10 Comments

  1. “The current expectation is that the agency will take about two months to review the application and determine if it is complete or if additional information is needed before the staff can begin its work that, under a recently refined schedule, is projected to take three and a half years.”

    Would this mean that a unit or unit(s) of the 12 modules could possibly be complete before Vogtle? Time is money and reducing assembly time by such a factor is a strong selling point.

  2. Not quite as historic, somewhat off topic, but noteworthy nevertheless … the NRC finally, once again, has a nuclear engineer for its chairman.

    And this only a week into the new administration.

  3. Thanks Brian. Closely kept secret, but Mr. Google finally turned up a story at Platts: http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/washington/us-nrcs-svinicki-appointed-chairman-effective-21720968

    Apart from a minor clash of symbols, my question is whether Ms Svinicki’s appointment will make any real difference over Mr. Burns. Svnicki is an ex-DoD NE with 10 years experience as senate aid, including to senators Warner and McCain. Burns is a lawyer with experience OECD Nuclear Agency and 30 years at NRC, including 3 as General Counsel.

    I don’t personally know any more of either; superficially they both appear very well qualified. Do you know if there is anything here beyond partisan politics?

  4. The ANS website had a news item on it.

    “Svnicki is an ex-DoD NE”

    She’s ex-DOE, not DOD.

    I’ve heard Svinicki speak. She’s rather soft-spoken, but I think she will make a fine chairman.

    “Do you know if there is anything here beyond partisan politics?”

    How about seniority? Svinicki has been on the Commission much longer than the other two members.

    I don’t have anything against a lawyer being on the Commission. I think that legal expertise is quite valuable in a regulatory setting. Nevertheless, nuclear power, by its very nature, is highly technical. Therefore, I prefer to see someone with a relevant technical background leading the Commission, especially during an emergency situation, when the Chairman has to act without the rest of the Commission (e.g., how Chairman Jaczko acted immediately following the Fukushima accident).

  5. Thanks. Albeit — arguably — Mr. Jaczko might have taken 30 minutes or so to ask of his technical colleagues. It’s not clear the Chairman was required to speak in haste.

  6. According to what I’ve heard, Jaczko took measures to keep the other Commissioners out.

  7. I don’t think so. If the 3 1/2 year NRC effort results in a COL, then you have a “paper reactor” with a license, and the real work can begin.

  8. And the “paper reactor” can still be subject to gyrations, particularly when the region and HQ contradict each other.

  9. “The firm has purchased 43,000 hours of professional staff time at a cost of more than $11 million to resolve concerns about the design approach and safety case.”

    I guess I misunderstood. I thought the NRC had already invested the 43,000 hours. That’s about 21 people full time for a year. Does any other industry require this level of review effort by the government?

  10. @Eino

    Just to be clear – NuScale has already purchased the 43,000 hours and the NRC has already delivered them in the process of pre-application coordination and review.

    The clock hasn’t even started yet for the design certification review. That one will probably take 4-10 times as much time and money.

Comments are closed.

Similar Posts

  • DOE and UAMPS sign agreement for siting at INL

    At the 12th annual Platts Nuclear Energy Conference, John Kotek, the Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Energy just made a major announcement. Yesterday, February 17, 2016 Rick Provencher and Doug Hunter signed an agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and UAMPS (Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems). It provides UAMPS with a use…

  • The History of Light Water Reactor Market Dominance – Part 1

    Every once in a while, I like to curl up with a good story that has villains, well meaning good guys, international intrigue, and perhaps even a moral. Sometimes those stories have happy endings, other times they leave you hanging and waiting for the next installment. I just finished such a book – Light Water:…

  • Advanced Reactor leaders: Will you put one in your backyard?

    I returned from the Nuclear Energy Insider International Advanced Reactor and SMR Summit with revived energy, optimism and passion for participating in an expanding effort to smooth and straighten the tortuous path associated with producing increased quantities of clean energy from atomic fission. The effort isn’t small, it isn’t narrowly focused, and it isn’t–by any…

  • B&W’s Jim Ferland describes company’s global business outlook

    Jim Ferland, the CEO of The Babcock & Wilcox Company, was recently interviewed by Bill Loveless of Platts Energy Week about the company’s global business outlook. During the interview, Ferland discussed the B&W mPowerTM reactor, one of the leading small modular reactor development projects; FutureGen 2.0, a carbon capture and storage demonstration project; the impact…

  • Potential for Korea, Japan, U.S. to Collaborate on Pyroprocessing Under Trump

    South Korea (ROK), Japan and the United States all have large nuclear energy programs that are facing a variety of challenges limiting their growth, namely opposition by the nonproliferation industry to wider deployment of enrichment and recycling technologies. There is interest and opportunity to collaborate in developing solutions in areas where challenges overlap. The Global…