. I prefer to be slow and 
deliberate in our approach and make sure we find the right candidates. 
You assert that “… of the seven SES currently serving, three have demonstrated sustained poor 
performance warranting an adverse personnel action.” The SES rating period is ending soon. I 
welcome the input of both you and Ms. Roberson on the performance of our SES during this 
performance cycle. I have shared with you their performance plans. Thanks in advance. 
You suggest “there is sustained discord with key congressional staff on the on both sides of the 
political aisle.”  Your statement is naïve.  The facts are that the Board has outstanding support 
2 
 

  

on the Hill. Our budgets have grown consistently over the last several years, while many other 
federal agencies have experienced significant declines in their budgets. The Board has more 
than adequate resources to perform its mission. That’s one of my most important 
responsibilities and I have executed it extremely well. Under my leadership the Board has 
navigated Capitol Hill and gained Republican and Democrat support by consistently providing 
Congress with competent and transparent health and safety oversight of the DOE Nuclear 
Weapons Complex.  This agency enjoys unparalleled respect and credibility.  At no time in the 
history of the Board, have we enjoyed more support and trust by the public and the DOE 
employees.     
Oversight is a tough job, like no other.  The form of oversight chosen by Congress to ensure 
adequate protection of the public health and safety at DOE’s defense nuclear facilities is like no 
other.  Congress was concerned about not only what we did, but how we did it.  Robust 
Congressional interaction with the Board is a significant and important component of the 
Board’s oversight.  Your concern about some Congressional criticism suggests your failure to 
appreciate how important that is to fulfilling our mission.  We should expect a certain degree of 
criticism and, at times, Congressional pushback. DOE and its contractors have a strong voice on 
the Hill, and rightfully so. We are an oversight agency and we ruffle feathers. If we didn’t have 
detractors on the Hill, it would be a clear signal that we are not doing our job.. That would be 
the kind of thing an effective leader should worry about. The Board has always been forced, 
just like any other executive agency, to deal with congressional staffers who were not fully 
supportive of the Board. I respect their views and oversight role and always try to address their 
concerns. That’s why we Board Members are “political” appointees. And, for the record, the 
Board does not view its mission through a political lens. We not only welcome political support 
on both sides of the aisle, we actively seek it. I’m proud of the support we receive from the 
Republican-controlled House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee.  I 
would note that both House and Senate Armed Services Committees, one Republican and one 
Democrat, supported the Board’s budget request of $30.15M for FY15.  
You suggest there is “diminished respect for the Board as well as diminished attention paid to 
the Board from the highest levels of the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear 
Security Administration.” Again, the objectively verifiable evidence argues against that 
assertion.  The Board has the respect of Secretary Moniz.  Although the Secretary hasn’t been 
public in many of his dealings with the Board or the nuclear weapons complex, he has always 
been supportive and receptive to the Board’s communications and advice. He has always 
appreciated the Board’s technical expertise and values the work of our highly competent staff.  
That’s why, in November 2013, the Board wrote a letter to Secretary Moniz that he requested 
to obtain the Board’s perspective on the safety implications of removing a portion of the 

3 
 

  

