RE: More on "informed dialogue"

["Weiner, Ruth" <rfweine@sandia.gov>]

One of the problems of the early days of the nuke industry was the
stonewalling of the industry (and the AEC) toward any "outsider" who asked a
question (like me).  I was actually forced out of the ACRS public hearing on
Fort St. Vrain in theory because "I was not represented by counsel."  I was
just an ordinary citizen who was interested (albeit I was a member of Sierra
Club, which at that time was pro-nuke).  The result was that people like me
were wooed by the anti-nuke camp (and I was, successfully for a while).
There was a tendency to lump anyone who even asked a reasonable question
together with the hard core, shut-'em-down antis.  I wanted answers to my
questions, and they were reasonable technical questions (I TA'd a
radiochemistry lab, after all).  In about 1981, some industry people woke up
and I actually got my first nuke industry consultancy.

Now we see a funny sort of obverse of this.  All questions about nukes are
lost in the relentless pandering to the "fears" of the "public" and real
questions are lost in the shuffle.

Clearly only my own opinion

Ruth F. Weiner, Ph. D.
Sandia National Laboratories 
MS 0718, POB 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87185-0718
505-844-4791; fax 505-844-0244
rfweine@sandia.gov


-----Original Message-----
From: Al Tschaeche [mailto:antatnsu@pacbell.net]
Sent: January 15, 2000 3:26 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: More on "informed dialogue"


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------4B791C2DB11E7A29B80BA9EE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

"Lavera, Ron" wrote:

> I usually try to stay clear of these types of discussions, but I feel that
> this merits a few meager thoughts that I have.

All thoughts are important, especially ones that add information to the
discussion.  Thanks for doing so.

> I think that there are several other major cost factors that should be
> considered.
> First, many companies that jumped on the "let's build a nuke !" wagon were
> not accustomed to the rigorous building and QA practices needed to
> successfully complete a plant.  If you use poor materials, practices or
QA,
> when it comes time to try to license the plant, the NRC starts asking for
a
> lot of retest and rework.  Up goes the cost.

There's a lot of truth to this point.  However, I don't know the relative
amount
such a "learning curve" cost the nuclear utilities.  Clearly there was some
learning curve costs, but I believe (correct me someone if you have the
data)
this factor was not nearly so expensive as others such as TMI retrofits, the
antis forcing NRC to add safety requirements and inflation.

> Second, many plants were caught in the Post TMI let's incorporate lessons
> learned before we let these plants start up.  Re-engineering and rework of
> plant systems becomes very costly.

Absolutely!  However, the argument here is that the antis forced the NRC to
add
a lot of requirements that probably weren't necessary.  I was involved in
the GE
reactor design and intimately involved with some of the NRC required
"fixes."
Some of those fixes were, in fact, only the NRC's desires.  However, several
of
those testifying before the ACRS and other hearings were antis who forced
their
very conservative ideas on the listeners.

> Third, because of the extra care needed to build a nuclear plant and the
> inexperience of many utilities, some underestimated the amount of time
that
> THEY would need to build the plant.

Again, true.  The learning curve is expensive.

> Fourth, after the plants were operating, some utilities thought you could
> just run them like an oil or coal fired plant.  Not so with nuclear plants
> !!  A little care goes a long way in this industry.

Also true.  Again the learning curve.

> Fifth, the capital cost of a Nuclear Power Plant is probably THE major
> expense associated with a well run plant.  The capital cost of a plant is
> directly related to the interest expense associated with the plant.  The
> anti-nuclear groups learned very early on in the game that they could make
> just about any plant un-economically viable if they delayed start up and
the
> resultant debt pay down, as long as possible.

Yup.  And this, I believe, is the biggest reason plants cost so much.  The
antis
continue to make all things nuclear cost a lot by delay.  Look at Ward
Valley
and WIPP and Yucca Mt..

I would really like someone to look at the history of all of the antis
involvement in nuclear power (only) and see if they could show
quantitatively
how much the antis cost the industry.  Of course there will be a lot of
subjective considerations of whether the anti's requirements really improved
safety.  But, I think it would be very interesting to do if one had the
support
to do it.  NEI, are you listening?

> There are a number of utilities that have learned that they can make a
well
> run nuclear power plant become a license to print money.

Again, true.
Thanks again for your input.  We must not loose this history.  Al Tschaeche
antatnsu@pacbell.net


--------------4B791C2DB11E7A29B80BA9EE
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="antatnsu.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Al Tschaeche
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="antatnsu.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Tschaeche;Al
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Nuclear Standards Unlimited
version:2.1
email;internet:antatnsu@postoffice.pacbell.net
title:CEO
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Al Tschaeche
end:vcard

--------------4B791C2DB11E7A29B80BA9EE--

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html