Image via WikipediaI could have titled this post "Nuclear Plant Problems" but that would have minimized the number and seriousness of (NRC) problems we and Japan have. Our biggest problem is a Nuclear Regulatory Commission that works for the industry. As I think about it, that's Japan's biggest problem also. My claim is supported by too many sources for me to post the references. If you've been following the news about Fukushima, you know what I'm talking about. We are learning more every week.
For example, the NRC has been unable to convince the industry to get real fire prevention and protection. The industry pleads financial hardship, the NRC says we agree. Many plants refuse to buy sprinklers and are relying on their staff to realize that there is a fire and they need to extinguish it. How remote is the possibility of fire? Our 104 plants report an average of 10 annually.
The NRC is also willing to take risks. "Instead of requiring repair of an identified problem, like faulty insulation on electrical cables, regulators will work with utilities to calculate the odds of something going wrong. If the risk is low enough, a repair will no longer be deemed critical to safety." But the NRC itself acknowledges the real difficulty in predicting conditions should a problem occur. The same generators that were used at Fukushima have failed at 69 plants here. Today, we learn that is very likely a problem with vents.
When will we get regulators that regulate rather than accept what the industry they regulate says? We are paying the regulators. However, at times, the regulators get more from those that they regulate.
For example, the NRC has been unable to convince the industry to get real fire prevention and protection. The industry pleads financial hardship, the NRC says we agree. Many plants refuse to buy sprinklers and are relying on their staff to realize that there is a fire and they need to extinguish it. How remote is the possibility of fire? Our 104 plants report an average of 10 annually.
The NRC is also willing to take risks. "Instead of requiring repair of an identified problem, like faulty insulation on electrical cables, regulators will work with utilities to calculate the odds of something going wrong. If the risk is low enough, a repair will no longer be deemed critical to safety." But the NRC itself acknowledges the real difficulty in predicting conditions should a problem occur. The same generators that were used at Fukushima have failed at 69 plants here. Today, we learn that is very likely a problem with vents.
When will we get regulators that regulate rather than accept what the industry they regulate says? We are paying the regulators. However, at times, the regulators get more from those that they regulate.
No comments:
Post a Comment