The Gordian Knot News has a strict prohibition against vulgarity. Please rephrase.
Last number I've seen is 6% of Federal DC employees were showing up at the office fulltime, and that was heavily weighted toward security and janitorial personnel. The pajama bit was a guess but with something like 2000 NRC people working mostly from home, I'm pretty sure the statement is correct.
I read it as criticizing the Breakthrough Institute. If instead you were criticizing Federal employees, then I’m with you and I retract my comment. Maybe you could rephrase that paragraph to make absolutely clear who is wearing pajamas.
Or roll up the entire NRC for commercial use of radioactive materials and have the EPA regulate them instead. There's nothing particularly unique about radiation compared to other environmental hazards.
True, and the EPA position on LNT is even more "set in stone" to use its own phrase than the NRC.
But, if this change were done cleanly --- a very big if --- we wouldbe moving from proactive regulation (prove to me before hand you are not going to violate any of the rules and I will give you a license) to reactive (here are the rules, do what you want but if you violate them, here are the penalties). In that sense, it would be a step in the right direction.
In addition to regulating harm after the fact - which allows industry to innovative - and signalling recognition that radiation isn't a unique risk, eliminating the NRC would would be a warning sign to other departments that refuse to do their jobs.
Good points except the last. The problem is not that the NRC is not doing its job. The problem is that it is doing the job we gave it: prevent a release.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has a lot of good talented people especially in the field working with active nuclear plants. It is also rich in information because it has done a good job of recording its regulations, rulings, minutes, etc., over the years. AI organizations like Atomic Canyon and NucLearn, working with Oak Ridge National Labs (ORNL) super computer, Frontier have already helped nuclear start-ups formulate their applications based on that NRC massive data base. AI could assist in devising new, more common sense regulatory paths for license extensions, advanced nuclear, and trouble shooting. Here’s a suggestion for Congress, Amend the Advanced Act to force the elimination of No Linear Threshold (NLT) a theory long proven false that all radiation is harmful to health, and the exposure accumulates and increases that risk. That is simply false but has guided all NRC rulings for decades, basically hobbling the US nuclear industry. Also eliminate the mandate As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA), a guideline that was designed to mostly protect nuclear workers on site, but went too far. If US States had to abide by the same radiation levels as our nuclear plants we would have to evacuate eight US States because of their background radiation. Finally, consider making the Assistant Secretary of Energy in charge of nuclear energy the top dog at the NRC with broad decision making power. As of now the NRC is run by committee with a poor set of guidelines. Reform it.
The problem is not the quality of the people. Many of them are talented. Almost all of them (not sure about the lawyers) went into nuclear because they believed in it. The problem is the incentives.
We have told these people that a release is intolerable and your job is to prevent one. We are not going to give you any credit for all the cheap, very low pollution, very low CO2 electricity a nuclear plant could produce, and its manifold benefits including the reduction in deaths and morbidity from alternate sources of power or worse no power. But we are going to come down on you very hard, if we have a release.
The result is regulation and decisions which are tragically inconsistent with societal welfare. Unless we somehow align the regulator's incentives with society's, we will remain in this mess. I don't see how you can do that with anything that looks remotely like the NRC.
The amount of useful information in NRC databases, and knowledge in the field should not be put at risk of losing no matter the fix, and the NRC needs to be fixed. Think of a serious reform - one person in charge, move their headquarters to Oak ridge National Labs or Idaho National Labs. Get rid of NLT and ALARA, go with the highest level of background radiation in the US as the safety standard. But to shut the NRC down and replace it with something else better neither assures anything will change or the new thing will be better. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
At this point something dramatic needs to happen at the NRC, massive reformation, or scrap it. As things stand now, there is no nuclear future for the US. The suggestions in this post are constructive.
Calling for dissolution of the NRC seems not only futile, but perhaps counterproductive and an invitation for ridicule, as in "defund the police". I'm encouraged by the new leadership we might see at the DoE (Chris Wright). Maybe a change in leadership at the NRC will make a difference. Even if all the employees are dedicated anti-nukers, the leaders could bring in some outside experts to evaluate the risk/benefit of new designs and get a better balance.
