Re: US Energy Dep't cites nuclear lab over safety

[Ted de Castro <tdc@xrayted.com>]

Oh sure - fine a non-profit, tax payer supported contractor!

What a neat way to get specifically allocated funds back into the
general fund!  And the tax payer takes it as usual!

David W Lee wrote:
> 
> 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
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html