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

  • Will heavy nitrogen become a widely used fission reactor coolant?

    Heavy nitrogen has the potential to become as important to the future of atomic fission power system development as heavy water has been up until now. That’s a bold statement, so let me explain why I believe it’s true. Are any nitrogen cooled reactors being used today? One nuclear fission power system – the US…

  • Is nuclear reactor licensing process being improved as Congress mandated with NEIMA?

    A panel of five experts and an experienced moderator addressed the progress being made in creating effective processes to license advanced and non-LWR (light water reactors) at an ANS Winter 2022 panel session titled “Licensing the Future: How the NRC is Approaching Advanced Reactors.” Four out of five of the panelists were cautiously positive and…

  • I want a nuclear plant in my backyard. So do some of my neighbors

    Watch more video from the CNN channel on Frequency Though I sometimes suffer from the blues, I am not crazy — I swear. Even though I am just a guy who often blogs in my PJs, I’m also pretty sure that I am not a nobody. In fact, none of us are nobodies, we are…

  • Fantasy Crossfire debate: Ed Lyman versus Rod Adams on fast breeder reactors

    CNN has done a masterful job of seizing the opportunity provided by Robert Stone’s thought-provoking Pandora’s Promise to generate a passionate discussion about the use of nuclear energy — a vitally important topic — at a critical time in American history. The decision makers at that somewhat fading network should be congratulated. Of course, generating…

  • On Plutonium, Nuclear War, and Nuclear Peace

    By NNadir I trust — and I hope I am justified in this — that no one wants a nuclear war. I know I don’t. We already have a set of environmental problems that are worse than a limited nuclear war, and may be facing an environmental crisis that might be as dire as a…

  • SMRs – lots of noise but DOE budget that’s 1% of annual wind tax credit

    I’ve been spending some time watching, rewatching and clipping interesting excerpts from the Senate Appropriations Energy and Water subcommittee hearings on the FY2016 Department of Energy budget. It’s not everyone’s idea of entertainment, but it’s fascinating to me to watch publicly accessible discussions about how our government makes decisions, sets priorities and spends the money…