4 ms·

Plant might be owned by PG&E, but it's regulated by the US NRC. PG&E might be able to hoodwink California, but it's a good stretch harder to hoodwink the feder

Plant might be owned by PG&E, but it's regulated by the US NRC. PG&E might be able to hoodwink California, but it's a good stretch harder to hoodwink the federals.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dylan604 5y ago
Who said anything about the hoodwinking? Regulators could have come in with a report saying X amount of changes are required costing Y amount of money. It is not beyond the realm of possibiity the owners realize it would be cheaper to shut it down than to make the repairs. No hoodwinking required.
- i_am_proteus 5y ago
  You did. >They do not maintain things, that lack of maintanence has caused fires and deaths. I would think that would translate into what could be happening at the nuclear plant as well. Not doing maintenance on a nuclear plant would amount to hoodwinking the regulator. Regulatory reports are not secrets. If the NRC had findings that the plant was in disrepair and was unsafe, they'd shut it down.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    I think you are trying to twist what I said, but I will grant it could be read that way if you really want it. From one inspection to another, things wear down. It could be a note in one report, a concern in one following, and even a must repair in a future report. Again, no hoodwinking necessary. Corp says that they are not going to do anything at a recommended status, and only consider things indicated as required. For example, the recent Texas debacle where the plants were recommended to weather proof their facilities but elected not to do it for something they felt the costs were not justified.
    - i_am_proteus 5y ago
      Public confidence in PG&E is eroded, maybe rightly so, because the California (state) regulator let them get away with deferred safety-critical maintenance. Whether that's on California or the utility or both, I don't know, but PG&E just can't pull those kinds of shenanigans with the NRC. If there's a safety-critical problem with the plant, it gets fixed.

Plant might be owned by PG&E, but it's regulated by the US NRC. PG&E might be able to hoodwink California, but it's a good stretch harder to hoodwink the federals.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dylan604 5y ago

Who said anything about the hoodwinking? Regulators could have come in with a report saying X amount of changes are required costing Y amount of money. It is not beyond the realm of possibiity the owners realize it would be cheaper to shut it down than to make the repairs. No hoodwinking required.

i_am_proteus 5y ago
You did. >They do not maintain things, that lack of maintanence has caused fires and deaths. I would think that would translate into what could be happening at the nuclear plant as well. Not doing maintenance on a nuclear plant would amount to hoodwinking the regulator. Regulatory reports are not secrets. If the NRC had findings that the plant was in disrepair and was unsafe, they'd shut it down.
- dylan604 5y ago
  I think you are trying to twist what I said, but I will grant it could be read that way if you really want it. From one inspection to another, things wear down. It could be a note in one report, a concern in one following, and even a must repair in a future report. Again, no hoodwinking necessary. Corp says that they are not going to do anything at a recommended status, and only consider things indicated as required. For example, the recent Texas debacle where the plants were recommended to weather proof their facilities but elected not to do it for something they felt the costs were not justified.
  - i_am_proteus 5y ago
    Public confidence in PG&E is eroded, maybe rightly so, because the California (state) regulator let them get away with deferred safety-critical maintenance. Whether that's on California or the utility or both, I don't know, but PG&E just can't pull those kinds of shenanigans with the NRC. If there's a safety-critical problem with the plant, it gets fixed.