[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 15272]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   A BILL FOR EXTERNAL REGULATION OF NUCLEAR SAFETY AND OCCUPATIONAL 
                        SAFETY AND HEALTH AT DOE

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JERRY F. COSTELLO

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, July 26, 2002

  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill that 
provides for the external regulation of nuclear safety and occupational 
safety and health at the Department of Energy civilian laboratories. 
This bill, which draws from the work of my friends and colleagues 
Congressman Tim Roemer, Congressman Ken Calvert and former Congressman 
Tom Bliley, would push the Department of Energy to take a step that 
virtually everyone agrees is overdue: get the Department of Energy out 
of the business of regulating itself in the areas of nuclear and worker 
safety.
  Discussion of external regulation at the labs is an old idea. It 
received an official boost in 1993 when then Secretary of Energy Hazel 
O'Leary announced that she would seek to implement external regulation 
of worker safety. Then, in 1994, legislation was introduced forcing DOE 
to stop self regulating their nuclear facilities. DOE responded to 
these legislative initiatives by launching advisory groups to lay out a 
path to external regulation. In 1996, DOE embraced a ten-year plan to 
implement external regulation.
  For many outside of the Department, this ten-year plan appeared too 
cautious. However, to those in the Department, it appeared too 
ambitious. In 1997, then Secretary Pena decided to take a step away 
from that commitment and run a 2-year pilot program to determine the 
costs and benefits of external regulation. With the end of that pilot 
program, Secretary Pena's successor, Secretary Richardson, decided that 
external regulation would be unworkable.
  Curiously, the two participating regulatory agencies involved in the 
pilot came to a very different conclusion. Both the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA) concluded the pilot to have been successful. I was the ranking 
member on the Energy Subcommittee of the Science Committee when the 
pilot was completed and we had an elaborate hearing on this issue. I 
came away convinced that while there were some questions about 
implementation, the overwhelming evidence was that external regulation 
would provide more safety to workers and communities near labs while 
allowing the labs themselves to focus more on the science and 
technology.
  It is for this reason that laboratory managers also favor external 
regulation. They believe that external regulation would free up 
overhead costs involved in self-regulation and allow them to redirect 
resources towards doing more science. From the labs' perspectives DOE 
is an inconstant regulator with changes in standards, reporting 
requirements, and interventions. The NRC and OSHA are both professional 
regulatory bodies that provide a clearer regulatory regime with 
significant cost savings to those subject to their regulatory guidance.
  Recently, the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee here in 
the House has taken a leading role in pushing the Department towards 
external regulation. Yet, the Department continues to resist external 
regulation. Just yesterday, the Energy Subcommittee of Science held a 
hearing in which the Director of the Office of Science said they are 
moving towards another study of external regulation. They are planning 
an elaborate study involving OSHA and NRC with preliminary results due 
next year. After nine years of studying this issue, we already know 
that external regulation is the right answer; yet, DOE insists that 
another study is needed.
  There is a consensus everywhere outside of DOE that the labs should 
be subject to external regulation. GAO holds that position. The Labs 
hold that position. The potential regulators hold that position. I 
believe the workers, the communities near the labs and the taxpayers 
all deserve to see this happen sooner rather than later. As a Member of 
the Science Committee--an authorizing Committee of jurisdiction--this 
bill is intended as another signal to DOE that foot-dragging and 
endless studies will not satisfy this Congress.

                          ____________________