Re: the RADSAFE tantrum re Lochbaum/NPR/UCS

[Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>]

While I generally agree that UCS and Lochbaum are more responsible than,
e.g., Greenpeace etc., and their concern about industry examples of
failing to deal with concerns of its employees and others, especially on
rigorous attention to procedures and controls (now much improved), the
test of veracity is in what is actually said, and the credible bases for
technical statements. See, e.g., Lochbaum/UCS Press Releases below:

Michael Mokrzycki wrote:
> 
> I am compelled to chime in here with a "bravo" to Jim Dukelow, and the
> observation that as a practical matter, the radiation-safety community might
> have a tough time persuading the general public that someone with nearly two
> decades of experience working in the nuclear industry (i.e. someone who appears
> to be fundamentally "pro-nuclear") isn't credible when he makes remarks critical
> of the industry. I also think few laypersons will understand or much care that
> there's a difference between a nuclear engineer and a health physicist (as Jim
> aptly notes, if he doesn't understand nuclear safety, why was he working in the
> industry for 17 years?). And the argument that Lochbaum is not a "stakeholder"
> in nuclear issues is worse than a non-starter -- to me that implies that only
> people who make a living in the nuclear industry have a right to be concerned
> about safety.
> 
> I have no interest in defending or knocking UCS but I would note that as a
> journalist, my personal experience is that UCS is careful not to sound alarms
> unduly. I interviewed Lochbaum last year for a story on a tornado hitting the
> Davis-Besse plant and after reviewing the evidence, he concluded the staff there
> handled the incident very well -- and I quoted him saying so. And going back to
> the 80s when I was covering Seabrook, Lochbaum's predecessor at UCS, Robert
> Pollard, also would be quick to say (gruffly, I'd add) if an issue didn't have
> safety significance, no matter what other "anti-nuclear" groups were claiming.
> 
> For what it's worth, I'd also note that the NRC appears to find UCS considerably
> more credible than most other intervenors.
> 
> Strictly my opinions only.
> 
> Mike Mokrzycki, Associated Press
> 
> mmokrzycki@ap.org
====================================== 

  September 25, 1998

  River Bend--Broke!
  Dangerous Safety Problem at Louisiana Nuke Plant Requires Immediate
  Shutdown

  The River Bend nuclear plant in Louisiana is operating with holes in
the
  primary safety barrier that prevents highly radioactive material from
  leaking into the environment during an accident. The Union of
Concerned
  Scientists today petitioned the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to shut
  down River Bend until the damage is corrected.

  "While the public is safe for now, we suspect that plant workers are
already
  being exposed to increased levels of radiation," said David Lochbaum,
  Nuclear Safety Engineer for UCS. "However, if there was an accident,
  citizens in Louisiana and neighboring states could be at serious
risk."

  The NRC granted River Bend's owners an operating license based on
  analyses that an accident would not expose plant workers and the
public to
  dangerous levels of radiation. UCS determined that those analyses
assume
  the metal safety barrier containing nuclear fuel is intact when the
  accident starts. If that barrier remains intact, the highly
radioactive
  material produced when nuclear fuel is consumed cannot be released to
  the environment. Earlier this week, River Bend's owners reported that
this
  nuclear fuel barrier had developed holes. The plant continues to
operate.

  "The NRC's mission is to protect the public and plant workers from
  radiation hazards at nuclear power plants," said Lochbaum. "The NRC
  cannot allow River Bend to operate with known safety problems."

  "Last April we gave the NRC a full report on the serious safety
hazards of
  operating a nuclear plant with a failed fuel barrier. They ignored
it," said
  Lochbaum. "Now we have petitioned the NRC to take action at River Bend
  to protect the public. The time has come for the regulators to
regulate."
...

And on the same issue:

April 21, 1999

  NRC Turns a Deaf Ear to Safety in Ohio, Louisiana
  UCS Appeals Ruling On Fuel Leaks at Nuclear Plants

  The Union of Concerned Scientists today appealed a Nuclear Regulatory
  Commission decision that allowed two nuclear power plants to continue
  operating despite cracked nuclear fuel rods leaking radioactivity. The
  leaks posed a serious threat to public safety and violate the
operating
  licenses at both the River Bend plant in Louisiana and the Perry plant
in
  Ohio. Last year UCS submitted two petitions to the NRC seeking the
  immediate shut down of the plants. 

  "Our petitions are on solid legal and technical grounds," said David
  Lochbaum, Nuclear Safety Engineer for UCS, in his appeal to the NRC.
"If
  this decision stands, public safety will be compromised."

  "The public cannot be harmed by a nuclear plant accident when the fuel
  tubes remain intact, but the River Bend and Perry plants operated with
  this vital barrier already broken," Lochbaum said.

  Although it is a violation of federal regulations and a severe health
risk for
  nuclear plants to continue operating with known fuel damage, the NRC
  staff concluded in their recent decision that nuclear plants could
operate
  with leaking reactor cores.

  "The NRC staff is ignoring public safety," said Lochbaum. "We hope the
  Commissioners will step in and prevent another Millstone mistake."
...

  May 27, 1997

  Nuclear Outlaw Surrenders
  Economics and Safety Close Doors at Maine Yankee

  Citing economic troubles, the owners of Maine Yankee announced today
  that they will close the troubled nuclear plant. Maine Yankee has been
  shut down since last December after the Union of Concerned Scientists
  put the national spotlight on the plant's serious safety problems. In
  February, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission identified many safety
  violations and required the plant's owners to correct the problems
before
  restarting the plant. 

  "Apparently, it would have cost too much to make Maine Yankee safe
  enough to operate," said David Lochbaum, UCS's Nuclear Safety
Engineer.
  "Maine Yankee is now facing the consequences of years of cutting
  corners."

  "The biggest question here is why the NRC allowed Maine Yankee to
  operate for over 17 years in violation of numerous safety
regulations," said
  Lochbaum. "How many other nuclear plants are putting the public in
  danger while the NRC looks the other way?"

  The Maine Yankee experience highlights the need for more robust
  examination of conditions of the nation's aging nuclear plants. Safety
  equipment is wearing out much more quickly than anticipated when the
  plants were designed and built. 

  "The implications of allowing a nuclear plant to operate with worn out
  safety equipment are obvious and serious," said Lochbaum. "It's like
letting
  people live in a building with a faulty boiler, knowing it could blow
at any
  time."
...

See also UCS Press Release 6/24/99:
http://www.ucsusa.org/releases/6-24-99.html

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
muckerheide@mediaone.net
========================
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html