7 ms·

I think that the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is world-leading. They identify problems proactively and require operators to phase in safety upgrades even fo

I think that the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is world-leading. They identify problems proactively and require operators to phase in safety upgrades even for plants built 50 years ago. I live near an operating nuclear reactor and I prefer it over any form of fossil plant. Power reactors operating in the United States are reliable, safe, and have extremely low life cycle emissions of greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, one of the most common refrains from nuclear boosters is that nuclear power is over-regulated. I don't want American nuclear plants held to the same lax safety/environmental standards as fossil plants. If we used taxes to internalize the costs of pollution from fossil-fired plants, low cost natural gas plants probably wouldn't be pushing reactors into early retirement. But leveling the playing field by slashing nuclear safety/inspection down to the low standard expected of fossil plants is the wrong way to go. I am open to specific proposals for reducing regulations in the nuclear sector if there are regulations that impose additional process overhead, don't actually serve a purpose, and survive only from inertia. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that there are some of these. But I've been discussing nuclear power for 20+ years, starting back on Usenet, and specific proposals are much less common than generic "get rid of red tape" bluster.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
hanniabu 6y ago
Sorry but I don't trust any nuclear plant in the US to put safety over profits over the long term, especially after all the illogical deregulation done the last 4 years. There's also already some questions on safety in regards to current plants. They're constantly loosening tolerances and changing the way tests are performed to make otherwise failed tests fall within acceptable limits. Plus the plants are already operating 2x their engineered lifespan. Yeah, no thank you.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- gbrown_ 6y ago
  How much are loosening regulations a concern for nuclear in the US? Obviously recently general utilities haven't fared well as of late (Texas) or nuclear in the past (e.g. Rocky Flats). But as a foreigner who thinks as far as nuclear power is concerned, the DOE seems to being an OK job as of late. Could you share the specifics of the tests you are referring to?
  - hanniabu 6y ago
    This first link makes me absolutely furious. There's too much to quote from here, but this succicnt excerpt touches on the water test. It goes into more detail in another part of the article. The post has numerous example of very concerning issues. > When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna43455859 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna43455859 > The proposal comes as most of the nation’s nuclear power plants, which were designed and built in the 1960s or 1970s, are reaching the end of their original 40- to 50-year operating licenses. Many plant operators have sought licenses to extend the operating life of their plants past the original deadlines, even as experts have warned that aging plants come with heightened concerns about safety. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/climate/nrc-nuclear-inspection-weakening.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/climate/nrc-nuclear-inspe... > The nuclear industry is also pushing the NRC to cut down on safety inspections and rely instead on plants to police themselves. The NRC “is listening” to this advice, the Associated Press reported last month. “Annie Caputo, a former nuclear-energy lobbyist now serving as one of four board members appointed or reappointed by President Donald Trump, told an industry meeting this week that she was ‘open to self-assessments’ by nuclear plant operators, who are proposing that self-reporting by operators take the place of some NRC inspections.” https://newrepublic.com/article/153465/its-not-just-pork-trump-also-letting-nuclear-plants-regulate-safety https://newrepublic.com/article/153465/its-not-just-pork-tru...
    - gbrown_ 6y ago
      Thank you for the detailed and insightful reply!
- philipkglass 6y ago
