Re: Nuclear no-wins, etc.

[Jeff Eichorst <myself@lanl.gov>]

Brian,
The issue is not that the the plume went undetected.  Everyone agrees that
that is not good.  The question is whether such a deficiency warrants a
procedure change, or surveillance periodicity revision, or maybe better
equipment; instead of pulling the plug because of the failure to detect a
non-hazard.  Is the 6 Ci release any  more damaging to the public than some
contamination that gets into your change room?  When that happens, should
Sen. Domenici shut down TA-55?

At 02:52 PM 9/4/97 -0500, you wrote:
>My intention is not to add fuel to a fire, but maybe I missed something 
>here; wasn't the leak undetected for a significant period of time?  
>
>Yes, I KNOW that it was only 6 Ci of H3, but if the plume was detected 
>quite aways from the source, why?
>
>Health Hazard or not,  a failure to detect is still a failure, like it or 
>not.  
>
>Brian Rees
>brees@lanl.gov
>
>
Jeff Eichorst
Occurrence Investigator
Los Alamos National Laboratory
ESH-7, MS K999, Los Alamos, NM 87545
505.665-6980		505.665-6977 fax
505.996-1117 digital pager,	myself@lanl.gov

"Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth."
	- JFK