[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: DOE regulation

 An interesting twist in this discussion is to throw in the Navy Nuc program (forgive the redundancy if someone already has).  The notion that outside regulation is needed in DOE because they can't/won't do the job properly themselves seems to be fairly widely held.  One question is, which is it - "can't" or "won't", or maybe even "don't know how".  If you look at the Navy's program, there's a consensus that they do a bang up job of watch-dogging themselves.  The Navy uses contractors for much of their nuclear work.  They write the book, the contractors know the rules, and work accordingly.  So, why does it seem to work for Nav but not DOE?  Arguably, there are big differences between managing a nuclear shipyard and something like a Hanford site.  Maybe a bigger question is, are the taxpayers prepared to foot the bill for equivalent levels of control in the DOE.  Somehow, I always got the impression while working for a Navy contractor, that money was no object when it came to nuc safety.  I've also worked in comercial nuclear power and now for a DOE contractor.  From my perspective, there are two big differences in the way that the Navy, NRC, and DOE worlds work -

1. In the Navy world, the mindset is "excellence - no less".  The people who do the policing/enforcement are specially selected because they don't have a sense of humor, and would turn in their own mother for spitting on the sidewalk.  The NRC seems to operate in a way that emulates that, as best as they can in the absence of a true military establishment.  I have not seen this to be the case in the DOE - everything's negotiable.

2. The Navy is not expected to appear "nice".  They're soldiers, right?  They're strict, they're tough, they're mean - even to themselves and those who work for them.  It's all part of the deal.  They can rule their program with an iron fist, and demand whatever it costs in the name of national defense.  The NRC also holds the "tough-guy" image, they don't have any reason to be particularly nice to their licensees.  It's not their problem how much it costs to comply - they (NRC) don't have to foot the bill.  It's the main reason that nuclear generation is more expensive than fossil.  The DOE however, appears to want to be touchy-feely - at least as far as the public image goes.  The taxpayers need to feel good about what the DOE does with all that energy research money, all the good stuff that's going on at national labs, etc.  They actually own the facilities they regulate, and they want the public to like these facilities, so they have a vested interest in having them look good.  The sky is certainly not the limit when it comes to funding, because they can only use the "national defense" excuse with some of the facilities.  And even where this is the case, historically, the DOE has been "less than agressive" in its approach here and has the reputation of using the "national defense" excuse more often than not as a defense for their shortcomings (we've got bombs to build here, pal, somebody else can worry about the mess).

So, how do you convince congress at this late stage that you need more money to do the job right?  Maybe enlist the NRC to come in, regulate for a while, and report back that the system needs a big, expensive overhaul.

My opinions and $0.50 will buy you a soda if you're lucky.
  

Date: 17 Nov 98 16:10:59 -0500
From: LIPTONW@dteenergy.com
To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: DOE regulation
Message-ID: <199811172114.QAA12112@detroitedison.com>

This is precisely the reason why NRC (or other external) regulation is
needed 
for DOE contractors.  DOE should NOT have the option of allowing a
substandard 
operation to continue because it doesn't want to spend the money to fix it. 
 
The opinions expressed are strictly mine. 
It's not about dose, it's about trust. 
 
Bill Lipton 
liptonw@dteenergy.com 
 
You wrote: 
 
>The most cogent reason why DOE should not be regulated by the NRC is 
>because there is a huge difference between the DOE contractors and the 
>NRC licensees: The NRC licensees do not get their funding from the NRC.  
>They are, for the most part, private companies (DOD licensees are again 
>different, but more like DOE contractors, in this instance, than like 
>NRC licensees.) and do not get operating or other money from the NRC.  
>DOE contractors, on the other hand, get all their money from DOE.  
>Therefore, if the NRC found a violation and the contractor said it would 
>take a million dollars to fix it, and if the DOE did not agree and 
>didn't give the contractor the money, the fix could not be made unless 
>the contractor used its own money to do it, an unlikely occurance.  The 
>contractor is in an impossible position between two federal agencies.  
>That is very different from the NRC case where the licensee has no other 
>governmental agency supplying the money.  Until there is an agreement 
>between the NRC and DOE concerning the money for regulatory fixes, I 
>would never contemplate being a DOE contractor, regulated by the NRC, if 
>I were a potential DOE contractor.  I do understand that some DOE and 
>DOD facilities are already regulated by the NRC.  Perhaps some of those 
>facilities could enlighten radsafe members as to how it really works in 
>today's world.  Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net
 

--
Keith Welch
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
Newport News VA
welch@jlab.org
Ph: (757)269-7212
FAX:(757)269-5048
  ************************************************************************ The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html