During a Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) asked Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman David A. Wright about the Department of Government Efficiency staffers at his agency.
00:00We're here, Senator Whitehouse, so I don't take too much time.
00:04First of all, thank you all for being here.
00:07I customarily offer encouragement to have the regulatory process support the effort to find locations where they're boiling water to make electrons and swap in nuclear if the boiling water is being done by a decommissioned or obsolete plant.
00:26And also to lean in where the process allows for the reuse of spent fuel.
00:34That may not be reflected in the economic imperatives to the individual companies, but I think there's a huge public value to finding a way to make sure that spent fuel can be productively and safely reused, and I urge you to lean in on that.
00:53I say those things all the time, and I'm saying them again here.
00:56Given all of the intrusions from, in my view, the Department of Energy and from this doggy operation and potentially from the White House into what is supposed to be an independent process, I'm worried about the transparency issue, which I've seen, I think everybody on the panel mentioned, the importance of transparency.
01:21Here's my concern.
01:22As you all are developing a regulation, it seems to me that, if I understand the process correctly, when all your work is done and your work is sent to OIRA, the office at OMB that supervises from the White House's perspective the development of regulations, no step in that process before it gets to OIRA is public.
01:37So, if you had a situation in which an industry influence, had a heavy hand over at OMB, or had a policy directive that was very different from the safety imperative that you would have to do, you know,
01:44are supposed to exhibit, implement, you could have to do, you could have to do, you could have to do, you could have to do.
01:49public. So if you had a situation in which an industry influence had a heavy
01:59hand over at OMB or had a policy directive that was very different from
02:04the safety imperative that you are supposed to exhibit, implement, you could
02:14have a situation which basically they just drop in the reg that they want at
02:17OIRA through the White House. All your work gets dismissed and it now comes back to
02:24you with a very strong headwind from the White House saying do this or you're out
02:32of luck. And it seems to me that transparency along the way so that people
02:38can see what went into OIRA and compare it to what came out of OIRA would be
02:43useful. Chairman Wright do you agree with that?
02:48So transparency and openness are big and you know public keeping the public
02:58informed keeping our stakeholders hearing from them learning from them them being a
03:03part of the process is that's been key to what we've done historically it's very
03:08important. I know that we're working very closely with OIRA to understand the
03:15process. So far they've they've worked pretty seamlessly with us we've not seen
03:22any any of the things that you have alluded to although we're aware and if
03:28there is a if there is an issue we know that you know we feel confident that we
03:33can have a serious discussion with them. Well I think if something like that should
03:35happen I would ask that you somebody notify this committee that that has
03:39happened even if it's not a public matter so we can inquire because if OIRA
03:43becomes the dropbox for special interest influence and all of your work as an
03:48independent commission basically gets blown out of the water by OIRA and it's
03:52all done secretly because none of your preparatory work is public and what OIRA
03:56does is secret then behind that veil of secrecy a lot of mischief can happen so
04:00I'd ask you to make sure that we know about that. Last I call them doggy call
04:06them doge if you like whatever you want. You need to clarify that because some
04:10folks on our side of the are really confused when you're saying doggy and I'm
04:15looking at them saying it's doge it's doge. So as of today it seems there are seven
04:23doggy staff at NRC. Is that true? Do I have the number right? Yes. And have any of
04:30them had any of them worked on nuclear energy prior to in boarding at NRC? I know
04:39knowledge. I know of one who has worked at a plant and has also worked on the coal
04:46side as well and that one I know for sure. Yeah. There may be. On the coal side of
04:51nuclear energy. Well no no he worked on he worked at a nuclear plant but then he
04:55also worked at a coal plant. Well got it. In your QFR responses you said that the
05:02lead staffer from doggy did not have an NRC supervisor. As of today which of the
05:11staffers have an NRC supervisor? All seven? Some of seven? None of seven? So so you're
05:19talking about the one you're talking about was the first one there Mr. Blake. He
05:24is a senior advisor and a consultant to the NRC but he also does this he does
05:31consulting work at my understanding is that DOE and also at EPA. He works in
05:38coordination with our EDO Mike King at the NRC. All the other members the other six do
05:45report to an NRC. An NRC person. Yes sir. Okay my time's up thanks very much.
Be the first to comment