Very few of the NRC employees are dedicated anti-nukes. Almost all of them went into nuclear power becuase they believed in it. The problem is the system and that's what must be changed. See reply to Shawn above.
I assume you meant the reply "no and no" to mean no you wouldn't take the position, and no the commission cannot change the incentives to align with the new mission requested by Congress. I'm baffled. What is keeping these "incentives" in place, if not the mission, the leadership, or the staff?
For one thing, Congress. In the 1974 Energy Reorganization Act, Congress made it quite clear that it was splitting the promotional function of the AEC fromt he regualtory function, to avoid the perceived conflict of interest. One man's conflict of interest is another man's balancing effort. As Joe Hendry, a strong pro-nuclear Chairman made clear, NRC's job is to prevent releases. We now have 50 years of case law and example after example consistent with this mission.
Given this history, if Congress wants to change NRC's job, it will have to say so, very explicitly and very emphatically. The ADVANCE Act abjectly failed to do that. Further given all this history, if Congress wants to change the NRC's job, it will have to give it firm guidance as to how it has to operates, at an absolute minimum, the list in the above piece.
Even if all of this were to occur, we would still have proactive regulation by people who in no real way share in nuclear's benefits, but will be directly impacted by a release. The basic incentives would not change all that much. People, certainly not bureaucrats, are not saints. Munger's Law would still apply.
If I were the new commissioner I would, with agreement from at least two others, change the NRC mission statement to wholeheartedly respond to what I understand is the intent of Congress: change licensing and regulation so that it does not "unnecessarily limit" nuclear power. I would promote those in the agency that agree with that mission and can most effectively carry it out. I think this can be done without bringing in a wrecking ball, or even firing anyone who may be worried about harmless releases. I would listen to their concerns, and encourage them make their best argument, but not do anything to obstruct. Even if half of the staff was just passively unproductive, I think we could get the new designs approved in weeks, not years.
Finally someone said it. Thanks, Jack. We do not need to channel the few experts we have to an organization that spends its time stopping innovation. We need the smart guys creating innovation. NRC is doubly bad because it stops innovation AND steals smart people away from innovation. You cannot fix this. NRC has to go. Your readers should understand that the licensing process requires companies to pay $300 per hour for NRC employees to NOT approve the licenses. Talk about a racket. No matter how many good intentions it claims, there is no redeeming factor left for the NRC. It has to go. It can be replaced by industry standards for reactors monitored by inspectors somewhat like we have for cars and other industrial applications.
Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome.[Charlie Munger]
Pls study the history. In the early 1970's, the Commissioners and practically all the staff were "pro-nuclear". But they realized their job was to prevent a release, BECAUSE THAT'S THE JOB WE HAVE GIVEN THEM. As a result, we saw a factor of ten increase in real cost between 1972 and 1981, when nuclear's real cost should have been decreasing.
Joe Hendry was strongly pro-nuke and a knowledgable pro-nuke. But in 1979, at the height of the Oil Crisis, as NRC Chairman Hendry shut down 5 nuclear plants for the flimsiest of reasons. Cost Americans at least 350 million 1979 dollars and longer gas lines.
When asked to defend the decision by Congress, Hendry pointed out NRC's responsibility was nuclear safety "without regard to economic and social costs".
A fundamental difference between engineers and lawyers is engineers are taught from day 1 everything is a trade off. Every design is a balance of cost, function, safety, etc and your job is to come up with a good balance.
Lawyers on the other hand are taught from day 1 that everything's a conflict. The way you resolve these conflicts is to have the two sides argue it out and see who wins. This requires an arbiter: a jury, or judge, to make that decision.
The original AEC was based on the engineering paradigm. But thanks to fear of radiation stoked by anti-nuclear weapons groups led by the Rockefeller Foundation, we decided to abandon that model and set up a conflict between the promotional side of the AEC and the nuclear safety side.
