Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
Niidae Wiki
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(section)
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
=== Nuclear Reactor License Renewal Program === One example involves the license renewal program that NRC initiated to extend the operating licenses for the nation's fleet of commercial nuclear reactors. [[Environmental impact statement]]s (EIS) were prepared for each reactor to extend the operational period from 40 to 60 years. One study examined the EISs and found significant flaws, included failure to consider significant issues of concern.<ref name="The EIS Book 2014">{{Cite book|title=The EIS Book: Managing and Preparing Environmental Impact Statements|chapter=1|year=2014|publisher=CRC Press|isbn=978-1466583634}}</ref> It also found that the NRC management had significantly underestimated the risk and consequences posed by a severe reactor accident such as a full-scale nuclear meltdown. NRC management asserted, without scientific evidence, that the risk of such accidents were so "Small" that the impacts could be dismissed and therefore no analysis of human and environmental was even performed. Such a conclusion is scientifically indefensible given the experience of the [[Three Mile Island accident|Three Mile Island]], [[Chernobyl disaster|Chernobyl]], and [[Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster|Fukushima]] accidents. Another finding was that NRC had concealed the risk posed to the public at large by disregarding one of the most important EIS requirements, mandating that [[cumulative impacts]] be assessed (40 Code of Federal Regulations Β§1508.7). By disregarding this basic requirement, NRC effectively misrepresented the risk posed to the nation by approximately two orders of magnitude (i.e., the true risk is about 100 greater than NRC represented). These findings were corroborated in a final report prepared by a special Washington State Legislature Nuclear Power Task Force, titled, "Doesn't NRC Address Consequences of Severe Accidents in EISs for re-licensing?"<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://leg.wa.gov/JointCommittees/NEJSTF/Documents/14%2009%2025/Nuclear_Power.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2017-08-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170220174111/http://leg.wa.gov/JointCommittees/NEJSTF/Documents/14%2009%2025/Nuclear_Power.pdf |archive-date=2017-02-20 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="The EIS Book 2014"/><ref>{{Cite book|title=The EIS Book: Managing and Preparing Environmental Impact Statements|chapter=5|year=2014|publisher=CRC Press|isbn=978-1466583634}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|title=Preparing NEPA Environmental Assessments: A Users Guide to Best Professional Practices|chapter=8|publisher=CRC Press|year=2012}}</ref>
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Niidae Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
Encyclopedia:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Search
Search
Editing
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(section)
Add topic