No. S-08-040

PDF Version

Let me start off by noting that this conference seems to be, more or less, a promotional event for nuclear energy. That means that under normal circumstances I would not even speak at an event like this, as my lawyers made a point of reminding me. But I thought it was important to come in order raise the safety message, and discuss how our licensing process works.

This is a good opportunity to remind everyone that while some parts of the Federal Government—such as the Commerce and Energy Departments—do promote nuclear energy, the Federal Government also includes the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We are an independent regulator that takes no position on commercial nuclear power. Rather, we oversee the safety and security of nuclear facilities and materials. Of course, any revival in domestic nuclear power will also require that utilities, vendors, plant designers and engineers, and fuel suppliers make safety and security a priority.

Now, as Skip mentioned, whether any new plants eventually get licensed and built depends on many factors. Obviously, one consideration is the licensing process. A combined operating license application takes the NRC about 30 months to review, plus about 12 months for public hearings. For people who are not familiar with the complexity of a nuclear power plant application, this may seem like a long time. The level of detail the NRC requires; the high standards we demand in engineering, construction, and quality of components; and the thoroughness of our review process, may appear onerous to some people. But it is my belief that these high standards actually benefit industry over the long term.

I do hope that we can eventually reduce the time required to review these COL applications, without any compromise in safety. But, in my view, any streamlining of the process should maintain a significant role for public participation. I think that our openness to stakeholder participation has contributed to the fairly high level of public confidence in the safety of nuclear power that we see today. This public confidence will be critical if the current revival in commercial nuclear energy moves forward. That is one reason why our agency sponsored more than 800 public meetings last year. It is also why I keep mentioning the idea of designing-in tours and visitors centers for new plants.

You may have read a commentary article by Llewellyn King in Energy Daily two weeks ago, in which he pointed out that, “The public ha[s] no standing in approving a new drug, the airwor­thiness of a new aircraft or the cer­tifying of a bridge. But in nuclear proceedings, the public ha[s] un­precedented access.” I believe this is true. But it seems to me that transparency and public involvement must be key elements of the NRC’s licensing and oversight. Radiation is a subject that is not well understood. And there are very real risks that are involved with nuclear materials and facilities. That means we must all make extra efforts to explain our actions to the stakeholders, and keep them informed.

Of course, public participation should also be reasonable and responsible. False alarms and baseless fears are not meaningful contributions to the process. Unfortunately, that distinction is not always made. The media often contributes to this by covering every statement or assertion, no matter how irrational, in the name of so-called “balance.” John Kemeny, the main author of the Kemeny Commission Report on Three Mile Island, once said that he fully expected some day to read a headline in the New York Times saying: “Newton, Galileo, and Einstein claim Earth is Round, But Professor John Doe at Podunk College Says Earth is Flat.”

It seems to me that no useful purpose is served by pretending that the NRC’s public hearings should give equal credence, for instance, to the National Academy of Sciences and the Flat Earth Society. Rather, the NRC seeks informed public participation because, at the end of the day, the agency bases its decisions on sound science and objective evaluations. We draw on decades of regulatory experience, the knowledge and training of a superb professional staff, as well as new technologies and advanced methodologies, such as probabilistic risk assessment. So the NRC will review all applications for new power plants, as well as the application for a waste repository at Yucca Mountain, on the basis of the technical merits.

Let me add one other point: I just returned from Vienna, where I participated in the Senior Regulator’s Meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency. During the numerous bilateral meetings I had with my counterparts from other countries, I was again struck by how widely the NRC is viewed as the global leader in nuclear regulation. I have only been at the agency for a little over two years, so this is not something I created. The NRC’s reputation has been built up over many years, by thousands of hard-working men and women. Thanks to their efforts, the NRC’s certifications and licenses are considered the gold standard around the world.

We impose rigorous requirements:  in our reactors and materials licensing process, our vendor inspection programs, and our ongoing oversight of the existing plants. These requirements are stringent, but they are also necessary. The public expects us to enforce high standards of safety and security—and we do. But living up to these standards, and earning the NRC’s widely respected pedigree, also helps the industry—both domestically and internationally.

NRC speeches are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when speeches are posted to NRC's Web site.

Privacy Policy | Site Disclaimer
Wednesday, November 03, 2010