Nuclear power safety: Latest on Japan crisis fuels new concern in US
Nuclear Regulatory Commission still insists that US nuclear plants with same design as Japan's stricken Fukushima Daiichi facility are safe. But watchdog groups cite failed venting system, which led to hydrogen explosions.
(Page 2 of 2)
"We need to suspend licensing and relicensing, and suspend reactor certification decisions,” Arjun Makhijani, a nuclear physicist and president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, said Thursday in a conference call with reporters. "Not the processes involved – but the decisionmaking itself – should stop because we don't know whether we're making decisions that are consistent with safety."Skip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
Beyond Nuclear wants the NRC to hold a public meeting in each emergency planning zone for reactors with a design like the one at Fukushima. The NRC should "revoke all prior approvals for the installation of the vent and instead require operators to submit a license amendment request with full public hearing rights,” said Mr. Gunter.
For its part, the NRC is conducting a 90-day review in which lessons learned from the Fukushima crisis will be factored into safety regulations for US plants. It is now more than 30 days into that review. In addition, the commission is conducting a longer review to incorporate more far-reaching changes. It has also reaffirmed the capability of the hardened vent system.
"Every US Mark I [boiling water reactor] has a hardened vent," writes Scott Burnell, an NRC spokesman in an e-mail interview. "The NRC continues to conclude the hardened vents at US BWRs can carry out their intended purpose of maintaining containment integrity, therefore the plants can continue operating safely with the hardened vents that exist today."
As to the overall safety of US nuclear plants, the NRC "continues to conclude that US plants are meeting regulations to ensure safe reactor operation and to protect the public if an accident were to occur at a reactor or a spent fuel pool," Mr. Burnell writes. "The NRC’s licensing processes carefully examine well-supported technical information to come to scientifically and legally defensible conclusions regarding both new and existing reactors."
Others, however, say the problem is not that the NRC is unable to identify problems, but that it often simply does not follow through on addressing known problems.
"They've identified the right issues for the most part, but it's not clear that they're planning to apply anything but band-aids," says Edwin Lyman, a nuclear physicist and expert on reactor safety with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nuclear watchdog group. "In most cases they tend to underplay the potential for severe accidents – and as a result those regulations don't cover severe accidents in a serious way."
One example: NRC's approval of a buildup of spent-fuel rods in pools. The Fukushima crisis has now demonstrated the vulnerabilities of that practice, but US reactors of the same design have generally been found to have less, not more, emergency battery power to cool reactors during power outages. Most such reactors also have much larger loads of spent fuel in their cooling pools than did their counterparts at Fukushima.
"It's important that the NRC also be taking a harder look at its own decisionmaking over the last decade or so ... on the issue of spent-fuel pool [storage] and dry-cask storage," said Peter Bradford, a former NRC commissioner.