Monday, March 12, 2012

UCS Channels Goldilocks In Response to Fukushima

NEI's Senior Vice President of Communications, Scott Peterson, passed along the following note concerning last week's report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, "U.S. Nuclear Power Safety One Year After Fukushima."

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has weighed in on the U.S. response to Fukushima and their conclusion is clear: We’re moving too slowly….No, wait, we’re moving too fast!...Check that, too slow!

Taking a page from Goldilocks, who couldn’t seem to find the right size chair, UCS can’t seem to find the right speed for applying lessons learned in the aftermath of the massive earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan a year ago.

After first praising the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for reacting quickly to the events in Japan, a new UCS report prods the agency to move faster. Then report declares that “speed is not always a virtue.” In the most remarkable twist of logic, UCS criticizes the nuclear energy industry for “acting too hastily by launching a voluntary program” to improve safety.

Really? Moving too quickly to improve safety?


At least the UCS report got something right. The industry is not waiting for orders from the NRC to act. Our FLEX strategy protects against the two main safety issues at Fukushima¬—the loss of electrical power and the loss of cooling capability—by stationing emergency backup equipment in multiple locations, including regional centers.

Every U.S. nuclear operator has committed to order additional equipment by the end of the month, and more than 300 pieces of backup emergency equipment has already been delivered or ordered. Rather than applauding these proactive safety measures, UCS complains that the industry is “jumping the gun” by getting ahead of the NRC.

The industry and the NRC are in general agreement on the issues that need to be addressed, but the regulatory process takes time. After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the NRC fast-tracked the industry’s safety response by issuing a series of orders, with a deadline of October 2004.

After the industry met that deadline, the NRC began a rulemaking process to codify the orders and essentially get its procedural/bureaucratic house in order. Along the way, it added a few more requirements that weren’t finalized until close to the end of the decade. In that case, UCS distorts the facts to complain that the industry’s response was too slow.

Now that we are moving even more quickly to respond to Fukushima, UCS says we are going too fast. Does UCS seriously believe we should just sit and wait while the NRC process unfolds? We see ways to strengthen our defenses against extreme events now, and we are acting. To do otherwise would be an abrogation of our responsibility.

The NRC will oversee our safety enhancements, and will not hesitate tell us to do something more or something different—backed by the agency’s full enforcement authority—as the regulatory process plays out.

That approach might not satisfy Goldilocks or UCS, but we think it is juuuuust right to ensure that lessons learned from Japan are applied as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Scott also contributes on occasion to the Huffington Post.

2 comments:

Meredith Angwin said...

There's a lot of Goldilocks in the rhetoric of nuclear opponents. For example, Gundersen rails against Vermont Yankee as a plant of very old design, with all sorts of problems that we could solve with a newer type of plant. It's too old.

Then Gundersen testifies against AP 1000s. Among other things, he says the design isn't really tested in use. The AP 1000 is too young.

Gundersen looks for the porridge that is "just right." If he ever found such a porridge, I think he would quickly ascribe it to being too old or too young. Goldilocks can't win.

Anonymous said...

It's just another example of how the anti-nuke kooks are nothing but duplicitous SOBs. Do one thing and they say its wrong, so do it the other way and they say no, do it the first way. The same on the used fuel issue. They say nuclear is too dangerous because we "don't know what to do with the waste". So we come up with a solution and they say no, that's no good, keep it at the plants. Then they say the plants are "too dangerous" because they've got all this used fuel lying around. The kooks aren't interested in serious, constructive discussions. They just want to say no dice. But when you ask them what they propose they mumble about useless things like windmills and solar panels which don't produce anything 75% of the time. So when you ask them what to do when you need energy the 75% of the time the useless stuff isn't running, they mumble something about natural gas, the very worst thing you can release to the air from a GHG perspective.