  The Union of Concerned Scientists has posted a great blog series "Role of Regulation in Nuclear Plant Safety." It's written by Dave Lochbaum, a degreed nuclear engineer who worked at American nuclear plants for 17 years. I think it's a better overview of NRC action and plant safety than any one incident. I've collected all the links here. Series introduction: https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/role-of-nuclear-regulation-intro https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/role-of-nuclear-regul... Flooding at Nine Mile Point: Regulation and Nuclear Power Safety #1 https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/flooding-at-nine-mile-point https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/flooding-at-nine-mile... Three Mile Island Intruder: #2 https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/three-mile-island-intruder https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/three-mile-island-int... Empty Pipe Dreams at Palo Verde: #3 https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/empty-pipe-dreams-at-palo-verde https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/empty-pipe-dreams-at-... Yankee Rowe and Reactor Vessel Safety: #4 https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/yankee-rowe-and-reactor-vessel-safety https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/yankee-rowe-and-react... Flooding at a Florida Nuclear Plant: #5 https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/flooding-at-a-florida-nuclear-plant https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/flooding-at-a-florida... Containment Design Flaw at DC Cook Nuclear Plant: #6 https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/containment-flaw-at-dc-cook https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/containment-flaw-at-d... Pipe Rupture at Surry Nuclear Plant Kills Four Workers: #7 https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/pipe-rupture-at-surry https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/pipe-rupture-at-surry Anticipated Transient Without Scram: #8 https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/anticipated-transient-without-scram https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/anticipated-transient... Naughty and Nice Nuclear Nappers: #9 https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/naughty-and-nice-nuclear-nappers https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/naughty-and-nice-nucl... Breaking Containment at Crystal River 3: #10 https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/breaking-containment-at-crystal-river-3 https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/breaking-containment-... Fatal Accident at Arkansas Nuclear One: #11 https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/fatal-accident-at-arkansas-one https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/fatal-accident-at-ark...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dtwest 6y ago
I live near one too, I'm not sure if I should be impressed that disaster was averted in 2002 or if I should be concerned how close things got: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Besse_Nuclear_Power_Station#2002_reactor_head_hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Besse_Nuclear_Po... It would be nice to hear from someone who is more knowledgeable on the subject than myself.
- partingshots 6y ago
  If an accident almost happened in 2002, then the probability only increases as time goes on. I personally wouldn’t feel safe, in the long run, buying a house or living near an aging nuclear power plant.
credit_guy 6y ago
Here, I'll come up with a proposal. If Congress is serious about climate change, then they can ask (and allocate the budget) the Department of Energy to procure and operate a bunch of naval nuclear reactors. With whatever internal regulations they have, the US Navy has not had a single incident in their entire history of operating nuclear reactors. They are also quite cost effective, for example the cost of the 2 reactors A1B [1] that power a Gerald Ford carrier is about $1 BN. That comes to about $2BN/GW, which is about a tenth of what a civilian reactor costs. The US Navy builds about 1 carrier every 4 years so that comes to 1 reactor every other year. If the DoE gets the Congressional mandate to procure a few reactors per year, the cost is going to surely come down. Also these reactors don't need refueling for about 2 decades, while civilian reactors are refueled every 1.5 years. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1B_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1B_reactor
- philipkglass 6y ago
  The US stockpile of HEU would be depleted a lot faster this way, but enrichment could start again. I don't see major downsides to this proposal. Thanks for providing a specific and plausible idea!
- Hammershaft 6y ago
  Thats a great idea. I'm trying and failing to find gotchas.
  - credit_guy 6y ago
    There is a potential gotcha: proliferation potential. The naval reactors use highly enriched uranium; if it falls in the wrong hands, you can end up with someone being able to build a bomb. That's why I said such a program needs to be run by the Department of Energy, the same department that has to maintain the nukes. I don't have a personal objection to this, but a lot of people would be unhappy with an essentially military program to be established for a problem that is not military in nature.
