The evidence does not suggest that Japan’s NISA or the U.S.’s NRC lacked sufficient resources to effectively implement regulations. Lack of Resources: When regulators lack the resources to hire staff, provide adequate training and expend the money necessary to monitor industries, regulatory concerns may go undetected and failure may result. nuclear energy regulator face similar challenges? Let us review each of the three types of failures in the context of Japan’s NISA and the U.S.’s NRC. Which dimensions were associated with the failures at Japan’s regulatory agency? Does the U.S. Episodes of regulatory failure result from different combinations of subpar performance in some or all of these components. When assessing regulatory failure, it is important to distinguish between at least three different types of failure: lack of resources, mismanagement and poor technical expertise, and capture of the regulator by the regulated. Failures by regulatory agencies can go undetected for some time until they are exposed by a crisis, such as the BP oil spill in 2010 and the financial crisis that originated in Wall Street in 2008. Regulatory failure also happens when agencies inadequately fulfill their oversight, supervisory and enforcement functions. Regulatory failure occurs when the regulatory system is deeply flawed – such as when it over- or under-regulates or when the regulatory design is based on “old science”. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is at risk of committing similar errors. We thus ask what types of regulatory failure may have contributed to Japan’s nuclear crisis and assess whether the U.S. However, Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA), responsible for regulating the nuclear industry, also ought to be subject to particular scrutiny for allowing TEPCO to operate despite its past safety and disclosure violations. The embattled operator of the Fukushima nuclear plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), has borne the brunt of criticism its numerous failures over the years are certainly well known. Simulations show no increase in radioactivity beyond 3 kilometers (1.8 mile) from the coast.Many wonder whether Japan’s nuclear disaster could have been averted. Officials say the impact of the water on humans, the environment and marine life will be minimal and will be monitored before, during and after the releases which will continue through the 30-40 year decommissioning process. That supports data showing a minimal effect on marine life from tritium, said Noboru Ishizawa, a TEPCO official overseeing the experiment. Radioactivity levels in the flounder and abalone rose while they were in the treated water but fell to normal levels within days after they were returned to regular seawater. The experiment is “for people to visually confirm the treated water we deem safe to release won’t adversely affect creatures in reality,” said Tomohiko Mayuzumi, TEPCO’s risk communicator. TEPCO has sought to reassure people by keeping hundreds of flounder and abalone in two groups - one in regular seawater and another in the diluted treated water. “The next time the water leaks out by accident, Fukushima’s fishing will be finished.” The government has earmarked 80 billion yen ($580 million) to support Fukushima fisheries and to address “reputation damage” from the release. “I find those massive tanks more disturbing,” Okawa said. Okawa said he hopes any further setbacks will be short-lived and that the releases might reassure people about eating fish from Fukushima. Neighboring countries such as China and South Korea and Pacific Island nations have raised safety concerns.“It would be best if the water isn’t released, but it seems unavoidable,” said Katsumasa Okawa, owner of a seafood store in Iwaki, south of the plant, whose business is still recovering. Local fishing communities say their businesses and livelihoods will suffer still more damage. It will be sent through a pipe from the sampling tanks to a coastal pool to be diluted with seawater and released through an undersea tunnel to a point 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) offshore. They also want to release the water in a controlled, treated way to avoid the risk that contaminated water would leak in case of another major quake or tsunami. The tanks are 96% full and expected to reach their capacity of 1.37 million tons in the fall. The government and TEPCO say the tanks must make way for facilities to decommission the plant, such as storage space for melted fuel debris and other highly contaminated waste. Fukushima Daiichi has struggled to handle the contaminated water since the 2011 disaster.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |