BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
- Like Jay-Z + the Beatles, But Worse
- Update: Help for Homeless Children
- Bush Era, Revised -- and with More Barbeque
- The Tax Woman Cometh
- Paging Mr. Stanford: Antigua Called
- Who Are You Calling Partisan?
- Update: IRS Won't Use Private Debt Collectors
- But Is It Art?
- PMA Scandal a Sore Point for Dems in 2010?
- Down in Flames
- A New Mystery for RNC Chief
- PMA Clients Were Big Givers
- Raided Lobby Firm Still a Force on Capitol Hill
- Stanford Update: Another $143 Mil Found
- Cheney, Hooked on Controversy
TOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- Cheney
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- IRS
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- PMA
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Stanford
- Steele
- Terror
- Troopergate
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
« Previous | Main | Next »
$1.1 Million Fine for Los Alamos Would Be Waived
September 14, 2006 3:10 PM
A proposed $1.1 million fine for safety violations at Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory will never be collected because the operator, the University of California, is a non-profit organization and exempt from such fines by federal law, according to a Department of Energy document.
But for the exemption, the proposed fine would have been the largest civilian penalty ever issued by the agency's nuclear enforcement program.
"There's been no penalty to pay when you contaminate workers and do serious damage to workers. And they have a history of it too, a long history," says Pete Stockton, a senior investigator at the Project on Government Oversight and a former Department of Energy official.
THE BLOTTER RECOMMENDS
In a draft letter, obtained by the Project on Government Oversight and reviewed by ABC News, the Department of Energy found 15 separate instances where Los Alamos had violated nuclear safety rules while investigating several incidents involving the release of radioactive materials in 2005.
The letter states that the fine reflects the lab's "continuing failure to adequately address and correct identified deficiencies."
Los Alamos was shut down for six months in 2004 and 2005, after a lab intern was injured in a laser accident and two classified computer disks were lost, costing taxpayers at least $370 million. A month after it re-opened, a worker who mishandled radioactive material spread contamination to houses and cars in four states. In another incident later in the year, several workers were exposed to highly carcinogenic plutonium.
A DOE spokesman would not comment on the proposed fine, but said that any documents related to the ongoing investigation were only drafts.
The University of California has been exempt from $3.4 million in fines over the last decade. Los Alamos will be required to pay fines for future violations now that it is partnering with Bechtel, a for-profit contractor.
The University also manages the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. A spokesman said that safety and security are a top priority for the University and that a number of corrective actions have been taken for improving safety at Los Alamos.
September 14, 2006 | Permalink | User Comments (2)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Its about time for people to be held responsible for their actions. I guess no more FREEBIE'S
for Los Alamos ...... waaaahooo...
Posted by: LWF | Sep 14, 2006 5:48:51 PM
Now that Bechtel is in the picture, perhaps they will get some outside auditing firm to determine the effectiveness of the policies and procedures put in place. Internal audits are OK, but you need the outside unbiased auditors to dig around in the dirt awhile.
Posted by: dreek | Sep 15, 2006 1:01:49 PM
Post a comment