We went to the legal model. But we left out one essential feature: the third party arbiter. We gave the safety side; the final decision. It's a court in which the prosecution comes up with the verdict. The resulting tragically unbalanced, lopsided "conflict" quickly led to the mess we are.
I know of only two ways of balancing benefit versus risk:
1) A public monopoly responsible both for providing reliable electricity and at an acceptable levelof harm.
The new Commissioner, Matthew Marzano, seems like a good choice. He is a nuclear engineer with a thorough understanding of the issues. One big worry: his confirmation vote was totally partisan, with the Democrats winning. What does that mean for his tie breaking vote on new reactor designs?
Wow. What a disappointment, and at such a critical moment. I see that Rod Adams changed his mind since his original article supported Marzano. "The NRC needs strategic thinkers and doers who are willing to challenge the status quo. Marzano has not displayed those traits."
Oh Well, I guess we will have to wait for China to take the lead, if Marzano is going to be just another stodgy bureaucrat, getting old and fat for the next five years. Who the hell was pushing this nomination?
I sided with Norhaus on that one as well. Still, Rod Adams is one of the most knowledgeable people in the industry, his opinions should be weighed carefully. Both of the suggested post are excellent.
Tom,
The Gordian Knot News has a strict prohibition against vulgarity. Please rephrase.
Last number I've seen is 6% of Federal DC employees were showing up at the office fulltime, and that was heavily weighted toward security and janitorial personnel. The pajama bit was a guess but with something like 2000 NRC people working mostly from home, I'm pretty sure the statement is correct.
I read it as criticizing the Breakthrough Institute. If instead you were criticizing Federal employees, then I’m with you and I retract my comment. Maybe you could rephrase that paragraph to make absolutely clear who is wearing pajamas.
Yes, I was referring to NRC employees, perhaps with too broad a brush.
We don't need a retraction. Just clean up the wording.
Or roll up the entire NRC for commercial use of radioactive materials and have the EPA regulate them instead. There's nothing particularly unique about radiation compared to other environmental hazards.
The EPA doesn't have better incentives than the NRC, I would expect marginal benefits
True, and the EPA position on LNT is even more "set in stone" to use its own phrase than the NRC.
But, if this change were done cleanly --- a very big if --- we wouldbe moving from proactive regulation (prove to me before hand you are not going to violate any of the rules and I will give you a license) to reactive (here are the rules, do what you want but if you violate them, here are the penalties). In that sense, it would be a step in the right direction.
In addition to regulating harm after the fact - which allows industry to innovative - and signalling recognition that radiation isn't a unique risk, eliminating the NRC would would be a warning sign to other departments that refuse to do their jobs.
Good points except the last. The problem is not that the NRC is not doing its job. The problem is that it is doing the job we gave it: prevent a release.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has a lot of good talented people especially in the field working with active nuclear plants. It is also rich in information because it has done a good job of recording its regulations, rulings, minutes, etc., over the years. AI organizations like Atomic Canyon and NucLearn, working with Oak Ridge National Labs (ORNL) super computer, Frontier have already helped nuclear start-ups formulate their applications based on that NRC massive data base. AI could assist in devising new, more common sense regulatory paths for license extensions, advanced nuclear, and trouble shooting. Here’s a suggestion for Congress, Amend the Advanced Act to force the elimination of No Linear Threshold (NLT) a theory long proven false that all radiation is harmful to health, and the exposure accumulates and increases that risk. That is simply false but has guided all NRC rulings for decades, basically hobbling the US nuclear industry. Also eliminate the mandate As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA), a guideline that was designed to mostly protect nuclear workers on site, but went too far. If US States had to abide by the same radiation levels as our nuclear plants we would have to evacuate eight US States because of their background radiation. Finally, consider making the Assistant Secretary of Energy in charge of nuclear energy the top dog at the NRC with broad decision making power. As of now the NRC is run by committee with a poor set of guidelines. Reform it.
