The continuing nuclear power plant catastrophe at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan is predicted to “likely change the way we do business and the way the industry does business in the country,” said Nuclear Regulatory Commission chair Greg Jaczko May 12. The commission started a three-month review of national nuclear oversight March 23. This week’s meeting was held to apprise regulators of the progress. Uncharacteristically, the commission probed staff’s methodology and suggested that the status quo doesn’t go far enough. The strength of spent fuel pools with highly radioactive waste against natural or manmade disasters was one of the concerns. “If I wanted to play devil’s advocate--why don’t we shut them down until we know” nuclear plants’ vulnerabilities? asked commissioner George Apostolakis. That would have “large policy implications,” replied Bill Borchardt, NRC executive director for operations. Federal regulators have what they call a “design basis” that sets a baseline for the structural integrity of nuclear power plants--like California’s operating reactors, San Onofre and Diablo Canyon. The existing safety design baseline, which is confidential, has been a tenet of regulation for decades. Whether the design basis in general is good enough was called into question. “We need a graceful transition from design basis to beyond design basis,” said Jaczko. He noted the need for beginning a plan to strengthen the nation’s nuclear power plants against unplanned natural and manmade events. Commissioners noted that nuclear plant owners have a voluntary commitment to hardening their facilities against unplanned events. That volunteerism does not extend to the high-level waste in the spent fuel pools. “It’s legal grounds, rather than what nature’s going to do” said Apostolakis. Jaczko questioned whether the industry’s volunteer guidelines are “hindering” regulators’ ability to impose requirements for stronger nuclear plants. He noted the issue is largely one of financial liability. Is it keeping us “from monetizing the economic clean up of an accident?” Jaczko asked, rhetorically. The cost of clean up would be “a big discussion,” said NRC director, national materials program, Charlie Miller. He invoked “financial aspects” of a disaster, and that under the Price-Anderson Act taxpayers are largely on the hook for insuring against the economic consequences of an accident. Despite the concerns, the NRC is proceeding with relicensing old nuclear plants. “At this time the commission has not determined that there is a need to adjust the schedule or otherwise modify our approach for reviewing license renewal,” Jaczko stated May 11.
