"I do think the NRC is probably correct that there will be points where they know this is a real lesson learned event, and they need to take action," Stenger said. It is essential, however, for the NRC to be careful where it draws the line, he added. "There's validity to both sides. The key thing is for the NRC to make sure they have an adequate technical basis and understanding of what happened, before imposing significant new requirements."
Industry worries probe will go too far, and too fast
The industry's Nuclear Energy Institute has already drawn a line opposing NRC orders on new safety requirements.
Tony Pietrangelo, NEI's chief nuclear officer, acknowledged that the some companies fell short in the post-Fukushima inspections ordered by the NRC to test compliance with security regulations adopted after the 9/11 attacks and the voluntary severe accident mitigation guidelines now in place. The inspections identified U.S. plants where fire equipment to be used for emergency reactor core cooling was not protected against earthquakes, for example, or where crucial reactor electrical controls could be knocked out by flooding.
"They did find some deficiencies, no question," Pietrangelo said. The industry is taking action, he added.
"We've already started walk-downs [inspections] on seismic and flooding," he said. That process can be verified in ways other than mandatory orders. "I still think that orders are not appropriate.
"There are some near-term things we can definitely do," within a year or two. These could include new measures to extend plant protection when outside and backup alternating current power and new instrumentation to monitor conditions in spent fuel pools in emergencies. "It's how you do it.
"The task force was sequestered for 90 days. Now we need more analysis and more stakeholder interaction. We want to do it right, and we want to do it once. The stuff has to be prioritized so that the new regulations don't preclude us from doing things that could have a greater impact on reliability," Pietrangelo said.
NEI's criticism of the task force for pushing too far and too fast has been picked up by some leading House and Senate Republicans on energy committees. The task force process has become another GOP arrow aimed at Jaczko for his role in halting the NRC's review of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear fuel repository.
Roger Mattson, who headed the NRC's division of safety systems at the time of the 1979 Three Mile Island accident and led an investigation of the accident, called the task force work "a good report."
'Things that need to be done now'
"They've drawn a careful line between what they think is required [immediately through orders] and what should take a longer time, and it looks reasonable to me. These are good, common sense recommendations," said Mattson, who helped convene a group of international nuclear safety experts who recommended stronger international reactor safeguards to the International Atomic Energy Agency following the Fukushima accident.
The task force recommendation on converting voluntary guidelines on severe accident responses into mandatory rules is right. It doesn't require a lot more stakeholder involvement, he said.
"The industry said they would do it. The proof came whether they had. And they hadn't, so now it's time to regulate it." The task force recommendation to harden venting systems should be fast-tracked too, he said. "I'm not willing to wait five years to deal with containment venting. To throw everything into rulemaking would be a serious mistake. There are things that need to be done now," Mattson said.
But the industry gets support from an unusual direction. David Lochbaum, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Nuclear Safety Project, said he prefers for the industry to make its own arguments, but he agrees that rulemaking is the proper course for most of the task force recommendations.
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.