    - obelos 6y ago
DennisP 6y ago
I'm fine with rational regulation and good safety inspections. Here's an example of a regulatory framework that needed reform: Several years ago I got to attend a meeting between a bunch of people from advanced nuclear startups, and a former head of the NRC. The startup people said their biggest problem was that the NRC required near-complete blueprints before they would even look at the design. Then they would give a flat yes or no. If yes then you still had just a paper reactor, and if no then you were out of business. Getting to that point required several hundred million dollars. That's a pretty difficult environment for investors. They said just a more phased process would help a lot. The NRC person was unsympathetic, said it wasn't the NRC's job to help develop new nuclear technology, and was uninterested in climate change. Fortunately Congress has gotten involved since then and things seem to be improving.
zepearl 6y ago
> I think that the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is world-leading. Comparisons are irrelevant - Japan's regulations weren't the worst in the world when Fukushima happened => something similar could happen anywhere else (a lot of factors influence a lot of decisions/policies - the past years demonstrated that even the US nowadays isn't the most stable country). > They identify problems proactively... even for plants built 50 years ago. Maybe they do "now" (I'm not a "pro" in this area therefore I cannot confirm nor deny that) but in any case there are never guarantees about the future. Additionally that "even for" sounds ugly - that MUST happen as long as such a plant exists. > I live near an operating nuclear reactor and I prefer it over any form of fossil plant. It's well-known that fossil plants are the absolute worst => such a change isn't a great improvement from my point of view. > Power reactors operating in the United States are reliable, safe... So far, and the terms are flexible - incidents did happen with civilian & military reactors, Wikipedia has a lot of nice-to-read articles with timing summary, analysis etc... . > ...and have extremely low life cycle emissions of greenhouse gases Correct - basically almost 0 (don't know, probably the truck that delivers the uranium stabs does generate some gases, maybe as well the mine&plant that create them, but not a lot compared to gas&oil&coal). But then... that's it? No other remark about maybe what is generated and where to put it and how to take care about it for the next 10000 years? I'm definitely not/never going to approve any measure to deregulate a sector which has a near-infinite potential impact when something breaks and/or something is not properly taken care of.
akiselev 6y ago
> I am open to specific proposals for reducing regulations in the nuclear sector if there are regulations that impose additional process overhead, don't actually serve a purpose, and survive only from inertia. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that there are some of these. But I've been discussing nuclear power for 20+ years, starting back on Usenet, and specific proposals are much less common than generic "get rid of red tape" bluster. Some specific proposals would be to put a minimum nuclear fuel limit on the existing nuclear power plant regulations and create a new class with loosened containment requirements for active reactor designs that are passively safe by nature. Existing regulations are written around reactor designs that hold thousands or tens of thousands of kilograms of nuclear fuel that they have to moderate and keep in check. This is clearly not a viable option for nuclear long term against natural gas and renewables due to the overwhelming cost of manpower and materials which scales poorly. The regulatory overhead, transportation, and storage costs on that much radioactive fuel alone is prohibitively expensive, so we really need to focus on making progress in powered nuclear fission reactors which are impossible under the current regulatory regime. Designs like the nuclear lightbulb - studied and tested by UTC under a NASA Mars program contract in the late 60s/early 70s - take tens of kilograms of fuel and heat & compress it till it reaches criticality at hundreds of atm and thousands of degrees. Any failure in the system causes a loss of pressure and the core returns to subcritical; even in a worst case scenario like a conventional bomb exploding in the reactor chamber, it would be a minor incident on the level of Three Mile Island. There are many tweaks that have been theorized but untested that would make the reactor even safer. However, any design like this requires regular maintenance of the reactor and completely different levels of containment that are either prohibitively expensive or impossible right now.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

