Search This Blog
About This Blog
Categories
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
Comments on blog posts do not represent official NRC communication, and links to internet sites other than the NRC website do not constitute the agency’s endorsement of that site’s content, policies or products. Please read our Disclaimer for more information.
On March 21, 2011, The California Senate Select Committee on Earthquake and Disaster Preparedness held hearings on the impact and lessons learned from the disaster in Japan. Southern California Edison (SONGS) and Pacific Gas and Electric (Diablo Canyon) made presentations and responded to questioning by Chair Corbett and members of the Committee. Numerous safety related issues were raised and the Commission’s licensing process was impugned.
Why wasn’t NRC represented at this important meeting?
.
I feel that the NRC should revise their current mission statement to include a commitment to keeping the American public informed of current events relevant to the nuclear community, both domestic and abroad. I believe the future of nuclear power and medicine lies heavily on the perception of the American public. The American public cannot be expected to make rational decisions based solely on an inflammatory and uninformed media. The NRC currently does a good job providing this kind of information in situations such as the reactor accident at Fukushima, but the commission currently has no commitment to this provision. By adding this commitment to the mission statement, the NRC can track, report on, and improve the effectiveness of meeting this inherent responsibility.
Hello, could you please speak to these two questions?
1. Have the plants at Fukushima undergone the containment design modifications that were required of US plants in the 1970s and 1980s? Specifically, did these plants incorporate the hardened containment vents implemented in the US? Weren’t the hardened vents designed specifically to prevent reactor building hydrogen explosions like the ones that occurred at Fukushima?
2. Where can we find the basis for the dose projections that NRC calculated and posted at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2011/11-050_Attchmt.pdf ? These dose projections are of little or no use without understanding what the input assumptions were (what percentage of the fission product inventory is assumed to be lost, etc.?).
Thanks for the link describing the implications of the earthquake in Japan on US nuclear power plants. It might also be helpful if you described the emergency preparedness and response requirements imposed on operators of US nuclear power plants and how local, state and federal organizations fit into the response.