[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: US Energy Dep't cites nuclear lab over safety
Group,
Bill Lipton wrote, "This is just one more indication that DOE facilities
should be subject to NRC
regulation; or, as a minimum, to some equivalent 3rd party regulation.
They should
NOT be exempt from fines."
I think others made similar statements. I agree.
I heard, kind of grape vine, that the reason the pilot project of NRC
regulating DOE facilities didn't progress is that after the pilot, NRC said,
"OK, now we need X number of FTE [Full Time Employees] to regulate all of
DOE. But DOE would not deduct X FTE from their staffing so Congress would
not proceed as that would have increased the number of government employees
[by X] without any corresponding increase in work.
Sounds a little unlikely as Congress could just say, "Oh yes you will,
reduce staffing!"
Anybody heard anything regarding the matter?
Any opinions expressed are mine alone and do not necessarily represent
those of the Denver VA Medical Center, The Department of Veterans
Affairs, or the U.S. Government.
Peter G. Vernig
Radiation Safety Officer, VA Medical Center, 1055 Clermont St. Denver,
CO 80220, ATTN; RSO MS 115
303-399-8020 ext. 2447, peter.vernig@med.va.gov [alternate for business
- vernig.peter@forum.va.gov; private - peter_vernig@hotmail.com] Fax
303-393-5026 [8 - 4:30 MT service] Alternate Fax 303-377-5686
"...whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is
pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is found to
be excellent or praiseworthy, let your mind dwell on these things."
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: William V Lipton [mailto:liptonw@dteenergy.com]
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 5:05 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: US Energy Dep't cites nuclear lab over safety
This is just one more indication that DOE facilities should be subject to
NRC
regulation; or, as a minimum, to some equivalent 3rd party regulation.
They should
NOT be exempt from fines.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
Sandy Perle wrote:
> US Energy Dep't cites nuclear lab over safety
>
> WASHINGTON, Jan 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Energy on
> Wednesday said it had cited the University of California for nuclear
> safety violations at the Los Alamos National Laboratory but imposed
> no monetary penalty.
>
> The violations stemmed from a March 2000 event in which eight
> government workers were exposed to airborne plutonium at the nation's
> premiere nuclear laboratory, which has been rocked by security
> scandals over the past two years.
>
> The department's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
> issued the preliminary notice of violation on Jan. 19, a day after
> the government renewed for three years the University of California's
> contract to keep running the laboratory.
>
> The contract renewal has prompted pointed questions by Rep. Billy
> Tauzin, chairman of the House Energy Committee, who had been urging
> the department to delay signing the contract until Congress and the
> new administration has been fully briefed.
>
> A DOE spokeswoman said the notice of violation would have no affect
> on the contract renewal, although the NNSA had emphasized the need
> for "increased attention" to safety issues while it was negotiating
> the contract with the university.
>
> "Those are separate issues, and the contract has been signed," she
> said.
>
> "The NNSA as it was negotiating on the extension of the contract took
> steps to ensure that there would be increased attention to the
> importance of safety issues during the duration of contract," she
> said.
>
> Among the lab's recent security problems was the case of former
> scientist Wen Ho Lee, who pleaded guilty to downloading nuclear
> secrets onto an unclassified computer, and the disappearance of two
> computer hard drives containing nuclear secrets, which later turned
> up behind a copy machine.
>
> COULD HAVE FACED FINE OF $605,000
>
> The department said the lab was exempt from civil penalties under
> federal law, but if it was not it would have faced a civil penalty of
> $605,000, based on the significance of the events.
>
> In addition to the March 2000 incident, the preliminary notice of
> violation also listed several events at the laboratory in which
> nuclear facilities were operated outside the limits and controls set
> by facility safety documents.
>
> "Our goal is to avoid such incidents by being proactive and making
> safety an integral part of every operation," said John Gordon,
> administrator of the NNSA, who issued the notice of violation to the
> university.
>
> Tauzin this week asked Gordon for more information about the
> preliminary notice of violation, and a spokesman said the infractions
> included one worker being exposed to radiation 18 times higher than
> the dose not to be exceeded in one year.
>
> In its statement on Wednesday, DOE conceded up to three workers may
> have received exposures that exceeded the annual regulatory limit set
> for this work, while one worker's exposure had been estimated at five
> times over the annual limit.
>
> No immediate adverse health consequences resulted from the exposure,
> the department said, and involved workers were put on temporary work
> restrictions to limit any additional exposures.
>
> In the citation, NNSA also mentioned problems with work controls at a
> second facility where Los Alamos perform experiments, saying they
> "represented an unacceptable trend in the operation and maintenance
> of nuclear facilities."
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sandy Perle Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800)
548-5100
> Director, Technical Extension 2306
> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Service Fax:(714) 668-3149
> ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. E-Mail:
sandyfl@earthlink.net
> ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com
> Costa Mesa, CA 92626
>
> Personal Website: http://sandyfl.nukeworker.net
> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html