hanniabu 6y ago

Sorry but I don't trust any nuclear plant in the US to put safety over profits over the long term, especially after all the illogical deregulation done the last 4 years. There's also already some questions on safety in regards to current plants. They're constantly loosening tolerances and changing the way tests are performed to make otherwise failed tests fall within acceptable limits. Plus the plants are already operating 2x their engineered lifespan. Yeah, no thank you.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gbrown_ 6y ago
How much are loosening regulations a concern for nuclear in the US? Obviously recently general utilities haven't fared well as of late (Texas) or nuclear in the past (e.g. Rocky Flats). But as a foreigner who thinks as far as nuclear power is concerned, the DOE seems to being an OK job as of late. Could you share the specifics of the tests you are referring to?
- hanniabu 6y ago
  This first link makes me absolutely furious. There's too much to quote from here, but this succicnt excerpt touches on the water test. It goes into more detail in another part of the article. The post has numerous example of very concerning issues. > When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna43455859 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna43455859 > The proposal comes as most of the nation’s nuclear power plants, which were designed and built in the 1960s or 1970s, are reaching the end of their original 40- to 50-year operating licenses. Many plant operators have sought licenses to extend the operating life of their plants past the original deadlines, even as experts have warned that aging plants come with heightened concerns about safety. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/climate/nrc-nuclear-inspection-weakening.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/climate/nrc-nuclear-inspe... > The nuclear industry is also pushing the NRC to cut down on safety inspections and rely instead on plants to police themselves. The NRC “is listening” to this advice, the Associated Press reported last month. “Annie Caputo, a former nuclear-energy lobbyist now serving as one of four board members appointed or reappointed by President Donald Trump, told an industry meeting this week that she was ‘open to self-assessments’ by nuclear plant operators, who are proposing that self-reporting by operators take the place of some NRC inspections.” https://newrepublic.com/article/153465/its-not-just-pork-trump-also-letting-nuclear-plants-regulate-safety https://newrepublic.com/article/153465/its-not-just-pork-tru...
  - gbrown_ 6y ago
    Thank you for the detailed and insightful reply!
philipkglass 6y ago
The Union of Concerned Scientists has posted a great blog series "Role of Regulation in Nuclear Plant Safety." It's written by Dave Lochbaum, a degreed nuclear engineer who worked at American nuclear plants for 17 years. I think it's a better overview of NRC action and plant safety than any one incident. I've collected all the links here. Series introduction: https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/role-of-nuclear-regulation-intro https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/role-of-nuclear-regul... Flooding at Nine Mile Point: Regulation and Nuclear Power Safety #1 https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/flooding-at-nine-mile-point https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/flooding-at-nine-mile... Three Mile Island Intruder: #2 https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/three-mile-island-intruder https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/three-mile-island-int... Empty Pipe Dreams at Palo Verde: #3 https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/empty-pipe-dreams-at-palo-verde https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/empty-pipe-dreams-at-... Yankee Rowe and Reactor Vessel Safety: #4 https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/yankee-rowe-and-reactor-vessel-safety https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/yankee-rowe-and-react... Flooding at a Florida Nuclear Plant: #5 https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/flooding-at-a-florida-nuclear-plant https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/flooding-at-a-florida... Containment Design Flaw at DC Cook Nuclear Plant: #6 https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/containment-flaw-at-dc-cook https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/containment-flaw-at-d... Pipe Rupture at Surry Nuclear Plant Kills Four Workers: #7 https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/pipe-rupture-at-surry https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/pipe-rupture-at-surry Anticipated Transient Without Scram: #8 https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/anticipated-transient-without-scram https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/anticipated-transient... Naughty and Nice Nuclear Nappers: #9 https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/naughty-and-nice-nuclear-nappers https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/naughty-and-nice-nucl... Breaking Containment at Crystal River 3: #10 https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/breaking-containment-at-crystal-river-3 https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/breaking-containment-... Fatal Accident at Arkansas Nuclear One: #11 https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/fatal-accident-at-arkansas-one https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/fatal-accident-at-ark...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dtwest 6y ago

I live near one too, I'm not sure if I should be impressed that disaster was averted in 2002 or if I should be concerned how close things got: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Besse_Nuclear_Power_Station#2002_reactor_head_hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Besse_Nuclear_Po... It would be nice to hear from someone who is more knowledgeable on the subject than myself.

partingshots 6y ago
If an accident almost happened in 2002, then the probability only increases as time goes on. I personally wouldn’t feel safe, in the long run, buying a house or living near an aging nuclear power plant.

credit_guy 6y ago

Here, I'll come up with a proposal. If Congress is serious about climate change, then they can ask (and allocate the budget) the Department of Energy to procure and operate a bunch of naval nuclear reactors. With whatever internal regulations they have, the US Navy has not had a single incident in their entire history of operating nuclear reactors. They are also quite cost effective, for example the cost of the 2 reactors A1B [1] that power a Gerald Ford carrier is about $1 BN. That comes to about $2BN/GW, which is about a tenth of what a civilian reactor costs. The US Navy builds about 1 carrier every 4 years so that comes to 1 reactor every other year. If the DoE gets the Congressional mandate to procure a few reactors per year, the cost is going to surely come down. Also these reactors don't need refueling for about 2 decades, while civilian reactors are refueled every 1.5 years. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1B_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1B_reactor

philipkglass 6y ago
The US stockpile of HEU would be depleted a lot faster this way, but enrichment could start again. I don't see major downsides to this proposal. Thanks for providing a specific and plausible idea!
Hammershaft 6y ago
Thats a great idea. I'm trying and failing to find gotchas.
- credit_guy 6y ago
  There is a potential gotcha: proliferation potential. The naval reactors use highly enriched uranium; if it falls in the wrong hands, you can end up with someone being able to build a bomb. That's why I said such a program needs to be run by the Department of Energy, the same department that has to maintain the nukes. I don't have a personal objection to this, but a lot of people would be unhappy with an essentially military program to be established for a problem that is not military in nature.
  - obelos 6y ago

