|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Lawrence Livermore Faulted for Nuclear Accidents
Federal investigators determined that Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California was largely at fault for 2004 accidents in which workers inhaled plutonium, the San Francisco Chronicle reported (see GSN, Feb. 17). The incidents displayed “the need for significant improvement in (the laboratory’s) nuclear safety culture,” according to an Energy Department report. Officials at the laboratory apologized for their part in the mishaps. “Quite honestly,” said spokeswoman Susan Houghton, “we should take responsibility for anything that happens on our site. At the time we did not — and we are now.” Workers were exposed to plutonium between April to August 2004 in a mobile plutonium packaging and shipment facility operated by contractor Washington TRU Solutions. The contractor was to package and ship radioactive waste to New Mexico for disposal. Three of the contractor’s employees inhaled plutonium and might need medical attention for the rest of their lives. Two laboratory workers were also exposed. Houghton said all five are healthy as exposure was “well below the acceptable worker dose limits,” according to the Chronicle. “The lesson we have learned from this is: Safety is a process — it's not an end result. ... Quite honestly, we had not done a good job of that,” she added. After the incidents, “we ‘get it’ and we’re moving forward strongly” to make necessary improvements. The Energy Department has already fined Washington TRU for failing to prevent the incidents. In a Feb. 23 letter to laboratory chief Michael Anastasio, National Nuclear Security Administration head Linton Brooks said the accidents illustrate “the need for significant improvement in [the laboratory’s] nuclear safety culture.” Brooks said that “without improvement, NNSA cannot have confidence that all critical elements of [the laboratory’s] safety programs are being effectively implemented.” The multiple incidents create “significant doubt on the laboratory's ability to effectively analyze and correct performance problems,” the letter says. The facility had “workplace controls (that) were not adequate” and showed “a lack of an appropriate response to the more hazardous workplace conditions” when the accidents occurred. The report found that the laboratory “failed to establish effective physical and administrative controls to ensure that workers were not exposed to airborne radiation while performing work at the [mobile facility] without respirators.” Investigators said in the report that the laboratory under normal circumstances would receive a fine of $588,500. However, because the facility is run by the nonprofit University of California, the fine is being waived, Houghton said (Keay Davidson, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 25).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
