Image: DigitalGlobe
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Fukushima task force has confronted the commissioners with a central quandary of their mission: When are nuclear plants safe enough?
The six-person Near-Term Task Force that dived into the implications of Japan's nuclear disaster concluded in its July 12 report that "continued operation and continued licensing activities do not pose an imminent risk to public health and safety."
Then the task force followed with a dozen major recommendations, some of which would order nuclear plant operators to strengthen defenses against extreme flooding or earthquakes when necessary and to harden vents that would carry away explosive hydrogen gas from damaged reactor cores in the two types of reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. They must also extend plants' capabilities to protect reactors and spent fuel pools in an extended blackout of primary and backup electric power.
"On the one hand there's that reassurance," NRC Commissioner Kristine L. Svinicki said, referring to the "imminent risk" statement by the task force, which briefed NRC commissioners yesterday on their report.
On the other hand, she said the task force appeared to conclude that the rules and policies that assure adequate protection of the public aren't sufficient and need to be expanded. "I think that's a real change in our regulatory framework."
NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko wants to hold a series of public sessions on the task force proposals and then get a commission vote on the twelve recommendations by Oct. 7. His overall reaction to the task force report is clear. "They did a tremendous job."
The commission's meeting yesterday offered no solid clues as to how the other commissioners may respond, assuming the recommendations do come to a vote.
Implementation could take months, even years
But some close to the industry believe a number of the recommendations may be approved. The harder question is whether they go forward as commission orders, which could take effect within a matter of months, or through a formal commission rulemaking process with hearings, industry responses and advisory board inputs, all of which could take five years, and perhaps longer.
Task force members said yesterday they were not asking the NRC to rewrite the Atomic Energy Act. But the obvious implications from the Fukushima accident point to the need to raise the safety bar at U.S. reactors, they said.
Task force member Gary Holahan, deputy director of NRC's Office of New Reactors, said yesterday that the group concluded that action was needed to remedy the kinds of inconsistent performance by nuclear plant operators where safety measures covering extreme hazards were covered by voluntary guidelines. "We were looking for something that would have the commission establish expectations of safety. It's pretty clear in the report that we found much more comfort in things that were required than those that were voluntary."
The task force also wants more certainty in the protections against extreme, low-probability natural disasters that pose potentially catastrophic consequences for reactors. Adequate protection of the public requires a more exacting defenses in depth when nature defies probabilities, its members concluded.
The NRC's choice of orders versus rules is one of timing, Holahan added. "Orders are kind of frightening thoughts -- it sounds like an immediate thing. We saw it as virtually the only tool to fill in between now and perhaps five or six years from now."
Daniel F. Stenger, an attorney with Hogan Lovells who counsels nuclear plant owners, said he could not read the commission members' intentions at yesterday's meeting. "Still an issue in my mind is what appetite the commission has for proceeding by order. I would not be surprised to see some orders issued directing interim actions," he said, followed by a rulemaking on the same issues.
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentWhy aren't they using steam from the residual heat to drive generators in a backup system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome remote communities have run for years on diesel.
Why can't nuke plants simply update their diesel plant and fuel storage for longer term use and environmental protection. Can't take much power to run a few control systems and circ pumps.
I see, no imminent risk means as long as we get no earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, terrorist attacks or operator/mechanical failures, nuke plants probably won't kill anyone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for putting my mind at ease! I'm relieved people who depend on nuke plants for their livelihoods are in charge of rating the level of danger they pose. They wouldn't have any conflicts of interest like those damn elitist environmentalists and engineers with their college degrees and years of study!
What qualifications do you need to get on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission? A round of golf with the plant owners.
Furthermore, do forbid that 'safety' extends beyond the half-life of the spent nuclear fuel...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have read several posts by scaremongers, and when I crunch the numbers one fact emerges over and over again: the radiation levels that have resulted from the Fukushima accident are more or less harmless!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, if having 50 nuclear power plants of the oldest possible design within an area that is prone to earthquakes and tsunamis, produces a few extra mortalities in the event of the worst conceivable accident, why does this necessitate making more stringent safety demands for nuclear power plants in general?
No immediate risk is indicated in the report. Today . Who knows what the risk may be years down the road. Its best advisable to keep constant inspection at nuclear plant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRecent research on people living without any health problems in areas with high natural levels of radiation–well above 200 milli Sieverts (mSv)–and on the survivors from Chernobyl and Hiroshima, show that levels of radiation below about 200 mSv are harmless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurrent regulations are based on the theory–repeat theory–that all radiation is dangerous and that radiation from nuclear stations should be limited to 1 mSv. If this was increased to 100–or even 10 mSv then the whole nuclear situation would change dramatically.
The regulators, the industry and the government should be looking hard at this new research and deciding whether or not the regulations should reflect actual rather than perceived risks. It is worthwhile noting that no one has died or will die from radiation at Fukushima. But, sadly, people are already dying from heat stroke because many other nuclear stations were shut down and resulting electricity shortage has forced them to restrict air conditioning. So it is lack of nuclear power, not its presence, that has killed people.
It is also worth noting that hydropower, which many believe people believe to be safe, is quite dangerous. In the 1970s, the Banquio dam failed in China and killed something like 170,000 people. Other dam failures have killed thousands of people. In spite of that, hydropower does not have a comprehensive set of safety regulations.
Anyone interested in the real risks of radiation can get the book “Radiation and Reason" from radiationandreason.com.
The nuclear power is the most popular option of electricity in many developed countries. But in accidental events of damages to the power plants, such occurs at Japanies Tsunami, can course sever damages to the overall population of the country, because controlling of the spreading is not that easy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHope Northern Hemisphere is rich with Thorium, Radium and other radio active elements, the best option of power generating is of course the same. But should found a remedy for sudden out breaks.