DennisP 6y ago

I'm fine with rational regulation and good safety inspections. Here's an example of a regulatory framework that needed reform: Several years ago I got to attend a meeting between a bunch of people from advanced nuclear startups, and a former head of the NRC. The startup people said their biggest problem was that the NRC required near-complete blueprints before they would even look at the design. Then they would give a flat yes or no. If yes then you still had just a paper reactor, and if no then you were out of business. Getting to that point required several hundred million dollars. That's a pretty difficult environment for investors. They said just a more phased process would help a lot. The NRC person was unsympathetic, said it wasn't the NRC's job to help develop new nuclear technology, and was uninterested in climate change. Fortunately Congress has gotten involved since then and things seem to be improving.

zepearl 6y ago

> I think that the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is world-leading. Comparisons are irrelevant - Japan's regulations weren't the worst in the world when Fukushima happened => something similar could happen anywhere else (a lot of factors influence a lot of decisions/policies - the past years demonstrated that even the US nowadays isn't the most stable country). > They identify problems proactively... even for plants built 50 years ago. Maybe they do "now" (I'm not a "pro" in this area therefore I cannot confirm nor deny that) but in any case there are never guarantees about the future. Additionally that "even for" sounds ugly - that MUST happen as long as such a plant exists. > I live near an operating nuclear reactor and I prefer it over any form of fossil plant. It's well-known that fossil plants are the absolute worst => such a change isn't a great improvement from my point of view. > Power reactors operating in the United States are reliable, safe... So far, and the terms are flexible - incidents did happen with civilian & military reactors, Wikipedia has a lot of nice-to-read articles with timing summary, analysis etc... . > ...and have extremely low life cycle emissions of greenhouse gases Correct - basically almost 0 (don't know, probably the truck that delivers the uranium stabs does generate some gases, maybe as well the mine&plant that create them, but not a lot compared to gas&oil&coal). But then... that's it? No other remark about maybe what is generated and where to put it and how to take care about it for the next 10000 years? I'm definitely not/never going to approve any measure to deregulate a sector which has a near-infinite potential impact when something breaks and/or something is not properly taken care of.

akiselev 6y ago

> I am open to specific proposals for reducing regulations in the nuclear sector if there are regulations that impose additional process overhead, don't actually serve a purpose, and survive only from inertia. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that there are some of these. But I've been discussing nuclear power for 20+ years, starting back on Usenet, and specific proposals are much less common than generic "get rid of red tape" bluster. Some specific proposals would be to put a minimum nuclear fuel limit on the existing nuclear power plant regulations and create a new class with loosened containment requirements for active reactor designs that are passively safe by nature. Existing regulations are written around reactor designs that hold thousands or tens of thousands of kilograms of nuclear fuel that they have to moderate and keep in check. This is clearly not a viable option for nuclear long term against natural gas and renewables due to the overwhelming cost of manpower and materials which scales poorly. The regulatory overhead, transportation, and storage costs on that much radioactive fuel alone is prohibitively expensive, so we really need to focus on making progress in powered nuclear fission reactors which are impossible under the current regulatory regime. Designs like the nuclear lightbulb - studied and tested by UTC under a NASA Mars program contract in the late 60s/early 70s - take tens of kilograms of fuel and heat & compress it till it reaches criticality at hundreds of atm and thousands of degrees. Any failure in the system causes a loss of pressure and the core returns to subcritical; even in a worst case scenario like a conventional bomb exploding in the reactor chamber, it would be a minor incident on the level of Three Mile Island. There are many tweaks that have been theorized but untested that would make the reactor even safer. However, any design like this requires regular maintenance of the reactor and completely different levels of containment that are either prohibitively expensive or impossible right now.