Nuclear Plant Journal, March-April 2016 NuclearPlantJournal.com
23
I don’t have a magic wand to wave
and create trust. But it appears to me that
both the NRC and the industry need to
look even more closely than in the past at
how trust is achieved.
For the NRC, I believe it is achieved
with decision making done openly, with
ample explanation of our conclusions, so
the public can understand our actions. It
can be achieved, incrementally and over
time, by consistently applying “reasonable
assurance of adequate protection” to our
actions. It can be accomplished by being
responsive to our oversight committees in
Congress and attending to their concerns
about risks.
We must remain vigilant in
explaining our role. I believe, we must be
seen as collaborative inside the agency,
and open to ideas and concerns of
stakeholders outside the agency. We are
not a regulatory island.
It appears to me, we further build
confidence by constantly reassessing
“how safe is safe enough” based on
experience and analysis. By practicing
“the regulatory craft.”
I believe there needs to be a sense
of craftsmanship to good regulation
– although you may consider that
pursuit the regulatory equivalent of the
unattainable Holy Grail.
But I argue that the regulator needs
to constantly pursue the “sweet spot”
between under regulation and over
regulation, to pursue effective regulation
without imposing undue burden and
stifling innovation. We need to set certain
boundaries – a fuzzy bright line, some
might say – that allow the licensee to
innovate within the framework.
We, at the NRC, don’t operate
nuclear power plants. We don’t push the
buttons or manipulate the valves. We
have to set parameters within which the
operators can operate.
We cannot remain static and assume
everything done in the past is always
right and never needs to be re-evaluated
and re-assessed under a new lens.
I believe that changes last year to the
Reactor Oversight Program are a good
example. We first established certain
levels within the program to some extent
as our informed best guess. It was, after
all, a new way of doing business.
These levels were never intended
to be set in stone, and I believe recent
adjustments underscore the importance
of the NRC looking at itself with a
critical eye and making changes when
data, circumstances, experience and
input indicates, it is appropriate to do
so. And making those changes with
vigorous debate, in the open so everyone
understands how these changes came to
be and why – with unfounded notions of
our motivations kept to a minimum.
Our response to the Fukushima
Da-ichi accident – five years ago this
week – is another example of our ability
to be flexible and adjust to changing
circumstances. We faced a regulatory
problem and we worked through it in a
calm, thoughtful, and systematic way.
Our expert staff came up with a
variety of options, which the Commission
focused based on safety significance.
We listened to stakeholders and took
appropriate actions. And now, at the
anniversary, we find ourselves in a better
place in relation to the safety of the U.S.
fleet of nuclear reactors. We are now
rolling the Fukushima lessons learned
activities into our day-to-day operations.
I have seen what is left at the
Fukushima site and the surrounding
community and I know everyone in the
audience shares my deep commitment
to never letting such an accident happen
here.
While we’re never going to convince
everyone that we are practicing regulatory
craftsmanship and being transparent in
our processes, I believe the past year has
shown the NRC’s ongoing commitment
to these ideals. Ever more information
is made available to the public, and
the Commission as a whole has been
forthcoming with explanations for voting
decisions -- and generous with time for
stakeholder conversations.
Project Aim is an example of
our desire to be good stewards of our
resources as a measure of trust for how
we conduct our business. Our public
outreach continues to be among the
highest of any nuclear regulator in the
world.
You can trust this much -- the agency
as a whole and myself as Chairman will
continue to work to build and maintain
public trust so there is confidence in
our assessment of risk and the measures
needed to minimize it appropriately.
Our craftsmanship may not be
perfect, but perfection is a continuous
journey.
I want to end today by talking about
adequate protection and reasonable
assurance, risk and trust related to what
could be the future for the agency, the
industry and the country – small, modular
reactors, and advanced reactors.
These new reactors could be
important generators of electricity in
the future. They could be sources of
innovation for the United States and bring
a host of benefits from jobs to a reduced
impact on climate change. While the
benefits are not for the NRC to tout, we
can work hard to ensure the public trusts
us to do the right thing when reviewing
and possibly licensing these new designs.
Within our current framework,
we have been working with NuScale
in preparation for NuScale’s expected
design certification application at the
end of 2016. And we expect to receive an
Early Site Permit application from TVA
later this spring.
For advanced, non-light water
reactors, our 2017 budget proposal
includes $5 million in non-fee billable
activities relating to developing a
regulatory infrastructure for advanced
reactor technologies.
This is an arena in which we can
exhibit our regulatory craftsmanship
– assessing risk, balancing risk and
regulation, setting boundaries but without
stifling innovation.
The public needs us to do our job,
and our job is going to depend on getting
the right information at the right time to
make the right decision.
Contact: U.S. NRC Office of Public
Affairs, email:
,
website:
.
