Re: Why nuclear is a "no-win" in the USA

[Lester.Slaback@nist.gov]

>Like someone caught speeding, Brookhaven has failed to meet a DOE
>performance expectation, and it appropriate that DOE take some action.
>However, we generally don't execute people for traffic violations. But
>this event, with potential but no actual harm to the public (like someone
>speeding without causing an accident) has resulted in elimination of the
>contractor and possibly the elimination of the reactor - effectively the
>death penalty.

>Certainly something needs to be fixed at BNL, but do we really need to
>eradicate something because it showed only some **potential** to create a
>public health hazard? By this logic, do we outlaw hamburgers?

It is my understanding that.....
 1. the local (near vicinity of the reactor) ground water is about 2x the
published EPA tritium ground water std
 2. that standard is 20+ years old and if recalculated using current dose
factors would be 3x higher.
 3. the projected individual exposure for persons using that water would
be <5 mrem/yr.
 4. the water is years away from reaching any well or public water supply
source so decay and further dilution are not accounted for in the current
estimates
 5. it is unlikely that this local plume will be tapped as a water supply
source

So I ask:
What is the public health HAZARD?

Given that a definitive source or action has not been identified as the
source for this release I wonder what performance expectation was failed? 
It seems to me that 20/20 hindsight is the operative principle here, and
if this were to be the norm most licensees would be in trouble.  From all
I have read this is a top-notch facility operated in an excellent manner
by a first class staff. Note- I have no connection to this facility other
than the fact that I work at a similar research lab. So I do not believe I
have a conflict-of-interest in expressing the above, other than my obvious
bias'.


WARNING: A SOAPBOX MESSAGE.
Lastly I would like to point out something that has not been mentioned.
HFBR is one of two (maybe three) major facilities in the U.S. capable of
doing state-of-the-art materials research.  There are companies that spend
millions of dollars each year using these facilities to get data critical
to their success.  Congress killed the Advanced Neutron Source in '95
which would have been the facility to keep us competitive with the new
facilities being built overseas (Germany, Japan, France, etc). Losing the
HFBR will simply force more of this work overseas, and the knowledge and
expertise that does with it.  If we keep pulling these bricks from out
technological foundation we will eventually be buried in the rubble.


-- 
the above are the personal musing of the author,
and do not represent any past, current, or future
position of NIST, the U.S. Government, or anyone else
who might think that they are in a position of authority.
NBSR Health Physics
NIST
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
301 975-5810
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lester.Slaback@nist.gov
-----------------------------------------------------------