Skip to main content

NRC Throws a Punch in Massachusetts

MA.State.House.iStock_000000831934Small The Nuclear Regulatory Commission tends to float a bit above the political fray - you could say it sticks to its knitting, keeps it head down, insert additional cliche here - so it's a genuine surprise that it has made salient comments - any comments at all - about state legislation that blasts nuclear energy.

But that's what happened in Massachusetts:

In July, the Bay State's House passed a resolution in support of efforts to have independent safety assessments conducted at nuclear power plants in Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire [we don't know how Vermont and New Hampshire feel about this, but knowing New Englanders, probably snorts all around].

Then there's this:

The Legislature also resolved that it's time the nation begin its transition "away from nuclear power to an affordable, clean and sustainable national energy policy."

And what has inflamed the pawk the caw types?

The resolution had several bullet points that were of concern to the House of Representatives. Those included were accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and an earthquake that affected nuclear reactors in Japan.

TMI? Chernobyl? How, uh, 1990 of them. And thus does the NRC put things into better perspective:

"I understand the concerns raised by the Commonwealth," wrote Samuel J. Collins, an NRC regional administrator, in response to the resolution. "However, I feel it is necessary to address some of the statements and assumptions conveyed in that document to dispel any misconceptions you may have with our regulatory role, performance, or processes."

We won't go over all of that here, because you know what Collins is going to say,though by all means read through the story - Collins responds to everything in a measured fashion and proves himself an excellent spokesman.

What's notable here is that the NRC has not let this legislative mischief go without comment. The implication of their response is that while issues around nuclear energy should be fully discussed, and that men and women of good will will have variant viewpoints, one must still start with the knowledge necessary to make informed decisions and good legislation.

We'd guess that Massachusetts lawmakers are up to some election year politicking and pushing some go-to fear buttons rather heedlessly. Wonderful to see the NRC throw the warm water of facts into the gummy mix.

Picture of the Massachusetts State House.

Comments

Bill said…
Mark Flanagan: "- so it's a genuine surprise that [the Nuclear Regulatory Commission] has made salient comments - any comments at all - about state legislation that blasts nuclear energy."
and
"What's notable here is that the NRC has not let this legislative mischief go without comment."

Am I being unduly cynical to think that the NRC is responding, not so much to defend nuclear energy, but to defend the *NRC*?

"That ISA was a unique, one-time inspection in response to a specific set of concerns," wrote Collins. "The NRC's Reactor Oversight Process, implemented in 2000, incorporates nearly all of the key inspection elements addressed in the Maine Yankee ISA. The Commission remains convinced that the oversight process is more effective than an ISA because it is a continual assessment process and it provides for increased oversight of plants and programs that exhibit declining performance."
Anonymous said…
If you have time (lots of time), take a look at the comments posted to the newspaper article.
Joffan said…
The NRC defending the NRC is good enough. The example of Vermont Yankee's license renewal is an example of past failure to do so, where (apparently) three different bodies are all covering the same ground, wasting the time and effort on both sides that could be used more productively. ISAs are a similar waste of time - they appear to stem from the conspiracy theory that the NRC are not independent of the reactor operators.
Anonymous said…
The Maine Yankee ISA was performed at the request of the governor - who caught wind of the allegation that Yankee Atomic had been "cheating" on their SB LOCA analysis for the plant. As far as I know, the ISA did conclude that the allegation was correct. Industry behavior like that fans the flames of the conspiracy theorists, and it's hard to blame them in cases like that.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…