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

["ruth_weiner" <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>]

Let me correct some misimpressions.  First of all, the people who work for
DOE -- the bureaucrats (NOT a term of opprobrium), the contractors, the
consultants -- are people, just like you and me.  By and large, they are
ethical and honest, and at the level they are working, they are not being
forced by anyone "up there" to lie, if only because "up there" doesn't pay
attention to details.  For the record, I did not see anywhere near the
degree of deliberate distortion working as a DOE or NRC contractor as I saw
when I was an insider in the environmental movement.

The Office of Inspector General of DOE, like that of the IG for any federal
agency is, in fact, independent of the rest of the agency.

Most of the people doing the technical work are contractors, not direct
employees of DOE.  The National Labs are "government owned, company
operated" (GOCOs) and are no more interdependent with the DOE IG's Office
than the citizens of, say, Albuquerque are with the Albuquerque police
department or municipal court.

Re specifically the NRC regulation of DOE:  in the case of Yucca Mountain,
NRC is by law (Nuclear Waste Policy Act) the regulator of DOE, and the
protections against conflict of interest are stringent to the point of being
Byzantine in some cases.  NRC is almost more careful about conflicts with
DOE than about conflicts with the utilities, whom they also regulate.  I'm
not saying it's a perfect system -- far from it -- but the "fox guarding the
henhouse" scenario that some try to project on to this system is not
accurate either.

Ruth Weiner
ruth_weiner@msn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: William V Lipton <liptonw@dteenergy.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 5:15 AM
Subject: Re: US Energy Dep't cites nuclear lab over safety


>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 instllations, 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.
>
>The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
>It's not about dose, it's about trust.
>
>Bill Lipton
>liptonw@dteenergy.com
>
>"Minnema, Douglas" wrote:
>
>> 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...
>>
>
>************************************************************************
>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