Re: Re: GAO Opens DB Investigation]

["High Plains Drifter" <magna1@jps.net>]

Bill, Matt is right.  NRC allows plants to operate with leakage (so long as

the reactor and effluent safety constraints in the technical specifications

are not exceeded).  It is recognized that base power needs of the region and

economics play a role in any operational decision, but safety (public and

worker) is a big factor in the equation.  Not knowing all the facts in the

David Besse case, I can only assume that everything was done iaw the

technical specifications.  However, if the licensee knew more about the

leakage source and did not disclose it to the regulators, then they are in

deep kemchee.  The operation of a power plant is based on reactor safety and

a safe amount of worker and public exposure to radioactive materials.  If

the limits were zero exposure then they could not operate.  They pretty much

operate at a level that results in very little additional radiation exposure

to the public.  Effluent releases from a plant have an allowable range, just

as with the case of worker exposure to airborne radionuclides, and neither

is zero.  David Besse running with leakage came to light due to the

degradation of the reactor head issue and were probably well within the

limits for such releases.  Many plants operate with known leakage,

especially PWRs with degraded steam generator tubes.  Its economics balanced

with public safety.



H. Dean Chaney, CHP

URS Corp. Sacramento, CA

(916) 679-2086



"In science there is only physics; everything else is stamp collecting."

                                      --Ernest Rutherford



----- Original Message -----

From: "William V Lipton" <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>

To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 12:35 PM

Subject: [Fwd: Re: GAO Opens DB Investigation]





>

> [I am forwarding this to Radsafe with the permission of the author.

> Bill Lipton]

>

>

>      I don't think they put profit in front of safety.  It was a

> decision

>      made.  If there were no regulatory leak rate or ISI timeframes

>      exceeded, then it's no issue.

>

>      Why should a pwr depressurize the containment and let out all those

>      noble gases?  Hold them an extra half-life.  They are truely

> putting

>      profits first in this instance...no?  How about short outages?

> Take

>      your time, dbl PC everyone, NO CONTAMINATION EVENTS.  Any decision

> to

>      reduce PCs or not wear a respirator is purely a sacrifice in

> safety.

>

>      Bill, w/o reviewing the pedigree that led to the degredation of the

> Rx

>      head, these are my thoughts; the plant wasn't self critical enough

>      (it's the ONLY industry that does self assessments) and now they

> are

>      paying the price.

>

>      Matt Williamson

>      former (why, because it nukes are OVER regulated) nuke rad

> engineer...

>

> ************************************************************************

> 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/