Re: "in it for profit"

["Dukelow, James S Jr" <jim.dukelow@pnl.gov>]

Dave Neil wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:43:44 -0600
From: "Neil, David M" <neildm@id.doe.gov>
To: "'radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu'" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: RE: What Should We Do With Plutonium Once Nuclear Weapons Are 

	<snip>

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. 

	<snip>

Jim Dukelow replies:

This is an interesting assertion that is about 180 degrees from the truth.  I
work for Battelle Memorial Institute, which operates the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory and shares operating responsibilities for Brookhaven with
SUNY-Stony Brook, for Oak Ridge National Laboratory with the U. of Tennessee,
and for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory with Midwest Research Institute
and Bechtol (?).  Battelle is a not-for-profit organization as are SUNY and UT;
I'm not sure about MRI.

LLNL, LBL, and LANL are still operated by the University of California.  Argonne
was run for many years (still?) by a university consortium as was BNL.  DuPont
operated Savannah River for many years for a $1 fee and gave up the contract
when the risks associated with operating the facility overwhelmed their public
spirit.

Some contractors are for-profit.  My sense is that they don't get into the
business of operating DOE facilities because of the potential for enrichment;
the fees are typically a fairly small fraction of the cash flow (although a much
larger fraction of what they invest and the risks they face).  Just ask whatever
what remains of Westinghouse is calling itself these days about the risks
associated with operating DOE facilities.  Many other prominent commercial firms
have exited the DOE operations market with bloodied noses and sullied
reputations, in some cases justly, in other cases not.

Secretary O'Leary's privatization scheme, which attempted to put more of the
risk of weapons facility cleanup on the private contractors, appears on its way
to being a failure.  DOE is having to re-accept the technical and political
risks of the cleanup for lack of bidders and inability to write a contract that
really puts that risk on the contractor. 

Best regards.

Jim Dukelow
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Richland, WA
jim.dukelow@pnl.gov

These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my
management or by the U.S. Department of Energy.
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html