[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 919, Issue 1
terryj at iit.edu
Tue Mar 20 12:33:45 CDT 2012
I think that it is part of the problem that we do not know about the missing support systems at some of these facilities. I often wonder if it is our responsibility to find out what is missing. I have spent a lot of the past year familiarizing myself with the systems at the Exelon plants in Illinois. Not quite as much with Calloway and the Wisconsin plants, but I have looked into those as well since they provide power to IL.
I am beginning to think that it is a good idea to conduct independent non-regulatory reviews on something like a 5 year basis. The NRC does do a very good job, but Fukushima and Tokaimura have shown that regulators don't always get it right.
Look how close, we came to an incident at Ft. Calhoun. Their NRC flood requirements were only changed in 2010 (http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1028/ML102800342.pdf).
For example, we know Sandia tested Nuclear Containment worthiness to aircraft (F-4 Phantom) impact. Has Japan, has the UK, has France, has China? Many of us know the US standards and what US plants have improved since 9/11 and since TMI, US -> EA-02-026, 10CFR52.80, and NEI06-12. Fukushima showed that Japan had not moved to the same level of protections.
Who should be the ones looking at things like this, Greenpeace, ANS, NEI, RadSafe? I don't know.
Just my opinion,
On Mar 20, 2012, at 11:35 AM, Thompson, Dewey L wrote:
> Well. I agree with proviso. I certainly have no problem with the concept of "Tsunami = Bad Juju", particularly for nuclear power plants.
> On the other hand, I suspect most of us had no clue that many of the supporting systems at the Fukushima installation were not constructed to be within a watertight area, nor that the nuclear regulatory function acted as it did.
> We in Radsafe (well, anyone working within the industry as well) certainly have a responsibility to identify safety issues that we perceive, and we have the responsibility to ensure the decision makers have the necessary facts and understanding necessary to make informed decisions.
> I wonder if ANYONE on Radsafe could have understood the particular risk issues at Fukushima prior to the accident.
> I wonder if there were any people within the Japanese organizations that had perceived these risks and communicated them to their higher ups? If so, were the voices heard?
> THAT may well be the most telling lesson of Fukushima.
More information about the RadSafe