[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Sandia Security Concerns
I disagree - I don't see how external regulation will do a thing for DOE
- except add one more layer of complication and make it slower and more
expensive to do anything.
William V Lipton wrote:
>
> 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/