radioactive liquid from tank 241-A Y -102 at the Hanford site. I don’t recall a previous Secretary 
of Energy making such a request.  
When we met with the Secretary last December, he recounted his concerns about 
shortcomings with criticality safety at Los Alamos National Laboratory. He told us he visited 
LANL and expressed his concerns to LANL’s most senior management that improvements in 
criticality safety were essential, which was consistent with the Board’s advice about the need to 
improve criticality safety at Los Alamos. Fortunately, we were able to provide a very detailed 
communication to the Secretary on criticality safety that I’m sure was essential in his meetings 
at Los Alamos. As you’ll recall, you did not support a detailed communication, but simply a 
general letter that would not have been useful to the Secretary. 
Just last week, the Secretary accepted the Board’s Recommendation 2014-1 on Emergency 
Preparedness and Response. My phone call to inform him the about the Board’s “draft” 
recommendation a month earlier was cordial and productive. His positive response to our 
“draft” recommendation shows that he “got it” and accepts that our Recommendation will help 
him address this important issue.  
In addition, Secretary Moniz will be testifying in early October at the Board’s upcoming hearing 
on safety culture. Secretary O’Leary was the last Secretary to testify at a Board hearing nearly 
20 years ago! That doesn’t display diminished respect for the Board or diminished attention to 
the Board. It shows respect and trust for the Board.  There are other examples of interaction 
with the current leadership of DOE and the NNSA that shows our working relationship with 
these agencies is effective and based upon mutual respect and trust. I also was invited to lunch 
by Administrator Klotz. It was a productive meeting. Administrator Klotz requested that 
meeting. It shows NNSA is paying attention to the Board. 
Our attrition rate in the technical staff did exceed 10 %. The normal attrition rate is 7%.  I have 
not kept secret my concern. You have repeatedly stated that the staff is “leaving in droves.”  
That kind of statement doesn’t help address the problems the Board and all Federal agencies 
have in retaining their talented staffs. The Board does have and must address morale problems. 
But I am dismayed by your utter failure to recognize that Congress’ treatment of government 
employees is going to make it difficult to retain our better employees in the long term. Our 
employees didn’t get a pay raise for three years and some of the rhetoric on the Hill does not 
acknowledge the essential role of federal employees. I am not judging Congress; congressional 
decisions are way above my pay grade.  But morale across the federal workforce is way down. 
That’s a fact; just look at the FEVS across the government. Fortunately, in the last two years, we 
were able to promote about 20% of our staff. But money isn’t the only thing that’s important to 
our employees. They want and demand respect. I have switched jobs three times in my career. 
Our younger staff has a different paradigm and I expect they will change jobs even more 
4 
 

  

frequently.  I have used all the awards and tools we have to support our employees, but it’s 
hard to imagine that some won’t see other opportunities as “greener” pastures.  
With respect to your memoranda, I read each carefully and have responded to you in writing. I 
don’t meet with you personally to discuss your memoranda because I can see that you are 
visibly angry and very emotional, which I don’t think can lead to a useful interaction between 
us. I am always concerned that folks won’t speak the truth to the Chairman, so I solicit other 
sources of feedback.  I urge you to consider that the information on which you base your 
opinions may be coming from sources that may simply be telling you what you want to hear. I 
will be taking action next year to get more details on where our problems lay, especially with 
respect to questions 54, 61, and 66 of the FY14 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. 
In the interest and spirit of trying to support the Board’s mission, I must ask you to treat staff 
with more civility, especially our Office Directors.  Personally, I think you are a disruptive force 
on the Board. Only you can control that and find better ways to interact with our staff.  I think 
the staff doesn’t respect you and they want to avoid any interactions with you. I have already 
shared with you that I believe the mainstream staff is fearful of you. 
This year's Employee Viewpoint Survey suggests unacceptable conditions and practices are 
occurring at the Board.   I intend to go beyond the general language and ascertain the specific 
problem and fashion effective remedial measures. Your assertion is that the Chairman and TD 
are the cause of lower scores on the FY14 FEVS. I think we made real progress on the 
recommendations of the Employee Committee following the FY13 FEVS. (In fact, the FY14 FEVS 
shows some progress on issues raised by the Employee Committee like Performance 
Management.) I think this year’s results are a reflection of a different and growing problem.  
The staff senses the dysfunctionality of the Board. Your abusive language, behavior, and actions 
are a key element in that. I don't need a survey to tell me that you are a significant part of the 
problem.   I will not be surprised if formal complaints by staff are filed against you.  My surprise 
will be only that it has taken so long. 
I fully expect that NRC IG audits (and I am requesting a few of them) performed this year 
dealing with the FY14 FEVS will better identify the nature and extent of our morale issues.  And 
from that I will be in a better position to fashion effective remedial action. 
As to the change in leadership, I serve at the pleasure of the President. 

5