WASHINGTON--Countries that are set on generating nuclear power would be well advised to think first about how they intend to dispose of the nuclear waste.
WASHINGTON--Countries that are set on generating nuclear power would be well advised to think first about how they intend to dispose of the nuclear waste.
So says Allison Macfarlane, chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
"I encourage countries that are just embarking on nuclear power to make sure that they have a plan for disposal, before they turn on the reactor," Macfarlane said, noting that Japan has been grappling with this issue for many years.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Asahi Shimbun, she discussed the NRC's continuing efforts to craft regulations to ensure the safety of the nuclear power industry in the United States.
Macfarlane also discussed changes in nuclear energy regulation since the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, prospects for international cooperation on nuclear energy and the NRC's ability to remain independent while maintaining a functional relationship with the industry.
Excerpts of the interview follow:
* * *
Because, I think if you look at the history and experience of countries that didn't have that plan in place, which is most countries with nuclear power reactors, it hasn't been an easy path to a solution.
The Challenger Space Shuttle experienced a catastrophic explosion on the way up. We don't want that.
Put it in deep seabeds, international waters? There are international treaties against dumping radioactive material in international water, so that's not going to happen.
So, what else are you going to do with it? This idea of transmutation, you still end up with radionuclides that have half-lives on the order of 30 years. That means you need hundreds of years of storage.
You can't eliminate the material, so you need to remove it from the environment near humans. And the best way to do that is with some deep-mined geologic repository.
Let me tell you my personal view on this. We have a choice. It's very simple. We either leave the stuff above ground for hundreds of years, or we put it below ground.
If we leave it above ground, we have absolutely no guarantees that somebody is going to be there and change it and take care of it for 10,000 years. So, there is a high likelihood that it will get into the environment at some point in time.
If we put it underground, we have reduced the uncertainty that that will happen. That's our choice.
The NRC is trying to come up with a new ruling about Station Black Out (SBO) mitigation. Eventually, it will require plants to have sufficient procedures, strategies and equipment to cope with a loss of power for an indefinite period. Do you have a specific timeline for that rule?
There is no universal requirement for the operating life for batteries or diesel generators. It is site-specific, based in part on the equipment on-site at a particular plant. For example, some reactors have special station blackout diesel generators which would automatically be engaged in the event of a loss of offsite power, thereby bypassing the need for batteries. The requirement for battery life is tied to the plant's ability to restore power. This is one of the reasons we are revising the SBO rule as part of our post-Fukushima efforts. The revised rule will still have some site-specific requirements, but will be more universal.
In general, you know, I'm a researcher, and one should try to understand all the possible solutions out there. I think the United States has a fair bit of experience dealing in cleanup, because the nuclear weapons complex made a big mess. So, the Department of Energy has a lot of experience cleaning up radioactively contaminated sites. We would be happy to provide any additional help.
What we regulate is within the plant boundaries, and then any actual emergency preparedness activity, where the population is told to evacuate or not, that is simulated without actual evacuations. The order to evacuate would be given by local authorities, although we would be consulting with them. So, I just want to be clear about that. Also, when an accident event goes outside the plant boundary, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assumes our government's response authority, again with our assistance.
So, I'm wondering whether you feel the same kind of pressure from the industry, and how you cope with that.
You know, we have one mission, and I am convinced that our staff here is focused on that mission, and that is to make sure that the facilities operate safely and securely and that we protect public health.
And industry has views, and the public has views, and I personally try to hear them all. In terms of how to remain independent, you need the backing of the government. The government has to give you that authority, and they have to give you the resources that you need to carry out your job, and they need to give you the support, and the respect.
Some of them have lasted four hours, five hours. Hundreds of members of the public have shown up, and we've made sure that everybody gets a chance to say what they want to say.
And we also have meetings. I meet with industry and the public. So, for instance, a couple weeks ago we were up visiting the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, and the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant. Seabrook is in New Hampshire and Pilgrim is in Massachusetts. And, at both of those facilities, I had the opportunity to walk around the site. I had the opportunity to interact with the management at the facility, hear from them.
But, I also made sure that there was time to meet with the local public interest groups afterward, and also the local elected officials and state representatives. So those meetings are very important. I try to make sure I hear from everybody.
It's important for our staff to have a working relationship with the industry. We need to hear their concerns, and we need to be able to talk with them, when we have concerns. Sometimes they'll submit an application for something or a license amendment, and we have a lot of questions. Maybe it's not complete.
We will tell them. You can pick up the phone and say, "This is not working." So, you need that kind of relationship.
We don't lose track of the fact that we are the regulator, but folks here really have an eye on the mission.
* * *
Allison Macfarlane was sworn in as chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on July 9, 2012. She is an expert on nuclear waste issues and holds a doctorate in geology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a bachelor’s of science degree in geology from the University of Rochester. Prior to beginning her term as the NRC’s chairman, Macfarlane was an associate professor of environmental science and policy at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.
(This interview was conducted by Fumihiko Yoshida, deputy director of The Asahi Shimbun's Editorial Board, and Shiro Namekata, a Washington-based correspondent of The Asahi Shimbun.)