Re: DOE Price Anderson Actions

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

Bob Flood wrote:

> I came to SLAC from a NRC-regulated environment, where every Notice of
> Violation quotes chapter and verse from the regulation violated as
> justification for the Notice. Civil penalties are documented in the same way.
> 
> Yet this particular notice (and another I have seen) from DOE fails to show
> that any regulation was violated. I don't want to imply that DOE has no
> business wanting something done about this event, because it most certainly
> is their business and they certainly want something done about it. My
> question is, where do they get the authority to levy a fine when no
> regulation has been violated? Isn't this like getting a ticket for driving
> at a speed close to, but not over the posted speed limit?

I, too, am concerned about this fine and all of the others that have
preceeded it.  When I worked at the INEEL, then INEL, a few years ago
when the DOE's Price Anderson rules were being promulgated and all of
the DOE contractors were trying to understand what the DOE was up to, we
were told by the then NS group at DOE headquarters that fines would be
imposed only for significant programatic breakdowns - really serious
problems.  So far I have seen no serious health problems with the DOE
contractor fines yet proposed.  The doses are all too low.  I assume
that the various contractor's legal departments are working overtime to
determine exactly what it is that the DOE really intends in its
Price-Anderson fining program.  Those legal departments include that of
Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company (LMITCO), the contractor in
this case.  

We should all remember that the NRC has had 40 or so years to hone its
licensee's disciplinary program.  One might think that the DOE would
have learned a little from the NRC system.  Maybe not since the two
agencies are so very different in so many ways.  Perhaps a DOE
representative would like to respond.  Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net