The Trump administration is defending an order
that could be used to withhold information
about nuclear facilities and hide that information
fro the nuclear safety board.
Some law makers are calling the move a step
to weaken oversight on the nuclear industry.
Joining me to talk about this is Brigida Santos.
Brigida, the Trump administration is quietly
taking steps that are going to inhibit independent
oversight.
Really, to me, I don't how you can get around
it.
It's a high risk problem, because we're talking
about nuclear facilities.
What your take on this story?
These new rules will significantly reduce
the authority of the Defense Nuclear Facility
Safety Board, which has acted as an independent
watch dog on the industry since the late 1980s.
The board's role is to assess the safety of
US nuclear weapons facilities and make recommendations
for improvements based on near accidents and
confirmed incidents.
These new rules aim to limit the board's access
to information, cut the number of nuclear
weapons related facilities that can make recommendations
on by 71%, take away it's authority to oversee
protections for 39,000 nuclear workers, and
prevent board members from speaking to laboratory
staff without direct permission from the Department
of Energy.
Now, these orders were first published in
May, but the first of three hearings was held
on August 28th, last week.
Now, until now, Congress and the public have
not been given a chance to comment on this,
and they were not made aware that these changes
were coming down the pipeline.
In fact, the only people that were alerted
to these changes were the contractors, the
private contractors, that are overseeing and
operating these nuclear facilities.
Brigida, member of the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board, both Democrats and Republicans,
have been united in their criticism of the
Energy Department's order, understandably.
All you have to do is look at the meltdowns
that have taken place across the world.
Chernobyl, now we're feeling the affect of
Chernobyl in the US.
The truth is, you can't safely do this if
there's anybody that's kept in the dark.
This has to be something where people, at
every level, know about potential problems.
Here, this is just the opposite of that.
What is your take on that?
This is absolutely the opposite of that, and
it is a bipartisan effort.
Board members on both sides of the aisle,
Democrat and Republican, are saying that getting
rid of oversight is incredibly dangerous for
public safety, for the environment, and for
the safety of the workers in those nuclear
facilities.
They want to suspend this rule and at least
give the public and Congress the appropriate
time to comment and weigh-in on whether this
should move forward or not.
This has really been the MO of this administration
and, to some degree, last administration,
where we don't really have public meetings
anymore.
We don't really tell everybody what's going
one.
We kind of do it on Friday night when nobody's
paying attention.
This is one of those situations.
Fortunately, with bipartisan support, we may
not have that problem.
The industry, though, is calling the Nuclear
Safety Board is an excessive regulation, that
it's somehow inhibiting innovation.
It's inhibiting progress in the nuclear industry.
We hear this every time.
Every time we want to shortcut regulations,
there is, "Ah gee, we're losing money.
We're not progressing.
It's because of these bureaucrats are making
us follow some rules."
When was this five member board formed, and
what reasons was the board formed to begin
with?
This board was formed in 1988, toward the
end of Cold War.
The reason it was formed was to oversee the
Department of Energy's nuclear complexes,
which lacked accountability, and were riddled
with problems, including poor safety conditions
and radiological contamination.
Prior to the board's existence, the Department
of Energy regulated these facilities by itself.
It was doing its own oversight, which is clearly
problematic.
While the board does not have regulatory power,
all its recommendations were adopted by the
Department of Energy until about 2008.
Is the order consistent with the Atomic Energy
Act?
I've got about a little less than a minute.
What is your take?
Is there consistency here?
The board members say that it is not consistent
at all with the act.
Thank you for joining me, Brigida.
