Skip to main content

Nuclear Safety Board Slams DOE

Nuclear Safety Board Slams Energy Department Plan to Weaken Oversight

By Rebecca Moss | rmoss@sfnewmexican.com 

A new Department of Energy order that could be used to withhold information from a federal nuclear safety board and prevent the board from overseeing worker safety at nuclear facilities appears to violate longstanding provisions in the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, the board’s members said Tuesday.

Members of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, both Democrats and Republicans, were united in their criticism of the Energy Department’s order, published in mid-May. It prevents the board from accessing sensitive information, imposes additional legal hurdles on board staff and mandates that Energy Department officials speak “with one voice” when communicating with the board.

The New Mexican and ProPublica first reported on the order’s existence in July, but the board recently called for a special hearing, saying its members had no formal input before the document was finalized.

At that hearing in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday morning, the first of three on the topic, officials from the Energy Department and its National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees the nation’s nuclear stockpile, said the changes were largely innocuous and were necessary to update a 17-year-old guidance manual.

“It certainly is not intended to harm” the relationship between the department and the board, said William “Ike” White, chief of staff and associate principal deputy administrator for the National Nuclear Security Administration. He said the changes are designed to ensure agency leaders “have ownership and accountability for the decisions they make.”

But board members said such statements were at odds with the language of the order, which outlines broad restrictions and could exclude thousands of Department of Energy workers from the board’s safety oversight.

“To me, the primary question is: Is [the order] consistent with the Atomic Energy Act?” said acting board Chairman Bruce Hamilton. “In my view, it is not.”

Board members also questioned whether the department was systematically changing its approach to nuclear safety, which agency officials denied.

Already, the order has been cited in denying the board access to information about safety studies related to explosives at the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas, and about a worker’s complaint and the reclassification of explosive reactions at Los Alamos National Laboratory, a technical expert for the board said.

The five-member board, which currently has one vacancy, was formed in 1988 near the close of the Cold War, as the public and Congress began to question the lack of accountability at the Department of Energy and its predecessor agencies. Since the end of the Manhattan Project, the agencies had made their own rules and been largely self-regulating. Negligent safety practices contributed to cancer and other illnesses in nuclear workers exposed to radiation and toxic chemicals without proper protections, studies have shown.

Under the law, the board was granted wide access to information in order to make nuclear safety recommendations and add a layer of accountability and transparency to the Energy Department.

The Department of Energy has attempted to limit the safety board’s oversight function for more than a decade, but pressure has increased within the past year, advocates of the board say. Last summer, for example, the board’s then-chairman, who had been elevated into that role by the Trump administration, proposed dissolving the board entirely.

A few months later, the National Nuclear Security Administration said the board should stop publishing weekly reports on issues at national laboratories because they were unflattering, citing media articles that referenced the reports. Neither of those steps was implemented.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/nuclear-safety-board-slams-energy-department-plan-to-weaken-oversight/article_3f04d808-2dd4-53eb-97a5-d1caad5ef8a5.html

Comments

Anonymous said…
Exhibit 6 cites LANL withholding information on 3 of the 4 examples. Explains a lot about the systemic day-in and day-out safety issues at LANL.

Exhibit 6 – Examples of Difficulty Accessing Information

Difficulties observed since May 14, 2018, include access to the following:

1. Documents needed to determine the veracity of a worker complaint related to safety at Los Alamos National Laboratory

2. Documents related to safety challenges of transitioning to shiftwork at the Plutonium Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory

3. Deliberations during Nuclear Explosive Safety Studies at the Pantex Plant

4. Technical basis documents from Los Alamos National Laboratory related to the redefinition of high explosive violent reaction
Anonymous said…
The DNFSB is a model for Federal Government stupidity. The should be ashamed of their track record.
Anonymous said…
Has nothing to do with the "unflattering" information but more the media's obsession to publish factually incorrect articles based off the one paragraph DNFSB reports. Some examples- not putting the event in context, key pieces of missing information, oversimplification of a problem, etc. Citing representatives of anti-nuclear organizations like Mellow and Coghlan as "nuclear operations experts." Does nothing more than to promote an agenda and cause low worker morale.
Anonymous said…
Either the DNFSB is relevant, or the mission is relevant. choose wisely.
Anonymous said…
If you compare the new DOE Order 140.1 to the previous version, every instance of DNFSB access to information and facilities is still there. A bunch of procedural malarky and bureaucrap has been excised. The core issues were and still are: 1 - DNFSB is not entitled to non-finalized documents, 2 - DNFSB is not entitled to classified matter if the requestor does not have clearance and need-to-know, 3 - DNFSB cannot task the M&O contractors to do things, only DOE/NNSA can, and 4 - protected information such as privacy act materials is still protected under that act.

The LANL Site Office feds may be stonewalling DNFSB, but this policy update does not diminish DNFSB access at all, as far as I can tell.

Tempest in a teapot.
Anonymous said…
I recommend that you take time to watch the video of this meeting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUzCAyXQITs&feature=youtu.be
Anonymous said…
LANS, LLNS, and other for-profit LLCs, have annual award fees based on a set of performance criteria. Any independent agency or board that can influence contractor performance assessments outside of the familiar and malleable local Field Office, is a potential threat to reaching a 100% annual award. No wonder these DOE/NNSA contractors were whining to Klotz about the DNFSB. Hopefully the Triad non-profit flat fee model will address this safety vs profit conflict of interest.
Anonymous said…
Since when do the local DNFSB staffers have any influence on contractor performance.
Anonymous said…
"Since when do the local DNFSB staffers have any influence on contractor performance."

DOE Contractors and their friendly field offices, can't simply wish away independent technical review of contractor safety issues or discrepancies. You may believe independent critical reviews don't have an Influence on award fees, but from the whining, clearly for-profit contractors have a different position.
Anonymous said…
LANS, LLNS, and other for-profit LLCs, have annual award fees based on a set of performance criteria.

September 2, 2018 at 9:48 AM

You obviously missed the news that LANS does no longer exist, effective in about two months.

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

LLNL un-diversity

Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!