The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) aims to complete a new strategic plan in November, capping a yearlong drive to address the findings of a government-chartered fix-it group that in 2018 offered tips for improving morale at the independent federal nuclear-health-and-safety agency.
That is according to a notice from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) inspector general, dated Sept. 24 and posted online Tuesday. The commission’s inspector general is also the inspector general for the DNFSB.
About a year ago, the congressionally chartered National Academy for Public Administration issued a DNFSB-contracted report that described sagging morale among the board’s 100 or so employees, and said the 30 year-old agency’s relationship with the Department of Energy was at “an all-time low.”
The DNFSB held multiple public meetings in Washington over the winter of 2018-2019 to discuss the academy’s findings and now — according to previously unpublished May 31, 2019, correspondence between DNFSB Chairman Bruce Hamilton and Brett Baker, the NRC’s assistant inspector general for audits — will take the academy’s advice and commit to paper a guiding philosophy to improve the mood among board employees and patch up relations with the DOE.
In a similar vein, according to Hamilton’s May 31 letter, the politically appointed DNFSB members and the board’s career Senior Executive Service employees will complete training on effective communication and trust in the workplace by Sept. 30, 2020. Portions of Hamilton’s letter to Baker were included with the document posted by the NRC.
The DNFSB has no regulatory power of the Department of Energy, though it may make safety recommendations for active and shuttered nuclear-weapon sites with which the secretary of energy must publicly agree or disagree.
The Energy Department in September took the unprecedented step of entirely rejecting a DNFSB recommendation. The board suggested the agency do more work to prevent certain accidents at the Savannah River Site’s tritium facilities that could spread radiation beyond the 310-square-mile facility in South Carolina. In rejecting the advice, DOE said current and planned safety practices and infrastructure upgrades are enough to protect the public from such risks.
