Editorial: Safety sure isn’t part of this agency’s lingo

Thursday, Jan. 9, 2003 | 9:21 a.m.

About two weeks ago the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ruled that it doesn't need to take into account the risks of terrorism when licensing nuclear facilities. The logic-defying decision applies to nuclear reactors and a temporary nuclear waste dump proposed to be built in Utah. It's not clear, however, if the decision will extend to the Energy Department's application to get a license to build a high-level nuclear waste dump at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, which could hold 77,000 tons of nuclear waste.

One would think that after 9-11, as Nevada's Rep. Shelley Berkley noted the other day, all federal agencies would include anti-terrorism measures in their planning and decisions. When the NRC eventually weighs the Yucca Mountain application, it should consider terrorism risks involved in the transportation and storage of nuclear waste.

The NRC is an agency that, barring some major reforms, is a disaster-in-the-waiting. This is the same commission where a recent survey of its employees showed that a third of them doubt the NRC's commitment to public safety, and almost half of the employees said they're not comfortable in bringing up safety issues within the commission. The NRC's culture of indifference to safety concerns isn't what you'd expect from a regulatory agency, especially one that oversees an industry where there is no margin for error when it comes to protecting the public.

archive