"An open rulemaking process allows plant owners to complain that the gains [the NRC seeks] are burdensome and that there isn't much in the way of safety gains. At the end of the day, rulemaking defines the proper height of the safety bar." If the NRC skips that, they are depriving the plant owners of their legal right to say this is too burdensome, and equally depriving the public of the right to argue for more protection, he said.
"Why does it take so many years to do a rulemaking?" Lochbaum asked. The NRC is able to expedite licensing issues. "Do they have to take multiple years on the safety side to play paper-rock-scissors?
"You can do it in a rulemaking in a timely manner. So the process is important. Rather than use orders to short circuit, fix the process."
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentWhy aren't they using steam from the residual heat to drive generators in a backup system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome remote communities have run for years on diesel.
Why can't nuke plants simply update their diesel plant and fuel storage for longer term use and environmental protection. Can't take much power to run a few control systems and circ pumps.
I see, no imminent risk means as long as we get no earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, terrorist attacks or operator/mechanical failures, nuke plants probably won't kill anyone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for putting my mind at ease! I'm relieved people who depend on nuke plants for their livelihoods are in charge of rating the level of danger they pose. They wouldn't have any conflicts of interest like those damn elitist environmentalists and engineers with their college degrees and years of study!
What qualifications do you need to get on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission? A round of golf with the plant owners.
Furthermore, do forbid that 'safety' extends beyond the half-life of the spent nuclear fuel...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have read several posts by scaremongers, and when I crunch the numbers one fact emerges over and over again: the radiation levels that have resulted from the Fukushima accident are more or less harmless!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, if having 50 nuclear power plants of the oldest possible design within an area that is prone to earthquakes and tsunamis, produces a few extra mortalities in the event of the worst conceivable accident, why does this necessitate making more stringent safety demands for nuclear power plants in general?
No immediate risk is indicated in the report. Today . Who knows what the risk may be years down the road. Its best advisable to keep constant inspection at nuclear plant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRecent research on people living without any health problems in areas with high natural levels of radiation–well above 200 milli Sieverts (mSv)–and on the survivors from Chernobyl and Hiroshima, show that levels of radiation below about 200 mSv are harmless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurrent regulations are based on the theory–repeat theory–that all radiation is dangerous and that radiation from nuclear stations should be limited to 1 mSv. If this was increased to 100–or even 10 mSv then the whole nuclear situation would change dramatically.
The regulators, the industry and the government should be looking hard at this new research and deciding whether or not the regulations should reflect actual rather than perceived risks. It is worthwhile noting that no one has died or will die from radiation at Fukushima. But, sadly, people are already dying from heat stroke because many other nuclear stations were shut down and resulting electricity shortage has forced them to restrict air conditioning. So it is lack of nuclear power, not its presence, that has killed people.
It is also worth noting that hydropower, which many believe people believe to be safe, is quite dangerous. In the 1970s, the Banquio dam failed in China and killed something like 170,000 people. Other dam failures have killed thousands of people. In spite of that, hydropower does not have a comprehensive set of safety regulations.
Anyone interested in the real risks of radiation can get the book “Radiation and Reason" from radiationandreason.com.
The nuclear power is the most popular option of electricity in many developed countries. But in accidental events of damages to the power plants, such occurs at Japanies Tsunami, can course sever damages to the overall population of the country, because controlling of the spreading is not that easy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHope Northern Hemisphere is rich with Thorium, Radium and other radio active elements, the best option of power generating is of course the same. But should found a remedy for sudden out breaks.