9 Comments

I would add to your list: the requirement that the board of the NRC consists of people with the proper technical expertise. I recently looked at who is in the board, and except for one nuclear engineer, all members had a political science degree or similar.. Maybe one member with such background is fine, but a majority that is not able to understand the actual mechanics is not very useful...

Expand full comment
author

Jiri,

Under my proposal there would be no NRC. And the FFFA would have no board, nor any need for one. The FFFA consists of a bunch of radiation sensors in and around each plant and a computer. The computer monitors the sensors, and spits out penallties, collects and distributes compensation according to a program that Congress writes. The FFFA only needs a bunch of techies that are good at keeping sensors and computers working. It's similar to the system for monitoring SO2 emissions from fossil fuel plants except radiation sensors are a lot cheaper and more accurate. Will expand on this in an upcoming post.

Expand full comment

Yep, Nope... It has to go! The NRC has Reactor, Waste, Material, Security, Plant Operations purview.

Reactor: The Dais of the National Labs (ORNL, Los Alamos, INL,, LLNL and Argonne will review paper reactors, test and simulate. The stamp opens access to the DOE CAPEX Bank, and the DOE Underwriters Association (DOE-UA). What gets stamped is what is approved! Change orders must have ominous implications. After FOAK build, a review will open a "stamped" plan for edits. WANO operational reports may open at stamped plan for edits. DOE UA will structure insurance to encourage the implementation of edits into built and operational reactors. Critical issues will be referred to the States AERs for immediate action.

Waste: USGS will take over waste management and spent fuel reprocessing. One man's trash is another's treasure, and I would expect this endeavor will create a windfall for the USGS and its subcontractors.

Material: Material and security will be taken over by the ARMED SERVICES REACTOR GROUP (ASRG).

Security: All existing and future NPPs will be converted to ASRG bases. The Army, Navy, Air-force, Marines, Coast Guard/Border Patrol and Space-force will each get their fair share. The ancillary process might be branch specific- rocket fuel, nuclear navy, desalination, mobile energy, atomic flight, but the primary responsibility is LANDLORD. The Generator/Operator is a very high value tenant, as is the T & D Company and their step up facility. Additionally, any process heat applications (Desal, refining, chemical, concrete, H2, metals facilities) are tenants on the base.

Each state with Nuclear Facilities will have an Atomic Energy Regulator. This is the permitter. They are the landlord to the ASRG base. They commission WANO to run all operator inspections. They commission the State DEQ to inspect and make "EPA type" "recommendations" for the AER to pass to the Military ASRG Tenant.

The top authority for Nuclear in Montana is "Bob." He is the chief of AER-MT. He is appointed and/or replaced by a super-majority of the State Senate and Governor. If you want to build a dais stamped plan in Montana, Bob will work with the ASRG to get you a landlord. That is all. No NRC or EPA. The 11 Blue States that prohibit nuclear will just miss out on all this economic flourishing.

Expand full comment
author

Coach,

That's quite a mouthful. And pretty staccato. You may want to amplify your vision on your web site.

But your vision is certainly not my vision. The DOE and the national labs have been a 20 billion dollar per year drain on the taxpayer (before cleanup) for 70 years with nothing to show for it since about 1970. The military in my experience is even less efficient. My vision has the government playing emissions cop and getting out of the way. Your vision has the NRC /EPA being replaced by a mismash of monopolistic bureaucracies whose only real talent is extracting and wasting taxpayer money.

Expand full comment

That is disappointing. In order to kill the NRC, all elements of its mission need to be distributed, and quickly. Challenging the national labs to confront the science and engineering behind reactor innovation invites an accelerated evolution. The STAMP freezes the blue print. DOE is "where the money is." Making the DOE operate like a bank and an insurance company whose efforts fund innovation and productive large-cap development, and whose profits float the SS ponsi-scheme, might actually reap some patriotic infrastructure pride. The military builds fences, guards territory, is pretty good at logistics, and has the perfect red tape skill to be a great PITA landlord. Best yet- Where TAPS ends the day, EPA stays away. Operational Regulatory Authority is moved to the state level. DEQ and AER might not be good, but my buddies and I can road trip to their offices and make a fuss (a lot) and my state Senator returns my calls or I'll drop in on his parents. Imagine getting your STAMP, your Capex financing and insurance- your plants float, and I bet you know who you want to build them, but they are hotter than just electric- where are you gonna pitch it first? What side hustle? You could change the world in Freeport, Texas.

Expand full comment
author

The Sabine Bank is awfully attractive. But I'm not counting on DOE or the military to get us there.

Expand full comment

While people may remain umbilically attached to the NRC regarding large light water it seems reasonable that there could be an opening to regulate any design deemed 'meltdown proof' with Underwriter Certification

Release is still possible or certain but Fukushima events may not be. In this case the perception that extreme measures are needed, and helpful, for nuclear regulation may lighten up enough for insurance certification to be accepted for some set of Gen IV reactors. The results should speak for themselves

Expand full comment

Thanks, Jack. I was the one who had the guts to ask. My question stemmed from an assumption that any of these models (social monopoly, private insurance, etc.) would require an act of Congress. As such, all of the minimum requirements for a successful and reborn NRC could be written into legislation just as easily as the requirements for a successful private market managed through underwriter certification. If all options begin with Congress, does that change the calculus?

Expand full comment
author

LJ,

No. Of course, any change will require an act of Congress. That's a given.

What are the "minimum requirements" for this successful NRC? It''s your job to tell us what these easily written rules are and why they will work.

But as long as the reborn NRC's de facto job is "nuclear safety", (preventing releases) and it has final say , we will be in the same prohibitively expensive mess. Pious references to the benefits of nuclear power will not change this.

If the NRC's responsibility is expanded to providing electricity, then we have a version of the French model.

If we take away the final say, then we are dependent on the insurers.

Expand full comment