Re: Scientists question U.S. nuclear plant safet -Reply

["Greg & Claudia Yuhas" <uhaskep@castles.com>]

Good Comment :-)  I hope its well read.

Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: RON LAVERA <lavera.r@nypa.gov>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thursday, June 18, 1998 8:53 AM
Subject: Scientists question U.S. nuclear plant safet -Reply


>As a worker at a nuclear power plant, I find the UCS
>statement ( as quoted in the following message ) to be
>erroneous.  
>
>I know from personal experience that the "internal auditors"
>find problems.  I find that workers at all levels are identifying
>problems and working hard to correct them as they are
>found.  I also believe that any organization that is truly 
>dedicated to improving their product would find similar
>problems.
>
>I have also found that the NRC inspectors are dedicated and
>concerned individuals.  They are here to ensure that the plant
>is SAFE.  If you don't believe that, then you should ask all of
>the people that work at plants in the USA that have had the
>pleasure of being on the NRC watch list, or have been shut
>down to address NRC concerns.  Based on my humble
>experience, there is no other commercial industry in the US,
>including the air transportation industry, that has the degree
>of inspection and enforcement that is the routine for the
>nuclear industry.  
>
>I think is would be interesting for some members of the
>public that think nuclear power is not safe, to be exposed to
>the level of control that we are exposed to every day, for
>some routine task that they perform that have MUCH higher
>risk factors.  For instance, MANY people are KILLED ( a
>statistically significant number I might add  ) each year in
>traffic accidents.  If each person involved in a fender bender
>had to endure the level of post event inspection that occurs
>as a result of less risk significant events at power plants, I
>would be willing to bet that fatalities due to traffic infractions
>would drop drastically.
>
>I for one will be glad when the nay sayers of the world look at
>what is REALLY killing us in the good ole US of A.  Traffic
>accidents, violent crime, air pollution and water pollution.  If
>they would look at that with an unbiased view, I think that
>they would find that the DEFINITELY DEAD out weigh the
>maybe ( statistically ) dead.
>
>A good management practice is to focus your efforts on
>fixing those issues that result in 80% of your problems.  We
>( the USA ) should be focused on reducing our KNOWN
>death rate by 80%.  I think that nuclear power, with the low
>pollution and HIGH safety factors, could go a long way
>towards that goal.
>
>These musings are clearly mine and mine alone.
>
>Thank you for your time and consideration.
>
>Ron LaVera
>
>>>> "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net> 06/17/98
>04:38pm >>>
>For general interest:
>
>Wednesday June 17 3:21 PM EDT 
>
>By Tom Doggett 
>
>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The safe operation of the nation's
>104 nuclear power 
>reactors is at risk because of careless inspectors and
>frequent worker 
>mistakes, according to a new study by the Union of
>Concerned Scientists. 
>
>"Although we found some encouraging signs, it appears that
>safety conditions 
>at nuclear plants across the country may be worse than we
>previously 
>believed," said David Lochbaum, the UCS' nuclear safety
>expert and author of 
>the report. 
>
>The report's conclusions, released Wednesday, are based on
>the monitoring of 
>10 plants from November 1996 to January 1998. 
>
>The most serious finding in the report was that internal safety
>inspectors 
>missed more than 200 problems that occurred at the plants
>last year. 
>
>"Plant workers found some problems, inspectors from the
>Nuclear Regulatory 
>Commission (NRC) found others, and some became obvious
>when equipment 
>broke down. But the internal auditors did not identify a single
>problem," the 
>report said. 
>
>The group also uncovered that a large number of plant
>problems were caused 
>by human error (35 percent) and faulty procedures (44
>percent). 
>
>"If not for human mistakes and bad procedures, the Three
>Mile Island and 
>Chernobyl disasters might have been prevented," said
>Lochbaum. "The nuclear 
>industry is too old to be experiencing so many preventable
>safety problems," 
>he added. 
>
>The UCS is recommending that internal auditors and workers
>get additional 
>safety training, and that the NRC improve its enforcement of
>federal safety 
>regulations. 
>
>In addition, the group said Congress should review whether
>NRC guidelines can 
>ensure the public is adequately protected. 
>
>"This congressional inquiry should happen now. It should not
>be deferred until 
>after the next major reactor accident," the group said. 
>
>A spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) defended
>the performance 
>of the nation's nuclear power plants, adding that the safety
>problems mentioned 
>in the report were not serious. 
>
>"There's no question nuclear power plants are safe," said
>Steven Kerekes. He 
>said the NEI supported the group's recommendation that
>Congress review the 
>effectiveness of the NRC's rules and procedures. 
>
>The plants monitored by the UCS were Indian Point located
>24 miles north of 
>New York City; Calvert Cliffs 40 miles south of Annapolis,
>Md.; the Cooper 
>plant in Nebraska; the LaSalle plant in Illinois; and the
>Millstone complex near 
>New London, Conn. 
>
>The group also reviewed the Oconee plant 30 miles west of
>Greenville, S.C.; 
>Oyster Creek in New Jersey; the River Bend plant 24 miles
>from Baton Rouge, 
>La.; the TVA's Sequoyah plant near Chattanooga, Tenn.; and
>the Surry power 
>plant 17 milesnorthwest of Newport News, Va.
>
>------------------
>Sandy Perle
>Technical Director
>ICN Dosimetry Division
>Costa Mesa, CA 92626
>Office: (800) 548-5100 x2306 
>Fax:    (714) 668-3111
>  
>sandyfl@earthlink.net
>sperle@icnpharm.com
>
>ICN Dosimetry Website:
>http://www.dosimetry.com
>
>Personal Website:
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1205
>
>"The object of opening the mind, as of opening 
>the mouth, is to close it again on something solid"
>              - G. K. Chesterton -
>
>The opinions expressed are solely, absolutely, positively,
>definitely those of the author, and NOT my employer
>
>