Public distrust and hazard management success at the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant.

Based on experience gained while serving a public oversight commission appointed by the governor of Colorado, hazard management at the Department of Energy's Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant is reviewed. Specific reference is made to the plant's history of controversy, its defense-in-depth strategy of hazard control, occupational health issues, public exposure to plutonium, and the assessment of low-probability, high-consequence risks. This leads to the conclusion that Rocky Flats is, by any objective standard, a hazard management success. It follows that public distrust of Rocky Flats arises as much from fear and loathing of nuclear weapons themselves as from the manufacturing process by which they are made.

The nature of technological hazard.

Technological hazards are evaluated in terms of quantitatively expressed physical, biological, and social descriptors. For each hazard a profile is constructed that considerably extends the conventional definition of risk. The profile, which is termed hazardousness, was understood in pilot experiments on perception and appeared to capture a large fraction of lay people's concern with hazard. It also suggests an orderly method for establishing priorities for the management of hazards.

High precision Mössbauer furnace for 1100 K.

Detailed designs are given for a high precision Mössbauer furnace that may be used up to temperatures of 1100 K. With proper precautions the furnace designs described yield long-term temperature instability better than approximately 0.02 K and temperature inhomogeneity of better than 0.05 K.

The distrust of nuclear power.

Society seems content to strike a more moderate or uncertain balance with other technologies than with nuclear power. This attitude is traced to the social history of nuclear power, the genuine uncertainty and complexity of safety issues, underestimation of the regulatory task, and the rancorous nature of the debate. Nuclear power is not just another problem of technology, of environment, or of health. It is unique in our time. To be more demanding of nuclear safety may be to apply a double standard, but not necessarily an irrational one. Our best course appears to be to keep the nuclear option open, work toward the rapid resolution of problems such as waste disposal, but postpone recycling and the breeder reactor. Time is needed to resolve immediate problems such as transport and disposal of nuclear wastes; to come to terms with trans-scientific issues such as plutonium toxicity, sabotage, and weapons proliferation; and to evaluate long-term energy alternatives.