Nuclear Industry rebelling against NRC recommendations because they cost too much...

[kristopher]

Nuclear Proposals Draw Ire

A dozen major recommendations to improve plant safety were included in a report from a Nuclear Regulatory Commission task force that was created after the March accident at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex.

The panel also proposed essentially setting aside a 1988 rule that has protected the nuclear-power industry against costly upgrades. The industry has used the rule, which requires benefits to public safety to be balanced against industry costs, to beat back regulatory changes it didn't like.

Tony Pietrangelo, chief nuclear officer for the industry's Nuclear Energy Institute, said the proposal to set aside the cost-protection rule amounted to "sweeping change." The NRC "will have to think long and hard," he added, before embarking on such a "major policy shift."

...The cost-protection rule was created to shield the nuclear sector after its costs spiraled out of control because of the NRC's reaction to the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island reactor in Pennsylvania. Billions of dollars of added costs were imposed on the nuclear-power sector, which the industry said stalled its growth for more than two decades...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304223804576444340671508676.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[Throckmorton]

1. To Bad, just do your job, and protect the public.

I for one am sick to death of the current culture of hear no evil, see no evil.

[enough]

2. Perfect. The cost-protection rule. That about sums it up. (nt)

[Scuba]

3. More Socialism.....

...taxpayers can eat the costs if they get poisoned. Who cares, as long as the nuke industry is profitable?

[madokie]

4. I'm sure they are

If there was ever an industry that needs a knot jerked in their asses its the nuclear power industry. Sorry sorry sorry

Rec

[Kablooie]

5. They've been putting off the upgrades for decades so of course it costs too much.

[Nederland]

6. Yeah, we wouldn't want the NRC to have to PROVE anything now would we?

We should just ASSUME that their recommendations will in fact make plants safer. After all, we know that starting in the 1970's the NRC started heaping on more and more regulations on nuclear plants in an effort to make them more safe. After TMI accident the pace and number of regulations increased even more. And we are all thankful for this because the result has been nuclear plants that are far safer than those built before the new regulations were put in place. Right?

Actually, no.

The five worst nuclear incidents at US plants in the last 20 years ALL occurred in plants that were completed AFTER the regulatory ratcheting of the 1970's began. Now how could that happen? All those new regulation were supposed to make plants safer...

But hey, if you guys want to spend more money to get less safe plants who am I to argue with you... :eyes:

[FBaggins]

7. That's not possible.

I have it on good authority that the NRC is part of the nuclear industry.

[kristopher]

9. They are...

"The panel also proposed essentially setting aside a 1988 rule that has protected the nuclear-power industry against costly upgrades. The industry has used the rule, which requires benefits to public safety to be balanced against industry costs, to beat back regulatory changes it didn't like.

Tony Pietrangelo, chief nuclear officer for the industry's Nuclear Energy Institute, said the proposal to set aside the cost-protection rule amounted to "sweeping change." The NRC "will have to think long and hard," he added, before embarking on such a "major policy shift."

And if they make this "major policy shift" they will still be a part of the nuclear industry.

[rhett o rick]

8. Safety is expensive, but more expensive w/o. Just ask Japan.

The industry doesnt want safety regulations because it would cut into their profits. If there is a disaster, the public will pick up the tab.

Force them to have disaster insurance and they might be more willing to operate safely.

The Revolution is waiting.