Bush to eliminate Nuclear-plant standards-Plan to let contractors devise new (their own) rules

[lewislynn]

Jan. 28, 2004, 11:53PM

Bush to eliminate N-plant standards

Plan to let contractors devise new rules

By NANCY ZUCKERBROD

Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is moving to replace government safety standards at federal nuclear facilities with requirements written by contractors -- after Congress directed it to start fining the contractors for violations.

Long-established government minimum standards at the more than two dozen nuclear weapons plants and research labs around the nation would become unenforceable guidelines under the Energy Department proposal.

Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., an author of the 2002 legislation ordering the fines, accused the administration of distorting Congress' intent with a plan that "will likely decrease worker protection."

John Conway, chairman the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, which oversees safety at the Energy Department, agreed that the proposal would weaken safety standards covering more than 100,000 workers at the facilities. "The way it's written, I don't like it at all," hed said.

Energy Department officials said they have not made a final decision on the proposal and emphasized that the government would retain the authority to approve or reject the contractor-written safety requirements.

"The department believes the proposed rule seeks to fully protect our workers," Assistant Secretary Beverly Cook said.

The proposal was outlined in a draft regulation put out by the department last month. Cook described it as part of a continuing effort to get contractors to focus on hazards specific to their sites.

The Energy Department can now fine contractors who expose workers to hazardous levels of radiation, but it has no authority to levy fines for failing to protect workers from other industrial dangers, such as exposure to toxic chemicals.

The proposed rule would change that, allowing the department to assess fines against contractors who violate what would be contractor-written safety plans.

"The decision making will be largely in the hands of contractors to decide what protections are appropriate," said Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Ohio. "It's the fox guarding the hen house."

The government often gives contractors financial incentives to complete projects ahead of schedule, and tough safety standards could slow contractors down, said Leon Owens, a worker and past president of the local union at the government's uranium plant in Paducah, Ky.

"I don't feel that a contractor would be as inclined to develop rules that would go the extra length to provide adequate protection for workers," Owens said.

[lewislynn]

Plan to let contractors devise new rules

----

allowing the department to assess fines against contractors who violate what would be contractor-written safety plans.

Contractors could do with their plan every year or so, what Bush wants to do with the immigration plan. If you don't like the present plan...write one that suits you and your friends.

What is with this guy lately?

[MEG33]

Proposal

[GeronL]

I say we let anyone just make up all the rules as we go

[MarkeyD]

It's the AP. Perhaps we should wait for the truth to come out.

[lewislynn]

Proposal

Mindset

[lewislynn]

Lets try his theory in Crawford first.

[OneTimeLurker]

If you gave millions and millions to a campaign or group of candidates, you would expect a return on your investment too wouldn't you.

[MEG33]

If they lessen safety instead of upgrading and improving the safety,according to real life knowledge,I will not approve.Some government regulations are better than others.

[lewislynn]

When the contractors finish writing their own standards we'll build the first one behind your house...how's that?

[eastforker]

Most contractors now days are quite safety minded. I don't think anyone in the government or OSHA would know more about nuke plants than the contractor.Sometimes government intervention, even when it comes to safety, is overkill.When working in a refinery or chemical plant, the rules are usualy stricter than OSHA but more practical.

[MEG33]

#11

[i get it]

What's wrong with getting a job done efficiently? Insurance companies will be watching closely anyway- let them do the policeing. Let's keep Big Brother out of our lives whenever possible.

[Prince Charles]

The Bush administration is moving to replace government safety standards at federal nuclear facilities with requirements written by contractors -- after Congress directed it to start fining the contractors for violations.

Before 9-11, we let the airlines decide how to deal with aviation safety, and that worked out just fine. What's the big deal?

/sarcasm

[kenth]

"Who's done more research than the good people at the American Tobacco Industry? They say its harmless. Why would they lie? If you're dead, you can't smoke." - Roy Munson

[eastforker]

When it comes to contractors, if you do not have a good safety record, you don't get contracts, period. Thats why they try hard to avoid injuries. Bad safety record and you get canned.

[pawdoggie]

Maybe there's a perfectly valid reason for this, and there's probably still some requirement to submit these plans for review. That having been said, given the knee jerk nuclear phobia of most Americans, why do this in an election year? Payback? Hard to believe when you consider that if the President's not re-elected, the 'Rat in Chief would simply reimpose the restrictions, for a net gain of nothing. The White House political wing should know this is grist for the DNC/Dominant Media.

[Grut]

A closer reading indicates that the safety standards here are worker safety, not reactor safety, standards. The article is a little obscure about this.

[hotpotato]

Bad safety record and you get canned.

Or file for bankruptcy and open under a different name.

[eastforker]

Not realy. Down here on the gulf coast the petrochemical industry is quite serious about safety. A new company has zero chance of landing any big contract untill it has a proven safety record.