[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: What Should We Do With Plutonium Once Nuclear Weapons Are
I regulate DOE (the Hanford office). I've worked for their contractors and
outside the system regulating them for 24 years, and I know them pretty
well. I don't always like how they choose to do business, and sometimes they
or their contractors make bad choices, not always intentionally. That's what
makes the news. On the other hand, (just speaking about Hanford), they
manage hundreds of projects with thousands of people. While some are bound
to screw up, and do, most are really good, honorable, hardworking people
trying to do very difficult jobs. While I can't automatically trust the
bureaucracy of the DOE system, I greatly respect the people, individually,
and as a whole, who work there, and the difficult jobs they do. When
criticizing, perspective is important.
Allen W. Conklin,Manager
Air Emissions & Defense Waste Section
Bldg 5 7171 Cleanwater St.
Department of Health
Olympia, WA 98504
phone: (360) 236-3261 fax: (360) 236-2256 pager: (360) 786-2975
"This message may be confidential. If you received it by mistake, please
notify the sender and delete the message. All messages to and from the
Department of Health may be disclosed to the public."
-----Original Message-----
From: Neil, David M [mailto:neildm@id.doe.gov]
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 8:54 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: RE: What Should We Do With Plutonium Once Nuclear Weapons Are
Your links just indicate that DOE is on the ball policing the contractors,
who were violating the spirit, if not the letter, of their contracts to
manage the various government facilities. These are references to
Price-Anderson actions.
An analogy would be hiring a kid to mow your grass, then making him pay for
the flowerbed he ran the mower over.
This goes right along with the tendency I have noticed to not differentiate
between DOE and the contractor. DOE wants things done right, and expends
effort trying to make it so without going over budget; the contractor is in
it for profit. Plus, the level of knowledge has increased immensely since
DOE/ERDA/AEC operations began, and practices that were acceptable then are
violations now.
I'm not trying to put DOE up as perfect, but give credit and blame where
they're due.
Dave Neil neildm@id.doe.gov
Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pambo1@aol.com [SMTP:Pambo1@aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 8:45 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re: What Should We Do With Plutonium Once Nuclear Weapons
> Are
>
> Okay, Ruth, below I've got links to some "specific evidence" that makes me
> doubt whether DOE and its contractors can be trusted. These are all DOE
> web sites, and I've even thrown in a couple of university-related items
> (University of California and University of Missouri).
>
> Yes, I'm quite aware that DOE has contracts with universities. Would you
> elaborate on how those are different from the others?
>
> Pam Watson
> DOE subcontractor worker
> Oak Ridge, TN
>
> Examples:
>
> DOE fines Univ. of California for workers' radiation exposure at Livermore
> (March 1998):
>
> http://www.doe.gov/news/releases98/marpr/pr98028.htm
>
> DOE fines Fluor Daniel Hanford for violations including some related to
> May 1997 explosion (March 1998):
>
> http://home.doe.gov/news/releases98/marpr/pr98037.htm
>
> DOE fines Westinghouse Savannah River Company for recurring violations of
> procedures used to ensure equipment and materials important to safety are
> properly designed, constructed and installed (March 8, 2000):
>
> http://www.doe.gov/news/releases00/marpr/pr00065.htm
>
> DOE fines Mason & Hanger for safety violations in relation to fire that
> occurred while a nuclear weapons component was being cleaned (August 3,
> 1999):
>
> http://www.doe.gov/news/releases00/marpr/pr00065.htm
>
> DOE cites Argonne for violations of nuclear safety procedures that
> resulted in worker contaminations on two occasions (December 16, 1999):
>
> http://home.doe.gov/news/releases99/decpr/pr99329.htm
>
> DOE fines Lockheed Martin and MAC Isotopes for nuclear safety violations
> that resulted in low-level contamination of six workers (June 8, 1998):
>
> http://home.doe.gov/news/releases98/junpr/pr98080.htm
>
> DOE fines Kaiser-Hill and Lockheed Martin for violating nuclear safety
> procedures associated with the fabrication and procurement of nuclear
> waste storage containers at Rocky Flats (August 20, 1999):
>
> http://home.doe.gov/news/releases99/augpr/pr99225.htm
>
> DOE levies penalties on Babcock & Wilcox and Lockheed Martin for nuclear
> safety violations at the Mound Site and ORNL, respectively (November
> 1998):
>
> http://www.doe.gov/news/releases98/novpr/pr98174.htm
>
> DOE and state of Missouri enter into Abatement Order on Consent in regard
> to violations of Missouri state laws by the Missouri University Research
> Reactor (October 1995):
>
> http://www.em.doe.gov/ffaa/murrffca.html
>
> DOE issues scathing Type A Accident Investigation Report on chemical
> explosion that injured 11 eleven workers at the Lockheed Martin-managed
> Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant (February 2000):
>
> http://tis.eh.doe.gov/oversight/acc_inv/y-12_report/Y-12_NaK_Accident_Inve
> stigation.htm
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html