Brookhaven National Lab

[LIPTONW@detroitedison.com]

The November 1997, Health Physics Society Newsletter contains 2 articles by 
Andy Hull regarding the situation at Brookhaven:  (1) an editorial, 
"Perception, Radiation, and the Politics of Fear", and (2) "Brookhaven Tritium 
Leakage: A Nuclear 'No-Win?'".  Although I appreciate Andy's efforts in 
writing these and in compiling information for the benefit of HPS members, I'm 
concerned about the tone and conclusions of these articels. 
 
The editorial seems to conclude that the situation at BNL is primarily a 
public relations problem, which should be addressed by upgrading the HPS 
public relations program.   
 
Although the second article provides a useful compilation of information, it 
also suggests that there problem is primarily one of public hysteria.  
Although I am not named, a previous RADAFE submission of mine is quoted:  "The 
problem is not the actual dose, but that the Laboratory allowed an 
environmental release to occur for so long before taking any action ..."  
Andy's response is that, "Coming from those knowledgeable in radiation 
protection, such criticism seems to many of us who have been directly 
responsible at BNL to suggest a partial understanding of the background of the 
situation, to partake of 20/20 hindsight, and to beg the question of what they 
would have done in our places." 
 
Since there is little of significance in this article that is new to me, I 
guess that my understanding of the situation is still "partial."  I'd 
appreciate any additional information that would help me improve this.  
Although, any review of lessons learned is "20/20 hindsight" (Is there any 
other kind?), my intent is not to find fault, but rather to:  (1) jog the BNL 
people out of the "denial" stage, and (2) help the health physics community 
draw lessons learned to prevent future problems such as this.  Although I 
obviously have not even made a dent in goal (1), I hope that I've accomplished 
something for goal (2). 
 
Putting this aside, however, as happens all too frequently in the nuclear 
industry, rhetoric has been overtaken by events: 
 
(1) An article in "Newsday" dated 9/11/97 describes an event involving 
elevated levels of tritium in releases from the BNL sewage treatment plant.  
"[Peter} Bond [BNL interim director] said the lab is pondering the possibility 
that the tritium may have been released into the lab's sewer system 
intentionally." 
 
(2) An article in "Newsday" dated 10/24/97  describes a new problem - the 
flooding of an underground air duct at the graphite reactor.  "Two weeks after 
disclosing the discovery of an underground air duct filled with highly 
radioactive water, Brookhaven National Laboratory confirmed yesterday that the 
contamination is due in part to uranium, plutonium and americium."   
 
In the light of these new developments, even after making a reasonable 
allowance for media exageration, it seems that any talk of the BNL situation 
as primarily a public relations problem is, at best, premature, since:  (1) 
The Laboratory does not seem to have yet fully evaluated the impats of past 
activities, i.e., how many other "gotcha's" are out there?, and (2) Since 
there is a possibility that intentional dumping of tritium occurred after the 
tritium plume was discovered, the Laboratory has not yet reached a point where 
it can be assured of control over ongoing activities.   
 
I'm afraid that they still don't "get it". 
 
The opinions expressed are strictly mine. 
It's not about dose, it's about trust. 
 
Bill Lipton 
liptonw@detroitedison.com