[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Fwd: RE: Sandia Security Concerns]
This is posted with the permission of the author.
Bill
-------- Original Message --------
From: "George J. Vargo" <vargo@physicist.net>
Subject: RE: Sandia Security Concerns
To: 'William V Lipton' <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>
Bill,
While NRC external regulation sounds good, the simple fact is that NRC
does
not have (or no longer has) expertise in many aspects of DOE operations
(e.g., accelerators, Pu facilities.) Today's NRC is a lot smaller than
it
was, has virtually no capability in regulatory research (the Office of
Regulatory Research is a mere ghost of its past). 40% of current NRC
staff
are immediately eligible for retirement. While those of us who may have
felt mistreated in some way by NRC in the past would cheer their
reversal of
fortunes, the current situation is pretty precarious for all involved.
A
smaller, weaker NRC is not necessarily good for the commercial nuclear
industry. Assuming authority over DOE would simply require the hiring
of
hundreds or even thousands of current or former DOE contractors. It
would
also divert NRC management resources from other activities such as power
reactor license renewal.
George J. Vargo, Ph.D., CHP
Senior Scientist
MJW Corporation
http://www.mjwcorp.com
610-925-3377
610-925-5545 (fax)
vargo@physicist.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu] On Behalf Of William V Lipton
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 7:42 AM
To: Steven Dapra
Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Sandia Security Concerns
Many thanx for your comments. I agree that: (1) There is a small group
of
fanatics who will not be pleased by any reasonable measures. (2)
Multiple
CAB's don't necessarily accomplish much that's tangible.
Let me use your comments to clarify what I think needs to be done. What
we
need is external regulation of DOE. This is not original, but I think
the
NRC needs to take over this regulation. They probably don't want this,
since, compared to current licensees, this will be very difficult.
However,
I don't think we have a choice. Good external regulation will not
silence
the fanatics, but it will take away their credibility.
The problem at DOE sites isn't the standards, it's the enforcement
mechanism. If you look at the DOE Manual, the RP standards are very
similar
to the NRC regulations. However, they're difficult to enforce, since (at
least when I was there) the DOE contractor hp does not have much
recourse if
the line organization doesn't cooperate.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
Steven Dapra wrote:
> August 23
>
> With respect to oversight, and DOE oversight in particular,
> first, one has to understand that in the final analysis professional
> anti-nukers and anti-DOE partisans, are not interested in health and
> safety - probably not even their own health and safety. They have a
> political agenda that consists primarily of getting all nuclear
> weapons (especially those in the United States) dismantled and
> scrapped, and of wrecking the nuclear industry. They also want to
> shut down all power reactors, and we see this happening already in
> Europe.
>
> A key part of their polemic consists of slandering,
> vilifying, and denigrating the Department of Energy and its employees
> every chance they get. For the record I take a dim view of the DOE
> myself, but I don't see any need to go around running the Department
> and its employees into the ground. But - even if the DOE were to come
> clean on everything tomorrow, and stop the stonewalling and become
> fully cooperative would that help matters any? No. The anti-nukes
> are determined to destroy the DOE as well, or to remake it in their
> perverse mold, and short of disbanding itself I doubt that anything
> the DOE could do would satisfy the anti-nukers.
>
> Bill Lipton wrote, "If citizens living near DOE facilities
> become frustrated and feel stonewalled by DOE, some of them will
> become disruptive." True enough. There is no telling what people
> will do when they become sufficiently frustrated. Is becoming
> disruptive going to accomplish anything constructive? Marching and
> demonstrating, waving placards, spouting glib cliches, dressing in
> skeleton costumes and so forth will do nothing to make the DOE mend
> its ways. I can only speak for myself, but rabble-rousers lying on
> the ground with fake radiation injuries, or fake blood poured on
> themselves is not something I can take seriously.
>
> I sympathize with Bill over the electrical safety problems at
> the accelerator where he worked - with the manager who harassed him
> for pointing out safety violations. Bill writes, "Instead of
> dismissing the CAB's out of hand, DOE needs to implement an effective
> means of demonstrating accoutability [sic] to the community." Is this
> really the solution? If I may be pardoned for using the "m" word,
> isn't this actually a moral problem -- a problem of dishonesty in the
> manager in question, as well as in the higher up "leaders" who
> undoubtedly know about the dishonesty and either wink at it; or who
> tacitly or even actively encourage it by refusing to put a stop to it?
>
> We can have Citizens' Advisory Boards, review panels, and
> internal auditors piled up to the sky but who is going to keep them
> honest? More CABs, reviewers, and auditors? Furthermore, if the
> agencies they are assigned to watch have dishonest employees and
> managers who refuse to take advice and correct violations, and engage
> in coverups anyway, what is the point of having the watchdogs?
>
> As Bill trenchantly pointed out about the acclerator
> operators, they "had thought of many creative ways to violate the most
> basic rules of electrical safety." What is to keep people like this
> from devising creative ways to violate other rules? Until the moral
> problem is solved you are only wasting your time with CABs, etc.
>
> Steven Dapra
> sjd@swcp.com
>
> **********************************************************************
> **
> 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/