Shawn,
The problem is not the quality of the people. Many of them are talented. Almost all of them (not sure about the lawyers) went into nuclear because they believed in it. The problem is the incentives.
We have told these people that a release is intolerable and your job is to prevent one. We are not going to give you any credit for all the cheap, very low pollution, very low CO2 electricity a nuclear plant could produce, and its manifold benefits including the reduction in deaths and morbidity from alternate sources of power or worse no power. But we are going to come down on you very hard, if we have a release.
The result is regulation and decisions which are tragically inconsistent with societal welfare. Unless we somehow align the regulator's incentives with society's, we will remain in this mess. I don't see how you can do that with anything that looks remotely like the NRC.
The amount of useful information in NRC databases, and knowledge in the field should not be put at risk of losing no matter the fix, and the NRC needs to be fixed. Think of a serious reform - one person in charge, move their headquarters to Oak ridge National Labs or Idaho National Labs. Get rid of NLT and ALARA, go with the highest level of background radiation in the US as the safety standard. But to shut the NRC down and replace it with something else better neither assures anything will change or the new thing will be better. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
This baby needs to be thrown out.
See reply to MacQuigg below.
At this point something dramatic needs to happen at the NRC, massive reformation, or scrap it. As things stand now, there is no nuclear future for the US. The suggestions in this post are constructive.
Calling for dissolution of the NRC seems not only futile, but perhaps counterproductive and an invitation for ridicule, as in "defund the police". I'm encouraged by the new leadership we might see at the DoE (Chris Wright). Maybe a change in leadership at the NRC will make a difference. Even if all the employees are dedicated anti-nukers, the leaders could bring in some outside experts to evaluate the risk/benefit of new designs and get a better balance.
David,
Very few of the NRC employees are dedicated anti-nukes. Almost all of them went into nuclear power becuase they believed in it. The problem is the system and that's what must be changed. See reply to Shawn above.
These are the five people who direct the NRC:
https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization/commfuncdesc.html
I've heard two of them are anti-nukers, and a third anti-nuker just left.
If you were the nominee for that open position, would you take it?
Could three out of five commissioners redefine the NRC mission, change the incentives, and get those talented people on a new track?
I screwed up and put the reply in the wrong place.
See reply to Curtis below.
I assume you meant the reply "no and no" to mean no you wouldn't take the position, and no the commission cannot change the incentives to align with the new mission requested by Congress. I'm baffled. What is keeping these "incentives" in place, if not the mission, the leadership, or the staff?
For one thing, Congress. In the 1974 Energy Reorganization Act, Congress made it quite clear that it was splitting the promotional function of the AEC fromt he regualtory function, to avoid the perceived conflict of interest. One man's conflict of interest is another man's balancing effort. As Joe Hendry, a strong pro-nuclear Chairman made clear, NRC's job is to prevent releases. We now have 50 years of case law and example after example consistent with this mission.
Given this history, if Congress wants to change NRC's job, it will have to say so, very explicitly and very emphatically. The ADVANCE Act abjectly failed to do that. Further given all this history, if Congress wants to change the NRC's job, it will have to give it firm guidance as to how it has to operates, at an absolute minimum, the list in the above piece.
Even if all of this were to occur, we would still have proactive regulation by people who in no real way share in nuclear's benefits, but will be directly impacted by a release. The basic incentives would not change all that much. People, certainly not bureaucrats, are not saints. Munger's Law would still apply.
If I were the new commissioner I would, with agreement from at least two others, change the NRC mission statement to wholeheartedly respond to what I understand is the intent of Congress: change licensing and regulation so that it does not "unnecessarily limit" nuclear power. I would promote those in the agency that agree with that mission and can most effectively carry it out. I think this can be done without bringing in a wrecking ball, or even firing anyone who may be worried about harmless releases. I would listen to their concerns, and encourage them make their best argument, but not do anything to obstruct. Even if half of the staff was just passively unproductive, I think we could get the new designs approved in weeks, not years.
