Underwriter Certification is slowly evolving. We now have a 100 page manual. But I don't expect many to read it. This post is a distillation. It supercedes earlier posts on this regulatory system. Figure 1. Sultana boiler explosion, 1600+ killed
Very interesting. I didn't know anything about the history of certification and insurance, except that Loyds would figure out how to insure just about anything. I didn't know about the Sultana tragedy either. Your plan for Ucert for nuclear plants is very thorough and well thought out.
Your Underwriters proposal makes sense for existing LWRs but makes no sense for urban located low pressure sodium cooled FNRs. I am sure that your concepts could be extended but a lot of details need changing.
One issue that I am concerned about is exempting the owner from minimizing the consequences to the public of an attack by a RPG or like antitank weapon. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of such weapons in circulation. In my view the reactor enclosure must be sufficiently robust to protect the surrounding public from the consequences of an attack by a single RPG.
Likewise, the enclosure should be sufficiently robust to protect the public from a low angle aircraft impact. In my view it is not practical to make the enclosure resistant to a laser guided armor penetrating bomb or missile. Such an attack is an act of war. By contrast, a wide variety of criminal groups can access RPGs.
The only tiny niggle I have with this is the statement that the local plant host community only sees a small benefit to go with the risk they accept. I think the benefits to nuclear communities have historically been massive, and closing of Indian Point, Zion, etc. have shown just how much value there is in being a host community.
It doesn’t change the analysis at all, it only would make the calculus easier for potential hosts.
Very interesting. I didn't know anything about the history of certification and insurance, except that Loyds would figure out how to insure just about anything. I didn't know about the Sultana tragedy either. Your plan for Ucert for nuclear plants is very thorough and well thought out.
Hello Jack:
Your Underwriters proposal makes sense for existing LWRs but makes no sense for urban located low pressure sodium cooled FNRs. I am sure that your concepts could be extended but a lot of details need changing.
One issue that I am concerned about is exempting the owner from minimizing the consequences to the public of an attack by a RPG or like antitank weapon. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of such weapons in circulation. In my view the reactor enclosure must be sufficiently robust to protect the surrounding public from the consequences of an attack by a single RPG.
Likewise, the enclosure should be sufficiently robust to protect the public from a low angle aircraft impact. In my view it is not practical to make the enclosure resistant to a laser guided armor penetrating bomb or missile. Such an attack is an act of war. By contrast, a wide variety of criminal groups can access RPGs.
Regards,
Charles Rhodes
The only tiny niggle I have with this is the statement that the local plant host community only sees a small benefit to go with the risk they accept. I think the benefits to nuclear communities have historically been massive, and closing of Indian Point, Zion, etc. have shown just how much value there is in being a host community.
It doesn’t change the analysis at all, it only would make the calculus easier for potential hosts.