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

["Minnema, Douglas" <Douglas.Minnema@ns.doe.gov>]

Sorry to respond twice in one night, but I guess I should read all the mail
before responding to individual messages.

To Dave, DOE contractors have always be indemnified.  Congress, in the PAAA
of 1988, added the mandate to fine contractors for noncompliances.  Since
the DOE Orders were not legally enforceable, but rather contractual
obligations, DOE was forced to issue nuclear safety rules that met OMB rules
for enforceability.  10CFR820 is DOE's procedural rule implementing that
Act, and only repeats the mandated exemptions.  It is not where they
originated.

To Ted, please note that PAAA fines are not allowable costs for the
contractors.  Therefore, the fines come out of their profits, not out of
their operating funds.  (The exemption was intended to not unduly hurt
not-for-profits who were providing a service to the government "in the
public interest", and not for money.)  Furthermore, the contractors
(including not-for-profits) can also be hit seperately in their contract
award fees for poor performance in ES&H.  Therefore, they can lose twice,
and the taxpayer does win.  (By the way, federal law requires DOE to put the
fines back into the general fund, we cannot use them to fund other
activities.)

To Bill, if you would look at the record, such as DOE's Office of
Enforcement's annual report (available from their website), you will find
that DOE is being quite aggressive in their enforcement activities.  It does
work differently than the NRC's, but is still very effective.
Noncompliances are now getting the attention they always deserved.  The
program may not be perfect yet, but I doubt that the NRC's was perfect after
only the first five years either.

I have been involved in this program to some degree since 1993, and went
into it with much skepticism.  But I do believe that changes are happening,
although slowly and painfully.  Cultural changes never come quickly, and I
fail to see how external regulation would be any better, just different.
What DOE has needed for the past several years has been consistency and
stability in policies and requirements, and the nuclear safety rules and
PAAA enforcement are finally beginning to provide that.  Another change now
would only start the confusion all over again, and for uncertain benefits.

Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP
Defense Programs, NNSA, DOE

what few thoughts i have are truly my own...

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted de Castro [mailto: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.
> 

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