Skip to main content

Why Are U.S. Nuclear Plants Better Prepared for Emergencies Than Fukushima? Here's a Checklist.

Tom Kauffman
The following is a guest post written by NEI's Tom Kauffman. Though Tom works in NEI's media relations shop, he also spent 23 years working at Three Mile Island, seven of those as a licensed reactor operator.

Former NRC Chairman Dale Klein was justified in criticizing an anti-nuclear panel’s comparison of the potential of an accident at nuclear energy facilities in New York and Massachusetts with the 2011 accident at Fukushima Daiichi. “Comparing the accident at Fukushima Daiichi to a hypothetical accident at Indian Point or Pilgrim is intellectually dishonest and resembles the classic fear mongering intended to create unnecessary anxiety," Klein said. "Comparing the US nuclear power plants to those that have not added new safety systems and procedures is simply wrong.”

As the former Chairman points out, the U.S. and Japanese nuclear industries have very different approaches to nuclear safety. The differences developed over several decades and are profound. Below is a comparison of some of the key safety factors.

U.S. Japan
REGULATORY STRUCTURE NRC is a single, transparent, independent federal agency. Had four agencies with overlapping authorities. Two promoted the industry. An independent safety regulator was formed post-Fukushima.
PLANT OPERATIONS COMMAND & CONTROL All decisions rest with the on-duty, federally licensed senior reactor operators. For some key safety-related decisions, plant operators seek the approval of government officials.
REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSING All reactor operators are individually licensed by the NRC and must fully requalify every two years to maintain their license. Only shift supervisors are licensed by regulator. Others are certified by company.
CONTROL ROOM SIMULATORS All reactor operators are required to be trained and tested on a full-scale replica simulator that is identical to their facility’s control room. Replica simulators are not required.
SAFETY CULTURE Industrywide safety culture program encourages all workers to be engaged in safety and to freely report safety concerns. No established safety culture program.
INDUSTRY SELF-POLICING Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (est.1980) continuously monitors industry safety and presses for continuous improvement. An entity modeled after INPO is being formed post-Fukushima.
POST 9/11 ACTIONS Enhanced security and added safety equipment to mitigate effects of extreme events such as large fires, explosions and aircraft impact. No significant post 9/11 protective actions.
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Comprehensive, federally mandated emergency response plans require quarterly, full-scale drills and biennial graded drills involving local, state and federal authorities. Emergency planning well below U.S. standards. No required or graded emergency drill protocols.

For more information on how the U.S. nuclear industry differs from Japan's, watch this video featuring NEI's Tony Pietrangelo.

Comments

37ndone said…
Interesting article. However, it should also be mentioned that actions taken by individual plant owners, both new and the very old to address USI A-45 and Generic Letter 88-20 did much more to address the vulnerabities revealed by Fukushima than those taken post 9-11. The modifications, training improvement and accident procedure development taken on an individual plant basis to address the potential unavailability of redundant safety systems and the subsequent loss of residual heat removal are the likely reason why a severe accident has not occurred since this vulnerability was discovered at TMI.
Anonymous said…
@ 37ndone --

The post-9/11 requirements to have portable pumps and power sources available seem to pretty directly address the main lesson of Fukushima: "be prepared to lose your grid AND your backup diesels for a long time."

The post-9/11 measures were also the starting point for responding to the NRC's order for mitigating strategies.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…