Re: RADSAFE digest 3625

["Alois N Singer/SINGAN/CC01/INEEL/US" <SINGAN@inel.gov>]

On 1/31/01 William V Lipton wrote:

>My frame of reference was from the 1970's and early 80's.  I'm sure that
things
>have improved.  However, there are some important differences between 3rd
party
>regulation and the DOE system, which still seems to be largely
self-regulation:
>1.  cultural and structural issues - Correct me if this has changed, but
the DOE
>system generally had the same people inspecting the same projects for long
>periods of time.   For major installations, the inspectors' offices were
>generally on the same site as the project.  The inspectors were in the
same
>social groups and community activities as the contractor personnel.
There is a
>strong temptation to "go native," and become more committed to the success
of
>the project than to safety.

>2.  individual accountability - The NRC can and does hold individuals as
well as
>their organizations accountable for violations.  Look at the NRC Web site,
under
>"enforcement."  Under the DOE system, citations and even fines may be
taken as
>the cost of success.  Managers are much more likely to enforce safety
>requirements if they will can end up with their own, personal NOV, and may
be
>barred by the NRC from licensed activities.

>I still think that third party regulation is needed.

Obviously this debate could be endless, but I believe the first two
sentences above are the most important.  Things have change dramatically,
anyone who has not been intimately involved in DOE activities for the last
10 years has no idea.  The average significant DOE site gets a near endless
barrage of inspections/reviews from both internal and external sources
including the DOE Office of Oversight, the DOE Office of Enforcement,
various DOE Headquarters Program Offices, the Office of the Inspector
General, the Government Accounting Office, and The Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board to name some.  In addition, all of their collective
reports are reviewed by the Office of Enforcement to determine if there are
any findings enforceable under PAAA.
All of these activities are completely independent, they normally identify
many problems for correction, and these would be reviewed by the Office of
Enforcement for possible enforcement action.  Based on my knowledge of NRC
activities it is hard to envision that more or better oversight would occur
under the NRC.

Regarding the "going native" comment, that can happen in any situation
where people are permanently assigned to oversee the same activities,
including the NRC where it has and still does occur.

Finally, there are many present and former DOE contractor managers who have
either lost their jobs or had their careers significantly damaged due to
oversight findings in their areas of responsibility, even though there may
not have been PAAA enforcement action taken.  This indicates accountability
within the DOE system.

Third party regulation may be the right answer but it is not because the
current system is not effective.  Everyone needs to realize that many of
the most significant issues identified within DOE today are the result of
50 years of operations during much of which there either were no rules or
the rules were very different (the current issue with worker exposures to
transuranics is one example).  Whether or not there is poor regulation of
DOE today has nothing to do with the causes of the current transuranic
issue, the exposures at issue over the past 50 years and were eliminated
about 10 years ago.


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