Does BNL "get it"?

[Gary Schroeder <schroede@mail.sep.bnl.gov>]

Following quotes from the DOE invstigation report on the HFBR situation,
Bill Lipton said:

>I suggest to my colleagues at BNL that the only way to maintain 
>any chance of keeping the Lab open is to stop and demonstrate that 
>you are taking comprehensive and effective corrective actions 
>to provide a reasonable assurance that there will not 
>be any similar events in the future. 

Bill, I've carefully considered the opinions that you've offered to Radsafe
over the past couple of weeks and I have a few of my own to offer in
return.  The quotes from the DOE investigation which you posted all focus
on management decisions which led to an undetected leak in the fuel pool.
The report also details management attitudes about environmental protection
priorities in relation to research priorities (as no surprise, reasearch
usually won out).  

That having been established, you may be aware of recent changes at BNL
designed to "provide a reasonable assurance that there will not be any
similar events in the future."  You may be aware that the Laboratory
Director has been replaced.  You may be aware that the contractor which has
run the Lab for the last 50 years has been terminated by the Secretary of
Energy.  You may be aware that top line management is going to be replaced
by staff from a new contractor in the next couple of months.  Given that
this issue, as discussed in the report, seems to have been precipitated by
a series of bad mangement (including DOE) decisions, I conclude that the
actions mentioned above indicate a strong commitment to environmental
management systems improvement.

Now, let's look at some of the statements made by local elected officials
which have caused great frustration among the BNL community.  Congressman
Michael Forbes, on July 14 stated: 

"We don't want the reactor to shut down for the sake of a couple of folks
who don't have a good understanding of its importance and safety.  And it
is a safe reactor and I've said that.  Absent this [fuel pool] problem, it
has operated for many years without incident.  And I think we have to make
sure that we don't react just for the sake that we think we're soothing
some sentiments out there.  I don't think that would be appropriate."

On September 8, Congressman Forbes mailed a 4 page letter to women (no men
included) in the local community and stated:

"[...] there is no reasonable expectation that an aging, 31 year old
nuclear reactor can be operated without further incident. [...] It would be
foolhardy and quite irresponsible to knowingly permit the re-starting of
this outdated, aging nuclear reactor with such a questionable history."

Many Lab employees are angered by this flip-flop in policy.  Many are
angered about the characterization of the reactor as unsafe and "damaged".
Most are angered that Forbes and D'Amato have chosen to unilaterally
short-circuit the public input process into the re-start/shut-down
decision.  Does this mean that BNL staff (as you have said earlier) "just
don't get it"?  

You indicate that you believe BNL staff are in denial, that we believe
there is no problem.  Here's what I believe:  I believe that the tritium
leak should not have gone undetected for so many years.  I believe that the
reactor is not inherently dangerous and unsafe, as it has been
characterized by critics.  I believe that this facility is a valuable
research tool whose future deserves to be fairly evaluated.  I believe that
the management errors which led to this situation have been well publicized
and are being corrected.  I believe that there are people who are
exploiting nuclear fear in my neighborhood for their own political advantage.

I believe that the staff at BNL "GET IT" quite well.
 
=======================
Gary L. Schroeder
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Environmental Protection Office
gs1@bnl.gov