Union of Concerned Scientists

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

I sent the following letter to Dr. Kurt Gottfried, who is listed on the UCS web page as chairman of the board of UCS (sorry about the length):


Dear Dr. Gottfried,


I am writing to you in your capacity as Chairman of the Board of the Union of Concerned Scientists.  Let me qualify myself at the outset of this letter:  my Ph.D. is in chemistry from the Johns Hopkins University, I was a professor of chemistry and environmental chemistry for about 35 years, was chairman of the chemistry department at Florida International University and dean of the College of Environmental Studies at Western Washington University, and have the publications record consistent with having held the rank of Professor for 20 years.  I am currently retired from Sandia National Laboratories, to whom I am a consultant.


Such qualification should not be necessary if your staff of experts had responded to my questions with ordinary professional courtesy.  However, in light of the following excerpts from an email exchange with David Lochbaum, I felt I had better present some evidence that I was not some sort of fanatic nut.  


I asked Lochbaum the following paraphrased questions (by email):


1. Do you call spent nuclear fuel  transportation "mobile Chernobyl"? If you do, on what basis?  If you do not, do you repudiate the use of the term?


2. [One of Lochbaum's anti-nuclear correspondents stated that he thought the transportation casks were not "strong enough" to withstand accidents.]  Do you think the [transportation] casks are "strong enough"? What kind of accident do you think they are not strong enough to withstand? Is there any accident that you think they ARE strong enough to withstand? Do you think 10 CFR Part 71 Subpart E is just whistling in the wind? Not enforced? Disregarded? Inadequate? If you think it is inadequate, in what way do you think so?


Lochbaum's first response was:


"Casks may not (as opposed to 'are not') be strong enough to withstand a fire either involving higher temperatures than assumed and/or lasting for a longer duration than assumed. The assumptions don't appear to be bounding with respect to temperature and duration. The casks may survive, but the analyses and tests to date don't support that

conclusion.

[They are strong enough to withstand] accidents within the envelope of analyses/tests.


[10 CFR Part 71 Subpart E is] not [inadequate]" 


So I asked the following follow-up questions (pointing out also that he had not addressed the "mobile Chernobyl" question):


"Could you be more specific about "strong enough"? As you surely know, the entire cask doesn't split or crumble, even when hit with high explosives (Luna, Neuhauser, and Vigil, SAND-0963, Sandia National Laboratories, 1999). In even a severe accident (as distinct from a deliberate attack, which is not an accident), the cask itself may deform, but would not rupture. Leakage of any radioactivity would be around the seals (Fischer, et al, NUREG/CR4829, 1987, and Sprung, et al, NUREG/CR-6672, 2000, and supporting documentation cited in both of these studies). 


When you speak of "assumptions" not being "bounding" are you referring to Fischer, et al, Sprung, et al, or 10 CFR Part 71 Subpart E? In particular, with reference to Sprung, et al, if you do not consider a 120 mph impact combined with an engulfing fire of 1000 deg C for several hours -- long enough to heat the cask interior to produce burst rupture of the fuel rods -- "bounding," what would you consider "bounding?  If the current analyses are not bounding, what analyses and tests are you referring to?"


Lochbaum's response was to tell me that UCS referred transportation questions to Marvin Resnikoff (who has not responded).  His further total response was:

"If your (sic) frustrated at bing (sic) unable to communicate with folks about transportation issues, it would be better to revisit your messages than to attempt to recruit UCS as your mouthpiece."


I would be happy to send you the entire email correspondence if you like.


Believe me, there was no mention in any of my communications about either frustration or inability to communicate or the remotest hint that I would want UCS to speak for me.  Believe me, I would never think of the last, especially after this exchange!  I found Lochbaum's "response" unresponsive,  ludicrous, and rude.  I assume he speaks for UCS.


I am not writing, however, just to share my reaction but to share conclusions about your position that I have drawn from this exchange.  The reasons I reached these conclusions are:


1. UCS avoided the "mobile Chernobyl" question completely.  Therefore, I conclude that even if you do not yourselves use this characterization, you are not willing to publicly repudiate it.  You must know it's nothing but disingenuous antinuclear propaganda. 

2. UCS's unwillingness to go into detail about the contradictory response to the question of cask safety suggests to me that either UCS doesn't know what it is talking about, or UCS knows and understands the internal contradictions in its statements but broadcasts them anyway, possibly on the theory that if one repeats "spent fuel transportation casks are unsafe" often enough, it becomes true.


I thought that UCS would at least respond to the point of the questions.  More to the point, I do not understand how an organization that calls itself a union of scientists can so deliberately choose not to defend or explain its contentions and chooses to avoid or evade a technical discussion.


Sincerely, 




Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com