Gregory B. Jaczko: "Looking to the Future”
February 9, 2012
"So the question is: what does that tell us about the use of risk? Is it an effective metric? To some extent one could argue that based on the risk models, accidents like Fukushima will happen -- hopefully with a very unlikely or low frequency, but they will happen -- and they are acceptable. They are well within our risk metrics, primarily because we ultimately had a robust system that allowed people to be evacuated and allowed ultimately for people to be relocated from any exposure to radiation.
Now, I think if I were to talk to an average person on the street and say that, people would say no, that was a pretty significant event. And I personally think that's right. I think that this was a significant event, and it was an unacceptable event. But if we look at the risk models that we use today, it is not -- in our risk model -- an unacceptable event."
Feb 18: I also spoke, "imagine if we had a core meltdown without fatality in a severe accident in the USA. You people discount this, only consider a nuclear fatality. A nuclear accident with fatality is just marginally worst than a no fatality.
At Peach Bottom, it would destroy two plants because they are so close to each other even if the other one wasn't damaged. It would destroy the value of the largest utility in the USA. There would be massive investigations. What was once thought of as accepted behavior would be thought as gross negligence and a cover-up for decades. I am certain the investigation would rip the lid off the NRC and the whole industry...what other plants are threatened. Certainly the NRC losing their credibility and trust would be a accident in itself.
Remember, we have only had a meltdown in the pre internet period and pre social media interconnectivity period. TMI would be a drastically different accident in this social media and self publishing world....nobody could control the political fallout from this. It would cascade until the energy was spent. And Fukushima got us all teed up already....
Who knows what this stock and debt panic would do to the utilities in the outcome in the meltdown without fatality. That is 20% of our electricity, its a enormous amount of electricity and irreplaceable out for a decade or two. We'd have massive speculation, price spikes and shortages for a far as you can see. It would be disruptive to the whole nation. It would be disruptive to our political system. I am talking about a catastrophe of epic proportions for our electric system.
On a planetary level, the USA would be a nuclear technology disgrace...who knows how many plants would get kicked off the line. Our national stature and credibility would be threatened. Depending what they find under the sheets, we might even get a new president...it might just throw the election. You know everyone would play political football with this. Can you imagine the world we would live in if the antis had a current meltdown as ammo?
Feb 17 (Reuters) - Vermont's Attorney General appealed on Saturday a federal judge's ruling that had prevented the state from shutting down its only nuclear power plant, escalating a two-year battle over state's rights and atomic energy.
Was that pretty neat yesterday in the 2.206 proceeding inviting all the NRC and Exelon employees to watch the Sunday CCN special about the NRC and VY...
Wasn't that neat when i said to them, "does anyone think this is a coincidence that I on am on a phone in my house and I got all you people in your offices listening to me today, and you got a CNN special about Vermont Yankee later this weekend. Does anyone not believe this was intentioned this way?
Then I give them my rendition of the Vermont Yankee problem..."it is excuses over and over again of the NRC and utilities with intentionally turning your heads away from immediately addressing and fixing known problems in the industry"...
No comments:
Post a Comment