[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: US Energy Dep't cites nuclear lab over safety
RADSAFERS:
The Price-Anderson Amendments Act (PAAA) arose out of DOE's intent to
indemnify its operating contractors. Basically DOE in effect said, "If the
government (DOE) is going to be responsible to take care of any worker
injured as a result of working in any of DOE's nuclear facilities, then
those nuclear facilities must be operated under certain quality assurance
standards and achieve a certain minimum level of safety in their conduct of
operations." The PAAA was formulated to specify these QA and conduct of
operations standards, and it also contained an enforcement mechanism by
which operating contractors could be penalized for violating DOE safety
rules in the conduct of operations of their nuclear facilities. The
present 10 CFR Part 820, which contains the controversial "non-profit"
organization exemption from having to pay fines, was published in the
Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 157, August 17, 1993.
In the formulation of the present 10 CFR 820 rule, however, politics reared
its ugly head. Basically, the largest congressional delegation, i.e. # of
U. S. representatives + 2 senators in Congress--that from the state of
California--basically chose to see if it could get the University of
California (UC) from having to pay any fines under the PAAA, given that UC
had long been the operating contractor for LANL, Lawrence-Livermore
National Laboratory (LLNL), and Lawrence-Berkeley Laboratory (LBL). The
political way in which this was accomplished was that the California
congressional delegation chose to play up the fact that UC was a
"non-profit" organization, arguing that if a "non-profit" organization was
ever assessed a large monetary fine, such an organization would have its
entire budget thrown into disarray and might bankrupt itself if it had to
pay a large fine; non-profit organizations, as a result of being
"non-profit" simply do not have the financial where with all to pay large
fines, etc. NOTE: I'm not saying that I agree with this argument; I
simply am trying to explain how the current situation came to be.
The California congressional delegation was able to garner political
support for its view from other delegations in Congress. Specifically, the
delegation from Illinois agreed to support the political proposition that
non-profit organizations ought to be exempted from paying fines because
Argonne National Laboratory operated by the University of Chicago was in
Illinois as well as FERMI National Laboratory operated by the University
Research Association. Similarly, the New Mexico congressional delegation
provided their support because Sandia National Laboratory (SNL) was then
operated by a non-profit organization, AT&T. The state of Washington
followed suit because the Pacific Northwest Laboratory was operated by the
non-profit Batelle Memorial Institute, and the New Jersey delegation
similarly followed suit in that the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab was
operated by Princeton University. Finally, the New York delegation (then
the second largest delegation in Congress) signed on because the non-profit
Associated Universities Inc., then operated Brookhaven National
Laboratory. In the end, enough members of these various congressional
delegations were successful in getting all of these DOE operating
contractors EXEMPT from having to pay any fines under to PAAA. The full
specification of the "non-profit" organizations exempted from having to pay
fines under PAAA is contained in 10 CFR 820.20(c), Subpart B--Enforcement
Process.
Thus, since UC and other non-profit organizations are explicitly exempted
by law from having to pay any PAAA fines, the only way in which UC can be
forced to pay fines is to amend the above specified section of 820.20. As
reported in the Albuquerque Journal-North on Thursday, January 25, 2001, an
official spokesman for the UC, Jeff Garberson, is reported to have stated
that UC is fully willing to start paying any PAAA fines, but the PAAA must
be amended first before such fine paying can officially. It was obviously
a matter of high politics underlying how the UC and other non-profit
organizations were exempted from having to actually pay any PAAA fines to
begin with, and it will probably take more high politics to get the law
changed so that non-profit organizations can start paying the monetary
fines assessed against them. For now, DOE in any of its Notices of
Violation (NOV) states the amount of the monetary fine that UC would
otherwise have to pay were it not an exempted "non-profit"
organization. Thus, the fines presently assessed against UC are really
"phantom fines."
I personally believe that it is both fair and logical that all DOE
operating contractors should have to actually pay any monetary fines
assessed against them under the PAAA. For example, if a nuclear facility
worker at SNL (now operated by the "for profit" Lockheed-Martin
corporation) is injured in an accident and DOE EH-10 (Enforcement), based
on the ensuring, thorough investigation concluded that SNL should be fined
under the PAAA, why should SNL have to actually pay the fine when, if the
same, identical accident were to have happened here at LANL, LANL would be
exempt from paying the fine purely because the UC is a "non-profit"
organization. This does not make any sense. But as many of us know,
politics is not necessarily either fair or logical. I am informed that the
PAAA is scheduled for review/renewal during the current Congressional
session. There is some talk that the fine exemption for "non-profit"
organizations may be removed. I would be surprised, however, if this
exemption were removed, because, with the exception of SNL, virtually the
same cast of "non-profit" DOE operating contractors are still around whose
congressional delegations would presumably vote the same way they did in
1993, as described above. Nevertheless, perhaps too much like Dr.
Pangloss, I hope that Congress does the fair and logical thing and removes
the present fine exemption for non-profit organizations from 10 CFR Part 820.
Clearly my own opinion.
At 06:05 AM 1/29/2001 -0600, you 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.
>
>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
DAVID W. LEE, CHP
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Radiation Protection Services
Radiological Engineering Team Leader
ESH-12, MS K483
Los Alamos, NM 87545
PH: (505) 667-8085
FAX: (505) 667-9726
lee_david_w@lanl.gov
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html