The ADVANCE Act - Meaningful changes in U. S. nuclear regulatory framework 1

3 Comments

  1. More words on paper from politicians (figurative, probably paperless by now). There is no way that strongly worded “mission alignment” statement effects the change the “Nuclear Bros” want to see, which is the rubber-stamping of conceptual designs from MSRs, SFRs, microR garage bands. It seems similar to when top level managers make changes to the org chart because that is the only aspect they can control.

  2. @Michael Scarangella

    Speaking as someone who has been accused of being a “Nuclear Bro,” I think you are being harsh and dismissive. I have a great deal of respect for the staff at the NRC (overall) and I certainly recognize the need for good regulation to ensure both public and worker safety.

    But I have also been observing the NRC’s functioning during the past 30+ years and researching what happened before that. With good guidance from the top, they are productive, with less good guidance they have been obstructive. Clearer legal guidance will, in my opinion, shift the performance closer to the productive side than the obstructive side.

  3. Does this change anything about ALARA or LNT guiding regulations? Then I don’t see it as anything more than a response to strong criticism of both. Changing the “mission” of the NRC without changing either of those is just more of the same, just “better”. Which is not better for energy availability.

    The mission of the NRC is still “avoid accidents”, not balancing the tradeoff of “energy is dangerous, lets make sure its both available and safe.”

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. “He was the CEO of Liberty Energy, North America’s second largest hydraulic fracturing company…” Sounds like a reasonable pick for…

Similar Posts