NRC waives fire rule violations at nuclear plants

[alp227]

Source: The Washington Post

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is routinely waiving fire rule violations at nearly half of the nation’s 104 commercial reactors, even though fire presents one of the chief hazards at nuclear plants.

The policy, the result of a series of little-noticed decisions in recent years, is meant to encourage nuclear companies to remedy long-standing fire safety problems. But critics say it is leaving decades-old fire hazards in place as the NRC fails to enforce its rules.

Fires present a special risk to nuclear plants because they can knock out cables that control-room operators need to safely cool down a reactor. The explosions and fires at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant have shown what can happen when operators cannot activate pumps, valves and other equipment needed to prevent damage to a radioactive core.

The Browns Ferry plant in Alabama, where a devastating cable fire 36 years ago prompted the NRC to adopt tough new fire rules, still doesn’t comply with the requirements to protect cables. Hazards at other plants include unprotected equipment, inadequate fire doors, and missing alarms and sprinklers. To compensate for being out of compliance, plants rely on temporary measures such as stationing workers on a fire watch.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nrc-waives-fire-rule-violations-at-nuclear-plants/2011/05/11/AFNa5e3G_singlePage.html

[Zoeisright]

1. Short-sided and stupid.

Wouldn't expect much more from the NRC.

[davidthegnome]

2. If the goal is to wipe out the human race...

we're well on our way.

You'd think that, as a (supposedly) reasoning species of creature we would be certain to take proper measures where it involves nuclear power. Not only do we have enough nuclear missiles and bombs to blow up the planet many times over - we have a number of power plants we rely on for various things. What happened in Fukushima was only one example of how the shit can really hit the fan. An awful example, one that cost many lives - but it could have been worse. It could have been far worse.

These safety measures, or lack thereof, indicate an amazing level of ignorance. It's like watching a house burn down because someone smoked in bed, then doing it yourself. Not only do we need to enforce these safety measures - we need more of them. Given a choice, I'd rather we didn't have nuclear power. Humanity overall is too damn ignorant for such responsibility. Since we do, we need to be very, very careful. Of course, people have been saying this for decades and have been largely ignored.

What happens when the Browns Ferry plant has another devastating cable fire? What happens when we have an incident that costs thousands or even millions of lives? One that could have been prevented had safety measures been in place and enforced.

We live in a nuclear world, we have no choice in the matter. That doesn't mean we can't take better care of it.

Not that anything I say will matter to the NRC...

[Jackpine Radical]

3. If we were primarily a rational species--

instead of merely a rationalizing one--we would do a lot of things differently. We would not be facing a global climate crisis. We would not be in eternal wars. We would have a sane infrastructure featuring renewables, local production, high-speed rail, etc. We would invest in education and primary prevention of social distress instead of prisons and the like.

Aaaargh. It isn't easy being a primate with a large cortex under the utter domination of conditioned gut-level fear and rage.

[No Elephants]

4. Good move.

:sarcasm:

[Overseas]

5. So frustrating to see our country going so far Republican.

When is this trend of weakening our national security going to stop?

We had enough compromising and weakening of what we know needs to be done. We need much tougher regulations on the nuclear industry and much stronger support for safer renewable energy sources.

Why do we have to push our people to accept more drilling after BP showed how reckless the oil industry still remains, and to accept more nuclear plants while Fukushima meltdowns are still in progress?

When do we get to return to science based decisions? Support solar, wind and conservation technologies to the same extent that we supported oil, coal, and nuclear and we wouldn't be so far behind world markets in these technologies.

Why can't we be bipartisan with what Republicans USED TO support? Leading the world in alternative energy and conservation technologies would strengthen our national security and Republicans used to believe in a strong national defense.