[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Federal Guidance Report No. 11
What we did to deserve it:
arrogance - We've been consescending, at best, in addessing public fears, although we've improved, recently.
premature commercialization - In the rush to sell hardware, the reactor vendors palmed off protypes as "off the shelf" technology. The result is that
each plant has to reinvent the wheel, and design errors, and unanticipated problems are discovered the hard way. I would have loved to have been a
fly on the wall when the reactor vendors made their pitches to the utilities: < $100 million, "turnkey project," electricity too cheap to meter,
proven technology, ...
a mindset to meet minimum requirements and nothing more - Plants ran with failed fuel, neglected maintenance, used various tricks to circumvent tech
specs (I heard of one plant which periodically made equipment inop to reset the surveillance clock, since they knew it would fail. By juggling things
like that, and accepting inadequate performance for "non-safety related" equipment, you could keep running when you shouldn't.) We've improved, but
the perception will take a while to catch up.
An unwillingness to learn from errors - We have often not properly investigated precursor incidents and have often addressed the symptoms rather than
the underlying problems. We've improved a lot, but we now have the burden of proof.
What we can do about it. There's no quick fix. The best bet is a keeping a low profile, running an excellent operation, and, above all, avoiding any
screwups. When one does occur, we must take responsibility and learn from our mistakes.
We are not victims, we did this to ourselves.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Let's look at the real problem, for a change.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
Jerry Cohen wrote:
> Bill,
> You give some excellent examples of the problem. But, are the cases you
> present a
> manifestation of "lack of trust", or could they be due to unreasoned fear
> based on ignorance.
> If it is "lack of trust", what did the nuclear industry do to deserve it,
> and how do you think the problem might be rectified?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: William V Lipton <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>
> To: <hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net>
> Cc: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 4:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Federal Guidance Report No. 11
>
> > Obviously, you have not heard of:
> >
> > Three Mile Island - There was no excessive dose to the public, yet nearly
> fatal consequences for the nuclear industry. Why? I'd say a loss of trust.
> >
> > Shoreham - Even though the reactor was built to applicable standards, the
> people of Long Island wouldn't let it run. From the statements I heard at
> the
> > time, the average Long Islander would sooner have his first born son crawl
> across the Long Island Expressway at rush hour than let Shoreham run. Lack
> > of trust? (Please don't try to be the victim by blaming the media,
> Christie Brinkley, Mario Cuomo, the tooth fairy, etc. They wouldn't have
> been
> > listened to if there weren't an underlying lack of trust.)
> >
> > Rancho Seco - The owners (the voters of the Sacramento Municipal Utilities
> District) voted to shut down the plant, even though it had fixed it's
> > problems. A loss of trust? (CA could sure have used a few hundred extra
> megawatts, last year.)
> >
> > BNL - High Flux Beam Reactor - A fuel pool leak resulted in a tritium
> plume. There was virtually zero dose to the public, yet political pressure
> forced
> > DOE to close the facility, with a severe economic impact on the local
> area. Loss of trust?
> >
> > Yucca Mountain - Why is NV so dead set against this huge economic benefit
> which has been demonstrated to have virtually no environmental impact?. (It
> is
> > difficult to imagine how any activity short of more weapons detonations
> could make NTS any worse than it already is.) Lack of trust?
> > ...
> >
> > The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
> > It's not about dose, it's about trust.
> > Let's look at the real problem, for a change.
> >
> > Bill Lipton
> > liptonw@dteenergy.com
> >
> >
> > hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net wrote:
> >
> > > Bill,
> > > Your statement, "It's not about dose, its about trust."
> > > is incorrect. If you know that and repeat it, ----.
> > >
> > > Dose is everything in medicine
> > > (life or death).
> > > Likewise with radiation - also now a medicine, which HP's can help
> individualize.
> > >
> > > Howard Long
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ************************************************************************
> > You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
> > send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
> > radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
> You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
> >
>
> ************************************************************************
> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/