Finally someone said it. Thanks, Jack. We do not need to channel the few experts we have to an organization that spends its time stopping innovation. We need the smart guys creating innovation. NRC is doubly bad because it stops innovation AND steals smart people away from innovation. You cannot fix this. NRC has to go. Your readers should understand that the licensing process requires companies to pay $300 per hour for NRC employees to NOT approve the licenses. Talk about a racket. No matter how many good intentions it claims, there is no redeeming factor left for the NRC. It has to go. It can be replaced by industry standards for reactors monitored by inspectors somewhat like we have for cars and other industrial applications.
No and no.
Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome.[Charlie Munger]
Pls study the history. In the early 1970's, the Commissioners and practically all the staff were "pro-nuclear". But they realized their job was to prevent a release, BECAUSE THAT'S THE JOB WE HAVE GIVEN THEM. As a result, we saw a factor of ten increase in real cost between 1972 and 1981, when nuclear's real cost should have been decreasing.
https:\\jackdevanney.substack.com/p/nuclear-power-not-only-should-be
Joe Hendry was strongly pro-nuke and a knowledgable pro-nuke. But in 1979, at the height of the Oil Crisis, as NRC Chairman Hendry shut down 5 nuclear plants for the flimsiest of reasons. Cost Americans at least 350 million 1979 dollars and longer gas lines.
https:\\jackdevanney.substack.com/p/without-regard-to-economic-and-social
When asked to defend the decision by Congress, Hendry pointed out NRC's responsibility was nuclear safety "without regard to economic and social costs".
A fundamental difference between engineers and lawyers is engineers are taught from day 1 everything is a trade off. Every design is a balance of cost, function, safety, etc and your job is to come up with a good balance.
Lawyers on the other hand are taught from day 1 that everything's a conflict. The way you resolve these conflicts is to have the two sides argue it out and see who wins. This requires an arbiter: a jury, or judge, to make that decision.
The original AEC was based on the engineering paradigm. But thanks to fear of radiation stoked by anti-nuclear weapons groups led by the Rockefeller Foundation, we decided to abandon that model and set up a conflict between the promotional side of the AEC and the nuclear safety side.
We went to the legal model. But we left out one essential feature: the third party arbiter. We gave the safety side; the final decision. It's a court in which the prosecution comes up with the verdict. The resulting tragically unbalanced, lopsided "conflict" quickly led to the mess we are.
I know of only two ways of balancing benefit versus risk:
1) A public monopoly responsible both for providing reliable electricity and at an acceptable levelof harm.
2) A well designed market based system.
To understand, you need to know how the pseudo-science of radiation protection was created and what its objective was.
https://x.com/daniel_corcos/status/1860567542202319323
https://danielcorcos.substack.com/p/radiation-the-other-conspiracy-of
The new Commissioner, Matthew Marzano, seems like a good choice. He is a nuclear engineer with a thorough understanding of the issues. One big worry: his confirmation vote was totally partisan, with the Democrats winning. What does that mean for his tie breaking vote on new reactor designs?
https://www.ans.org/news/article-6629/matthew-marzano-confirmed-as-newest-nrc-commissioner/
Ted Norhaus on Marzano.
https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-20-spring-2024/matthew-marzano-is-exactly-who-i-said-he-was
Rod Adams on Marzano.
https://atomicinsights.com/matthew-marzano-brings-valuable-education-and-experience-to-his-potential-role-as-nrc-commissioner/
I'm with Norhaus on this one. Marzano will be a defender of the status quo, not that it makes any real difference.
Wow. What a disappointment, and at such a critical moment. I see that Rod Adams changed his mind since his original article supported Marzano. "The NRC needs strategic thinkers and doers who are willing to challenge the status quo. Marzano has not displayed those traits."
Oh Well, I guess we will have to wait for China to take the lead, if Marzano is going to be just another stodgy bureaucrat, getting old and fat for the next five years. Who the hell was pushing this nomination?
I sided with Norhaus on that one as well. Still, Rod Adams is one of the most knowledgeable people in the industry, his opinions should be weighed carefully. Both of the suggested post are excellent.