What we are NOT told about Fukushima Daiichi

[Respecthelect]

Yes, we need the NRC making regular checks of safety manuevers and proceedures.

If the NRC operated like the FAA's NTSB, with constant modernization and feedback, it would be a much more robust system. It's good now, but it could be that much better, because there is room for improvement on the government (regulatory) side.

.

 

[miamited]

hi respecthelect,

You answered my claim: If the NRC operated like the FAA's NTSB, with constant modernization and feedback, it would be a much more robust system. It's good now, but it could be that much better, because there is room for improvement on the government (regulatory) side.

Do you know for a fact that they don't. Do you really not believe that the NRC doesn't regularly modernize when possible and receive feedback? I think a real part of this issue might be the material with which they each work with.

If a new jet engine is designed and built, it's not much more than a night in the shop hangar to retrofit older airplanes. Updating building structures is usually a lot more involved. Similarly, if some airline wants to update its fleet of jet aircraft they can usually sell the old ones off to third world countries to be used for local flights or sell them for scrap value and within a couple of years have whole new fleet of jet airplanes. Changing out nuclear reactors is not nearly so easy. The first hurdle is just getting all of the necessary approvals and public support to even allow some electric utility to even build a new facility and, of course, there isn't much scrap value in concrete rubble. I think a real investigation might find that the real reason we have so many old reactors is that the public won't allow the utilities to build new ones and so the only option, since the old ones are already built and approved is to continue using them as long as possible.

Just my thoughts and I'm certainly no expert in this field, but these are just a couple of differences in the material that the FAA and NRC work with that make updating and implementing worthy feedback just a bit more difficult.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Respecthelect]

For example, the Atomic Energy Commission approved certain sensors and equipment for use in reactors in the 60's and 70's and those are the only equipment that can be used to this day. That equipment, sometimes specified by manufacturer, can't be built by anyone else. They are not the best equipment, rather the industry is stuck with forty year-old equipment. NRC rules are dead rules. They never change. When accidents like Fukushima occur, the rules don't change. Equipment is never modernized.

The NTSB is far more agile and current. When accidents occur, dozens of investigators spend years getting to the bottom of the causes. Recommendations are forthcoming. Rules are changed. Industry is kept in the loop. Airplanes and airlines upgrade equipment and sensors continuously. As a result, airline safety improves every year. More and more passengers fly more and more miles with fewer accidents.

As with many modern problems, this is an opportunity for improved government. Industry is doing its job and government obviously knows how to run this type of regulatory agency (e.g. NTSB), all they need to do is transfer that knowledge to the NRC.

.

 

[David Brider]

I grew up close to http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradwell_nuclear_power_station#section_2
Bradwell.

Oh, I used to live in Chelmsford - hi!

 

[ebia]

Oh, I used to live in Chelmsford - hi!