Nuclear Safety

The Department of Energy has a vast complex of research and nuclear facilities that hold large quantities of nuclear materials. Some of the materials have deteriorated, are not properly packaged for storage, and may pose a significant risk to workers, the public, and the environment. DOE uses a system of civil monetary penalties to hold its contractors accountable for meeting the agency's nuclear safety requirements. DOE found that, for it to be able to assess civil penalties, existing safety requirements would have to be reissued as enforceable rules. Since 1988, however, DOE has issued enforceable rules covering only two of 11 safety areas originally proposed--radiation protection for workers and quality assurance issues that define how work is planned and carried out. Nuclear safety rules are to be enforced at any DOE facility with the potential to cause radiological harm to workers, the public, or the environment. Although no problems have been identified with the application of the occupational radiation protection rule, DOE field offices have been inconsistent in placing facilities under the quality assurance rule. DOE began its enforcement program in 1996 and concentrates its investigations and enforcement actions on the most significant violations of nuclear safety rules. DOE has taken 33 enforcement actions and assessed more than $1.8 million in penalties since 1996. Violations have included unnecessarily exposing workers to radioactivity and not following procedures intended to prevent an uncontrolled nuclear reaction from occurring. Some nonprofit contractors were exempted from paying about $600,000 of the $1.8 million in assessed penalties. DOE has recommended that the statutory exemption be continued and even expanded. However, GAO notes that contract mechanisms have fallen short in addressing safety-related problems and that, in contrast to DOE, other regulatory agencies do collect penalties from nonprofit organizations. GAO recommends that Congress consider eliminating the provision that exempts some contractors from paying penalties when they commit safety violations. GAO also recommends that DOE strengthen its nuclear safety enforcement program and ensure that field offices apply it consistently. This testimony summarizes GAO's June 1999 report, GAO/RCED-99-146.

GAO noted that: (1) since 1988, DOE has issued enforceable rules covering only 2 of 11 safety areas originally proposed--radiation protection for workers and quality assurance issues that define how work is planned and carried out; (2) the other nine safety areas not included in the rules, such as training and certification of employees performing vital operations, are still covered in DOE orders, and DOE generally includes compliance with them as part of its contracts; (3) however, not elevating safety orders to the status of enforceable rules has limited the overall effectiveness of the enforcement program because DOE has fewer options to ensure that contractors are meeting safety requirements and correcting any deficiencies; (4) nuclear safety rules are to be enforced at any DOE facility with the potential to cause radiological harm to the public, workers, or the environment; (5) although no problems have been identified with the application of the radiation protection for workers rule to the activities of DOE's contractors, DOE field offices have been inconsistent in the degree to which they have placed nuclear facilities under the quality assurance rule; (6) not properly categorizing DOE facilities as subject to the rules could potentially affect the type of safety oversight carried out by contractors, as well as the enforcement activity undertaken by DOE; (7) DOE began its enforcement program in 1996 and concentrates its investigations and enforcement actions on those violations of nuclear safety rules that are the most significant; (8) between 1996 and 1998, DOE has taken 33 enforcement actions and assessed more than $1.8 million in penalties; (9) although DOE recommended in March 1999 that the statutory exemption from paying penalties be continued and expanded to include all nonprofit contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers, the exemption may no longer be needed; (10) DOE cited 3 reasons for continuing the exemption--nonprofit contractors' unwillingness to put their assets at risk if required to pay civil penalties, effectiveness of existing contract mechanisms in obtaining compliance, and consistency with other regulatory agencies' treatment of nonprofit organizations; and (11) however, nonprofit contractors now have contract-related fees available that could be used to pay penalties, contract mechanisms have not been effectively used to address safety-related problems, and other regulatory agencies collect penalties and administrative costs from nonprofit organizations.