On the evening of the 29th, I attended a panel sponsored by the Washington Post Company and George Washington University which was part of the week-long GWU conference. This panel was about Y2k and Nuclear Power and included Jim Davis from the Nuclear Energy Institute, (http://www.nei.org/y2k/) Josi A. Calvo of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NEWS/year2000.html), David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists http://www.ucsusa.org/, Paul Gunter and Mary Olson of the Nuclear Information & Resource Service (http://www.nirs.org/). The discussant was Paula Gordon of George Washington University (http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/).

By the end of the evening, I felt considerable tension in the room. My sense was that this came more from two decades of bitter opposition over the status of nuclear power in the U.S., rather than from Y2k. I believe that both sides have yet to accept that their opposition is the opposition that they will have through the rollover, like it or not. They continue to actively dislodge and disempower each other. This has not produced much progress in the last two decades and it is not likely to increase the likelihood of a partnership that will reduce Y2k risks and concerns. Like it or not, there is one lifeboat, and all of us are in it. It's time we accepted that, and reduce the emphasis on the "us and them" conversations.

With these two camps, opposition is business as usual. As with other sectors, effectively addressing Y2k demands going beyond business as usual.

Imagine the reduced risks of social overreaction if the industry and regulator were to begin to answer the technical aspects of the 3 NIRS Y2k petitions to the NRC: (http://www.nirs.org/y2k/Y2Kpetition1.htm http://www.nirs.org/y2k/Y2Kpetition2.htm http://www.nirs.org/y2k/Y2Kpetition3.htm a process, according to Calvo, which normally takes years to pass technical and legal muster - another incompatibility with Y2k) and if NIRS were to declare some sort of conditional suspension of non-Y2k related agendas until the recovery period winds down. Another possibility would be to explore options beyond simply shutting down the nuclear power plants which, of itself, increases the stress, and therefore the Y2k vulnerability, of the conventional generation segment and would create regional stresses in, for example, the Chicago area, where the majority of generation is nuclear. It's hard to imagine. I suppose that each side would be accused of selling out by its constituency.

While both sides may disagree about the magnitude of the Y2k risks, cooperation could lower these risks further while opposition may increase the social reaction. This is not to be confused with political will. Imagine the credibility gain for the nuclear opposition were they to announce what the Nuclear Energy Industry is doing right with respect to Y2k. It might make it easier for others, including the industry and the regulator to hear their concerns, instead of ending their presentations with "I'm not a debater. I'm about to get chewed up."

It is rarely mentioned (by either side) that the 18 month or so nuclear fuel cycle reduces some of the supply chain interdependencies of nuclear plants with respect to coal and gas fired plants. I suspect that the nuclear opposition does not consider itself mandated to promote what is working with the industry or the regulator. I do not know if 'positive reinforcement' is a tactic that has been tried in the past. My sense is that resistance has brought persistence thus far and that acceptance and limited, focussed approval might be the beginning of a transition to a more broadly acceptable and sustainable access to energy.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 1999

Answers

oops, i forgot to paste the url for the article above... i should also mention that mark addresses some questions on embedded systems and their prevalance in the electric industry in the same newsletter.

august-week 22

-- Anonymous, August 03, 1999

gosh... this is like the never ending story. i'll try again.

august-week22

-- Anonymous, August 03, 1999

When the NRC has a record of falsification, it is easy to have an "Us vs. Them" attitude. David Lochbaum worked for the nuclear industry and discovered a significant safety problem at Susquehanna. But rather than cooperatation from the plant management , they ignored him. When he wrote a lenghty report for the NRC, they waited several months and then dismissed his concerns as not valid. (He eventually was proven right and left the industry because of the lack of cooperation.)

The catch was, the NRC never even read his report because they only had every other page. The company which printed paper copies for Lochbaum made an error and only printed every other page. The NRC would have asked for the missing pages (50%) if they were serious about safety and cooperative 100% of the time.

If you're asking for us to be friendly and business like ok, but if you're asking for us to "all get along" and be friends forget it. They have the power to kill us and our land while making a profit. Asking for a moratorium on criticism over Y2K issues is the worst thing.

The Three Mile Island Accident would not have happened if there was cooperation with those concerned about safety from outside the industry.

Don't befriend the industry if you know what's good for you. The only thing they have given you is some air-conditioning with expensive rates and a bill for wastes that will NEVER end. And a little extra radiation every day.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 1999