[Date Prev][Date Next]
RE: [Bulk] Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Urgent enough to restart?
As far as I can tell (again,
outside observer here) the CNSC is merely doing their job.... based on the
latest analysis, keeping the probability below 10^-5 or 10^-6... whatever it
is for NRU.
I think you may have put your finger on the root of the
problem, so to speak.
While it makes sense to use probabilistic safety
standards on complex systems like powerplants having high-pressure components,
and perhaps also on automated subsystems and equipment, when it comes to
pool-type reactors, I believe that the deterministic approach makes a lot more
sense for severe accident
Let me try to illustrate what I mean, with an example
taken from the local (Quebec) media twenty years
While NRU is
much larger than the reactor discussed in
this example (the ten-megawatt SES-10 Slowpoke), the same principles
"It is incorrect to say that, if
boiling occurred in the pool, radioactivity would be released, requiring
As long as the fuel is in the water (boiling or
not) there is no reason to expect radioactive release since the water provides
cooling to the fuel."
"If boiling continued for four months, the water
level in the pool would be lowered.....
This assumes that no action
as simple as turning on a hose is taken within those four months to make up the
water being lost.
Thus, talk of hazardous releases and
evacuations in this situation is without any factual
guess I would have to agree with you that "the CNSC is merely doing their job," but I also
think that if they were a bit more knowledgeable (they are NOT "nuclear
experts"), they would not be making unreasonable demands of
same token, licensees need to get over their attitude of "whatever Lola wants,
Lola gets," and agreeing to sign on to almost any demand, with little regard to
realistic implementation schedules -- and of course third parties that may be
adversely affected, like the hospital patients requiring nuclear medicine
(presumably this includes antinuke activists).