RE: submarines and Norm

["Kent, Michael D." <Michael.Kent@nmcco.com>]

Another point is that the Navy does not have the same cost-benefit problems

that the civilian power plants have.  We could expend more money and

manpower of monitoring, since we did not have to show a profit.  We could

have more stringent requirements than those of the civilian world, and would

have the resources to meet them.



>You obviously have not been in the Navy in the post cold war years.  There is considerable cost cutting going on.  Why do you think the 688 Sub is now called the disposable sub?  Most 688's will never be refueled.  The Navy is trimming the fat where-ever it can.  But the Navy still insists on quality control, training, and zero tolerance for mistakes.  And oh, did I mention training.  The nuclear power industry has a mentality that "anyone can be trained to operate a nuclear reactor".  The Navy's approach is a bit different.  The Navy tries to fail out 50%.



As for more manpower for monitoring, as a whole the Navy has far fewer watch standers than does a civilian power plant.  The issue really goes back to the beginning.  Use one design and make small improvements.  Unlike the civilian program in the US, everyone has to be bigger better than the next guy's.  If the US had built "Cookie Cutter" reactors and Steam Plants, it would have saved a significant amount of money for all companies involved.  The civilian plants are starting to get on board, but it is a slow process.





Bill,  I disagree. I believe the military use of safe, clean nuclear 

energy is considered acceptable solely on its own merits. There is 

little discussion about the technology and its use, there isn't a lot 

of press or documentaries on it, their problems aren't made public 

and, they aren't operating in a person's literal backyard.





>If you have ever been to Hawaii and stand on the beach and watch the Sub's submerge, or in North Hampton as the Subs go to sea, or in Groton.....  The submarines and carriers are in peoples back yards, closer than most civilian reactors.



As for press or documentation, contact Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard.  The University of Hawaii has a professor, I forget his name, that monitors every thing that is done at Pearl.  All environmental releases, etc.  When the Navy started storing spent fuel in dry cask in Hawaii, the Navy put on a very good presentation to the local population about the storage facility and the construction of the fuel, etc.  The local population accepted with minimal fuss.



The reason there is little press about it is because the Navy does not screw up.  No news is good news sort of deal.  And this day and age, you can not really cover something up, it will eventually work its way out....remember "Tailhook".



Also if you ever want to know how the Nuclear Navy performed for the year, there are the "Yellow and Blue Book".  These are reports submitted to Congress every year about releases to the environment and personnel exposure.  These books are not classified.



No, perhaps it's because the public understands that the Defense

Department's decisions are not up for debate.  So it should be with a few

other things nuclear, as Gov. Guinn will soon find out.





>This is definitely not true.  Look at the Navy's bombing range in Puerto Rico.  Adm. Rickover once chastised the Captain of the USS Nautilus for cutting through Long Island Sound before the Navy was granted permission.  It was all about public perception.  Adm. Rickover was aware of that, and I can assure you, when I was in, every Commanding Officer I knew stressed that to us.  As long as the public trust us, then there will be no problems.  Release some radioactive material to the environment, melt a core, things will drastically change.



Just my views from having been in both worlds.



Michael D. Kent





************************************************************************

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/