The NRC Doesn't Cut Corners on Safety

The excerpts from the book Safety Second by the Union of Concerned Scientists about the activities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that appeared in the June 15, 1987 issue of The Scientist (p. 15) deserve comment. At the outset, it should be noted that the Union of Concerned Scientists is hardly an unbiased observer of the NRC. Since its formation, the organization has been critical of our agency and how we carry out our responsibilities. Nevertheless, we welcome constructive criticism and we go to great lengths to consider all comments as we seek to improve not only how we carry out our mission, but also our efforts to improve the safety of U.S. nuclear power plants. Protection of the public and of the people who work in these plants is the principal goal in all our activities. Contrary to the statement of the UCS, our allegiance is not to the industry we regulate. It is to the public we serve. The more than 3,000 people who work for the NRC are dedicated public servants who take their important responsibilities most seriously. We tackle safety problems vigorously and we do not hesitate to shut plants down when our requirements are not met. Surely, the recent NRC order shutting down the Peach Bottom Nuclear Power Plant in Pennsylvania is evidence that we act promptly and decisively. In the case of Peach Bottom, we ordered the plant shut down immediately when we confirmed information that reactor operators were sleeping on the job. The NRC—through its analytical studies, inspections and evaluations of operational data—attempts to identify generic issues that warrant increased attention from the NRC and from industry. Of the more than 700 issues identified over the past two decades, approximately 75 percent have either been resolved or determined to be of little significance to safety. The remaining 25 percent have been screened, and those of highest safety significance are being worked on as expeditiously as possible. As other issues are identified, they will be screened and become part of the agency's continual process to increase plant safety. While it is true that some issues take a long time to resolve (due to the nature of the issues, the various types of plants affected, the extensive comments received, and so forth), the issue-resolution process provides a thorough technical evaluation of each issue and a well-founded resolution. We aim to resolve issues within three years of identification, and most issues are resolved within this three-year period. Licensee implementation of technical resolution is completed on a schedule commensurate with the level of safety significance. If an issue is of such significance that action must be taken before the formal issue resolution process is complete, the NRC takes timely corrective action to effect the necessary changes in the affected plants. The UCS differs with us on a number of matters, which is its right. But any suggestion that the NRC is cutting corners in the area of safety is just plain wrong. One area we agree on is in the standardization of future nuclear power plants. The NRC strongly supports standardization. There are major national benefits in standardizing nuclear power plants in safety in training the staffs that operate the plants and in maintaining them. Standardization is part of a legislative proposal the NRC has submitted to Congress. A number of the UCS proposals have been or are being considered by Congress. We support those proposals that would truly improve nuclear safety. The safety record of the nuclear industry is a good one, especially compared with that of the principal alternative methods for generating power. The NRC will continue its quest to improve plant safety. Denton is director of the office of governmental and public affairs of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

The NRC Doesn't Cut Corners on Safety

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of