2/25/2013 BOARD OF SELECTMEN Minutes

Home Browse Search

down by meeting but not exceeding the with the dollar value of the lives that 21. 7beNRCsbould requireplantowners current standards. would potentially be saved. However, to calculate the risk offuel damage in the results of these analyses are skewed spent fuel pools as well as reactor cores 18. 7be NRC should require new reactor because the NRC uses a much lower fig- in all safety analyses. designs to be safer than existing reactors. ure for the value of a human life than the Reactor owners' cost-benefit analyses of In 1986,the NRC issued a policy requir- safety problems do not consider the risks ing advanced reactors to provide merely of damage to fuel in spent fuel pools,yet the same level of protection as existing In the absence of the pools'cooling systems are often cou- reactors.Instead,any new reactors should pled to other plant systems. By ignoring have additional features designed to stronger safety and these risks,reactor owners underestimate prevent severe accidents, to mitigate asecurity standards,the the potential costs of some types of severe severe accident if one should occur, and accidents. to reduce reliance on operator interven- industry will keep its tions during an accident (which are costs down by meeting 22' The NRC should not make decisions inherently less dependable than built-in about reactor safety using probabilistic measures). but not exceeding the risk assessments(PRAs)until it has cor- For example,a containment building rected its flawed application of this tool. designed to withstand the high pressures current standards. PRAs, which the NRC and the nuclear that can occur in a severe accident de- industry use for a variety of purposes,can creases the risk of radiation escaping into be a valuable tool when used appropri- the environment.Yet some reactor types rest of the U.S. government. Moreover, ately.13 For example, because inspecting do not have such containment buildings these analyses only account for potential every inch of pipe in a nuclear plant is and therefore require electrically powered damage to fuel in the reactor,not in spent not feasible, PRAs can determine which systems such as hydrogen igniters to fuel pools. portions of pipe have the greatest risk of maintain the building's structural integ- 'There are also serious problems with failure or would cause the most damage riry. Moreover, the trend in new reactor the way the NRC uses probabilistic analy- if a failure occurred,and should therefore designs is to reduce the size and strength ses to assess the risks of different types of receive priority during inspections.PRAs of containment buildings. accidents, which may have the effect of are also used to assess the possibility that underestimating the actual risks. For ex- multiple safety systems might fail and 19. 7be NRC should require new read- ample, the agency's analyses do not fully cause a reactor meltdown. for designs to be more secure against account for the risks of earthquakes and However, UCS, the Government land-and water-based terrorist attacks. extreme weather. Accountability Office, the NRC inspec- Nine years after 9/11,the NRC required for general,the NRC Advisory Commit- new reactor designs to incorporate fea- 20. The NRC should increase the value tee on Reactor Safeguards,and the NRC tures that would enhance the reactor's it assigns to a human life in its cost- itself have all documented serious prob- ability to withstand an airplane attack, benefit analyses so the value is consistent lems with the agency's PRAs, including either by maintaining the structural in- with other government agencies. omission of key data, inconsistent as- tegriry of the containment building and U.S. agencies other than the NRC place sumptions and methodology, and inad- spent fuel pool or by maintaining cool- a value on a human life of between equate quality standards. For example, ing of the core and spent fuel pool if $5 million and$9 million. The NRC— the NRC does not require that PRAs in- structural integrity is lost. But the NRC despite the Office of Management and clude a rigorous evaluation of seismic rejected a proposal that would also require Budget's recent warning that it would be risks, even though earthquakes may be features designed to reduce vulnerability difficult to justify a value below $5 mil- one of the biggest potential contributors to land- and water-based attacks. All lion—has continued to value a human to core damage. potential modes of attack need to be life at$3 million since 1995.' To be valid,PRAs must include all in- addressed. Bringing the NRC's calculations in ternal and external events that could lead line with other agencies would have a to an accident. They must address all Improving the NRC's Cost-Benefit major effect on nuclear plant license re- modes of operation(including shutdown and Risk-Informed Analyses newals and new reactor approvals: plant and low-power modes), incorporate rig- In deciding whether to require reactor owners would have to add safety features orous uncertainty analyses, and meet owners to undertake a safety retrofit,the that the NRC now considers too expen- strict quality assurance standards. The NRC often conducts a cost-benefit analy- sive (because it underestimates the value NRC must also account for a wider range sis that compares the costs of the retrofit of the lives that could be saved). of potential accident consequences by U.S. NUCLEAR POWER AFTER FUKUSNIMA 11