Add new comment

       Proponents of nuclear power in the U.S. claim that current regulations that apply to the nuclear industry are getting in the way of constructing, licensing and operating nuclear power plant. Opponents of nuclear power say that the nuclear industry is not sufficiently regulated to insure the safety of the public and the environment. People in the middle of the debate hope that it will be possible to find the right mix of regulations that will allow nuclear power to flourish while protecting the public and the environment.
       The Nuclear Regulatory Commission undertook Project AIM in 2016 to find the best balance between regulation and promotion for the U.S. nuclear industry. Their goal was to spend the next five years improving the effectiveness, efficiency and agility of the NRC. Meanwhile, the nuclear industry has launched its Delivering on the Nuclear Promise campaign which is focused on increasing productivity and efficiency to allow nuclear power to better compete against other energy sources.
        The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is dedicated to developing and implementing innovative and practical solutions to some of the major problems facing the world. They are working on ways to combat global warming, developing sustainable ways to feed, power and transport the people of the world, fighting misinformation, advancing racial equality and reducing the risk of nuclear war.
        The UCS has just announced a new major project concerning the role of regulation in nuclear plant safety. They are going to review major events in nuclear history and post a series of commentaries. They are seeking to understand exactly what “over” regulation and “under” regulation are in order to understand what would constitute “best” regulation. They intend to communicate their findings to the NRC to help the NRC reach the goals of the AIM Project. Their findings should also be useful for the promoters of nuclear power.
       The UCS will review major nuclear events in order to decide if regulations were helpful or harmful in the way that the events were handled. They intend to create three categories for regulations associated with the events; too stringent, too lax, and just right. Then they will sort the major nuclear events they are studying in the different categories.
        Examples of times when nuclear regulations were too lax would include the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, the mid 1990s Millstone, Salem and Cooper problems, and the 2011 accident at Fukushima. Examples of times when nuclear regulations were too stringent include the August 1991 Site Area Emergency declared at Nine Mile Point following a transformer failure, the 1998 Towers Perrin report, and the semi-annual reports by the NRC’s Office of the Inspector General. Examples of times when the regulations were just right include March 1990 station blackout at Vogtle, the September 1997 discovery of and recovery from containment problems at DC Cook, and the flood protection deficiencies identified at Fort Calhoun in 2010 whose remedies were quite useful during the flood the plant experienced in June 2011.
      Overall, there are about fifty nuclear events that will be categorized. They say that they will refrain from posting commentaries until all of these events have been studied and categorized. Then they hope that their work will yield meaningful insights into the proper role of regulation in ensuring plant safety. When they have dealt with all of the events, they will publish a final report to share their findings and recommendations.