Please share far and wide!

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

NRC Is No Longer a Regulator Of Nuclear, They Are A Captured Lap Dog Promoter

NRC sent me an email today, with an article they just published.    I took issue with the "Weasel Words" of their writeup.   Here is the link to the full article.   Please also leave them a comment.

https://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2016/06/01/more-on-baffle-bolts/comment-page-1/#comment-1655921

comment left on the NRC blog, 6-1-2016

You guys need to return to being a regulator, instead of a soft sell promoter.   And stop using weasel words, they are the basis of lack of regulation.   Kind and gentle is not what we ARE PAYING you to do.  

Your pay comes from the ratepayers, extracted by the utilities, and then given to you.  Its OUR MONEY.

Weasel examples....

So the NRC-approved EPRI guidance advises PWR operators to inspect their baffle-former bolts sometime between 25 and 35 effective full-power years.

We dont want guidance and "advice" we want demands and reports, reports that any citizen can easily inspect online.
-----------------
Even during an accident, the danger of core damage would be minimal. For these reasons, the NRC does not believe it necessary to shut down any additional plants and order immediate inspections.

This sounds like a false argument of :limited number of consequences".   In fact, I do believe, that having dozens of rusted bolts and nuts bouncing through a reactor cooling system, is a potential large problem all on its own.   They could jam in a valve that is seldom operated, but critical.   They could jam in a pump.
---------------------------
We have been aware of the phenomenon.

This is another false argument I call  "familiarity minimization".    Being aware of a problem does not make it less of a problem, and in fact points at your prior non action in IMPLEMENTING mandatory inspections at every outage.
-----------------------------------------

So the NRC-approved EPRI guidance advises PWR operators to inspect their baffle-former bolts sometime between 25 and 35 effective full-power years. The NRC requires the inspections as part of aging management plans for reactors with renewed licenses.

Really, just one inspection, chosen at the operators convenience, in a ten year period?
----------------------------------------
Get back to regulating, we are paying your salary, we are your boss, and WE DEMAND IT.

9 comments:

  1. MacArthur Foundation Will Award $100 Million for Solution to a Global Problem
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/03/us/macarthur-foundation-will-award-100-million-for-solution-to-a-global-problem.html
    Go for it NP!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Molten Salt - two birds one stone.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  2. I could do a lot with $100M, that is only 6% of the annual budget of the nuke cartel to promote and lie.

    yet with $100M I think we could take them down

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've been to public and private NRC meetings. They regulate to requirements to ensure public health and safety.

    No regulator operates in a zero risk environment.

    Ask the FAA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are a promoter of nuke. Jackzo was sacked after being critical of nuke.

      Very simple, very corrupt. No nuke, they lose their jobs. Opportunity and motive, the basics for a crime

      Delete
    2. No they are not a promoter. Jacko was ineffective as a manager. Did you know Cornell has a fine nuclear engibeering program? He didnt take one class un that program. They have a teaching reactor there too. He never took that class. I taught at our university reactor. What does that say about his quals?

      Delete
    3. No they are not a promoter. Jacko was ineffective as a manager. Did you know Cornell has a fine nuclear engibeering program? He didnt take one class un that program. They have a teaching reactor there too. He never took that class. I taught at our university reactor. What does that say about his quals?

      Delete
    4. Typical Lucey....a contradiction, and then no support for the assertion. Simply a pot shot.

      Delete

Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments