External regulation at DOE labs

[volfireman07]

H.R. 755 dated February 10, 2005 has been introduced in the House.  The bill is to provide for the external regulation of nuclear and occupational safety and health responsibilities at any nonmilitary energy laboratory owned or operated by the Department of Energy.  Effective 2 years after the date of enactment, the DOE will have no regulatory or enforcement authority with respect to nuclear safety and occupational safety and health.  The NRC and federal OSHA will assume the enforcement responsibilities.

Includes:
Ames;
Argonne;
Brookhaven;
Fermi;
Lawrence Berkeley;
ORNL;
PNNL;
PPPL;
Stanford Linear Accelerator; and
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator

[volfireman07]

All I have is the bill text - only 5 pages of it.  Basically its just says the NRC and OSHA will have authority and must submit a plan with letters of understanding.  I am looking for more information. 

[PWHoppe]

There is no easy answer to this. It is the result of a long study/aduit conducted at these sites mandated by congress (I took part in some of these) to turn the enforcement responsibilities over to the NRC and OSHA. My take on it is a consolidation of responsibilities. Basicalliy why have multiple agencys doing the same thing?

[volfireman07]

I know that OSHA conducted their audits of the labs in 2003.  The labs are still working to fix all of the identified violations.  They are supposed to be finished in June.  DOE is funding the corrective actions.  I was told that OSHA is going to come back sometime after June to look at the sites again.  I think that external regulation will make the operations a lot safer.  Self regulation is good, but extenal is better as far as compliance goes.   

[PWHoppe]

You have inadvertantly touched on it when you said that the labs were still working on correcting violations from the audits done in 2003. However they were not really cited as violations because they audits themselves were done not as a typical enforcement type thing. They were more of an advirsory type of assist visit.

I think that all DOE sites would benefit from outside regulation. Although, I'm not sure what would happen, we will get a flavor for it as it begins at the labs. I think that it may be the future for all the DOE sites.

BTW, the audits took place in both 2003 and 2004.

[DecommMan]

As I recall in reading and talking with folks - the main "problem" with external regulation was the complexity of the ugliness of the whole transition process and the job loss issue.  Under one consolidated system - less people are nbeeded to regulate - its like a merger.  Congress would have to cough up the bucks to make it happen.

[97txaggie]

We went through these complimentary walk throughs at my facility in '03 I believe.  We had quite a few findings from the OSHA folks.  To me, it seems pretty plain and simple that OSHA and NRC should have regulatory authority over DOE.  You are correct that it will most likely cause some jobs to be lost, but in the long run I definitely think it is the right way to go.

[halflifer]

Would this result in DOE's assuming a management posture and eliminate the current system of tiered contractors and subs? If so, I think a lot of administrative people would be out even if the current 'worker' populations at these facilities remained constant. Additionally, if DOE took over management of their facilities, would the employees at the facilities become federal employees and if so, how would issues such as VRA and Veteran's Preference be handled?

[radgal]

I don't think management of the sites would change that much.  Wouldn't it just be that they have to following NRC and OSHA guidelines instead of DOE Orders?

[alphadude]

think about this for a second.. you want the regulators to regulate the regulators? 

OSHA and NRC rules are somewhat subject to lobby and public opinion. this is not something you would want an agency such as DOE to be subject too. OSHA and NRC rules are basically designed to manage the public sector. there is a new ruling that would subject the DOE to OSHA type requirements, but not subject to OSHA control. so there is some improvement coming.

[PWHoppe]

Actually I think having NRC oversight at DOE complexes is a good thing. As it stands now, you have the DOE regulating themselves, which makes you wonder how well they want to find their own houses in violation. While they (NRC & DOE) are both governmental agencies the NRC is not running any DOE facilities so they have no vested interest; therefore are better suited as an objective observer. OSHA however may be a different story. It is very hard to conform to ALL OSHA standards, IMHO. There is however room for a lot of improvement.

[alphadude]

I think its apples and oranges. NRC watching weapons is not such a good thing, let them watch commerce and besides it would just make another beast like the DOE. Is the real issue here that the DOE orders and regs are lacking? Is it enforcement?

[PWHoppe]

I think it is a matter of enforcement. Remember that 835 is basically 10CFR20 (which is where it came from). However, the enforcement of it, seems to get a little iffy. That is; there appears to be a lot of "gray" areas in the DOE as opposed to the NRC view of black and white. This of course is strictly my opinion. I could be wrong.

[alphadude]

I think you are right.  It takes a mini disaster to get their attention.