Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Stephen Burns responded Tuesday to a report criticizing the agency’s post-Fukushima Daiichi disaster initiatives, arguing that American plants are safer now than they were when the Japanese nuclear accident occurred in March 2011.
Speaking at NRC’s annual Regulatory Information Conference in Bethesda, Burns noted that he has read a quick summary of the report issued this month by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The report claims that NRC has not established clear metrics for success of its Fukushima program, and continues to use highly subjective terms like “adequate protection of public health and safety,” “reasonable staging and protection” of emergency equipment, and “substantial safety enhancements.” The group drew particular attention to the program’s implementation of “flex,” the term for mobile cooling equipment, for reactors and spent fuel pools, that is now standard at U.S. plants. The report recommends NRC implement nuclear plant “stress tests” similar to the ones Europe and Japan used post-Fukushima, among other suggestions.
Burns said NRC began building a foundation for severe emergency response following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and the implementation of Japan Lessons Learned has only strengthened those efforts.
“We came into the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi accident really a safe industry, in terms of what the regulatory requirements were and subject to our oversight, the performance,” Burns said. “That was a conclusion of the near-term task force that was commissioned for the 90-day review after the accident, which made the recommendation that it did not need to shut down plants at the time.”