Part 3 of 3 Parts (Please read Part 1 and Part 2 first)
Sean Sullivan is a Republican member of the Board. He was appointed in 2012. Sullivan has fought with the Democrats on the Board since he was appointed. He says that the Board is a “relic” of the Cold War and that it duplicates the work of other federal agencies such as the NNSA. He has consistently opposed sending safety warning notices to the DoE. Sullivan claims that the Board’s recommendations are causing “unnecessary” costs for the DoE but has not provided any specific to support that claim.
Three days after the inauguration of Donald Trump as President on January 20, 2017, Sullivan was elevated to be the Director of the Board. In June, Sullivan sent a private letter to President Trump suggesting that the Board should be downsized or closed entirely. He argued that such a move would be consistent with the Trump policy of shrinking the overall size of the federal workforce.
Sullivan’s recommendation to shrink or eliminate the Board is in agreement with the big defense contractors who produce and maintain the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The Board is currently investigating safety lapses or deficiencies that would cost the defense contractors millions of dollars to fix. The defense contractors spend billions of dollars on political campaigns and lobbying in Washington, D.C. If they can get the federal government to reduce the size, budget, staff and influence of the Board, they will save millions of dollars. However, these savings will come at the cost of future threats to the public and the workers at the facilities. The three Democrats on the Board have written complaints that say that Sullivan does not speak for them and that the other federal agencies charged with nuclear safety cannot do the job properly without the involvement of the Board.
In reaction to the letter from Sullivan to the President, Democratic Senator for New Mexico, Tom Udall, inserted an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would prevent any attempts to eliminate the Board. Udall disagrees that other agencies in the federal government can handle the responsibilities of the Board. He said “Repeated, serious safety and security lapses at the labs, including the two in New Mexico, are among the reasons for strengthening — not eliminating the outside oversight board. These incidents have demonstrated that there is a need for a strong watchdog that does not have a direct financial or political stake in the success of the labs.”
Alvarez said that the work carried out at the nuclear weapon sites was the “largest, most high-hazard enterprise in the federal government” and said it poses “serious catastrophic dangers to the public and workers” in the form of nuclear waste, fissile materials and dangerous chemicals.
The fate of the Board will be revealed in February as part of a Trump reorganization plan. Funding for the Board is still a part of the defense funding bill. Democrats in Congress are fighting against any reduction in the budget or staffing for the Board. It is obvious that the Board must play a greater role in ensuring the safety of nuclear weapons facilities.
