Japan: Building Nuclear Safety Culture Will Take 'Long Time'

[bananas]

Source: Reuters

Japan's nuclear regulator said on Thursday that elevating safety culture to international standards will “take a long time." That assessment came days before new rules take effect that aim to avoid a repeat of the Fukushima nuclear disaster that occurred in March 2011.

An earthquake and tsunami killed nearly 20,000 people and triggered the world's worst nuclear crisis in 25 years when the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant was destroyed, leaking radiation into the sea and air.

The Nuclear Regulation Authority admitted that the awareness of the dangers related to working with nuclear technology had been weak prior to the disaster, and it said that it hoped new standards would force the companies to change their approach.

“The new regulations include extremely stringent requirements that the operators would not be able to endure if they don't change their culture,” authority chairman Shunichi Tanaka told reporters. “We will need a long time to change this culture, but day-to-day efforts to meet those tough standards will in the end lead to the improvement in the safety culture.”

<snip>

Read more: http://www.voanews.com/content/japan-says-building-nuclear-safety-culture-will-take-long-time/1695038.html

---

If it will take so long with Japan, how much longer will it take other countries?

[cprise]

1. Yes, it "will take a long time" and then...

the next generation will carve it up like a roast and make sure every mouthful is served with a side of corruption.

[Taft_Bathtub]

2. America's nuclear energy industry should be nationalized

The Military (primarily the Navy) is quite competent and has a safety culture when it comes to using nuclear energy aboard its many vessels. It seems like the profit motive should have NO PLACE in nuclear energy production, it's too corrupting.

[kristopher]

3. That will not solve the problem.

Let's be clear, the problem is an extremely complex system that has potentially catastrophic failures.

When you operate that system on a for-profit basis you have a set of problems.
When you operate that system under a command and control regime you will have a different but no less severe set of problems.

The fundamental problem is that 1) no complex human system is perfect and 2) the potential consequences associated with a breakdown of the system are unacceptable.

[Taft_Bathtub]

4. For-profit systems are command and control systems

They just add in the profit motive, which provides a clear incentive to cut corners, drive down costs through lack of training, shoddy workmanship, quarterly reports, kickbacks to contractors, hiring of former regulators who give favorable reviews, etc.

[kristopher]

5. I an see where you'd get that idea, but it isn't accurate for this purpose

The issue is the regulatory regime that governs the existence of the plants - what we have is not command and control.

Within that you also have a system for hands-on operations - what exists at that level IS a command and control structure.

Switching to a command and control system for purposes of regulation would integrate the regulator (presently the NRC) even more closely to operational decisions.
That can have both positive and negative consequences.
One example from both sides:
On the positive side would be, as you note, less financial incentive for cutting corners.
Opposing that would be a move to even less transparency than is presently the case so that problems like San Onofre, Chrystal River, or Besse Davis, the events themselves and their causes would be more easily hidden from public scrutiny.